Forum Policies

[Jopo1980]

Ok, first let me point out that as far as I know there is NOTHING in the forum rules saying that forum policies cannot be debated. Now, this thread will most likely become a center for political dissent on forum rules and policies and if the moderators or Dark0ne himself shuts this thread down, they will be proving themselves more akin to the People´s Republic of China or the Soviet Union, where dissent would land you in jail, than a western democracy which has respect for free speech.

 

But then again, who ever said that these forums are ruled by democratic means? These forums are the PROPERTY of private individuals and they exercise COMPLETE and DICTATORIAL power over it. The moderators are selected by the owner or owners at their whim, not by popular vote and the moderators exercise their delegated powers on their own discretion, without having to worry about public approval. Anyone dissenting or disagreeing with forum rules can be shut out of all debate by BANNING on the decision of a sole moderator.

 

I for one view this as investing TOO MUCH power on single individuals, namely the moderators, whom I do not trust since I have not voted for them. In my opinion the moderators should NOT have the power to BAN anyone, or at least be limited to a TEMPORARY BAN, ranging from a few weeks to a couple of months, as is the practice on many games servers. PERMANENT bans should be reserved ONLY for those actively trying to harm the forums by hacking or otherwise disrupting the service.

 

Furthermore, moderators should enjoy public trust and be selected by the public, namely the members.

 

One forum policy I disagree on is the forums stance on PIRACY. By an imperious edict from Dark0ne, all reference to piracy is punishable by instant and permanent banning. Personally I have witnessed people being banned for nothing more than politically agreeing with piracy. If Dark0ne wishes to make a political statement disapproving of piracy, then he should not FORCE others to agree with his policies under the threat of BANNING. This is POLITICAL REPRESSION. In Finland and Sweden the pirates are a legal party with their own agenda and candidates from other parties have also taken on the agenda of allowing piracy for personal use. I believe that piracy is a force of nature that will shape the information society, being too widespread to root out by the police or any other law enforcement agency. Under forum rules I am FORCED to disapprove of piracy, but will that be more than a lip service, just to keep me from getting banned is up to others to decide and with that there is the question: How many in these forums, including the moderators and Dark0ne himself have either had pirated materials on their computers in the past or have them now, but choose to keep the fact a secret in order not to get banned from these forums.

Or is it something more? Has Dark0ne issued this anti-pirate edict in order to look good to software industries and other copyrights holders? Is it just to placate the big business? After all, these websites are in close cooperation with Bethesda and other games companies and they would probably withdraw support for this website if there was public support for piracy there. Nevertheless, DEBATING about piracy is part of free speech, but that is being curtailed by the forums anti-pirate stance, which orders the banning of all those who even SUPPORT piracy politically. This is stifling debate and classifiable as POLITICAL REPRESSION, much akin to the People´s Republic of China or other non-democratic societies and the moderators are the ENFORCERS of this system.

As the ban publication thread bears witness, numerous members have been banned for unwittingly confessing to piracy and this is costing these forums a LOT of good members. I call upon this policy to be lifted or modified, for piracy to be a 1 strike offense or an offense punishable by a TEMPORARY ban.

 

Further, I call upon ALL bans to be lifted or converted to temporary bans, except for those issued for hacking or other destructive acts.

Furthermore, I call upon the establishment of GUEST channels, where non-registered members or those banned, can post their messages and therefore speak on their behalf. Currently a banned person has absolutely no way of appealing or defending his/her position as they are completely shut out of the forums. Perhaps this is so that Dark0ne and the moderators don´t have to listen to the whining of those they banned, hmmm? Neverhteless, it is in the rights of the defendant to defend his position and he /she should have the appropriate channels to do that.

 

Now, others may bring forth their issues concerning forum policies.

[zegh8578]

"free speech" is often brought up on internet forums

but here's the hitch: forums are often private, and in private venues there _is not_ always free speech. for example, in my humble home, i have the right to expel anybody for making fun of me. free speech does not apply. and nobody can get a court order that grants them the right to force themselves back into my home after i have thrown them out - even if i based my decision solely on their spoken opinion.

[marharth]

imo free speech should always apply, even in private organizations.

 

That being said I think the nexus moderators are extremely good with what they do.

[Werne]

I have no problems with the site's policies, it's quite fair actually. And since the site is in UK, the UK laws apply so Finnish and Swedish pirates are welcome here as long as they are obeying the rules of the site. Endorsing piracy and mentioning they agree with piracy is still referencing to piracy which is an offence punishable by banning. Also, you may talk about political repression all you want, these forums are a private property of the Dark0ne, you and I are guests here, and we must obey the Dark0ne's rules.

 

Think of it as a house owned by Dark0ne, and you are allowed to enter it as long as you obey the rules. If you start making problems in his house, he'll throw you out.

