Quote from: JimBobOzNot really. Any thorough reading of Dominus Nox (as painful as that may be) will reveal he's a fan of genocide.

Frankly, I really don't care what the fuck Dominus Nox thinks...

Quote from: JimBobOzDear Nox, if Dubya were to launch several nuclear missiles at Iranian cities, right now, causing the deaths of, say, eight million Shi'ia Iranian Moslem people, would you a) cheer, or b) be sad and upset? If a), do you encourage Dubya to do it right now?

Hey, Nox:

Quote from: JimBobOzName these posters.

My oh my, you are really playing games today...

OK, I'll dance your little dance.  I know that there are several posters who are in China.  Accordingly, should we not criticize Chinese human rights abuses on these forums?  That might make the Chinese government mad, after all, and they have laws against that kind of stuff.

You see, that is the problem with trying to define what constitutes free and responsible speech in a global setting such as the Internet.  In my view, limits on ideas, even ones that I think are shitty, are morally wrong.  Thus, in my opinion we should maintain certain community standards such as preventing universally illegal acts from taking place on the server, but we have no moral obligation to make governments or individuals "feel emotionally safe" from our opinions.  Fortunately for my enjoyment of the forums, the management of this site largely seems to agree with my interpretation.

And JB, since you seem to be setting yourself up in the business of deciding which opinions should not be tolerated here for extraordinarily nebulous legal reasons, please provide a list of these unacceptable beliefs for our review.


TGA

Quote from: The Good AssyrianAnd JB, since you seem to be setting yourself up in the business of deciding which opinions should not be tolerated here for extraordinarily nebulous legal reasons, please provide a list of these unacceptable beliefs for our review.

Incitement to and promotion of things which are crimes under international law. About all that is, is copyright stuff, kiddy porn and genocide.

There are other things whcih shouldn't be here because they don't help therpgsite's image as a place for rpg talk - like pr0n, blatant racism and sexism, etc. Personally I can tolerate those things if the game talk is good, but therpgsite as a whole isn't well-served by them. Makes us look bad, puts people off the place. If you have puerile mud-slinging, for example, then you'll just end up with yet another forum of one guy and his buddies and the occasional visitor who never stays, like Animalball forum. If you want to doom therpgsite to hopeless obscurity and irrelevance, then hey, by all means, bring on the KKK talk and post up pics of h4wt chixxorz nekkid.

Amazingly, when people come to a forum to talk rpgs, and see someone promoting genocide (Nox), or saying that women are all lying bitches (RPGPundit), it puts them off the place. Amazing, that, eh?

I would only outright ban expressions of genocidal racism, copyright infringement, and pr0n (kiddy or otherwise). I'd probably want to leave the forum itself to deal with the blatant racism and sexism. When mods do it, they're not very good at drawing the line in an appropriate place, it either becomes a free-for-all like Animalball, or an oversensitive place like rpg.net.

Quote from: JimBobOzIncitement to and promotion of things which are crimes under international law. About all that is, is copyright stuff, kiddy porn and genocide.

There are other things whcih shouldn't be here because they don't help therpgsite's image as a place for rpg talk - like pr0n, blatant racism and sexism, etc. Personally I can tolerate those things if the game talk is good, but therpgsite as a whole isn't well-served by them. Makes us look bad, puts people off the place. If you have puerile mud-slinging, for example, then you'll just end up with yet another forum of one guy and his buddies and the occasional visitor who never stays, like Animalball forum. If you want to doom therpgsite to hopeless obscurity and irrelevance, then hey, by all means, bring on the KKK talk and post up pics of h4wt chixxorz nekkid.

Amazingly, when people come to a forum to talk rpgs, and see someone promoting genocide (Nox), or saying that women are all lying bitches (RPGPundit), it puts them off the place. Amazing, that, eh?

I would only outright ban expressions of genocidal racism, copyright infringement, and pr0n (kiddy or otherwise). I'd probably want to leave the forum itself to deal with the blatant racism and sexism. When mods do it, they're not very good at drawing the line in an appropriate place, it either becomes a free-for-all like Animalball, or an oversensitive place like rpg.net.

Before I reply to this, let me make it clear that I'm responding only as a user and not as any statement of the site's vision.  My "tech admin" status only pertains to fixing technical problems with the site and removing spam.  Your opinion on this issue is worth as much as mine.  With that understood:

Dominus Nox has not been banned.  Hell, RPGPundit hasn't banned himself either.

Their contributions to this site are positive and real.  The teeming masses of people who would post here if only the site got rid of them are purely hypothetical.

***SIGH***

Let's try it ONE MORE TIME.....

Being muslim is NOT an issue of race, it is a RELIGION.

Speaking out against islam is not RACIST as it is NOT an issue of RACE.

Just because most of the members of a religion, or a political group, are one race does not make disliking that group RACISM.

Hell, I don't like nazis, most nazis are of european ancestory, ergo I am an anti european racist for not liking nazis by the defective logic of some people here.

Anyway, it's over, the britts didn;t step up to the plate, iran humiliated a western power once again, making eventual war with them even more inevitable. AFAIC the thread's over as the situation it addressed is over.

So, Nox do you think it would be a good idea to kill heaps of Moslems, or not? If your President were to nuke six Iranian cities tomorrow, killing several million Iranians, would you cheer, or be angry and sad?

Quote from: Dominus NoxBeing muslim is NOT an issue of race, it is a RELIGION.

Yes, so why are you advocating genocide against a race of people who belong to said religion.

QuoteSpeaking out against islam is not RACIST as it is NOT an issue of RACE.

I thought you were speaking out against Islomafacism...

QuoteJust because most of the members of a religion, or a political group, are one race does not make disliking that group RACISM.

Then why do you keep wanting them (innocent members of the religon) nuked back to the stone age

QuoteHell, I don't like nazis, most nazis are of european ancestory, ergo I am an anti european racist for not liking nazis by the defective logic of some people here.

But you admire the Klan as in Klu Klux, they admire the Nazis, but that's okay right Nox, because they are white. (Edit: You're equating Muslims with Nazis...)

QuoteAnyway, it's over, the britts didn;t step up to the plate, iran humiliated a western power once again, making eventual war with them even more inevitable. AFAIC the thread's over as the situation it addressed is over.

Yeah, those dirty brown foreigners (I'll add Mexicans becaue I know you have a problem with them too) humiliated a white power.

David R

Quote from: JimBobOzIncitement to and promotion of things which are crimes under international law. About all that is, is copyright stuff, kiddy porn and genocide.

You're right, JB.  We obviously need a team of lawyers to legally differentiate "incitement to genocide" and being a "mouth-breathing dumbass".  That sounds like a good use of our time.

Maybe it is a cultural disconnect here.  As an American (and a naturalized one, at that), I have a basic assumption that I should be able to say what I want to.  That means that others should be afforded the same courtesy, even if they turn out to be assholes.  The community I live in puts limits on this ability for free speech, but these limits are (or at least should be) tied to actual potential harm.  In this case, on an Internet forum about RPGs, I would contend that it is hard to make a case that some random fool's opinions on international affairs or religion do much actual harm other than make you feel uncomfortable.

Frankly, it is also a practical matter for me.  I firmly believe that if people with  repulsive ideas are not given the chance to embarrass themselves in public, then we do the community a disservice.  By making a martyr of them and their whack-job ideas, we are simply giving them the credibility that they do not in any way deserve.  They should be ridiculed and pelted with the digital equivalent of rotten tomatoes.  And, if all else fails, you can always just ignore the stupid fuckers.

Quote from: JimBobOzI would only outright ban expressions of genocidal racism, copyright infringement, and pr0n (kiddy or otherwise). I'd probably want to leave the forum itself to deal with the blatant racism and sexism. When mods do it, they're not very good at drawing the line in an appropriate place, it either becomes a free-for-all like Animalball, or an oversensitive place like rpg.net.

You know, overall I agree with you.  I also agree that it would be great if people would refrain from talking about their own sperm, but it is the job of the community to decide what will be tolerated.  I try to do my part by expressing my opinion on things that bother me.  I know that it is not a sexy as citing international case law to win points on an Internet forum about RPGs, but I do what I can.


