Terrible reasons to ban somebody

Author: Wylted

Posts

Total: 31
Topic's author
#1
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
I just want to show you some recent bans where certain things should not be taken into consideration.  A lot of the things people are being banned for also seem to be the things that generate site activity, and we need lots of activity to see the site be active. I'm afraid that now that rational madman is a heavy favorite to become president, they'll try to ban him. As much as he hated Mesmer, I know he would have fought this, because it brings him more pleasure to destroy his ideological opponents through argument as opposed to silencing them. 

Let's take Mesmer

Here is part of the reasoning given for her ban.

, a deeply troubling pattern of ideologically extremist rhetoric that invites and mimics a cesspool of white supremacist thought.

If it was merely rhetoric, I might agree. However she provided premises for her beliefs. If she's wrong it shouldn't be a problem to prove her wrong as opposed to banning her in an attempt to avoid her argument.


"things like the MAOA gene (warrior gene) and lower self-control ability of Blacks will represent this heritability in functional/genetic form."

Blatant declaration that black people are violent and unrestrained by nature.

You don't like it, disprove her. If anyone can disprove her it is whiteflame who really knows his stuff when it comes to genetics. Whiteflame apparently supported this decision, so why not just embarrass her by proving her wrong with your superior knowledge of genetics? Why support Chris's decision. If you perhaps could not prove her wrong, perhaps banning her was not the correct move, but coming over to her point of view.

You see with liberals, I think they believe we all have to be equally prone to violence, have equal IQ's and be equally athletic in order to prove we are all equal. This is a form of racism in and of itself. The problem isn't that liberals are racist for these internal beliefs though. The problem is that if anything threatens this world view, than they need to silence it. Anything that creates cognitive dissonance, must be shut down. 

I am being banned now. It's for the same bullshit reasons as Mesmer.  One reason is anti-semitism.

1. Incessant anti-Semitic rhetoric that has reached a boiling point, including implications that the Jews are “reptiles” and insinuating that all Jews could be plotting some evil scheme collectively.
"I don't know if it is just a secret cabal of jews that control everything or all jews are complicit, but they control the music industry and are doing fucked up things."
“man sends off lizard DNA to be tested and the DNA comes back as being g predominantly Jewish, confirming what David Icke has said for years”
“why are the jews afraid to answer for themselves and have to arrest people who criticize them?
And Jews wonder why people hate them.”

Note, none of this is untrue, with the exception of the lizard DNA one. The guys claim actually happened, but he was probably full of shit.  Jews really do have a lot of power in the music industry, as they do in a lot of entertainment, and rap music does encourage degeneracy. However instead of engaging with these things and maybe arguing something like "Yeah they make a lot of money in the music industry, but really they just give what the market demands", they instead just ban an opinion that challenges their world view. 

People were arrested for anti-semitism. It's easy to argue against this by saying something true in response like "You do know a lot of jews oppose laws against anti-semitism for the same exact reasons as you right?" . Which is an accurate and true response. Yet sadly instead of arguing effectively against anti-semitism they just ban me.

You might be wondering. Why if I could disprove my own posts, why did I post them? 

I have 2 reasons.  One is to provide a protective umbrella for people to express extreme beliefs. If I am making these posts, it allows people to be less shy about their secret beliefs. Some which may be disgusting and untrue, and others which may be disgusting and true, and something that would benefit us all to know. I did it precisely so people like mesmer would feel safe having their views challenged. 

The second reason is so you guys can have some experience challenging these beliefs effectively. When you argue against extremists, there are not just people on the fence listening to your arguments in real life, but you may actually change the belief of an extremists. How good would you feel, knowing that you may have stopped somebody from destroying their life with hate? How much better would you feel, knowing you perhaps prevented some form of domestic terrorism and saved lives. 

If you learn to argue effectively against these things you will.

For example it was easy to hate jews when Trump passed a law that basically allowed banning of anti-semitism on campuses across the nation. That sort of silencing makes you wonder, why do they need to shut up dissent? Then you may start thinking "Maybe because the anti-semitism is true and they can't argue against it". However lot's of Jewish organizations opposed the anti-semitism law as they should have https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/11/rights-groups-slam-trumps-anti-semitism-executive-order


The problems on this site are not from me using the word kike, or threads about anti-semitism. The problem is you guys are unwelcoming of extreme views and you are completely clueless how to address them.

