The permanent ban on chap470: Justified or unjustified?

Author: Sir.Lancelot

Posts

Total: 202
Topic's author
#1
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,176
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
I have advocated for stricter enforcement on regulation, but my current understanding of what happened leads me to believe this punishment was slightly extreme. 

If chap470 was calling for hate or persecution in anyway against jews, then a permanent ban is an appropriate response. 
However, if the ban was simply because of his belief that the holocaust did not happen, then that’s not a proportional or fair response. 

Consider that Remy got away with a lot more. 
Wylted himself has aggressively denied the holocaust in the discord server, as well as used a Hitler pfp but managed to get off free with only a warning.
ADreamOfLiberty and Lucy.Starfire have argued for much worse, but have not been banned. 

If the moderation enforcement is to be stricter, that’s perfectly acceptable. But it needs to be gradual, consistent, and full disclosure. 
Which raises a few questions.: 

  1. What did chap470 say that qualifies as hate speech? Was it merely his denial of the holocaust? Details matter. 
  2. Was chap470 issued a formal warning before his ban? 
If regulation is to be stricter, then this needs to be crystal clear. Like what views are allowed, and what views aren’t allowed.
There can be no miscommunications or room for misunderstanding. 

Going from 0 to 100 too quick makes no sense. 
At the very least, chap470 is entitled to a formal warning or temporary ban because they are a new user. 
#2
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 1,117
3
4
7
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
4
7
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I dont know why the fuck is this site even enforcing European laws here. Maybe David is from Europe, so when he takes the site, he will have to keep it in line with EU laws.
#3
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,902
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@David
@Barney
Oh ffs. What the hell is this shit? Please explain.
#4
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,632
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Mharman
The revolution...

Has already begun.
Topic's author
#5
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,176
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Mharman
The mods rarely seem to respond if you tag two or more at a time. 
In my experience, you only get a response if one of them is tagged.

You're going to have to single one out.
#6
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,239
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@whiteflame
I think Lancelot's questions here are worth at least clarifying. The moderation log says chap470's ban was a joint decision. I don't know if that means unanimous or just more than one, but you can probably provide some insight here regardless.
Topic's author
#7
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,176
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@whiteflame
@Mharman
@Savant
Yeah, I am in agreement with Savant. 

It was probably a group decision, but I'm unsure that this was whiteflame's idea.
#8
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,757
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Mharman
For anyone not familiar, the mod decision is as follows:
Date: 07/01/2025
Moderators: Joint Decision

chap470 has been banned permanently for overt Holocaust denial. He posted no other content to imply any interest in genuine engagement. Pure hate speech.

DebateArt exists to promote intellectual exchange, not to host historically illiterate provocations or serve as a platform for hatred disguised as discourse (this isn't 4Chan). Holocaust denial is not to be confused with a mere different viewpoint. It is a form of disinformation rooted in malice and bigotry, and it violates both the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct.

This is not a ban on discussing WWII, nor events in and surrounding it. Holocaust denial is a well recognized form of extreme hate speech, used to justify calls for repeated genocide. ... Whereas something like denying Australia exists, is just a bit of harmless silliness; and is most certainly not connected to loser terrorists.
The content he posted was beyond merely repugnant, and had zero mitigating factors (such as posting anything else at all), so resulted in the ban without hesitation.

I will add that spam bots which exist solely to spam, likewise get much the same treatment (only without an explanation given to the community).
#9
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 694
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
Date: 07/01/2025
Moderators: Joint Decision

chap470 has been banned permanently for overt Holocaust denial. He posted no other content to imply any interest in genuine engagement. Pure hate speech.

DebateArt exists to promote intellectual exchange, not to host historically illiterate provocations or serve as a platform for hatred disguised as discourse (this isn't 4Chan). Holocaust denial is not to be confused with a mere different viewpoint. It is a form of disinformation rooted in malice and bigotry, and it violates both the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct.

