Capitalist Producers vs. The Vocals - A court case

Just to make sure I understand you correctly, the respective posting clause is enforced in a purely subjective manor.

If the respectful posting clause is subjective, thinking back to Nation of Quebec's statement that any post against gay marriage was disrespectful of gays and lesbians, how do you protect the nations of this region from selective enforcement under the subjective standard of respectful posting?

How do we prevent our region from going down the same path the Nation States moderators you spoke of are now so infamous for?

 

Lets go step by step:


---------------------------------------------
You said: "Just to make sure I understand you correctly, the respective posting clause is enforced in a purely subjective manor."

No.
I never said that.
And your understand of my words is incorrect: The clause is never enforced in a subjective manor.

I said: "(...) You need the context. (...) We are talking about a clause that can only be defined in subjective terms (...)."
Once you are aware of the context and the situation is defined, you can analyze the situation in a very objective manor. Therefore:
- As long as you don't have the context, the clause its subjective.
- Once you have the context, the clause became objective; therefore, the line and how to enforce that line its very clear and objective.

Lets go back to my example #1:
* The clause says: "You have to go to sleep between 20:00 and 20:30 (8:00 pm and 8:30 pm)." As I said, this is a black and white clause:
Me: - What time is it?
Kid: - 20:45
Me: - Then, its late (and your grounded). --> I don't care about the context, the clause will always be enforced in the same way.

Lets go back to my example #2:
* The clause says: "You have to go to sleep early." As I said, this is a subjective clause.
Me: - What time is it?
Kid: - 20:45
Me: - What are you doing tomorrow morning? --> I need the context
Kid: - I have to go to school early in the morning. --> Now I have the context
Me: - Then, its late (and your grounded). --> In the same context, the clause will always be enforced in the same way.

Since the clause is subjective, it depends of the context; here is another context with a different outcome for the same clause:
Me: - What time is it?
Kid: - 20:45
Me: - What are you doing tomorrow morning? --> I need the context
Kid: - Nothing, I can stay to bed all day. --> Now, I have the context
Me: - Then, its Ok. --> In the same context, the clause will always be enforced in the same way.


---------------------------------------------
You said: "If the respectful posting clause is subjective, thinking back to Nation of Quebec's statement that any post against gay marriage was disrespectful of gays and lesbians, how do you protect the nations of this region from selective enforcement under the subjective standard of respectful posting?"

* CID stands up and faces the Court *
Your honor, I object the question.

The question Capitalist Producers just asked, assumes that Nation of Quebec said "any post against gay marriage was disrespectful".
This is false.
In this very trial, Nation of Quebec said "Your honors, I do not recall ever stating such an opinion on NationStates. Disagreeing with someone is not disrespectful - it is how they conduct themselves and how they make their argument that is respectful or disrespectful."
Here is the evidence:
http://capitalistparadise.com/forum...ducers-vs-the-vocals-a-court-case.6741/page-5

As a result, the question made by Capitalist Producers is an intentionally misleading question and Capitalist Producers must receive a warning from the Court.


---------------------------------------------
You said: "How do we prevent our region from going down the same path the Nation States moderators you spoke of are now so infamous for?"

* CID stands up and faces the Court *
Your honor, I object the question; although I will answer it anyway since I can understand where this is going.

The question Capitalist Producers just asked, assumes that I believe "Nation States moderators (I) spoke of are now so infamous"
This is false.
I never said that and I challenge Capitalist Producers to quote me saying that, as I provided a link above.
For the record, your Honor: this is the second time with me as a witness that Capitalist Producers state something that has never been said.
Nevertheless, as I promised, I will give a direct answer.

* CID sits dows and faces Capitalist Producers *
Considering the fact that I (we) dont want NationStates moderators to take over a situation in our region, like aggressions or insults in heated RMB debates, I as the Founder believe that the best way to prevent this situation is a 3-things-combo:
1) A respectful posting clause in our Constitution (we already have that).
2) A Founder (and Vocals) willing to take action if, given a context, the respectful posting clause is disobeyed (my opinion is that we already have that).
3) A Supreme Court ready to support the Founder and Vocals actions (specially if all the Vocals and the Founder arrived to the same conclusion).


