-->
@Barney
@Vader
@whiteflame
I recommend you to read what I just quoted from ADoL's post in this thread.
Wylted may have been onto something.
Should a person be banned for harassment even if the person being “harassed” doesn’t feel like it?
Posts
Total:
85
-->
@ILikePie5
If we could, in a hypothetical scenario, say with 100% certainty that someone was harassing another person, but the person being harassed did not care about it for whatever reason, it's still justified to ban them for harassment. Here's why:
- Somebody willing to commit harassment against someone who doesn't care is capable of harassing someone who does care.
- The kind of person who harasses others is almost without doubt a toxic individual who can only contribute to the site's general culture in negative ways.
- A harasser given the opportunity to fester is a time-bomb of violence waiting to happen if they are not cut off from interacting with their victim.
- If we know that somebody, beyond a reasonable doubt, has harassed other people, they're a bad person and they deserve to be deplatformed. People like that deserve to be treated worse than other people because of their conduct.
- It is not the responsibility of the site and its users to bear the burden of a harasser's conduct and to try and 'help' them in any way. Harassment to the point of being a ban-worthy offence is self-evidently morally incorrect and that fact shouldn't need to be taught.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If he really did say that, you have a solid point that I can’t argue. Link?
@RationalMadman
#1, Laws don't determine reality. If a law says jews are rats, that doesn't mean jews are rats.
#2, You should read your own links: https://www.theweek.co.uk/92121/ages-of-consent-around-the-world, that was also a problem you had in your nuclear debate.
Most countries prohibit sex with under-16s or under-18s, but in some places the age of consent is as low as 11, or as high as 20.
So who are the real minors?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Tell us what you think the real minors are then? How low will you go?
Tell us. Smartass.
-->
@Mharman
If he really did say that, you have a solid point that I can’t argue. Link?
I was paraphrasing a bit. The exact relevant quotes and cooresponding post numbers come from the bestiality thread (post 69 is multi-paragraph so I cut out the less relevant bits, feel free to double check that I am not taking his words out of context after reading this post) and are as follows:
ADOL (69): Are physical harm and lack of consent the only reasons to condemn underage sex?DD (70): Holy shit... does there need to be another reason?ADOL (71): In the context of maintaining the general opinion on underage sex: Yes there needs to be another reason. If there wasn't another reason you would have to treat two 16 year olds having sex the same way you treat a 46 year old man having sex with a 16 year old.
So on one hand no he isn't directly saying "sex with minors is okay", but on the other hand that's not what I claimed. Compare the above exchange to my paraphrasing in post 20 of this thread, which was what you asked me to back up and read as follows:
Concern over physical harm and lack of consent are not sufficient reason to condemn sex with minors.
He has later gone on to say that while these arguments are insufficient that doesn't mean he doesn't think there are other arguments which are sufficient. Technically grammatically correct I suppose, though he hasn't to my knowledge actually directly said what these hypothetical other arguments might be.
He went on to clarify that the reason these reasons are insufficient is because not every act of pedophilia is necessarily physically harmful or done without consent (post 26 of this thread) so take what you will from that.
-->
@Nyxified
Wow! Five swish shots in the basket, game over...V is for Victory...T^ is thumbs to some unknown power value.
The question has been Nyxified by the eye-the-sky. ....Touche'.....
If we could, in a hypothetical scenario, say with 100% certainty that someone was harassing another person, but the person being harassed did not care about it for whatever reason, it's still justified to ban them for harassment. Here's why:
- Somebody willing to commit harassment against someone who doesn't care is capable of harassing someone who does care.
- The kind of person who harasses others is almost without doubt a toxic individual who can only contribute to the site's general culture in negative ways.
- A harasser given the opportunity to fester is a time-bomb of violence waiting to happen if they are not cut off from interacting with their victim.
- If we know that somebody, beyond a reasonable doubt, has harassed other people, they're a bad person and they deserve to be deplatformed. People like that deserve to be treated worse than other people because of their conduct.
- It is not the responsibility of the site and its users to bear the burden of a harasser's conduct and to try and 'help' them in any way. Harassment to the point of being a ban-worthy offence is self-evidently morally incorrect and that fact shouldn't need to be taught
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
[RationalMadman] Tell us what you think the real minors are then? How low will you go?Tell us. Smartass.
