marharth

If someone is working tirelessly to destroy someones reputation they are not a troll in my opinion. That goes farther then just making someone upset for enjoyment. They probably have a different goal, that is likely already illegal under current laws.

Seems like a good idea to bankrupt people for making someone mad online. If it gets past the point of just making someone mad for enjoyment, it is no longer trolling.

Pay phones? What are those? Oh... you mean those mostly extinct things that they used to have in subway stations and airports which are now almost certainly all watched by one or two cameras? There are no more payphones on street corners, or outside places of business. As each pay phone has a unique number tied to a specific location, and everyone has video surveillance these days, that's pretty much a sure way to leave a trail. Granted that it is unlikely for anyone to be bothered enough to track you down, it isn't usually a viable method of harassing someone since there are so few pay phones around any more. And even then, you're dropping about a $0.50 in change every time, and usually wasting it since everyone screens their calls these days due to the constant telemarketers and campaign calls. There are cheaper and easier methods these days to get your misanthropic fun. There are methods of using computers for calls that can not be traced as well. Still that only addressed one part of my point.

People can just use a pay phone or something similar. People who actually do prank calls commonly don't use private phones. I will go back to what I said before. If you don't want people messing with you ignore them. If its on facebook make it only viewable to friends. If its on instant messengers block them. Don't give out private information to random people if you don't want them contacting you. It is very rare that people NEED to have their information posted online. Making online harassment illegal won't just get rid of the large cases, it will also get rid of extremely minor things too. Letting people know who you are just because they don't like you is a terrible idea. I do not think the people making the law can properly draw the line.

So in extreme cases it is already covered by other laws correct?

Prank calls for example.

Some pranks are illegal, some others just mean a civil suit, exactly because they hurt someone or cause damage to property. Blowing up mailboxes for example. What about verbal pranks?

Isn't that kind of what pranks are? Doing things that would be considered bad and possibly embarrass or hurt someone for your enjoyment? Should pranks be illegal?

If you want to make bullying or trolling illegal, why make it illegal for social media and online interactions? Why not make the law in a way that would apply to everything and not solely focus on internet?

I read your PM, this is more of a response to the PM then the above message. I understand that a lot of trolls can be terrible people, but is it really worth criminalizing it? It seems like what you mentioned could already fall under other laws. My general point is that trying to make "trolling" illegal or regulating the internet is a bad idea in general. If you need to make this illegal, make laws that do not specifically target online activities.

...OR give a Tinker's Cuss about. >.> Where is the line drawn for what you consider harassment? What if you get upset over a political view? What if you get upset over a religious view? It doesn't matter if you get upset in my opinion. You need to learn how to deal with these things and not take them seriously. Shouldn't be punishing people who might make you a bit mad just because you can't deal with different views or opinions.

One way to block people entirely would to not give out your information online. Staying anonymous is a nice thing. Might be a bit inconsiderate, but I find it extremely stupid when people use sites like facebook and then complain when people harass you. Don't post personal information online in a public place if you don't want to be harassed. In extreme situations, its already covered by other laws that do not require enforcing the internet.

That is pretty much what my point is. If it is so bad that you can't simply block or ignore someone, it is probably already illegal in another way. Making laws specifically for the internet is a bad idea.

If someone is harassing you online it is pretty easy to completely block them if needed. Forcing people to be polite is not going to work, and isn't a great idea anyways.

Nothing involving the internet should be made illegal. Its fine how it is now and we don't need anyone regulating it. It is pretty much the only "place" you can go and say whatever you want. It is the only true place for freedom of speech, and we don't need anyone messing that up. Is this actually a serious discussion? Hard to believe that people support suppressing freedom of speech just because someone makes them mad. Having a open internet has some downsides, but that's what you have to deal with for freedom. How about realizing no one is actually serious online half of the time? Having the internet open is far too important to have it destroyed due to people getting mad.

