# Freedom of speech



## Zelos (May 14, 2010)

Can i have some?

Seriously I am getting the feeling the site is restricting it more and more for no god damn good reason.

Is it so hard to see the differens between hate speech and freedom of speech?

"Kill all X" clearly hate speech and is no fun

"prophet Y in orgie" not hate speech, protected under freedom of speech.

is that soo hard to get? comon EVERYTHING can be offensive to SOMEONE. hard to get?

You might think its absurd but no it isn't, people get offended by literly everything, just get used to it.

I thought this was meant to be a place where thigns could be posted, an artist could use their rightful right of freedom of speech so why are the admins just placing restriction upon restriction that makes no sense?

no "its offensive" is no good excuse because then they shall take down the entire site because ANYTHING is offensive to SOMEONE.

"its holy" even worse of an excuse! just because some think its holy doesnt mean that stuff is imune to redicule or anything!

the only good reason is "it is hate speech", all other things are just rationalizations of wrong doings!

if anyone value freedom of speech, expression and all they should also learn that they can get offended, others can get offended, it is a price we are ready to pay for our liberties, if we let people try to silence because of it we might just aswell remove those liberties from us because they serve no purpose then.

Admins, grow a spine and some sense


----------



## GraemeLion (May 14, 2010)

You don't have a right to have speech protected here on FA.

FA is a benevolent Dictatorship.  NOT covered by the US Constitution.

You need to grow a fucking brain.  There's NO SUCH THING AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH.


----------



## Ricky (May 14, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> You don't have a right to have speech protected here on FA.
> 
> FA is a benevolent Dictatorship.  NOT covered by the US Constitution.
> 
> You need to grow a fucking brain.  There's NO SUCH THING AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH.



I don't think he is stating this from a legal perspective but rather complaining about an ongoing trend he seems to notice in the site.

Sort of a (mostly unintelligible) rant.


----------



## gdzeek (May 14, 2010)

were free to try I guess, the internet is a worldwide system though so the system is governed by the "Gods of Chaos and Society Party for Progressionists."


----------



## Browder (May 14, 2010)

I want to know what he wants to express that he feels the forum gets offended by.


----------



## Ricky (May 14, 2010)

Browder said:


> I want to know what he wants to express that he feels the forum gets offended by.



I have no fucking clue.

I think he tried to state it in his post but it makes no sense at all...

Like: "_its holy_" 

What the fuck does that mean?


----------



## Browder (May 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I have no fucking clue.
> 
> I think he tried to state it in his post but it makes no sense at all...
> 
> ...



I'm guessing that he's being insulting to religious people.


----------



## Aden (May 14, 2010)

Zelos said:


> Can i have some?
> 
> Seriously I am getting the feeling the site is restricting it more and more for no god damn good reason.
> 
> ...



Your spelling and capitalization offends me.


----------



## Zydala (May 14, 2010)

Browder said:


> I want to know what he wants to express that he feels the forum gets offended by.



it's the "prophet Y in orgy" part. A certain Middle Eastern prophet that is a major figure in a dominant religion.

Anyway, FA/F has the full right to decide if they want to host/participate in any activity whatsoever, and the full right to decide if they don't want something hosted on their servers.

It might be 'legal' in the sense that the United States government can't tell you not to draw it, but FA isn't required to cater to you as a means of expression. Find another means of saying what you want.


----------



## Ricky (May 14, 2010)

Browder said:


> I'm guessing that he's being insulting to religious people.



I'm still pissed off that Crusader Cat got banned...


----------



## Irreverent (May 14, 2010)

Zelos said:


> Can i have some?



You can have as much freedom of speech as you want.  Freedom of the press, on the other hand, only applies to the person or group that owns the press. 

Do you understand the difference?


----------



## Browder (May 14, 2010)

Zydala said:


> it's the "prophet Y in orgy" part. A certain Middle Eastern prophet that is a major figure in a dominant religion.
> 
> Anyway, FA/F has the full right to decide if they want to host/participate in any activity whatsoever, and the full right to decide if they don't want something hosted on their servers.
> 
> It might be 'legal' in the sense that the United States government can't tell you not to draw it, but FA isn't required to cater to you as a means of expression. Find another means of saying what you want.


