Do you agree with Einzige's banning?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Absolutely not.

[/quote]

He didn't even get around to updating his Eastwood Timeline!

[Lunar]

Yes.

This forum's not medicine, getting permanently banned isn't cruel if you've ignored all warnings and second chances handed to you along the way.

[SvenssonRS]

Absolutely not.

Dave wants debate to be civilized. He doesn't want crazy psychos screaming insults at each other. That doesn't actually promote debate or hearing other peoples' ideas. Anything of interest gets drowned by the ravings of trolls like Einzige or Libertas.

Comparision between Einzige and Libertard is rather poor.

Indeed. At least Libertas was a decent person in private. Einzige was pretty much just an asshole, and if he was banned for it, I can't really disagree.

If, however, it went beyond that - like mod targeting, as with Libertas' case...

You missed the insane Heinrich rant or am I missing what mod targeting is?

No, that's part of the reason I considered him an asshole. In fact, I'd be far more willing to, in Einzige's case, look past the mods targeting a single poster simply by virtue of said poster being a dick.

I do, however, still think the moderator job should entail more than single-mindedly targeting out singular posters for banning.

[Lunar]

We do other stuff too.  The other day we played Yahtzee.

[Torie]

The reality of course is that in the past these guys were given multiple opportunities to tack, and save themselves, and even though I agreed with Libertas on basically nothing (and some of his views I found profoundly execrable personally), I did try to work with him privately to save himself.

This can't be about ideology, unless it gets to the point of shocking folks who just drop by really, because the level of hatred and bigotry gets too much (what Dave Leips calls I guess rather sloppily, as "hyperbole" because he hates thinking that ideology should be a factor at all). It has to be about character and conduct. In the end, you need to treat this Forum with respect - whatever you views - or you might get in trouble. It really, really, is very simple.

[Eraserhead]

Einzige had treated the forum with respect since returning.

[Torie]

Einzige had treated the forum with respect since returning.

That seems to be the case, although I am not sure (in part, because I have been too busy with my mouse redistricting, what a fun game that is for me, and I am getting  pretty good at it I think  ), but that is more about second chances isn't it? On that issue reasonable folks can differ, and have, on this Forum.

[dead0man]

Einzige had treated the forum with respect since returning.

If he had done that before he was permanently banned he could have stayed.  A permanent ban is not some kind of warning.  He had PLENTY of chances to stop being a giant asshole, he chose to push and push instead of treat others with respect.  If we want bans and threats of bans to have ANY pull at all we have to enforce the ones we have in place.  I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for so many people.

Anarchy is not a good way to run a message board (or a grocery store or a bar or a commune or anything).

[Gustaf]

I respectfully disagree.  One of the greatest epiphanies I ever had happened when I was about eighteen years old, as I was pinned on the grass by a man twice my size, who held my throat in one hand and a knife in the other, just inches away from my face.

Open your mind, man.  Information doesn't always come under the most ideal circumstances.  In fact, in my experience the most useful kind often comes under the least ideal circumstances.

Whether you or I agree isn't really the issue though. It is Dave's board and he doesn't want this to be one or those forums where anything goes. There are plenty of that kind out there if you want to join one of those. Hell, you could even start your own.

I don't really get why people keep running these arguments. I'll give you an analogy. Let's say you're at a Greenpeace meeting. The board has suggested that a lot of money be spent on an ad campaign in national television that encourages people to do little things like turning off the lights when leaving a room, so as to save energy. If someone were to say that the money could be better spent on something else - say lobbying congressmen to pass an energy tax, that'd be a valid criticism. But if someone were to go "why the hell should we care about the environment? I think it's just liberal mumbo-jumbo anyway" then that person should probably rather just leave Greenpeace and try to become a host in the world of talk radio or something.

Has any of you people actually looked at the rare inputs Dave has done on what kind of forum he actually wants? How he wants debates to be? The kind of lenient über-respect he shows to posters that should've been banned a long, long time ago is the kind of respect he expects everyone to show everyone on here. There is no way in which a forum run by Dave would ever allow someone like Einzige. If you feel passionately about allowing people to call their opponents fat cocksuckers, pillaging nazis, retards and so on, then this place isn't really for you.

