Extracted from a locked thread.
[ADOL] What in the rules gave you the authority to ban Shila?You can find the rules here:Here is the policy for those who don't want to open an Evernote linkDebateArt.com Moderation PolicyDebateArt.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. Our moderation policy is designed to encourage free speech while ensuring that all users are treated with dignity and that our community remains safe and constructive.Respect for other usersUsers must treat other users with reasonable respect, and refrain from personal attacks/insults with the purpose of causing harm to another user. We do not tolerate any form of harassment, bullying, or threats of violence. All users are encouraged to engage in productive and respectful debates, even if they disagree with the opinions of others.Constructive debateUsers are encouraged to present well-reasoned arguments and avoid logical fallacies. We do not permit the worst forms of trolling, such as spamming, posting irrelevant or inflammatory content, or engaging in personal attacks. However, we do allow more borderline forms of trolling that are intended to provoke thought or stimulate debate, as long as they are presented in a respectful and thoughtful manner.No plagiarism or cheatingUsers must write their own arguments and not copy or plagiarize content from other sources. Cheating, such as using multiple accounts or vote manipulation, is strictly prohibited.Doxxing and impersonationDoxxing (the posting of personal information of others without their consent) and impersonation (pretending to be someone else) are strictly prohibited on DebateArt.com. This includes impersonating the site owner, moderators, or other users.Extravagant lies, not to be confused with mere context issues, may rise to the level of constituting impersonation.Renaming of threads or debate titlesModerators 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.Reporting violationsUsers are encouraged to report any violations of our policies or guidelines to the moderators, who will investigate and take appropriate action. Please include specific details and evidence to help us address the issue quickly and fairly.Moderator actionsIf a user is found to have violated our policies, the moderators may take a range of actions, including issuing warnings, suspending or banning accounts, removing content, or renaming threads or debate titles. Our goal is to maintain a dignified and constructive community for all users, while also promoting free expression and constructive debate.By using DebateArt.com, you agree to comply with our moderation policy and any updates or changes to it. We reserve the right to modify our policies at any time to ensure the continued safety and integrity of our platform.If that looks familiar, it should. You voted for it:So did David:Let's look at what you said.I’ll vote yay.I think it’s worth overhauling moderation policy in some ways and I’ve seen a lot of progress and community interaction with these potential changes. As for whether this gives moderation more power or access, honestly, I don’t see how that’s the case. Mod discretion has always been integral to the existing policy, and if the goal here is to restrict how we can act in meaningful ways, then changes can be made if they get enough support. This is a good start that can yield other changes.Where are the changes that let you do this, or is community support a inconvenience?To be clear, I never thought the owner was bound to follow a MEEP. I think it's a great idea, but it wasn't a chartered privileged as far as I can tell.HOWEVERTo pretend for years that there was some kind of system of democratic system for changing the rules, to participate in that very process, to never expressly renege, and yet to still ignore the 'laws' of that 'government' and do whatever the hell you want anyway is just disgusting.That makes you liars, and for no benefit that I can see at all. Just lying out of weakness and avoiding the issue in the hopes it goes away.
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.
[Whiteflame] 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.[ADOL] So when is it not inflammatory to tell someone that people just like them deserve to die? To suffer?Show us how "inflammatory" isn't just a label for your whim.
[ADOL] So when is it not inflammatory to tell someone that people just like them deserve to die? To suffer?[Whiteflame] Interesting way to phrase that. No, Shila told this person that anyone in his community and family who died in the Holocaust deserved to die and suffer. Phrasing that as "people just like them" is certainly a way to put that. Noting as well the lack of response to Shila's question that pretty thoroughly suggested to this person that he and others like him are due further punishment. I'd call both of these decidedly inflammatory.You didn't answer the question.[Whiteflame] But saying that it's being controversial or offensive somehow precludes it meeting the standard for inflammatory content is beyond me.An assertion about morality or fact and anything resembling an argument supporting either is precluded from being "worst forms of trolling".That's what "debate any topic, no matter how controversial or offensive means".If you're calling an assertion about morality or fact and anything resembling an argument supporting either "inflammatory content" under the current CoC you've subverted it. This isn't hard to understand, it's fairly obvious.It's not just what you didn't say, it's what you did say: "Encouragement of mass genocide, even if it's past, is still against site rules"Looks like a moral assertion to me.
