Ban ISIS / Terrorism

[Lu Xun]

Offensive speech:

 

 

Homophobia

 

 

 

 

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/8779-should-pope-francis-be-considered-somewhat-liberal/?view=findpost&p=151125

 

 

 

Why do you have such contempt and disrespect for the very bible you claim to believe in?

 

 

 

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:26–27)

 

 

 

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality," (1 Corinthians 6:9)

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/8722-rozalia-vs-ibrahim-on-islamic-misdeeds/?view=findpost&p=150432by Ibrahim on 04 October 2015 - 09:02 PM in General Debate

 

At least the topic is somewhat back on track. Also, giving the Muslim response...

 

 

 

War and Peace, on 04 Oct 2015 - 8:59 PM, said:

 

Whether it's circumcision, not being gay, or stoning women to death for adultery,

 

 

 

Circumcision is greatly beneficial for the child. "It reduces the risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as a bladder infection; reduces the risk of getting some types of sexually transmitted infections like HIV and genital herpes; reduce the risk of female partners developing some types of sexually transmitted infections, such as bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis; they also reduce the risk of developing cancer of the penis."

 

 

 

Those who engage in homosexual acts (which spread AIDS/HIV) can be punished but only after a fair trial before a court and there have to be witnesses to the crime; so it's hard for the punishment to be carried out, unless they actually admit to it, film it, or do so publicly.

 

 

 

Not just women but also men who engage in adultery (sleep with someone who is not their spouse) would be punished, but there have to be exactly 4 witnesses who all saw nothing less than the actual penetration, so unless they are doing it vividly in public or they are filming it or they simply admit to it... the punishment can't be carried out. It's meant to mainly act as a deterrence to keep families together.

 

 

 

War and Peace, on 04 Oct 2015 - 8:59 PM, said:

 

Any higher power put every human here for a reason, and in doing so they would obviously be impartial to anyone's religion, otherwise they wouldn't allow anyone else to live,

 

 

 

All children are born with a natural belief in God, with a "Fitrah" (an innate disposition/inclination), to worship God alone.

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

War and Peace, on 04 Oct 2015 - 8:59 PM, said:

 

and I doubt a higher power would be so weak as to demand worship from the very people it put here to do its work.

 

 

 

He is not in need of our worship, but we're in need of him.

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Lysanderius, on 04 Oct 2015 - 9:13 PM, said:

 

... I'm arguing here because this idiot...

 

 

 

Stop with the name calling and false accusations.

 

 

 

Defending ISIS

 

 

 

 

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/8722-rozalia-vs-ibrahim-on-islamic-misdeeds/?view=findpost&p=150706

 

Rozalia, on 05 Oct 2015 - 6:21 PM, said:

 

It'd be like some loony here blowing up Stonehenge, a loss for the world.

 

 

 

A greater loss would be the hundreds of thousands of women and children that were blown up by whatever despotic regime came to power in the UK.

 

 

 

Rozalia, on 05 Oct 2015 - 6:21 PM, said:

 

Watch as Ibrahim tries to slither his way out of acknowledging the Arch. If addressed I have my money on "it's an Israeli conspiracy, ISIS would not do that".

 

 

 

Let see... every time they did something of this nature they released high quality images or HD videos or both and explained exactly why they did it. That has yet to happen with this "Arch" so lets wait and see before getting all hyped up about this inanimate object.

 

 

 

P.S You lose: Send me a days worth of income asap

 

 

 

Rozalia, on 05 Oct 2015 - 6:21 PM, said:

 

No it don't work like that. They're Sunnis on the same level that the Ku Klux Klan are Protestants, as in loonies most people of their own faith don't want around.

 

 

 

I thought you said you would watch this PBS documentary when you had the time?

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Rozalia, on 05 Oct 2015 - 6:21 PM, said:

 

First of all if you work at a state owned Museum you're going to logically work for the state, in this case Assad, nothing insidious there. Oh no he had a party membership. I suppose Labour party members during the Blair years were all guilty too even though many protested against Blair's aggression.

 

 

 

When did he protest against Assad's actions?

 

 

 

On his Wikipedia page it says he was a "staunch supporter" of Assad right up until his death.

 

 

 

Rozalia, on 05 Oct 2015 - 6:21 PM, said:

 

Would you agree that attacks against Muslims in Britain for ISIS's villainous attacks is warranted? Guilt by association after all, both are Muslims, so both should feel the sting. Yes or no?

 

 

 

1. He was actually a member of Assad's regime.

 

 

 

2. Not all Muslims are soldiers of I.S. or part of their government.

 

 

 

John Harms, on 05 Oct 2015 - 7:12 PM, said:

 

No?

