Jita Park Speakers Corner

I see the difference as irrelevant; CSM members are not employees of CCP. They are representatives of the playerbase to CCP and, due to the high profile nature of the position, de facto representatives of CCP to the community at large. You'll recall that community representative aspect being one of CCP's justifications for the requirement that candidates divulge their real names. That ultimately makes rejecting a potential CSM member for whatever reason CCP chooses little different from another business ending a sponsorship agreement if the figure they're sponsoring takes remarks or actions the company finds disagreeable, and neither case is a violation of a person's rights.

For example, the numerous companies that ended their advertising deals on Rush Limbaugh's radio show in the wake of his remarks regarding Sandra Fluke (remarks which anyone would agree were heavily steeped in the political views he professes) were not violating Rush's right to freedom of speech, nor his right to political affiliation, by doing so.

Sorry I have no idea who Rush Limbaugh is.

The attack ads would have been fun, shame they dropped that and pretty much every other idea the community had for this csm election

Imagine a fat Gandhi.

Who he is is beside the point - it's an example of a company terminating a non-employment relationship with an individual as a result of political remarks, that in no way infringed on the rights of said individual.



In any case, I think the whole argument here comes down to this:

You seem to believe that, by denying a person anything at all for reasons identified as or connected to "universal human rights (speech/politicial affiliation/sexual preference/etc), regardless of its frivolity (which I feel is a fair assumption because, let's face it, when measured up against the **** people around this world go through on a daily basis, serving on an internet spaceship council is pretty frivolous), those rights are being infringed upon.

Most of the rest of us (which is admittedly an assumption, so I suppose I'll just limit that to "I"), however, tend to believe that infringing on those rights means actively taking steps to clamp down on or eliminate those rights, eg banning same sex marriage, jailing people for saying certain things, etc etc.

In other words, this whole argument stems from a fundamental disagreement over what it actually means to infringe on someone's basic rights. It's not likely to get resolved any time soon, though, and as it's rather late here in the US, I'm going to head to bed instead.

Thank you for the chat

And I think that pretty much sums it up.

I wouldn't be surprised if people vote for him just to see what CCP will do but with the brown nose 5 rule, they never have to have him in Iceland anyway.

Shame about the splash ads I can imagine one of the Bismark with its huge symbol sinking beneath the waves and the caption
"Don't waste your votes on the Fon Revedhort sinking ship, vote for someone with more brains than a rabid hamster."

Of course CCP's negative ad, Nazi candidates makes us poor, so please no one vote for him.

Or vote for CSM candidates that show support for Profit taking orientated political parties, please.

Jim Carrey, Hee-Haw skit

Thanks for reminding me about hee haw.

Or show an ad, of H*tler throwing a poke ball, and Fon comes out to attack the brown skin sympathizers.