Below is the other reason for my banning

2. Excessive vulgarity and some advocacy for extremism.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6841-is-rational-madman-a-dick-should-a-dick-be-president?page=1&post_number=1
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6814/post-links/293806
“You are saying the taliban simultaneously rapes little boys while also putting fags to death for also raping little boys.”
Use of a slur while arguing in support of the Taliban.

We can't just pick and choose slurs to like and dislike mod team. Some fruits may not even be offended by the term fag, so it should go ignored. 

It's true that I did show that the taliban may be better at running afghanistan than American troops. I wouldn't call that advocating for extremism. I consider advocating to be active encouragement of "individuals" to commit "acts" of extremism.

This site needs to be fixed. I think perhaps the only difference between David and Chris is that Chris is slower to react. We didn't want you to be like david, but slower to react. We want you to mod correctly Chris. The way you mod a debate site is simple. You allow every extremist belief, but you make sure everyone acts civilized towards each other. You basically do it the way Airmax did. 
#2
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,585
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
Did you forget the parts about the mod consistently warning you about the rhetoric you use being a violation of the CoC.

We are not banning you for your views, but the rhetoric used to describe those views is excessively vulgar and as such, warranted you a 14 day ban
#3
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Wylted
No one should be silenced for presenting and trying to justify a view - even if it’s extreme. 

Mesmer was definitely arguing in favour of white supremacy; but the bulk of his threads were trying to justify that position. 

If someone is trying to do that; no matter how extreme and badly, all credit to them. They should be left alone. Hell, any discussion with people you disagree with helps you learn new things.

It was approaching - but not at a the point the volume of different posts on it was getting excessive; but that doesn’t warrant a ban -  but thread creation limits.

Otherwise you run the risk of Brontoraptoring the politics forum.

Traffic and dissent isn’t the only thing that keeps people sticking around; it’s the adversarial whiff of victory you get when arguing with someone and knowing they are unable to argue the point; being overwhelmed with threads on the same topic takes that away.

The ban for being an alt account; that’s something else, tbh if the first incarnation was toxic and the second was not; I think that warrants a second chance. It’s more likely that the first ban should have been temporary.



If he can keep the vitriol down; limit the number of threads; and tries to justify his point, he can be as extreme as he likes.

The only issue I have with extreme views, is when people just throw out extreme claims and accusations, with little argument and no setup for debate - expecting everyone else to go to some intense amount of effort to prove them wrong. Bronto was like this, and there are many on this forum like that right now too. Every so often is no issue, but doing it repeatedly is not debate - it’s trolling; and that type of extremist trolling is every bit as shitty as banning people for expressing extreme views.


I don’t think you should be banned; you drive some traffic by helping to juice up handfuls of a rice members. You just need to stfu a little; dial it down from a 11 to about a 6.

Because let’s face it “the only type of Jew I respect” and many others are not threads that appear set up to drive debate or to challenge people’s point of view; just to be controversial to be controversial. 







#4
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Wylted
If you hate the jews you can turn that in to something positive with a career with the IRS or a state tax collection agency. The jews got the money so they get audited a lot more often. The IRS and state tax agencies are going after them all the time. 

The tax dispute remains the  subject of ongoing proceedings [...] the auditor declared that she was going to “get that Jew bastard.” [...] sought out respondent’s Nevada home, peering through his window and examining his mail and trash. JA267. After she had closed the audit, she boasted about having “convicted” respondent and returned to his Nevada home to take trophy-like pictures. [...] pressed for harsh action against respondent, including rarely issued fraud penalties. JA263. To bolster this effort, she enlisted respondent’s ex-wife and estranged members of respondent’s family. https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/14-1175_resp.authcheckdam.pdf




#5
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
lol last action as mod is to write an essay banning someone for 2 weeks. Hilarious.
#6
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 205
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
The problem with users like Mesmer and Wylted is that they produce such a high volume of new posts, and spout a litany of new claims, compared to their engagement with any sustained debate of particular claims. If another user takes the time to dig into one of their claims and show that it is unfounded, that post will quickly be responded to with some non-sequitur, or ignored, and then buried by a bunch of new topics.

