An OOC discussion about Jamahiriya

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1291837788' post='2534109']
The issue there was that the Nazi imagery brought in real-life neo-Nazis (or at least idiots who fantasized about being neo-Nazis) in Stand or Die. The same can't really be said about the commies.
[/quote]

and you know this how? we could very well have RL commies but there is nothing wrong with that. i don't even care about having RL neo-nazis in the game so long as they keep that !@#$ to themselves and don't try to recruit. for all you know, we could have dozens or hundreds of RL neo-nazis who play to have fun but keep their RL beliefs to themselves.

[greenacres]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1291842883' post='2534169']
and you know this how? we could very well have RL commies but there is nothing wrong with that. i don't even care about having RL neo-nazis in the game so long as they keep that !@#$ to themselves and don't try to recruit. for all you know, we could have dozens or hundreds of RL neo-nazis who play to have fun but keep their RL beliefs to themselves.
[/quote]

As the way it should be, because this is a roleplaying game. The only problem with having actual neo-nazis or anyone who holds radical beliefs is when they start spewing them in game. Keep your beliefs separate from your in character nation leader, there's no place for real world politics in a game of make believe.

[Tarikmo]

[quote name='bigwoody' timestamp='1291792286' post='2533745']
They can RP whoever the hell they want as an alliance.

Has anyone ever had a crusades avatar? Going to criticize them too?

If you don't like them that much, try and roll them IC. Might make things interesting, maybe.
[/quote]
I never thought I'd agree with Bigwoody, but here I am, my thoughts completely.

[Schad]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1291842883' post='2534169']
and you know this how? we could very well have RL commies but there is nothing wrong with that. i don't even care about having RL neo-nazis in the game so long as they keep that !@#$ to themselves and don't try to recruit. for all you know, we could have dozens or hundreds of RL neo-nazis who play to have fun but keep their RL beliefs to themselves.
[/quote]

Yeah, I'm sure we have all manner of degenerates believing all manner of things...I wasn't around then, but the issue with S/D was that they didn't particularly keep their RL beliefs to themselves, was it not?

[oOoMidooOo]

[quote]sharia law comprises at least part of their legal system if not nearly the whole thing[/quote]

Lol sorry but your wrong here , All arab countries arent following the proper sharia law in their legal system hardly anything is followed in legal system, its more of a International modern legal system. Saudia arabia is the only islamic country which tries to follow the sharia law in legal system.


Guys seriously end this... JAMA will stay exisitng and if someone has anything wrong against them.. go solve it on your own.

[ktarthan]

This is a tricky issue, as there is a bit of a fuzzy line when it comes to what kind of OOC content is allowed to be immediately transferred IC.

There's a million things we really take for granted as being retroactively established as IC canon, and with good reason. We all agree that many concepts and objects of the world transfer IC without any objection, as it would be a huge waste of time to detail the entire history of invention just to explain how we have computers IC.

I think the trickiness is when we get into things that are given proper nouns, which are for the most part non-transferrable. You can't refer to Ghandi unless you're talking about a player who has the ruler name of Ghandi. To further complicate the issue, this player Ghandi would not be restricted from espousing Ghandi-esque values, but we can't assume that they will. Other than that, it's just a name. What I don't think is okay is someone assuming (or assuming someone) to take on the persona and history of Ghandi simply by taking that name.

I don't see anything wrong with making an alliance that is "An Islamic Republic" as I have no formed IC idea of what "Islam" is. That's up for the alliance to define through their actions in the future. If they want to model it after the real life Islam, then so be it, but I won't make a judgement until I see as such.

[Fernando12]

I wasn't here for the first JAMA, so I cannot comment on it.

What I see here is quite simple. In game and here in the forums is in a way a shield that prevents things from becoming too personal. If you feel that an alliance or character is offensive but are doing things within the rules provided by Admin and his team and you don't like it you have every right to leave this game. You may not tolerate certain edgy behavior but others may. If you see something that you don't like then you need to find a way in game and here in the forums within the rules provided to be the counter to a Nation or Alliance that you do not like. This OP/topic does nothing but cast a bad light on an alliance that has barely reformed and has done nothing really to deserve being hated on. This OP/topic is playing on peoples real life emotions to try to isolate a barely reformed alliance.

If you don't like this alliance then do something IC to bring it down.

Now, JAMA is a Islamic alliance and you and some would use extremist Islamic beliefs that it may use IC to say that that alliance has no place here. That is playing directly to the real life emotions of the people behind the nations in this game. I would guess that most that play this game are from "western christian" countries. This topic is completely unfair to those few that may be from "non-western christian" countries.

