Freedom of Speech: Life or Death

[Pterrydactyl]

Heres the thing:


RIA is NOT[/u][/i] /b/.  Your given a large amount of freedom with what you say, but remember this:

RIA will ***NEVER*** tolerate OOC attacks against other members of RIA or allies.  If it reaches the point that someone is greatly offended and asked for it to end, it ends.  No questions, no discussions, no further comments.  If mods or gov take action, it's for a reason.

If you want to just post all over and be a bully to other people/members, join MK, or goto /b/.  But here, most of us have at least enough respect for other members to not piss all over them for a cheap laugh.

Yes, your saying "freedom of speech/expression" and that's bullshit.  Your searching for a way to justify bullying, pure and simple.

If you want to start talking about freedom of speech or how you think your rights are oppressed, go right ahead.  But I can almost gurantee this:

Almost none of you know ANYTHING about rights or general freedom being oppressed.

You might sit here and bitch that your getting moderated on an internet forum, but at the same time, halfway across the world, people are being executed for standing up to true oppression, not just complaining that someone stepped in and stopped their cyber-bullying.

[Cashflow]

The Jews and Christians (who follow the God of Israel Laws of Moses) especially in China. Russia. Africa. North Korea and Middle East  have it the worst.

[Jenne]

My god that avatar is terrifying. 

[Kenneth Kenstar]