This is not a ban on discussing WWII, nor events in and surrounding it. Holocaust denial is a well recognized form of extreme hate speech, used to justify calls for repeated genocide. ... Whereas something like denying Australia exists, is just a bit of harmless silliness; and is most certainly not connected to loser terrorists.
Yeah pretty ridiculous.


Whole profile has been wiped clean, so the community can't even make a judgement as to whether the ban is fair or not. This is exactly what I meant is the Leshwanda thread when I said that the 'hate speech' clause in the CoC could easily act as the 'last refuge of scoundrels' and be used to justify blatant censorship. I went to look at the dude's posts to see if he was being otherwise civil and engaging and was just banned for content, but all the evidence is gone. How is any of this transparent?

Also, this debate is apparently fine:

Seems like incredibly heavy-handed and ideologically driven censorship, and a bad sign of things to come.

#10
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,632
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Barney
You are learning the instincts needed to run a place like this.

What you are doing wrong is leaving unclear the rules.

Holocaust denial violates European Law. It is similar reason why full antivaxxer stance is dangerous to have here as even much of Asia and South America would want to ban the site then.

Full antivaxxer means people literally against vaccinations themselves as a whole, trying to convince others of it. It also would include any midway stance but that is my point. We need to be careful because law is law.

We must obey.
#11
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 1,117
3
4
7
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
4
7
@Adaptable

Why is your profile  photo Sparta? They were  polytheists.
#12
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 694
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Barney
such as posting anything else at all
How could he? His account was created yesterday. If he was posting for a month and only argued about the holocaust maybe, maybe this argument would hold water. But he was literally here for one day. It looks like arguing about WWII just results in a reflexive ban.
#13
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,632
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I am with you backwards.

Genuinely advocating for the genocides Stalin did as heroic and pushing him as a hero are dangerous to allow. I do think it is strange that Communist regime logos like the literal logo of what Stalin used (hammer sickle, the USSR flag too) are allowed to be donned legally in Europe where of course all Nazi
stuff is banned to ever dare show/don.

Both should be banned, not just the Nazis. There is no way at all to be a so-called good guy USSR Tankie. The regimes of Tankies were consistently genocidal and abusive and USSR was statistically the worst or on par with some.
#14
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,632
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@LucyStarfire
And so?

Christianity didnt exist yet. Thus they had not rejected Christ. If I have Muhammad Ali as a pfp am I suddenly s Muslim?
Topic's author
#15
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,176
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Also, this debate is apparently fine:

Seems like incredibly heavy-handed and ideologically driven censorship, and a bad sign of things to come.

I am fine with tolerating debates like these, or cutting down on it.
But we need consistency and transparency above anything else, for the community to be prepared and adjust. Nobody should be taken off-guard with subtle changes that come as surprises.

Going from 0 to 100 is unnecessary.
#16
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,902
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Barney
We can’t even see what it is he said that was so repugnant, because you deleted it all. 

I take this as a sign you want to hide what was said from those who may speak in the banned’s defense. Why are you afraid of accountability?

This is complete bullshit and I think you know that the site won’t stand for this- which is why it seems, you plan on wiping everything anytime you do this.
#17
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 1,117
3
4
7
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
4
7
And so?
Why not some Christian warrior? Or are all great warriors polytheists?

Topic's author
#18
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,176
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
Christianity didnt exist yet. Thus they had not rejected Christ. If I have Muhammad Ali as a pfp am I suddenly s Muslim?
You said my pfp is cultural/religious appropriation.

Spartans were pagan, and you are catholic. All christians denounce paganism as heresy, and by your own logic, you are culturally appropriating it.
#19
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,757
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited.

Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.

