well dooz...

Just forget about him, IMO your whole discussion is just like feeding the troll nah?

This thread is to explain that the Nexuiz community does not support mikeeusa's views, and raises the issue that his server should be not be listed on the master servers for the reason that it serves no purpose but to distribute mikeeusa's maps and propaganda.
However, the wise Urmel has spoken and perhaps this thread should be closed if there is nothing of value to add to the discussion.

As Beowulf said, it was just to grab your attention on the issue.



And I strongly support banning him off the master server. With that, maybe we can be freem from the fucktard for a while...

Quote from one of Beowulf's links. This one cracked me the hell up! xD

"what kinda geek PURPOSELY deletes their pr0n"

This one was also funny: "whatever he be drinking I don't wanna drink".
And many more but those two particulary.

Holy crap.

Ok, Beowulf gives a convincing argument.

No need to explain anything to him. Just ban his server.

It would be fun if mikee then starts calling Nexuiz an "evil feminist project"... given how many women we have here...

The problem is we can't "just ban" him - there are four master servers, and every single one of their admins has to be convinced to follow the ban. One of them not following the ban results in the ban not being effective at all.

There's no master server? I thought someone said there was. I guess that makes this "voting" somewhat pointless.

I guess the only choice is to provide the "evidence" to each one of the server hosts and let them decide by themselves.

There are 4 master servers, and they are all run by active members of the community (iirc) so its very possible to consider this. Weither we bother is an other matter. I call to just lay this dead.. unstickyfy it and let it go.

tChr wrote:There are 4 master servers, and they are all run by active members of the community (iirc) so its very possible to consider this.

Make that 3... The third one in the list is dead for at least 6 months.

KadaverJack wrote:

tChr wrote:There are 4 master servers, and they are all run by active members of the community (iirc) so its very possible to consider this.

Make that 3... The third one in the list is dead for at least 6 months.

The one that never got its DNS right? Is it removed from the engine then?

...
"Protect the Queen!"
"Who IS the queen?"
"... I am the Queen!"
"No, you're not!"
...

protect the community

I don't see what the discussion is about... as already stated, the people running the servers are entitled to run them as they see fit... if you want to ban him, ban him, if not, then don't.

Make no mistake though that it is a complete infringement on freedom of speech... and do not try to comfort yourselves with the idea that sometimes you can limit freedom of speech and still call it such... that is only self-delusion. (Btw, any nation which would make it illegal to question or deny historical fact, no matter how insane, forfeits all claims to freedom of speech as an integral principle, so I wouldn't use anything in the German constitution as a measure of such... no matter how noble the intention, such an implementation is misguided beyond belief.)

Although I do personally think that intolerance should not be tolerated as any system which does so immediately becomes weaker and less fit than the intolerant system and will eventually succumb to it... one has to realize that the ideals that one claims to adhere to are not always the ideals that one actually adheres to. All those who fail to realize this and even many who don't are nothing more than simple hypocrits.

Then again, I don't believe in absolute right and wrong, only logical consensus of such notions, so it's really all arbitrary at the end of the day.







Blah blah blah, just do what you want to do and accept the true implications of your decisions.

i dont gaf.. If i happen do dislike a special combination og digits that happens to make up an IP address that happens to match this server, I'm in my full right to not display these on the master server i admin.


however, i'm too lazy,

I move to unstickify this thread.

Xeno: I think it's said that this is more propaganda than freedom of speech as his actions don't have proper arguments. And this is no such place to "propagand" about. I'm not really following that guys work so I don't know what he's up to.

Xeno The Blind wrote:I don't see what the discussion is about... as already stated, the people running the servers are entitled to run them as they see fit... if you want to ban him, ban him, if not, then don't.

Make no mistake though that it is a complete infringement on freedom of speech... and do not try to comfort yourselves with the idea that sometimes you can limit freedom of speech and still call it such... that is only self-delusion. (Btw, any nation which would make it illegal to question or deny historical fact, no matter how insane, forfeits all claims to freedom of speech as an integral principle, so I wouldn't use anything in the German constitution as a measure of such... no matter how noble the intention, such an implementation is misguided beyond belief.)

It is my opinion that freedom of speach, as all freedoms arent and cant be the only guideline as to why a decision is made. If you take comfort in knowning you alwys play by the rules set by others, or worse sill : dont form an opinion at all, rest asure that your input will be a marionette to anyone with the means to create illiusions. Taking a possibly wrong action is faworable to taking no action at all. Dont be a part of the gray sewage following the pipe wherever it may lead you.

Xeno The Blind wrote:Although I do personally think that intolerance should not be tolerated as any system which does so immediately becomes weaker and less fit than the intolerant system and will eventually succumb to it... one has to realize that the ideals that one claims to adhere to are not always the ideals that one actually adheres to. All those who fail to realize this and even many who don't are nothing more than simple hypocrits.

Then again, I don't believe in absolute right and wrong, only logical consensus of such notions, so it's really all arbitrary at the end of the day.

"Although I do personally think that intolerance should not be tolerated "
rofl

Xeno The Blind wrote:Blah blah blah, just do what you want to do and accept the true implications of your decisions.

tZork wrote:Taking a possibly wrong action is faworable to taking no action at all. Dont be a part of the gray sewage following the pipe wherever it may lead you.

