Are we 100 percent free on freedom speech on NT?

[dagrandesoda]

This was my way of saying that though after the 800th chance, i'm scared that how i feel and what my interested are seem to cause so much commotion to the point where i feel like i'm not free. Let me ask you a question meth. If I made a BBW apperciation topic would that be allowed? OR what if I made topicis about how immigrantion rules are needed to control the population and level of stablity in this country?

 

[kdawg]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by Dagrandesoda

Originally Posted by odog24

the guy who started that was hilarious

Right here sir

I still don't know what it means or why it's banned. I missed out on that going on NT general just like how I missed out on when MonStar1 got known for rhyming in all of his posts and why it's so funny.

It was never hilarious - just incredibly irritating so I added it to the profanity filter.

 

[sillyputty]

Meth, you're misunderstanding my point.

I'm not complaining (this time) nor am I trying to list my grievances. Its simply highlighting a topic that relates to moderation on NikeTalk...

However you can't get mad and start making puns when someone responds to the OP by addressing a concern of what is considered "offensive" or not. Its true.

I happen to agree with many of your criticisms of "adequate" and "appropriate" behavior...I just happen to also understand that my perspective on many "emotional" issues doesn't introduce an objective basis of determining any wrong doing.

This isn't about forcing anyone to do anything. You're taking your liberties with that argument. I wasn't even addressing that.

Its simply that to answer the OP's question, NikeTalk DOES use a subjective definition of many of the policies it chooses to enforce. Right or wrong (and i'm not taking sides), its for the moderators to decide. 

 

[Methodical Management]

This was my way of saying that though after the 800th chance, i'm scared that how i feel and what my interested are seem to cause so much commotion to the point where i feel like i'm not free.

You are free.  You're free to find another forum that better suits your needs.  
NikeTalk isn't the only website in the universe.  If you're afraid to post something, don't post it.  If that diminishes your experience to the point where you decide you'd rather post somewhere else.... post somewhere else.  

You have richly earned a reputation for trolling at this point and you have nobody to blame for that but yourself.  If a guy with a history of trolling goes around posting controversial threads, of course we're going to think that you're just desperate for attention and looking to provoke a response.  It's up to you to prove that you've "changed," not up to us to be "open minded" enough to let you post troll threads and assume that you have only the purest of intentions.  

When you're down to your last foul, you have to play defense differently.  Maybe you contest rather than going for the block.  Maybe you let someone on the break go uncontested rather than trying to hack them.  I'm not responsible for your predicament and if you want to post here then you'll have to figure out how to earn back the trust you so thoroughly destroyed with all of those troll accounts.  Don't expect me to sit here feeling sorry for you because you're "afraid" to start a post to bash immigrants. 

Its simply that to answer the OP's question, NikeTalk DOES use a subjective definition of many of the policies it chooses to enforce.

As opposed to what, an objective definition of those policies?  

Right or wrong (and i'm not taking sides), its for the moderators to decide. 

Yeah, so if it's not for you to "take sides" then I suppose those cute little faces you posted alongside your message were in no way judgmental, right?  

Just keep right on backpedaling until you've found your way back to the front page.  

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Right or wrong (and i'm not taking sides), its for the moderators to decide. 

Yeah, so if it's not for you to "take sides" then I suppose those cute little faces you posted alongside your message were in no way judgmental, right?  

Just keep right on backpedaling until you've found your way back to the front page.  


Uh...is there a problem with me responding to you? I feel like you're taking this the wrong way.

Its like you're trying to come at me. I really have no problem with you and like I said, I agree with most of what you posted.

 I'm really taking this as light-hearted as possible. I only came in here to post my stance on what the OP asked. 

The point is: Whatever is considered offensive is what is determined as "offensive" by Moderators...not the users themselves. Right or wrong.

Is that not the case? 

I don't know where I'm backpedaling.

One emoticon or ten, I don't see how that challenges or negates that assertion.

If a "

" emotion makes you feel a certain way, I'll be sure not to use them so as to not confuse what I'm saying.  But do you want my original context? Its nothing more than shaking my head at subjective nature of the enforcement of certain rules. It is what it is. But the fact remains. The mod's determine what is considered as "offensive" or things that are based on "emotional violations"

If I wanted to complain, I'd take this time to air grievances, but I understand that this is a private forum and I drop the issue at the end of the day because it would not matter and I doubt it would change any moderator's opinion, or to a degree that anyone would be willing to admit...Its just the Internet, right?