Say the population of this game was mostly Islamic. Would it be right for the Islamic KevMcD to post this topic and say that my alliance (The United States) is offensive to the population? Would it be right for my alliance (The United States) to be rolled or moderated out of the game simply because of its potential offensiveness to a majority Islamic population? Of course not. And I know Kev didn't say he wanted JAMA moderated out, but drawing such attention to it almost makes it impossible for them to do anything that could stir things up in game because it could be deemed offensive to "westerners". Say my alliance fights in a war and uses George W on an aircraft carrier image with "Mission Accomplished". In a western CN populated game it's no big deal. But if we did that in a majority Islamic CN would the use of that image be offensive? Perhaps? It shouldn't be offensive in any population really.

What I am saying is that we need not be overly sensitive to things as this is just a game. None of us or very few of us actually experience the real life situations that have been described in this topic. There are rules in place to prevent the use of certain images that depict violence and other things. As long as JAMA sticks to the rules they should be allowed to post within those rules and if they do anything outside that there is moderation people that can give them their due process. It's not up to us to be deciding whether they can exist or not, Admin and moderators can do that. If anyone doesn't want JAMA to exist then roll them IC in game. Don't try to roll their reputation in a topic such as this.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Fernando12

[Goldie]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1291703288' post='2532701']
Many alliance that been forced to disband have come back after getting a better idea of what the general CN population finds acceptable and try avoiding the same mistakes. /b/, NoR, VE, GOONS and \m/ are all alliances that come to mind which were destroyed for a reason, but have reformed in a way that has allowed them not to get wiped out right away. If this alliance does something worthy of destroying it, then it can be destroyed but I don't think opinions should be based purely on what they used to be unless its the same people running it. I've seen strictly jewish alliances formed based on that, so I don't see anything wrong with interesting roleplay coming out of having jewish and muslim alliances. If they start trying to recruit people into OOC extremist organization then thats a different issue entirely, but I think your being overly sensitive about the whole thing. Conflict drives the game forward in interesting ways, if you kill them off before anything interesting can come of it everyone just gets to see another pointless curb stomp driving those away who might of had the ambition to start a great war later on.
[/quote]

What was the reason VE was destroyed other than Bilrow/JB/etc wanting to kill them?

[Earogema]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1291705891' post='2532738']
If Jama has no right to be around, neither do LSF, NoR or Int. It's either or, and I choose the former. I'm a-okay with the OOC alliances rocking around. Not my preference, but it adds color.
[/quote]
This is pretty much my opinion.

For the record I would also be fine with the West Bank Settler's Society.

[TypoNinja]

[quote]and while MvP has every right to link to it in his signature, the question is should he?[/quote]

I hate this kind of thinking. You admit they have a right and in the same breath suggest they shouldn't use it.

Should he? Hell yes he should, hes got that right.

Do I, or others, think it might be or is in bad taste? Completely irrelevant. Because there is one right so many people think they have when in fact they do not. You do not have a right to not be offended by somebody or something else.

Edit: Figured I'd throw in on this too, its just as silly.

[quote name='Batallion' timestamp='1291835940' post='2534077']
The problem about Hitler/Nazism is that it's associated to total racism of every race other than Germans (specifically blonde hair blue eyed Germans). It's not about how much death Hitler/Nazism caused as much as it is of the racism.
[/quote]


No its not about that at all, its about how emotionally we react to a subject. Killing people is bad, killing more people is subjectively worse, but Nazi's are the boogey men while communism gets a t-shirt. Just like how pilot error is about twice as likely to take down your flight as the terrorists but we all get strip searched at the airport anyway. As a society we don't react rationally to a lot of things, there is no good reason for most of it other than that's what we happen to fear most at the moment. Ten years ago the average American would have given you a glazed look if you brought up muslim radicals. Ten years from now we'll probably have a different boogey man. Or at least a new one to add to the pile.

Edited December 9, 2010 by TypoNinja

[lanceman1972]

Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. The Muslim world is in danger of slipping back to the Dark Ages. Just this week, the LA Times published a comprehensive poll of the Islamic world that showed majority support for hand amputation for theft and stoning for adultery. Sorry, but for whatever the Israelis faults, and they have many, you never see Israelis parading their children through the streets dressed as suicide bombers.

[Voytek]

[quote name='lanceman1972' timestamp='1291875944' post='2534695']Sorry, but for whatever the Israelis faults, and they have many, you never see Israelis parading their children through the streets dressed as suicide bombers.[/quote]
No, they only get their children to write messages on shells intended for Palestinian homes. Much more wholesome.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

I can't be bothered to read the seven pages of comments at the moment - I will, later on - but I must mention that I find it ironic that you, Kev, complain about the use of OOC imagery while sporting a Stephen Harper avatar.

Just sayin'.