---------------------------------------------
Finally, as your question #2 has not been answered due to my objection, I will wait SC Repentant Jihadi decision before letting this continue.
- If he rules Nation of Quebec said "any post against gay marriage was disrespectful", therefore I will be wrong and I will answer your question.
- If he rules the evidence I presented is correct and Nation of Quebec never said that, therefore I will be correct and I will not answer your question (and I will ask a warning for you).

 

The premise of the question is to be stricken- ""If the respectful posting clause is subjective, thinking back to Nation of Quebec's statement that any post against gay marriage was disrespectful of gays and lesbians,"

 

It is appear this second part of the question has been well answered previous and entered as evidence

Mr. Capitalist Producers, please be certain of your quotes, have material evidence
Mr. The-CID if you have objection to a question please do not proceed with an answer

Capitalist Producers, your next question

 

Your honors, The quote by Nation of Quebec is indeed factual. The phrase "I do not recall saying that" is not an affirmative denial. While I cannot find it now, I believe it came up in during a lawsuit Nation of Quebec filed against Fastercat. Perhaps Fastercat can be recalled to the stand and asked about it if the question of whether or not Nation of Quebec actually expressed that thought is vital to the outcome of this trial.

Whether or not Nation of Quebec actually used those exact words or even said it is merely an aside to the point the example is making. That point is that under the "respectful posting" clause any unpopular statement can be squelched based on political message. This is the same thing as the moderators catch all trolling rule.

As to the objection of about the moderators, CID mis-understood. I was referring back to his reference to the moderators in his previous answer. I never meant to imply he said anything about them.

However, I think the point I made is clear to everyone now. That point is there is no black and white standard that guarantees the respectful posting clause will not be used as the Nation States "trolling" rule, a catch all that can be used to slap anyone down for any reason. One nation's respectful is another nation's forbidden speech.

So let's move on.

The CID, do you feel that members of the regional government have less freedom of speech than others? If so could you explain why?

 

* CID stands up and faces the Court *
Your honor, I object all arguments giving by Capitalist Producers.


Objection #1)

I said:
"In this very trial, Nation of Quebec said "Your honors, I do not recall ever stating such an opinion on NationStates. Disagreeing with someone is not disrespectful - it is how they conduct themselves and how they make their argument that is respectful or disrespectful."

Then, Capitalist Producers said:
"Your honors, The quote by Nation of Quebec is indeed factual. The phrase "I do not recall saying that" is not an affirmative denial."

Conclusion: -MISLEADING- Capitalist Producers intentionally avoids the second sentence said by Nation of Quebec: "Disagreeing with someone is not disrespectful - it is how they conduct themselves and how they make their argument that is respectful or disrespectful."
This last sentence is far more important than the first one, as it gives a clear answer: "NO" --> Nation of Quebec does not believe any post against gay/lesbian marriage is disrespectful; rather than that, he believes is HOW the argument is presented.


Objection #2)
Capitalist Producers said:
"Nation States moderators you spoke of are now so infamous for"

- Capitalist Producers then said:
"CID mis-understood. I was referring back to his reference to the moderators in his previous answer. I never meant to imply he said anything about them."

Conclusion: -ARGUMENTATIVE- If Capitalist Producers was not implying I said that, then the consideration regarding "Nation States Moderators are so infamous" is an exclusive and personal opinion from Capitalist Producers. As such, a personal opinion from the Plaintiff cannot be introduced as part of a question to a witness.


Objection #3)
Capitalist Producers said:
"However, I think the point I made is clear to everyone now. That point is there is no black and white standard that guarantees the respectful posting clause will not be used as the Nation States "trolling" rule, a catch all that can be used to slap anyone down for any reason. One nation's respectful is another nation's forbidden speech."