...I enjoy my posting priviledges and try to abide by the ToS by all means, but I don't see where we can't call things like we see them.

The mod's determine what is "offensive" or not; That answers the OP's question. 

I'm not trying to argue with you, not now at least. 

 

[dagrandesoda]

i mean thats where the judging comes in. I guess i burned my bridges in the past. but i'm seriously interested in bbws so is that now called being a troll? My interest may be out the norm, but how is that trolling? A lot of trends cause controversity. Are all those OP's trolling too? I mean we got a topic about somebody's grandma singing a song. We have a white girl and black girl apperciation thread. What would be wrong with a bbw topic?



And kdawg how was mug2x annoying? Is it worse than the dude who says "DF" after every post? Or the guy who busts out in a freestyle in all his post? Or How bout Ninjahood who PURPOSELY says "da" for all his post?

 

[a55a5in11]

Originally Posted by Dagrandesoda

i mean thats where the judging comes in. I guess i burned my bridges in the past. but i'm seriously interested in bbws so is that now called being a troll? My interest may be out the norm, but how is that trolling? A lot of trends cause controversity. Are all those OP's trolling too? I mean we got a topic about somebody's grandma singing a song. We have a white girl and black girl apperciation thread. What would be wrong with a bbw topic?



And kdawg how was mug2x annoying? Is it worse than the dude who says "DF" after every post? Or the guy who busts out in a freestyle in all his post? Or How bout Ninjahood who PURPOSELY says "da" for all his post?

you should hit the mtv true life im a chubby chaser thread. Show all the appreciation for the bbw's in there

 

[dagrandesoda]

a55a5in11 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by Dagrandesoda

i mean thats where the judging comes in. I guess i burned my bridges in the past. but i'm seriously interested in bbws so is that now called being a troll? My interest may be out the norm, but how is that trolling? A lot of trends cause controversity. Are all those OP's trolling too? I mean we got a topic about somebody's grandma singing a song. We have a white girl and black girl apperciation thread. What would be wrong with a bbw topic?



And kdawg how was mug2x annoying? Is it worse than the dude who says "DF" after every post? Or the guy who busts out in a freestyle in all his post? Or How bout Ninjahood who PURPOSELY says "da" for all his post?

you should hit the mtv true life im a chubby chaser thread. Show all the appreciation for the bbw's in there


already got it on the dvr brother

shes a pron star though....... I want to make a thread for hot bbws the same way guys around here make threads about hot black women or hot white women or hot latinas

 

[Methodical Management]

i'm seriously interested in bbws

And why must this interest be expressed on NikeTalk of all places?  

Look, we're trying to run respectful forums here.  If a topic's not going to fly, or if it's going to inevitably lead to inappropriate material, I think we have the right to lock it up.  We've been doing this for over a decade now.  If I'm the coast guard, why should I even let a ship leave port if it's got more holes than the Falcons' secondary?  

Why wait for that to become an even bigger problem? 

Not everyone who has your particular 'interest' is desperate for attention, but what's the common denominator if all someone does is try to post outlandish things?  It's just been one stunt after another with you.  Nobody's going to take you seriously now, and who do you have to blame for that?

Someone with a good reputation could probably get away with a thread you can't, because they haven't destroyed their credibility.  Readers could think that this person is legitimately interested in a given subject, however out of the ordinary, whereas, with you, they're likely to think that you're just trolling again.  And there would be plenty of evidence to support that.  

You're back one week and already you want to see EXACTLY how much you can get away with.  It doesn't work that way.  You'd better focus on rebuilding your credit before you take out another loan. 

Its like you're trying to come at me.

Yeah, this from the guy who decided to do the little "smh" game regarding the subjectivity of our policies, then play it off like "i'm not taking sides."  If you're complaining, you're complaining.  Let's not pretend that you didn't intend to use those silly little smileys to express disagreement and, thus, negative criticism.  
You're just chasing your own tail now and wasting a lot of words in the process.  

"Pointing out" that rules are subjective is like "pointing out" that water is wet.  