-------------------------

P.S. Angus, I find your analogy weak, because I don't infer from it that cutting other peoples' throats should be allowed.

[Nym90]

Good points, Gustaf.

And the "he's been well behaved since he came back" argument is like saying that if someone who is sentenced to life in prison were to escape, they shouldn't be captured and returned to prison until they commit another crime.

[Eraserhead]

Good points, Gustaf.

And the "he's been well behaved since he came back" argument is like saying that if someone who is sentenced to life in prison were to escape, they shouldn't be captured and returned to prison until they commit another crime.

That's kind of a hyperbolic comparison. This is a message board! In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter much. If people are willing to contribute and mostly behave, we should just let them stay. Obviously this was essentially the course that was taken with Xahar and it turned out alright. Honestly, there are posters who are just as grating as Einzige was in his bad days who are allowed to stay because they're old timers as well. I'm not seeing a lot of consistency here. Just my thoughts on the subject.

And I guess it really was you who dropped the banhammer on him, huh?

[Gustaf]

Good points, Gustaf.

And the "he's been well behaved since he came back" argument is like saying that if someone who is sentenced to life in prison were to escape, they shouldn't be captured and returned to prison until they commit another crime.

That's kind of a hyperbolic comparison. This is a message board! In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter much. If people are willing to contribute and mostly behave, we should just let them stay. Obviously this was essentially the course that was taken with Xahar and it turned out alright. Honestly, there are posters who are just as grating as Einzige was in his bad days who are allowed to stay because they're old timers as well. I'm not seeing a lot of consistency here. Just my thoughts on the subject.

And I guess it really was you who dropped the banhammer on him, huh?

But if you want a message board that is so different from the one Dave wants maybe this isn't the one for you?

Besides, Xahar was temporarily banned for one (grave) offense. Einzige was permanently banned for behaving like an ass in a permanent fashion.

[minionofmidas]

No, I didn't and still don't. I also can comprehend the decision even if I cannot share it, and don't particularly care.
As to a automatic banning of returning banned members, while there may be specific circumstances calling for an exception (certainly if years and years have elapsed), it should of course be the norm, and unless the original ban is recognized as an error it would automatically follow in this case.

[dead0man]

Honestly, there are posters who are just as grating as Einzige was in his bad days who are allowed to stay because they're old timers as well.

cite?

[Eraserhead]

Good points, Gustaf.

And the "he's been well behaved since he came back" argument is like saying that if someone who is sentenced to life in prison were to escape, they shouldn't be captured and returned to prison until they commit another crime.

That's kind of a hyperbolic comparison. This is a message board! In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter much. If people are willing to contribute and mostly behave, we should just let them stay. Obviously this was essentially the course that was taken with Xahar and it turned out alright. Honestly, there are posters who are just as grating as Einzige was in his bad days who are allowed to stay because they're old timers as well. I'm not seeing a lot of consistency here. Just my thoughts on the subject.

And I guess it really was you who dropped the banhammer on him, huh?

But if you want a message board that is so different from the one Dave wants maybe this isn't the one for you?

Besides, Xahar was temporarily banned for one (grave) offense. Einzige was permanently banned for behaving like an ass in a permanent fashion.

Xahar's offense was much more serious than anything Einzige ever did. I don't think that's disputable. And obviously Einzige didn't behave like an ass in a permanent fashion. I understand you were the one on the other end of his pain-killer induced blow-up but, to be perfectly honest, I never had a single problem with the guy and actually had a couple of interesting exchanges with him which is part of the reason I'm marginally bummed to see him go. Maybe you've never had problems with the very few people I've had serious issues with on here either...

As for your first point, it's a good one. I am pondering the idea of leaving although this moderator situation would only be a minor factor in that decision. I do still enjoy a number of things about this forum though, believe it or not.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Absolutely not.

