These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Should CCP Remove Fon Revedhort from the CSM Election?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#101 - 2013-03-29 05:32:49 UTC
Andski wrote:
telling a guy who has clearly expressed racist views on your forums "no, you can't run for a position that puts you in a position to make our employees highly uncomfortable in their workplace, which puts our business at risk" is the same as limiting that position to white male landowners

i didn't know this, thanks frying doom

No if you bothered to read, which as usual you didn't

If CCP ban him for being a member of a political association that is against his Human rights.

If they ban him for breaching the TOS or EULA by his own actions that is fine.

But you cannot say he should be banned because he is a member of a political association while at the same time ***** if CCP put bans in place covering sex, age, race ect..

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#102 - 2013-03-29 05:33:41 UTC
Andski wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
No you are arguing that stopping someone due to their political affiliation is fine but not for their age, sex and financial criteria.

Sorry you don't get to pick and chose what is a human right.


CCP already stops people who are under 21 from running, naturally these monsters are violating their human rights

Sorry no age is covered in the Human rights charter.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#103 - 2013-03-29 05:33:43 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
That's the third time in as many posts you're misrepresented my position. Care to go for a fourth?

e: Let's clarify it for you here.

Running for and serving on the CSM is (much like playing this game) a privilege.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#104 - 2013-03-29 05:36:49 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
If CCP ban him for being a member of a political association that is against his Human rights.


it's not, sorry

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Frying Doom
#105 - 2013-03-29 05:37:01 UTC
mynnna wrote:
That's the third time in as many posts you're misrepresented my position. Care to go for a fourth?

e: Let's clarify it for you here.

Running for and serving on the CSM is (much like playing this game) a privilege.

So clarify your position.

You say it is not a human right but you ***** if other human rights are involved.

So what exactly is your position?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#106 - 2013-03-29 05:37:49 UTC
Andski wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
If CCP ban him for being a member of a political association that is against his Human rights.


it's not, sorry

So according to you can they ban people on their sex, age, race or sexual disposition?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Hustomte
Veritex Industrial Inc.
#107 - 2013-03-29 05:40:54 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So according to you can they ban people on their sex, age, race or sexual disposition?

*munches popcorn* Dude you wouldn't know what a Human Right was if it hit you in the head! *burps*

...Signature...
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#108 - 2013-03-29 05:41:48 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So according to you can they ban people on their sex, age, race or sexual disposition?


Immutable characteristics do not include political affiliation.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Frying Doom
#109 - 2013-03-29 05:43:35 UTC
Hustomte wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So according to you can they ban people on their sex, age, race or sexual disposition?

*munches popcorn* Dude you wouldn't know what a Human Right was if it hit you in the head! *burps*

So would you care to enlighten me as to which parts of the UN Human rights are human rights and which are not?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#110 - 2013-03-29 05:44:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Andski wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So according to you can they ban people on their sex, age, race or sexual disposition?


Immutable characteristics do not include political affiliation.

Ok I will make this a bit easier for you

would you have a problem if CCP said that no past or current members of Goonswarm and no people residing in the United States of America can sit on the CSM?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#111 - 2013-03-29 05:54:12 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Frying Doom wrote:
mynnna wrote:
That's the third time in as many posts you're misrepresented my position. Care to go for a fourth?

e: Let's clarify it for you here.

Running for and serving on the CSM is (much like playing this game) a privilege.

So clarify your position.

You say it is not a human right but you ***** if other human rights are involved.

So what exactly is your position?


If a business says "We and a significant number of our customers disagree with your political views and as such do not want you representing us", then all they've done is defined the relationship. No one's rights are infringed as a result.

Frying Doom wrote:
Andski wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So according to you can they ban people on their sex, age, race or sexual disposition?


Immutable characteristics do not include political affiliation.

Ok I will make this a bit easier for you

would you have a problem if CCP said that no past or current members of Goonswarm and no people residing in the United States of America can sit on the CSM?

As both an American and a member of Goonswarm I would certainly have a problem with it, but they would not be infringing my rights by making this decision.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Frying Doom
#112 - 2013-03-29 05:58:12 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
mynnna wrote:
That's the third time in as many posts you're misrepresented my position. Care to go for a fourth?

e: Let's clarify it for you here.

