Forum rules change request

[Bootstoots]

So then is the topic about the 9-11 attack forbidden?

No. If it's a 9/11 Truth argument, you're not likely to get a very positive response, and we might have to close the thread if there's too much flaming and/or trolling (either by you, or by respondents, or both). Claims that are widely considered to be conspiracy theories aren't very popular in OT. But you are allowed to post such a thread there if you want.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

The rest of the rules outline those limits. Is there a particular aspect of those rules which you believe should be loosened, or specific guidelines that you believe are too narrow? Raising the issue of arbitrariness seems to imply that you believe there is some portion of the rules or some policy which we have implemented, which is prone to arbitrariness.

Yes I consider the terminolgy outlined by the malignant ideology of "political correctness" to be grotesquely arbitrary & hypocritical. Deceiptful terms such as "homophobic", "racist" & "sexist" are only for the purpose of squelching free thought. Maybe Ill have time to elaborate further later but the main reason I brought it up is because Im convinced the attack on 9-11 is an inside job and I usually encounter censorship everywhere on this topic so I thought Id ask for a policy change.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

No. If it's a 9/11 Truth argument, you're not likely to get a very positive response, and we might have to close the thread if there's too much flaming and/or trolling (either by you, or by respondents, or both). Opinions that are widely considered conspiracy theories aren't very popular in OT. But you are allowed to post such a thread there if you want.

Well, thats not a bad start. I dont usually fire the first flame at anyone who disagree's with me but I get aspersions & threats in abundance from those who oppose it. I notice that my response on the ISIS topic was deleted however. Is that going to be a common occurance?

 

[Bootstoots]

Well, thats not a bad start. I dont usually fire the first flame at anyone who disagree's with me but I get aspersions & threats in abundance from those who oppose it. I notice that my response on the ISIS topic was deleted however. Is that going to be a common occurance?

Not generally - it appears someone thought it was spam.

 

[Bootstoots]

I just looked back at the post report - what happened is that you included a number of links to another forum. Generally, posting links to other forums is considered advertising and is not allowed. You can add a link to a site in your signature, though.

Here are the forum rules. The part about links is found under "What Is Not Allowed" at the bottom of the first post:

Advertising
Advertising is not allowed in any forum. Commercial advertising will be deleted on-sight, and the poster will receive a permanent ban. Commercial advertising, even in your signature, is not permitted.

This advertising policy extends to posting in or starting a thread in one forum, so as to entice people to visit a thread in another forum. If you want to do this, then place the advertisement in your signature.

External links related to the thread topic - such as to other history forums, or news articles - are acceptable.

If you have a civilization-related link to advertise, you can place one thread about it in our Other Civ Related Sites forum, or you may advertise it in your signature. For people wanting to advertise other things of interest to Civ players, you must receive permission from an admin first.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

External links related to the thread topic - such as to other history forums, or news articles - are acceptable.

That is what the links were. Perhaps the mod was a little too trigger happy.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I didnt ask for permission to violate rules and I wasnt asking for your sympathy. I only asked for a change in one rule to improve free discussion.

Perhaps I should have used the term "support" or "agreement."

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Maybe Ill have time to elaborate further later but the main reason I brought it up is because Im convinced the attack on 9-11

I refer you back to post #4 in this discussion.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

I refer you back to post #4 in this discussion.

Oh I suspect that most wont believe it. As the sayings go,

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." In 1907, the renowned philosopher and psychologist William James (1842{1910) put
forward a similar observation in support of his theory of pragmatism:
"I fully expect to see the pragmatist view of truth run through the classic stages
of a theory's career. First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd; then
it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it is seen to be so
important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it. [19, p.
198]"

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788{1860), who wrote in
1818 [29]
Der Wahrheit ist allerzeit nur ein kurzes Siegesfest beschieden, zwischen den
beiden langen ZeitrÄaumen, wo sie als Paradox verdammt und als Trivial gering
geschÄatzt wird.
which is translated as follows:
"To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long
periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as trivial."

And as Orwell noted, "In times of universal deceipt, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". I rebel.

 

[Silurian]

Slaakman have you ever been banned from another site that had a rule such as the one you want changed.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

Yes. Im alarmed about the apathy overshadowing the country. We tolerate grotesque fraud on a massive scale which "Political Correctness" exemplifies but devious fanatics endeavor to cover up.

 

[Synobun]

Yes. Im alarmed about the apathy overshadowing the country. We tolerate grotesque fraud on a massive scale which "Political Correctness" exemplifies but devious fanatics endeavor to cover up.

If you're being consistently banned everywhere you go, have you considered looking inwards rather than outwards when trying to determine why this is?

Your free speech isn't being impeded. Don't be rude and don't publicly encourage awful things and you're fine. This is not a public/government forum, it is privately owned and privately run. You play by the rules set by the administration. As long as you do that, you're welcome to express your views as they are as long as you can refrain from saying civil quips like "death to Muslims" or "ban all gays". You'll notice the views that don't advocate radical changes that commit harm over entire demographics tend to be able to stick around just fine.

It is not a symptom of political correctness that old time views like black people are sub-human or women aren't worthy have flown out the window.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

Ive been banned from 6 other forums for the very same reason: 9-11 is an Inside Job. They dont even try to refute the evidence provided. They simply dont want anything suggesting that we have a corruption as extreme as that inside the government. Why they have chosen to defend this is equally extremely peculiar.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: This thread is about a proposed rule change, let us not get derailed into 9-11 conspiracy theories.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Silurian]

I admire your candour.

As far as I have seen here you will not be banned for arguing that 911 was carried by people other than those who it is widely accepted carried it out.

How you argue, could.
But you are not asking for a change in the other rules.

Why don’t you start a thread in OT. Most people will not agree with you, myself included, but if you present your case in a reasoned way most people will engage in a reasonable manner. If you just provide links to obscure websites with no support from yourself such a thread will crash and burn. You should also note that most people will not watch linked videos especially if they are from people with no reputation

 

[SLAAKMAN]

Moderator Action: This thread is about a proposed rule change, let us not get derailed into 9-11 conspiracy theories.

So where do we stand on the request? Is it a possibility?

 

[Bootstoots]

As I said above, you are allowed to make a 9/11 Truth thread in Off-Topic. Be sure to summarize any articles you link to, as well as any videos you include (which should also be fairly short). Otherwise people may not bother to read/watch them. Our policies on civility and what constitutes flaming, trolling, and inappropriate language are fairly strict, and it's likely that the thread won't be very well-received, so try to avoid getting into flamewars even if provoked. With all that in mind, feel free to post your thread.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

As I said above, you are allowed to make a 9/11 Truth thread in Off-Topic. Be sure to summarize any articles you link to, as well as any videos you include (which should also be fairly short). Otherwise people may not bother to read/watch them. Our policies on civility and what constitutes flaming, trolling, and inappropriate language are fairly strict, and it's likely that the thread won't be very well-received, so try to avoid getting into flamewars even if provoked. With all that in mind, feel free to post your thread.

Acknowledged. Thanks.

 

[leif erikson]

So where do we stand on the request? Is it a possibility?

The rules have stood the test of time for more than a decade. Nothing you have presented make a compelling case to make any change.

In fact, the long time members of this community that have posted have made the case to keep things as they are.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

The rules have stood the test of time for more than a decade. Nothing you have presented make a compelling case to make any change.

Understood. However the year is still young.

In fact, the long time members of this community that have posted have made the case to keep things as they are.

Its not uncommon for a clique of regulars to maintain a grip over the general theme of a forum. Ive encountered it frequently. In fact it could even be considered a "conspiiiiiracy"!

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi