Opinion of the rebanning of Libertas

[politicallefty]

Horrible. Seriously. It seems obvious to me that this ban has no real reason other than the personal dislike or moral disapproval of some. Certain posters here did nothing but create a witch-hunt and crusade against him from the moment he returned, doing nothing more than creating provocation at every possible instance. Those posters are far more deleterious to the forum community and are the ones who really should be condemned. I've always been opposed to ban petitions on principle, but I'll reconsider that position if and when certain posters come up.

It seems apparent to me that he just rubbed some posters the wrong way from the start and was never going to get a fair second chance, which I think was in no small part to him being quite open about sexual issues. Some people seem not to have lives and did nothing more than berate him about that, among other issues. He defended himself and yet, those that initiated provocation escape penalty (surely to take up another mob mentality against their next target who doesn't meet certain criteria).

I don't generally post about this kind of stuff, but I feel quite strongly that this was unjust and wrong. This forum is worse off than it was a day ago.

[politicallefty]

Figures that the True Leftists would rally around Libertas.     

What the hell are you talking about? Noted homophobic true leftist Snowstalker is ecstatic about the banning, while people like BRTD and myself, sworn enemies of the True Leftist menace, are rightfully disgusted.

I'm in full agreement with Lief on this one. I may be a staunch liberal, but I've not identified with those proclaiming themselves as "True Leftists". After all, I don't think you'll be finding too many Hillary Clinton supporters (such as myself) among that group. I objectively, sincerely, and vehemently think this was a terrible decision by those that control the banning process. Those that supported this ban (with very limited exception) are by and large prudes and homophobes, despite some proclaiming themselves as social liberals.

I may not be the most active poster here by any means, but I have to question my own membership here. It's readily apparent that certain people are not wanted here and it's not hard to see some that'll be targeted next. There's something seriously wrong with this forum and it appears that those elements are getting stronger over time. I've seen this sort of action kill forums in the past and this one will be a shell of its former self if it's allowed to continue. Good members have already been pushed out over faulty administrative decisions. This will only exacerbate the situation. If people are being targeted for banning, advance notice would hardly be a bad thing.

[politicallefty]

I'm sure that afleitch and Marokai are thrilled to hear that they're homophobic "prudes" now.  And of course let's not forget fact that one of our proudest "anti-pruders", Grumps, was beating the ban drumbeat loudest, whereas Madeleine, who with the possible exception of Simfan is the only poster here who can actually be described in any honest way as "prudish", was in Libertas's corner.  It totally all fits that explanation, duh!

"Very limited exception" my eye.  I don't know why you feel the need to default to this explanation, but repeating it over and over (obviously there are many folks beside you who are doing so, and this post is a response to them as well) doesn't make it any less ludicrous.  

TBH I would argue that the very term "prude" is something without a meaningful and consistent definition except as a term of vague abuse anyway, and thus needs to stop being used so much. But such an argument isn't a necessary part of my point.

The one thing I will agree with here is your last sentence.  The Mods have an obligation to do a better job communicating limits and providing warnings; doing so won't silence every sh*t-stirrer but it's the right thing to do and will certainly help matters.

If you see my first post in this topic, you'd see that moral disapproval was only part of my complaint (the other being personal dislike). Only one of the posters you mentioned was of those I was talking about. I have nothing but the utmost respect for afleitch and I am unaware of any of any his postings about this matter. As for Grumps, I do like and respect him as a poster, though I also respectfully disagree with his thoughts on this. I was indeed pleasantly surprised to read Madeleine's response, which was most certainly a surprise based on her posting history (and username, for that matter).

If anything, your post has only hardened my position that this ban was completely ridiculous and nonsensical. There is nothing banworthy in his posting history by any objective measure. I still maintain that some posters here that wanted him banned from the start are indeed prudish and quite homophobic, whether or not they hid behind the label of social liberalism. (I really do believe some members here are quite homophobic, despite their proclaimed political leanings.) Those that continued their endless provocation should be punished. I fail to see how defending oneself against said provocation warrants a ban. There is nothing that points to a ban in this case. If there is, almost any current member is fair game.

As you mention those who are sh-t-stirrers, my dad almost literally just told me that "those who stir the sh-t pot should have to lick the spoon". That is a reference to those that have caused this banned and continue to dance around in their apparent victory. To those (not to the above poster): I say screw you and enjoy your pathetic victory while it lasts. It won't be one that lasts.