 

They recently held Shia areas in Iraq, are attempting to completely take over Assyrian Christian territory, and have completely devastated the Yezidi areas.

 

 

 

You are bringing up the exceptions to rule.

 

 

 

John Harms, on 05 Oct 2015 - 7:12 PM, said:

 

Are you seriously still blatantly lying to an audience that you KNOW will fact check everything you say, or are you just retarded?

 

 

 

Not lying. Don't use a mental disability as an insult.

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/8722-rozalia-vs-ibrahim-on-islamic-misdeeds/?view=findpost&p=150649

 

Posted by Ibrahim on 05 October 2015 - 03:05 PM in General Debate

 

Rob Ap Ioan, on 05 Oct 2015 - 4:16 PM, said:

 

The problem is that for many nations Religion is part of national identity, why is IS trying to break people? Is that really what Allah wants? Forcing people to change their beliefs leads to contempt from those people.

 

 

 

They only control Sunni territories in Syria and Iraq so they aren't exactly forcing the population to change their beliefs.

 

 

 

Rob Ap Ioan, on 05 Oct 2015 - 4:16 PM, said:

 

killing anyone who stands up against their ideology, the archaeologist of Palmyra being a prime example.

 

 

 

Let's not blow things out of proportion; he worked for the Assad regime that has been indiscriminately bombing the civilian population for years and was a member of Assad's political party. I guarantee you he would have met the same fate had he fallen into the hands of any of the rebel groups or had they simply tied him up in the centre of town and left him to the civilians of any city that had recently experienced barrel bombing.

 

 

 

My house is a mess and I need to attend to my kitties, so I'll be back later with more evidence, perhaps just with the links.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Well done Inst You need more spare time if you are planning to trawl through 18 pages of sensible people banging their assorted heads against the wall!

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Quoting the bible and explaining Sharia law â‰  homophobia.

 

Stating impartial facts ≠ defending ISIS.

[Arthur Wellington]

I agree with OP

In our time ISIS is a great threat to western values, all over Europe, America en Oceania people are afraid of terrorist. Banning this topic would be in line with modding that is already being done.


Ibrahim, if you are not an extremist, what is the problem?

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Ibrahim, if you are not an extremist, what is the problem?

This is the crux of my problem. We have giving Ibrahim plenty of opportunities to say "I am a troll, the ISIS stuff was bait" and yet he never does. I have even told him that pretending to be a fan of ISIS' actions is a stupendously stupid thing to do and yet he continues. What conclusion should we take?

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

In our time ISIS is a great threat to western values, all over Europe, America en Oceania people are afraid of terrorist. Banning this topic would be in line with modding that is already being done.

 

Ibrahim, if you are not an extremist, what is the problem?

 

And in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia... they are afraid of American/European terrorists in the sky dropping bombs on the heads of civilians. It's all a matter of perspective. If you are going to ban any talk of terrorism, I'm all for it, but it has to be done across the board. That's my point.

 

 

American airstrike on a hospital in Afghanistan a few days ago:

  

 

Edited October 10, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Nadir Aminu]

Well, looks like we are all going to get warning points.

[Lu Xun]

I can bring stuff up where you accuse homosexuals of spreading AIDS/HIV, and you're defending the murder of a Syrian archeologist.

 

The point is not whether it's fair, it's about whether it's in line with community norms. If this was www.ShariaandJihad.sa based out of Saudi, sure, you can go rant on about how it's justified to kill the Kafirs, although the government there might get ticked off once in a while, but this is www.politicsandwar.com based out of somewhere in the US West Coast. The game has a responsibility to keep in line with local laws, regulations, as well as norms.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Why would we be warned? All we have done is post facts and opinion based on those facts.

[Milord]

 

Well, looks like we are all going to get warning points.

Hurray finaly gonna get that zero to one

One better than zero

Edited October 10, 2015 by Milord

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I can bring stuff up where you accuse homosexuals of spreading AIDS/HIV.

 

Not true, I specifically said the "acts of homosexuality" (MSM) spreads AIDS/HIV.

 

 

And it does...

 

Your defending the murder of a Syrian archaeologist.

 

For stating the facts? I'll do so again: He wasn't killed for being an archaeologist but for being seen as part of the Assad regime (as he we worked in a very senior position within a government agency), being a member of Assad's political party for decades, and being a "staunch supporter" of Assad who is still massacring the people of Syria.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Keep defending the indefensible and you could be on the government de-radicalisation scheme before the year is out. Well done.

