TB

Warnings once again issued. No ad-hoc, act like an adult if you're participating in these kinds of discussions. Attack the idea, not the person.

Last warning, say what you want, keep it civil. Your post will now be moderator approved until the 7th.

Yeah I have to agree. I'm a lowly HSc major and even I know, this is out there. I mean there appears to be some real, grounded, griefs with Bill, but nothing in @FullBusinessSuit's post to be sure. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/07/08/bill-gates-global-health-policy/ I'm not so sure @FullBusinessSuit isn't a government plant trying to bury the real news about them in a bunch of false flags and crazy talk.

Maroko has been banned, again. It should go without saying that Holocaust denial isn't OK. Holocaust denial IS classified as hate-speech. Being critical of events surrounding it is one thing, but this goes over the line.

"You’d a bigot then because" @Maroko this is implying someone is a bigot, I'm not getting into semantics with you. You're on thin ice. Anyone that gets into name calling is getting points or a temp-ban. Attack the idea, not the person.

Note: The serious discussion board now requires a minimum of 10 posts before an account can participate. This may increase later if needed. It goes without saying, that this section should remain civil. This forum section isn't a no-holds-barred challenge where you can simply insult the other person into submission. I've received too many reports where people are doing just this. I've also received far too many reports of post that aren't breaking any rules, but the reporting individual just didn't like the flavor of the post. I'm setting down additional rules for this section. Failure to follow these rules can result in a warning, the inability to participate in this sub-forum, or a permanent ban. 1. Godwin's law. Calling someone a Nazi is an insult, and will be treated like any other insult. If someone actually IS a Nazi, and you will know this by the obvious way they break rule #2, then report it and move on. It's crazy this rule even needs to be made, but it appears to have become even more "in vogue" to do this. 1a. If calling someone a Nazi would accurately describe their politics, then still don't do it. They will probably get banned. EG: Advocating for white supremacy or genocide. If it would be considered hate-speech in the supreme court, then it's hate-speech. We will make the call on what is hate speech after it's reported, this isn't a trial by peers. 1b. Someone calling you names doesn't give you the right to "defend yourself" by calling them names, this isn't a school-yard brawl. Report and ignore. 1c. Name calling involves stating another person is something or would be something. Where-as an attack on the idea is stating an idea would be something or is something. This is judged on a case-by-case basis. Using these to invent ways to insult people is still name calling. Remember the most important rule, "Act like an adult." No: "You are (would be) a _____ if you believed (said/did) this." Yes: "The speech/ideologies/sources you're providing are often associated with ______." Yes: "This source is disreputable and appears to be ______." 2. Facts and figures are not hate speech. There is a fine line between hate speech and citing unpopular numbers. If a statistic or fact is made up, then it's easy game to find the correct figures and prove that. Example of Hate Speech: "Group X are just a bunch of cookie stealers, my whole life I grew up around those cookie stealers and they're just bums." Example of NOT Hate Speech: "According to FBI statistics, in the kitchen, Group X are responsible for 80% of all cookie theft. (Source Provided by Link)" 2a. Randomly posting 4chan tier reference sheets in an attempt to denigrate a race or people is defamatory, and while not technically hate-speech, will land you in some hot water. Keep citations and facts topical. 3. If you're using statistics or "facts" then you should cite it. We're not talking APA or MLA here, but you need to back up what you're saying with a reputable source. If it's anecdotal, then say so. Citing "facts" without providing a source is weighed when we're deciding whether something is hate-speech or trolling. Participating members are welcome to question and rebuff your source. 4. Don't make us make more rules. Act civil. All other rules apply here in addition to these.

Annie we handle these things on a case-to-case basis. Maroko has been restricted from posting after an investigation, which takes time. I want to make something clear to everyone. To Everyone: You being offended doesn't make it "hate speech". You not liking what the other person says also doesn't qualify. There's a fine line between crazy conspirator and what a court (see rule 4) would classify as hate speech. If you're willing to wade into the deep-end of political discussion, there's a certain amount of maturity that's expected. We don't normally do forum moderating, it's not our MO, but since every participant of this thread this morning wanted to blow up our inboxes by reporting everyone they didn't agree with, we jumped in. Everyone gets warnings now because everyone broke rules. Maroko is banned. If someone is being overtly racist, not just being edgy, then report it, we will take care of it. Do not attempt to "take care of it" for us.