Conclusion: -ARGUMENTATIVE and MISLEADING-
The point will be determinate by the Jury; if Capitalist Producers wants to provide his point of view, he can do it in the final hearing, not as a prelude of a question to a witness (therefore: argumentative)
Also, I have said many times already that the "respectful posting" clause I CREATED BASED ON THE 2006 POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, is defined per context, but objectively enforced. Therefore, given the same context, its a lie that "One nation's respectful is another nation's forbidden speech" as Capitalist producers said (therefore: misleading)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
* CID sits down and faces Capitalist Producers *
I will answer your question now.

You asked me:
"Do you feel that members of the regional government have less freedom of speech than others? If so could you explain why?"

I said this many times: The respectful posting clause is subjective, as you need a context to define the situation. Once you have the context, under that context the respectful posting clause is very clear and it is possible to enforce the clause in an objective way.
* Define: To determinate, based on the context, if the situation insides that context fulfills the rule or not.
* Enforce: Once we have a context, we can enforce the rule (or not); and the rule will be enforced in a very objective way; it does not matter if the one who is disobeying the rule is a member of the Government or not: the punish will be the same for all... and the punish will escalate in the same way as long as he keeps disobeying the rule.

Now, I also believe that the ones in the government (like me, you, the CEO, the Vocals and all the SC) should try to held a higher standard (please take note that the word try is underlined); this means that members of the government should try to give the example by trying to draw a personal line of conduct that could not be even close to disobey the respectful posting clause.

Of course, sometimes this is not possible: sometimes a member of the government enters in a heated debate and pushes up into the limit of the respectful posting clause (without crossing the line). He will NOT be punished, because it does not matter that he disobeyed his own personal (and higher) line of conduct: he has the same amount of freedom of speech than others. Therefore, as long as he does not cross the respectful posting clause, its OK. Once again, if he actually crosses the respectful posting clause, he will be punished (as everyone).

Bottom-line: My answer is: NO; the members of the regional government don't have less freedom; they have the same amount of freedom of speech than others.

 

* CID stands up and faces the Court *
Your honor, I request a final warning to Capitalist Producers.
Five objections in two questions is more than enough.

 

Mr. The-CID approach the bench please

Capitalist Producers, your next question..

 

You honors, we are once again entering into ridiculous territory here. As a result of Nation of Quebec's antics, this court ruled that Fastercat was the legal representative for the defense and that as such Fastercat would be the one to object. While asking the court to overrule the objections by The CID, I also ask the court to remind the witness that he is just a witness and any objecting should come from his counsel.

To the first objection, I need only refer you back to Nation of Quebec's testimony. He did not deny expressing that idea while under oath. Should Nation of Quebec return to this trial to deny it under oath or for any other reason, then I reserve the right to pick my questioning up right where I left off and expect this court to enforce some heavy, vocal status revoking penalties should that nation fail to answer them.

To the second objection, there is nothing in the procedures that forbids me from interjecting context when asking a question. As for my interjection about the Nation States moderators being opinion, The CID is wrong. It is an undeniable fact. If we want to have a sidebar about the behavior of the Nation States moderators, the Plaintiff would be delighted to produce witnesses that would be happy to share their observations of the small 'f' fascist behavior demonstrated by the moderators on a regular basis, and do so in an unending string until the court is satisfied with the point.

To the third objection, it is incumbent upon plaintiff to put as much context as possible into a question. As there are no provision for final arguments in the trial schedule laid out by the court the context must be made at the time of the question.

Lastly, please remind the witness that the court is not keeping score on objections. If that were the case Nation of Quebec's behavior alone would have ended this case in Plaintiff's favor long before The CID took the stand.

I ask that the court overrule these objections.

 

Capitalist Producers, I will share with you a portion of the tg I sent to The-CID

And then your next question for the witness

(Bailiff, my thorazine please..)

 

* The-CID faces the Court *
As requested by the SC Repentant Jihadi, I am going to redraw my motion for a warning to Capitalist Producers.

* The-CID faces the Plaintiff *
Now, allow me to be perfectly clear to you, Capitalist Producers:

- I dont know what kind of trial do you think this is: Any witness have rights, me included. I don't need Fastercat or anyone to object anything as long as I believe you are asking a wrong question. If you ask me "Will you rape her again? Yes or No?" I personally have the right to object this question as your are implying I already rape her once. It has been like this with most of your questions.

