The permanent ban on chap470: Justified or unjustified?

Author: Sir.Lancelot

Posts

Total: 202
#151
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 39
Posts: 9,034
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Imagine someone who is young and naivd taking the debate to troll or just experiment.

Now if they ever go to Germany or sonewhere, they can be deported and banned. Furthermore, idk how clear it is to all yoyng teens that this is not a legally tenable stance to even jokingly defend.
Have you actually looked for what happens? There are still some towns in Germany that are predominantly Nazi. Stop with this psychological illness where you are the Savior of hypothetical people in situations that are extremely unlikely to occur. 

I know it makes you feel like Jesus to be a savior to non existent people or hypothetical people but there is only one Jesus buddy
#152
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,450
3
3
6
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
Facts I work with him and he’s also kinda racist. 
#153
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,546
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
All christians denounce paganism as heresy
Most, but not all.


#154
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,972
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Mikal
@AdaptableRatman
Wylted’s position is “The Holocaust definitely happened 😉” while mine is “The Holocaust totally didn’t happen 😉”

RM, you guess who is denying the Holocaust and tell me who you think should be banned.

Get trolled lol
#155
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 39
Posts: 9,034
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Mikal
Facts I work with him and he’s also kinda racist. 
Landscaper?
#156
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 39
Posts: 9,034
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Mharman
I have evidence it happened. For example did you know that numerous Holocaust survivors have testified that sexy Nazi women such as the bitch of Bucharest was constantly forcing them to let her suck their dicks? 

It's too much eye witness testimony to ignore
#157
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,450
3
3
6
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
Nope but warm. One of my head people lol 
#158
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,450
3
3
6
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
6
-->
@Mharman
I think it’s a clever way to prove a point 
#159
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,670
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Mharman
Both banned.

I seriously thank God that can say I did not take this position in my history. I did not realise how fully fully illegal it is to even jokingly defend when I was younger.

The primary reason I did not ever take the position is I knew it happened and there was so much evidence for it. So, I literally realised you cannot defend the denial in any remotely logical way. I seriously did not fully realise that to devil's advocate that literally lands you in deep trouble for the rest of your life when I began on DDO. I knew it was a no-go but I didn't realise it was that extreme of a nogo in Europe akin to defending p###philia etc.
#160
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,972
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@WyIted
I have evidence it happened. For example did you know that numerous Holocaust survivors have testified that sexy Nazi women such as the bitch of Bucharest was constantly forcing them to let her suck their dicks? 

It's too much eye witness testimony to ignore
Wow. The train in Auschwitz sounds better than the train to Auschsitz!
#161
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,450
3
3
6
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
6
Airmax 2016

“The Jews came out better having went through the holocaust”
Topic's author
#162
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,184
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Barney
I have restated and expanded it repeatedly for you, but you keep alternating between pretending those words are not there or that they contradict themselves, or implicitly (much like Mharman is doing overtly) that you've never heard of Holocaust denial before. Now your eventual proof of the flaw is I defend myself.
I didn’t ask you to repeat yourself. I asked you to clarify. Your original statement was unclear and tells me nothing.

There are 2 possible interpretations from what you said.:

  1. You’re arguing that the association between holocaust denial and endorsing genocide pre-exists before chap470 expresses it.
  2. Chap470 already explicitly or implicitly argued for violence or genocide, and was banned for it. 
Which of these two contexts is it? 
That’s the main question of this thread. 
Topic's author
#163
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,184
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Mharman
What are your opinions about the thread so far? 
#164
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,760
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Mikal
Well said!

1) deleting some of the material or recording it so you can point to the infraction 
I do agree that we should have screenshotted (or otherwise archived for later review) the single removed item. ... I am honestly confused why a conspiracy theory about a bunch of content removed has developed. The moderation log even stipulates the the lack of anything else was a factor (specifically, that any other content would have served to mitigate).


2) addressing if there was actual hate speech, attacks, or a call to action. I think this is the larger point. Was he using a dumb belief to harass, attack, or slander someone. Just believing in dumb things does not qualify as hate speech 
He created a debate, featuring a lengthy description utilizing a recognized Neo-Nazi argument template, with phrasing copied directly or paraphrased from the leaders of Neo-Nazi terrorist groups in their speeches about the need to eradicate the Jews.

To go to an earlier elaboration: "If people show up in KKK robes burning a cross on a new neighbors lawn, we don't need further context to know that it's not about giving said neighbor a friendly welcome."

That said, while it's like a one in a million chance, sure, it's possible he just loves those so very white and empowering motivational speakers, and thinks their chants of "white power" are actually about the flour for the final solution of cake recipes, which is going to create prosperity by employing millions of Jewish chefs in the ovens...
 