You post these blithe wannabe pithy comments in the inaccurate beleif that you cannot be rebutted.... wrong. Unlike some, I won't pretend that I do not read all the posts in a thread I originate. So now it's time to put up or shut up...kindly go to your trophy case of debating Oscar's and pull one out for us all to see where you achieved this epiphany with another debater. To which I mean precisely what thread and with whom....links please. Wow you are really mad at me, calm down. I used to believe that assault rifles should be legal to own, but switched sides on that. That was on one of the first gun control debate topics I posted on. Think its in here somewhere - http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/437260-guns-or-not-guns/ Clearly changed my view on that. Also the whole Muslim Brotherhood thing. Don't remember what exact topic that was in though since it was a off topic discussion.

Pay more attention if you haven't ever seen anyone switch sides.

Wasn't meant as a reply to you, just wanted to say that as a reply to everyone in thread. Not really following this debate much, so don't see most of the posts.

I don't necessarily agree with Moveing in the sense that governments should allow automatic weapons, but I think he is correct that the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or self defense. It is for the defense of your nation, or if necessary a revolution.

You took a picture of yourself holding a gun in front of one of my posts? Wow, there's some good subtext. Best not make any assumptions, you have a proven track record of being horribly incorrect. :rolleyes: He is incorrect because he disagrees with you a lot. Okay.

We are obviously communist spies planted here to cause people to argue about gun control on a gaming forum about RPGs. No question about it. The debate section is just a joke these days.

Its the civil disorder that calls for revolution. At least in regards to the Dominion anyway. The Dragon Invasion generally isn't the same kind of issue as the Dominion (namely because there isn't a prophesied savior that will destroy the Dominion threat as there is with the Dragon invasion), and every side is dealing with it regardless of the other issues at hand. Yea well it would be easier to deal with both of them if the empire wasn't weakened by a war. It takes years to set up a new government and to build a new army.

I am concerned about the whole hero thing in general. How much of a bad guy can you be? I never play a good guy in TES. Sometimes something of a anti hero, but if the MMO is going to force you to be good without the evil choices it is terrible. Also think I heard somewhere that you CAN'T explore the entire map. Just sections of the map.

If we're talking about the value of just life. Then yes, the president has the same value as each soldier that is sent into the field, and should be honored and respected for their service to the country. But if we're talking about the value of one's position and capacities in the world, there will always be an inequality because not all people are given the same advantages and accesses as others, for practicality reasons. What is being discussed here is not about the value of life, but the value in how that life is allocated towards a given cause. A scholar would have more value and benefit towards intellectual pursuits than they would necessarily have on the front lines, just as a someone without any advanced education probably would not offer much benefit in a planning meeting. I would however point out that it was likely one of those "uneducated" folks who thought to weld pieces of steel from the beaches to the front of tanks to help break through the hedgerows that would have otherwise delayed progress on the eastern front, and could have probably cost the war. So there are certain skills and bits of ingenuity which cannot be accounted by a piece of paper or wealthy upbringing. To regard any soldier as simply cannon fodder is a mistake. I am not saying that solders are cannon fodder or that they are not important. I am saying someone who can engineer a weapon or plan strategy is more important for the overall war effort. Wasting resources by putting those people onto the front lines is a bad idea.

If you get pulled out of college for a draft you will not be helping with strategy, engineering, or anything that requires advanced thought. The entire reason the draft exists is to get more firepower. Someone who could help with engineering a new weapon later on, or help with advancing the entire world with their knowledge, IS worth more then a average solider. You shouldn't risk their lives as firepower. Sorry but that is simply the truth. The scientists working on the atomic bomb were of the same importance of a single solider fighting from a trench for days? The people who planned Operation Overlord were of the same importance as a solider storming the beach? The president, who could probably end humanity if given the right situations, is of the same importance of a single person fighting overseas? Can you seriously say that, or is that just an attempt for some kind of moral high ground?