TGA

I think Islamofascism is a useful term to describe certain groups, though honestly most Fascists states were rather quick to embrace technology. Few of the groups referred to as "Islamofascist" could be referred to as being "pro-technology."They look backward, not forward. I think it would be more accurate to describe them as Islamoconservatives.

Regarding freedom of speech, and banning racist motherfuckers, I have posted in a more appropriate thread.

Quote from: Dominus NoxAnyway, it's over, the britts didn;t step up to the plate, iran humiliated a western power once again, making eventual war with them even more inevitable.

Or perhaps they aptly displayed why diplomacy takes the day instead of arm-chair chickenhawks who'd embroil the UK, and inevitably the US, in yet another over-extended, unwinnable conflict in the Middle East.

!i!

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Just to provide the view of the average member of the armed forces in reaction to this debacle, I was sitting in the medical centre of the RAF base I am stationed at, waiting for a variety of innoculations, when the news of the release of the hostages came on TV. The first thing anyone said (a female doctor, of all people) was 'court-martial the bastards'. And I have to say that I agree.
Conduct After Capture, at its lowest level, is a 40 minute long briefing. Everyone gets it in recruit training, and it is very clear on the no-cooperation aspect of capture. It explicitly says that under no circumstances are you to agree to make any form of TV or radio broadcast, let alone look like you're having a whale of a time.
I don't know what I would have done in that situation, but I like to think that any of the officers or NCOs I serve with (in an RAF Regiment Field Squadron) would have had the presence of mind to send a contact report, return to their own boats and refuse to obey Iranian commands (or even call their bluff and make a break for it), for as long as possible. Even if taken into captivity, they should be providing leadership to their men that prevents the kind of Conduct After Capture breaches we saw here. All 15 should be seriously considering whether they belong in the armed forces, especially thetwo who sold their stories to the press.

Quote from: actusreusJust to provide the view of the average member of the armed forces [...] The first thing anyone said (a female doctor, of all people) was 'court-martial the bastards'. And I have to say that I agree.
Conduct After Capture, at its lowest level, is a 40 minute long briefing. Everyone gets it in recruit training, and it is very clear on the no-cooperation aspect of capture.

That's true. But then, for the people on the ground - or in the water - there's that 40 minute lecture, and then there's a couple of dozen excitable jundies dancing around waving their AK-47s at you and poing through your rucksack and nicking your favourite bits of kit.

Quote from: actusreusI don't know what I would have done in that situation,

And that's about where we ought to leave it. It's very easy to judge. I think for example of General (later Field Marshal) Blamey berating the Aussie militia survivors of the Kokoda battles, who'd stood against eight times their number of Japanese before falling back with 90% casualties, calling them "running rabbits."

There's a thing called "capture shock". Possibly your female doctor might know a military psychologist who knows about it, or maybe you could look up someone in Intel Section if you have one, they'll tell you about it. Basically the whole moment of capture shits you right up, you can't help your reaction to it anymore than you can help your heart rate going up if someone starts brassing you up - it's a physiological reaction which only the strongest of indidividuals can resist. If they leave you alone, it passes after about 24 hours; if they're nice to you, it stops after 6 or so hours; and if they're right cunts, it might last 72-96 hours. One of the ways you recover more quickly from capture shock is to hang about with your mates from your section or crew, esprit de corps and all that. That's why SOP for intel on getting PWs is to separate them.

During capture shock, you've no idea what's happening to you, if they're going to slot you or what, so you try to buddy up to your captors and co-operate fully. It's the uncertainty that does your head in - if you know they're going to come in and beat your bollocks with their rifle butts again tonight, that's easier on you than if you just don't know what they'll do to you, or if your mates are still alive, or what.

The training for CAC and E&E is obviously going to prepare you a lot better for capture shock than, say, a few weeks learning to swab the decks, or whatever it is they do in the Navy.

You'll notice that in the group, the blokes from HM Jollies said, "well, it wasn't that bad." Whereas your sailors trembled in their undies. So I'm guessing the relative difference in level of training for capture shock was the difference.

In this, it's no different to any other military situation. We can't really fault the sailors for giving in to the jundies any more than we could fault them for being bad shots, or not knowing how to use a howitzer - it's training.

Quote from: actusreusbut I like to think that any of the officers or NCOs I serve with (in an RAF Regiment Field Squadron) would have had the presence of mind to send a contact report, return to their own boats and refuse to obey Iranian commands (or even call their bluff and make a break for it), for as long as possible.

Depends on their RoEs, doesn't it?

Quote from: actusreusEven if taken into captivity, they should be providing leadership to their men that prevents the kind of Conduct After Capture breaches we saw here.

They were separated from them, kept in individual cells. You can't be a leader to people who don't know if you're dead or alive.

Quote from: actusreusAll 15 should be seriously considering whether they belong in the armed forces, especially the two who sold their stories to the press.

That's not relevant, their careers are over already. If you're some RN brass who beaches their ship, doesn't matter if it was your fault or not - that's your career over. Likewise, if you ever become a PW, your career's over, more often than not.

Those who sold their stories were actually encouraged to do so by the DoD. That's what our seppo mates say is "a bad call". There's also the fact that sometimes when you get famous, the press just will not leave you alone until you do sell your story to someone. They're going to camp outside your home or barracks until you tell them everything they want to know. At least if you say you've given an exclusive to someone they might bugger off and leave you alone.

I'd like to think I'd have done better in their position, but I can't really say. I think I'd probably co-operate as they did, just to get my ugly mug on telly so my family knew I was alright. Then after that I'd come back and tell the media to fuck themselves, and in revenge they'd dig up all the dirt on my past and make the whole country hate me.

My take is this:

In a war situation, those servicemen would be the shame of the Commonwealth. Period.

But there is no war with Iran.
Is a soldier up to deciding to open shooting with a country you are at peace?

Look, in former times, any self respecting nation would defend their pride with rifle bullets and gunboats. You mess with armed forces of the Empire, you die!
The soldiers back then could rely on their government to back up anything they did, to defend the honour of their country.
Now, how much backing does a modern western soldier get from his government? In this case the british? Does britain still fight for honour, everytime, everywhere?

In former times, when embassies were burned down, that was a casus belli. Not so today.

The troops who let themselves be captured can´t really be blamed. Without honour, you´re bound to Realpolitik and opportunism. Why get yourself killed, when nobody appreciates, and honour isn´t even at stake? Let alone any real military goal?

Thusly, they played it safe, because they couldn´t rely on anybody appreciating or even backing use of force under all circumstances. And once you are captured: What JimBob said.

EDIT: It might also be smart and an actual improvement, that we go to war because of honour these days. That´s a value question everybody best answers himself.

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's not relevant, their careers are over already. If you're some RN brass who beaches their ship, doesn't matter if it was your fault or not - that's your career over. Likewise, if you ever become a PW, your career's over, more often than not.
.

I can't speak for Australia or the UK, but the US Army and other armed forces do not necessarily end your career simply because you are a POW.  Factors include being fit to continue fighting (many POW's, those with long incarcerations and subject to torture say, would have to be medically retired) and of course, the end of your enlistment/the war.

However.  Many do continue to serve, teaching SERE school, for example. I know the pilot from Blackhawk Down still works with the 160th SOAR (his unit), though he could no longer fly and is now, I believe, retired from active duty (civilian contractor in the Simulator as I recall)... or at least was five years ago, long after Somalia.  There is no regulation insisting a soldier leave service simply for being captured.

Likewise, I can't speak for the "40 minute lecture' either, in the US, the code of conduct and 'stress situations' used to be routine.  While the army is changing it's basic entry training, a least a few years ago you went through 6 weeks of extremely stressful 'captivity' simply as a part of joining up.   Sitting around eating a nice meal with a dozen of your mates was a real luxury.

As for the constant chants of 'but the ROE...', i strongly doubt any ROE ever written said 'if men with guns tell you to go quietly, you go quietly'.  State of war be damned, they had the means to move under their own power, they had the ability to fight back if shot at. They gave up without a fucking peep.  Then they denounced their country and their service on television.  

And I seriously doubt their treatment was any more strenuous than the treatment of POW's in Vietnam and WWII, most of whom made it through with honor intact, if not dignity.  