Also, regarding race realism, it is based in a series of fields, such as sociology or psychology, which are relatively soft sciences. The capacity to draw strong causal conclusions like the ones race realists want to make based on experimental studies in these fields, or demographic statistics, is inherently weak due to the amount of variables involved and the difficulty of identifying and controlling them. A huge amount of studies can be done, and correlations can be drawn using statistics, but very few causal connections can be conclusively drawn from these by strict scientific standards. In effect, this means that race realists can provide a seemingly endless stream of academic citations and evidence, and all their opponents can do is point out that their evidence is inconclusive, and point toward the null hypothesis - so that they can be painted as some sort of relativists who don't want to accept hard scientific evidence. Fundamentally, any understanding of what a rigorous empirical application of biology to the understanding of political and cultural outcomes would look like is still in its infancy, so any conclusive statements of doctrine on this basis are by their nature unscientific.

However, personally I would still choose to keep even extreme perspectives on the site. Although I don't think they were contributing to a substantive debate, I think that keeping a very liberal policy creates a more open environment for actually interesting debates to occur. As long as these opinions are general political positions and not specific attacks against individuals, I think they should be allowed on the site.
#7
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@rbelivb
Top notch post, there, rbelivb
#8
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,919
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I am not interested in joining in either 'side' of this dispute because the very dynamic of the 'fight' is wrong.

I believe that extreme views which have severely negative impact should indeed be banned to be genuinely advocated for (so only ever allowed in a formal debate as an experiment, if not too vulgar and disclaimed being devil's advocate).

What I also think is that it's true that the rules at the moment are too vague, I would unabashedly support making crystal clear which things are too taboo to be debated for and which are not. Therefore, it is clear that already I am on both/neither side of this dispute.

The last thing I notice is that the flaw of speed (being too slow) was also there with Bsh1's era early on in the website's development. When mods are too inactive and punish in huge bursts after the fact, many issues occur because the way wrongdoers respond to discipline is far more positive the more gradual and immediate you discipline them. If you keep going 'okay you did x y z and now is a big bad punishment for it all' you create a very negative response in the subconscious of the toxic member. If you instead had been gentler and more gradual with the discipline, making clear to them every step of the way what they're doing wrong and what specifically will happen if their behaviour worsens and/or continues without improvement, you then will see the user either improve or sometimes prove to everyone just how significantly toxic they really are since they may act so severely in the opposite direction that it then lets you as a mod prove how undeniably worthwhile it is to ban them before doing so.

I am not going to pretend I think it's okay what Wylted's posted (except for the thread calling me a dick, that's just ridiculous especially on a site with such a small userbase that's not worth getting worked up over, I wasn't even slightly offended since it was actually a compliment). I think he has been toxic and needs consistent guidance on specifically what is and isn't taboo. 

If he then chooses, of his own volition, to very specifically make threads and posts that violate the limits on anti-semitism, racism of other variations, support of jihadism, so on and so forth, then you should discipline him and make clear how long he refused to obey the rules.

What the mods are doing wrong here isn't what some are saying, in my eyes. There's not one fucking place of any decent standing on the entire Internet that would allow the kind of views Wylted has been saying, the difference is they make that stance crystal clear in their rules. The only difference here is the fact this website happens to be dedicated to debating, it makes some users feel that makes this a wild west anarchic zone independent of the decency standards and general rules other forums and discussion websites all adhere to (except sites that are so bad you'd never want to visit them because of how extreme that stuff on them is, such as 4chan).

