Opinion of Libertas' banning

[tpfkaw]

Take a wild guess.

[tpfkaw]

Libertas hasn't been in contact with any of us (as far as I know) since his banning.  Also, labor organizing doesn't violate libertarian principles at all.

[tpfkaw]

I believe you've got your libertarian philosophy mixed up:

Collectivism = not necessarily bad (or else even organizations like the Libertarian Party would be bad).

Collectivism as the determinant of government policy = very, very bad.

[tpfkaw]

Did you just call for the banning of Mechman?

Maybe not Mech specifically, but I wouldn't mind the sudden disappearance of Wormyguy

Don't worry, the feeling is mutual.

But you've inspired a little experiment for me.

Here's my totally arbitrary “civility meter:”

In any arguments, debates, and expressions of opinion (henceforth referred to as ADO posts):

Insinuations (claiming people have mental disorders/criminal records/deviant personalities and/or are liars/dishonest etc. without evidence) are worth 6 incivility points when directed at a forumite and 3 incivility points when directed at a non-forum figure.

Personal insults (calling people stupid, evil, bigoted etc.) are worth 5 incivility points when directed at a forumite and 2 incivility points when directed at a non-forum figure.

Name-calling (describing people as fascists, communists etc. if they do not personally identify as such and they aren't clearly in that ideological sphere - for instance, calling Die Linke Communist wouldn't count) is worth 4 incivility points when directed at a forumite and 1 incivility point when directed at a non-forum figure.

Calling for people to be banned (without there being a clear violation of the terms of service - e.g. posting hardcore pornography or spam advertisements) is worth 3 incivility points.

Abusive sarcasm (i.e. with the implication that a certain forumite is too dumb to understand a certain topic) is worth 3 incivility points.

Deliberately antagonizing another poster (posting something simply in order to provoke a negative reaction from another forumite) is worth 2 incivility points.  This is a catchall for all deliberate antagonization that does not fit the above three categories.

Trolling for sympathy/attention/controversy (posting a political or argumentative thread consisting of one or two sentences and/or no coherent argument for the sole purpose of attracting attention, sympathy, or controversy) is worth 2 incivility points.

Argumentative sarcasm without an implied insult is worth 1 incivility point.

Sincerely apologizing for any of the above reduces the penalty to 1 incivility point.

Now, let's look at the last 20 statements of argument, debate, or opinion by Libertas and Marokai.

(statements are condensed where necessary).

Libertas:

Yeah, why don't you let me choose your party's color, since Antonio was allowed to choose ours?

Deliberate antagonization (Antonio): 2 points.
Sarcasm: 1 point.
Total: 3 points.

Jimmy Carter was the guy who brought back selective service registration after it had been indefinitely suspended, over the opposition of people like Senator Mark Hatfield.

No foul.

Slumlords are not representative of true property owners and shouldn't exist in the first place.

I don't see how the fact that lots of people got screwed by the banksters' controlled demolition of the economy and lost their homes is proof that these people didn't care about their communities.

Non-forum insinuations: 3 points
Non-forum name-calling: 1 point
Total: 4 points

Is this hot?

No foul (non-rhetorical question, so doesn't count as sarcasm).

It certainly does make sense. Those who actually have a stake in a community should be the ones deciding what happens there.

Of course it couldn't be implemented under the current state of affairs, with so many deprived of their right to property and absentee ownership being rampant.

No foul.

Nice troll thread with ridiculous biased poll.

Deliberate antagonization (Sibboleth): 2 points

That was not the main issue here, despite Marokai's attempt to distract attention with it.

The real issue is that the attorney general, the judge, and the defendant were all in bed together.

Insinuations against forumites: 6 points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Insinuations against forumites: 6 points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Insinuations against forumites: 6 points

Read it over again. It does not regulate the TSA.

No foul.

Um yeah, there kinda is.

More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time; Also, fewer think abortion should be legal “under any circumstances”

Generational Differences on Abortion Narrow; Support for making abortion broadly illegal growing fastest among young adults




It is inevitable that abortion will eventually go the way of slavery and other crimes against humanity.

No foul - matter of opinion (and if we start from Libertas' assumptions one might argue he should condemn abortion in even stronger terms).

Here's to hoping that segment grows and pushes the neocon infiltrators out of the tea party once and for all.

Non-forum insinuations: 3 points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Insinuations against forumites: 6 points.

Both of these position sets are at least consistent.

No foul.

So you are a Republican after all? Good that you've come out of that closet.

Deliberate antagonization (ModerateDemocrat90): 2 points.

No, they are very real.

No foul.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trolling for controversy: 2 points.

I don't call people names. Where did I do this? "Fascist" is a political ideological label, not an example of name-calling.

I can't do the Attorney General's job. Who the frig was I going to appoint?

