# Freedom of Speech and FA!



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

Because the discussion over on the AUP subforum about harassment could have gone to much more interesting places.  X3

There was a suggestion over there that FA start policing other websites (notably: Dramachan, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Livejournal group wtf_fa) for actions by registered FA users that would be considered to be "harassing" or "detrimental to the enjoyment of FA", then punish those FA users to be found doing such things.

The thread then devloved into a giant shitpit of one or two people arguing the merits of the suggestion and pretty much everyone else posting in the thread (including Dragoneer) saying it'd never be put into place and it'd violate people's rights to Free Speech.

So my question is: do you think FA users should be punished for off-site actions, or is the suggestion just a lame attempt to play White Knight made by someone who's been a target of snark sites in the past?


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 26, 2009)

Nope.  When joining FA and the FA forums, users agree to a code of conduct for these sites, not life in general.  As long as it obeyed, that's as far as FA's rights go to police their behaviour.

Ethically speaking, people should have enough self control to always be on good behaviour, but we all know that doesn't work very well in society.  It's up to the other sites on which they participate to enforce _their_ codes of conduct.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

Mmmno.

Much like Indiana shouldn't be able to punish me (in Florida) for catching bobcats, FA would be pretty poopie to enforce their rules over the internet.

Unless those three sites were the only targets of such a rule (and that would be serious double-standard stuff going on), the only way that rule would be enforceable is if the whole internet is under constant watch, because anyone could post a nasty comment anywhere on any site, and it could potentially be viewable by another FA member.

And that would be very annoying indeed.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jan 26, 2009)

No.  FA has no authority outside of its own site.  It should be up to these other sites to moderate themselves.


----------



## Thatch (Jan 26, 2009)

*BURN THE HEATHENS! LET THEIR ROTTEN FLESH HANG FROM THE GALLOW'S POLES!*


----------



## pheonix (Jan 26, 2009)

Punished for off site actions! This is blasphemy! no, just no.


----------



## Corto (Jan 26, 2009)

That's the stupidest suggestion I've heard yet (I know such accusations lose impact when I use them on an almost daily basis but people have the amazing power to suprise me everyday). No website should act like Big Brother. If I want to be a laid back gentleman here and a complete asshole somewhere else, that is my decision to make, not the staff of some forum or other. I remember I was once member of a videogame community where the forum administrator was quite strict with the rules, but since the rest of the staff was laid back and cool with everyone we just kinda forgot about him. Then he banned a member for what he had said in other completely unrelated forum. Want to guess what happened to the community?


----------



## Whitenoise (Jan 26, 2009)

It's a terrible idea, what FA should do is allow users to harass other users anywhere they want, including FA. Also changing the AUP to allow people to submit content attacking other members of the site  .


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Jan 26, 2009)

Wait if this goes into effect.......

BABYFURS CAN BECOME PRESIDENT!

NAAAAAHHHHHHH


----------



## WishingStar (Jan 26, 2009)

Why should we punished for off-site actions?  Ok, so it's mean to make fun of people - but sometimes that's what people do.  Say I was out with some friends and some jerk we don't like passed by.  We call him some random bad name.  When we come back to college - should we be punished at the college for something that happened in the mall?

Should I be punished at college for enjoying an amaratto sour at the local bar? 

My point being: If the drama is kept off FA and people get into at another site, THAT site has the responsibility of handling the drama, not FA.  Now if that person begins to bug the other ON FA, then it's Dragoneer and the other admins' duty to whoop some fuzzy butt.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jan 26, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> So my question is: do you think FA users should be punished for off-site actions, or is the suggestion just a lame attempt to play White Knight made by someone who's been a target of snark sites in the past?



Lame, stupid and retarded. 

Only case in which this'd be REMOTELY possible is if the site that was trolled would punish it's user for doing the same to FA. That's the way international criminal law works.


----------



## Irreverent (Jan 26, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> So my question is: do you think FA users should be punished for off-site actions, or is the suggestion just a lame attempt to play White Knight made by someone who's been a target of snark sites in the past?



