]Wrong.

Our freedom of speech does not extend to hate speech. Not much to be done about it, since our Supreme Court has upheld the notion that hate speech is not protected.

Show me where Fons is guilty of any of these things?

We've labelled him a Neo-****. I don't believe he's applied the label to himself. I'd call him an ultraconservative nationalist. He'd be as at home in Arizona as he's apparently at home in Russia.

Show me where Fons is guilty of any of these things?

We've labelled him a Neo-****. I don't believe he's applied the label to himself. I'd call him an ultraconservative nationalist. He'd be as at home in Arizona as he's apparently at home in Russia. He's definitely a racist though. Repugnant, yes, criminal, no.

I'm asking your personal opinion, what with you defending Fon Revedhort's hate speech and all.

So, now you're assuming Fons is a murderous criminal?

Yes he has applied the label to himself. Listen to that podcast. And he does not deny it when confronted by the interviewer.


edit: one thing is for sure, we will remember your stance on this.

Was it really worth it going down in EVE history in this manner ??

Maybe some of you should take a step back as frankly I am not seeing much difference between the neo-**** who would abolish peoples human rights and the neo-**** haters that would abolish peoples human rights.

I do find it rather strange that people are arguing that this person should not be allowed basic human rights because he believes differently to others. While one of his beliefs is the removal of those rights from others.

I do find it rather strange that people are arguing that this person should not be allowed basic human rights because he believes differently to others. While one of his beliefs is the removal of those rights from others.

Maybe some of you should take a step back as frankly I am not seeing much difference between the neo-**** who would abolish peoples human rights and the neo-**** haters that would abolish peoples human rights.

My thought is that it was WRONG.

Sounds like you need to re-read what the Human Rights actually ARE
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Please pay specific attention to article 30 and get back to us.
Thanks.

When was it that running for CSM became a basic human right?

Maybe some of you should take a step back as frankly I am not seeing much difference between the neo-**** who would abolish peoples human rights and the neo-**** haters that would abolish peoples human rights.

Sounds like you need to re-read what the Human Rights actually ARE
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Please pay specific attention to article 30 and get back to us.
Thanks.

After all, people who murder ethnic minorities and people who dont are just as bad as each other, am I right/

I sure am glad that people want us to not presume that the guy who claims to be a neo **** is a neo **** until he's had a proper trial in SPACE COURT

That what was wrong? Please be specific, this is going to be one of those enlightening moments I think.

No you accused him of committing horrible crimes, not that he is not a neo-****.

If you cannot see that that is exactly guilt by political association, you will never see that your opinion is not much different to his.

You need to be specific. The trials of Ernst Zundel happened in the 1980s. All I recall is that he wrote a bunch of anti-Jewish, anti-Holocaust literature. I do not recall him engaging in any violent behaviour.

I'm not calling him a neo-**** by association. I'm taking his word for it.

6.A.5.)
You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-partyGÇÖs intellectual property rights.


10.)
[...]User Content that you cause to be communicated to the System may not (i) violate any statute, rule, regulation or law; (ii) infringe or violate the intellectual property, proprietary, privacy or publicity rights of any third party; (iii) be defamatory, indecent, obscene, child pornographic or harmful to minors; or (iv) contain any viruses, Trojan horses, disabling code, worms, time bombs, "clear GIFs," cancelbots or other computer programming or routines that are intended to, or which in fact, damage, detrimentally interfere with, monitor, intercept or expropriate any data, information, packets or personal information.[...]


16.)
[...]The EULA, and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, shall be governed and construed by and in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Iceland. The EULA shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.[...]

2.
You may not use any abusive, defamatory, ethnically or racially offensive, harassing, harmful, hateful, obscene, offensive, sexually explicit, threatening or vulgar language. (Alternate spelling or partial masking of such words will be reprimanded in the same manner as the actual use of such words.)


3.
You may not organize nor be a member of any corporation or group within EVE Online that is based on or advocates any anti-ethnic, anti-gay, anti-religious, racist, sexist or other hate-mongering philosophies


4.
You may not use GÇ£role-playingGÇ¥ as an excuse to violate these rules.

It is more your stance that is in breach of article 30 than his.

You know that game called Simon Says? I used to play it as a kid, in my English classes and I really enjoyed it. So now let's play EULA Says and ToS Says:

EULA Says:




ToS Says:



So all we are asking from CCP regarding this case with Fon is that CCP enforces the rules they created themselves.