This thread is a glorified rationalization for why you shouldn't have to make compromises everyone else makes. The RIA does not require everyone have the same sense of humor or fun, least of all that they all have your sense of humor. The RIA does not require that everyone be capable of complete detachment from the implications of written text directed at them. The RIA does not require that all females subject themselves to ritualistic hazing by people who pretend they are just trolling. These are not written into law because the RIA does not require laws to dictate every spectrum of social interaction: the members moderate themselves to a large degree, as you can see both gangs and leo acted differently when people talked to them about it. This is the reason freedoms exist, when they do exist: because people do not abuse them and they enact laws within themselves so that someone outside of them is not required to. They consider others' point of view and put themselves in their position, using a sort of logical empathy which may be completely unknown to you. It is not always possible to find common ground and often one party is less logical than the other; as was the case with Holy Ruler. I tried to defuse the situation with him but he was unwilling and unable (will and ability are the same in this context) to imagine people using the term Mohammedan in a different way than he assumed. He chose instead to twist the entire situation to fit his paradigm of interpretation, and to slander and wrongly accuse first you and then the entire alliance in order to accommodate his idiocy. Irony of Ironies, you are now doing the same thing to Mia, except it is worse because the majority of human society would perceive your conduct as unacceptable. The world in general cannot and will not ever detach itself completely from the face value of words and expressions. Giving up freedom for safety is bad, yes, so is giving up safety for freedom; people instinctively try to balance the two. Your instincts are broken. The RIA has instinctively avoided behavior as extreme as yours and based on the overwhelming negative response you're getting, it is not likely to change for you.  We don't need an amendment, we don't need to be afraid of mods, we don't need to refute your numerous logical fallacies, we're under no obligation to accept your trolling or justify our intolerance of your intolerance. You think people who can't detach meaning from expression are weak; are you afraid of being weak? Everyone is weak; but not everyone is a coward. This thread is a glorified rationalization for why you shouldn't have to make compromises everyone else makes. The RIA does not require everyone have the same sense of humor or fun, least of all that they all have your sense of humor. The RIA does not require that everyone be capable of complete detachment from the implications of written text directed at them. The RIA does not require that all females subject themselves to ritualistic hazing by people who pretend they are just trolling. These are not written into law because the RIA does not require laws to dictate every spectrum of social interaction: the members moderate themselves to a large degree, as you can see both gangs and leo acted differently when people talked to them about it. This is the reason freedoms exist, when they do exist: because people do not abuse them and they enact laws within themselves so that someone outside of them is not required to. They consider others' point of view and put themselves in their position, using a sort of logical empathy which may be completely unknown to you. It is not always possible to find common ground and often one party is less logical than the other; as was the case with Holy Ruler. I tried to defuse the situation with him but he was unwilling and unable (will and ability are the same in this context) to imagine people using the term Mohammedan in a different way than he assumed. He chose instead to twist the entire situation to fit his paradigm of interpretation, and to slander and wrongly accuse first you and then the entire alliance in order to accommodate his idiocy. Irony of Ironies, you are now doing the same thing to Mia, except it is worse because the majority of human society would perceive your conduct as unacceptable. The world in general cannot and will not ever detach itself completely from the face value of words and expressions. Giving up freedom for safety is bad, yes, so is giving up safety for freedom; people instinctively try to balance the two. Your instincts are broken. The RIA has instinctively avoided behavior as extreme as yours and based on the overwhelming negative response you're getting, it is not likely to change for you.  We don't need an amendment, we don't need to be afraid of mods, we don't need to refute your numerous logical fallacies, we're under no obligation to accept your trolling or justify our intolerance of your intolerance. You think people who can't detach meaning from expression are weak; are you afraid of being weak? Everyone is weak; but not everyone is a coward. This thread is a glorified rationalization for why you shouldn't have to make compromises everyone else makes. The RIA does not require everyone have the same sense of humor or fun, least of all that they all have your sense of humor. The RIA does not require that everyone be capable of complete detachment from the implications of written text directed at them. The RIA does not require that all females subject themselves to ritualistic hazing by people who pretend they are just trolling. These are not written into law because the RIA does not require laws to dictate every spectrum of social interaction: the members moderate themselves to a large degree, as you can see both gangs and leo acted differently when people talked to them about it. This is the reason freedoms exist, when they do exist: because people do not abuse them and they enact laws within themselves so that someone outside of them is not required to. They consider others' point of view and put themselves in their position, using a sort of logical empathy which may be completely unknown to you. It is not always possible to find common ground and often one party is less logical than the other; as was the case with Holy Ruler. I tried to defuse the situation with him but he was unwilling and unable (will and ability are the same in this context) to imagine people using the term Mohammedan in a different way than he assumed. He chose instead to twist the entire situation to fit his paradigm of interpretation, and to slander and wrongly accuse first you and then the entire alliance in order to accommodate his idiocy. Irony of Ironies, you are now doing the same thing to Mia, except it is worse because the majority of human society would perceive your conduct as unacceptable. The world in general cannot and will not ever detach itself completely from the face value of words and expressions. Giving up freedom for safety is bad, yes, so is giving up safety for freedom; people instinctively try to balance the two. Your instincts are broken. The RIA has instinctively avoided behavior as extreme as yours and based on the overwhelming negative response you're getting, it is not likely to change for you.  