The WebDip Spring is upon us..
Many will fall for the greater cause, but we will fight hard and will not relent, ensuring even more will fall for their lesser cause..

Or, you know, the mods ban anyone who breaks the rules.

Whilst I would have preferred the old system, we have to live with the one zultar has imposed. I think that the previous regime's relaxed attitude to debate and free speech gave the impression that the site was the member's site and they developed an attachment to it, in the same way as one supports their sports team. The changes have changed that dynamic IMHO and I do feel as if there is a zultar & the mods v members attitude. Previously members used to argue with themselves and now the mods intervene, members argue with the mods. Every decision seems to be contested and battles are fought and re-fought ad-infanitum. I think if zultar wants to continue with enforcing the rules, that's fine, but by now he has to realise that members will always try to push against those rules.

The bit I don't understand is the locking of threads that are deemed not useful. Either have a diplomacy only related forum or allow members to discuss whatever they want. Mujus in particular should note that the daily Bible reading has nothing to do with diplomacy, if he wishes to continue then be prepared to have people disagree you with and sometimes say things that make you uncomfortable. In short try not to go down the route that would lead to the thread being locked.

I would never condone death threats and most jurisdictions have laws against such things, but if no laws are broken (and I don't think there has been here), then I can't see the problem.

"since I was the target of the first two posts calling for violence or death"

No you weren't.

I always enjoy revisionist history.

And obviously there have been no laws broken, but is that the standard by which we want our forum behavior to be measured? I think we can do a lot better than simply saying "well, at least a death threat in the forum didn't *technically* break any laws, so I guess its OK."

#wepDipGate is really about ethics in forum moderation.

/snark

So, if what is at issue here is how Mujus interpreted it, what is to stop me from interpreted the myriad things that are said to me as death threats or something else against the rules, and demanding mod action?

In his email to me, zultar castigated me for "wasting his time."

Who is really wasting people's time? Mujus or I?

Ok I didn't realize that "Let's kill him" was something that Thucy brought over from the Mafia game or that he had used it before. It's still not a good idea.

Maniac, that's a wonderful summary of the current situation. +1

I interpret Mujus' statements of his belief - that my refusal to affirm his personal beliefs as my own beliefs will result in a lifetime of unimaginable torment - as a death threat. Please someone DO something

Thucy, you made a poorly-timed joke after YJ's comment which was in all likelihood intended as a joke, but with the two statements taken together, back to back, made some people, not just Mujus, thought otherwise. Then in your email to us, you said that you could have explained to Mujus, but you chose not to, so it is rather vacuous to make that claim when you did have the chance to explain it and chose not to. Your stance hasn't been that "Oh, maybe someone took my joke badly, so let me explain it," but rather "screw him if he took it badly, and I could have explained it and I will claim to do so, but why bother." Not once have you apologized to Mujus for possibly offending him or really making him feel unsafe and uncomfortable. I find that highly hypocritical given how much philosophy you have spewed on the forum about being better people, being kinder and more understanding and how you have grown. Live up to what you espouse, walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

I think Octavious said it best: we have clear rules now. That's not up for debate but rather if it was misapplied here. Also, please don't conflate how a few members' resistance to the change to a large group of members. The same group of people who complained about the changes in the rules are the same people complaining now despite how others have done just fine in the "new" forum and that new members are remarking how pleasant the site is and how much they like it. That is just icing on the top of the cake of what has been accomplished since June, which I have said elsewhere and won't repeat here.

The debate here is whether the rules were misapplied to YJ and Thucy and not that the rules are bad or that we should go back to the old forum.

@Mujus himself,

My good man, I, unlike many virulent unbelievers here, have had nothing against you up to this point, nor against your thread. Sure I make fun of you, but Jesus told you to be ready for people like me, didn't he?

Now let's not fight for no reason. If you just apologize, and tell me that you understand that I am not a death-threat-maker, it'll go a long way.

I on my side am sorry if I made you feel unsafe, but surely now that it has been explained you can see I was just being jocular. The "i say we kill him" joke is really meant more as a satire of lynch mobs than anything; it is not meant to make light of the thought of killing people. There is a lot of figurative death on this site between mafia lynchings and driving Turks into the sea on the battlefields of Smyrna. So let's just maintain an adult understanding that not every mention of the word "killing" is a physical threat, shall we?

"Not once have you apologized to Mujus for possibly offending him or really making him feel unsafe and uncomfortable."

Not really directed at you per se zultar, but doesn't anyone else find it insane that someone could feel UNSAFE from a fucking post on a Diplomacy forum? Have we really come to that? Everyone wants to be offended and scared so easily... jeez.

Now I'm curious. I'll have to check what horrors were uttered in the forum during my two years' vacation that justified the creation of a puritanical dictatorship.

"BUT Jesus told you to be ready for people like me, didn't he?"

"BUT doesn't anyone else find it insane that someone could feel UNSAFE from a fucking post on a Diplomacy forum?"

But...but...

Quit blaming the victim guys. Free speech doesn't really translate into license to insult. The posts that you *leave online* are things that you publish. Bullies out there give a second thought to the things they write online because they are the aggressors in a situation. And neither of these two is going to back down from their righteous free speech crusade because they've got nothing better to do than troll with fucking posts on a Diplomacy forum.

Such a life.