Running for and serving on the CSM is (much like playing this game) a privilege.

So clarify your position.

You say it is not a human right but you ***** if other human rights are involved.

So what exactly is your position?


If a business says "We and a significant number of our customers disagree with your political views and as such do not want you representing us", then all they've done is defined the relationship. No one's rights are infringed as a result.

And how is that different from saying we don't want any for example Catholics on the CSM? And as it is really not where does that line stop as freedom of political or religious association is just as bad as sexual or racial discrimination.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#113 - 2013-03-29 05:58:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Frying Doom wrote:
Ok I will make this a bit easier for you

would you have a problem if CCP said that no past or current members of Goonswarm and no people residing in the United States of America can sit on the CSM?


Not really, because CCP choosing to exclude a significant portion of the playerbase from CSM eligibility would damage the credibility of the CSM amongst the playerbase to the point that "apathy" would be a severe understatement

But nobody is saying he shouldn't be allowed to run on the basis of his RL political beliefs, but for his apparent inability to not tell other members of the playerbase about his views on race in discussions like "blaster balancing." You following?

Do you suppose that CCP developers - who come from a variety of backgrounds - will sit there in the room while this guy talks about his grand views on race when they're supposed to be talking about, say, 0.0 industry

because well if I was a dev I'd politely excuse myself and leave the room to do more important things than listen to that drivel

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Hustomte
Veritex Industrial Inc.
#114 - 2013-03-29 06:00:06 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So would you care to enlighten me as to which parts of the UN Human rights are human rights and which are not?

I feel like a broken record: Articles 1 through 29 are Human Rights, article 30 is the checks-and-balance to protect those rights from infringements. Since hate-speech and racism infringe on the rights of others they are not a Human Right. You seem to think that anything coming out of your mouth is a Human Right, when it is not. When you're negatively effecting other people (their Human Rights) its a line you don't cross.

You don't seem to understand a check-and-balance and it makes me sad, which makes me eat more popcorn Cry

...Signature...
Frying Doom
#115 - 2013-03-29 06:03:39 UTC
Andski wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Ok I will make this a bit easier for you

would you have a problem if CCP said that no past or current members of Goonswarm and no people residing in the United States of America can sit on the CSM?


Not really, because CCP choosing to exclude a significant portion of the playerbase from CSM eligibility would damage the credibility of the CSM amongst the playerbase to the point that "apathy" would be a severe understatement

But nobody is saying he shouldn't be allowed to run on the basis of his RL political beliefs, but for his apparent inability to not tell other members of the playerbase about his views on race in discussions like "blaster balancing." You following?

As I have said above I have no problem with him being banned an subsequently ineligible for his own actions. As lets face it our own actions is all we control. My problem is with excluding him because he is a member of a political and/or ideological movement.

Lets face it even Sinn Féin was elected into government.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#116 - 2013-03-29 06:08:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Hustomte wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So would you care to enlighten me as to which parts of the UN Human rights are human rights and which are not?

I feel like a broken record: Articles 1 through 29 are Human Rights, article 30 is the checks-and-balance to protect those rights from infringements. Since hate-speech and racism infringe on the rights of others they are not a Human Right. You seem to think that anything coming out of your mouth is a Human Right, when it is not. When you're negatively effecting other people (their Human Rights) its a line you don't cross.

You don't seem to understand a check-and-balance and it makes me sad, which makes me eat more popcorn Cry

Actually it doesn't state that as I mentioned above. But anyway we are not talking about his speech, we are talking about him being removed because he is the member of political movement.

As I have said many times if his speech breaches the EULA or TOS fair enough, but removing someone due to a political affiliation is just wrong.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Can you point to the part that says "Hate speech"? as speech its self does not destroy, which is why it is in the other convention.

Otherwise we can argue our selves back to white land owning males, very easily.

Edit: Please stop mentioning popcorn it makes me want some.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#117 - 2013-03-29 06:14:38 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

So clarify your position.

You say it is not a human right but you ***** if other human rights are involved.

So what exactly is your position?


If a business says "We and a significant number of our customers disagree with your political views and as such do not want you representing us", then all they've done is defined the relationship. No one's rights are infringed as a result.