 

I trust the moderators because they proved reliable and they do their job very well, otherwise this site would turn into a troll feeding ground. It doesn't matter if you choose them or not, what matters is their ability to do the job, and they proved that they are capable of performing their duties. Also, it's not your job to choose them, it's Dark0ne's job because, I repeat, this is his private property.

 

It's just my opinion, you may like it or not, I don't care.

[HeyYou]

I have no problems with the site's policies, it's quite fair actually. And since the site is in UK, the UK laws apply so Finnish and Swedish pirates are welcome here as long as they are obeying the rules of the site. Endorsing piracy and mentioning they agree with piracy is still referencing to piracy which is an offence punishable by banning. Also, you may talk about political repression all you want, these forums are a private property of the Dark0ne, you and I are guests here, and we must obey the Dark0ne's rules.

 

Think of it as a house owned by Dark0ne, and you are allowed to enter it as long as you obey the rules. If you start making problems in his house, he'll throw you out.

 

I trust the moderators because they proved reliable and they do their job very well, otherwise this site would turn into a troll feeding ground. It doesn't matter if you choose them or not, what matters is their ability to do the job, and they proved that they are capable of performing their duties. Also, it's not your job to choose them, it's Dark0ne's job because, I repeat, this is his private property.

 

It's just my opinion, you may like it or not, I don't care.

 

This, 100% right on the money. Dark0ne's House, Dark0ne's rules. Don't like the rules? You can make suggestions in the forum specifically for that purpose, but, that it no way guarantees anything will change. Still have issues? Learn to control them, or, you will be history in short order.

[zegh8578]

imo free speech should always apply, even in private organizations.

 

That being said I think the nexus moderators are extremely good with what they do.

 

 

that makes for a lot of potential mayhem

such as people being completely free to interrupt a church sermon with anti-religious opinion

 

free speech even in the open public isnt without problems, such as hate speech, designed to lure dimwits into the fold of dangerous organizations - for then to pose a real danger to society or single individuals

 

free speech is observed on the internet, and the concequences are allready felt, such as with the shooting in norway, where the shooter admittedly based himself in blogs and articles read online.

 

free speech is very good in a world where everyone is sensible. unfortunately, everyone is far from sensible. sad truth.

Edited November 26, 2011 by zegh8578

[McclaudEagle]

First, I respect Dark0ne's judgement, and as a result trust those he places some degree of power in, such as the moderators. Despite what you may think, popular vote is not a good thing. It would end up becoming a popularity contest, and those who were popular enough might well be incompetent.

 

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Winston Churchill

 

What he meant there was that democracy's biggest flaw is that most voters don't actually have a clue what they're talking about, and will simply vote for the one who is most popular or 'good'.

 

As for moderator powers, rarely has there been a false or inappropriate banning, so actually, this isn't a cause for concern anyway.

 

And finally, the part about piracy. Your so called "free speech" means nothing on a privately owned forum. There has to be rules, otherwise this site would become another degenerates playground. I'm going to make this as simple as I can...

 

Piracy is a crime, it's illegal and can land you in serious jail time and lots of fines. Being banned from the forums for admitting to piracy is the fault of the pirate. They deserve to be banned. And actually, banned members can appeal their ban by using the appeal system put in place.

[Jopo1980]

Free speech is the very essence of these public forums and if that is curtailed in some fashion, then we all become nothing more than Yes men, for the administrators and often disloyal such, because we cannot speak our minds in fear of sanctions. It is a brave man who speaks truth to a tyrant.

 

The problem is that indeed these forums are PRIVATE PROPERTY, and the owners can set whatever rules they like and a CONDITION of joining the forums is to accept the rules, if you remember having to check the box when you joined, so basically in disapproving of ANY of the rules, we are breaching the agreement made when we joined.

 

The moderators may be good at what they do, but that doesn´t mean I have to trust them or support them and I won´t because I DID NOT VOTE FOR THEM. They did not ask my opinion when they appointed the moderators, so I´m not obliged to support them.

[Werne]

Free speech is the very essence of these public forums and if that is curtailed in some fashion, then we all become nothing more than Yes men, for the administrators and often disloyal such, because we cannot speak our minds in fear of sanctions. It is a brave man who speaks truth to a tyrant.

 

The problem is that indeed these forums are PRIVATE PROPERTY, and the owners can set whatever rules they like and a CONDITION of joining the forums is to accept the rules, if you remember having to check the box when you joined, so basically in disapproving of ANY of the rules, we are breaching the agreement made when we joined.

 

Free speech is ok, as long as it doesn't breach the site rules. Disaproving of the rules is not breaching the agreement, breaking the rules is, don't mix the two separate things. You are free to disaproove the rules, but don't break them.

[Jopo1980]

If we applied the same rule that seems to govern the selection of moderators, that they just do a good job, to the state, then we would have a TECHNOCRACY or a MERITOCRACY where the individuals in power would be selected on there prior performance or some other criteria defining how "good" they are in their job, instead of popular vote. So, would you like the President to be someone you like or someone who is REALLY good at what he does?