We don't need an amendment, we don't need to be afraid of mods, we don't need to refute your numerous logical fallacies, we're under no obligation to accept your trolling or justify our intolerance of your intolerance. You think people who can't detach meaning from expression are weak; are you afraid of being weak? Everyone is weak; but not everyone is a coward. This thread is a glorified rationalization for why you shouldn't have to make compromises everyone else makes. The RIA does not require everyone have the same sense of humor or fun, least of all that they all have your sense of humor. The RIA does not require that everyone be capable of complete detachment from the implications of written text directed at them. The RIA does not require that all females subject themselves to ritualistic hazing by people who pretend they are just trolling. These are not written into law because the RIA does not require laws to dictate every spectrum of social interaction: the members moderate themselves to a large degree, as you can see both gangs and leo acted differently when people talked to them about it. This is the reason freedoms exist, when they do exist: because people do not abuse them and they enact laws within themselves so that someone outside of them is not required to. They consider others' point of view and put themselves in their position, using a sort of logical empathy which may be completely unknown to you. It is not always possible to find common ground and often one party is less logical than the other; as was the case with Holy Ruler. I tried to defuse the situation with him but he was unwilling and unable (will and ability are the same in this context) to imagine people using the term Mohammedan in a different way than he assumed. He chose instead to twist the entire situation to fit his paradigm of interpretation, and to slander and wrongly accuse first you and then the entire alliance in order to accommodate his idiocy. Irony of Ironies, you are now doing the same thing to Mia, except it is worse because the majority of human society would perceive your conduct as unacceptable. The world in general cannot and will not ever detach itself completely from the face value of words and expressions. Giving up freedom for safety is bad, yes, so is giving up safety for freedom; people instinctively try to balance the two. Your instincts are broken. The RIA has instinctively avoided behavior as extreme as yours and based on the overwhelming negative response you're getting, it is not likely to change for you.  We don't need an amendment, we don't need to be afraid of mods, we don't need to refute your numerous logical fallacies, we're under no obligation to accept your trolling or justify our intolerance of your intolerance. You think people who can't detach meaning from expression are weak; are you afraid of being weak? Everyone is weak; but not everyone is a coward. This thread is a glorified rationalization for why you shouldn't have to make compromises everyone else makes. The RIA does not require everyone have the same sense of humor or fun, least of all that they all have your sense of humor. The RIA does not require that everyone be capable of complete detachment from the implications of written text directed at them. The RIA does not require that all females subject themselves to ritualistic hazing by people who pretend they are just trolling. These are not written into law because the RIA does not require laws to dictate every spectrum of social interaction: the members moderate themselves to a large degree, as you can see both gangs and leo acted differently when people talked to them about it. This is the reason freedoms exist, when they do exist: because people do not abuse them and they enact laws within themselves so that someone outside of them is not required to. They consider others' point of view and put themselves in their position, using a sort of logical empathy which may be completely unknown to you. It is not always possible to find common ground and often one party is less logical than the other; as was the case with Holy Ruler. I tried to defuse the situation with him but he was unwilling and unable (will and ability are the same in this context) to imagine people using the term Mohammedan in a different way than he assumed. He chose instead to twist the entire situation to fit his paradigm of interpretation, and to slander and wrongly accuse first you and then the entire alliance in order to accommodate his idiocy. Irony of Ironies, you are now doing the same thing to Mia, except it is worse because the majority of human society would perceive your conduct as unacceptable. The world in general cannot and will not ever detach itself completely from the face value of words and expressions. Giving up freedom for safety is bad, yes, so is giving up safety for freedom; people instinctively try to balance the two. Your instincts are broken. The RIA has instinctively avoided behavior as extreme as yours and based on the overwhelming negative response you're getting, it is not likely to change for you.  We don't need an amendment, we don't need to be afraid of mods, we don't need to refute your numerous logical fallacies, we're under no obligation to accept your trolling or justify our intolerance of your intolerance. You think people who can't detach meaning from expression are weak; are you afraid of being weak? Everyone is weak; but not everyone is a coward. This thread is a glorified rationalization for why you shouldn't have to make compromises everyone else makes. The RIA does not require everyone have the same sense of humor or fun, least of all that they all have your sense of humor. The RIA does not require that everyone be capable of complete detachment from the implications of written text directed at them. The RIA does not require that all females subject themselves to ritualistic hazing by people who pretend they are just trolling. These are not written into law because the RIA does not require laws to dictate every spectrum of social interaction: the members moderate themselves to a large degree, as you can see both gangs and leo acted differently when people talked to them about it. This is the reason freedoms exist, when they do exist: because people do not abuse them and they enact laws within themselves so that someone outside of them is not required to. They consider others' point of view and put themselves in their position, using a sort of logical empathy which may be completely unknown to you. It is not always possible to find common ground and often one party is less logical than the other; as was the case with Holy Ruler. I tried to defuse the situation with him but he was unwilling and unable (will and ability are the same in this context) to imagine people using the term Mohammedan in a different way than he assumed. He chose instead to twist the entire situation to fit his paradigm of interpretation, and to slander and wrongly accuse first you and then the entire alliance in order to accommodate his idiocy. Irony of Ironies, you are now doing the same thing to Mia, except it is worse because the majority of human society would perceive your conduct as unacceptable. The world in general cannot and will not ever detach itself completely from the face value of words and expressions. Giving up freedom for safety is bad, yes, so is giving up safety for freedom; people instinctively try to balance the two. Your instincts are broken. The RIA has instinctively avoided behavior as extreme as yours and based on the overwhelming negative response you're getting, it is not likely to change for you.  