3) the general opinion of the community is that more moderation is bad (tend to lean this way) but also think 0 moderation is also dumb as fuck and there needs to be a more consistent way to identify banable offenses. 
I think that relates to an unfounded slippery slope fear; which isn't to say the CoC couldn't do with an overhaul. For zero moderation, there was DDO for the longest time; for ultra light moderation, 4Chan still exists. We don't pretend to be the only option, but are are rather open that we're not safe space for anything and everything. At the same time, we're not power tripping by banning people for getting on our nerves, nor for having a harmless different opinion (such as regarding pineapple on pizza).


Hate to give credence to this but it is just factually inconsistent. This guy got banned for it and Wylted and Mharm are doing a debate about it and they won’t be banned. (They are more active users and they shouldn’t be banned for this as I don’t think the topic qualifies as hate speech). But pointing out inconsistency with applications of it. Which I’m sure is the point of that debate. 
Thus far the content of said debate isn't violating the CoC, and that debate started after the moderation team already yielded that we may have over stepped with the length of the ban or otherwise. I totally get that that's their point, but it's a very poorly constructed point.
#165
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,670
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Barney
For me it will be dangerous to even keep the screenshot I think. Since there are American mods maybe they can. Disseminating it even as proof of it happening seems a crime unless obviously sent in a very official way.
#166
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,546
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Mharman
We can’t even see what it is he said that was so repugnant, because you deleted it all. 
Yeah, that's the whole point, he posted repugnant hate speech, we don't want or allow repugnant hate speech here, so he was banned, and the hate speech was removed, pretty straightforward, I think.  
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?
What the hell don't you get, hate speech is not allowed, someone put hate speech on the boards, and it was deleted, that's the appropriate response, it isn't about you.  
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.
I really don't understand this idea everyone seems to have that moderation should be a democratic process, and we are talking about an account that existed for one day, was banned for hate speech, and the hate speech was removed.  Saying it shouldn't have been removed is effectively the same as saying hate speech should be allowed on the site because you have the right to read it, no you don't, it's banned on this site.  If you feel you have the right to read hate speech, there are web sites specifically for that, you can go to one of those sights and read hate speech all day long if you want, and you can judge it, evaluate it, rate it, grade it, whatever, but you just don't have that right/option here.  If you want to read hate speech here, you are out of luck because hate speech is not allowed here, it's not really such a complicated concept.

I'm not just picking on Mharman btw, to everybody bitching about this, if you wanted to control the site you should have come forward when they were looking for somebody to take it over, but nobody wanted the responsibility, and nobody wanted to do the work.  Now it seems everybody wants the authority without the responsibility, but that's just not how the word works.

I would rather suck on a boil than manage this site or be a mod, and since that's the case, I don't think I should have any right to scrutinize how those who did accept responsibility do the job.

The banned poster was here one day, he only posted hate speech and got banned for it, now everybody wants to run to his defense like they miss him, or they have lost a friend and a valuable contributor, nonsense, i really don't think it's reasonable to think moderators need your approval. 

Everybody should just get the fuck over it.




#167
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,760
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Asked and answered.
#168
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,450
3
3
6
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
Fair enough, if you yielded on the reactionary portion the only part I’d be interested in discussing further is what is classified as hate speech because that is the line that will be used to measure responses. 
#169
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,833
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@Sidewalker
I really don't understand this idea everyone seems to have that moderation should be a democratic process
They pretend it is:


You can either look at the cake or you can eat it, but you can't have both.
#170
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,760
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Mikal
what is classified as hate speech
It's a common phrase, which the CoC doesn't have codified to one exact definition, but taken from Google...
  • abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.

#171
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,670
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Sidewalker
Your conduct towards me when I was a mod implies you are faking accepting that it is undemocratic.
Topic's author
#172
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,184
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Sidewalker
I really don't understand this idea everyone seems to have that moderation should be a democratic process,
The site culture encourages these conversations. There’s always room for discussion on a debate site about moderator decisions. 
Anyone who believes mods should be immune to criticism are on the wrong platform. 

And when bans on users are publicized, they are subject to scrutiny. 
If the mods banned you and gave a fake reason, I am likewise justified in starting a thread and speaking on your behalf. (This is just an example. A hypothetical)
#173
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,450
3
3
6
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
Would you consider someone actively in the KKK explaining his beliefs as hate speech? Not dropping slurs, attacking anyone, but engaging in general dialogue to support a position?  Not saying he is a beacon of a member or adds depth to the community but would someone defending that without attacking or insulting someone be considered hate speech because they hold the belief?

Topic's author
#174
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,184
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
Your conduct towards me when I was a mod implies you are faking accepting that it is undemocratic.
AdaptableRatman.