Frankly, Jimbo, given that you have served (as far as I recall...I don't track your history) that you've taken the position you did.  That would make you the only service or former servicemember I've heard speak positively about them. Most say nothing or denounce them with some venom.

Quote from: SpikeI can't speak for Australia or the UK, but the US Army and other armed forces do not necessarily end your career simply because you are a POW.  [...] There is no regulation insisting a soldier leave service simply for being captured.

Similarly, there is no regulation that a commander who beaches their ship must leave the Navy, or that a male schoolteacher accused and then cleared of paedophilia quit his job, or that a bank manager who had their bank robbed by tellers quit their job. However, most do. In any career, military or civilian, there are things which will effectively end your career, more often than not. It's not certain, but it's very likely.

Quote from: SpikeAs for the constant chants of 'but the ROE...', i strongly doubt any ROE ever written said 'if men with guns tell you to go quietly, you go quietly'.  

You are obviously unaware of the RoE of many of the UN force in Bosnia in the 1990s... even when being shot at directly, some of the national contingents had to get permission from UNHQ to fire back. It's quite possible for RoE to be more restrictive than the normal civilian rights of self-defence.

Quote from: SpikeState of war be damned, they had the means to move under their own power, they had the ability to fight back if shot at. They gave up without a fucking peep.

We've not yet heard the exact details. How many people and ships were they confronted by? We've not been told. Did they surrender to a guy with an AK-47 in a rowboat, or was it half a dozen patrol boats who fired 30 cal machineguns and four inch shells across their bows?

Again, what were their rules of engagement? Were they told, "any jundie gives you shit, brass him up!" or, "if you find yourself confronting the Iranians, avoid a firefight, even if you have to surrender to do so." We don't know - this stuff hasn't been made public.

It's very easy to judge when you know nothing of the situation, but the judgment won't be a well-founded one, and will perhaps look silly when the details come out later.

Quote from: SpikeThen they denounced their country and their service on television.

No, they didn't. They said that they'd gone across into Iranian waters by accident. As I noted above, the border is uncertain and disputed, so for all they knew, they were speaking the truth.

Quote from: SpikeAnd I seriously doubt their treatment was any more strenuous than the treatment of POW's in Vietnam and WWII, most of whom made it through with honor intact, if not dignity.

Many of the PWs in those wars collaborated far more than these guys, and in general were not punished for it. Some were, occasionally - including one poor bastard who was a PW of the Communists for 13 years, and on his return to the USA was court-martialled.  

Quote from: SpikeFrankly, Jimbo, given that you have served (as far as I recall...I don't track your history) that you've taken the position you did.  That would make you the only service or former servicemember I've heard speak positively about them. Most say nothing or denounce them with some venom.

A failure to condemn is not praise. That I don't think they should be court-martialled does not mean I think they should be given a medal.

I've not spoken positively of them. I've said that those who complained about their treatment were a bit wussy, really - their treatment was, from what we've heard so far, well within the Geneva Conventions and Protocols on PWs (which also apply to internees). I've noted that those trained to deal with capture - the Royal Marine officer - dealt with it better than those not trained for it - the RN sailors. I've said that you always deal better with something you're trained for than something you're not.

As to service, well, different kinds of service provide different perspectives. What I've found is that bravado and macho is inversely proportional to the proximity to the two-way rifle range. It's easy to talk tough when you're, say, a doctor on an airbase in a distant country. It's a bit different when a bunch of excitable jundies are looking keen to slot you.  

I know that in these sorts of things everyone is keen to condemn someone or other as the devil himself. Sometimes we want to condemn the USA for their conspiracy to wage aggressive war, or their war crimes; sometimes we want to condemn the insurgents for their war crimes and crimes against humanity; sometimes we want to condemn the Iranians for patrolling a disputed border and firing on and capturing those near it; sometimes we want to condemn the internees for crapping themselves and co-operating with their captors.

I've consistently said that all these people are human and imperfect, and none of them are perfectly good, nor any of them perfectly evil. Just because many people in this thread and elsewhere are looking for saints and devils does not mean that I am.