This is an international community from all over the world. There are a multitudes of perspectives and there should be some tolerance of other people and their views. It isn't just a collection of people who think the same and act the same. So, you can't just say that if I don't feel this way, then no one should feel this way, or if they do, they are insane or weak or this or that. When you are a part of a community of people dissimilar from yourself, whether it is nationally, ethnically, religiously and so forth, you should try to be tolerant and at least try to understand why someone might take your statement in a certain way.

*don't give a second thought.

^Copied from the UN General Chairman's speech.

So if someone was in support of ISIS, we should be tolerant of that?

A completely different point, of course, but I don't buy the whole "you have to tolerate all of someone's beliefs" bit. Someone can have a belief that is dead wrong and be ridiculed for it, such is life. I guess it's just such a major difference from what I see that it's not something I can wrap my head around.

This is an online Diplomacy site with a forum... how someone saying "I say we kill him" in a mocking way... or in any way, how can you be scared/offended by that? I just don't get that, it's completely alien to me.

Quite sure it is the UN Secretary General :P

"I just don't get that, it's completely alien to me."
So what you're saying is you're intolerant?

We've had members find personal information about Kestas's family and send them threatening emails before. This is one area I think anyone who argues in favor of jokes about killing members is just foolish. In America if you make a finger gun in elementary school the cops are called. If you joking say you want to kill someone in high school you can be arrested. Death threats are not a joking matter.

And anyone who believes the internet is anonymous is a fool, I could find any one of you in under 30 minutes without mods tools, now given I went to school for it so it's far easier for me then your average member, but to assume you are anonymous and that someone making threats against you cannot find you is naive.

Years ago it wasn't nearly as easy to find someone, and society had a more relaxed attitude towards death jokes (kids could play cops and robbers with finger guns on a play ground without getting suspended). So I'm sorry if you don't like our viewpoint on disallowing those type of jokes, but it's the way we've chosen to go, and it seems the way most of society at large as gone.

I think the real threat of someone from a Diplomacy forum tracking you down and doing true harm to you (not mean words) is so infinitesimal that it's not worth worrying over.

Yeah, therein lies the issue. Because you don't get that, that it's "complete alien" to you, means that you think you can say whatever you want and that this site should allow you to do so. The belief that if you think something is ridiculous, you have the right to ridicule others is a ridiculous belief. It presupposes that you know everything as well as knowing everything enables you to ridicule others. It is arrogant and intolerant.

Seeing as I haven't been silenced, I think I'm well within my rights vis-a-vis the site rules.

Zultar I am not against moderation on this forum, only against the idea of taking Mujus seriously on this issue.
That said - @Jeff Kuta - if free speech gives you 0 license to be offensive, what is the point of free speech? If there was absolute tolerance and nobody was allowed to speak anything that could be interpreted as offensive by the offer, then the concept of free speech is null and void. There are certain obvious limits to free speech and yes - death threats is one of them. But being offensive is not. If you feel offended, grow up and learn to respond with logic and reason to back up your viewpoint.

@Zultar - Tolerance is all well and good. But absolute tolerance is a logical fallacy. If everyone has to tolerate Mujus' ridiculous capacity to get offended, why should Mujus not have to tolerate our attempts at humour/wit?
What Thucy said in this post - I don't find it satire at all; I completely concur- I *genuinely* believe that Mujus' opinion that those who do not conform to his religious beliefs will burn in hell or whatever or suffer eternal damnation to be *far more offensive* than anything anyone has said against him.

And here's the thing zultar. You are saying to be tolerant of other people's beliefs, don't ridicule them, etc. Be respectful. That's well and fine. But apparently that doesn't include the belief that the new rules are a bit too much, or the belief that the forum should be very unregulated. Because every time it comes up it is squashed, and "the few" who support it are chastised / told they're wrong.

Clearly it's more than "a few" who have at least some issue with it. I'm not going to expect we go back to how it was before, but at least understand that some of us simply aren't happy with the situation.

The risk likelihood for someone following through with a death threat is quite small. But if that likelihood is realized, the end result is tragic and terminal. It's human nature to respond to such threats with the most vigorous response possible. There is no other option.

Expecting someone to ignore a death threat, credible or not, is cavalier and callous to say the least. It seems these arguments are trying to rationalize a very anti-social behavior.

IT WASN"T A FUCKING DEATH THREAT. That is obvious to everyone.
It was INTERPRETED as a fucking death threat by Mujus ridiculous capacity to be offended.
No one is expecting anyone to ignore a death threat. Dont be bloody daft. We are expecting people not to react hyperbolically to clear attempts at humour - the fact that Thucy/YJ were being funny is almost universally recognised. So stop calling it a death threat.

THANK YOU Sh@dow. That's the crux. The response to a death threat is one thing, but it wasn't a damn death threat. Thucy has been saying that for months and it had a clear meaning to me.

@Shadow: "If free speech gives you 0 license to be offensive, what is the point of free speech?"

To me there's a distinction between offensive and insulting or abusive. If someone were to start a thread extolling the virtues of necrophilia, I'd certainly be offended, but I just won't really participate in the discussion. Not my thing.

But if someone were to accuse me of being a necrophiliac or say they were gonna kill my relatives and fuck the corpses, that crosses the line into insulting or abusive behavior and cannot be condoned.