Uhm, they’re there literally as representatives of their respective sovereign state.
Go players don’t represent their country’s policies on taxes! 
1 Like
Which court is that, and who recognises it?
No court would listen to an argument by analogy. You’re way out of your depth here.
So flying flags is none of their business?
Fair enough. What I am saying is that I think Anoek was wrong to take up a proposal which meant the site took a stand politically – or at least appeared to. In fact, if it had been done straightforwardly as a proposal like that, rather than being a change insinuated into the OGS code as an ‘enhancement’ to the functionality, I wonder whether Anoek would still have approved it. Perhaps he would; he’s entitled to his opinion on international affairs and as the owner of a global website, has the power to express it loudly.
Moderators have taken down the Nazi flag and other symbols of anti-Semitism.
2 Likes
International Court of Justice - Wikipedia; recognised by all UN member states, or International Criminal Court - Wikipedia; recognised by 123 states, although not Russia and the US, probably because they’re usually the ones breaking international treaties…
I’m not trying to convince court, I’m trying to give an argument for why I do not believe economic sanctions are a form of collective punishment. If one state violates international treaties, other states are justified in responding to that by issuing embargoes or putting diplomatic relations to a halt. Allowing trade is a choice, not an obligation.
Indeed.
Content uploaded by users on the site is judged by the Terms of Service, and as far as I’m aware, none of the moderators considers the Russian flag to be in violation with the Terms of Service. Politically motivated protest is allowed as long as it happens passively as well.
I’m not sure what you mean. It was proposed straightforwardly as it was: someone suggested to change the logo in support of the people in Ukraine, and anoek agreed. In fact, he allowed moderators to state that OGS sides with Ukraine (although we do not ban Russian users from using the site or from voicing their opinion). So, yeah, the site does take a stand politically.
4 Likes
You won’t need to consult anyone for this case obviously, but you seem to have the wrong idea about how those phrases work, so it is a good idea to learn more about the subject.
As you, yourself, are writing now, all those things you said earlier are false. That kind of thing might slide over the internet, but it does not in many other cases/places, so you should inform yourself on how things work in real life, in such issues.
Again, not for here and in this discussion in particular, but for your own gain in genera. Learning something useful is always a nice idea. 
Yes, and you said that “even then” you couldn’t figure it out and you were harping on about non-existent people. Here let me remind you:
Even worse for your point, UN stands for United NATIONS, and is clearly not named United Governments … words matter
Re the ICC
Nor Ukraine (since you mention it). The UK recognises the ICC and has, I believe, set it to collecting evidence of alleged Russian war crimes. No one has asked them to collect evidence of alleged Ukrainian war crimes, as far as I know. I don’t think the ICC is relevant to trade sanctions.
I don’t go for your kids’ party analogy any more than I think a court would. By some of the things you have said you do make me at least less certain of my original belief.that sanctions constitute ‘collective punishment’. Bear in mind, though, that it’s not governments themselves that trade, freely or otherwise, but corporations – which may be, and often are, privately owned. They may well wish to continue to trade (to continue making money, for example), but be forbidden to by their government. I honestly don’t think either of us knows enough about these things to say or convince definitively whether my original assertion that sanctions constitute collective punishment is right. My belief was based on the fact that citizens may suffer for the sake of the actions of their governments, over which they have little or no control. It seems to me that Russians not being able to buy a Big Mac would be stretching the word ‘punishment’ beyond reasonable bounds, but when sanctions mean that citizens can no longer get access to food and medicines, it doesn’t seem much of a stretch at all. We don’t need to discuss this further, anyway, since it’s established that nobody is being discriminated against or being sanctioned here for the acts of their government; there is just a national symbol on display.(at site level, not the symbols of nationality associated with user accounts) for reasons which, in the end, only Anoek can really speak to, since it was ultimately his decision to do that.
(agreeing that flying flags is not moderators’ business)
and yet, from what has been said, they were consulted about what was not their business?
What I have understood is that it was not “proposed straightforwardly” but that someone actually wrote code, uninvited(?), which would cause the site logo to be coloured blue and yellow and put it forward for approval as a modification for implementation (sorry, I’m a bit hazy about how github works).
To my mind, a ‘straightforward proposal’ would be someone saying to the owner "I think we should paint the logo with Ukraine’s colours, (because [blah! blah!]). Look: here’s another mod’s mock-up of what that would look like. I could write the code…
That’s the nub of it. That’s what I think it would be better the site had not done. Clearly, that’s not for me to decide, but the owner. Another question the owner will have to come to grips with is when, if ever, the logo will return to its traditional Black and White.
You say that’s a “fact”, but actually, you don’t and can’t know what the RF is trying to do. You’re just saying what you imagine to be a fact.
It’s certainly not what ‘he’ actually has done and certainly not what ‘he’ said he was going to do. ‘He’ has purportedly defended those who don’t want to be ruled by the man in the T-shirt (since we’re treating governments as embodied in their nominal leaders) and don’t want to be bombed by him… Same as NATO didn’t invade Serbia to take it over, but just to stop it controlling the part of its internationallly recognised territory NATO said it shouldn’t control because, they said, the people there didn’t want it to.
It is, of course, a fact that the RF has breached the internationally recognised Ukrainian border with military force. The history doesn’t change that fact, but it goes to explaining it. I’m not saying that I, personally, think that justifies it; I’m saying it’s simplistic to just start from that fact.
Oh, come on…
There just were referenda being exactly about annexing four areas of Ukraine. Crimea has already been annexed a couple of years ago. If Russia is not trying to annex Ukraine, then I fully believe I am a penguin.
This discussion is a waste of my time.
3 Likes
I think you’re clutching for straws trying to find ways to be convinced anoek might have accepted the colours by accident or something.
Please go ask @anoek himself about his opinion on the colours in the logo. I’m 100% sure you’ll find out he was on board with the whole thing. It’s kind of obvious, but I think you are too much in love with your narrative that somehow Ukrainian spin-doctors are pressuring this poor server to show colour against its will to believe that anoek might’ve actually been quite happy changing the logo.
1 Like
Maybe don’t drag him into this mess?
1 Like
Since anoek even ignores relevant site change suggestions, I doubt he’ll give this thread much time of day…
It seems that this discussion has long deviated from its original topic, and, therefore, has lost its meaning …
I agree and this seems a good point to close this thread.
16 Likes