Dave wants debate to be civilized. He doesn't want crazy psychos screaming insults at each other. That doesn't actually promote debate or hearing other peoples' ideas. Anything of interest gets drowned by the ravings of trolls like Einzige or Libertas.

Comparision between Einzige and Libertard is rather poor.

Indeed. At least Libertas was a decent person in private. Einzige was pretty much just an asshole, and if he was banned for it, I can't really disagree.

If, however, it went beyond that - like mod targeting, as with Libertas' case...

The difference is that Einzige acted gently after his return, while Libertas never used any of many second chances he got.

If Libertas returns and acts gently, he should be allowed to stay, but I doubt he'd ever change.

[Gustaf]

Good points, Gustaf.

And the "he's been well behaved since he came back" argument is like saying that if someone who is sentenced to life in prison were to escape, they shouldn't be captured and returned to prison until they commit another crime.

That's kind of a hyperbolic comparison. This is a message board! In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter much. If people are willing to contribute and mostly behave, we should just let them stay. Obviously this was essentially the course that was taken with Xahar and it turned out alright. Honestly, there are posters who are just as grating as Einzige was in his bad days who are allowed to stay because they're old timers as well. I'm not seeing a lot of consistency here. Just my thoughts on the subject.

And I guess it really was you who dropped the banhammer on him, huh?

But if you want a message board that is so different from the one Dave wants maybe this isn't the one for you?

Besides, Xahar was temporarily banned for one (grave) offense. Einzige was permanently banned for behaving like an ass in a permanent fashion.

Xahar's offense was much more serious than anything Einzige ever did. I don't think that's disputable. And obviously Einzige didn't behave like an ass in a permanent fashion. I understand you were the one on the other end of his pain-killer induced blow-up but, to be perfectly honest, I never had a single problem with the guy and actually had a couple of interesting exchanges with him which is part of the reason I'm marginally bummed to see him go. Maybe you've never had problems with the very few people I've had serious issues with on here either...

As for your first point, it's a good one. I am pondering the idea of leaving although this moderator situation would only be a minor factor in that decision. I do still enjoy a number of things about this forum though, believe it or not.

Einzige behaved horrible whenever anyone actually replied to this threads with something other than flattering of his ego. And he blew up at people all the time in a completely psychotic fashion.

But I think you're missing the point here. Lewis seems to be the only person opposed to the Einzige ban who gets it.

This ban is just a direct function of the first ban. Xahar is different, because he was temporarily banned to begin with. And, as I said, a temporary ban might be reasonable when someone commits one offense which is sufficiently grave. If it's not sufficiently grave you just get warned. Einzige received multiple warnings regarding his general behaviour. A mod review is sort of the same as a temporary ban, just less severe. Once you get permabanned, that's it. And it's hardly reasonable not to ban Einzige, given all the stuff he did and the general standard of this forum.

P.S. This has nothing to do with him calling me a balding Norselander or asking me whether I have a Jewess bitch at home to screw. It was offensive in a general sense, but not really to me personally. I just found him to be a disgusting and not particularly interesting person. Apparently he fooled a lot of people into buying into his own self-image as a deep thinker, but I never saw anything from him that was new, profound or interesting. He seemed like a pretty typical immature Nietzsche-lover. Not that that's relevant to his ban, of course.

[Eraserhead]

Uh-huh...

Anyway, I didn't agree with the original ban either, of course. I'd only support bans in the most absolutely dire of circumstances. The extension of the ban is just even more offensive in a sense because he was clearly going out of his way not to ruffle anyone's feathers. He was either a changed man or a beaten man... or both. These are just my points of view though and I felt like sharing them. I'm fully aware that The Leip (when he makes his semiannual appearances) and his crew do not share them.

I also don't think I really ever did anything to flatter his ego beyond saying that he shouldn't be permanently banned. Heh.

[Gustaf]

Uh-huh...

Anyway, I didn't agree with the original ban either, of course. I'd only support bans in the most absolutely dire of circumstances. The extension of the ban is just even more offensive in a sense because he was clearly going out of his way not to ruffle anyone's feathers. He was either a changed man or a beaten man... or both. These are just my points of view though and I felt like sharing them. I'm fully aware that The Leip (when he makes his semiannual appearances) and his crew do not share them.