Ahem, article 30 is about saying that your words/actions cannot infringe the basic human rights of others (ie. the ones you also listed). This means that Fon's stances DO infringe on the basic human rights of others. This puts him in direct violation of universal human rights. According to article 30 he is forfeiting his other human rights as they are in direct confrontation with article 30.

His stances also violate article 13 (ie. immigrants) etc.

You cannot hold the moral high-ground of Human Rights if you do not understand its core concepts.

But a movement to remove his rights because of his right to freedom of expression is.

The last time I checked, hate-speech and racism did not fall under "freedom of expression", hate-speech and racism falls under article 30 and get tossed as not being a "right". So no, he does not have a "right" to racism and hate-speech according to universal human rights.

Am I wrong?

Funny, you didn't need specificity when you said "My thought is that it was WRONG.". Why now?

Because I'm sensing a trap. :) So, ask specifically what you want to ask. I'm no Ernst Zundel expert.

The last time I checked, hate-speech and racism did not fall under "freedom of expression", hate-speech and racism falls under article 30 and get tossed as not being a "right". So no, he does not have a "right" to racism and hate-speech according to universal human rights.

Am I wrong?

I actually wasn't looking for specifics, I was asking what you thought of his treatment in general, both from the 80's trials and his subsequent deportation in 2005 (when he hilariously tried to claim refugee status in the wake of a German arrest warrant). I just found it odd that you answered the question first and then asked what part I meant specifically.

Now you are talking about International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which article 20 states
Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
...
But is not your denial of his rights because he is a neo-**** also a hate speech?

I completely agree with you if he breaks the EULA with something he says or does within EvE, these forums or a live event hosted by CCP and they ban him, he is not eligible to run.

That is completely fair.

I\m sure most of you will have already heard my interview with Fon (Poetic really should have linked to it in his article, the cheeky wee minx that he is ) but I'm just going to link it here so any of you who haven't heard it can

http://c-z.me/csm8fonrevedhort

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.

Exactly, he nor you have the right to perform any act or activity at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

If you cannot see that removing his rights because of what he says is against article 30 you need to read that again also you are also stepping on

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

and

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.


He is entitled to his freedom of expression and he is entitled to be presumed innocent of any crime until he is found guilty of one.

It is more your stance that is in breach of article 30 than his.

[...]By the same token, Fons isn't inciting violence. He's simply spewing ignorance from time to time.

Fons is certainly a racist. That is not a crime. As for him being a neo-**** ... I'm not so sure. He's a nationalist, for sure. He disagrees with Russia's immigration policies. He disagrees with Russia's multicultural policies. Those things I know for sure. And like I said, he'd be right at home in any U.S. State bordering Mexico

You need to be specific. The trials of Ernst Zundel happened in the 1980s. All I recall is that he wrote a bunch of anti-Jewish, anti-Holocaust literature. I do not recall him engaging in any violent behaviour.

No, I am talking about Universal Human Rights according to the United Nations.

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."

Hate-speech and racism are an act aimed at the destruction of several of the rights and freedoms listed by the United Nations (and not considered a "right" or "expression"). Therefor it is not against any of Fon's "rights" if he gets called out on it. He is purposefully and willingly stomping on human rights of others (which you have been defending today) and not entitled to any "right" whatsoever according to the United Nations.

As Vampy bat so wonderfully pointed out earlier, he is also in direct violation of CCP's EULA and ToS.
So not only have you been defending someone who violates universal human rights, EULA, ToS, you also agree with us that he should most likely be banned for such comments in the first place.

I am just trying to understand why you would support that?

Actually it was in the 90s - and he and his gang published hate speech, then terrorized those who opposed them, then of course there was the battle/riot at Sneeky Dee's when they thought it'd be "laughs" to track down and beat on of the girls.

Can you explain to me how people choosing to assume that Fon is human garbage based on the ideologies he's espoused is the equivalent of automatically assuming that someone charged with a penal offense is guilty? Because newsflash - it's not. Similarly, pointing out that many people who share his political ideology tend to be violent is not charging him with a criminal offense either - it's pointing out an association that may give one a reason for concern.

And can you explain to me how CCP going "You know what Fon old buddy, a lot of people don't really take very well to the ideologies you embrace, and from a business perspective, we've decided that we'd rather not have you as a community representative. Sorry!" is "destroying his rights"? Because newsflash - it's not. Were they to do so they'd have done exactly nothing to prevent him from expressing his beliefs - they'd have merely taken steps to distance themselves from them.

