|
Censorship and Signature Guidelines (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TranceGiant |
Guys u disappoint me.... (btw. is it a coincidence that many UKTAs jump into this forum just in this case, where "their" moderator is discussed? Nothing against your participation, i wish u'd contribute more often, but it's obvious that u just come here to defend your mate and diss mike... )
What one has in his signature his HIS business. Nowhere on TA is there any rule concerning your signature's content. Common sense tells us that it can practically be anything which the user is interested in, except for material which "harms" others. This was not the case in mik'e case. His links were NOT racist and did NOT hurt any1's feelings. As Arbiter said, if we start judging every1's sig on the basis of potential "offense" we'll get rid of many signatures in a very short time. Cause maybe your proclaming Oakey as god hurts my feelings as a Tiesto Lover, or as a religious person who doesn't wanna see his god compared to that midget.monkey sell out dj..Oops :p Maybe Toby's getting sick of your "toby's moma" campagn? You get my point: As long as it's not CLEARY racist (as in: generalizingly attributing certain characterisitcs to certain races) No sig should be removed. Same goes with Avatar.
Az: Feel free to make a Anti-Sharon Alliance, as long as u dont generalize and say "he's fat and evil, like many jews" u wont see me stopping you.
Mike's Avatar is a political-joke picture and btw: I haven't seen out thread, full of such pictures, closed yet.
That's it. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
You only said that I should look at your upcoming thread on atheism. You never started such a thread, as far as I know. And if it was in some other thread, you should have given a link to it. I found it now, so I'll check it out and I'll reply to you in that thread.
And yes, I agree Cyrus King was saying same crap you were, but the thing is that you already had two warnings and he had none. If I was the admin, I'd give him a warning too, but you two weren't in the same situation because of the prior warnings you recieved. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| I think your last statement which I quoted which said that Jews were a race chosen by god can easily be considered racist. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by [N]ûk|êû[Z]
so if i called melech mike, a ing silly tea-towel wearing jibberish talking pile of isrealie dead molestered baby carcasses ...... thatd be ok would it? .. nope didnt think so.
btw..... just thought id add..... that was just an example |
Yes that would be ok. They're just ing words. THEY CAN'T HURT ANYONE (unless, perhaps, that person has such a fragile psyche, that they can be made emotionally distraught by a string of zeroes and ones transmitted into their computer, but such people are not deserving of our consideration). |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
I think your last statement which I quoted which said that Jews were a race chosen by god can easily be considered racist. |
"chosen race" is a much more complex issue than u think it is. I actually found a good definition on the net recently:
The concept of the 'chosen people' almost universally held among the Jews has nothing to do with the relations between Jews and other nations. Its essence is the relations between the Jews and God Who has chosen them to live according to a special code that He envisaged for them and embodied in the Torah. Such a status is a constant test rather than a privilege and does not make the Jews superior to any other nation, as is clearly emphasized by prophets such as Amos (see Amos 3:2; 9:7). |
|
|
| [N]ûk|êû[Z] |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Yes that would be ok. They're just ing words. THEY CAN'T HURT ANYONE (unless, perhaps, that person has such a fragile psyche, that they can be made emotionally distraught by a string of zeroes and ones transmitted into their computer, but such people are not deserving of our consideration). |
well there you go..... you just proved why the likes of wicked neo are moderators and not you.
please dont be another one of these..... 'its only thr internet, not real life' ppl. cos i think thats the biggest load of you can possibly say to anyone..... if i sed what i sed to mike either on here, on the fone or to his face.... just because i sed it, and i would possibly be my view and what i think its right.. dosnt mean it is right..... theres a simple code of conduct..... its called common sense. im pretty sure if i went up to mike in the street and sed what i sed to him. im pretty sure that hed no doubt smack me in the face.... you know why... cos it aint ing right for s sake.
to me religion is a load of bull... which basically, it is..... i have my own religion that i created for myself(which i wont go into great detail) which is religion dont ing exist. at the end of the day, religion is a glorified code of conduct, and to each 'so called' religion, there are different rules on how to live your life properly. but to be fair... who the needs to live by the rulings of sum factual person or figure or whatever?... certainly not me. the rules i live by is what i believe to be right or wrong which i feel is 'common sense'.. i.e dont kill, dont steal blah blah blah..... so i guess what im trying to say is mike..... with your 'http://www.isrealactivism.com'...... we dont need to see that here.... be happy in your own views and choices, and do not broadcast your beliefs on a message board to ppl who have no business in your views.... and to be real.. who probably dont give a flying .
peace |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by [N]ûk|êû[Z]
well there you go..... you just proved why the likes of wicked neo are moderators and not you.
|
Why, because they're willing to impose their own moral opinions on others without giving any justification whatsoever? If that's what being a moderator is about, we'd be better off without them. What is your argument - that the mere fact that such a comment might induce him to assault you physically means necessarily that it ought not to be said?