The age of majority is an arbitrary cutoff of a continuous process of physical and mental development. There is no objective age of majority, at best a bell curve. Determining that bell curve would require a statistical analysis of regret and objectively poor judgement. I am not aware of such an analysis but in my personal opinion 16-24 is the standard deviation for the general culture in countries like the USA, UK, or Netherlands.
The age of majority is not the age at which the capacity consent appears, it is the age at which society ought to consider consent sufficient regardless of harm. A 13 year old can consent to zip-lining down mount Everest, that doesn't mean he should be allowed to by his parents.
I was talking about consent, and any being with a discerning will and the ability to communicate it can consent to anything he can predict/understand. A toddler can consent to getting in his car-seat for instance.
Sex is something humans can understand very young, perhaps 2-4. That does not mean it's something they should be taught. They are not sexual creatures until pubescence, they can understand the physics and consent to the physics but they won't (without bribes) because they have no sexual urges to motivate them. Discussions will hold very little interest to them, and if I ever see a prepubescent child gleefully explaining 'their' sexuality I know somebody has been bribing them with praise or scolding them for showing insufficient interest [and I'm not just talking about pedophiles].
Concern over physical harm and lack of consent are not sufficient reason to condemn sex with minors.He has later gone on to say that while these arguments are insufficient that doesn't mean he doesn't think there are other arguments which are sufficient. Technically grammatically correct I suppose, though he hasn't to my knowledge actually directly said what these hypothetical other arguments might be.
I have in, in brief, the bestiality thread when responding to Lunatic and Swag. If you want to know what I think it may behoove you to ask a question. I have not volunteered because that would be caving to several fallacies of relevance.
If someone wants to claim that my statements on consent and physical harm prove I'm a pedophile I won't indulge them by pretending I have a BoP to disprove that. They can form their flawed arguments, and then I can debunk them.
Furthermore my arguments on consent stand or fall on their own. I know emotionally many feel they need another guardrail to protect their mind from tolerating abused children but I won't indulge that failing. You must pursue the truth earnestly to have intellectual integrity. If a statement throws your world view into chaos you are not entitled to dismiss the statement on those grounds alone. If you can't debunk a conclusion, patch your world view with a better argument or change it.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
They [children] are not sexual creatures until pubescence, they can understand the physics and consent to the physics but they won't (without bribes) because they have no sexual urges to motivate them.
Okay, so is a 30 year old 'bribing' an 8 year old to consent to sexual acts something that you think is okay?
-->
@Nyxified
If we could, in a hypothetical scenario, say with 100% certainty that someone was harassing another person, but the person being harassed did not care about it for whatever reason, it's still justified to ban them for harassment. Here's why:
- Somebody willing to commit harassment against someone who doesn't care is capable of harassing someone who does care.
Again that goes back to the point of, “I think you’re going to harass someone who does care.” How can you or the mods predict the future?
- The kind of person who harasses others is almost without doubt a toxic individual who can only contribute to the site's general culture in negative ways.
Wylted has been contributing positively for a decade. Whether that be playing mafia or debating.
- A harasser given the opportunity to fester is a time-bomb of violence waiting to happen if they are not cut off from interacting with their victim.
Again, you cannot predict the future and it is grounds for abuse of power. If a cop thought I was going to abuse my wife and he arrested me preemptively, that’s wrong.
- If we know that somebody, beyond a reasonable doubt, has harassed other people, they're a bad person and they deserve to be deplatformed. People like that deserve to be treated worse than other people because of their conduct.
That is false. Are hecklers bad people. Are the people who followed Sinema into the bathroom bad people? No. They are fighting for their beliefs. Even the mods admitted there was no malice here.
- It is not the responsibility of the site and its users to bear the burden of a harasser's conduct and to try and 'help' them in any way. Harassment to the point of being a ban-worthy offence is self-evidently morally incorrect and that fact shouldn't need to be taught.
The fact of preemptively censoring someone brings the site to a dictatorship. How would you feel if the mods thought you were harassing me right now and banned you.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
They [children] are not sexual creatures until pubescence, they can understand the physics and consent to the physics but they won't (without bribes) because they have no sexual urges to motivate them.Okay, so is a 30 year old 'bribing' an 8 year old to consent to sexual acts something that you think is okay?
No.