- We are not judging Nation Of Quebec, whose testimony, although evasive, was clear. No one cares the personal problem you have with him.

- We are not judging the behavior of the Nation States moderators, who I believe are doing a great job (not an "infamous" job as you claim). And for any witness you would be "delighted to produce" stating they are doing a fascist job, I would be delighted to produce 100 witness that says the opposite.

- We are not judging the "respectful posting clause" in the Constitution. Even-thou the clause would have never be written in the Constitution, I was going to enforce it anyway (given a certain context), since the "respectful posting clause" is a mirror of NS Rules and I created it with the "spirit" of calming down heated debates and stop aggressions between nations; I don't want to see Capitalist Paradise to became completely oversees by the NS Moderators due to some nations that are unable to have a heated debate without insulting, hence, braking the NS Rules.

- We are ONLY judging if the telegram from the Vocals, containing a private warning to you, after ALL your posts in the RMB, was right or wrong. That is it. Nothing more, nothing else. So far, almost all the Vocals have passed and you have not ask a single question regarding that telegram. And you have been wasting everybody time in an exhausted long trial.

- Also, I don't know if you think we are all idiots... or you are unable to distinguish between a context an your personal opinion: If you say "I think the point I made is clear to everyone now." that is your personal opinion, not a situation or a context. You are also starting with "I think"... Some obvious rules here:
* You ARE NOT allowed to put your personal opinions in a question.
* You ARE NOT allowed to assume what a Nation will think. The SC Repentant Jihadi ALREADY TOLD YOU: display evidence (do not assume).
* If you want to give your opinions, call yourself as a witness!!! And there is always a final hearing to resume each position!
* No one cares about keeping score on objections... is the time you are wasting by not asking a decent question that is annoying everyone here!


Finally, I AM the Founder. I AM the one who wrote the 1st Political Organization and bring democracy to our region. This means, I was the Supreme Court myself (also the WA Delegate, the Minister of Interior, Minister of Exterior and Recruitment Head) even before your nation was founded. My motto is "Justice Above All" precisely for that: as the final ruler, I was personally obligated to make justice in order to maintain a "friendly and secure region", words that were at the very first World Factbook Entry and that are still there. Show a little more respect for the ideas of the one that created the region and for the only one who once stood up for you.

 

The plaintiff addresses the witness. It appears your concept of what this trial is about is somewhat less than reality. Perhaps you need some time to reread Plaintiff's complaint under claims for relief.

The plaintiff addresses the court. The Plaintiff understands The CID is the founding member of this region. However, this region is now operating under a constitution of his own design. As in the United States, there is no King George Washington and there is no King CID. Please instruct the witness to stop trying to run this trial.

 

You said: "The plaintiff addresses the witness. It appears your concept of what this trial is about is somewhat less than reality. Perhaps you need some time to reread Plaintiff's complaint under claims for relief."

Every claim you made can be summarized in one simple concept: Can the Vocals enforce the respectful posting clause?

If the Court answer is "NO"
Then the respectful posting rule cannot be enforced by the Vocals (obviously) and the Vocals will have to redraw their telegram (that is #1 and #2 of your claims).
Everything else you claim (#3 / #4 / #5), is plain bullshit:
#3) The standard of free speech for a member of a government is the same for everyone, as I said above.
#4) The NS Moderators are (ultimately) the ones that will decide if phrases like "useful idiots / etc" are appropriate or not for the RMB, despite any Constitutional clause.
#5) Free speech is always preserves in this region, as long as you follow NS Rules.

By the other hand,
If the Court answer is "Yes, their warning was inside their duties as per respectful posting rule"...
Then, you had a final warning by me via private telegram (the telegram you submitted as evidence) and another final warning from the Vocals (since the Court ruled in their favor). After those final warnings, you again disobeyed the NS Rules: your post from 11/12 days ago was suppressed by a NS Moderator.
Conclusion: After strike #1 (my telegram) and strike #2 (Vocals telegram), you broke NS rules again... That is Strike #3 and I will ban-eject you.

So... good luck in this trial!


