Opinion of Libertas' banning

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Positive, something had to be done but I think polls like this are unnecessary. I guess I'm just getting annoying at all this uproar now. Libertas had to go and his supporters shouldn't be all thar angry. The kid had a year to shape up and continued to pull the same crap over and over again. This is Dave's forum and Dave's rules. It's time to stop playing the victim and face reality. I hope this is the last thread I see like this.

[dead0man]

And furthermore, I question why Libertas was targeted for so long and yet BRTD and opebo remain free men. And, for that matter, Lief.

Me and Libertas agree on things (general politics at least) a lot more than me and BRTD/opebo/Lief do and I agree with the decision to ban Lib and not the others.  Why?  Because Lib was a douche.  Confrontational, antagonistic with a strong streak of permanent victim.  He's like the annoying kid in school that can't figure out why he's constantly picked on by everybody, even the otherwise nice kids. Meanwhile other kids, who he considers "lesser" get by without getting picked on and he can't figure out why.  Yeah, opebo and Lief are one trick ponies.  Yeah, BRTD can be annoying, but he's not a douche about it and doesn't feel like he's the permanent victim.

As I said in the other thread, if you all don't like the banning, boycott.  Show us all how valuable your contributions are.  Maybe we'll learn something (or maybe you will).

[Lunar]

Let's be real:  Libertas was most likely banned for being far right wing.  If that's the case, I wonder who's next.

Shoo.

[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.

[angus]

you don't want to do this, man.  Let it go.

Libertas was banned for being a wingnut, and nothing more.  This is unfortunate.  Unfair, even.  But Leip got lots of complaints, and, for better or worse, he's a busy man and doesn't need this crap.

Somebody can cut my tires, but cutting his tires won't make mine grow back.  Just let it go.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Creepy and obsessive behavior from wormguy. How shocking.

---

Anyway, Libertas was a problem poster from the start and got worse and worse as it became apparent that nothing was going to be done about him. I'm sure that he was nice to the people that he liked, but I don't think that has owt to do with owt, sorry.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Um... "You guys certainly have a knack for names." is worse than "Yeah, NCY is peddling just straight-up BS here." to you?  Your system is kinda messed up, wormguy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Libertas was banned for being a wingnut, and nothing more.

No, he was banned for being a psychopath. That was the reason Dave gave us (though he didn't use that word) anyway. He was very clear that it was for that reason and not his wingnuttery.

[AndrewTX]

I'm not even really going to bother stressing over it. I, in general, am not a fan of anyone being banned. But what can I do, this is Daves board, Daves choices, and thats it. To be honest, bitching about it isnt going to change his mind. He's going to let people keep on letting whoever he wants post here, and ban whoever he doesnt want.

[Frodo]

Extremely positive -I now have renewed faith in this forum. 

[redcommander]

Does someone know what specifically Libertas did to get banned? Same with Hamilton. I'm not sure what they did wrong. Libertas did say some things that were out there but I don't think that was the entire reason.

[angus]

Libertas was banned for being a wingnut, and nothing more.

No, he was banned for being a psychopath. That was the reason Dave gave us (though he didn't use that word) anyway. He was very clear that it was for that reason and not his wingnuttery.

et tu, wise Alun of the Black Beard?

maybe I missed the point.  That happens often, I'll admit.  Seems that you have information to which I am not privy. 

I guess he just never came off so nasty to me.  And you have to admit that it's easier to get banned here than it was five or six years ago.  Then again, systems evolve.  Folks in the U.S. are more willing to submit to airport pat-downs than they were in Thomas Jefferson's day.

(sorry, couldn't resist.  I guess we'll just have to pick up that banner where he dropped it.  

[Free Palestine]

Folks in the U.S. are more willing to submit to airport pat-downs than they were in Thomas Jefferson's day.

But they didn't have airplanes back then.  So therefor health care is constitutional.

[Mechaman]

Did you just call for the banning of Mechman?