I figured. Zelos, I'd prevent you from doing something like this too, if this was my board. This is a community of people who don't want to be persecuted for their beliefs (theoretically:roll. You have opinions but I'm sorry dude, your opinions aren't more important than other peoples feelings.


----------



## shobonimaster (May 14, 2010)

Zelos said:


> Can i have some?
> 
> "prophet Y in orgie" not hate speech, protected under freedom of speech.



Depending on the the artist's intentions, that could very well be hate art.

"Hate art" does not always translate to "kill all" it can just as easily be something that is heavily insulting or hateful to a race, religion or belief.

Edit: forgot a word


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 14, 2010)

Browder said:


> This is a community of people who don't want to be persecuted for their beliefs (theoretically:roll.


 
People don't get persecuted for liking CARTOONS.


----------



## Browder (May 14, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> People don't get persecuted for liking CARTOONS.



I wasn't talking about that. Talking about being persecuted for following a religion. You draw an inherently offensive cartoon, that's persecution yes?


----------



## Smelge (May 14, 2010)

OP, you are wrong.

It seems that you're complaining because you can't draw offensive religious cartoons.

Stuff can be used for parody or whatever, that seems to be fine. What you sound like you're moaning at, is not being allowed to post something deliberately designed to be offensive to certain religions. This is where you cross from humour and parody into more religious hate terms.

So no, if thats what you've done, tough. You were in the wrong.


----------



## Kesteh (May 14, 2010)

OP how about you just leave and don't come back. Because obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 14, 2010)

Browder said:


> I wasn't talking about that. Talking about being persecuted for following a religion. You draw an inherently offensive cartoon, that's persecution yes?


 Religion  persecutes. There is no reason it should be exempt from the same treatment. The "no true Scotsman" argument is not an acceptable rebuttal to this statement.


----------



## Browder (May 14, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Religion  persecutes. There is no reason it should be exempt from the same treatment. The "no true Scotsman" argument is not an acceptable rebuttal to this statement.



Who said I was trying to be ethical? Religion is the dominate force in modern society and it's also the most beloved. This place is not a democracy.


----------



## GraemeLion (May 14, 2010)

FA has spoken, if you don't like it , go elsewhere.  Simple as that.


----------



## Xaerun (May 14, 2010)

Relevant journal is relevant.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (May 14, 2010)

Furries and free speech do not mix.


----------



## kuwaizair (May 14, 2010)

shobonimaster said:


> Depending on the the artist's intentions, that could very well be hate art.
> 
> "Hate art" does always translate to "kill all" it can just as easily be something that is heavily insulting or hateful to a race, religion or belief.




we can have species based hate art right XD?

"I hate hornets, get the bug spray" *dead anthro hornet*


----------



## Smelge (May 14, 2010)

kuwaizair said:


> we can have species based hate art right XD?
> 
> "I hate hornets, get the bug spray" *dead anthro hornet*



No, because this stuff has ne relevance in real life.

Sorry, are you really a hornet? Are you poking keys on a keyboard with your thorax? No? Then drawing dead hornets isn't hate art. You are not a minority, you are not being persecuted except for being stupid, and as I type this, I can feel something crawling in my hair fuck I think it's a spider and it feels big. Shitshitshit.

[edit]It was a caterpillar. I should probably stop climbing trees.


----------



## Dr. Durr (May 15, 2010)

Now, I have to put up th CRAP on YouTube, because of freedom of speech on there.
Saying "Yiff in Heck" is no different than "F*** You.", Or "This Art BLOWS Major @$$!" I thnk FA is good as it is.


----------



## Aden (May 15, 2010)

chaomasterr said:


> Now, I have to put up th CRAP on YouTube, because of freedom of speech on there.
> Saying "Yiff in Heck" is no different than "F*** You.", Or "This Art BLOWS Major @$$!" I thnk FA is good as it is.



what.


----------



## Taasla (May 15, 2010)

FA is a private site.  It can tell you to delete whatever it likes to.  Get over it.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (May 15, 2010)

chaomasterr said:


> Now, I have to put up th CRAP on YouTube, because of freedom of speech on there.
> Saying "Yiff in Heck" is no different than "F*** You.", Or "This Art BLOWS Major @$$!" I thnk FA is good as it is.



Stop acting like a furfag.