You can't effectively carry out discipline if you only do it once every few weeks in such big moves.
#9
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Vader
@whiteflame
will wylted still be allowed to run for president?
#10
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@drlebronski
He won't be gone for long and will still be eligible to run.
#11
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
Well, I'm way out of date then. Back when bish was head mod we only punished racist or discriminatory speech directed against users -- not against classes or races in general.
#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,919
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Castin
I would like to say specifically with the Mesmer ban, as opposed to the present-day Wylted ban that Wylted learned to ease it up with the personal attacks and his biggest 'crime' is hate speech. Mesmer's ban makes it out to be based solely on hate speech and multiaccounting for ban evasion. In actual fact, Mesmer was becoming increasingly personal and vindictive in his/her/their replies to people, going out of their way to refer to what a 'pathetic man' someone was or what a 'little child who has a barely functioning IQ' someone else was. Wylted used to do this very often too and was beginning to as well do it now. 

I think they focused on the wrong posts even to show Mesmer's racism and Wylted's hate speech, there were far more directly racist and abusive posts from both than the ones quoted and linked to but I think the bans are correct and proportionate.

I would like to see whiteflame incorporate more staggered, active punishment such as bans specifically from thread creation without banning posts or bans specifically from forum posting without banning debates.

These seem to not be friendly technologically for Michael to enforce but the enforcement can be a temporary ban from the website if the person disobeys the 'mute'.
#13
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@RationalMadman
I did notice Wylted was dishing out fewer personal attacks than I remember. I don't have any experience with Mesmer AKA MgWhateverDemon, but his/her ban seems to be in keeping with the current rules as I read them.

I would prefer we go back to bish's way, but the cost of doing that is that people get to spout discriminatory bullshit and get away with it unless they cross over into attacking a user personally. Not everyone is okay with that, which I understand. Personally, I prefer the freedom to discuss extreme views and hot button topics.

I would like to see whiteflame incorporate more staggered, active punishment such as bans specifically from thread creation without banning posts or bans specifically from forum posting without banning debates.

These seem to not be friendly technologically for Michael to enforce but the enforcement can be a temporary ban from the website if the person disobeys the 'mute'.
So kind of like how restraining orders work? Sounds like it would be a handy option for a mod to have in their toolkit.
#14
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Castin
I would prefer we go back to bish's way, but the cost of doing that is that people get to spout discriminatory bullshit and get away with it unless they cross over into attacking a user personally
The main issue now, is that there have been a whole variety of different users that have used extreme racism and antisemitism as either a means to purposefully troll, or in a way that precludes any meaningful debate.

At least Mesmer put the facade of logical debate on the white supremacy; and challenged put data forward. Too many threads, perhaps; when a substantial fraction of the politics forum first page is subtly extolling white supremacy, that’s an issue.

I’ve more of an issue with Wylted; I flit between thinking he’s intentionally trolling, or has wider and broader issues that were all far too underqualified to deal with - either way; anyone who comes into the forum and sees all this blatant anti-Semitic trolling on his part is going to grandpa-Simpson the f**k out.

I’m 100% for free speech, and airing controversial views - you often learn something challenging your own thinking - but people need to understand that being a $hitbag troll who is just smearing a bunch of racist rhetoric, for no apparent reason, without almost no value for debate - is not about free speech.

This isn’t banning Jordan Peterson, or Ben Shapiro because they said something shocking  about identity politics, or cancel culture; this is banning the guy in the trench coat waving his d**k at people through a window while saying pointlessly negative things about Jews.
#15
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Ramshutu
That is always a risk in a more laissez-faire system.

Make a special subforum with relaxed rules. A rough 'n' rowdy subforum. People can go there if they want to talk/debate with fewer restrictions, without it threatening the health and order of the rest of the site. Seen it work on other message boards.

I’ve more of an issue with Wylted; I flit between thinking he’s intentionally trolling, or has wider and broader issues that were all far too underqualified to deal with
Well, the two are not mutually exclusive.

#16
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Wylted
Well, i think your post sounds like you've written this thing hours before your official ban. I don't really know the details, nor do I care to look up how moderation works. I don't even know the history of DART moderators tbh. I do know their posts in the religion,politics and philosophy forum, but those are different. I know next to nothing about how bans are carried out.

I do want to say that I've been banned (and my comment history permanently deleted) by a moderator who deemed my words offensive and "seditious" for indonesians. So, I know what it feels like to have been removed(banned) at the whims of another. 