But do you want my original context? Its nothing more than shaking my head at subjective nature of the enforcement of certain rules.

And that's not "taking sides?"  You claim that I misinterpreted the smh icon... but then directly admitted using that icon to complain about the rules.  

Thanks for contradicting yourself.  It's a real time saver. 

You're failing to adequately articulate your objection here.  "Certain rules" are subjective?  No, all rules are subjective.  

When we decided to break down the buy/sell forum categories, we used actual listing data in attempt to divide them evenly by usage, rather than using full size increments etc.  That's a subjective decision.  What constitutes a racial slur is largely governed by social consensus, but that's a subjective decision.  The determination to even prohibit racial slurs in the first place is a subjective decision.  Even if you enforce your language restrictions with the mechanical precision of an automated profanity filter, that doesn't make the policy it any less subjective in its origins.  

To say that our failure is our use of "subjective rules" is, in that sense, functionally redundant.  You may as well just complain that we have any standards whatsoever, because no policy is free from subjectivity.  

 

[dagrandesoda]

Originally Posted by Method Man

i'm seriously interested in bbws

And why must this interest be expressed on NikeTalk of all places?  

Look, we're trying to run respectful forums here.  If a topic's not going to fly, or if it's going to inevitably lead to inappropriate material, I think we have the right to lock it up.  We've been doing this for over a decade now.  If I'm the coast guard, why should I even let a ship leave port if it's got more holes than the Falcons' secondary?  

Why wait for that to become an even bigger problem? 

Not everyone who has your particular 'interest' is desperate for attention, but what's the common denominator if all someone does is try to post outlandish things?  It's just been one stunt after another with you.  Nobody's going to take you seriously now, and who do you have to blame for that?

Someone with a good reputation could probably get away with a thread you can't, because they haven't destroyed their credibility.  Readers could think that this person is legitimately interested in a given subject, however out of the ordinary, whereas, with you, they're likely to think that you're just trolling again.  And there would be plenty of evidence to support that.  

You're back one week and already you want to see EXACTLY how much you can get away with.  It doesn't work that way.  You'd better focus on rebuilding your credit before you take out another loan. 

Its like you're trying to come at me.

Yeah, this from the guy who decided to do the little "smh" game regarding the subjectivity of our policies, then play it off like "i'm not taking sides."  If you're complaining, you're complaining.  Let's not pretend that you didn't intend to use those silly little smileys to express disagreement and, thus, negative criticism.  
You're just chasing your own tail now and wasting a lot of words in the process.  

"Pointing out" that rules are subjective is like "pointing out" that water is wet.  

But do you want my original context? Its nothing more than shaking my head at subjective nature of the enforcement of certain rules.

And that's not "taking sides?"  You claim that I misinterpreted the smh icon... but then directly admitted using that icon to complain about the rules.  

Thanks for contradicting yourself.  It's a real time saver. 

You're failing to adequately articulate your objection here.  "Certain rules" are subjective?  No, all rules are subjective.  

When we decided to break down the buy/sell forum categories, we used actual listing data in attempt to divide them evenly by usage, rather than using full size increments etc.  That's a subjective decision.  What constitutes a racial slur is largely governed by social consensus, but that's a subjective decision.  The determination to even prohibit racial slurs in the first place is a subjective decision.  Even if you enforce your language restrictions with the mechanical precision of an automated profanity filter, that doesn't make the policy it any less subjective in its origins.  

To say that our failure is our use of "subjective rules" is, in that sense, functionally redundant.  You may as well just complain that we have any standards whatsoever, because no policy is free from subjectivity.  

So in othr words, my intrst cant be taken seriously because certain ppl think i'v trolled in the past? Look how successful the hot bodis ulgy face chick thread was. Its reality. Some people genunily like bbws such as myself. Why must I have creditablity to post a topic of my interst? I'm not looking for cred for my topics. I just like to share my interest with others who feel the same way as me. As seen with my other threads and even this one, there are many who feel the same way. The logic of stopping the boat before it leaves ship could apply to a lot of topics. You got a topic open right now about middle eastern guys on drugs. IS that a common entertaining interest with people on this board? I love this board which is why I keep comming back. My brother was here when you guys first opened shop and I used to watch him come on the board and post about kicks, well when I started coming efore I, I see there is so many diff sub forums to post in so i post about kicks, sports, music and so many other things. I love being apart of a site that is almost like a family. You dont get that on "other" sites. My question is why must I be treated like a black sheep because I LOVE certain types of women. I dont get how loving somebody of a different size is trolling. Isn't that a form of discrimination. The rules says nothing about love.