[Moreau]

No discussion forum Read the rules before posting

And the warning point award goes to ( insert name)

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Well where is this sort of useful discussion supposed to take place?

[Peter Quill]

Okay, I think it would be better if we start another thread on the General Debate subforum since we're debating about Islam again, but this time with no name-calling or ad hominem attacks.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

No discussion forum Read the rules before posting

And the warning point award goes to ( insert name)

Actually, this isn't true:

 

This is an open discussion forum.  It's purpose is for players to ask questions or make proposals relating to policy and rules ONLY.  This forum is not for filing reports, making complaints, discussion of game mechanics, or making suggestions pertaining to the game.  There are established forums for each of those issues. 

 

All threads created here, and replies, should remain respectful to staff and other players.  Using this forum for anything other than the purpose explicitly stated will result in warns, leading up to suspension.

That's the rule. And if this thread was solely centered on expanding the ban on hate speech to include Islamic extremism, there would be no problem. Discuss away!

 

The issue arises when the discussion moves from the question on what's hate speech and into one on trying to get Ibrahim to "admit" his support for ISIS. How on Earth is that relevant to this thread or this subforum? And not only that, but if this thread ceases to be on the question of moderation and Islamic extremism, then the mods have every right to lock this thread. 

 

Now, let me tell you why we locked the General Debate thread. Here's the rules of the subforum:

 

 

 

These are to be followed. Failure to follow these rules will result in warn points being added to your profile. The rules are as follows:

• No posts talking about Nazism
• No posts relating to incest regardless if it's legal in some countries. Where this server is located, it is illegal.
• No posts relating to bestiality(see above)
• The moderators can choose to lock a topic if it receives more then two complaints.
• The moderators can update these rules if needed.

 

I've highlighted the relevant portion. Do you know how many complaint's we've received? 2? 4? 6? 8? No, it's 27. 27 complaints by a diverse set of people. The rule is explicit, and that thread was justifiably locked by our mods. The most common complaint is on pro-ISIS rhetoric, followed by complaints on Islamophobia.

 

Will the mod team tolerate hate speech? No. But we have to be cautious in how we approach bans. As mentioned before, Nazism and Neo-Nazism is banned. But we know full well that many players make German-themed nations that skirt close to open support of Nazism. But if they don't do that, we are not going to touch them. Better cautious than overzealous.

 

Now, if Ibrahim is citing passages in the Qur'an or the Hadiths that cite justifications for ISIS, then that's horrible. But we're not going to ban people posting portions of Islamic religious teachings here. And if one literally believes in a Salafist interpretation of Islamic law, then are we going to ban them? Even Quietist Salafists who advocate no such violence? 

 

To take this to another extreme, players have had spirited discussions on same-sex marriage. And there's a portion of the game that believes that SSM is destructive to the institution of marriage and a cancer on society. People have posted Biblical justifications for their opposition to SSM. On the flipside, we have many players who are either LGBT or pro-SSM, many of whom view all opposition to SSM as bigotry. Should we ban players who cite the Bible to engage in what many consider as bigotry? 

 

You can say "but people opposed to SSM" aren't advocating murder or genocide. That's true. But there's almost unanimity on supporting punishment on a person who uses the N-word as an insult. No advocacy for murder there, just offense. And if we shift the purview of moderation from legal prohibitions to simple offense, what can't we ban? So we should ban the perspectives of traditional Christians, right?

 

Well, no. We are trying to balance as much freedom as possible for players of PW with legal and moral arguments supporting restrictions on speech. Nazism and Incest are banned because there are explicit state/national laws forbidding such speech. There is nothing that says you can't cite your religious text to support an ugly position. Otherwise, we would be banning Trump supporters who like the idea of ethnically cleansing the US of Hispanics, or liberals who view all conservatives as idiots. 

 

Is this a final declaration that any and all literalist interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence is allowed here? No, that's why this thread exists: to discuss this now. We want community feedback on how to balance out respect for Muslim players but also condemning and prohibiting hate speech. Regardless  of Ibrahim's denial/non-denial of his support for ISIS, the discussion can be had without reference to him or his words. The issue is far larger and important than petty forum disputes.

 

So just to make it clear:

 

- You can continue to discuss how moderation should tackle the issue of Islamic Extremism on the forums.

- You can discuss about the wider scope of forum moderation and hate speech.

- Discussion on what constitutes hate speech.

- You can argue about moderation in general.

 

But what you cannot do is try to make this all about Ibrahim and his hypothetical support for the Islamic State. Nor can Ibrahim try to argue the issue here as well. That discussion is over, or you will be warned. And if the authorities have been involved on this matter and Ibrahim is in legal trouble, then discussing this is irrelevant regardless. Either Ibrahim is a troll or is in custody. Problem solved at that point.