Let me make something exceedingly clear here. Argue about whatever you want, keep, it, civil. No name calling, no mud-flinging. I also want to clear something up, no political position justify "gloves off" or a lack of civility. If you're going to talk about something, expect someone to come in with a differing view that you might even find offensive. There's a fine line between citing facts and being an outright bigot, a word that just gets thrown around too easily anymore. Argue about anything you want, but we shouldn't need to jump into every one of these threads to say this. @Maroko, we do care, chill.

Hey just tossing this in, please keep it civil. I can sense things starting to go off the rail here a bit.

I'm going to preface this by saying I'm a systems administrator, so I'm not just speculating but I'm often wrong so please correct me if I get something incorrect here. - The source for XP has been available to partners and higher learning institutions for a long time. This is a leak of that code into the wide public. If there's any major vulnerability in XP, it's been known for quite some time. - XP is very old but can still be secured. There's allot to say for a strong end-point, modern browser, and appropriate firewall. Even a catastrophic zero-day attack can be mitigated 99% of the time by employing the right GPO policies and software solutions. The major issue with XP is the loss of support from many major software vendors. There are still quite a few however that haven't stopped support. - The constant beta that is Windows 10 is just as much of a security issue. Each update seems to introduce new vectors of attack we should have solved a decade ago. This article for example, isn't a one-off: https://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-flaw-microsoft-windows-update-software-2020-1 No operating system is impervious. Windows XP is older but I'm one of the rare techs that doesn't necessarily believe that updates, or the OS vendor for that matter, are the end-word for security. If they were, we wouldn't need anti-ransomware endpoints installed along-side Windows Defender (which is woefully inadequate). I'm not saying that XP doesn't have some glaring issues, but I am saying that this leak doesn't necessarily harerld the end of the world for XP users who are already - hopefully - adequate at dealing with the issues that XP presents.

This function doesn't exist, if someone is harassing you by breaking our forum rules please let us know. If someone is PMing you after you've asked them to stop, also please let us know. Boards on here are public and as long as everyone is following the rules, they can post in any non-moderator-restricted topic.

I wasn't directing that at you, just making a general statement. It seemed to be getting heated in here. Sorry if it came off that way.

Please keep discourse civil. Attack the idea not the person.

Howdy, I haven't heard back from you in a while. Please send me your username on GG and I will get that taken care of. I'm going to lock this thread as I believe it has run it's course. For anyone else that stumbles on this you can do the same.

Nah man you're good and I get it, what's your username on there? You can PM it to me.

Hi there, I don't frequently check the GG email, I will look into it. Do you have the same username as on this forum? I want to make something clear that seems to keep coming up. The right to be forgotten does not mean that your account must be deleted. First I'm in America and the servers hosting the website are in America. This means that it doesn't fall under GDPR. Under Google v. Garcia this extension of European rights into America was ruled unconstitutional. Second, GDPR does not include "Every single post since the beginning of time." GDPR means that I'm required to remove personally identifying information from the site. If, for example, you put photos of yourself up, your name, attached your birthday or address to your account, I must delete those. If I wanted to be pedantic, GDPR even gives me the right to request government ID and a long series of forms. In short, I delete this data (from GG that's the site I own) because I hate it when web-admins don't do it for me, and I try to be nice. Now regarding your post @kerdios, you're suggesting that this user takes legal action (against me) and suggesting that they might profit from it. Not only would it probably not pay out, you could be held responsible for their fees and damages. It sure looks like you're giving legal advice, even if you were licensed to do so which I'm suspecting you're not. Practicing law (advising of rights and penalties) without a license is illegal in the EU and America. In short, nose out.

Ah good ol' Professor Elemental:

Howdy, I will hand verify your account. When did you make it? There was a period I was just auto-approving accounts due to an email outage. I looked at your account, and your account was one we auto-approved. You're good to go.

I can't get enough of this game.

I have to disagree on this one, I thought it was shallow as hell. I was hoping for another Subnautica, not necessarily a build/survival game, but something with that depth of exploration and I was deeply disappointed.

Hot damn that's good.

Might be a permissions error I will look into it. Thanks for letting us know.

Shhh. Don't goad it.