Likewise, Article 19 would be inapplicable for the same reason.

So, while your armchair laweyering is cute and everything, I'm having trouble seeing how it actually applies. Maybe you can explain that to me. Not that it's relevant at all anyway, of course, seeing as the UDHR is very much non-binding.

you know, there's a massive difference between saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because you disagree with their views and saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because they've literally posted racist nonsense on these forums

if the guy doesn't really bother separating his wretched views and associations from EVE, why should we do the same in return?

you equate denying him the ability to run for CSM to denying his human rights

by extension being banned from eve - which denies you the ability to run for CSM - is stripping you of your human rights

can you make this a bit more challenging because it's not at all

Article 30 you will note actually says noting about hate speech, and yes they can toss him if he breaches the EULA or TOS. What I support is people human rights, all people not just those who I happen to agree with.

No I am stating that stopping someone from doing something due their political affiliation, race, sex, disability, sexual persuasion is.

you know, there's a massive difference between saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because you disagree with their views and saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because they've literally posted racist nonsense on these forums

if the guy doesn't really bother separating his wretched views and associations from EVE, why should we do the same in return?

what do you mean i can't walk into the women's bathroom you're violating my human rights

also let me dig up a post i made many, many pages back that you may have missed



also CCP as a private entity must defend its business interests from the potential media backlash of, say, a guy who has previously spewed racist nonsense spewing racist nonsense while being in their ~player council~

No I am stating that stopping someone from doing something due their political affiliation, race, sex, disability, sexual persuasion is.

what do you mean i can't walk into the women's bathroom you're violating my human rights

also let me dig up a post i made many, many pages back that you may have missed



also CCP as a private entity must defend its business interests from the potential media backlash of, say, a guy who has previously spewed racist nonsense spewing racist nonsense while being in their ~player council~ especially in the event that he's on a non-delayed video stream

hmm when does that ever happen

Running for CSM is not a "human right".

Running for CSM is not a "human right".

So you have no problem with CCP making the CSM only for white, land owning males over 45 years old then?

naturally people against overt racists running for the CSM are just fine with CCP implementing an overtly racist policy

Do you have an actual argument? One that addresses how blocking someone from running for CSM violates their human rights? Or are you going to continue to throw out as many straw men as you can come up with?

That would be another straw man. Try again?

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.

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

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

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

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.

it's not, sorry

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

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*

Immutable characteristics do not include political affiliation.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

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?

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

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.


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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

First: CSM reps are not employees of CCP thus CCP is not legally required to be antidiscriminatory in regards to political beliefs.

Second: The issue is not Fon's political beliefs, it is his apparent inability to separate his political beliefs from anything else in his life. If he were able to keep a politically neutral stance in regards to EVE, then it would not be an issue and this discussion would be moot.

Third: You are a blithering idiot, please shut up.

Fourth: :munch:

Are we able to make cash donations to help support a CSM's candidacy run?

Is there a limit we can donate at one time or overall?

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

Well look at poetic stanziel attack ads are still in play.

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, 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.

Yeah but can you imagine the splash ads against this guy it would have been hilarious

Yeah and a pretty penny made too with a PLEX for a splash ad.

CCP will just say he broke the EULA anyways, if he got elected.

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.

Plus its starting to sound, a racist nationalist, doesn't really help in making lots of money.

Hopefully, CCP will find a dream candidate that will help push them to platinum status.

Ah nice one the Bismark was a **** ship.


I would have gone with Castle Wolfenstein with Fon's avatar, creating all the zombie ****'s.

Then shows an arm and hand in bioshock style, armed with an UN cannon of human rights taking down the **** zombies.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q96-Ddg02B4/UOW3eMSMZXI/AAAAAAAATnE/zA-jccldS5A/s400/LordHeeHaw.png
With the caption
"Do we really want more of this on the CSM"
"A vote for Fon Revedhort makes you just as big an Ass":

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.

I've removed a racist comment from this thread.

Sorry I have no idea who Rush Limbaugh is.

.....and you are seriously trying to demonstrate a working knowledge of politics based upon experience ? Seriously ?

If you're not American I can see not having a clue who he is (let alone why his name would be invoked).

There is this thing. It's called Google.

Why the f*** do we discuss the real life views of CSM candidate?.

Ask him why he brought it up, why he used **** music in his PVP videos. We wouldn't have a clue about his "leanings" if it wasn't for him going out of his way to tell us.