Frying Doom wrote:
Andski wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So according to you can they ban people on their sex, age, race or sexual disposition?


Immutable characteristics do not include political affiliation.

Ok I will make this a bit easier for you

would you have a problem if CCP said that no past or current members of Goonswarm and no people residing in the United States of America can sit on the CSM?

As both an American and a member of Goonswarm I would certainly have a problem with it, but they would not be infringing my rights by making this decision.

Well if that is your belief that is fair enough. So you have no problem with removing this privilege for geographical location and association, but you do for age, sex and financial considerations, How about citizenship status, for examples only people who are citizens in the countries they reside?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#118 - 2013-03-29 06:15:30 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Frying Doom wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
mynnna wrote:
That's the third time in as many posts you're misrepresented my position. Care to go for a fourth?

e: Let's clarify it for you here.

Running for and serving on the CSM is (much like playing this game) a privilege.

So clarify your position.

You say it is not a human right but you ***** if other human rights are involved.

So what exactly is your position?


If a business says "We and a significant number of our customers disagree with your political views and as such do not want you representing us", then all they've done is defined the relationship. No one's rights are infringed as a result.

And how is that different from saying we don't want any for example Catholics on the CSM? And as it is really not where does that line stop as freedom of political or religious association is just as bad as sexual or racial discrimination.


CCP could chose to deny anyone a seat on the CSM for any reason they please. Some, such as the ones you describe, would be widely regarded as "highly irregular" and probably get them a lot of negative press, bad attention, and lost subscriptions (including mine, in all likelihood.) But running for and sitting on the CSM is not a right, and denying one the ability to do so - regardless of reason - does not somehow inhibit ones ability to practice their rights.

Frying Doom wrote:

Well if that is your belief that is fair enough. So you have no problem with removing this privilege for geographical location and association, but you do for age, sex and financial considerations, How about citizenship status, for examples only people who are citizens in the countries they reside?

As I just made clear above, I would very much have a problem with it, just like I would if they chose to remove the privilege (I've noticed you've correctly identified it as such, which means we're one step closer to killing this ridiculous argument) for the other reasons you've started to explore, but were CCP to choose that route, they would not be infringing on anyone's rights.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Hustomte
Veritex Industrial Inc.
#119 - 2013-03-29 06:16:34 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually it doesn't state that as I mentioned above.

it DOES state that as I have quoted Article 30 earlier, an article you repeatedly try to avoid. Face it, you have been beat.

Frying Doom wrote:
But anyway we are not talking about his speech, we are talking about him being removed because he is the member of political movement.

Dude, WE are talking about the crap he has written on the forums, has verbally said in an interview lately, and has since tripled down on.

Frying Doom wrote:
As I have said many times if his speech breaches the EULA or TOS fair enough, but removing someone due to a political affiliation is just wrong.

Do you have tourettes?

Frying Doom wrote:
Otherwise we can argue our selves back to white land owning males, very easily.

I seriously think something is wrong with you.

...Signature...
Frying Doom
#120 - 2013-03-29 06:19:13 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
mynnna wrote:
That's the third time in as many posts you're misrepresented my position. Care to go for a fourth?

e: Let's clarify it for you here.

Running for and serving on the CSM is (much like playing this game) a privilege.

So clarify your position.

You say it is not a human right but you ***** if other human rights are involved.

So what exactly is your position?


If a business says "We and a significant number of our customers disagree with your political views and as such do not want you representing us", then all they've done is defined the relationship. No one's rights are infringed as a result.

And how is that different from saying we don't want any for example Catholics on the CSM? And as it is really not where does that line stop as freedom of political or religious association is just as bad as sexual or racial discrimination.


CCP could chose to deny anyone a seat on the CSM for any reason they please. Some, such as the ones you describe, would be widely regarded as "highly irregular" and probably get them a lot of negative press, bad attention, and lost subscriptions (including mine, in all likelihood.) But running for and sitting on the CSM is not a right, and denying one the ability to do so - regardless of reason - does not somehow inhibit ones ability to practice their rights.

So how do you see the differences between a voluntary employee and an employee as far as these corporate rights are concerned?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!