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalist Producers, your next question for the witness.

 

The plaintiff waits on the court to rule.

 

This region is operating under the Magna Carta, the supreme law of the region. That is why this matter rests with and will be ruled upon by the Court. Both the Defense and Plaintiff are encouraged to keep this in mind. Your aim is not to convince each other (for if you were capable of doing so, the matter would not have reached the Court); your aim is to make your case to the Court. Rhetorical tricks, outbursts, and logical fallacies may be effective in a popular campaign, but they will do little to sway the Jurors before you.

Defense, you will have an opportunity to present your testimony, as Chief Justice Repentant Jihadi's order of proceedings indicate.

Plaintiff, next question please.

 

Moving on now.

Do recall receiving a telegram from me on or about April 19 of this year. This would be the telegram entered into evidence as telegram 1 and reads as follows:

----------------------------------

Hey Guys,

I'm all about free speech, but this asshole might draw some moderator fire with his comments about the Holocaust being a gift to the Jews. (To stay out of the line of fire, I decided to leave that one alone.) Your call...

page=rmb/postid=17866510

Delivery Reports

2 Delivered [+]
acario
the-cid
--------------------------------------------------​

 

Yes, I do; but you got the date wrong: It is from March 19th, not April 19th (the evidence should include the real date).

The link of your telegram makes reference to one post inside a heated debate between Capitalist Producers and Freak Legion. Here is the debate, including the exact moment Capitalist Producers "reported" Freak Legion to me (CID) and my actions as a result:


--------------------------------------------------
Capitalist Producers (133 days ago):
Voting for a third party in the Untied States that does not stand a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of winning is a vote against your second choice and a vote your worse nightmare does not have to overcome.
As for Ron Paul, he is almost as goofy as Obama when it comes to foreign policy, but in a different way. But the two of them do have leaving Israel to dangle in the breeze as part of their plan. That is something we cannot do do for strategic and moral reasons.
**The ambassador opens his mail and reads the latest edict from the clowns at the WA. He snorts back a laugh...**
General Assembly Resolution # 359, the Sexual Health and Education Act?
There ain't nothing wrong with the health of the sex in my nation. What are these twits on about now?


Freak Legion (133 days ago):
By "moral", you mean we need to actively oppose them, right? Because I can't imagine how supporting anti-Palestinian bigots who whined and privileged their way into land that couldn't possibly be theirs by any rights would be moral...


Capitalist Producers (133 days ago):
Not even close. No, by moral I mean honor our treaty to defend and stand with them. The one we committed to in 1948. Unlike some people, including the First Idiot, I still think the that "full faith" part of the United States means something. So far, Obama's efforts in that area have merely been steps toward getting Iran a nuke.
Clearly you are among the many misinformed people out there that think Israel is the bad guy in all of this. I don't have time to give you a history lesson tonight, but let's see if we can bring you up to speed anyway.
If a group of people insist on sending suicide bombers to one's restaurants, shops, busses and schools, and if that same group of people insists on lobbing rockets over the border into one's towns, eventually one's patients are going to run out. Let's put this another way, if someone keeps slapping you in the face, how long will it take you to either restrain that person from slapping you anymore or simply incapacitating them so you don't have to deal with it anymore.
One other thing to consider while you are chewing on that. Gaza shares a border with Egypt.[1] If the people in Gaza are such warm and fuzzy people why is it that Egypt won't let them cross the border, won't trade with them are allow shipments across that border?
(...)
[1] http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/lgcolor/palestinianlinks.htm


Freak Legion (133 days ago):
Israel shouldn't exist. The Kingdom of Judah ceased to exist around 600 BCE. The only Hebrew descendants that didn't run off to Europe, Asia, and possibly Africa, centuries ago, are called Palestinians. The Mandate of Palestine explicitly existed for one reason, to create a sovereign nation for native Palestinians, so why was the official name of Palestine written in Hebrew script by the League of Nations when no actual citizens of the region spoke or wrote Hebrew before they started shipping in racist Yids and Ladinos and kicking out natives from their own houses? The (World) Zionist Organization were racist pieces of filth when they formed in the first "World Zionist Congress" in 1897 before they could cry Jew-guilt. Of course, they were already trying to cry Jew-guilt since it's all they do since the non-existence slavery in Egypt. The Holocaust was a gift to those sick sleaze. The current Israeli PM's still trying to hang even that on Palestinians. Why else was the WZO's head Ben-Gurion allowed to randomly declare his own nation for a then minority of non-native invaders? The majority of Palestine simply didn't count to people like you. You religifried idiots are just prepping for your insane apocalypse. You can stuff your Yahweh back in your colons. It's the only place you're getting any of this.


