Capitalist Producers vs. The Vocals - A court case

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.

Yes, I'm familiar with that phrase. In my opinion it fails the respectful posting rule as is it not only a provocative insult, it also fails under the "all X is Y" clause. You are making a sweeping generalization of an entire group of people, therefore making it trolling under "all X is Y". It is no different than saying "all Germans are Nazis" or "all Jews are [insert vile name here]". The phrase is purely combative and adds nothing to a debate. The only purpose behind the phrase is to provoke people. Such remarks are considered trolling and therefore not allowed anywhere on NationStates. It is a violation of both NationStates rules and respectful posting.

 

Your honors, at this time I would like to submit the following historical references as evidence:

http://factmyth.com/what-is-a-useful-idiot/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...hen-and-now/idhxyLS2pPV1A2ON2WcrsJ/story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/12/magazine/on-language.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/05/americas_useful_idiots.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Useful idiot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

I recommend the witness take a moment to review these documents. Once that is done I would like the witness to explain, referring to specific posts and the relevant passage in those posts, how the plaintiff misused the term.

 

Your honors, I object to this further questioning.

I wish to point out that different words and phrases can be interpreted differently by different people throughout history. Some words and phrases are known to have multiple meanings. There are many historical phrases and words that were once considered acceptable are no longer so. I have already stated that I believe "useful idiot" constitutes an insult and trolling, particularly when used with a malicious and provocative intent. This further questioning regarding this particular phrase, of which I have already stated my opinion on, is unnecessary and irrelevant. Repeating myself would be a waste of this Court's time.

Furthermore the "useful idiot" phrase was not even one of the posts that the anonymous nation found offensive.

I also ask that two of the plaintiff's "sources" - particularly Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia - be stricken from the record. Both of these "sources" can be easily edited and manipulated, therefore making them unreliable.

 

Your honors, if the witness is going to object to each and every question there will be a 46th President in the United States before this is over. Therefore the plaintiff sees no other choice then to make the following motions.

Standard courtroom procedure usually forbids a witness from objecting to a question. That is not the witnesses' job. However, plaintiff understands that in our regional court, the witness may also be the legal representation in the case. Therefore for the most part the court must overlook that rule. However, in this case the witness is behaving like some spoiled rich kid caught in the backseat of his car with an underage date. Clearly, it is obvious to everyone present Nation of Quebec is objecting to avoid answering the questions, delay these proceedings and possibly distract Plaintiff's counsel from the goals of the case. As this court will eventually require the witness to answer these questions, Nation of Quebec's objections are clearly a waste of everyone's time.

It bears pointing out to the witness and the court that this trial is not exclusively focused on a complaint by someone too cowardly to speak for themselves. If that were the only matter at hand, we would not be in the courtroom today. This particular line of questioning is directly relevant to Claims for Relief 1, 4 and 5 in the original summons and complaint.

With these indisputable facts in mind, Plaintiff moves the court to order this witness to cease and desist objecting in this trial and simply answer the questions. Fastercat is the duly designated representative of the Defense in this case. As such Plaintiff moves the court to restrict objections to only come from the counsel for the defense.

Plaintiff further moves the court to declare Nation of Quebec's behaviour on the stand to be vexatious in nature and find the witness in contempt for repeatedly failing to answer Plaintiff's questions, for expanding his answers beyond the range of the questions answered and for ignoring the instructions of this court. I will not petition for sanctions at this time, but reserve the right to do so at a later time should the need arise.

Thank you for your consideration of these motions.

**Plaintiff's counsel takes his seat and waits.**

**Edited to clarify that objections are to come only from the counsel for the defense.**

 

Your honors, the plaintiff’s behavior is becoming increasingly aggressive and hostile.

The plaintiff continues to mistake this trial as if it were a real life trial. This is a court of a fictional government founded on a satirical game. Therefore this government and Court must be free to establish its own rules and operations and not automatically follow court proceedings of the United States or any real life country.

I also object to the notion that I have been deliberately refusing to answer questions. That is not true. I have answered the questions that have I've been capable of answering and have only objected to questions that I have either already answered, as is the case in regards to Capitalist Producers' second request to provide my thoughts on the useful idiots question and another question that surrounded an alleged post that the plaintiff claimed I made that I clearly do not remember making and more than likely never did make. I remind the Court that I answered the Chief Justice's version of that question. Answering a question that I have already answered – namely my thoughts on the useful idiots remark – would be redundant and a waste of time.

Furthermore, I ask to have the following remarks made by the plaintiff to be stricken from the record:

“The witness is behaving like some spoiled rich kid caught in the backseat of his car with an underage date”
“a complaint made by someone too cowardly to speak for themselves”

Clearly, with these provocative comments Capitalist Producers aims to personally attack both myself and the anonymous nation. These comments are irrelevant, unnecessary, and frankly unbecoming of this Court. They serve no purpose and only exist to be inflammatory. Capitalist Producers has directly attacked myself and the anonymous nation and such commentary is not needed here.

I ask the Court to remind the plaintiff that such outbursts do not contribute to this trial and are not needed.

 

Overruled Nation of Quebec. The Court will decide which sources are or are not legitimate for this case.

CP, please move forward with your line of questioning. The Court feels the NoQ has answered the question to the best of his abilities.

Both of your motions will be deliberated upon. At this time, CP either ask your next question or we will move onto to the defense

 

**Counsel for the plaintiff rises**

Thank you your honors. Just a few more for this witness, then we can move on to my next witness.

**Addressing The Witness**

I'm going to put portions of a couple of posts into evidence. Please rate these posts on a scale of one to ten, ten being most respectful, one being unacceptably disrespectful. Then explain to the court how and why you arrived at each rating to the court.

Post 1:

To anyone who is gullible enough to believe that the tea party isn't a partisan organization, let me ask you this question. Where were they (and Fox) during the eight years when Bush was in office? Where were they when he was spending money like a drunken pirate and eroding civil liberties? Why did they only start appearing when a Democrat took office?

Post 2:

Wow. Such arrogance. Let's be honest. Isn't anyone who has the audacity to challenge your paranoia and disagree with your narrow world view pretty much some kind of Red or a Marxist? Are all of them racist? No, but plenty of them are. There are racists and homophobes in every political group. The ones in the tea party just tend to be more vocal.

 

Your honors, I would be happy to answer the plaintiff's questions to the best of my ability. However, he did not give me a question, but a rating game. I ask the Court to instruct the plaintiff to give the witnesses direct questions to answer.

Additionally, I have found new information regarding the posts that Capitalist Producers mentioned.

Both posts were made approximately a year before the Constitution and the respectful posting clause were added. Therefore, shouldn't any posts made prior to the addition of the Constitution be exempt from the respectful posting clause?

Secondly, I have found the original text of post #2 and it has become evident that Capitalist Producers has edited the post from its original wording. Therefore, I ask that it be stricken from the record and that the Court reprimand Capitalist Producers for submitting tampered evidence. I can provide the exact wording of the original text if need be.

 

NoQ, I believe that this latest question is a direct question. He is simply asking you to rate some statements. I must agree with CP statement about having another US President before this case is over. I ask that you try to refrain from impeding the questioning process. It is CP time to ask questions. The defense will have its turn to ask their questions.

However, that being said, I will agree with you with on the matter of post made before the Constitution. I'll allow this current post to be on the record, but future post made before the Constitution will be exampt.

NoQ, if you could please present the original and supposed tampered post to the Court, we will review it

 

Your honors, as stated above, I posted "portions" of the original posts. I never said these posts were complete. The goal is to have Nation of Quebec apply the "respectful posting" standard to these posts. Plaintiff has has no objection to placing the entire posts into the record and per your request, here are those posts in their entirety and links to the original posts.

Post 1:

To anyone who is gullible enough to believe that the tea party isn't a partisan organization, let me ask you this question. Where were they (and Fox) during the eight years when Bush was in office? Where were they when he was spending money like a drunken pirate and eroding civil liberties? Why did they only start appearing when a Democrat took office?

Are all of them racist? No, but plenty of them are. There are racists and homophobes in every political group. The ones in the tea party just tend to be more vocal.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=521172

Post 2:

Abuse from me, Reed? Don't make me laugh. You have no right to claim abuse from anyone when from day one you bully, blackmail, and smear anyone who disagrees with you.

And for the record, I never once said I supported Minai. I've only come across one or two things that he's said that I agree with. Your downright paranoia and bullying reached to the point where I could no longer just bite my tongue and remain on the bench.

But I know from experience that nothing anybody says will ever reach you. I will cease wasting any further time attempting to debate a conspiracy theorist who has already made up their mind.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=1444168

Are there any other questions from the bench on this matter?

 

In regards to the first post, I believe that it meets the criteria for respectful posting. It offers a critique of former President Bush (particularly of his spending record and his record on civil liberties in regards to the Patriot Act and government surveillance) without resorting to any provocative political nicknaming, flaming, or an insulting "all x is y" generalizations. It should be noted that the tea party movement did in fact begin after President Barack Obama's inauguration. It is not disrespectful to question the motivations of a particular group provided that one is not being deliberately insulting or trolling. I do not believe the words "gullible" and "partisan" to be offensive or insulting. If the words in question had been "retarded" or "stupid" then yes, I'd agree that it would be disrespectful, but those were not the words used.

This is the text of the original second post:

"As I said - Mnai is a Red"

Wow. Such arrogance. Let's be honest, Reed. Isn't anyone who has the audacity to challenge your paranoia and disagree with your narrow world view pretty much some kind of Red or a Marxist?

It is clear that Capitalist Producers removed the part in quotations, meaning that this post is in direct response to a previous post and it is clear that with repeated insults - particularly the term "Red" - that this post was made by someone who was being provoked. The part mentioning the tea party is not in that post at all. I believe post #2 to be deliberately manipulated on the part of Capitalist Producers. By his own admission the plaintiff did not provide the post as it was originally worded.

 

**Plaintiff attorney addresses the court**

Your honor, those two posts were merely samples to be rated and explained by Nation of Quebec for the purpose of demonstrating how someone with moderation powers on the RMB ranks posts in light of the respectful posting rule. Should the witness ever get around to finishing his answer, we will then address two very recent posts. Then I will be done with this witness.

These questions are demonstrating the absurdity of trying to apply the "respectful posting" rule equally across all view points. The fact the witness himself made those posts is just more evidence toward the potential for a double standard.

If the court might ask the Witness to answer the second part of that question, we could move along here.

 

Your honors, I made a cut and paste error on the second post when I went to post it in its entirety. I will fix that now.

 

My Apologies your honors, I was pondering using the post I posted in error in a future question.

This is post 2 in it's entirety with the original link:

"As I said - Mnai is a Red"

Wow. Such arrogance. Let's be honest, Reed. Isn't anyone who has the audacity to challenge your paranoia and disagree with your narrow world view pretty much some kind of Red or a Marxist?

http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=1441018

 

Well it seems to me that it was a simple clerical error. It does not appear the CP intentionally tampered with the posts. There will be no more objections regarding the legitimacy of these posts. In fact, I would appreciate it if we were able to get through the first witness without anymore objections.

You may proceed with the questions

 

Thank you your honor.

**Turning back to the witness**

Please finish answering the last question and rate the second sample post with an explanation as to how you arrived at that rating. Then referring back to your on the record objection to giving this answer, could you tell the court if "being provoked" changes the respectful posting rule at all.

 

Your Honors, the Defense wishes to formally object to this line of questioning. The Vocals, including Nation of Quebec use or have used no such rating system in the past nor do we suspect such a system will be used in the future. These questions are irrelevant to the goal of this hearing. These questions are leading the witness (to who knows where?), and above all argumentative as the proceeding dozen or so posts CLEARLY demonstrate.

 

Overruled Fastercat

The Court does not care whether or not a certain type of questioning has or has not been used before, nor does it care if it'll be used again. It's the Plantiff's time to ask questions and he is doing just that.

The goal of the hearing is to determine whether or not the Plantiff had violated the "respectful posting" part of the Regional Constitution. CP has already stated that this line of questioning is to show the potential absurdity of said clause, as it can be interpreted very differently by any member of the Region.

As for being argumentative, the only people I see doing that is the witness and the defense. While the two presented motions are still be deliberated upon, I can say that I am starting to lean towards the Plantiff's favor. How many times must it be stated? The Defense will have its time to ask questions. Now is the Plantiff's time.

 

**Plaintiff's attorney looks to the witness... **

If you please sir, there is a question before you.

 

Nation of Quebec, the Court is waiting