Thats all i'm saying. Just wanted some direct feedback before I POST on oyour site. Just dont like being singled out all the time(I mean for sack sake you banneding my signature saying_) Who else saying been banned before?

 

[Clyde Frog]

If I sell fruit juice, don't cry to me because it isn't carbonated and full of corn syrup.  Just drink soda.

 If I'm the coast guard, why should I even let a ship leave port if it's got more holes than the Falcons' secondary?  

You'd better focus on rebuilding your credit before you take out another loan. 

Meth it amazes me at how good you are with coming up with these phrases. Have you ever repeat one?

 You've got a million at your disposal. 
The falcons secondary one got me laughing

 

[dagrandesoda]

Originally Posted by Jay02

If I sell fruit juice, don't cry to me because it isn't carbonated and full of corn syrup.  Just drink soda.

 If I'm the coast guard, why should I even let a ship leave port if it's got more holes than the Falcons' secondary?  

You'd better focus on rebuilding your credit before you take out another loan. 

Meth it amazes me at how good you are with coming up with these phrases. Have you ever repeat one?

 You've got a million at your disposal. 
The falcons secondary one got me laughing

its simple metaphors. You can do it too if you tried

 

[Clyde Frog]

Originally Posted by Dagrandesoda

Originally Posted by Jay02

If I sell fruit juice, don't cry to me because it isn't carbonated and full of corn syrup.  Just drink soda.

 If I'm the coast guard, why should I even let a ship leave port if it's got more holes than the Falcons' secondary?  

You'd better focus on rebuilding your credit before you take out another loan. 

Meth it amazes me at how good you are with coming up with these phrases. Have you ever repeat one?

 You've got a million at your disposal. 
The falcons secondary one got me laughing

its simple metaphors. You can do it too if you tried


Maybe, just saying he has a ton of them and they're always spot on and creative

 

[lebronh8er]

"Negative Ghost Rider, the pattern is Full", I would not recommend it, rules are pretty harshly enforced 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Its like you're trying to come at me.

Yeah, this from the guy who decided to do the little "smh" game regarding the subjectivity of our policies, then play it off like "i'm not taking sides."  If you're complaining, you're complaining.  Let's not pretend that you didn't intend to use those silly little smileys to express disagreement and, thus, negative criticism.  


MethodMan...I really don't think you're following me here.

Whether or not I like the rules (many I do agree with you on, and some I don't) doesn't change the fact that MODERATORS DETERMINE THE STANDARDS ENFORCED. 

Talking about a "

" or a "smh"  is a proxy issue, if nothing else and it doesn't address the length of the measuring stick (enforcement)...instead of the stick itself (rules)

The use of an emoticon does not in any way separate my feelings of subjective rule enforcement from the FACT that moderators determine what is offensive and what is not on Niketalk.

Whether or not I have a problem with specific incidents does not relate to the argument that the standards are not my own but those of moderators.

This is undeniable and this is all i've said this entire thread.

This was the OP's question. This has been shown. Anything else is just taking an issue with me for having a stance on the rules themselves, not the measurement of the rules.

It doesn't matter if you or I or anyone else thought it was a positive/negative/neutral critique...the fact is that moderators are in charge of determining the extent and limit of standards on NT. 

This has been my entire point. 

For the sake of discussion, lets say I HAD made it inherently negative? Would that have anything to do with the conclusion that "offensive" content is defined by moderators that review complaints?

I mean it doesn't matter if I agree with the conclusions or not...the fact is that in relation to OP's question: Moderators determine what flies and what does not. NT is not 100% free. 

You're just chasing your own tail now and wasting a lot of words in the process.

Is the point to get me to stop talking? I mean I don't get it.

You're addressing what an emoticon meant...and not what the statement without the emoticons mean.

sillyputty wrote:

---

ATGD7154xBBxMZ wrote:

---

No it's not a 100% free. Freedom of speech is limited to what the administrators decide is permissible.

