-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Probably falls under "inflammatory content."
New community announcement
Posts
Read-only
Total:
209
-->
@Savant
Encouragement of mass genocide, even if it's past, is still against site rules
No, I don't think so.
Contrast "inflammatory" with "controversial or offensive".
-->
@Savant
Probably falls under "inflammatory content."
Yeah, good luck defining that one.
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I am telling you. It is the way now. Shila's ban is proof.
“It is the way now” would imply it was not the way before. You have either devised new rules or are abusing existing ones.
Shila did support her statements with the idea, one supported by the Bible, that Jews had disappointed God many times. This is the second time I am telling you that one has to understand nuance. The Holocaust is a historical event and we should be able to discuss historical events.
You will go from a dozen active forum posters to zero.
-->
@yachilviveyachali
GotemIt is the way now” would imply it was not the way before. You have either devised new rules or are abusing existing ones.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@Savant
A lot of the time I think the 'approach one takes on a topic, is what matters.
Though it can be a gray area, there's still darker and lighter shades of gray.
I think 'most people just don't approach certain topics,
But people who are fervent, trolls, or crazy.
One see's most of the people discussing X topic, and see's them getting banned because of their wild approaches, then think the topic can't be approached at all.
Though admittedly some places ban the topic itself, I'm not fond of such moderation.
Germany banning anything related to the ruling political party in WW2 Germany, Reddit banning Antinatalism.
Not that I support certain policies of the WW2 Ruling Germany Party, but I like freedom, dialogue.
-->
@Lemming
then think the topic can't be approached at all.
Other times a newly minted mod (with delusions of grandeur and paranoia) says it explicitly:
Agreeing with Holocaust apologetics is bannable. At minimum warnable. Let us steer clear of that topic.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"Agreeing with Holocaust apologetics is bannable. At minimum warnable. Let us steer clear of that topic."
Sounds vague to me.
At minimum a warning, means there is a spectrum,
Possible one can 'stay in the warning spectrum, and never 'get a ban.
-->
@Lemming
Possible one can 'stay in the warning spectrum, and never 'get a ban.
Lemming, if the warning was the worst punishment possible; then what does it warn of?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That one is 'near something dangerous.
As long as I don't cross the line into private property, just 'seeing a private property sign, doesn't mean anything more, maybe.
Or beware sharp corners in the road ahead.
Just means to have a sense of awareness of where one is stepping.
Course, I admit some warnings are,
"You are on my property right now, step off of it, or I'll shoot."
But I maintain others are warnings to be cautious.
One can continue on one's way through a topic, so long as one is careful,
Personally I think one can even get away with advocating for actions held as extreme by most of society, so long as one is careful what and how one says it.
-->
@AdaptableRatman
So are righteous anger (component of virtue) and zeal.
There is a time and place for righteous anger, which is different from sinful anger. This is a website intended for debate and discussion. What do you want it to be? It is not for your arbitrary crusade.
-->
@Lemming
Personally I think one can even get away with advocating for actions held as extreme by most of society, so long as one is careful what and how one says it.
You can argue for anything indirectly, yes true. There are even ways to lead to obvious conclusion without ever mentioning what you advocate for.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@TheGreatSunGod
Contrast "inflammatory" with "controversial or offensive".
Anything controversial or offensive can be argued to be inflammatory. Not that it definitely is, but an argument can be made for it, even more so since the speech in question didn't contribute much to discussion. That part of the CoC gives moderators very wide discretion to ban things. Gonna be hard to pin moderators down as clearly violating the rules as long as "inflammatory" content warrants a ban.
good luck defining that one
Like TheGreatSunGod says, it's vaguely defined. Which moderators will inevitably use to their advantage. Maybe that should be changed, but as is there's a wide range of posts they could argue a justification for banning.
-->
@Lemming
As long as I don't cross the line into private property
A line, a rule; is not a spectrum of 'wildness'.
If I'm a juror and the defendant shoots a trespasser for "blasphemy" or "mixing races" or some non-sense that was repealed a long time ago, and it turns out the trespasser was has an easement; I am sending that MF to prison.
The rules the community voted for are more or less clear: attacking posters can get you in trouble, having no topic can get you in trouble (spamming), but no opinion about any topic can.
There was an easement, you can't trespass on this site by having an opinion. Not according to the recorded consent of several people including David and Whiteflame.
-->
@Savant
there's a wide range of posts they could argue a justification for banning
Rules must be clearly defined now. How else am I supposed to know what to follow. Besides, such censorship is easily bypassed. There are many ways to strongly imply call to violence without ever mentioning violence. Just like people find ways to insult each other and mock each other even when insults are banned. Putting wide range undefined rules doesnt fix the problem. There are either defined rules or there arent.
-->
@Savant
That part of the CoC gives moderators very wide discretion to ban things.
Wrong. When interpreting a charter the whole must be considered and every part must be interpreted in the way that creates the most coherent overall meaning.