I'm going to be very fatalistic, because I am generally a pessimist person with a huge bias against optimists. You may not like what I post here but I'm just going to be honest. I genuinely think that what you're doing is a waste of time. I think you're trying to advocate for what looks like an impossible change in moderation rules. I think it is equally a waste to expect them to change to the styles of a moderator you once liked. There is no form of control that you can exhibit against those in authority. IMHO, there's nothing wrong about making your case, but if bans are repeated, you need to look to better places for your extreme views.

I don't like extreme views. But, I've thoroughly enjoyed my time with you and Mesmer. My understanding is that neither of you are extreme.  I think both of you are good and decent people. I have a high opinion of you and Mesmer. Sure, if I have to think about what you've been posting, none of what you said is even close to the rigour of academic literature like college, but that's the whole point of this website. The whole point is to have alternative views. For instance, Mesmer recites a lot of fascinating sources. Sure, race-realism's correlation remains spurious, but I'd rather talk to Mesmer than be tied up in an ego fight on who has a better reading habit. 

I think the idea of harm in hate speech is really a vague idea, and it's usually abritrarily controlled by whoever has the most authority. That's usually the case where I live. For example, islam forbids attacks against it in the public sphere, but allows attacks (even extreme ones) against it in the private sphere. The vast majority of non-muslims, even apostates like myself, has a tendency to miss this simple rule. But really, does it matter where I'm coming from? Wylted, I know you know things better than I do but please seek better places for your extreme views, especially if they are really that important to you. It's clear that you can't change things. Personally, I don't think any of the recent bans are correct, but that's my opinion, and it's divorced from the individualistic culture that usually accompanies the site. 


#17
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,919
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
@TheUnderdog
Funny, just 2-3 days ago Ramshutu told Wylted that he'd defend him better than I could and a few days before that made a post about how he appreciated Wylted's role on the site at stirring up activity.

Wylted then backed me for president here regardless and suddenly Ramshutu changed direction.
#18
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,919
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@MarkWebberFan
but I'd rather talk to Mesmer than be tied up in an ego fight on who has a better reading habit. 
I didn't realise these things were mutually exclusive. ;) 

Everything with Mesmer is an ego battle, just read between the lines.
#19
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Funny, just 2-3 days ago Ramshutu told Wylted that he'd defend him better than I could and a few days before that made a post about how he appreciated Wylted's role on the site at stirring up activity.

Wylted then backed me for president here regardless and suddenly Ramshutu changed direction.

The specific issue I pointed out, is that you ranting incoherently at admins or anyone in particular is unlikely to help anyone, and the idea that you’ll stick up for free speech when you’re often the first to grab the pitchfork is probably not what Wylted really wants in a president. That’s still completely valid. As I’ve said, I have far less of an issue with Mesmer.

I think Wylted is just being a bit of a troll, and needs to tone things down a bit; if you pay attention I am mostly sticking up for him, but specifically acknowledging that he’s often a bit much, and the issue is not specifically one of disallowing speech.

Interestingly, I completely agree with the reasons he gave for doing it; just absolutely disagree with his execution; we can see how it pans out - but I’m happy to actually help him with his main goal.



#20
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Ramshutu
the issue is not specifically one of disallowing speech
The code of conduct requires "unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives" to objectively justify the bans, which is a pretty high bar. It's doubtful that what happened rose to that level. I don't think it did. This is the issue that seems problematic to me.
#21
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't agree. I think you misunderstood Mesmer. The only thing Mesmer did wrong was overstepping the rules of the site. Even then, I still don't agree with the ban. A detective relying on the whims of his intuition is always inferior to a researcher relying on an objective standard. I'm saying that "In my eyes, this is how things should be" is perhaps the weakest argument, one that relies too much on the inadequacy of experience and perception.

As I understand the recent ban on both Mesmer and Wylted, the rules themselves are vague, and I still don't see any issue with any of their statements. The rhetoric may have been too much, but I've been similarly banned from Indonesian websites for simply predicting the inevitable rise of authoritarianism in SE Asia. I've done it in passive language, yet the (liberal-multi-cultured) indonesian moderator contacted me just to slap a death sentence on my account because according to his eyes, the word "authoritarian" was offensive. Language formulation is infinite and accents are ever-changing, the idea that moderation would consider rrhetoric (itself a vague idea) as a valid justification for bans is ridiculous IMHO.