There are countries where you'd be stoned to death for your opinions on religion, so do you think you shouldn't be allowed to say that for fear of offending someone who thinks like that? |
|
|
| [N]ûk|êû[Z] |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
There are countries where you'd be stoned to death for your opinions on religion, so do you think you shouldn't be allowed to say that for fear of offending someone who thinks like that? |
exactly.... and you think stoning sumone to death becase of theyre view on religion, is right?...... cos i think its ridiculous.
alls im trying to say is...... not everyones religious, and not many people give a rats ass (like me)..... so sumthing that is deemed as important as religion (with the current affairs).... talking about or trying to force another religion onto sumone shouldnt be allowed on a public message board.
Just a little note on my view of religion,.... if religion is so important and true, then why do (i think its the...) buddhists worship. ganesh.... the 6 armed elephant ??? come on.. puhlease
i aint no harry krishna or whatever but im pretty sure that a 6 armed elephant is a little erm.... bizarre. but thats my view...... and i have no right to say this where there are possibly buddhists that will be reading this, it aint my place to say it.
where as a muslim extremist has no place, trying to force theyre beliefs onto a community such as ours...... which im guessing has a lot of christians frequenting, be they religious or not.
if your religious.. then yeah, whatever, i mean homosexuality is accepted, y not religion? , but gays keep to theyre own. you dont see them trying to convert ppl to homosexuality.
if i had a gay person trying to convert me id be pissed off, just as much as i would be having a guy with a towel on his head saying my mum should wear a cloth over her face |
|
|
| DJ Mikey Mike |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Why, because they're willing to impose their own moral opinions on others without giving any justification whatsoever? If that's what being a moderator is about, we'd be better off without them. What is your argument - that the mere fact that such a comment might induce him to assault you physically means necessarily that it ought not to be said?
|
why? coz ur being a ing bellend lately.. Im sorry but as of recently, i keep seeing u putting people down for being offended by things said on these forums. They may just be words, and this may just be a forum, but words can hurt. For instance, the other day when something was said about Jews and the recreation of the holocaust. I was offended by that, and im pretty sure any decent human being would be. One guy replies to show his disgust, and u lay into him. Saying how there just words, and how he shud grow up, and freedom of speech and all that bull . U blatently just mocked him, and all of a sudden made it seem like this guy was the bad person. And now ur doing it again. We dont need racism on these boards, and if u think its acceptable then ur mistaken and shud off else where.
Until this recent guff uve been spewing, i considered u one of the more decent people on these boards, with a lot to say, and an opinion i would gladly read anyday. But i guess i was wrong :conf: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike
why? coz ur being a ing bellend lately.. Im sorry but as of recently, i keep seeing u putting people down for being offended by things said on these forums.
Until this recent guff uve been spewing, i considered u one of the more decent people on these boards, with a lot to say, and an opinion i would gladly read anyday. But i guess i was wrong :conf: |
You're right. I have been too hard on people lately. I stand by my opinions about freedom of speech, but I've been putting people down for only just voicing their own opinions that those things are offensive - and that's wrong.
I've been dealing with some rough personal issues lately, but ultimately that's no excuse for some of the stuff i've posted lately. There's no reason i should have gone after prototrance for getting offended by those guys talking gleefully about genocide. His reaction was totally natural and justified.
I mean personally as a minority, I'd rather someone tell me straight up and be honest if he thought I was inferior to him just because of my race instead of just thinking it but acting nice anyway. But its true that some of the racist that's been posted goes beyond the acceptable bounds of a frank exchange.
The problem, I guess, is where do you draw the line, and IMHO, the mods have been going a bit too far in trying to control some of this stuff. But that's just my opinion, and if everyone else is happy with the way things are being done, I'll deal with it.
Let me be absolutely straight with you - I don't have a problem with Wicked Neo, or any of the mods really. They usually do a pretty top notch job keeping the forums a nice place to talk about stuff.
But what I'm saying, is that we need some kind of formal definition of what is acceptable and what is not, and there needs to be greater accountability for mods decisions.
Do you think that melech_mike is asking too much when he asks
| quote: |
Which MOD keeps suspending my Sig, and for what reason!?
Whoever it is, your leaving a message that says "signature suspended b/c it was deemed offencive".