Also, Israel is a rogue state and I wholly support the destruction of the zionist regime.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[MrMuz]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1291846576' post='2534215']
This is a tricky issue, as there is a bit of a fuzzy line when it comes to what kind of OOC content is allowed to be immediately transferred IC.

There's a million things we really take for granted as being retroactively established as IC canon, and with good reason. We all agree that many concepts and objects of the world transfer IC without any objection, as it would be a huge waste of time to detail the entire history of invention just to explain how we have computers IC.

I think the trickiness is when we get into things that are given proper nouns, which are for the most part non-transferrable. You can't refer to Ghandi unless you're talking about a player who has the ruler name of Ghandi. To further complicate the issue, this player Ghandi would not be restricted from espousing Ghandi-esque values, but we can't assume that they will. Other than that, it's just a name. What I don't think is okay is someone assuming (or assuming someone) to take on the persona and history of Ghandi simply by taking that name.

I don't see anything wrong with making an alliance that is "An Islamic Republic" as I have no formed IC idea of what "Islam" is. That's up for the alliance to define through their actions in the future. If they want to model it after the real life Islam, then so be it, but I won't make a judgement until I see as such.
[/quote]

I mostly agree with this line of thought.

I'd say the only thing different between Bob and Earth is the historical paths both have taken. IC, there hasn't been a lot of prominent Islamic alliances. A lot of politics are based around a theme, a government style, or a color, but almost none on a religious theme.

As long as they aren't basing it on OOC, something like 'liberate israel', I don't see any harm with it. If they keep it IC, then handle it IC.

[Bob Janova]

Without getting into an Israel-Palestine argument, there's nothing special about Islamic militant groups that makes them special. It's only Nazi stuff that's banned on these boards, and you see whole groups of people wearing military avatars of one form or another, proudly stating that they're in this or that armed forces, wearing Israeli flag avatars and so on. Not to mention the commie/Soviet imagery and the North Korean imagery used by IC alliances. If it's the religious aspect that bothers you, then I await your crusade () against CCC. If Jamariyah (isn't that how they spelled the first one?) is not allowed, nor are any of those things. And if you can't deal with a RP islamic militant alliance then why are you in a political RP game?

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='Tungsten' timestamp='1291826356' post='2533957']
Hey, lets bring a complicated, emotional, heated topic into CN... that's what really we really need.
[/quote]

Do I detect sarcasm? Because I actually think this [i]is[/i] what we need more of. Anything that brings people out to the forums and gets them talking can only be a good thing.


But anyway...

[quote name='bigwoody' timestamp='1291792286' post='2533745']
If you don't like them that much, try and roll them IC. Might make things interesting, maybe.
[/quote]

I honestly have to agree with woody here.

Kev, I implore you to form your "The West Bank Settlers Society." I can get you an MADP with \m/

[Cobalt]

[quote name='oOoMidooOo' timestamp='1291845590' post='2534202']
Lol sorry but your wrong here , All arab countries arent following the proper sharia law in their legal system hardly anything is followed in legal system, its more of a International modern legal system. Saudia arabia is the only islamic country which tries to follow the sharia law in legal system.
[/quote]

You need to do some more research.

Countries with state level implementation of sharia law (i'll limit the list to arab countries): Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Jordan
Countries with state level implementation of sharia law in conjunction with other systems: Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, UAE

--> 2 years of Persian Farsi, currently learning Arabic, have traveled to Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel. I'm a Marketing and EEE major, specializing in developing economies, in particular North Africa and the Middle East.

[Haflinger]

There are actually a number of countries, including several in the west, where it is possible to integrate sharia into family law disputes with the consent of both parties, as well.

[SirDog]

I don't mind the alliance's DoE. The line is crossed with all the anti-Israel comments/propaganda linking to You Tube and other websites at the base of the OP's (Michael von Prussia) signature which is all RL stuff. That really has no foundation in CN which is OOC. I am surprised admin allows it. But interesting topic, I guess IC/OOC will always be grey as we all somehow bring in our own biases and opinions into this game.

[Locke]

[quote name='SirDog' timestamp='1292139059' post='2537187']
I don't mind the alliance's DoE. The line is crossed with all the anti-Israel comments/propaganda linking to You Tube and other websites at the base of the OP's (Michael von Prussia) signature which is all RL stuff. That really has no foundation in CN which is OOC. I am surprised admin allows it. But interesting topic, I guess IC/OOC will always be grey as we all somehow bring in our own biases and opinions into this game.
[/quote]
I wasn't aware forum signatures were required to be IC.