While I do express that Chap470's ban was extreme, and that a warning would suffice.
I do believe that your argument about the legality of holocaust denial is sufficient enough to warrant a ban on the subject. People from different countries not being able to participate is enough on its own to make it a consideration, and banning it as an accommodation for everyone is the reasonable solution. 
Everyone else here supports absolute freedom of speech. I lean towards a platform that is mostly freedom of speech, but with slight regulations. So I do approve of selective censorship, but as a business marketing strategy.

But the way I see it, you and I are the only ones who have strong feelings about this subject, and are opinionated. Everyone else seems to oppose this form of censorship. 
Realistically, the only way I would be able to push or vouch for this is if I became moderator. Because I don't see anyone else pushing for this. 

My solution would be to delete any debates or forum threads advocating for it, and to send the person a formal warning. Depending on their history, that might warrant a temporary ban or permanent ban depending on whether they violate the warnings, or their history.


#175
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 39
Posts: 9,034
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Everyone else here supports absolute freedom of speech.
That's a straw man. No we dont
#176
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,670
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
You should have thought of that before treating me like a piece of dirt the 3rd or 4th time over in our history.

This time it came after being a sycophantic fake fan the moment I got promoted. I guarantee you that is why you are not getting voted, it is not just your policy. You are ezposed as the site's most severe backstabber but you think I am.

In my case it is my policy.
#177
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,760
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Mikal
Good question.

In the way you described it, I would most likely not endorse a ban, even while I would still call it (even if semantically incorrectly) hate speech (it's a whole level of hate speech thing, like how we've never banned someone for a single utterance of the N-Word; but an account which exists solely to spew that is getting the boot). Not to say they would not be on very thin ice, with their statements closely reviewed.

I'm going to tie this back to an earlier hypothetical,
If people show up in KKK robes burning a cross on a new neighbors lawn, we don't need further context to know that it's not about giving said neighbor a friendly welcome.
The victim of that should call the police. Whereas if someone says they like to LARP as white robed wizards fighting against the dark ones, there's plenty of room for doubt or confusion, so probably best to not skip to calling the police. If said LARPing comes to the person's lawn with the burning cross and lots of rope, even if they say it's for a bondage demonstration which isn't harmful to any real humans, the police are still merited.

For another deplorable thing, if we saw someone outside a middle school in a van with "free candy" written on it, we'd call the cops without hesitation. Which isn't against vans nor candy, but at a certain point the combination of warning signs is too much to still give the benefit of doubt. Related to this, masquerade trolls love to pretend to be Muslims pedophilia apologists (in fairness to this mockery, Iraq recently legalized fucking prepubescent girls); but in spite what that vocal minority claim, most Muslims are sickened by pedophiles... A few shitheads, does not result in the whole group getting banned... But a group that is wholly evil like NAMBLA (and gross, apparently it's not just a joke from South Park), them I'd advocate for permabanning on sight.
Topic's author
#178
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,184
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
You should have thought of that before treating me like a piece of dirt the 3rd or 4th time over in our history.

This time it came after being a sycophantic fake fan the moment I got promoted. I guarantee you that is why you are not getting voted, it is not just your policy. You are ezposed as the site's most severe backstabber but you think I am.

In my case it is my policy.
I am not required to choose between you or whiteflame to show that "my loyalty is genuine."
My support and respect are conditional on you being someone worthy of my support. You took it for granted because of your trust issues.

When you made it you versus whiteflame, you failed and then lost my respect.
You chose to be someone unworthy of my respect. Simple as that.
For you, it's always been an ego battle. 

You don't owe me your support, and I don't want it.
But if you have any expectations for certain legislation, then there is only one foreseeable outcome that you need for that to happen. 

#179
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,670
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
And why would I trust you?

In fact look how yoy made this thread to instigate the resistance agianst it?

Look how you instigate flamewars in threads or drama by @ing the people you see as having grudges or who will wins the other one up.

You are not somebody I trust with power.
Topic's author
#180
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,184
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
And why would I trust you?

In fact look how yoy made this thread to instigate the resistance agianst it?

Look how you instigate flamewars in threads or drama by @ing the people you see as having grudges or who will wins the other one up.

You are not somebody I trust with power.
This thread wasn't to instigate. This thread was to incite policy discussion.
But it got out of hand and slightly derailed. 

The only time I've trolled by tagging people in threads was because I didn't take the argument or subject matter seriously, and I'm largely making light of it. I defended you in dms before you became a mod, and I can show screenshots while blurring out the names and messages of the other people.
When FishChaser was bullying you before you became a mod, I had your back. I took your side before you became a mod, when Wylted was trolling you on a public forum. 

Why would it be any different now just because of our personal differences?