----------



## Rilvor (May 15, 2010)

This thread is made of win. I only noticed it when I refreshed the page, and saw "Freedom of speech" sitting there.


Somehow, deep inside, I knew this is exactly how it would turn out.


Am I psychic? Or maybe bawwwing furfags are just predictable. It would be nice if it was the former, wouldn't it?


----------



## Aden (May 15, 2010)

Rilvor said:


> Am I psychic? Or maybe bawwwing furfags are just predictable. It would be nice if it was the former, wouldn't it?



Most things here are completely predictable.


----------



## Winter Tw Wolf (May 15, 2010)

Zelos said:


> *Zelos being a complete asshat*



Private site. Those who pay the bills make the rules. Doesn't get any simpler than that.


----------



## Armaetus (May 15, 2010)

It's a private website, Dragoneer can do whatever the fuck he wants.


----------



## Witchiebunny (May 15, 2010)

As has been pointed out, FurAffinity is indeed a private site. We agree to use it according to the rules as set by those in charge, namely Dragoneer and co. 

That you're allowed onto the site is a privilege, not a right and as such you are entitled to nothing. Leaving aside the fact that not everyone who comes to FA is American and therefore entitled to the Constitutional Right of the First Amendment, the First Amendment is aimed at CONGRESS and the GOVERNMENT'S right not to oppress speech. Not a privately owned niche website. 

In other words, get off of your Entitlement complex of a high horse and suck it up, because you are owed nothing.


----------



## OxfordTweed (May 15, 2010)

You know what the best part is?

'Neer could decide that it would be a bannable offence to upload anything containing the colour pink. Maybe as a child, a biggish woman in a pink tracksuit sat on him or something. I don't know, but he has his reasons.

People would rail against 'Neer stepping on their freedom of speech, upload images with very pinkish red or violet hues to come as close as possible to violating the rule without violating it, and and spark epic flame wars.

And not one of them would leave, because that would mean they'd have to go to image boards to get their furry porn.


----------



## That_Vladimir_Guy (May 15, 2010)

'Neer owns this site, he can do whatever the hell he likes. Gb2Furocity if he pisses you off.


----------



## fuzzygrifter (May 20, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Stuff can be used for parody or whatever, that seems to be fine. What you sound like you're moaning at, is not being allowed to post something deliberately designed to be offensive to certain religions.




Does this or this or this qualify as "parody or whatever"?  (all links NSFW) Because if not, then they are all in violation of the AUP:*Harassment*  This includes, but is not limited to, content which is racist, bigoted or otherwise offensive towards any particular sexuality, philosophy or religion.​These are clearly derogatory and offensive, yet no one polices the site to prevent them (and others) from being posted- yet there's a little note up top that essentially says all images of Mohammed will be vetted for "derogatory, sexual, and/or outright insulting" material.

OP's point is not that he/she is owed full freedom of speech on a private site.  If you take time to consider what is written, it's apparent that in his/her opinion people need to get off their training pottys and not be a bunch of crybabies when they see something that doesn't agree completely with their interests or standards.  The taunts/admonishments to "go away if you don't like it" make it plain that differing opinions are not welcome.

Oh, while we're on the subject of AUP violations, this submission (all links NSFW) seems to clearly violate the *Loli/Shota* section:Fur Affinity does not permit submissions including sexually immature human and demi-human characters under the age of 18 in mature situations (aka "loli" and "shota").
​I see an umbilical cord coming from an underage character-  that certainly seems to be a 'mature' situation.


----------



## Taren Fox (May 20, 2010)

As much as the OP's post was probably the weakest, most poorly thought out rant of all time, I will give him one thing -- He didn't say *FUR*eedom of Speech.


----------



## Fay V (May 20, 2010)

I hate people like OP that decry for "freedom of speech" 
Freedom of Speech is a right protected in the US constitution. It protects you from being persecuted by the US government for saying unsavory things that the government might not like. Go say "fuck the man" as much as you want. 
It does not mean private groups can not regulate speech. It also doesn't mean you can say whatever the fuck you want without social consequence.

the internet is made up of private organizations and individuals. FA is a private organization and they can put it in their rules for you to have to post in brightly osculating colors if they felt like it. 