That was a ridiculous cheap and lazy cop-out on the AG's part.

Not to mention that I'm not sure what was even left to argue. Kalwejt and I put forth the case and addressed numerous arguments. Antonio put up essentially no defense. We didn't need some special prosecutor to be appointed to do Marokai's job for him. What we needed was a jury to be assembled, but apparently the JCP was afraid that a real jury might rule against them.

No foul.

Sure he is. So is Obama.

Non-forum name-calling: 1 point.

Ugh, you would vote for LBJ?

No foul.

20/34 posts (59%) are ADO posts.

12/20 ADO posts (60%) are uncivil.

Total incivility points: 41

[tpfkaw]

Marokai:

The amount of people that seem to think tax cuts or hikes have any serious impact on the economy most of the time around these parts is astounding. This is not an intellectually honest discussion, but considering American politics, I don't know why that surprises me.

Non-forum insinuations: 3 points.

Maybe not Mech specifically, but I wouldn't mind the sudden disappearance of Wormyguy

Calling for a ban (wormyguy): 3 points.

The amount of time he spent acting like a toddler, insulting others, throwing fits, deliberately provoking people, using personal information against people, reporting people's posts unnecessarily on purpose, and just generally spending his time trying to nuke any and all discussion just for attention, all make it impossible to not see that.

Libertas did everything possible to draw attention to himself and piss as many people off as possible.

It's also almost impossible to avoid Libertas because there are a certain group of people on the internet that rally around controversy. Wormyguy, Mech, Svensson, FallenMorgan, and others. These are the type of people who would join in on a riot just for the hell of it. The kind of people who whistle and clap in sick admiration when their bully classmates were sent to the principal's office.

This discussion reminded me of one thing I remembered about Mech, though. This was his sixteenth post:

Look I've only been a member here for a day but before I was a member I remember coming on here and enjoying reading Xahar's posts. He has a unique view that should not be banned. I'm againt any and all bannings period. BRING XAHAR BACK! BRING XAHAR BACK! BRING XAHAR BACK!

These folks make a career out of trying to rally around trouble makers. Ban them or ignore them until they're gone. They're not worth the trouble.

Insinuations (Libertas): 6 points
Insinuations (Svensson): 6 points
Insinuations (Mechaman): 6 points
Insinuations (FallenMorgan): 6 points
Insinuations (wormyguy): 6 points
Personal insults (Libertas): 5 points
Calling for bans: 3 points
Deliberate antagonization (Mechaman): 2 points

Total: 40 points

How many times do people have to argue over Rasmussen before people stop taking it as some sort of gold standard in polling?

No foul.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Deliberate antagonization (Libertas): 2 points.

People are going to be cycling through the council because it has term limits. It's nice that alot of people want to be in the council, but we need to think about the long term consequences of letting a huge number of people on the council right away. Let's not turn this into the Northeast Assembly, here.

No foul.

I've heard good things.

No foul.

Oh please, even I refuse to believe that.

No foul.

Yeah, NCY is peddling just straight-up BS here.

Deliberate antagonization (NCYankee): 2 points

NCY is totally right. Obama never compromises. Remember when he pushed through that tremendously sized public works programs? Or how about when he demanded single payer? Man, that was crazy. What a socialist that guy is.

Abusive sarcasm (NCYankee): 3 points.

This is the attitude we're dealing with here, people.

Deliberate antagonization (NCYankee): 2 points

Honestly I don't even think they understand what they say anymore. They seem to not even base their ideas on anything even remotely sensible anymore. Everything that comes out of a tea party or Republican mouth (not that there's much of a difference anymore) seems like it was conceived during a brainstorm session of what would get the most sensationalist headlines and what would irritated the other side the most. It's a juvenile form of policy brainstorming but it doesn't actually seem to be hurting them as much as it should be. (Indeed, it seems to help more than it hurts.)

Non-forum insinuations: 3 points.

I'd enjoy hearing how.

Sarcasm: 1 point.

You guys certainly have a knack for names.

Abusive sarcasm: 3 points.

Do people seriously believe what they're saying when they talk like this? It's like she had a bunch of key words on a post-it she wanted to get into a paragraph.

Non-forum insinuations: 3 points.

I'm a fan of Badger.

Approve.

No foul.

20/33 posts (61%) are ADO.

15/20 ADO posts (75%) are uncivil.

Total incivility points: 65

Even if we say that each count can only be charged once per post (so insinuations in his massive negative rant are only counted once despite being directed by name at multiple forumites), he still has 41 incivility points.  The main difference in style between Libby and Marokai is that Libertas's ADO posts are half civil and half uncivil, and the uncivil ones were very uncivil, while the vast majority of Marokai's ADO posts are uncivil, but only somewhat uncivil.