Of course not.  Besides, how would you ever verify that user X is actually user X on forum Y?  Even with "friendly" admins sharing IP address information and logs, it would still be difficult to build a non-repudiatable case against the offending user.

This is why its always interesting when new sites start popping up too.  Avatar identity theft becomes a possibility.  I might be Irreverent here, and "Dragoneer" on another niche community site/forum.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 26, 2009)

Wow, can you say loser?


----------



## Tryp (Jan 26, 2009)

Isn't it just a bit unfeasible to monitor FA members on other sites?

Isn't it unfeasible for admins/mods/etc, to monitor any member other their site while they are on other sites?


----------



## SnowFox (Jan 26, 2009)

I must say: *LOL WTF?*

I suppose you could make a "FA Genuine Advantage" browser add-on that you have to install to be able to use FA. It could report every site you visit and everything you do so that the admins here know if you've been naughty and can deny you access to your computer unless you make donations to the site.


----------



## Ren-Raku (Jan 26, 2009)

Whilst we're at it, let's arrest people that say the word "Yiff" to people below the age of 18...


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 26, 2009)

One word: NO! 

End of discussion!


----------



## makmakmob (Jan 26, 2009)

Some people have all the good ideas :Â¬ |


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 26, 2009)

no.
[/thread]


----------



## PriestRevan (Jan 26, 2009)

@OP- are you actually bringing in a topic from another thread into this one? How stupid. I mean, come on, this thread was completely unneccessary. The entire other thread at the AUP subforum was already filled with your answer.
---

No. It's not FA's/FAF's business if I go to my deviantart and make a huge journal about how Dragoneer's an idiot (and no Dragoneer, you are not an idiot). 

...I already had to deal with something like that once. A forum tried to use the actions I made on my dA to prove their point on the forum. Really gay guys.


----------



## Rehka (Jan 26, 2009)

I think it would be silly to even suggest, and while i don't *think* i commented on the previous topic, i did watch it with interest as it degraded in to a puddle of liquefied poop.

Just for fun though, lets give Dragoneer the Sheriffs Badge of the Interwebs 

I do think the suggestion is silly, and only people who don't realizes the sheer scope of the internet would even think that might be even kind of feasible to ask one person to do... if the internet could be that well policed, there wouldn't be pedophilia sharing sites and other illegal goings ons happening on the internet anymore. (kind of makes me think the original suggester was thinking of a "The Giver" situation, were everyone lives in a black and white world and no one is mean to anyone and everyone shares the same birthday and the world is creepily perfect [until it all goes horribly wrong, but what do you expect from a novel?])


----------



## Tycho (Jan 26, 2009)

Big Furfag is watching you.


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 26, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Big Furfag is watching you.



Oh god. It's Nineteen-Eightyfur! XD


----------



## Tycho (Jan 26, 2009)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> Oh god. It's Nineteen-Eightyfur! XD



Epically awful.


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 26, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Epically awful.



>:[


----------



## Tycho (Jan 26, 2009)

>:[ is watching you.

And he does not approve.

You will be pun-ished.


----------



## PriestRevan (Jan 26, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> >:[ is watching you.
> 
> And he does not approve.
> 
> *You will be pun-ished*.


 
There is no fur-giveness for this terrible pun.


----------



## Devious Bane (Jan 26, 2009)

FA's TOS, AUP, and all other terms mean *nothing* on other sites.
I wouldn't be surprised if ED and these other sites added notes about this news. This would obviously be considered "furfaggotry."
So banning users here for their actions there will place FA out of it's jurisdiction. Of course, this would make many users leave and form more sites like 4chan (e.g. ShittyArt)
After that, FA will inevitably get bum-rushed (e.g. ShittyArt banning pronz).


----------



## foxmusk (Jan 26, 2009)

you have got to be kidding me.


----------



## Devious Bane (Jan 26, 2009)

Well, there is always the "if" part of the equation.