.....and you are seriously trying to demonstrate a working knowledge of politics based upon experience ? Seriously ?

Boy, there sure are a lot of knuckleheads not understanding a single thing about 'rights' in this thread.

What is being missed (and dismissed) is the very fact that CCP is a business....NOT a government.

I'm sure throughout your life you have been in stores and restaurants that have a sign that says "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone".

That is the fundamental right of any Corporation or Business.

If such an entity finds that a 'customer' or 'someone' that has simply entered their premises should not receive their services, they have every right to make them leave. They can also do this if they feel that entity will harm their business.

Now, if such a business develops a pattern of doing this, say to a people of a particular skin color, a lawsuit can most indeed be initiated against that business for discrimination against a particular class.

But if a restaurant, say, deems that a person 'smells so bad' or something, or has 'no shoes or shirt on' and that it will have a negative affect on their business, they have every right to refuse to do business with that person.

This is the way the world works folks.

CCP has every right to not allow someone to operate within the confines of their business if they deem it harmful....or for any reason they choose.

Now, if they said no Russians can run for CSM, that would be a different issue.

But not allowing a certain individual to run for CSM is absolutely not a violation of that person's right.

None whatsoever.

Ask him why he brought it up, why he used **** music in his PVP videos. We wouldn't have a clue about his "leanings" if it wasn't for him going out of his way to tell us.

Of course, Fon Revedhort should be allowed to be elected to CSM.

We're all playing in the internet spaceships game, right? So, CSM people give EVE community a "bridge" to devs. Give an ability for CCP to see players reaction on future game changes and give players an ability to know something more than devblogs by CSM minutes, etc.

Why the f*** do we discuss the real life views of CSM candidate? Are we elect a real goverment? No guys, it's still a game about spaceships... in the internet...

So it's completely wrong to sort CSM candidates by their not EVE-related preferences. All what is not related to EVE is not related to CSM (your Captain Obvious).

Such discussions and posts like 'do not vote for Fon, cuz he has specious views on non EVE themes' would produce the result, that we will have same CSM guys, who are not skilled pvpers, who were in real pvp 5 years ago last time, who don't care about solo\small scape pvp, don't care about low sec systems, etc. We will have same null-sec blobers.

These walls of blaming posts look like more as a try to use 'black' methods of election company, than as a real thing, cuz in fact normal EVE players don't care about real life stuff in CSM candidates, they care about the ability of this CSm member to do his job and make our EVE better.

Ask him why he brought it up, why he used **** music in his PVP videos. We wouldn't have a clue about his "leanings" if it wasn't for him going out of his way to tell us.

Knowledge of people in the United states has very little to do with the rest of the world. Take for example the stv system being used for the CSM, not made in america. For a good laugh at people from the United States and their limited views on the rest of the world look up the legal notices sent to the pirate bay. That sums up the fact very well that even professionals from the USA don't seem to realise there is a whole world that does not concern the USA.

I find it comical that you consider a knowledge of this rush Limbaugh person a requirement to know anything about world politics

You missed the law suits businesses have lost for refusing to serve people without a valid reason. Take for example African Americans in your country that have won suits based on racial descrimination.

So you might want to try that again.

I've been in bars here in San Francisco with plenty of British tourists who have actually discussed him. Next.

Don't denigrate the knowledge of whomever who lives wherever you are.

Does this person Rush have a Nobel prize or does he give speeches to the UN, or maybe he is an international lawyer helping countries in the writing of treaties?

I covered that ....which you would know if you bothered to read my post through.

Jesus H. Christ what a tool.


Edit: I highlighted it for your eyes sake.

well before Krixtal decided to be a **** about it.

Yes and we are back to your belief that one form of discrimination is better than another.

Yes their are organisations normally considered immune to discrimination laws, these are political parties and religions, CCP is neither.

Ya know. in my 3 years of EVE you are seriously the worst poster and troll....ever.

Congratulations.

Who, me ?

[quote=Krixtal Icefluxor] but you're just as dumb for starting it.

* https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2809943#post2809943

Exactly. And those who are most vocal about those beliefs do indeed act on them.

Again, I say, how do we know he has not been involved in horrific activities with whatever 'group' he is a member of.

History says to err on the side of caution in cases like this.

Imagine what would happen if he sits on the CSM and then some horrible information was discovered about his activities ......

That is not my belief.

It is a fact of life and the law.

Do you really care, what is the occupation of the CSM member, you've voted for? Do you want him to fix EVE ship balance or do you want to hear his thoughts about nation relations?