We don't need an amendment, we don't need to be afraid of mods, we don't need to refute your numerous logical fallacies, we're under no obligation to accept your trolling or justify our intolerance of your intolerance. You think people who can't detach meaning from expression are weak; are you afraid of being weak? Everyone is weak; but not everyone is a coward. This thread is a glorified rationalization for why you shouldn't have to make compromises everyone else makes. The RIA does not require everyone have the same sense of humor or fun, least of all that they all have your sense of humor. The RIA does not require that everyone be capable of complete detachment from the implications of written text directed at them. The RIA does not require that all females subject themselves to ritualistic hazing by people who pretend they are just trolling. These are not written into law because the RIA does not require laws to dictate every spectrum of social interaction: the members moderate themselves to a large degree, as you can see both gangs and leo acted differently when people talked to them about it. This is the reason freedoms exist, when they do exist: because people do not abuse them and they enact laws within themselves so that someone outside of them is not required to. They consider others' point of view and put themselves in their position, using a sort of logical empathy which may be completely unknown to you. It is not always possible to find common ground and often one party is less logical than the other; as was the case with Holy Ruler. I tried to defuse the situation with him but he was unwilling and unable (will and ability are the same in this context) to imagine people using the term Mohammedan in a different way than he assumed. He chose instead to twist the entire situation to fit his paradigm of interpretation, and to slander and wrongly accuse first you and then the entire alliance in order to accommodate his idiocy. Irony of Ironies, you are now doing the same thing to Mia, except it is worse because the majority of human society would perceive your conduct as unacceptable. The world in general cannot and will not ever detach itself completely from the face value of words and expressions. Giving up freedom for safety is bad, yes, so is giving up safety for freedom; people instinctively try to balance the two. Your instincts are broken. The RIA has instinctively avoided behavior as extreme as yours and based on the overwhelming negative response you're getting, it is not likely to change for you.  We don't need an amendment, we don't need to be afraid of mods, we don't need to refute your numerous logical fallacies, we're under no obligation to accept your trolling or justify our intolerance of your intolerance. You think people who can't detach meaning from expression are weak; are you afraid of being weak? Everyone is weak; but not everyone is a coward. This thread is a glorified rationalization for why you shouldn't have to make compromises everyone else makes. The RIA does not require everyone have the same sense of humor or fun, least of all that they all have your sense of humor. The RIA does not require that everyone be capable of complete detachment from the implications of written text directed at them. The RIA does not require that all females subject themselves to ritualistic hazing by people who pretend they are just trolling. These are not written into law because the RIA does not require laws to dictate every spectrum of social interaction: the members moderate themselves to a large degree, as you can see both gangs and leo acted differently when people talked to them about it. This is the reason freedoms exist, when they do exist: because people do not abuse them and they enact laws within themselves so that someone outside of them is not required to. They consider others' point of view and put themselves in their position, using a sort of logical empathy which may be completely unknown to you. It is not always possible to find common ground and often one party is less logical than the other; as was the case with Holy Ruler. I tried to defuse the situation with him but he was unwilling and unable (will and ability are the same in this context) to imagine people using the term Mohammedan in a different way than he assumed. He chose instead to twist the entire situation to fit his paradigm of interpretation, and to slander and wrongly accuse first you and then the entire alliance in order to accommodate his idiocy. Irony of Ironies, you are now doing the same thing to Mia, except it is worse because the majority of human society would perceive your conduct as unacceptable. The world in general cannot and will not ever detach itself completely from the face value of words and expressions. Giving up freedom for safety is bad, yes, so is giving up safety for freedom; people instinctively try to balance the two. Your instincts are broken. The RIA has instinctively avoided behavior as extreme as yours and based on the overwhelming negative response you're getting, it is not likely to change for you.  We don't need an amendment, we don't need to be afraid of mods, we don't need to refute your numerous logical fallacies, we're under no obligation to accept your trolling or justify our intolerance of your intolerance. You think people who can't detach meaning from expression are weak; are you afraid of being weak? Everyone is weak; but not everyone is a coward. This thread is a glorified rationalization for why you shouldn't have to make compromises everyone else makes. The RIA does not require everyone have the same sense of humor or fun, least of all that they all have your sense of humor. The RIA does not require that everyone be capable of complete detachment from the implications of written text directed at them. The RIA does not require that all females subject themselves to ritualistic hazing by people who pretend they are just trolling. These are not written into law because the RIA does not require laws to dictate every spectrum of social interaction: the members moderate themselves to a large degree, as you can see both gangs and leo acted differently when people talked to them about it. This is the reason freedoms exist, when they do exist: because people do not abuse them and they enact laws within themselves so that someone outside of them is not required to. They consider others' point of view and put themselves in their position, using a sort of logical empathy which may be completely unknown to you. It is not always possible to find common ground and often one party is less logical than the other; as was the case with Holy Ruler. I tried to defuse the situation with him but he was unwilling and unable (will and ability are the same in this context) to imagine people using the term Mohammedan in a different way than he assumed. He chose instead to twist the entire situation to fit his paradigm of interpretation, and to slander and wrongly accuse first you and then the entire alliance in order to accommodate his idiocy. Irony of Ironies, you are now doing the same thing to Mia, except it is worse because the majority of human society would perceive your conduct as unacceptable. The world in general cannot and will not ever detach itself completely from the face value of words and expressions. Giving up freedom for safety is bad, yes, so is giving up safety for freedom; people instinctively try to balance the two. Your instincts are broken. The RIA has instinctively avoided behavior as extreme as yours and based on the overwhelming negative response you're getting, it is not likely to change for you.  