You will never get freedom of speech on the internet. you will always have to go by the rules of the site. if you don't like that you can try to make an argument for why it is in the site's interest to change, but judging from first post you're better off just leaving if you don't like it OP.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 20, 2010)

fuzzygrifter said:


> Does this or this or this qualify as "parody or whatever"? Because if not, then they are all in violation of the AUP: (all links NSFW)
> *Harassment* This includes, but is not limited to, content which is racist, bigoted or otherwise offensive towards any particular sexuality, philosophy or religion.​These are clearly derogatory and offensive, yet no one polices the site to prevent them (and others) from being posted- yet there's a little note up top that essentially says all images of Mohammed will be vetted for "derogatory, sexual, and/or outright insulting" material.


 
http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?p=1841266&highlight=Jesus#post1841266

Dragoneer clearly stated that such images violate the AUP as well.  So start hunting for gay Jesus pictures and file your TroubleTickets.


----------



## Irreverent (May 20, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> So start hunting for gay Jesus pictures and file your TroubleTickets.



Likely the "usual crew" of self-appointed FA gallery mall cops will....oh, wait, they already were.  :roll:


----------



## Zydala (May 20, 2010)

fuzzygrifter said:


> Does this or this or this qualify as "parody or whatever"?  (all links NSFW)  Because if not, then they are all in violation of the AUP:*Harassment*  This includes, but is not limited to, content which is racist, bigoted or otherwise offensive towards any particular sexuality, philosophy or religion.​These are clearly derogatory and offensive, yet no one polices the site to prevent them (and others) from being posted- yet there's a little note up top that essentially says all images of Mohammed will be vetted for "derogatory, sexual, and/or outright insulting" material.
> 
> OP's point is not that he/she is owed full freedom of speech on a private site.  If you take time to consider what is written, it's apparent that in his/her opinion people need to get off their training pottys and not be a bunch of crybabies when they see something that doesn't agree completely with their interests or standards.  The taunts/admonishments to "go away if you don't like it" make it plain that differing opinions are not welcome.
> 
> ...



diiiiiiid you report them? like people are supposed to? instead of waiting for an all-knowing, all-seeing FA deity to bring justice?


----------



## Aden (May 20, 2010)

fuzzygrifter said:


> Does this or this or this qualify as "parody or whatever"?  (all links NSFW)



Lern2nsfwtag


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 20, 2010)

Aden said:


> Lern2nsfwtag


 
Really, it's your fault for being logged into FA so adult material can be shown while in a place where things should be safe for work. D:


----------



## Aden (May 20, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> Really, it's your fault for being logged into FA so adult material can be shown while in a place where things should be safe for work. D:



That's not an excuse.

\And I'm not.


----------



## Fire (May 20, 2010)

fuzzygrifter said:


> Does this or this or this qualify as "parody or whatever"?  (all links NSFW)




I already knew this thread is epic just by looking at the title :>

FA staff has the right to delete whatever they want cause it's their site, but most likely they are not going to delete these ones, so stop wasting your time on trouble tickets.

offended? here's some interesting articles:
*Refuge In Audacity
True Art Is Offensive
Crossing The Line Twice
Refuge In Vulgarity
*

Perhaps they will help you grow a sense of humor.


----------



## Browder (May 20, 2010)

FireRaider said:


> I already knew this thread is epic just by looking at the title :>
> 
> FA staff has the right to delete whatever they want cause it's their site, but most likely they are not going to delete these ones, so stop wasting your time on trouble tickets.
> 
> ...



...Linking people to T.V. tropes is below the belt. I agree. but damn.


----------



## thoron (May 20, 2010)

I know this maybe a little off topic, but all the "Freedom of Speech" threads have been the high point of my day, they just provide so much entertainment.


----------



## Irreverent (May 20, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> Really, it's your fault for being logged into FA so adult material can be shown while in a place where things should be safe for work. D:



No, its not his fault, its the poster's fault. 



> Limitations:
> 
> * Keep the forums "Work Safe" - PG-13 is used to describe this but nudity, overly graphic for example is a no. This requirement includes stories, avatars, and signatures. As a rule of thumb, if you (either you personally or normal users) would not want your mother or a child seeing or reading something, it's PG-13 at minimum.
> * Links may contain mature/adult material, but must be labeled with NSFW or some other appropriate label. This is in exception to the PG-13 rule above.