Yep.



The usage and definition of the term "offensive" comes to mind... 

Subjective at best...

If I remove the emoticons, what changes about what I said? 
I agreed with above statement AND showed that moderators are the ones who draft and enforce the limits on content being post.

No one is complaining here. 

I think i'm being clear in what i'm saying.

Mod's make the rules. The rules are subjective.

"Pointing out" that rules are subjective is like "pointing out" that water is wet.

 
...O.K? I mean the point wasn't to list obvious statements, it was to answer OP's question. 

But do you want my original context? Its nothing more than shaking my head at subjective nature of the enforcement of certain rules.

And that's not "taking sides?"  You claim that I misinterpreted the smh icon... but then directly admitted using that icon to complain about the rules.  

Thanks for contradicting yourself.  It's a real time saver. 


I used the emoticon because I felt that the enforcement of what was "offensive" varied a great deal and wasn't clearly elucidated, HOWEVER, I really don't disagree with much of anything you say regarding their rules and the reasons behind them.

But I stand by the notion that you misinterpreted the "

" icon because it didn't have any relevance to anything. It was made into an argument that wasn't even being discussed.

The question was whether or not NT is a community that is completely free in the speech presented. 

I said it wasn't and that it was subjective...That's not taking sides. Its true. 

What IS subjective is my opinion on how the rules are enforced. 

There is a difference. 

I don't think i've contradicted myself here.

You're failing to adequately articulate your objection here.  "Certain rules" are subjective?  No, all rules are subjective.

I already said that I was not going to articulate objections because the topic is not what my objections or anyone else's are.
The topic is whether or not NT is 100% free in its speech.

Its not.

When we decided to break down the buy/sell forum categories, we used actual listing data in attempt to divide them evenly by usage, rather than using full size increments etc.  That's a subjective decision.  What constitutes a racial slur is largely governed by social consensus, but that's a subjective decision.  The determination to even prohibit racial slurs in the first place is a subjective decision.  Even if you enforce your language restrictions with the mechanical precision of an automated profanity filter, that doesn't make the policy it any less subjective in its origins.

  I don't see how you feel the need to mention this.
Rules are subjective. Values, mores, culture, etc...all subjective. I get it. If you don't think I do, I don't know what else to tell you. I get it.

Not only do I agree with you and understand the reasoning behind these decisions, but this still does not have anything to do with OP's question:

Is NT 100% Free in Speech? 

No.

Anything else is just discussing our issues with the rules themselves.

Thats all i've every said in this entire thread.

To say that our failure is our use of "subjective rules" is, in that sense, functionally redundant.

  No where did I say NT was failing. This was your creation. For some reason I take it to mean that the "

" left a more sour taste in your mouth than what I intended. Its not some sort of "RAH RAH I HATE MODERATORS *PASSIVE AGGRESSION* BLAH BLAH"...None of that. 
I said that there was no objectivity in the definition of what was "offensive" and it was entirely up to moderators.

Is this not true?

Whether or not I disagree with instances of certain rules being enforced does not change the fact that the people in charge of enforcing the rules do so on their watch.

Thats all the OP asked.

You may as well just complain that we have any standards whatsoever, because no policy is free from subjectivity.

Agreed.

But no policy is free from criticism either.

However, my criticisms, implied or explicit, do not change the answer to OP's question: NT is not 100% free in its' user's freedom of speech. 

I'm not trying to get the last word or anything but I get the feeling that you think I'm trying to challenge you...I'm not and frankly, I'm not out to change any opinions either. I just don't think its somewhat inaccurate to make it seem like I have a separate issue i'm trying to address when that wasn't even the point of my post. 

To conclude:

I agree with you with having your rules on your private board.

I disagree with the enforcement of a few rules.

Mod's decide how rules are enforced so no, NT is not 100% free. 

 

[rufiorufiorufio]

why are dudes with less than 300 posts crying about fairness?

this is the internet. you want filth? theres a billion other places to go.

i'm glad the rules are so strict. i wish they were a bit more strict so the lames and cornballs would be gone quicker.

 

[aka longstroke]

I still would like to know what happened to the thread where Kobe was forced to move out, which simply vanished.

