I wanted to slam my head against my desk several times while reading this thread. All you people whining about "Muh freedoms", let's point a few things out for you.

1. Total freedom equals anarchy. Rules and laws exist for a reason. And honestly, the rules being debated here do not profoundly affect you in any fashion. Stop acting abused because you can't post nudes where-ever you want on the internet. Plus, sexual role-play on the Warlight forum? Really? Really?! There's websites which are much better suited towards this sort of thing, plus you'd find better role-players on them.

2. The, "Hurr Hurr Americans are prudes," line has already gotten old a couple years ago. We haven't banned nudity, and we haven't banned porn. Everything has a proper place, however. If you were at a family re-union with children of all ages around would you let someone start hanging up sexual posters everywhere? Why is it so hard to understand that some things are better kept in private/specific areas? You don't get to do what you want, wherever you want because not everybody wants to see what you're doing.
Seriously, all the controversy going around regarding privacy and at the same time we have people advocating for sexual content to be posted more openly? What?

Good lord, one person gets suspended for trying to start a sex rp on a gaming site and people lose their minds....

Edited 8/19/2015 14:39:37

No one person gets unfairly suspended and people lose their minds.

You broke a rule, or at the very least intended to break the rules and were encouraging others to do so. That's plenty enough justification for Fizzer to suspend you.

"^

Hey! Hey you! You're spouting shit about how there is no freedom of speech on the Internet, and in the process you're using freedom of speech! So, you. Yes, you : Fuck you!"

No idiot.

Me posting on this site has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech deals with governments restricting peoples speech.

Fizzer is not the government, he is not jailing you if you speak out against him. He is fully 100% within his right to ban anyone for any reason however.

I have the right to create a website that promotes mos any view I wish to. Even then I have to host the site myself or else my hosting provider can remove the site if they deem it to be unsavory. I however do not have the right to promote whatever agenda I wish on other peoples sites. I have no rights on others sites.

What I have here and on any other website I frequent are privileges. Privileges unlike rights are not inherent or irrevocable.

Unfairly? You broke the rules and paid the consequences!

"No one person gets unfairly suspended"

No.

Even if you think the posts actually made weren't bad you were instigating people to break the rules. Instigation of crimes in the real world is often accompanied by jailtime equivalent to actually perpetrating the crime in question.

I can not stand outside a party store and yell, "The owners of this place's a racist, someone someone should teach him a lesson.", and then feign innocence when someone walks in and attacks him.

I was reading this, but then I saw this one post and I really want to reply to it.

And all countrys have something to hang their heads in shame for America the War on Terror(Well Bushs war on terror) the UK nearly losing Scotland Russia for Putin the list goes on and on

Scotland seceding would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

^ not for the UK, perhaps.

Yes I suppose it would embarrass England.

Scotland seceding would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

Sorry if I'm going off on a tangent, but that reminds me of something that's quite irking.

Why do most people always treat Scotland's secession attempts as a good thing, or at-least perfectly legal, but act as if it's sheer evil for any U.S state to even dare suggesting the possibility of seceding?

(This is not directly pointed at you Ox, I'm just expressing general frustration at the people in question, and they know who they are.)

It's interesting too, Eklipse. In theory and name, each state is independent and can leave at any time.

But, after 1877, the US became a Corporation not a Union, so that is now frowned upon. Sad thing is the people who don't know these things.

1876 "Constitution for the United States"

1877 "CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES"

Loli, your picture is suggesting sexual things. Just like Pooncrews picture of "roast beef"

@Eklipse Yes, that is something I find hilariously ironic and hypocritical. America claim to be the "home of the free" - a country made by the 13 colonies seceding from Britain through conflict, and they do not allow their own states to secede peacefully? How free.

This picture is suggesting sexual things - i will get suspended!




Come on! These are just harmless images ....

Edited 8/19/2015 20:24:04

So the US has to let every nut with a gun to form his own country at the US's expense?

We know FC Bayern... In Europe they probably are... But in murica everything is censored and deemed inappropiate. I wouldn't be surprised if you get banned (I'm not joking either...)

He likely won't get banned. AFAICT, that rule doesn't exist for Fizzer or for the community but for the advertisers. Coke doesn't want to be associated with anime-style sexually suggestive drawings of prepubescent girls.

A picture of fruit flies mating doesn't carry the same connotative value, fortunately, and likely wouldn't require any action on Fizzer's part (under what I understand of Google's ad policy) even if it became widespread on the site (e.g., as the default profile picture for all users).

Edited 8/19/2015 20:19:20

@Butler of course it would call for some sort of referendum. I'm not saying that the US should recognise any silly little MicroState that decides to pop up, I'm saying that they shouldn't forbid states seceding, or other regions - perhaps a Great Lakes Union, New England, or a Rocky Commonwealth.

So the US should just divide itself up? Why would it ever do that? There is no reason whatsoever that Great lake bordering states, New England or "rocky commonwealth" should become nations.

Well, if a majority of citizens in that area felt that they were no longer adequately represented by the federal government (the same way a majority of American colonists felt that they were no longer properly represented by the federal government), they should in theory be able to withdraw their consent for that government. The process would get messy, though.

Regardless, the Civil War didn't invalidate the idea of secession but of secession based on states' rights. It could be argued that the Union effectively championed popular sovereignty as opposed to states' rights by supporting civil rights (to an extent) in opposition to states. Additionally, three counties in what is now West Virginia were allowed to secede from the state of Virginia and form their own government.

Obviously, the process would be quite messy in practice (given the federal investments in most states), but if the US government falters it would eventually have to occur. Not going to occur in the near future, of course- the vast majority of every state's population is more than content with its federal representation and finds the Union to be net-beneficial. Even in Texas, we treat the secessionists like complete nuts- so it's not really comparable to Scotland.

In fact, it's hard to compare American federalism to British federalism because (especially after 1789) the American states reflect the expansion of one culture rather than the addition of disparate cultures to a single state- groups like African-Americans and Native Americans were indeed subjugated, but that's not reflected in the political organization of the US the same way the historical subjugation of the Welsh and Scots is reflected in the political organization of the UK. So it's a flawed analogy in that regard, and one could easily support allowing Scottish secession while still opposing the secession of Texas for that reason.

Edited 8/19/2015 21:08:46