Thus we know that whatever "inflammatory" means, it must not contradict "DebateArt.com is committed to promoting an environment where users can engage in open and thoughtful debate on any topic, no matter how controversial or offensive it may be."
No opinion on any topic can therefore be inflammatory under the rules. It is only a catchall for things besides an opinion on a topic.
For example "ur mom is a whore" is inflammatory, and not an opinion on a topic (in every circumstance but the exceedingly unlikely one that there is a debate about your mother's sexual history).
From the beginning, when you picked out "inflammatory" you have ignored the fact that the moderation log did not say "inflammatory comments" (which wouldn't be good enough).
It hardly matters if you can get someone on J-walking if you're accusing them of witchcraft.
-->
@Savant
Since you're here, why did you not mention you were working with nutjobs on this 'new site'?
I want to know that story. Who knew what when.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Thus we know that whatever "inflammatory" means, it must not contradict "DebateArt.com is committed to promoting an environment where users can engage in open and thoughtful debate on any topic, no matter how controversial or offensive it may be."
If you interpret that as a binding rule and not just a stated aim of the CoC, then sure. Take the rule "Moderators have the right to rename a thread or debate title if it is deemed to be offensive or inappropriate. This includes any title or thread that is harmful or offensive to a particular individual or group." That probably fails the stated aim of the CoC. Probably a good argument for rewriting the CoC as it fails its stated aim, but right now the rules are not phrased in such a way as to actually allow open debate on any topic. Arguably any restrictions on what can be said prevent "open" debate.
I want to know that story. Who knew what when.
That was when we thought DART was shutting down. I'm not about to build a new website now, but hopefully we can add features.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
you have ignored the fact that the moderation log did not say "inflammatory comments" (which wouldn't be good enough)
WF said celebrating the Holocaust was against the rules but not why. The "why" is likely that it's an inflammatory comment.
-->
@Savant
If you interpret that as a binding rule and not just a stated aim of the CoC
Honesty does not permit anything to be dismissed as irrelevant. Stating the aim of the document gives context and thereby narrows possibilities when words have multiple or vague meanings.
That probably fails the stated aim of the CoC.
It was not in harmony, but it did not contradict it. It could easily have said "rename or remove" but it did not.
Probably a good argument for rewriting the CoC as it fails its stated aim
At worst an amendment to clarify that mod rename must make the fewest possible changes and remove only elements irrelevant to the topic.
For example "Filthy dirty jews deserved what they got" -> "Was the holocaust justified?".
Arguably any restrictions on what can be said prevent "open" debate.
One can argue the moon is made of cheese but that argument would fail.
WF said celebrating the Holocaust was against the rules but not why. The "why" is likely that it's an inflammatory comment.
That's revisionism. If there is anywhere in the world to put the "why" it's when you ban someone. THAT should be part of every site charter.
Needless to say choosing to differentiate between "celebration" and "condoning" is pure sophistry in an attempt to recover arbitrary power. When the mod agrees then it's not celebration, when he does; it is. Or celebrating things the mod agrees with is fine.
------------
I want to know that story. Who knew what when.That was when we thought DART was shutting down. I'm not about to build a new website now, but hopefully we can add features.
No, I mean when you invited me to the discord were Rat and Lance in there and if they were how could you not notice that they're insane? If you did notice how could you possibly think you could successfully found a home for a community with them speaking for the project without consulting you?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I will tell you my rulebook. This is not a joke. Please observe Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Thank you.
And no I am not going to stone anyone Old Testament style, obviously.
That is my rulebook in life; site or no site.
-->
@DebateArt.com
I am afraid I am short on time to read the whole thread, but don't worry, the domain won't expire and I keep on paying for the hosting, so the website should continue running just fine. And I will try to work harder on finding the replacement.
oh thank goodness
-->
@Lemming
Sounds vague to me.At minimum a warning, means there is a spectrum,Possible one can 'stay in the warning spectrum, and never 'get a ban.
Correct. Past offences, severity of the Holocaust apologetics, frequency all factoe in.
Denying the Holocaust happened will depend. I understand people want a right to conspiracy theories but this site then needs to.be made illegal in Europe and I probably then lose access.
-->
@Savant
[AdaptableRatman] I will tell you my rulebook. This is not a joke. Please observe Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church.Thank you.
Like I said, insane. Insanely ill suited to be in a position of power of any kind much less a steward of a community brought together by trust in reason.
-->
@David
@Sir.Lancelot
@AdaptableRatman
As long as
1. DART exists
AND
2. Your new site is hostile to members with controversial/horrible ideas
I do not plan on joining. I understand that European governments are full of censorcucks, but that is where I stand. I haven’t really done a whole lot of debating in the forums recently, but websites like these are a chance to pull people out of bad belief systems- it is preferable their ideas are challenged here, when the other option is for them to be banished to their echo chambers elsewhere on the internet.
-->
@David
@Sir.Lancelot
@AdaptableRatman
I would prefer freedom,
Some conspiracies are true,
The Jews being exterminated 'was a 'true conspiracy theory during WW2, of course the 'Nazis didn't want people talking about or against it.