The rules on FA and FAF are different.  Links that aren't PG13 must be flagged as such on FAF.  For a guy that is a self-apointed gallery cop on FA, I find your lack of understanding of FAF rules hypocritical interesting.


----------



## fuzzygrifter (May 20, 2010)

Irreverent said:


> The rules on FA and FAF are different. Links that aren't PG13 must be flagged as such on FAF. For a guy that is a self-apointed gallery cop on FA, I find your lack of understanding of FAF rules hypocritical interesting.


First, my apologies to the staff and anyone viewing this thread in front of their parents/boss for not putting the NSFW tags in- as you can see, I'm not a longtime forum member ("gallery cop"?), but I shall remember in the future.  However, if the use of them is so important, why isn't the NSFW tag featured more prominently?

I do find it a little disappointing that a moderator-type person would glibly label a poster a 'gallery cop' when disagreeing.  I'm not sure whether it's meant to subtly intimidate or undermine the my opinion, but it doesn't contribute to the discussion.



Zydala said:


> diiiiiiid you report them? like people are supposed to? instead of waiting for an all-knowing, all-seeing FA deity to bring justice?


No, I didn't report them- I'm not a butthurt crybaby who's incapable of tolerating dissent or art that does not conform to a narrow worldview.  All I did was search "Mature/Adult" for Jesus.  If people want to draw that, I really don't care- the links are here only because I wanted to point out the inconsistency in the enforcement of the AUP and that there exists a double standard concering several religions. 

I tried to find Bhudda eating a cheeseburger, but apparently Bhuddists are too chill to be worth offending.  NSFW This NSFW is all I found- not very Siddartha-y.


----------



## Fay V (May 20, 2010)

fuzzygrifter said:


> *No, I didn't report them*- I'm not a butthurt crybaby who's incapable of tolerating dissent or art that does not conform to a narrow worldview.  All I did was search "Mature/Adult" for Jesus.  If people want to draw that, I really don't care- the links are here only because *I wanted to point out the inconsistency in the enforcement of the AUP* and that there exists a double standard concering several religions.
> .



So...you didn't report it, then use it to complain that AUP is not enforced. 
Just in case you need help. It can't be enforced if they don't know the pictured exist. this isn't like elfwood where everything is viewed by a mod first. Report things that are against the rules. They aren't being hypocritical if things exist that they don't know about.


----------



## fuzzygrifter (May 20, 2010)

Fay V said:


> So...you didn't report it, then use it to complain that AUP is not enforced.
> Just in case you need help. It can't be enforced if they don't know the pictured exist.



Point taken.  However, my primary point was that the application of the rule was inconsistent- the DMD blurb implied all entries with Mohammed would be vetted for appropriatness, while clearly others in the past have not.  Also, some other posters here have implied that filing a TT for a Jesus pic did nothing- that such tickets are routinely ignored.  Not having filed one, I cannot say whether that is true or not.


----------



## KingCabbage (May 20, 2010)

How come you get to offend me every single day with raunchy submissions and child pornography but Islam gets special treatment.

It is because I don't have a missile :C


----------



## Taralack (May 20, 2010)

fuzzygrifter said:


> I do find it a little disappointing that a moderator-type person would glibly label a poster a 'gallery cop' when disagreeing.  I'm not sure whether it's meant to subtly intimidate or undermine the my opinion, but it doesn't contribute to the discussion.



I don't think he was referring to you, mate.


----------



## Zydala (May 20, 2010)

fuzzygrifter said:


> Point taken.  However, my primary point was that the application of the rule was inconsistent- the DMD blurb implied all entries with Mohammed would be vetted for appropriatness, while clearly others in the past have not.  Also, some other posters here have implied that filing a TT for a Jesus pic did nothing- that such tickets are routinely ignored.  Not having filed one, I cannot say whether that is true or not.



Fay V mostly had down what I meant - there's so many submissions that they can't possibly even know what's there or not unless you alert them. It's not about being butthurt, really, it's just about helping govern.