We don't need an amendment, we don't need to be afraid of mods, we don't need to refute your numerous logical fallacies, we're under no obligation to accept your trolling or justify our intolerance of your intolerance. You think people who can't detach meaning from expression are weak; are you afraid of being weak? Everyone is weak; but not everyone is a coward. This thread is a glorified rationalization for why you shouldn't have to make compromises everyone else makes. The RIA does not require everyone have the same sense of humor or fun, least of all that they all have your sense of humor. The RIA does not require that everyone be capable of complete detachment from the implications of written text directed at them. The RIA does not require that all females subject themselves to ritualistic hazing by people who pretend they are just trolling. These are not written into law because the RIA does not require laws to dictate every spectrum of social interaction: the members moderate themselves to a large degree, as you can see both gangs and leo acted differently when people talked to them about it. This is the reason freedoms exist, when they do exist: because people do not abuse them and they enact laws within themselves so that someone outside of them is not required to. They consider others' point of view and put themselves in their position, using a sort of logical empathy which may be completely unknown to you. It is not always possible to find common ground and often one party is less logical than the other; as was the case with Holy Ruler. I tried to defuse the situation with him but he was unwilling and unable (will and ability are the same in this context) to imagine people using the term Mohammedan in a different way than he assumed. He chose instead to twist the entire situation to fit his paradigm of interpretation, and to slander and wrongly accuse first you and then the entire alliance in order to accommodate his idiocy. Irony of Ironies, you are now doing the same thing to Mia, except it is worse because the majority of human society would perceive your conduct as unacceptable. The world in general cannot and will not ever detach itself completely from the face value of words and expressions. Giving up freedom for safety is bad, yes, so is giving up safety for freedom; people instinctively try to balance the two. Your instincts are broken. The RIA has instinctively avoided behavior as extreme as yours and based on the overwhelming negative response you're getting, it is not likely to change for you.  We don't need an amendment, we don't need to be afraid of mods, we don't need to refute your numerous logical fallacies, we're under no obligation to accept your trolling or justify our intolerance of your intolerance. You think people who can't detach meaning from expression are weak; are you afraid of being weak? Everyone is weak; but not everyone is a coward. This thread is a glorified rationalization for why you shouldn't have to make compromises everyone else makes. The RIA does not require everyone have the same sense of humor or fun, least of all that they all have your sense of humor. The RIA does not require that everyone be capable of complete detachment from the implications of written text directed at them. The RIA does not require that all females subject themselves to ritualistic hazing by people who pretend they are just trolling. These are not written into law because the RIA does not require laws to dictate every spectrum of social interaction: the members moderate themselves to a large degree, as you can see both gangs and leo acted differently when people talked to them about it. This is the reason freedoms exist, when they do exist: because people do not abuse them and they enact laws within themselves so that someone outside of them is not required to. They consider others' point of view and put themselves in their position, using a sort of logical empathy which may be completely unknown to you. It is not always possible to find common ground and often one party is less logical than the other; as was the case with Holy Ruler. I tried to defuse the situation with him but he was unwilling and unable (will and ability are the same in this context) to imagine people using the term Mohammedan in a different way than he assumed. He chose instead to twist the entire situation to fit his paradigm of interpretation, and to slander and wrongly accuse first you and then the entire alliance in order to accommodate his idiocy. Irony of Ironies, you are now doing the same thing to Mia, except it is worse because the majority of human society would perceive your conduct as unacceptable. The world in general cannot and will not ever detach itself completely from the face value of words and expressions. Giving up freedom for safety is bad, yes, so is giving up safety for freedom; people instinctively try to balance the two. Your instincts are broken. The RIA has instinctively avoided behavior as extreme as yours and based on the overwhelming negative response you're getting, it is not likely to change for you.  We don't need an amendment, we don't need to be afraid of mods, we don't need to refute your numerous logical fallacies, we're under no obligation to accept your trolling or justify our intolerance of your intolerance. You think people who can't detach meaning from expression are weak; are you afraid of being weak? Everyone is weak; but not everyone is a coward. This thread is a glorified rationalization for why you shouldn't have to make compromises everyone else makes. The RIA does not require everyone have the same sense of humor or fun, least of all that they all have your sense of humor. The RIA does not require that everyone be capable of complete detachment from the implications of written text directed at them. The RIA does not require that all females subject themselves to ritualistic hazing by people who pretend they are just trolling. These are not written into law because the RIA does not require laws to dictate every spectrum of social interaction: the members moderate themselves to a large degree, as you can see both gangs and leo acted differently when people talked to them about it. This is the reason freedoms exist, when they do exist: because people do not abuse them and they enact laws within themselves so that someone outside of them is not required to. They consider others' point of view and put themselves in their position, using a sort of logical empathy which may be completely unknown to you. It is not always possible to find common ground and often one party is less logical than the other; as was the case with Holy Ruler. I tried to defuse the situation with him but he was unwilling and unable (will and ability are the same in this context) to imagine people using the term Mohammedan in a different way than he assumed. He chose instead to twist the entire situation to fit his paradigm of interpretation, and to slander and wrongly accuse first you and then the entire alliance in order to accommodate his idiocy. Irony of Ironies, you are now doing the same thing to Mia, except it is worse because the majority of human society would perceive your conduct as unacceptable. The world in general cannot and will not ever detach itself completely from the face value of words and expressions. Giving up freedom for safety is bad, yes, so is giving up safety for freedom; people instinctively try to balance the two. Your instincts are broken. The RIA has instinctively avoided behavior as extreme as yours and based on the overwhelming negative response you're getting, it is not likely to change for you.  We don't need an amendment, we don't need to be afraid of mods, we don't need to refute your numerous logical fallacies, we're under no obligation to accept your trolling or justify our intolerance of your intolerance. You think people who can't detach meaning from expression are weak; are you afraid of being weak? Everyone is weak; but not everyone is a coward.