 

Ultimately Sheepy and the rest of the moderation team will formulate a response to this issue, and the wider role of hate in the forums in general. But it's going to take time, feedback from the community, and it's not going to be clear-cut and logical. We're dealing with emotions and history, after all.

 

But sometimes moderation is more art than moderation. A lot of people don't get that.

[Dimitri Valko]

But sometimes moderation is more art than moderation. A lot of people don't get that.

 

Love the reference at the end.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Dimitri Valko

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

Oh wait, Moderation doesn't ban ISIS/Terrorism. when I reported it I got warned. 

[Lu Xun]

This thread is not about banning users, but banning behavior. There are statements that are extremely inflammatory, offensive, and either terrible or just plain trollbait. This thread isn't about trying to expel either an extremist or a troll from the community, but curtailing certain actions that seem beyond the pale.

 

About the moderator's comment, offense is actually warnable; for instance, some people here may have shock-site collections on their hard drives ready for posting (I keep my shock-site collection on the internet; if I need it, I'll Google for it). If they were to do so, would they receive a warn, a suspension, or a ban? Here, certain levels of offense can result in moderator action and prohibition.

 

With my community standards argument, the point is that certain users' rhetoric is already sufficiently offensive that it is either trollbait of the best quality or past the boundaries of what should be permissible on these forums. I am not someone who has a fundamental problem with what certain users have been saying, but I think it's problematic that they are saying it here, and of course certain sources suggest that these users are merely trolling, and using this type of trollbait (is that guy even based in the UK?) is excessive.

 

What I would like to see here is a moderate Muslim opinion on this entire state of affairs. My view is still that certain posters should be proscribed from making their argument, because they are making an offensive argument in a way that has already gotten people to call the relevant law enforcement agencies. This should not be necessary; moderation should crack down on this type of behavior before anyone feels it necessary to invoke higher authorities.

[Lu Xun]

As far as permissible speech goes, let me first venture that death threats or suicide threats should not be permissible on these forums, because the former is a severe form of harassment, the latter provides legal quandaries if someone follows through, so the hassle of dealing with this should be avoided.

 

By extension, speech that calls for the death of an entire group, ethnic, religious, based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability status should be proscribed because it is similar in form to death threats as well as being beneath the tolerated general discussion level.

 

To a lesser degree, speech that calls for the torture or assault of groups based on their minority or majority status should be curtailed, because it is sufficiently similar to calling for the extermination of a group, and while lesser in severity it is still talk of something sufficiently unpleasant that CNN and the liberal media would go over it for months.

 

To take this to another extreme, players have had spirited discussions on same-sex marriage. And there's a portion of the game that believes that SSM is destructive to the institution of marriage and a cancer on society. People have posted Biblical justifications for their opposition to SSM. On the flipside, we have many players who are either LGBT or pro-SSM, many of whom view all opposition to SSM as bigotry. Should we ban players who cite the Bible to engage in what many consider as bigotry?

 

 

 

You can say "but people opposed to SSM" aren't advocating murder or genocide. That's true. But there's almost unanimity on supporting punishment on a person who uses the N-word as an insult. No advocacy for murder there, just offense. And if we shift the purview of moderation from legal prohibitions to simple offense, what can't we ban? So we should ban the perspectives of traditional Christians, right?

Applied to this, saying stuff like calling for the death or torture of the LGBT community would be beyond the pale. If a certain user is trolling, they have been making a good skirt of what is excessively offensive and what is acceptable, because they have only indirectly made arguments like "God hates !@#$s". In general, though, I think that statements that are against the group, as opposed to protecting traditional marriage or wanting to put limitations on gay people for their sexuality can be considered at least undesirable, let's put it this way:

 

I talked to a certain gentleman who was an instructor in game design as well as a gaming entrepreneur. He didn't make it big, but he knows his stuff and passed up on an EVE Online localization, which failed in his target market.

 

We were discussing a certain game, and one of the things he brought up was that it was too subcultural. What that means is that the game has ethos and cultures that are very niche, compared to mainstream society, and for business purposes it was undesirable, because mainstream society would find that offensive. As I mentioned in previous posts, one of the goals of game design and management should be to offend as few potential users as possible. The subcultural attribute of homophobia, at least in its most degenerate forms such as lynching and violent assault, and in its less degenerate forms as vulgar religious offense, is undesirable.