Whos offended by it?? Why are they Offended by it?
Is there anything in the threads that is not true?
Anything that insites hate, propaganda, lies???
Justify your actions!
|
because I don't. If a mod wants to do that to help control something that's offensve, fine. But anonymously changing something and providing no explanation is not cool if you ask me.
and then we have Blik who is happy to say
| quote: | Originally posted by Blik
sig rules also apply for avatars, and yours is very offensive for a lot of people
*case closed*
delete it or we will deal with it
|
I mean, I've never had a problem with this man in the past, but would it really be so hard to give a little justification? I mean what are these sig rules that also apply for avatars? Where are they written? Where did they come from? I think these are legimiate questions that ought to be answered, and not to do so is an insult to the entire community, as if we're not respectable enough to have knowledge of the criteria that mods use to determine what is offensive or not.
I mean what are you saying mike, that we should just do whatever the mods say and like it even though they can't be arsed to explain their rationale? With power comes responsibility, and part of that responsibility means letting people know why you're making the decisions you're making. I mean, personally, I fail to see what was offensive about melech_mike's avatar. Yes, it made a provocative political statement. Is that not acceptable on these boards? :conf: If people were being offended by it, why? I mean, do you really think a simple explanation is too much to ask for? Because I don't think so. I mean, if I were a mod, and I went around deleting peoples posts whenever they said they were offended by something, you'd be damn right I'd be abusing my power. Don't you think you'd have a right to ask me why I was doing it, and expect a hell of a lot better of a response than
| quote: | *case closed*
delete it or we will deal with it
|
I mean come on man, I may have been a little hard on people recently, and I'm willing to admit I was wrong. But that's no way to moderate a forum, you know that, Neo knows that, and Blik knows that. There is a problem of a lack of communication here, and I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way:
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
Guys u disappoint me.... (btw. is it a coincidence that many UKTAs jump into this forum just in this case, where "their" moderator is discussed? Nothing against your participation, i wish u'd contribute more often, but it's obvious that u just come here to defend your mate and diss mike... )
What one has in his signature his HIS business. Nowhere on TA is there any rule concerning your signature's content. Common sense tells us that it can practically be anything which the user is interested in, except for material which "harms" others. This was not the case in mik'e case. His links were NOT racist and did NOT hurt any1's feelings. As Arbiter said, if we start judging every1's sig on the basis of potential "offense" we'll get rid of many signatures in a very short time. Cause maybe your proclaming Oakey as god hurts my feelings as a Tiesto Lover, or as a religious person who doesn't wanna see his god compared to that midget.monkey sell out dj..Oops Maybe Toby's getting sick of your "toby's moma" campagn? You get my point: As long as it's not CLEARY racist (as in: generalizingly attributing certain characterisitcs to certain races) No sig should be removed. Same goes with Avatar.
Az: Feel free to make a Anti-Sharon Alliance, as long as u dont generalize and say "he's fat and evil, like many jews" u wont see me stopping you.
Mike's Avatar is a political-joke picture and btw: I haven't seen out thread, full of such pictures, closed yet.
That's it.
|
| quote: | Originally posted by arj1o1
wanted to know that too, if he thinks that why not? everybody may think what he want we live in a free country
|
I mean you seem like a pretty reasonable guy. Do you really think these questions aren't fair? |
|
|
| Blik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
and then we have Blik who is happy to say
I mean, I've never had a problem with this man in the past, but would it really be so hard to give a little justification? I mean what are these sig rules that also apply for avatars? Where are they written? Where did they come from? I think these are legimiate questions that ought to be answered, and not to do so is an insult to the entire community, as if we're not respectable enough to have knowledge of the criteria that mods use to determine what is offensive or not.
I mean come on man, I may have been a little hard on people recently, and I'm willing to admit I was wrong. But that's no way to moderate a forum, you know that, Neo knows that, and Blik knows that. There is a problem of a lack of communication here, and I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way:
|
seems pretty damn obvious too me that the rules for sigs also apply for avatars. When you say "Sharon is a Terrorist" in your sig your sig will get suspended, and I think it's very obvious that your avatar should be too when it says "Sharon is a terrorist".
Some mods were offended by his avatar (including me) and I know that everyone supporting the Palestine case was offended by it.
and the reason why we are so harsh to melech_mike is his own fault. He has been suspended once but he keeps on doing the same as before. And when he calls me mother****** in PM's I am not going to be nice to him simple as that....
maybe when you people start to behave in this forum the mods will be nicer too.... |
|
|
|
|