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

It sure as hell sounded like you did.
You know Marokai I didn't think you were low enough to judge my entire history on this forum based off of my very lax views on forum governance and opposition to coersion, but I guess I was wrong.  The fact that I don't support the expulsion of Libertas automatically outweighs any civil debate we had in the past in your mind.  It doesn't matter to you that unlike other libertarian forumites I actually tried to be friendly with you instead of tell you to DIAF or something like that.
And now you are going to just label me as "someone who made a career off of being a troublemaker?"  LOL.
First off if you want to get technical about it I am actually making a career off of being good with numbers, hilarious that you assume that since I used to be an extremely active member here that suddenly this forum becomes my "career".  [/facepalm]
Secondly, you forget the amount of contributions (yes shocking I know) that I myself have made to a number of areas on this board, notably the What-if Board.  Granted I am not the most active TL writer here, but every once in awhile I get posts and PMs telling me that I am one of the "What-if" greats.  I'm not bullsh*tting here either.

But you know what?  You probably had a crappy day in the office or something like that, so I'll let this one attack on my whole existence here slide.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Very Positive.  The man was a troll, who contributed nothing while at the same time playing the victim and attacking other posters.  I am happier to see him leave than I was to see Hamilton banned.

[Phony Moderate]

A similar poll taken after Hamilton's banning:

Are you pleased with Hamilton's banning?

Yes - 61%
No - 39%

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=108839.0

[Marokai Backbeat]

Creepy and obsessive behavior from wormguy. How shocking.

Insinuations (Wormyguy): 6 points

I've got my eyes on you, Al.

[Mechaman]

In case I didn't make it clearer earlier:

In my defense, I am against Hamilton's banning on the grounds of freedom of speech. I would've been just as outraged if a Neonazi forumer got banned for expressing his opinion as I am over Hamilton. Personally, as much of a jerk I thought Hamilton turned out to be in the last few weeks, the last thing I would've wished on him or anyone else is a banning. Just because this is an internet forum doesn't change my views of free expression, even if I can't stand whoever is saying it.

This is from that thread that Obamaisdabest posted.  And I still live by this code.  I don't oppose the banning of Libertas because it's shocking and oh yeah he's a troublemaker.  I oppose his banning because I oppose all bannings on the principle of free speech and expression.  Did Dave Leip have the right to ban Hamilton?  Yes.  I believe that he even had the right to ban Libertas (because this is Leip's forum).  However that doesn't mean I have to support his decision.
If that makes me a troublemaker worthy of being banned on here, so be it.  Even when HoffmanJohn was banned I didn't jump up applauding yelling "yay!"  I found it sad that he made a "masturbation" thread or something like that, but I sure as hell didn't go around partying like some other libertarians did.
I'm just saying...........

[Sewer]

You should apologize, Marokai.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Very Positive.  The man was a troll, who contributed nothing while at the same time playing the victim and attacking other posters.  I am happier to see him leave than I was to see Hamilton banned.

a troll? yes, at times he could be. whether he was anywhere near the worst troll on here is i suppose subjective, unless there's some measure of it i don't know about. attack other posters? in a broad sense of the word "attack", yes, he was often too aggressive and reactionary, but unfortunately others here who fit that description, and some who make threat-sounding statements and much more vicious things than i ever heard from Libertas. contributed nothing? no - he contributed much more than most. he made an impact here, expressed his unique point of view, and anyone with an open mind could learn something from him unless you were too busy trying to be offended or get on his bad side to hear him.  
i think i could understand him being banned were it not for the putrid schadenfreude surrounding his departure that by comparison puts even Libertas' worst moments in a relatively moderate light.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

At times it seemed to me that Libertas was pursposely trying to get banned. At the very least he certinaly had no problem pressing his luck whenever he could. After being spared early this year, when Hamilton and Einzige got it, he should have avoided running head long into the mods so often. It's Leip's site and he has the right to enforce his rules how he wants and it isn't my place to rate them like some politician's political decisions in office. I will say that it is pretty hard to argue that there wasn't justificiation for the ban or that it was due to political bias.

[??????????]

To bad really, he should have cleaned up his act. I warned him about it a few times, apparently he was on some sort of Kamikaze mission.

[Sbane]

Marokai:

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

Dude, perfect timing! You got that 40 pointer in there. Just imagine if Marokai had posted 20 more times. That would have been a shame.

[Sbane]

Marokai:

You guys certainly have a knack for names.

Abusive sarcasm: 3 points.

Seriously? There was no malice in his words there. Your list is a joke.