 

In the same way, saying stuff against Israel (unless AIPAC has finally self-destructed due to the way the Iran sanctions deal was handled), can be seen as offensive and at least has to be monitored for the tendency to become anti-Semitic and go beyond the standards of good taste. Supporting ISIS is offensive in the same way, and let's say a certain person brings along a couple of his friends, it may become problematic due to the association with Islamic extremism.

 

On the other hand, of course, having a ton of Islamic fundamentalists to argue with could be seen as a draw for users, but I don't think a certain person's arguments are very convincing in their sophistication.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

The moderator (Rick Sanchez) got this spot on.

 

I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with people who love to argue for the sake of arguing. Bye!

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

I would like to thank Inst's for his contribution above. It's a great perspective on this matter. The moderators do not condone Islamic extremism or speech. But we also are wary of creating a precedent where forum members can hound one member for his views, no matter how loathsome those views may be.

 

I would like to see what the other moderators and Sheepy have to say on your posts. But lots of food for thought, that's for sure.

[Ayayay]

If you want to say you hate something or want an entire group of people gone, go ahead. For example, if someone watched their family be killed by some nations army, it's only natural that they would want revenge/assume everyone of that nationality deserves death. The question is whether or not it should be allowed on the forums, not if it's legal or illegal. (I can't speak for England, but in America, unless Khalifa was inciting imminent lawless actions, which I doubt he was, he is in the clear. Since most players are in the USA, that definition would pretty much mean people can say whatever the !@#$ they want.) And obviously, a private business can do whatever the hell it wants in regards to censoring speech. I personally don't really care about what some random shit on the other side of the world thinks or says. If someone wants to say "Kill all Americans" then God bless them, I wish them the best of luck in their endeavors. I also don't really take it as a threat because, again, how is a random shit on the other side of the world realistically going to perpetuate a genocide? They can't. It's akin to a barking chihuahua, yea it's kinda loud, but it's a damn chihuahua. The most your going to do is chuckle or antagonize the little shit for the lols. In this instance, I do kinda care because it makes my religion look bad, but unless he's actively supporting ISIS (which he denies and no one has posted evidence of (unless I missed it)) then I personally don't think he's crossed a line that warrants a banning. 

 

Now don't get me wrong, I would love to see this retard gagged and, if I was an alliance leader, would immediately roll TKR for no other reason than harboring this PoS. But until he starts Doxxing people and starts saying he's going to fly to America and put a bullet someones head, I'm not sure should be banned.

 

There's also the very shaky ground that comes from the term "terrorist organization" as well. Everyone and their mother has a different definition of terrorism and I'd hate to see that power abused by a mod who's looking for an excuse to ban someone for In-game reasons (and let's not pretend that there's no chance of it happening, mods in this game have been called out for obvious biases before)

 

Edit: A good example is Hezbollah. They are labeled as a terrorist organization by America and Israel yet are a legitimate political party and military group in Lebanon who has the authority to fight and liberate occupied territory. If we ban supporting Terrorist organizations, would we ban supporting Hezbollah in any situation? (ex. I'd rather Hezbollah take over Lebanon than ISIS) Where is the line where we decide which group is legitimate and which group is a terrorist organization? Do we say it's any organization that has unanimously been called a terrorist group? Hell, even ISIS receives support from Turkey, a NATO member and, by extension, an American ally. My questions are what would the line be, how would that line be decided, and how can we avoid biased moderation?

Edited October 12, 2015 by Metro

[Dimitri Valko]

Now don't get me wrong, I would love to see this retard gagged

 

Now, I agree with you and all...

... but...

 

Flaming, Baiting, Trolling, Racism, and Name Calling

• Flaming - posts targeted at a player in an effort to anger, hurt, insult, harass, or provoke.
• Baiting – coercing a player into breaking the rules.
• Trolling - deliberately provocative posting with the aim of inciting an angry response.
• Name Calling - abusive or insulting language referring to a person or group. *Prohibited everywhere except role play forums, and only in role play forums where it is being used within reason with no intent to flame, bait, troll, insult, or hurt.
• Racism - having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Dimitri Valko

[Ayayay]

Now, I agree with you and all...

... but...

 

 

 

 

Flaming - posts targeted at a player in an effort to anger, hurt, insult, harass, or provoke.

Baiting – coercing a player into breaking the rules.

Trolling - deliberately provocative posting with the aim of inciting an angry response.

Name Calling - abusive or insulting language referring to a person or group. *Prohibited everywhere except role play forums, and only in role play forums where it is being used within reason with no intent to flame, bait, troll, insult, or hurt.

Racism - having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.

Then I guess I get a !@#$ing warn huh? How about you just report the damn post like you are supposed to do instead of being a !@#$ about it?