[Gangs]

Icwutudidthar kenny!


@Pterrydactyl: Im a bigoted, racist scumbag, who revels in the Irony of being Indian, i don't much care for philantrophic world views, i don't much care for ettiquette and the need of comforting words and ghey, pink posts for deluded, extremist idiots who can't take a joke. I DO understand oppression. I LIVE halfway across the world from you >_>
I love the RIA and the people in it, like Brian said to me, well...actually i don't quite REMEMBER what he said, it was something along the lines of RIAers rock and we have hella fun here and some other mushy, hippy crap about love and gay pride and make peace not war etc.
Jokes apart, fact is, no one here is bigotted, not me, not GS, not Mr_(the confederate armeh)Cynic. Some of us might have stepped over the line with the pussy chasing but that's the limit of the sins of the RIAers. We rock like that. ;P

[Pterrydactyl]

I've been to many oppressed countries, and it just bothers me that a single restriction on not being a dick, makes people start waving the FREEDOM OF SPEECH flag.

Most people here, and in the U.S. in general, freak out at the tiniest infringement on their right to freedom of speech and start calling people Nazis, when they don't even know what infringing on rights even means.  If you want to see infringing on human rights, goto North Korea, or visit one of the rape-camps in Africa.  Then come back here and bitch that a mod tells you to back off.

[Buck Turgidson]

I lived for 7 years in the UAE where I was legally classified as the property of the Sheikh, because I was an expatriot.  I do not exagerate when I say I had the same rights as a palm tree (local law put us on the same level, and as you can imagine a tree is worth something int he desert).  Freedom of Speech was severely curtailed, people have to get a permit to demonstrate, and they are rarely granted.  Secret police & their informants number one tenth of the population, and phone calls are routinely monitored.  Same for the internet.  I did not have the right to vote, and being a non-Muslim, I was subject to a different set of laws whose enforcement was quite arbitrary.  But hey, the money was good.

Just because you played your part as the armed American tourist in the quest to teach your people geography, does not mean that you have lived oppression, just witnessed it for a short while.  I have been to the Sarengeti, but that doesn't qualify me to lecture people about elephant poaching.

In any case, I came back from my experience cherishing rights I had previously taken for granted, and dead-set against arbitrary rule.  I have no problem with mods doing their thing, but if you are going to enforce something, it should be in the RIA constitution, otherwise, you are just throwing your weight around.  Hve you been to North Korea or the rape camps of the Sudan? 

And yes, Freedom of Speech is all about the right to be a dick if you want to - the very opposite would be for no one to offend anyone, which would leave us cowering under our blankets at home in the dark.  An online community is the best place to allow it to flourish.

Now on to Llamavore:

Logic is a precious word, you should use it sparingly until you understand it.  First of all, I am not alone in trolling people anywhere.  Second, Mia is the only female I have trolled, so don't blow things out of proportion and represent it as a hazing the whole sex has to go through.  Ask yourself what is different about Mia, and you will see that it is because she is playing along in her own way - she is actually the ultimate troll, drawing a great deal of attention to herself and provoking constant response from many RIAers.  Another thread about Mia...  Tell me, the last time someone told you to shut up, what was your response?

Laws should not exist without enforcement, and the reverse is true.  I got an official warning over the HR debacle, but broke no rule.  I have this debate regularly with developers who do work for me: would you put a stop sign where someone might have an accident, or wait until someone dies in an accident before you put one up.  I favour the later in principle, but of course middle ground exists.  If this is really how to community feels, enact a law and I will abide.

Emotional intelligence does not require people to yield to political correctness.  It can be used for many purposes, including provoking an individual or a community to grow.  And so far there have been as many who agree with my points on Freedom of Speech as those who was to restrict it.  The rest don't care about it or Mia's 'plight'.

Actually, the majority of human society would find my behaviour acceptable, just not much of the western world.  Any woman traveling alone should know not to even respond to calls by strangers - they will generally take it as flirting anywhere in South America, the Mediterranean, Africa, Middle East, the Sub-Continent, and China.  Those who don't like it are invited to ignore it - I won't persist.

Animals and children are driven by instinct, man should be governed by reason.

I am not at all intolerant - I love that you disagree with me.  It makes for a fun debate.  I allows me to consider other's points of view.  That's what Freedom of Speech is all about.

[Jenne]

You shouldn't have to have a law to tell you not to be a dick. 

[Gangs]

You shouldn't have to have a law to tell you not to be a dick. 