Capitalist Producers → Acario, The-CID (132 days ago):
Hey Guys,
I'm all about free speech, but this asshole might draw some moderator fire with his comments about the Holocaust being a gift to the Jews. (To stay out of the line of fire, I decided to leave that one alone.) Your call...
page=rmb/postid=17866510


CID (132 days ago):
Capitalist Producers: You can debate about Democrats without comparing the left to "lynch mobs and jihadi"... and without calling Trump protesters "useful idiots" (quoted from your posts from some days ago).
Freak Legion: You can debate about Israel without statements like "You religifried idiots" or "The Holocaust was a gift" (quoted from your last post).

Now... Its usual for me to give a warning to Capitalist Producers only... but now, since both of you are now debating with each other, I see the possibility of a nuclear mod-intervention. So please, calm down both of you.
Please, check your posts before submitting them and make sure no direct insults are posted.


Freak Legion (132 days ago):
Shove off. Israel exists for no reason other than religious nuts and racists. I'll call out any psychotic bigot supporting such. You wanna play big man, go for it. Don't pretend any holy neutrality. That's not an option here. There's nothing civil about Israel and never was. They were self-hating Canaanites with no ties to Egypt. Exodus historically never happened. Neither do any mass expulsion from the region, so don't pretend they were victims of that either. They were brutish conquerors that eventually lost a LONG time ago. Their attempt to religify their lies doesn't help their case and is fair game as the racist verifiable nonsense it is.


CID (132 days ago):
Chill out and read my post again.
I will re-post: You can debate about Israel without statements like "You religifried idiots" or "The Holocaust was a gift". And now I will add: or statements like "religious nuts and racists".
I am not playing a big man neither I pretend any holy neutrality. You can go ahead and express any beliefs you have without insulting anyone. Giving you a warning for only 3 statement in all your posts means I am taking only one side: Capitalist Paradise side. My actions only intention here is to handle this myself before a nation decides to call for a Mod Intervention... Looking at this great region being moderated is embarrassing for us...
--------------------------------------------------


* I (CID) logged off late March 19th ---> 132 days ago.
* I (CID) was unable to return for a day and a half.
* I (CID) logged in early March 21th ---> 130 days ago.

* I (CID) found: 1 post from Capitalist Producers and 8 post from Freak Legion
* 5 posts of Freak Legion were already suppressed by Kaputer
* Then I (CID) suppressed the remaining 3 posts
* And Freak Legion was ban-ejected

* This is the last post of the heated debate; the 1 post that Capitalist Producers made:


--------------------------------------------------
Capitalist Producers (132 days ago):
Until you brought it up in this manner, I was going to keep my head down and try, just this once, to stay out of the moderator's line of fire. But as long as you brought it up, let us address the facts of the manner.
I need to make this absolutely clear. While Freak Legion's posts will almost certainly draw fire from the moderators, I still defend his absolute right to be that wrong. However, this is not my server, my game, my bandwidth or even my region.
In my case I was informed by the moderators that as long as I did not say "all of something is x" I was good to go. I've been following that rule since that rather bizarre warning over a year ago. (I still have the telegram.)
That said, it would be remiss not to point out the difference between my arguments that of Freak Legion. My arguments and statements are based in fact while the arguments posted by Freak Legion are pure fiction mixed with a level of hate one normally has to go to a Nazi web forum to read. While people may not like what I have to say, and frequently make that undeniably clear, the facts I post with those statements are indisputable. The last two posts by Freak Legion provide us with stunning examples to compare with.
The fact of the matter is that most of the protesters and supporters of left wing policies are indeed "useful idiots" as defined by the Urban Dictionary.[1] This term seems to be best available available as what they are striving to achieve can only end in failure. This is because people cannot and will not stop being people.[2] The only question left is how much damage will be done. Those that support such things probably do not know the brand of fascism they are supporting will eventually come around and bite them.
The methods employed by the left are indeed fascist in nature and retribution is delivered in the finest tradition of all out jihad. Let one obscure business person speak out publically against a politically protected ideal,[3][4] and the never to be sufficiently cursed social warriors conduct the online equivalent of a lynching. They destroy the person's reputation, cost that person their job and post their home address so people can stop by and "discuss" the error of their way. You don't even have to say anything. A mere contribution to the wrong political cause can do it.[5]
If the facts I post are a problem, let us take this to telegrams and we can go from there. I am certain a mutually satisfying resolution to this matter can be worked out.
Respectfully Submitted for our Founder's consideration.
The Minister of Bad Behavior
(...)
[1] Useful idiot -
Term invented in Soviet Russia to describe people who blindly supported the likes of Lenin and Stalin while they committed atrocity after atrocity.
Today, it refers to brainwashed liberals and leftists the world over (usually college students that aren't necessarily idiots, but just misinformed, naive, and ignorant of facts due to being indoctrinated with liberal/socialist propaganda through their public education) who believe that George W. Bush has committed more crimes against humanity than leftist darlings like Saddam Hussain, Yasser Arafat, and Osama Bin Laden, and still defend Communism, the cause of over 100 million deaths to this day.
See also, idiotarian
Hundreds of useful idiots gathered at their college campus to burn American flags, pass out Communist pamphlets that apologize for Stalin and Mao, and to pledge support to their hero, Saddam Hussain.
Useful idiots need to be shown the facts, mainly that the United States and Israel are the greatest defenders of freedom and justice in the world. Until then, rational people can have fun laughing at their ignorance.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Useful idiot
[2] USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Spain, Italy, etc, etc, etc...
[3] Dan Cathy, CEO of Chic Fil A drew a social justice jihad of protesters and boycott demands for donating truckloads of money to religious organizations the LGBTQ community considers hostile to their cause. Fortunately, that one backfired.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy
[4] The distasteful killing of Cecil the Lion was straight up legal when all the chips were finally counted. But yet Walter Palmer's homes and business were vandalized, his life was threatened, his business closed and several people were put out of work. And the net result is probably going to be an over population of lions in the refuge requiring even more lion hunting to keep the scales balanced.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...effect-leaves-parks-lion-at-risk-of-cull.html
[5]Brendan Eich, Founder and former CEO of Mozilla, wasn't so lucky. He ended up resigning his job rather than put his company at risk of an all out social justice lynching.

 

Plaintiff stipulates to the change in the dates. Thank you for correcting that.

Referring back to this post:

CID (132 days ago):
Capitalist Producers: You can debate about Democrats without comparing the left to "lynch mobs and jihadi"... and without calling Trump protesters "useful idiots" (quoted from your posts from some days ago).
Freak Legion: You can debate about Israel without statements like "You religifried idiots" or "The Holocaust was a gift" (quoted from your last post).

Now... Its usual for me to give a warning to Capitalist Producers only... but now, since both of you are now debating with each other, I see the possibility of a nuclear mod-intervention. So please, calm down both of you.
Please, check your posts before submitting them and make sure no direct insults are posted.​

Can you tell the court why, after receiving the telegram from the plaintiff stating intentions to step back from the situation, you made the above post linking the Plaintiff back to Freak Legion.

Then please list the number of times prior to this posting you warned or otherwise cautioned the plaintiff on posting. Please provide copies of those warnings.

 

I will reply to the Court your two different requests.
* CID stands up and faces the Court *

#1) Capitalist Producers said:
"Can you tell the court why, after receiving the telegram from the plaintiff stating intentions to step back from the situation, you made the above post linking the Plaintiff back to Freak Legion."

Members of the Court: The telegram I sent have two different parts, separated by a blank line space.