-->
@ILikePie5
@Nyxified
Nyxified said
A harasser given the opportunity to fester is a time-bomb of violence waiting to happen if they are not cut off from interacting with their victim.
Is that really true? There is only one way to be violent through the medium of the internet and that is to send agents to use violence in real life. The only way to do that is to doxx.
If you preclude doxing violence does not seem to be possible.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Okay, so is a 30 year old 'bribing' an 8 year old to consent to sexual acts something that you think is okay?No.
Why?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay, so is a 30 year old 'bribing' an 8 year old to consent to sexual acts something that you think is okay?No.Why?
Such acts, even if consented to at the time, will almost inevitably be seen as predation, degradation, and betrayal as the child matures and thereby the memory becomes traumatic and serious psychological harm occurs, the bribing will extenuate this perception. Furthermore since it is below the age of sexual maturity it will likely disturb the natural formation of the child's sexual orientation and habits which can also be seen as a permanent deformity and compound the suffering.
Like I said in the bestiality thread: duh
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What if I said the 8-year-old's inability to properly consent like you describe wasn't enough reason to say that the 30-year-old was being fucked up?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What if I said the 8-year-old's inability to properly consent like you describe wasn't enough reason to say that the 30-year-old was being fucked up?
I can't parse this sentence with certainty.
I did not describe in post #45 an inability to 'properly' consent. I described a significant and in-context inherent risk of serious mental harm.
-->
@ILikePie5
According to the mods, they have a right to ban you if they think your harassing someone, even if the individual being harassed doesn’t feel like they’re being harassed.Essentially mods can do whatever they want to because they think someone is harassing someone.Welcome to Nazi Germany folks.
Obviously this is about Wylted. I agree the latest incarnation of Wylted's presence should not have been banned.
The following needs to be clarified, however:
- The issue is not whether mods "have a right" to ban anyone based on their subjective determinations of harassment.
- Further, while presumably relevant to moderation decisions, whether the "individual" being allegedly "harassed" subjectively believes they are being harassed doesn't really matter.
- Additionally, and in beyond what I wrote above, all moderation decisions are subjective. People continue to consent to the same, to the extent they use the site.
None of that matters with respect to Wylted.
Fairness is what matters with Wylted. Let's consider why. According to the "mod log," Wylted was banned "principally for attempted doxxing" and related conclusions. I don't know what a "joint decision" is, or what other types of such "decisions" there may be.
- "Attempted doxxing." Doxxing is when you reveal the IRL identity of another person in an online context (read: on this site), typically for the purpose of causing harassment or blowback by shattering the wall between what people say anonymously and who people are in reality. For that to be attempted, there would have to be at least an IRL identity disclosed. Here, Wylted disclosed no information of the sort.
- Instead, all he did was call the user purportedly known as "ADreamOfLiberty" a "pedophile," in the context of a broader political discussion involving that user's activities and their relationship to potential illegality.
- Accusing someone of being a "pedophile" is not, and will never be, an "attempt" at doxxing. Nor is doxxing "attempted" by asking for information as Wylted did. Nor is doxxing "attempted" by certain encouraging statements on that subject Wylted communicated. What in fact happened is that Wylted "request[ed]" information related to potential criminal wrongdoing. That's it.
- Wylted did not disclose any IRL identity on this site. Wylted did not purport to disclose any offered IRL identity to users of this site. Even if Wylted in fact disclosed certain information he requested to law enforcement, that is not "doxxing," because the disclosure would be limited to police.
- For illustration, if doxxing is forbidden and disclosing information relating to alleged illegal conduct on this site amounted to "doxxing," then Ragnar could never tell law enforcement if he learned that SupaDudz was running a brothel out of his basement. Obviously that is unreasonable.
- "Creating threads to call out specific users." There is no question Wylted's thread related solely to the user purportedly known as "ADreamOfLiberty," but the question is whether what Wylted did was reasonable. Was it focused more on the impacts and significance of that user's conduct and behavior? Or was it meant as a direct personal attack (read: the prohibition of which was why the call out thread ban was put into effect in the first place)?
- On the one hand, the user purportedly known as "ADreamOfLiberty," is someone who has a repeated history of egregious conduct violations, including based on harassment, over many years and on multiple sites (DDO and DART), can continue to promulgate his "advocacy" for human sexual intercourse with animals --- a highly controversial political opinion.
