Would Eharding have been banned if he were a liberal?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

People in the ban thread are saying this, that if Eharding were a liberal but with equally awful views, he would not have been banned.

Do you think so?

[NeverAgain]

If he was as awful as White-Nationalist Eharding, then I'd only hope.

[Vosem]

If he was a liberal, his views would not be equally awful.

If he spammed as much, he would still be banned eventually (see the fate of Rochambeau), but it might've taken somewhat longer. Anyway, voted yes.

[Vosem]

If he was a liberal, his views would not be equally awful.

Are you seriously implying that liberals can't have worse views than that?

Not actual liberals, no. Liberal does not equal leaning towards the Democratic Party, as it is sometimes used in American parlance (though if that's the definition you're using, of course some of those people are indeed capable of holding much, much worse views than EHarding's).

[DavidB.]

If he was as awful as White-Nationalist Eharding, then I'd only hope.

If he was a white nationalist then that term doesn't mean anything anymore. He was a libertarian.

[Associate Justice PiT]

If he was as awful as White-Nationalist Eharding, then I'd only hope.

If he was a white nationalist then that term doesn't mean anything anymore. He was a libertarian.

     Someone dug up some pretty racist posts he made on another site and he didn't deny the charge. With that said, I prefer to judge people by what they post here and not by what they posted elsewhere, so I would be interested to know what white nationalist content he's posted on this forum.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

If he was as awful as White-Nationalist Eharding, then I'd only hope.

If he was a white nationalist then that term doesn't mean anything anymore. He was a libertarian.

     Someone dug up some pretty racist posts he made on another site and he didn't deny the charge. With that said, I prefer to judge people by what they post here and not by what they posted elsewhere, so I would be interested to know what white nationalist content he's posted on this forum.

"Didn't deny"? He outright claimed them as his own!

[Associate Justice PiT]

If he was as awful as White-Nationalist Eharding, then I'd only hope.

If he was a white nationalist then that term doesn't mean anything anymore. He was a libertarian.

     Someone dug up some pretty racist posts he made on another site and he didn't deny the charge. With that said, I prefer to judge people by what they post here and not by what they posted elsewhere, so I would be interested to know what white nationalist content he's posted on this forum.

"Didn't deny"? He outright claimed them as his own!

     I wasn't sure on that point and I couldn't remember enough about the context to search it out. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I doubt it.

I mean we have liberals on this forum who are near Eharding's level of ludicrous statements (as MT Treasurer has pointed out) and they haven't been banned yet.

[Virginiá]

I know it's a failure of the mod team to properly convey the reason(s) behind his banning, but people keep focusing on his views as if it was the reason. He had ridiculous views, sure, and once in a while he could be a huge jerk, but a big problem was his enormous level of posting combined with often ridiculous views and the need to respond to every little thing derailed threads and caused a lot of disruption. People may disagree as to what value that reasoning holds, but its not often we get users who consistently spend what at times seemed like literally most of their day on Atlas.

How could we even put someone like him on mod review? None of us has time to review 50+ posts a day, not even considering the amount of PMs he'd send each mod disputing every little decision on each and every post. He was given warnings, mod(s) tried to reason with him, and he didn't care.

Look, for those who think this is some sort of conservative oppression thing - I'd only say to look at exactly who the mod team is. It isn't a pile of flaming liberals hatching schemes against conservative users all day. The team is decently balanced, and there are numerous mods who are extremely deliberative in any use of action, let alone ideological persecution. I understand that mod deliberations are private, so that means all the facts and discussions behind certain actions aren't available, but that doesn't mean the worst conclusions are true.

As for runeghost - he doesn't post his "brand" of discourse 50 times a day. Most of it just went unnoticed and unreported. What some are calling bias here is simply users falling through the cracks of oversight due to limitations in the time mod's have to moderate and the desire of users to report crazy crap they actually see. There is acute awareness of the friction that bans can cause, but often times other tools are not practical.