Invasion of Ukraine some might call inflammatory or bannable.
But what is the other option?
Completely cut off communication with another country?
It's hard to change peoples views or your own, in isolation.
It doesn't 'stop the views, they just fester under the skin, inside bubble communities.
. . .
'IF this site does go down, and someone makes a site with new features,
Maybe some of 3RU7AL's past recommendations should be considered.
Some Users and their content could be banned from appearing to users in Europe for example.
-->
@Lemming
Invasion of Ukraine some might call inflammatory or bannable.But what is the other option?Completely cut off communication with another country?
That's not necessary.
You see companies like twitter bow because they have branches in those countries. Those countries could come snatch their infrastructure.
A server in US jurisdiction is not subject to their laws. They want to blind their citizens, that's their problem to implement. When a European uses a website in the USA it is equivalent to him/her sending a letter and then getting a response.
If some European law makes sending certain letters illegal, then it's up to them to find the letter sender in their own country.
They're in the wrong and nobody should help them without a gun to their head.
-->
@Mharman
@Lemming
My idea of a site wouldn't condone hostility or disrespect of any sort. If someone's beliefs were so morally depraved or taboo, like homophobia or a nazi.
They would just be banned. I prefer things be done professionally, formally. By the book.
Like whiteflame, only stricter and more aggressive. Firm, but fair.
Now Trump supporters calling for the deportation of illegals would be allowed, and so would liberals disagreeing. But I would reinforce my ultimate standard of civil discussion indiscriminately. Therefore, Trump supporters expressing derogatory beliefs toward women or people of color would not be acceptable. But I wouldn't condone people attacking them for these beliefs, but the said user would be warned to stop expressing such views, or they may be banned without warning.
Likewise, claims that categorize all Trump supporters as racist or misogynistic would also be dealt with the same way.
Now although me and Adaptable share the same beliefs and goals about site & policy reform. Our similarities begin and end there.
The differences are our methods and motives.
ADreamOfLiberty, Shila, Best.Korea, and Wylted would be perma-banned.
For me, it's not because I dislike those users or anything. It's because they are problematic people who were or are expressing extreme and taboo views or have crossed the line, which is not acceptable to me. But I would not condone anyone harassing them or being hostile.
I'm removing feelings from the equation. It's strictly business.
According to Adaptable, his motives are a little bit more personal and ideological. Which is completely reasonable and justifiable.
I admire someone with a mission that is passionate and remains true to their cause. I support his goals in this case and think he's a great guy.
But some of his views for total censorship, I believe are a little unrealistic.
I believe if it were up to Adaptable, his version of the website would be to remove whiteflame from his position as head-mod. Because Adaptable likely sees whiteflame as too passive and incompetent of a mod to lead this platform. (I could be misquoting. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
If it is up to me, I plan on reforming the site by using Adaptable's ideas for the new CoC, but I would keep whiteflame as the head-mod because I see him as a role model, and someone that could counter-balance unrestricted freedom of speech & complete censorship.
With Adaptable's policy ideas and whiteflame's enforcement, we would achieve the ultimate middle-ground and everybody wins.
But like I said. If I were head-mod, I would be like whiteflame.
Only stricter.
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
If someone's beliefs were so morally depraved or taboo
If no one can express a morally wrong belief, how do you have debates on morality? People have to take opposing sides to debate, and they can't both hold morally right beliefs if their beliefs are in contradiction. Is there a distinction to you between "morally wrong" and "morally depraved"? Why are some morally wrong beliefs okay to express but not others?
For instance, you could never have an abortion debate under these standards. Either the pro-life side is advocating for enslaving women or the pro-choice side is advocating for slaughtering children. For one side to be right, the other side must be advocating a morally depraved belief. They likely don't believe their belief to be morally depraved, but then neither do racist people, for example.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As Savant already said, this falls under "inflammatory content." I'd say it's decidedly inflammatory to repeatedly tell a practicing Jew that any harm that befell their family during the Holocaust was effectively something they incurred and deserved. I'd say it's inflammatory to then ask that person if they should "expect more punishment of the Jews?" which suggests that he and other Jews should anticipate further punishment in line with the Holocaust.
Shila was warned about posts like this a full four days before I stripped her of her forum posting privileges. She only argued that I hadn't warned her four days beforehand, despite the timestamp on the PM I sent her plainly showing otherwise, and otherwise accepted the ban. She didn't argue that anything she'd posted and I'd quoted to her was appropriate apart from saying that the harms the Jews incurred could have been avoided, which didn't address what was problematic about her posts at all.
So if you don't like that I didn't give a comprehensive list of examples and as complete of an explanation for why Shila was banned as possible, I can fix that. It's a good deal of posts and I can go through them and point to the specific language that led to her ban. I can then use the specific term "inflammatory content" and provide detailed reasoning for why it applies. I don't think that's necessary, but if you feel it's warranted here to give as much explanation as possible, I can do that.