EXACTLY! SCREW THE LAW!

[Buck Turgidson]

Jenne, you are such an optimist.  Clearly some of us do need a law at least so we can be clear on what a dick is.  All I can think of at the moment is the opposite of dick.

[Jenne]

Jenne, you are such an optimist. 

Wow, I don't think I have ever been called that before.  I guess I should clarify.  While you should not need a law, most people are too fucking stupid to know the difference. 

Even if there was a law, you would bitch about where the line was drawn.  Even if those lines are drawn, the enforcement of those lines is subjective.  There will never be a black and white definition who right and wrong unless every possible words and phrase in every possible context were individually addressed. 

[Pterrydactyl]

First GS, we don't have anything in the constRItution, but we do have it in the TOS:

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.

Note the bolded section. 

It's up to our moderators to determine what falls into these categories, and most things are typically ignored unless someone complains.  That's how it is and that's how it's always been.

Now, if you really would like an amendment to the constRItution making a set of posting rules to re-iterate the TOS and give some form of official posting rules, I can add that to the list of things gov is going to discuss once the war ends.  Some form of posting rules have been discussed, but we didn't want to limit what people would post.  As I've said, unless someone complains to a mod or a mod/gov feels it has gone over the line into OOC attacks, we don't really care.



And about freedom:
Originally, they didn't need to put the "Don't be a dick" part into the constitution, because pretty much, back then the law was you could do just about whatever you wanted, as long as you weren't directly either pissing someone off, or screwing them over.

Unfortunately, that type of freedom doesn't work anymore.  There are too many people too close together, whereas before, if you thought your practices might be problematic, you'd just move into the woods and build a cabin.

[Gangs]

Jenne, you are such an optimist. 

Wow, I don't think I have ever been called that before.  I guess I should clarify.  While you should not need a law, most people are too fucking stupid to know the difference. 

Even if there was a law, you would bitch about where the line was drawn.  Even if those lines are drawn, the enforcement of those lines is subjective.  There will never be a black and white definition who right and wrong unless every possible words and phrase in every possible context were individually addressed. 

YEAH! SCREW THE LAW! WOOHOO!

[Cashflow]

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.

This is pretty funny cause the picture yourself naked thread and the red light district. It's Randomly Insane Hypocrisy I tell you

Spoiler for Hiden:

[Pterrydactyl]

Like I said, unless someone complains or it crosses a line.  We have the red light district labeled as NSFW so anyone who might get offended by what is in there shouldn't be going in there, because they see the NSFW tag and should know to avoid it.

[Buck Turgidson]

Well, what takes precedence, TOS or the ConstRItution?  And man, that's way too many words bolded - I will accept vulgar, obscene, profane, and sexually oriented, but my posts are by no means the exception in this forum...

As for abusive, hateful, harassing, and threatening, I think that Mia and HR had these pegged better than I ever could.  And I could not give a flying fuck.  That said, if I had a flying fuck, I don't think I would part with it easily.

With regard to OOC, you shut down an engaging topic called "about Islam", which was all about Islam, and was in no way out of character or context - and despite being called all sorts of names, I never complained about it.

Jenne, you are right I that I might bitch about where the law was drawn, but I have not breached the ConstRItution in more than a year of being a very active member of RIA, so then again, I might not. 

The line could start somewhere so at least there is an effort to be less arbitrary, since this seems to happen from time to time, and some members of RIA have obviously accumulated wisdom on the subject.

I also am not in favour of laws but if you are not going to enforce a law, get rid of it - like the TOS...  That said, I can suggest at least one way to frame such a law:

- If someone gets upset and whines to the moderator, the offender can have a chance to tell the person in the same post, that they are just kidding, and both parties can continue where they left off.
- Maybe more than one such reminder would be required as the troll mine is dug, but at least some form of politesse and reassurance is there.
- If the offender does not make such a statement, or does so insincerely, then the problem is serious, and should be addressed.
- Innocent until proven guilty, but at least the whiners don't rule the roost.

I think I am going to have to start a support group for trolls, where we can share our feelings and give us the strength to keep on truckin'.  I need to find a bridge.  Gangs, Cashflow, Leo, you with me?

[Pterrydactyl]

Your kidding right?

HR locked that topic, not me.

The discussion is over from this point. I am closing this thread. Instead of informing about Islam and what it isn't, it has become misinforming people who don't know about Islam, thanks to GS and Cashflow. It will also help in saving GS face because he claimed he was a history major and did not even know who Genghis Khan was.

You can even go see this here:  http://rialliance.net/index.php?topic=45207.20#quickreply

I moved it from RI to public archives on the 28th because it was locked, but It was not me that locked it.  So don't even try to pull out the "ending engaging conversation card".  Because that's not what happened.

