Attn Justices: Atlasia v. Xahar

[Lunar]

he has already violated that ban by just voting in the Pacific Legislature - although moments before the ban was issued.  Does that vote count?

[Хahar 🤔]

he has already violated that ban by just voting in the Pacific Legislature - although moments before the ban was issued.  Does that vote count?

I hadn't been sentenced when that vote was cast.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I would like to note that there is a moderator policy of deleting the defendant's posts. So it is fully possible that this is the reason behind that mysterious deletion.

Gus, what good would that solve? If that's the moderators way of combating trolls, that's one hell of a stupid way to do so. Then again, its not like my word on this matter really matters as the deleting will still occur, despite its stupidity.

[Gustaf]

I would like to note that there is a moderator policy of deleting the defendant's posts. So it is fully possible that this is the reason behind that mysterious deletion.

Gus, what good would that solve? If that's the moderators way of combating trolls, that's one hell of a stupid way to do so. Then again, its not like my word on this matter really matters as the deleting will still occur, despite its stupidity.

1. There is no way through which we can fight the trolls other than post-deleting. So, if you know of another way of combating trolls, feel free to share.

2. It "solves the good" of a) punishing people who troll by showing them that it won't be accepted and b) keeps their trollishness out.

3. If you have any actual argument to bring forward against this policy (such as what makes it bad) beyond calling it stupid in every sentence I am perfectly willing to listen. It is, however, perfectly correct of you to note that I will not let my actions be determined by a poster calling them stupid.

(the same but in less harsh terms apply to Lewis. I would like to remind you though that account-hacking is not "arguably trollish")

[Purple State]

I would like to note that there is a moderator policy of deleting the defendant's posts. So it is fully possible that this is the reason behind that mysterious deletion.

Gus, what good would that solve? If that's the moderators way of combating trolls, that's one hell of a stupid way to do so. Then again, its not like my word on this matter really matters as the deleting will still occur, despite its stupidity.

1. There is no way through which we can fight the trolls other than post-deleting. So, if you know of another way of combating trolls, feel free to share.

2. It "solves the good" of a) punishing people who troll by showing them that it won't be accepted and b) keeps their trollishness out.

3. If you have any actual argument to bring forward against this policy (such as what makes it bad) beyond calling it stupid in every sentence I am perfectly willing to listen. It is, however, perfectly correct of you to note that I will not let my actions be determined by a poster calling them stupid.

(the same but in less harsh terms apply to Lewis. I would like to remind you though that account-hacking is not "arguably trollish")

Delete with discretion? Or focus on those posts that are, in fact trollish. The policy is good, but across-the-board implementation is not.

[Gustaf]

I would like to note that there is a moderator policy of deleting the defendant's posts. So it is fully possible that this is the reason behind that mysterious deletion.

Gus, what good would that solve? If that's the moderators way of combating trolls, that's one hell of a stupid way to do so. Then again, its not like my word on this matter really matters as the deleting will still occur, despite its stupidity.

1. There is no way through which we can fight the trolls other than post-deleting. So, if you know of another way of combating trolls, feel free to share.

2. It "solves the good" of a) punishing people who troll by showing them that it won't be accepted and b) keeps their trollishness out.

3. If you have any actual argument to bring forward against this policy (such as what makes it bad) beyond calling it stupid in every sentence I am perfectly willing to listen. It is, however, perfectly correct of you to note that I will not let my actions be determined by a poster calling them stupid.

(the same but in less harsh terms apply to Lewis. I would like to remind you though that account-hacking is not "arguably trollish")

Delete with discretion? Or focus on those posts that are, in fact trollish. The policy is good, but across-the-board implementation is not.

Ah, you mean a system where the moderator reviews the posts of a poster and deletes those that are deemed trollish? That's what we call "being on moderator review." That is a form treatment. Some people move far enough that they do not longer deserve that kind of lenience (nor that kind of effort from us moderators).

It's like...if someone does something wrong you may put them on probation. And if they move beyond that they may get thrown in jail. And once in jail you don't get to say "but I'm not committing a crime right now, let me out" You serve your time.

[AndrewTX]

Eh, I'm not going to worry much, I have faith in our Moderators

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Thanks for clearing that up Gus. But I still believe that such a policy won't deter Xahar. However, on the other hand, such a policy would work wonders with the likes of Ogis, who, as of 17:16 EST, is currently spamming all but one or two boards on the entire forum.

[Gustaf]

Thanks for clearing that up Gus. But I still believe that such a policy won't deter Xahar. However, on the other hand, such a policy would work wonders with the likes of Ogis, who, as of 17:16 EST, is currently spamming all but one or two boards on the entire forum.

Many people believe jails don't deter criminals too effectively. We still don't let people out to roam the streets.

As for your second point, we are once again Ogis-free on this board. See, one of the little beauties of the system some of you have been criticizing is that it is quick. It took me less than 30 seconds to wipe him out again. Perhaps he will leave once he realizes that it takes him longer time than it takes me.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Thanks for clearing that up Gus. But I still believe that such a policy won't deter Xahar. However, on the other hand, such a policy would work wonders with the likes of Ogis, who, as of 17:16 EST, is currently spamming all but one or two boards on the entire forum.

Many people believe jails don't deter criminals too effectively. We still don't let people out to roam the streets.

As for your second point, we are once again Ogis-free on this board. See, one of the little beauties of the system some of you have been criticizing is that it is quick. It took me less than 30 seconds to wipe him out again. Perhaps he will leave once he realizes that it takes him longer time than it takes me.

     Ogis got what he wanted. He temporarily disrupted the flow of the boards. Even though his posts here have been deleted, they accomplished their mission.

     Thanks though -- as sad as I am that my friend ran with the wrong people, something needs to be done about Ogis.

[minionofmidas]

(the same but in less harsh terms apply to Lewis. I would like to remind you though that account-hacking is not "arguably trollish")

He has received the appropriate punishment for that, by bullmoose just now and by public disapproval, as far as I'm concerned.

I hope he's learned something. :/

"Trollish" behavior that wasn't though, not even "arguably". I was referring to other things there - postpadding. Bringing Ogis here. Some other stuff as well.

[Gustaf]

(the same but in less harsh terms apply to Lewis. I would like to remind you though that account-hacking is not "arguably trollish")

He has received the appropriate punishment for that, by bullmoose just now and by public disapproval, as far as I'm concerned.

I hope he's learned something. :/

"Trollish" behavior that wasn't though, not even "arguably". I was referring to other things there - postpadding. Bringing Ogis here. Some other stuff as well.

The semantics are not really relevant. Since we, semantically speaking, didn't even disagree on it I'm not going to bother. On your first point, I guess we will have to disagree. I don't think it is the appropriate punishment. It may have been if Xahar had showed any kind of remorse or understanding of his deed afterwards, but he didn't.