- On the other hand, Wylted is someone who we know and who most tend to like, with a spotted history of certain weirdness but who on the other hand is hardly off the reservation, was banned for expressing an opinion about why someone expressed a highly controversial political opinion.
- While Wylted clearly "called out" ADOL, he did so in a way that would have likely been permitted absent a thread's unique creation. So, to ban him for conduct that is otherwise acceptable simply because it was contained within a thread is reaching.
- "Extravagant lies." This is the real sticking point for me. The Mod Log purports to have established that what Wylted said was affirmatively false. Yet, the mods have no such evidence. Instead, they simply assumed that Wylted's argument relating to why ADOL argues so emphatically for humans to engage in acts of sexual intercourse with non-human animals could be dismissed without consideration.
- Numerous aspects of this are deeply troubling. For example, for some reason I cannot understand, the mods unilaterally determined that "ma[king] some statement of sexual desire towards children" is a necessary prerequisite for someone to be accused of pedophilia. By that logic, all accusations against a priest who never vocalized his desire to molest alter boys to parishioners can be summarily dismissed.
- Beyond the above, I am deeply troubled by the extent to which Wylted's points were mischaracterized. According to the mod log, what Wylted said "[wa]s wholly unwarranted regardless of any other crimes [ADOL may] commit or state the desire to commit (yes, even cruelty toward animals).
- This statement implies significant, concerning error on the mods' part.
- First, Wylted made no argument whatsoever with respect to any increased propensity towards being a pedophile based on stated interest in or advocacy for beastiality.
- Second, in fact and reality, Wylted proposed a series of reasons why someone might argue for bestiality in lieu of pedophilia, given how much more acutely the latter is stigmatized as compared to beastiality.
- Third, the moderators appear to have missed this critical distinction, yet cite it as one of three reasons why Wylted was banned.
- Fourth, the moderators completely disregarded Wylted's argument which they did not even correctly describe in their offered reasons for banning him.
- Fifth, the moderators characterize Wylted's statements, which were clearly not understood as not only "lies" but "[e]xtravagant lies." The only alleged "lie" they identified was that the title said ADOL was a pedophile.
- Yet, the thread title was clearly intended as clickbait and not intended to be taken by any rational observer as a statement of proven fact --- as clearly and unequivocally indicated by the thread which followed the title.
- Even to the extent it was an accusation, the accusation has not been falsified and no evidence that what Wylted said was a lie has been presented.
- Nor have the mods endeavored to even suggest, mush less argue for, why Wylted's statements were made with reckless disregard for the truth (i.e., statements which approximates lies, but involve less culpability since the speaker does not know them to be false at the time they are spoken).
I find all of the above deeply troubling. I am sure the moderators intended to do right by the forum, but I would suggest this decision be reconsidered. I do not think the correct decision was reached here and even if so, that decision was not equitably implemented.
I am happy to discuss this in more detail if people so wish.
-->
@coal
Definitely agree. Nothing’s going to be done though, which is sad.
The show is being run by an individual who isn’t even a mod but wants to push a narrative.
-->
@ILikePie5
Who?
-->
@coal
Ragnar
-->
@coal
Nor is doxxing "attempted" by certain encouraging statements on that subject Wylted communicated. What in fact happened is that Wylted "request[ed]" information related to potential criminal wrongdoing. That's it.
I didn't ask for this ban, I didn't cause this ban to happen; but I'm going to be correcting some obvious nonsense.
[CoC] Doxing is strictly forbidden. Without their express permission, you may not post, threaten to post, nor encourage others to post, anyone’s private or identifying information no matter how it was obtained.
[incel-chud:] I would also request anyone who is good at doing so, to work on doxxing him [ADOL].
Below you talk about "reasonable" how reasonable is it to interpret doxxing as not doxxing so long as it's passed through PMs? Regardless:
If Doxxing requires (public) posting then incel-chud requested it. If it doesn't require public posting but includes private communications then "Doxing is strictly forbidden" includes it.
There is no way out of this one without equivocation.
"Creating threads to call out specific users." There is no question Wylted's thread related solely to the user purportedly known as "ADreamOfLiberty," but the question is whether what Wylted did was reasonable.
The CoC says nothing about whether it was reasonable.