First Part: The warning part regarding Capitalist Producers and Freak Legion previous posts.
I get telegrams all day, from everyone and for everything. As such, Capitalist Producers is not the only one who send me telegrams. As a matter of fact...

During that specific heated debate, Capitalist Producers contacted me regarding Freak Legion posts.
As you can read in his telegram, Capitalist Producers was reporting Freak Legion´s aggressive posts.
So, I warned Freak Legion regarding... "statements like "You religifried idiots" or "The Holocaust was a gift" (quoted from your last post)."

During that specific heated debate, also some nations (more than one) contacted me regarding Capitalist Producers posts.
I have those telegrams and I can ensure you those nations were reporting Capitalist Producers aggressive posts.
So, I warned Capitalist Producers regarding... "comparing the left to "lynch mobs and jihadi"... and without calling Trump protesters "useful idiots" (quoted from your posts from some days ago)."

Moreover, my post itself specifies that Capitalist Producer´s post was from some days ago; not as a direct reference to Freak Legion.
I have the telegrams of this nations in my inbox, but I will only show them to the SC at their request, since one of them is from Anonymus.


Second Part: An advice to avoid a future encounter between two warned nations.
After warning both nations, I am trying to ensure no nation breaks NS Rules (trolling / insulting), therefore, the "respectful posting" clause.

This part of the telegram is focused in the heated debate but also in the future possibility of a mutual attack (direct insults) that could end with a MOD intervention before i can stop it. Reason why I said:
"(...) since both of you are now debating with each other, I see the possibility of a nuclear mod-intervention. So please, calm down both of you.
Please, check your posts before submitting them and make sure no direct insults are posted."



#2) Capitalist Producers said:
"Then please list the number of times prior to this posting you warned or otherwise cautioned the plaintiff on posting. Please provide copies of those warnings."

Members of the Court: I am a Postmaster General; which means I can have a very very big SENT BOX.
As evidence, here is a telegram I sent from 10 years and a half ago (recruiter was manual):

The Capitalist Alliance of The-CID → Allied Cephalopods
10 years 149 days ago
Dear Allied Cephalopods,

We are looking for nations like you, a real Capitalist one.
Your low taxes, your economic spirit and your active presence are exactly the characteristics that we want for our region.

Named as an UN Category, our region is a friendly and secure place for all pro-business nations like you.
You may want to use our forums for economic discussions or just for chatting with others.
Always feel free to suggest anything you want... I promise you will be heard!

Join CAPITALIST PARADISE now!!

You will be welcome!!!
Please take a look at our World Factbook Entry or send me a telegram if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
The CID
Founder of Capitalist Paradise


Also as evidence, here is one of the oldest warnings I was able to found to Capitalist Producers:

The Capitalist Alliance of The-CID → Capitalist Producers
2 years 293 days ago
I completely understand your point of view, since dealing with ideologues is "tilting at windmills"... therefore, frustrating.
Take in mind that several nations here (like me), actually follow your links to read about the historical and economic facts you already mention (I prefer the economics facts). If you get the "I don't like your answer" from a nation... at the eyes of those who are listening/reading the RMB, you already won. So, putting yourself in their field, meaning trolling, pointing out they are leftys, socialists or (whatever), is not good for you and the region. Oscar Wilde wrote "With age comes wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone.". You are in the first group (me too, I hope!) so leave their silly answers behind.
(...)


As you can see Members of the Court, one of the oldest warnings (not THE oldest) dates from almost 3 years ago.
And I found it only because I am a Postmaster General!!!

Telegrams are Private warnings, usually sent after Public warnings are made in the RMB.
However, there are many warnings in the RMB that I will not be able to find out so quickly.
Capitalist Producers is giving me the "homework" to go to the RMB and read the last 3 years... which is ridiculous.

So, I see two options here:
- Either the Court give me a period of two months to collect the two dozen warnings I had sent to Capitalist Producers
OR
- You assume I am telling the true when I said I have sent Capitalist Producers (Private and Public) around two dozen warnings.

 

Your honors, I'm going to have to insist on a count and copies of the messages as the number is no where near two dozen.