[SirDog]

Yes, you are right Locke there is no rule in relation to subject matter for sigs. However, there is a general section in the forum rules on swastikas and that you can't mention the holocost. I guess I was applying the same standard when the sig carries links (You Tube or otherwise):

[i]The existence of the State of Israel is illegal and immoral[/i] | [i]Israel: committing piracy and murder on the open seas | Stop the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations! Sign the statement against negotiations[/i] / S[i]ign the Arabic-language petition against negotiations | Rebellious Thoughts: The Myth of Israeli Justice[/i].

To me whether its stuff about the holocost or anti-israel that amounts to anti-semitism. Now you tell me, is that kind of signature necessary in CN?

EDIT: Format fail.

Edited December 12, 2010 by SirDog

[Locke]

[quote name='SirDog' timestamp='1292142031' post='2537222']
Yes, you are right Locke there is no rule in relation to subject matter for sigs. However, there is a general section in the forum rules on swastikas and that you can't mention the holocost. I guess I was applying the same standard when the sig carries links (You Tube or otherwise):

[i]The existence of the State of Israel is illegal and immoral[/i] | [i]Israel: committing piracy and murder on the open seas | Stop the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations! Sign the statement against negotiations[/i] / S[i]ign the Arabic-language petition against negotiations | Rebellious Thoughts: The Myth of Israeli Justice[/i].

To me whether its stuff about the holocost or anti-israel that amounts to anti-semitism. Now you tell me, is that kind of signature necessary in CN?

EDIT: Format fail.
[/quote]
If you'd bothered to read the topic, you'd have seen that MvP is, in fact, a Jew; anti-semitism has no bearing on his views whatsoever. Now, to quote the rule you mentioned:
[quote]Swastikas and Nazi Imagery
The swastika may not be used in signatures or avatars. Pictures of swastika's are acceptable for use in the In Character (IC) sections of the roleplay forums, so long as its context is In Character, and not Out Of Character. Pictures of Hitler, mentioning of the Holocaust, etc... [i]have no place in the roleplay forums[/i], since these people and events existed in real life, and have no bearing or place in the Cyberverse. Other Nazi or SS imagery is forbidden in all forums.[/quote]
In other words, mentioning the Holocaust (or any other RL event pertaining to Nazism or anti-semitism) is perfectly acceptable in an OOC context, which as a sig is. Had anything in there been against the rules, the moderation staff would have removed it; plenty of people seem to take pleasure in reporting him, each have been denied, so certainly attention to him by the mod staff has occurred and not resulted in any action.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Locke

[SirDog]

Locke, I understand that about MvP, please do not misconstrue what I am saying. Forums are bad for such discussions. You correctly stated that there are no breach of rules. I am not disputing that. My question I posted was [i]is that kind of signature necessary in CN?[/i] Why detract from a DoE (IC) with (OOC/RL) political statements?

[Locke]

[quote name='SirDog' timestamp='1292145529' post='2537237']
Locke, I understand that about MvP, please do not misconstrue what I am saying. Forums are bad for such discussions. You correctly stated that there are no breach of rules. I am not disputing that. My question I posted was [i]is that kind of signature necessary in CN?[/i] Why detract from a DoE (IC) with (OOC/RL) political statements?
[/quote]
Had he put such information in the DoE, you might have a point, but he's not the one with an issue separating OOC and IC. People who take that in an IC context are the ones at fault. I'm sure other, less controversial political views have been held in signatures without complaint, so it's clear that people have an issue with the views rather than the category said views fall into. That's fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean that Jamahiriya in any way espouses those beliefs. If people have an issue with OOC beliefs, they should be questioned outside of the game, or at the very least outside of the OWF; Boiler Room is much better suited to that.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='SirDog' timestamp='1292142031' post='2537222']
Yes, you are right Locke there is no rule in relation to subject matter for sigs. However, there is a general section in the forum rules on swastikas and that you can't mention the holocost. I guess I was applying the same standard when the sig carries links (You Tube or otherwise):

[i]The existence of the State of Israel is illegal and immoral[/i] | [i]Israel: committing piracy and murder on the open seas | Stop the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations! Sign the statement against negotiations[/i] / S[i]ign the Arabic-language petition against negotiations | Rebellious Thoughts: The Myth of Israeli Justice[/i].

To me whether its stuff about the holocost or anti-israel that amounts to anti-semitism. Now you tell me, is that kind of signature necessary in CN?

EDIT: Format fail.
[/quote]

Is it Necessary? No, nothing requires it. Then again nothing requires the presence of your sig either. There are a host of purely political issues surrounding Israel that do not have to be directly related to antisemitism for one to object to.

I think you've forgotten that you don't have a right to not be offended by something. Congratulations you've been exposed to a political view you disagree with, don't turn around and ask if its necessary or not because the entire point of an open society is that all views get heard, weather you agree with them or not.