[CoC] Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment
I'll relay what Ragnar told me when I pointed out flaws in the CoC; put it in a MEEP (and then the mods will interpret 'reasonable' the way they want to anyway).
On the one hand, the user purportedly known as "ADreamOfLiberty," is someone who has a repeated history of egregious conduct violations, including based on harassment, over many years and on multiple sites (DDO and DART),
Look whose talking...
can continue to promulgate his "advocacy" for human sexual intercourse with animals --- a highly controversial political opinion.
Oh no, not a highly controversial political opinion on a debate site! THE HUMANITY! A man who believes in an Overton window is a man trapped in a tiny bubble of culture that has only existed for an instant in time and space. This is why teaching history is so important.
While Wylted clearly "called out" ADOL, he did so in a way that would have likely been permitted absent a thread's unique creation. So, to ban him for conduct that is otherwise acceptable simply because it was contained within a thread is reaching.
That is so incredibly ironic given our history. Possibly the most ironic thing I've ever seen. I can't remember if you personally pushed for the "no callout thread" rule on DDO but if you did this is also on the top 10 list of most hypocritical things I've ever seen too.
By that logic, all accusations against a priest who never vocalized his desire to molest alter boys to parishioners can be summarily dismissed.
Lacking any other evidence that is exactly what should happen. And by evidence I mean actual evidence of actual acts, not somebody's opinion on the secret implications of someone's beliefs.
Yet, the thread title was clearly intended as clickbait and not intended to be taken by any rational observer as a statement of proven fact --- as clearly and unequivocally indicated by the thread which followed the title.
The racheal maddow defense..... the thread that followed included a bizarre explanation of how he thought he had shown the thread title to be true, and if the thread title was never intended to represent the truth then from whence comes the "reasonableness" of the call-out-thread and the doxxing?
I am happy to discuss this in more detail if people so wish.
We'll see about that.
-->
@coal
With regards to the post above, there are some things I agree with and some of it to which I disagree with.
I agree that the extravagant lies is a vague term in which can have many interpretations. I was on the fence with regards to this as quoted because Wylted brought out countless evidence to support the claim, so it can not be regarded as extravagant when evidence and why is pointed out. This evidence provided was majorly weak, and because of the interpretation given, I was swayed to not disagree with this statement, however, it is something I am borderline about
I think call out threads are fine and in my newest MEEP I have, a proposal is the remove the rule of call out threads because I believe it is a stupid rule
I would tend to disagree with you on the doxxing issue. I usually am someone that is extremely lenient to some of the reports and other things and suggest the lowest punishment all the time. The only thing I take serious is doxxing. A threat to doxx someone is a serious situation in which I don't want to happen. To have a 4chan website where people doxx each other all the time is NOT the environment I want on this site. While I understand Wylted did not doxx, he specifically had a call to action which encouraged the act of doxxing ADOL and threatened to do such a thing IF someone where to go through. This suggestion is a THREAT to doxx and the call to action supports it being a threat to doxx
- Furthermore, a threat to doxx in my eyes is a major violation of the CoC and deserves a 30 day ban. That was my original suggestion
- Continuing on, a goal as a moderator is to work with other moderators for a smooth moderation ability. We negotiated on the 60 days due to various prespectives brought in
-->
@ILikePie5
Again that goes back to the point of, “I think you’re going to harass someone who does care.” How can you or the mods predict the future?
"The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour." James Kelley, Ph. D.
Wylted has been contributing positively for a decade. Whether that be playing mafia or debating.
Wylted called me slurs a half a dozen times and most of his forum posts were him posting conspiracy theories that were either antivax or antisemitic. Calling his contribution 'positive' is either delusion or allegiance to his insanity.
Again, you cannot predict the future and it is grounds for abuse of power. If a cop thought I was going to abuse my wife and he arrested me preemptively, that’s wrong.
You don't need to predict the future to say that someone being left to fester is probably something that we might want to avoid just to be safe. It's ground for abuse of power, sure, but that's true of every power. That's why we have ban appeals and more than one mod.
That is false. Are hecklers bad people. Are the people who followed Sinema into the bathroom bad people? No. They are fighting for their beliefs. Even the mods admitted there was no malice here.