I also don't think I really ever did anything to flatter his ego beyond saying that he shouldn't be permanently banned. Heh.

Given how he viewed everyone else as tools to manipulate I'm not convinced that the change was sincere. Anyway, the decision to permanently ban someone sort of makes the point of reform a bit moot. He could have reformed before when he was told to by many people, myself included.

Besides, he was a bit of an idiot. For the longest time he tried to convince me to delete some thread in the off-topic board that was morally offensive, in order to prove that I was a consistent social conservative. That was tiring.

[fezzyfestoon]

To be honest, I'm starting to get sick of the moderators' go-to defense of "because I said so".  I'm all for keeping things civil here, but we're not dealing with murderers here.  If the guy was different, why can't he stay?  If he gets out of hand again, just ban him again.  It's not nearly as big a deal as moderators make their duties out to be.

[Lunar]

but we're not dealing with murderers here.

We're also not dealing with prison here.  Being banned, if you ignore repeated warnings and second chances, isn't especially cruel.

If the guy was different, why can't he stay

Because in order for warnings and threats of punishment to work to , there needs to be a greater prospective punishment than "Okay, you can troll and come back with sock accounts and break all of our rules and get banned, but if you come back and promise not to do it again, you'll be fine."

[angus]

P.S. Angus, I find your analogy weak, because I don't infer from it that cutting other peoples' throats should be allowed.

Nor do I.  In fact, that's exactly the point, isn't it?  There was no authority present so it really didn't matter whether throat-cutting should or shouldn't be allowed.  In retrospect, I'm not sure that the guy would have cut me.  But at the time I felt he might.  Moreover, I felt that my immediate actions or words would decide whether I would be cut.  Thus, the challenge was upon me. 

It's a perfect analogy.  If some poster calls me a cocksucker or a retard, there are about a million ways I can react, aren't there?  No doubt we should not be calling each other cocksuckers or retards--or threatening others with knives--but it happens from time to time.  And such instances give us a glimpse into the minds of others.  Or into their proclivities.  It is an essential part of who a poster is.  Just as your desperate need for security over liberty--even to the point of censorship--gives us an insight into your psyche and allows us to interpret your posts appropriately, the unfettered emotional diatribes of other posters give us an insight into their psyches and allow us to interpret their posts appropriately.  Such insight will help alleviate miscommunication. 

Remember John?  He was like E. F. Hutton, you know.  When John posted, people paid attention.  "Your choose" he would type.  I don't know if he was really intellectually so challenged or if that was just his on-line persona, but the simplicity with which he viewed the world was refreshing.  I think everyone who read his posts felt that way.  And we looked past all the misspellings and egregious miscarriages of grammar to see what he had to say.  That was many years ago.  People were more tolerant then, and less dismissive of posters whose style was unorthodox. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

That was many years ago.  People were more tolerant then, and less dismissive of posters whose style was unorthodox. 

Amen, and the root of the problem.....part of the reason Gustaf and his colleagues have the sh**ttiest job possible on a forum is the whiners who constantly "report" posts.  I couldn't do what these guys do, because I'd ignore the reports of all whiners. 

[Sam Spade]

That was many years ago.  People were more tolerant then, and less dismissive of posters whose style was unorthodox. 

Amen, and the root of the problem.....part of the reason Gustaf and his colleagues have the sh**ttiest job possible on a forum is the whiners who constantly "report" posts.  I couldn't do what these guys do, because I'd ignore the reports of all whiners. 

Then you can take my position when I'm done.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

That was many years ago.  People were more tolerant then, and less dismissive of posters whose style was unorthodox. 

Amen, and the root of the problem.....part of the reason Gustaf and his colleagues have the sh**ttiest job possible on a forum is the whiners who constantly "report" posts.  I couldn't do what these guys do, because I'd ignore the reports of all whiners. 

Then you can take my position when I'm done.

Oh, you ignore whiners?  Then you're my hero, Spade