One may dispute which method of murder Neo-Nazi trash would like to use on the remaining 15.7 million Jews, but let's not pretend that calls for ethnic cleansing are anything but calls for murder.
#20
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,239
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Barney
One may dispute which method of murder Neo-Nazi trash would like to use on the remaining 15.7 million Jews, but let's not pretend that calls for ethnic cleansing are anything but calls for murder.
I'm a bit confused given the wording of the ban. Did the user in question call for ethnic cleansing, or did they just deny that it happened?
Topic's author
#21
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,176
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Barney
Quoting myself here.:

If chap470 was calling for hate or persecution in anyway against jews, then a permanent ban is an appropriate response. 
However, if the ban was simply because of his belief that the holocaust did not happen, then that’s not a proportional or fair response. 
The justification of his ban is contingent on one thing.: Whether he did this or not. 
You did not clarify this, you left it vague. 

Did he call for violence or persecution against jews, or is his only offense that he denied the holocaust? Did he call for ethnic cleansing, or is this your own interpretation?
There is a difference here. 
His ban is justified, if certain details of the criteria are fulfilled. And you are withholding information. 

Can you quote verbatim what chap470 said, that warranted his ban? And why those standards were not also applied to Wylted? 

#22
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,262
3
3
6
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
6
Weirdly I’m in the same boat with this. Hard to defend Lashanda. That was blatant racism and you can argue whether or not that should be allowed but holocaust denial is just a dumb belief. It can be associated with racism sure, but outside of someone calling for extermination or direct hate speech, I think that ban is a harder sell. 
#23
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,902
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Barney
I don’t care about your “it’s the rules!” excuse. Hate speech is free speech, and all of what he said is legal in a public domain, so you can’t argue criminality either.

Iirc, there was a MEEP where users demanded more lax enforcement as well, and in the recent MEEP most users spoke out against this kind of censorship.

Nice power trip. To be frank, I had a feeling something like this was coming the second David’s bitchass decided RM was worth a shot.
Topic's author
#24
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,176
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Mikal
Yeah, I agree. 
The ban on Lashwnda is perfectly justified, in my opinion.

But everything about chap470 has been wiped, and there doesn't appear to be sufficient reasoning for it. It's not necessarily that I am against the decision (my support or opposition is contingent on the reasoning), but certain details and clarification are required.
#25
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 17,733
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@WyIted
We need the president to reverse this decision
#26
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,239
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@ILikePie5
Does the president have that authority? Seems like WyIted wanted Lashwnda unbanned, but that account is still gone.
Topic's author
#27
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,176
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Mharman
Nice power trip. To be frank, I had a feeling something like this was coming the second David’s bitchass decided RM was worth a shot.
To be fair to David, it was actually Barney's idea to promote RM. Barney bears the full burden of that responsibility alone.

The other mods just supported that decision and then changed course, when they realized it was a lapse of judgment. But that mistake alone is Barney's, even if the mods share a little bit of blame. 
#28
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,757
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Mharman
We can’t even see what it is he said that was so repugnant, because you deleted it all.
I also delete the spam posts. Taking out the garbage is nothing new.


I take this as a sign you want to hide what was said from those who may speak in the banned’s defense. Why are you afraid of accountability?
I'm not afraid of accountability, nor is there any reason I would be afraid.


This is complete bullshit and I think you know that the site won’t stand for this- which is why it seems, you plan on wiping everything anytime you do this.
If this was a conspiracy to keep genocidal white supremacists from knowing they're not welcome here, I would not have done it so publicly as to even post about it in the public moderation log. Rather the ban reason in his profile would just read "bot" with no public statements, and then no one would complain.

Instead, we're quite open that there is a level of filth unwelcome here.
#29
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,262
3
3
6
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
6
We should do a trial. I’ll be defense. 

#30
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 15,858
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
I've said this to the mods so this isn't something that is coming out the blue to them, but I fully disagree with wiping the slate clean of that user before some users had adequate time to review the users posts. I think it's a disservice to the community as a whole to not at least have screenshots of the post, or an alternative is to give an adequate timeline of when the posts will be deleted so that people can be informed and actually look. I presented this to the mods and they were in agreement and we are looking on a solution

I can't speak of the user and the ban itself since I, obviously, didn't get to see the users posts