Yes, you. Had you actually ******* read the thread, you'd have saw that FD not knowing who Rush was in mynnna's example was already solved by mynnna explaining its relevance* (in which Rush himself wasn't all that relevant anyway). It wasn't until a page and hours after the fact to have a problem with it. Yeah, he's equally dumb for biting on it and going but you're just as dumb for starting it.

* https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2809943#post2809943

On that I will agree just let this thread die.

Nope, this thread (and any other threads about him) need to keep going until CCP acknowledges this one way or the other (either by banning him or saying we know about his belifs and he's still in and that's that). So far they've been playing the "hide and hope it all goes away" game, and that's just unacceptable.

A clear and difinative response might be on its way in the candidates thread as a dev is writing a response there, but I think I am dreaming if they actually give a real answer.

Just look at how long to get a straight answer about POSs

He's spent plenty of time giving us both, whether we wanted it or not. Why are you so confident he'll be able to put all of that aside if elected when so far, he hasn't?

Quite an except able response from CCP on the other thread.

Nice to see.

It's not even a response, it's saying a response is coming. More than a little disconcerting that his primary concern is with people "crossing the line" when they still have his ****-laden PVP video directly attached to his candidacy page, though. You would think that someone attaching 14/88 and other **** bullshit all over CCP property in an attempt to promote himself would be more of a concern, but I guess this IS CCP we're talking about here.

No I for once are happy that they are taking their time to do this right, rather than just some knee jerk reaction, like the ones they normally do.

Frankly I hope they decide his posts breach the EULA and kick his arose out, and they did something similar prior to giving The Mittani that ban.

Well here is hoping.

Frankly I hope they decide his posts breach the EULA and kick his arose out, and they did something similar prior to giving The Mittani that ban.

EVE players want the game to be improved, balanced and ameliorated. Instead of concentrating on PvP, ship balancing, issues of blobs, discussing current sad situation in low secs, etc we are discussing real life stuff.

If they do that, it will be an ordinary fail of CCP.

EVE players want the game to be improved, balanced and ameliorated. Instead of concentrating on PvP, ship balancing, issues of blobs, discussing current sad situation in low secs, etc we are discussing real life stuff.

Okay.

So, after these elections please don't complain to CSM on their badly work on ship balance, inability to have good small roamings, quality of PvP, etc.

You wanted 'clean' candidated in CSM, Okay. They are fine in RL, but they know nothing about good PvP and will work on rainbow ponies instead (also some of them will use NDA info in their blob alliances to get more profts).

I did more research ... and Zundel was eventually acquitted in 1992 by the Supreme Court. So good on the Supreme Court of Canada for upholding freedom of expression, even if such expression is abhorrent.

Well i dont know him&never talked to him, i saw hes movies,checked KB& read his election topic, im from CIS,but not from Russia
For sure we should elect ppl who dont play eve, never get in PVP/Pve....
Like i care about their Real Life problems.Even if hes a killer in real life, killing childs&womans, im playing Spaceshipgame,not reallife game

Or he told in his topic that he dont wanna Minnie(black skin ppl) race in Eve?Or gallente bisex ?
Idc about his real life&u shouldnt care

Btw check what your mates from TEST or Goons post in local chat, CCP should ban them all.

If they do that, it will be an ordinary fail of CCP.

EVE players want the game to be improved, balanced and ameliorated. Instead of concentrating on PvP, ship balancing, issues of blobs, discussing current sad situation in low secs, etc we are discussing real life stuff.

Okay.

So, after these elections please don't complain to CSM on their badly work on ship balance, inability to have good small roamings, quality of PvP, etc.

You wanted 'clean' candidated in CSM, Okay. They are fine in RL, but they know nothing about good PvP and will work on rainbow ponies instead (also some of them will use NDA info in their blob alliances to get more profts).

You still have not told me why this person is vital to know to have any understanding of politics but given the USA you probably consider him vital as he is a big mouth on a TV.

So, after these elections please don't complain to CSM on their badly work on ship balance, inability to have good small roamings, quality of PvP, etc.

You wanted 'clean' candidated in CSM, Okay. They are fine in RL, but they know nothing about good PvP and will work on rainbow ponies instead (also some of them will use NDA info in their blob alliances to get more profts).