#22
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,585
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@MarkWebberFan
So you would consider saying "The taliban r*** children and kill (derogatory for people of LGBTQ+)" as not explicit enough to cause a ban

We aren't banning people for their views, but the language they use. If that is the case, Wylted could've been banned awhile ago for his controversial views
#23
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@dfss9788
The code of conduct requires "unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives" to objectively justify the bans, which is a pretty high bar. It's doubtful that what happened rose to that level. I don't think it did. This is the issue that seems problematic to me.
If you review the last few months of Wylteds posts - and their content - I think it’s very easy to argue a variety of issues in that CoC clause covering invective, hate speech, etc; and I have no doubt that Wylted was repeatedly warned for it; and the repeated systematic ignoring of all those warnings is probably more closely related to his ban than any individual thing he’s said.

My issue is that he’s trolling; he’s obviously trolling; and making no attempt to present his arguments or position in a way any regular person could or would take seriously.

In that respect: he’s really just trying to say controversial things for the sake of it; with little constructive or practical value. I think the same is true of many other member (such as Brother D Thomas), who really adds little value to this site other than to antagonize others. 

That’s the big issue here; if you want to debate or discuss stuff, I’m cool with that; I’m actually okay with Mesmer for that very reason. When you’re just trying to be an antagonistic edge lord, who is less interested in intellectual discussion, and more interested in simply being controversial - I think it’s perfectly fair to ask people to chose another way to troll than by raging about “the Jews”.
#24
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Vader
That's still not enough. What he did is distasteful, because he demeans the often-targeted minorities -- and he happen to pick minorities who are regularly prosecuted in the third world. I think he needs to start talking like he's walking on eggshells. 

But, I do like to think that his social shenanigans are irrelevant to what I believe is the issue of free speech. I think he's not disrupting anyone with that sort of rhetoric. Rhetoric isn't really an objective standard. I get personally affected when someone launches superstitious-themed slurs (i.e. blasphemy, apostasy and treason)  against me, but that's not a valid basis for me to requests bans simply because I deemed such accusations "a common slur that is degrading to me" or whatever. 

There are no single representations with language. Language can't exist in a vacuum and it relies on communication and the formation of grammar (which evolves over time). I was born in the third world, i have found it deeply offensive to be accused of being a dishonest apostate. However, if I grew up in the West, I'd probably whine about what...asian europeans/americans whine about. Plus, Wylted did not disrupt the forums. As I understand his ban, it wasn't sentenced because of his spam. I understood that it wasn't because people have elected to ignore his ramblings because they understood that he sometimes make threads just to vent his frustrations or whatever.

I still think he is innocent because he is right, though I concede that modders reserve the right to apply the rules as they see fit. But thats just my way of expressing my pessimistic leanings. Nonetheless, he is still right in this. The rules themselves are wrong to rely on arbitrary criteria.
#25
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,585
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@MarkWebberFan
We are not banning him for his opinions and such. The rhetoric in what he said is not only excessive, it is illegal in which what he said and uses a derogatory term. This rhetoric is not rhetoric on a debating site used to debate, but to stir attention and cause commotion versus being intellectual

Ultimately, his rhetoric violated the SPES and COC. He warned various times for his rhetoric as well, yet failed to comply and as a result. Received a ban. Also note this isn't a permanent ban, but a temporary ban
#26
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Ramshutu
I think it’s very easy to argue a variety of issues in that CoC clause covering invective, hate speech, etc; and I have no doubt that Wylted was repeatedly warned for it; and the repeated systematic ignoring of all those warnings is probably more closely related to his ban than any individual thing he’s said
The clause from the CoC does not prohibit hate speech per se. It reads in full:

Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
So, it's more like the "unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives" is what's prohibited rather than hate speech. The way it was drafted suggests to me a lack of understanding of what is fairly encompassed by the meanings of the words. Invective is an uncountable noun like milk or fish. Yet, it's written here with an S on the end of it. The word as a more precise meaning then what you're going to see as the first entry in the dictionary.  For example, see here:

insulting or abusive language : vituperation
If you don't know what the word means and the extent of your inquiry is simply "insulting or abusive language", then you would probably conclude that the posts amounted to invective. If you study the word further and have a more complete understanding of it's meaning. For example, within that same dictionary you're going to find that the referenced entry for vituperation is "sustained and bitter railing and condemnation". On the same page as the entry for invective you will see:

Did you know?
Adjective
Invective originated in the 15th century as an adjective meaning "of, relating to, or characterized by insult or abuse." In the early 16th century, it appeared in print as a noun meaning "an example of abusive speech." Eventually, the noun developed a second sense applying to abusive language as a whole. Invective comes to us from the Middle French word invectif, which in turn derives from Latin invectivus, meaning "reproachful, abusive." (Invectivus comes from Latin invectus, past participle of the verb invehere, one form of which means "to assail with words.") Invective is similar to abuse, but it tends to suggest not only anger and vehemence but verbal and rhetorical skill. It sometimes implies public denunciation, as in "blistering political invective."
Anger, vehemence, bitterness etc. are fairly implied. This isn't isolated to this dictionary. For example, see:

Invective is rude and unpleasant things that people shout at people they hate or are angry with.
The use within sample sentences also shows this:

Examples of invective in a Sentence
Noun a barrage of racist invective
hurled curses and invective at the driver who heedlessly cut them off in traffic
The word root is "from Latin invectus, past participle of invehī, to inveigh against" https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=invective

If you look at the entry for "inveigh" you're going to see "To give vent to angry disapproval; protest vehemently." https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=inveigh

This is what I mean when I say that I do not think the posts rose to the level of reasonably being considered "invective".
#27
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Ramshutu

I mean if you look at what he wrote, there doesn't seem to be a lot of passion in it. It comes across as hate-speech, but not really invective. I guess you could call it stoner racism, or something. Also, as another user pointed out, Wylted makes a lot of posts. The standard under the CoC also states that these things have to be "systemic", which I think is fairly interpreted as meaning that the body of his content is polluted with vulgarities and invective to the point where that's the norm from him. If someone is making 50 posts a day, and 4 posts per day have hate-speech, (4/50 = 8% hate speech; not systemic) this is not the same as someone who makes 6 posts per day with 4 of those being hate speech. (4/6 = 67% hate speech; systemic)
#28
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Vader
We are not banning him for his opinions and such. The rhetoric in what he said is not only excessive, it is illegal in which what he said and uses a derogatory term. This rhetoric is not rhetoric on a debating site used to debate, but to stir attention and cause commotion versus being intellectual

Ultimately, his rhetoric violated the SPES and COC. He warned various times for his rhetoric as well, yet failed to comply and as a result. Received a ban. Also note this isn't a permanent ban, but a temporary ban

Is the site undergoing some form of trying times in which spammers flood the site? No. So, I think that decision you made alongside your colleagues wasn't out of some unseen pressure, but rather it was made out of careful observation of the rules. I don't have problems with the way moderators handled it since the site isn't undergoing any form of crisis but I do have problems with the rules. This is what I'm trying to say. Wylted was singlehandedly carrying those crazy threads of hers all by herself, with the occasional "peek-a-boo" by the few really smart liberals on the site. This is one instance where the rules failed the test of free speech just like crazy islamists thinking about how rights of minorities suffice so long as apostates and LGBTQIA minorities remain private about their lives. I'm not saying you and your colleagues should start comparing to the third world, that's not your job. I'm just saying that the rules' attempt to safe-guard free speech are way-off and these bans are unnecessary. My opinion.
#29
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@dfss9788
The word root is "from Latin invectus, past participle of invehī, to inveigh against" https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=invective

If you look at the entry for "inveigh" you're going to see "To give vent to angry disapproval; protest vehemently." https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=inveigh

This is what I mean when I say that I do not think the posts rose to the level of reasonably being considered "invective".
Interesting. 

20 days later

#30
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 4,227
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
Wait, why are we banning people for having beliefs on a debate website? Because we don't like their beliefs? Isn't this counterproductive to a debate website?