SUGGESTION for the tribunes..

You could censor his posts so he couldn't say Israel, Jew, etc. etc.

If we started censoring people like that you guys would flip your shit.

To Karakoran


The chance for peace was lost when **** killed hundreds of ********. I really do hope millions of ******** from *****, ******* and ********** die as well. And of course every single one of these ******. That would be nice.

To Chelsea, whatever u do I support except banning che

Well, we flipped out shit when you outright banned him, so it's not bad in comparison.

Some of you did (actually mostly you). Not the majority. Though that doesn't matter, he broke the rules extremely and he was banned for it. Warnings did nothing. You keep breaking the rules and not caring about it and you will get banned. Simple as. End of story.

well see we didn't "out right ban him" we all voted, and there was no debate on if you was going to be banned or not, just on how long it would be. 2 weeks or 1 month. more people voted for one month. you wanted more steps in the process, well now there is, now the Tribunes have to vote on stuff and they did.

the system you pushed for is in place and working, your only mad because it's not working the way you wanted it to.

Surf has no stake in the system. He just doesn't want Che banned even though I don't know that he's even ever talked to Che.

Yes yes, voting, beurocracy, blah blah blah. But really those votes are more, someone makes a point and a few others agree to get a majority and then the vote is set in the first few minutes.

Tribunes kind of helped, but I don't think they're very lined up with the public. We didn't see high or low on how we wanted them to represent the people in the vote because that's illegal currently.

So no, this is more of a kinda sorta of what I personally pushed for. It's "better", it's just not that much better.

Also, think of Banning this way:
The idea of a Ban is to remove someone from the community because they harm the community.
However, if the Community would not be helped by removing that person from it, then the ban is illegitament.
Rules are ment to be in place to prevent harm to the Community, thus, just because it's a rule is not a reason.
If the Community believes that a ban is illegitament and thus is willing to "violate" the rules in order to fix it, then that's to benefit the Community.
If however the ban still takes place, then it is against the wishes of the Community. Thus the Ban actually harms the Community.

It was kinda sorta like that for banning Che. Certainly no one was actually going to expect him to be immedietly unbanned but 2 weeks was perfectly fine for the accusations. No one was hurt, except Matt a little and 2 weeks serves as just as much punishment as a month. In fact you've probably removed Che from the forum forever.

Whatca ya talking about link?

I was hurt/ fearful when he started posting Nazi propaganda all of the site. I don't know what this guy could actually do. You had had death threats death threats directed toward you, or dehumanizing remarks mad about you so your not ina position to devide how People feel about this.

He didn't post Nazi Propaganada, most of the time. It was mostly pro-Palestinian propaganda.

And actually, I've had a shitton of dehumanizing remarks made about me. Mostly from the Admin, of all people.

I apologize, but to tell u the truth, ur gonna meet quite a few people like that in this day and age. Look at the Muslims and how people view them now. The best way is to not A)Interact with that person B)Ignore that that person and C) Never let anyone sway your mind or scare you in changing your beliefs

Even without the hate speech stuff, he would have banned for insulting other members.

Actually we probably could've gotten him off insulting other members and reduced his Hate Speech offense.

But this is assuming he had a fair trial and all that stuff. And Public Trails are Illegal and we don't even get a shot at being elected for another month and a half, let alone get made mods.

Also I think Stalin would flip out and veto me if I actually got elected. =P

You're right, they're both COMPLETELY different. :roll:

It was still extremely racist. You do know that racism can be implemented politically right?

Agreed! I could be elected, and be the secret Andrew Jackson in the group who vetos everything!

No, it wasn't. I went over this on the other thread. Just because it was an Israeli Ogre, doesn't make it anti-Semetic.

Also Nazi Propaganda is 100% allowed as long as it doesn't break any of the rules. I don't know why Mayor broght it up.

Because it was fucking anti-semetic! This is in the realm of the Elders of Zion(look it up)

Stfu, kara. Everyone else knows it was ridiculously racist. Just admit it.

The fact that it's a JEWISH Israeli Ogre does. It's VERY clear in the photo that it's a JEW being portrayed. The fact that it would be an Israeli Jew doesn't change the fact that it's still a very racist piece of propaganda.