Hecklers are not harassers. A group of multiple people following a woman with no means to defend herself even as she asks them to leave her alone to argue with someone just trying to go to the bathroom is a bad thing to do. It still doesn't make them harassers. Repeatedly doing this to a worse degree constitutes harassment. If 'fighting for your beliefs' requires harassment, your beliefs suck.
The fact of preemptively censoring someone brings the site to a dictatorship. How would you feel if the mods thought you were harassing me right now and banned you.
This isn't preemptive censorship. We're talking about censorship of harassment that has already occurred. If the mods thought I was harassing you, that'd be bad, because I wasn't. Recall I said it was a hypothetical where we had 100% certainty. Moreover, I'd probably submit a ban appeal. If it didn't go through, well, that sucks, I guess.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Is that really true? There is only one way to be violent through the medium of the internet and that is to send agents to use violence in real life. The only way to do that is to doxx.If you preclude doxing violence does not seem to be possible.
While I understand what you're saying and you're right, it's basically just adding one more step into the process. It goes from harassment --> violence to harassment --> doxxing/acquiring information --> violence.
-->
@Nyxified
"The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour." James Kelley, Ph. D.
Oh so anyone who has committed a crime shouldn’t be let out right? Gimme a break.
Wylted called me slurs a half a dozen times and most of his forum posts were him posting conspiracy theories that were either antivax or antisemitic. Calling his contribution 'positive' is either delusion or allegiance to his insanity.
Why is it wrong to argue those point of views? And just because you haven’t seen his positive contributions doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
You don't need to predict the future to say that someone being left to fester is probably something that we might want to avoid just to be safe. It's ground for abuse of power, sure, but that's true of every power. That's why we have ban appeals and more than one mod.
So you’re openly admitting that abuse of power is ok? Ban appeals serve nothing cause they literally go through the same mods lol. And having more than one mod means nothing. Since when are oligarchies good Lmfaoo
This isn't preemptive censorship. We're talking about censorship of harassment that has already occurred. If the mods thought I was harassing you, that'd be bad, because I wasn't. Recall I said it was a hypothetical where we had 100% certainty. Moreover, I'd probably submit a ban appeal. If it didn't go through, well, that sucks, I guess.
Is creating a call out thread harassment? Have we ever banned someone for creating a call out thread? Is it harassment to give an opinion on an individual. You clearly seem to be against free speech.
You’re willingly ignoring an abuse of power and if you think that’s fundamentally ok, then you and I just disagree and nothing I say will change your conformity to authority.
-->
@Nyxified
Is that really true? There is only one way to be violent through the medium of the internet and that is to send agents to use violence in real life. The only way to do that is to doxx.If you preclude doxing violence does not seem to be possible.While I understand what you're saying and you're right, it's basically just adding one more step into the process. It goes from harassment --> violence to harassment --> doxxing/acquiring information --> violence.
The problem is this thing "harassment" is not a precise concept, which makes it impossible to objectively evaluate. I have a general idea of what harassment is and that it has no place on a debate site, but I also know that anything vague or subjective which can be used to censor will be used to censor.
If doxing is a necessary step to bring about violence and doxing can be precisely defined and objectively evaluated that is the correct point to create a rule to break the chain of events you describe.
Doxxing creates a chilling effect just like banning for something unprovable like harassment creates a chilling effect. As I alluded to before it depends on what the goal and values of this site actually are. If it's to facilitate debate (true debate, not dick measuring or some kind of high-school sport) then the freedom of speech is the highest value and anything that chills it is a problem.
Perhaps you could come up with a more precise 'legalistic' definition of harassment which could be objectively evaluated. I don't think I could, not without straying too far from the common understanding.
-->
@ILikePie5
Ban appeals serve nothing cause they literally go through the same mods lol.
...After careful consideration the state has determined that the state has done nothing wrong....
Have we ever banned someone for creating a call out thread?
If this is the first time then either it never happened before or the mods weren't enforcing the CoC because it's one of the clearest things in the CoC.
I think the basic answer to your question is no because if you go read any of Brother Thomas or Stephens posts in the religion forum that are directed at Tradesecret you'll see that they are constantly harassing him and nothing's done because Tradesecret says nothing. Which is why it's really a matter of who's doing the harassing.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
For someone who purportedly didn't support banning Wylted, you sure seem to have a lot of reasons you you think it should remain.