HB.

Banning should only be done in extreme circumstances.  This forum bans way too indiscriminately.  Libertas did nothing to deserve this, and I'm guessing he wasn't warned that a ban was imminent if he did not change his ways (as was opebo).

^This x1000!

I cannot say how much I agree with this post. As I was saying before, it seems as though mere moral disapproval and personal dislike is enough to warrant a ban at this point. That is absurd and completely ridiculous. If that is the case, this forum needs radically new leadership. Libertas was not a destructive presence on this forum. Other than responding to the provocations of others (to his apparent detriment), I found him to be a quite good poster. He did nothing wrong, unless defending oneself has become a banworthy offense. I'll be one of the first to sign the petition for his reinstatement.

I'm sorry, but this is the functional equivalent of social conservatives running this place, which is disturbing to me. This forum is devolving into a place where mere personal dislike is enough to result in a ban. I've been to forums where excessive rules and regulations override all else and where ban petitions are commonplace. It does not have good results for the overall quality of posters.

[politicallefty]

I have nothing but the utmost respect for afleitch and I am unaware of any of any his postings about this matter

He hasn't said much but this bit on the Atlas subforum makes it pretty clear, I think:

I just don't get it. Does no one else think his PM's are creepy? I've had two in which he's congratulated me on my physique, mentioned how good he looks in tight pink leggings from H&M and offered to send me verified photos of himself, his partner and a recommendation from his employer. Something still doesn't sit right with me.

I'm happy to concede that there are some serious issues with consistency and communication from the Mod team that, in the end, do make this re-ban really problematic.  I just wish that the legitimate anti-ban arguments could be separated out from the "sexless joyless Prude Brood" and "evil ban warrior Oakvale" nonsense that they seem to always get packaged with.  Does that make any sense?

I understand what you're saying. I did notice that afleitch's post was from June. Though it may be odd, I don't see how it adds anything to the aggravating factors supporting a ban. I do understand what you're saying, but I was considering those posters that were instigating provocation. It's hard for me to separate that argument away when I think it was those types of individuals that created such a hostile environment.

Can the moderators who banned him please give us an example of a rule violation that would warrant banning?


All I'm seeing is "He responds to attacks too much" (which is within his rights), "He's the same Libertas as he was 4-5 years ago" (seriously? Let it go), and "He spams" (then let's ban BRTD and Bushie for the ridiculous amount of spam they post about their personal lives or about Opebo).


This is so stupid. Just let him back and let the kid be.

I'm in complete and total agreement here. I think the first charge is easily disputable on account of defending oneself, the second is clearly not the case based on posting history, and that last is just ridiculous (if that's spam, then apparently everyone is guilty).

Well, look, Mods have different approaches in what they consider ban worthy, although I think most Mods give a previously banned poster a shorter leash after reinstatement, at least for a period of time. Some Mods like myself and Muon2, and to a lessor extent Badger, take a highly "legalistic" approach, other Mods less so, some not much at all perhaps. In this case some Mods broached the topic that Libertas' reinstatement had proved to be mistake based on overall conduct, and the legal beagles really were not motivated to dig into the matter like myself, or simply did not think the discussion had reached the point, that a ban was in serious play, or both, and did not participate in that discussion, and then suddenly, Nym decided to ban.

Nym is the judge, the Mods are but advocates before him as judge. In this case, perhaps Libertas did not have adequate "representation" in the sense that not all advocates with different points of view participated. And there you have it. There was not some grand unified policy change or conspiracy, or anything else. It was just an unusual case "procedurally" shall we say - all sound and fury signifying not much beyond the result itself.

Hope this helps. I do understand why the decision was controversial, and perhaps in this case there is some merit in the concern.

As you are a mod, I would encourage you to look into this further and perhaps bring about an appeal of this case. I firmly believe this was an arbitrary and capricious decision. I don't say this out of some random subjective or personal view, as you can see from my own posting history. I don't generally speak on controversial forum matters, but I felt I must in this case. He did nothing wrong that warranted re-banning and I do hope that you, as a lawyer, can see that based on the weight of the evidence. I feel quite strongly about this, so I do make my personal appeal to you to reexamine this (for whatever possible say you can have in potentially changing this decision). I urge you to use your legalistic approach in this case.