Also I think they're making a bigger deal out of it than they usually would because it's an organized art event with a large influx of entries on a touchy subject, which could kind of lead to some more offensive entries that might have a bit more of a bite of hate to them than the entries you linked to. They're a private site that's made their point clear on where they stand on participating, and are keeping the line there. I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't know if I personally see a problem in how it's being handled right now :>


----------



## Redregon (May 20, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I don't think he is stating this from a legal perspective but rather complaining about an ongoing trend he seems to notice in the site.
> 
> Sort of a (mostly unintelligible) rant.



well, if he doesn't like it, he is welcome to GTFO

all things considered, FA is mighty liberal in what they DO allow compared to a lot of other art-based sites out there. i mean, where else on the internet can you look for, AND FIND, pictures of pedophilia, beastiality, incest, animoo, Warnerbrothers fanservice AND the goodies of guro, scat and tentacles?

not many places... that's for sure.


----------



## Slyck (May 20, 2010)

Don't expect anything. You're using these forums for free. It's a privilege, not a right.

Guess what? My lombax thread was locked. Did I like that? Hell no. That thread was fine by me. But it was locked. Bawwwwww. So what? I got over it, and you should get over whatever the fuck happened to you.


----------



## Foxtrack (May 20, 2010)

I say Dragoneer is a Muslim that is normally layed back, but fears being killed by the muslim community and islamic extremist.


----------



## Fire (May 20, 2010)

Foxtrack said:


> I say Dragoneer is a Muslim that is normally layed back, but fears being killed by the muslim community and islamic extremist.



Dragoneer isn't digging this thread by now


----------



## Fay V (May 21, 2010)

FireRaider said:


> Dragoneer isn't digging this thread by now


Considering the streams he frequents and the things that happen to him in said streams...being called a laid back muslim isn't that bad.


----------



## TeeJay the GolFaux (May 21, 2010)

I like to say what I want, but apparently I cant because whatever I say hurts people so im done with all(or at least most) of you. Believe what you want, leave me alone and if your gonna be nice pm me.....


----------



## Taralack (May 21, 2010)

TeeJay the GolFaux said:


> I like to say what I want, but apparently I cant because whatever I say hurts people so im done with all(or at least most) of you. Believe what you want, leave me alone and if your gonna be nice pm me.....



No, that's just because everything you post here is full of shit.


----------



## TeeJay the GolFaux (May 21, 2010)

So is your ass but you dont hate it. Then again maybe you do. Lose it then.


----------



## Taralack (May 21, 2010)

8)


----------



## TeeJay the GolFaux (May 21, 2010)

u = friend. talk to me anytime.


----------



## Redregon (May 21, 2010)

TeeJay the GolFaux said:


> So is your ass but you dont hate it. Then again maybe you do. Lose it then.



asses generally tend to spew their contents into a toilet, not all over a website.

try again.


----------



## Xaerun (May 21, 2010)

Good god, this thread has just... wow.

I think we've wrapped up just how much freedom of speech means on a private website and we're just devolving into trash talk now, so... we're done here.


----------



## Irreverent (May 21, 2010)

Xaerun said:


> so... we're done here.



Not so fast Rudderbutt, I owe Fuzzygrifter an explanation. 



fuzzygrifter said:


> First, my apologies to the staff and anyone viewing this thread in front of their parents/boss for not putting the NSFW



Don't sweat this, but it is something that we mods/admins need to police a bit better.  FAF is pg13, parts of FA are not and we sometimes forget to make the distinction. 



> I do find it a little disappointing that a moderator-type person would glibly label a poster a 'gallery cop' when disagreeing.  I'm not sure whether it's meant to subtly intimidate or undermine the my opinion, but it doesn't contribute to the discussion.



It wasnt.  I should have defined the term better.  FA is self-policed, and we appreciate users that notice and flag inappropriate content when they _stumble _across it.  But we do have a hardcore cadre of self appointed AUP enforcers that feel it is their unelected, un-appointed duty to actively search and seek out AUP or TOS violating submissions.  To describe these users, I coined the term "gallery-cop."  Its a play on the term "mall-cop" or "mall-ninja."    When 2% of the user base are generating 50% of the Trouble-ticket submissions then there is something less altruistic going on.  Its a form of vigilantism that approaches trolling.   



Toraneko said:


> I don't think he was referring to you, mate.




Indeed, I wasn't.  It was a broad sweeping statement, and I apologize for that.  Didn't meant to paint you with that brush Fuzzygrifter.


----------