 

[dagrandesoda]

roughtl

Originally Posted by RufioRufioRufio

why are dudes with less than 300 posts crying about fairness?

this is the internet. you want filth? theres a billion other places to go.

i'm glad the rules are so strict. i wish they were a bit more strict so the lames and cornballs would be gone quicker.

if u throughly read the posts, u;'d know im a vet

 

[rufiorufiorufio]

i know who you are troll.

this isn't h**dtalk though so get over it.

 

[sleaze jar omens]

follow the rules and youre good.

 

[bronle]

Dagrandesoda, PayPal me 10 bucks and I'll make your fat broad thread

 

[Gordonson]

Originally Posted by al3x89


i don't understand how the opposite of heaven is a swear word... ya, it depends on the context it's being used in, but COME ON.

or acronyms.. if you know what it means, then you're old enough to figure out what it stands for. 

i think that's my only beef with NT, oh and yuku 

Hell isn't censored though. 

 

[iYen]

Originally Posted by Sleaze Jar Omens

follow the rules and youre good.

*Looks at post count*

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

I see you.

 

[Methodical Management]

My question is why must I be treated like a black sheep because I LOVE certain types of women. I dont get how loving somebody of a different size is trolling. Isn't that a form of discrimination. The rules says nothing about love. 

Don't confuse the issue.  You're being treated like a troll because you've trolled under a ton of accounts now.  
I don't care who you love.  I care about maintaining respectful forums with content appropriate for a diverse audience.  

The logic of stopping the boat before it leaves ship could apply to a lot of topics.

It could.  It's a judgment call and part of the reason why our forums aren't filled with garbage is because our staff members make an effort to provide some quality control.  
You don't have to agree with it but, then, if you enjoy the forums then you probably appreciate the end result of those efforts.  People don't complain about the offensive post they didn't read.  A questionable topic created by a known troll is just a recipe for disaster and I think the last thing this forum needs more of right now is another _____ women appreciation thread.  

Meth it amazes me at how good you are with coming up with these phrases. Have you ever repeat one? 

 You've got a million at your disposal. 

Thanks for the kind words.  It certainly caught me off guard to come across a compliment in this thread. 

Whether or not I have a problem with specific incidents does not relate to the argument that the standards are not my own but those of moderators.

This is undeniable and this is all i've said this entire thread.

When you waste so many words, they eventually become worthless.
All of this senseless equivocation on your part only serves to dodge something that, at this point, is indisputable.  You tried to say that you weren't "taking sides," yet you took a side.  

Now you're trying to claim that these are separate issues.  It's just really pointless. 

Let's simplify this, since you're splitting hairs to the subatomic level just to try and eke out a moral victory for yourself.  You claimed that I was "trying to come at [you]" when you chose to take shots at our staff and the enforcement of our policy.  You took your little swipe, then chose to act shocked that I'd take umbrage to it.  This whole "wrongly persecuted" routine of yours has grown awfully tired.  If you don't want static, stop picking fights with everyone.

YOUR POST was intended to criticize our policy.  There's no evading that.  You even admitted as much.  Now you're trying to pretend that your insults are "separate" from the "legitimate" answer to the topic question?  You're really grasping at straws on that one. 

Is NT 100% Free in Speech? 

No.

Has anyone in this thread - or elsewhere - claimed otherwise?  You just seized the opportunity to gripe about the "subjectivity" of the policy.  

Otherwise, what was the point of your post, to emphasize something that EVERYONE else had already said?  So, the only unique contribution of your post is exactly what you're backing away from... and the point that nobody ever argued to begin with is what you're defending?  

...

No where did I say NT was failing. This was your creation. For some reason I take it to mean that the "

" left a more sour taste in your mouth than what I intended. Its not some sort of "RAH RAH I HATE MODERATORS *PASSIVE AGGRESSION* BLAH BLAH"...None of that. 

My creation?  No, you're just trying to put words in my mouth.  A particular failing or lack in the eyes of a critic doesn't equate to a general failure.  The basis of your "critique" is that we have a "subjective" policy.  You know who else has a subjective policy?  Every other website with a policy.  

Objection noted. 

I just don't think its somewhat inaccurate to make it seem like I have a separate issue i'm trying to address when that wasn't even the point of my post. 

Diagram that sentence.

 

[dagrandesoda]

Well i guess i got my answer.