I really wish the team would be given a little more credit here. I've been on it only briefly so far, but what I see good people who put in time to help make Atlas a decent place to discuss politics. May there be bias from time to time? Sure - anyone who claims to be 100% objective is almost surely lying, but for the most part, what I see is people trying to be fair in their input.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes, but it would've taken much more time to happen thanks to biases.

But yeah, spammage and attitude were obviously the deal-breakers.

But if views were everything, AggregateDemand would've been out the door far quicker than when he finally got the boot.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes, no doubt.
How would people had behaved if Eharding was a Socialist avatar from Flint who got in fights with blue avatars and posted 50 times a day? And still got banned exactly how he did in real life.

[Lachi]

Yes, because it was not his views that got him banned, it was his manner of posting, and behavior.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yes, because it was not his views that got him banned, it was his manner of posting, and behavior.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Since Rochambeau had been mentioned, I think it should be pointed out processing such cases was much slowed these days, primarily because Dave had the sole authority to ban. Fortunately we have Nym now.

I have no doubts had Rochambeau been active now, he'd be banned much quicker.

[Meclazine for Israel]

No.

I have seen anti-Trump supporters spam threads all day based on nothingness with the only aim of drumming up some emotional support for their lack of excitement with the new Presidency.

So it's not spam.

His political education was reasonable, so the only thing I can put it down to was his ability to annoy the mods.

If he were liberal, the mods would not be annoyed as much as they set fire to the Trump hate threads.

It's just a natural bias that exists against right wing political ideologues.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Did you ever consider that this was a plot by conservative mods to purge their most embarrassing ideological compatriots?

[Kingpoleon]

If we're talking about awful views, why weren't ag, Runeghost, or Famous Mortimer banned?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If we're talking about awful views, why weren't ag, Runeghost, or Famous Mortimer banned?

Famous Mortimer received a temporary ban, which had expired since. Runeghost is being judged as we speak.

Eharding was banned because the moment he returned he embarked on a new, worse, trolling spree. AFAIK Mortimer is yet to committ a new offense.

As of Ag, he resigned as a mod and left the forum, so there's no issue of him.

[Virginiá]

This isn't about how often Runeghost posts per day, it's the content of his posts. If I said "All Democrats and Clinton supporters are dumb trash and have failed at being good human beings", would you or any of the other mods be fine with that?

To be honest, that wasn't the best example. We get those posts from time to time and most are just deleted, but I get what you're saying I guess. I would prefer to give as many disruptive or hostile users as possible the chance to change their behavior. I was under the impression permabans right off the bat were despised on this forum. There are a couple other ways to work on such situations, one of which wasn't plausible with eharding because he refused to stop posting a zillion times a day.

[Fight for Trump]

Of course not.

[Adam Griffin]

The guy was a f[inks]ing joke. He's been banned from multiple forums and discussion boards - by his own admission, for the same damn stuff (being neurotic, spam-posting, etc).

Sooner or later, you have to accept that you're the problem, and not everybody else. That goes both for Eharding and all of the whiny persecutionists around here. If more of your guys are getting banned, then it's because more of you guys have behavioral problems.

[Adam Griffin]

The guy was a f[inks]ing joke. He's been banned from multiple forums and discussion boards - by his own admission, for the same damn stuff (being neurotic, spam-posting, etc).

Sooner or later, you have to accept that you're the problem, and not everybody else. That goes both for Eharding and all of the whiny persecutionists around here. If more of your guys are getting banned, then it's because more of you guys have behavioral problems.

I mean, we have the logic to back this up...

[Xing]

If his behavior had been the same, yes.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The guy was a f[inks]ing joke. He's been banned from multiple forums and discussion boards - by his own admission, for the same damn stuff (being neurotic, spam-posting, etc).

Sooner or later, you have to accept that you're the problem, and not everybody else. That goes both for Eharding and all of the whiny persecutionists around here. If more of your guys are getting banned, then it's because more of you guys have behavioral problems.

I mean, we have the logic to back this up...

     I'm quoting your posts. Next thing you know right-wingers will be marrying left-wingers' daughters.