How in the world did you arive at that conclusion? Did you support the war in Iraq then?

tZork wrote:

Xeno The Blind wrote:"Although I do personally think that intolerance should not be tolerated "

rofl

I'm halfway tempted to delve into the deeper meaning of that and halfway tempted to just ignore this post as I have just realized that discussing issues on this board is more or less pointless, this based on the responses that I have got so far.

I'll go for the former.

Any system which allows itself to be destroyed eventually will. In the case of tolerance, one can distinguish between tolerating beliefs which themselves are tolerant and those which are not. The former does not pose a threat to the overall system while the later does. Allowing someone freedom of speech who would use that freedom of speech to destroy yours is not tenable. The basic principle, which you appear to have missed while lauging at the superficial interpretation of what I wrote, is that each set of ideas should be allowed the same level of tolerance that they exhibit. Someone who would destroy the very system which guarantees you your rights should not be protected by those same rights. Intolerance of the system itself cannot be tolerated by the system... is that clearer?

Xeno The Blind wrote:

tZork wrote:Taking a possibly wrong action is faworable to taking no action at all. Dont be a part of the gray sewage following the pipe wherever it may lead you.

How in the world did you arive at that conclusion? Did you support the war in Iraq then?

whaa? how does what i said translate into beeing pro a war?! taking action hardly has to mean bomb someone. Your clearly smart enougth to see this so whats your point?

Xeno The Blind wrote:

tZork wrote:

Xeno The Blind wrote:"Although I do personally think that intolerance should not be tolerated "

rofl

I'm halfway tempted to delve into the deeper meaning of that and halfway tempted to just ignore this post as I have just realized that discussing issues on this board is more or less pointless, this based on the responses that I have got so far.

I'll go for the former.

Any system which allows itself to be destroyed eventually will. In the case of tolerance, one can distinguish between tolerating beliefs which themselves are tolerant and those which are not. The former does not pose a threat to the overall system while the later does. Allowing someone freedom of speech who would use that freedom of speech to destroy yours is not tenable. The basic principle, which you appear to have missed while lauging at the superficial interpretation of what I wrote, is that each set of ideas should be allowed the same level of tolerance that they exhibit. Someone who would destroy the very system which guarantees you your rights should not be protected by those same rights. Intolerance of the system itself cannot be tolerated by the system... is that clearer?

a. i found the phrasing funny, not the point as sutch. tho i do not totaly agree with your philosofy its well grounded. sorry if i seemd to be rude.

b. if discussing issues here is pointless why keep on it? And why is it poinless, just since not everyone agrees with you?

Your seem to be a man with strong feeling abt this subject and a interest to talk abt it. you welcome over to my place anytime and we can pop a few cold ones, delve deep into the nature of expressonal freedoms, disect differnt systems and so on. However this forum is hardy the place for it.

[EDIT]
Unstuck
I think urmal was right in..

Urmel... wrote:well dooz...

Just forget about him, IMO your whole discussion is just like feeding the troll nah?

[/EDIT]

Xeno

I was pretty much done with this conversation earlier as a consensus seems to have been reached. Beowulf brought up too much damning evidence of this guy's behavior and that was enough for me to accept the banning.

However, I read your comments and now I feel I have to question some of what you are saying.

Any system which allows itself to be destroyed eventually will.

Because something allows itself to be destroyable, it will be destroyed? I don't follow your logic there.

Speaking of self-delusion.. every instance of freedom of speech is a lie. There is no such thing as true freedom of speech in absolute terms, because this suggests that you are safe-guarded from negative consequences in response to your speech, no matter what your speech entails. This concept is ludicrous because words can cause damage. If damage can be caused by words, then true freedom of their use doesn't really exist. If you are doing something to purposely harm someone, then you are infringing upon OTHER rights that they hold. Each of these rights does not exist in a bubble.There is a domino effect between them.

Like most things in life, "freedom" is not black and white. There are degrees of freedom. Under colloquial versions of "freedom of speech", people can say many things. In fact, they can say most things. However, if they say something inappropriate around 5 year old little kids... then there will be consequences. If a man says something sexually explicit toward a female co-worker, there will be consequences. If someone states publicly how they intend to kill a public official, then there will be consequences.

In the U.S., there is a common legal charge called "disturbing the peace". The existence of this type of law automatically makes "freedom of speech" non-existent, in absolute terms, because you can disturb the peace with your voice and your words.

So, I think people often misunderstood true freedom of speech. It exists, but to a degree that is not absolute.

This little Nexuiz community offers even fewer rights, because it is a subset of the larger world community, and it has an understood purpose of allowing people to get along and play this wonderful game of Nexuiz. People in the community have tried getting through to this guy while he continues to degrade women. His words are hurtful, and it goes against the understood purpose of this community.

An intention of deliberate harm has been established.

Xeno The Blind wrote:Any system which allows itself to be destroyed eventually will.[

I'm afraid it's the other way around. Any system that tries to stifle the free expression of opinions, however ludicrous and objectionable, will destroy itself. Let the guy say what he wants.. and let the chips fall where they may.

Having said that I won't be visiting that server again. Not that I did much in the first place.

tChr wrote:I move to unstickify this thread.

This was actually STICKY???

Toddd wrote:

tChr wrote:I move to unstickify this thread.

This was actually STICKY???

Yes.. and your post was a very effective bump