----------



## Corto (Jan 26, 2009)

I know what I said, and I stand by my previous comment, but should the need for an off-site police system arise, I humbly volunteer myself to be the head (or at least the long arm) of this Internet Gestapo. The tubes shall tremble when they hear my nickname. People would use [whisper] tags to avoid my ever vigilant eye. My forces of order would strike terror into every user's heart. I would finally manage to complete my goal of a clean and perfect internet, safe for everyone under my iron fist. FurAffinity Uber Alles!


----------



## Aden (Jan 26, 2009)

Who in the name of Satan's big red ass ever brought up such a terrible idea? The concept that registering on a website could ever affect your life in any way outside that website, let alone making it _mandatory_, is laughable and pathetic.


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 26, 2009)

[whisper]Corto's gone nuts, guys! I say we waste his ass tonight![/whisper]
>=3


----------



## Aurali (Jan 26, 2009)

If you go to any other site EVER. I will find you. and Kill you



I know where you yiff.


----------



## Gavrill (Jan 26, 2009)

When I browse ED I expect lulz from you all. Good luck.


----------



## TehBrownPup (Jan 26, 2009)

I vote people are allowed to bash each other if there's enough of a reason for it. Bashing someone over their fetish is no, but bashing someone for being a whiny little shit, treating people like crap, hideously offensive journals or 'critique' or being KexAndy is a yes.


----------



## LoveCube (Jan 27, 2009)

The only reason why that thread got so out of hand was because one, *one individual only* got extremely butthurt over someone insulting him on another site and couldn't get over it.

A motive like that behind a suggestion is never, ever valid and only warrants the ridicule that followed.

What struck me as funny was that it was okay for him to call other FA users names (the ones who posted in that LJ were apparently also FA users), but god forbid others call him names. And every time he was called out on it he either shifted the subject matter and put attention elsewhere, or ignored the statement completely.

Nobody should take that 'suggestion' seriously. _*Nobody*_. It's not based on any solid grounds except for the fact he hasn't got the balls to deal with some backlash to his own words and actions.


----------



## Altera (Jan 27, 2009)

It would be harassment to monitor a person's habits online and enforce limiting rules on them for what they do outside of FA.

and what if it's taken too far? 
"Dragoneer, this person said I was weird on (site), ban them!"
"Dragoneer, this person doesn't like my art and said it on (site), ban them."
"Dragoneer, this person doesn't agree with me, ban them"
"Dragoneer, that person is on a site making comments about (insert something). This attacks my habits/beliefs, BAN THEM"



> do you think FA users should be punished for off-site actions, or is the suggestion just a lame attempt to play White Knight made by someone who's been a target of snark sites in the past?



The suggestion was a pathetic attempt by a person to harass other people into submission because they don't praise him for attacking people who consider bestiality abhorrent.
So he'd like to force his desires and censoring on everyone but himself. In his mind, only he is allowed to harass, insult and lie about people - all of which are much worse than someone going "haha, look at the face on this image"

I apologise deeply for this guy's presence. I'm so embarrassed by his behaviour online.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 27, 2009)

No need to apologize for the misbehavior of somebody else. ;-)

As you can see, the vast majority of the users here condemn this suggestion. Nobody should be punished for something twice.


----------



## Corto (Jan 27, 2009)

Dear Admins:
It's me, Corto. I just wanted to say I'm _still_ waiting for my ridiculous undeserved power over others which I'll eventually use to stage a coup against you and establish my own internet-wide fascist government. So, if possible, please hurry up things on that front. The only power I have now is name calling and it's really hard to get any respect as a beloved dictator when the best you can do to hurt dissidents is calling them "ugly". So, you know. Hurry up.

Love
Generalfeldmarschall Corto.

PS: I don't like that Kangaroo Boy. I suggest we make an example of him.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 27, 2009)

No point in digging up a topic that was already answered:

http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=830797&postcount=206

Closing Thread.


----------