I have only taken action when:

1.  I received complaints

2.  The comments were going well past OOC attacks and someone asked for moderation.


I don't just go around locking shit for no reason.  With you and HR's big 3-topic wide discussion, I ended that because 2 people messaged me in IRC that it was getting really bad, one telling me if was offensive  (Protip: neither people were HR or GS).  And the second thing I did in HQ was mainly because that shit doesn't belong in HQ, and only partly because of the topic asking for moderation.

If you want to oxy members, go for it.  But if people complain to me that it's going to far, and I check and see that it is indeed going to far, I'll step in to end it, and I know there are other gov/moderators that feel the same way.

[Kenneth Kenstar]

[Fake from State Jarm]

This is completely fucking retarded. We're going to sodomize our chillaxity with anal legalistic trolling rules because one egotistical creeper is hypersensitive about being told to stop? I say no.

GS, you don't deserve laws which take your position into account; laws are agreements made between members of a community who listen to eachother, and when members of the community were telling you your jokes were offensive you flippantly continued like the stereotypical rebellious teenager. Your obvious personal problems with authority are irrelevant here. This is not a stage to pantomime your personal life story of being falsely accused and misunderstood but winning out in the end by learning not to feel and intellectualizing everything.

You allege that Mia encourages trolling and is lying when saying she is offended; chances are you are either over-interpreting her behavior like HR did with yours or engaging in moral acrobatics to avoid personal responsibility. Tone is impossible to read on the internet, because aside from it being absent of sound and body language, the internet attracts people with multi-layered personalities and social problems. I am no stranger to the female propensity to send mixed messages and to misrepresent their true feelings, so I would have less sympathy for her if she never made it clear that she wants it to stop. However I have seen her indicate that clearly and be blown off. I really don't see this as addressing an issue between you and Mia as much as addressing a much older and longstanding issue between RIA and girls, one which was easily resolved until you started bleeding out your ass about how it's not fair everyone doesn't laugh at your jokes and we can't tell you to shutup, we're not your real father etc.... Point being this was not about you and HR or you and Mia, this is now about you because you are making it about you. No one called your name out in topics, no one singled you out, I don't think anyone doubts HR was a douche; that is not why I said you were intolerant.

I personally don't think any topic is sacred, and offer anyone who gets their panties in a knot a chance to grow, and get over their sensitivity...

... people get emotional over a few pixels on the screen before them ....  Imagine turning that narcissistic hurt into something useful ... It's like a bully in the schoolyard who can't come up with a good comeback so resort to screaming "shut up" and goes out swinging.  Fucking retards.... We should do something to help the dimmer members ...

you're intolerant of people who take offense without your permission. you're intolerant of people who cannot ignore trolls, people who hold something as sacred when you don't. this isn't the UAE, get over it.

the simple solution to all this is to stop joking with someone when they say 'I am serious, stop joking.' it's common sense, hence why it has been pretty easy for everyone but you. you have personal issues with what you erroneously perceive as 'bullies' 'telling you to shut up,' and have created a melodramatic, falsely victimized 'not being allowed to sexually harass: life or death' thread in response to a thread by kenny which really wasn't even about you.

also, since you seem to have appointed yourself the spokesman of the troll community (if there had been elections I would have voted for myself) RIA is not a troll community, it is a community which at times engages in trolling. I have been aware of gov members' chillaxity/srsness levels for longer than you have been a member and have engaged in a few lively discussions re: RIA culture (lol jenne). Prophesying our doom at the hands of authoritarianism is old and should only be pulled out at the right time (which is also my primary complaint about the sex jokes, they've become so mind-numbingly monotonous and derivative). you're not going to win this one. Even if all I ever did was troll and expected everyone to accept it, I would take the trolling of Mia to be among the poorest and laziest attempts I've seen. She is trolled because she is easy to troll; that is the defense you keep repeating. Shame on you for calling yourself a troll. You're really just a goblin dreaming of being a troll. What's worse, you're leading gangs, who is presently in an impressionable pubescent implike stage, down your goblin path. down to your dirty goblin town.

people who make a game out of offending strangers to stroke their undernourished, maladapted egos are not the equals of people who just joke with friends; in fact they're often not the equals even of the people they offend. you take trolling way too seriously, is it because it's all you've got? I include humor for the benefit of others; I'm not trolling you, because I've really lost respect for you.

Logic is a precious word, you should use it sparingly until you understand it.

Llamavore, you are logic. Which is strange. But that doesn't change it.

if I use myself sparingly it'll take a lot longer for me to understand myself....

[Pterrydactyl]

llama, now that you started using paragraphs so break up walls of text, I'm not sure Jeff Goldbloom himself could stop you when you decide to throw logic in our general directions.