I loled, 99% of ppl who posted here - carebears scared of balancing PVP.
I loled, 99% of ppl who posted here - weak IRL ppl,scared of 1 man that can say im not with all, because u got my opinion.
I loled, 99% of ppl who posted here - haters.
Gl noballs, tolerant, zombie ppl with no Idea in head

2 Goon lowballs:
Check your GOD Mitti(tags:suicede,IRL HATE,bhurt)


Im sure that no1 who posted here can DUEL HIM 1 VS 1 ingame&win.
ure playing IRL eve, im playing PC GAME.Thats why u dont check his INGAME skill newbies

True, he does seem good at pvp, but is it necessary for him to bring up his purity tests while discussing or thinking about pvp?

I mean if you are a real supporter of his and see the gains he could make, do you ask him yourself or ping him in game to ask him why its necessary to bring up off topics like races and stuff, when talking about pvp?

CCP is not under any obligation to preserve the right of players or community representative candidates to express extremist views on race and ethnicity. However for the CSM which is a multinational and likely multi-ethnic advisory and representative body it's in both CCP's and their customers' best interests to foster an environment where everyone is accorded the same voice and level of respect regardless of factors such as race. Someone who repeatedly demonstrates intolerance towards these differences cannot be allowed to serve on the CSM, and as such there's no point in allowing them to run in the election for the CSM either.

Because he is the 100% amarr purist. The dieheard amarrian racist hellbent on eradication of the minmatar scum. View his posts in this context.

So far I've seen only a bunch of statements made up by goon forum squad.
Even that turd xander had to cut the interview short and scream on the top of his lungs - i hate you racist beast since you told that people are not equal. Newsflash - they are not. I bet you cannot lift as much as Schwarzenegger in his best years or run as fast as most of the Kenyans or i dont know is not smarter than Sir Isaak Newton.

So far I've seen only a bunch of statements made up by goon forum squad.
Even that turd xander had to cut the interview short and scream on the top of his lungs - i hate you racist beast since you told that people are not equal. Newsflash - they are not. I bet you cannot lift as much as Schwarzenegger in his best years or run as fast as most of the Kenyans or i dont know is not smarter than Sir Isaak Newton.

Newsflash - they are not. I bet you cannot lift as much as Schwarzenegger in his best years or run as fast as most of the Kenyans or i dont know is not smarter than Sir Isaak Newton.

So far I've seen only a bunch of statements made up by goon forum squad

Go watch the video posted by Fon Revedhort in the very first post of his thread for CSM 8 candidacy. It's quite full of references to White Nationalism (Celtic cross, 14/88 signifying the words "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children" and "Heil ******", neo-**** music, etc.) and other neo-**** ideologies. This isn't something goons or anyone else made up.

Go watch the video posted by Fon Revedhort in the very first post of his thread for CSM 8 candidacy. It's quite full of references to White Nationalism (Celtic cross, 14/88 signifying the words "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children" and "Heil ******", neo-**** music, etc.) and other neo-**** ideologies. This isn't something goons or anyone else made up.

Newsflash - Eugenics has long been disproven countless times.

If you think they have been "made up" then I suggest you watch the video in his CSM8 candidacy thread (you'll know it by the white-power music and 14/88 references and Klan symbols).

Since you can't honestly be dumb enough to not see that, I put forth you're trolling. And, frankly, find something better to troll about because there is actually an issue here that needs discussing.

So far I've seen only a bunch of statements made up by goon forum squad

Irrelevant comparisons aside, he has again not denied (that I've seen) any allegations of racism, nor has any of his campaign material given any impression that he doesn't hold such beliefs.

So far I've seen only a bunch of statements made up by goon forum squad.
Even that turd xander had to cut the interview short and scream on the top of his lungs - i hate you racist beast since you told that people are not equal. Newsflash - they are not. I bet you cannot lift as much as Schwarzenegger in his best years or run as fast as most of the Kenyans or i dont know is not smarter than Sir Isaak Newton.

rythm can't really accuse us of being racist when he has personally posted racist statements on these forums and somehow remains able to post

point me to them mr "dont petition blue bot".

As to Aryan supremacy I think the 1936 Olympics and WWII proved the fallacy of a master race.

Even that turd xander had to cut the interview short and scream on the top of his lungs - i hate you racist beast since you told that people are not equal. Newsflash - they are not. I bet you cannot lift as much as Schwarzenegger in his best years or run as fast as most of the Kenyans or i dont know is not smarter than Sir Isaak Newton.

http://eve-search.com/search/author/Rythm

they're all over so it shouldn't be hard

mr "dont petition blue bot" i was asking for a direct quote.