I know he acts like a jerk, but jerks should not be banned from this site. I know plenty of other people that act like jerks and they aren't banned. I support free speech for everyone, even for type1. I don't know if the mods can overturn bans, but if they can, they should limit bans to spammers and people who troll vote and leave.
Free type1
Posts
Total:
48
-->
@Alec
There are rules on this site and if Type1 had a problem he should have told it to bsh1 or Virtuoso. If he did and they said we will not change the rules from what you have said, Type1 should have taken that and simply changed the way he talks to people.
I support free speech for everyone, even for type1.
You are irresponsible if you allow everyone to speak their mind. Even in developed countries they understand death threats and call to violence should not be tolerated which is a way free speech is reduced. This is much better than allowing people to say "I will k*ll you" and only acting when the violence has started. If a policeman has enough reason to suggest that this person will attack then they should step in before it occurs. Maybe they have seen a weapon or the person is moving in closer to the other person. We should do what we can do de-escalate conflicts not escalate.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Even in developed countries they understand death threats and call to violence should not be tolerated which is a way free speech is reduced.
I should have been more specific. Death threats should be banned. However, it is not a good reason to ban type1 unless he has made death threat(s). If he has, I would support his ban. If he has merely said some mean stuff, being mean isin't a crime.
-->
@Alec
Sending death threats is "mean stuff". What "mean stuff" would you tolerate for the already restricted speech you have?If he has merely said some mean stuff, being mean isin't a crime.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Death threats, maybe threats in general, yelling bomb on an airplane or fire in a crowded movie theater without just cause should be banned.
Beyond that, I think all other free speech can be allowed.
Did Type1 make any death threats? Since I don't think he did the latter 2 exceptions for free speech (yelling bomb on an airplane or fire in a crowded movie theater without just cause), I don't see why he should be banned if he didn't make any death threats.
-->
@Alec
Death threats, maybe threats in general, yelling bomb on an airplane or fire in a crowded movie theater without just cause should be banned.Beyond that, I think all other free speech can be allowed.
Aren't you advocating for restricted speech? The speech your are talking about is not actually free because there are restrictions. Do you concede that and stop using incorrect terminology?
Did Type1 make any death threats? Since I don't think he did the latter 2 exceptions for free speech (yelling bomb on an airplane or fire in a crowded movie theater without just cause), I don't see why he should be banned if he didn't make any death threats.
Harassment is what I would also put on the list. If Type1 was given a warning which I am sure he was and was still doing it what was Virtuoso and bsh1 supposed to do in that situation? Not ban him?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Aren't you advocating for restricted speech?
I advocate for only minimal restrictions on free speech. Beyond the exceptions that I listed, I don't see any reason to ban any other speech.
The speech your are talking about is not actually free because there are restrictions. Do you concede that and stop using incorrect terminology?
I think I'm willing to concede this because there are technical restrictions.
Harassment is what I would also put on the list.
There are 2 contentions that I have:
1: Is Harassment bad enough that it deserves to be censored?
2: Did type1 commit harassment? If so, can you cite an example?
If Type1 was given a warning which I am sure he was and was still doing it what was Virtuoso and bsh1 supposed to do in that situation? Not ban him?
I don't think they should have banned him unless there is something about type1 that I don't know about. I don't interact with him much. I just think type1 acts immature and is a poor debater in general. Being a bad debater is not justification for being banned. If you have poor conduct in the debate, as what type1 has done, you deserve to lose a conduct point in the debate, you don't deserve to be banned just for being rude.
-->
@Alec
I advocate for only minimal restrictions on free speech. Beyond the exceptions that I listed, I don't see any reason to ban any other speech.
Free and restricted cannot be together. If you add a restriction to speech it is restricted speech. If you don't have restrictions it is free speech. What part of that don't you understand?
I think I'm willing to concede this because there are technical restrictions.
What do you mean by technical restrictions?
There are 2 contentions that I have:1: Is Harassment bad enough that it deserves to be censored?2: Did type1 commit harassment? If so, can you cite an example?
Yes to number 1 if given enough warning and they still carry on.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/691 For number 2 Ramshutu showed clear examples of him breaking the rules which does include harassment.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Free and restricted cannot be together. If you add a restriction to speech it is restricted speech. If you don't have restrictions it is free speech. What part of that don't you understand?
So, then I advocate for minimally restricted speech. I don't want people with extreme opinions censored though. In some forums, I sound like I troll, but in reality, I just have extreme opinions on some issues. I don't want to get banned on the basis of extreme opinions.
What do you mean by technical restrictions?
Threats in general, yelling bomb on an airplane or fire in a crowded movie theater without just cause. I should have said a word other then technical.
Yes to number 1 if given enough warning and they still carry on.https://www.debateart.com/debates/691 For number 2 Ramshutu showed clear examples of him breaking the rules which does include harassment.
Type1 did not recieve warning. The CoC states:
Bans may also be issued, without being preceded by warnings
I'm not sure if harassment is bad. For #2, I don't think Ramshutu showed examples of harassment. He did show examples of other things though, such as:
-Being an anti-Semite. I disagree with him, but is being an anti-semite worth being banned? I know there is a rule against it, but can this be reformed to be more accepting of other viewpoints?
-Being a jerk. If he acts like a jerk, he should lose a conduct point in a debate. Being a jerk, even repeatedly should not be worthy of getting banned.
-Being a troll. If he wants to joke around with stupid claims, puts them in a debate, and then lose, that's a free win for the contender.
-->
@Alec
If it impacts a person's well-being then they be justified in silencing you. Like saying something like you advocated for an ethno-state and wish to deport browns and blacks. That means those people who are deported will be impacted by what you have said which has been made into law.I don't want to get banned on the basis of extreme opinions.
Type1 did not recieve warning. The CoC states:Bans may also be issued, without being preceded by warnings
You can ask the bsh1 and Virtuoso if he has been warned. Note that can if they want to tell the person they are being banned. I think he was notified on his behaviour.
“Anyone who takes this seriously is a retard who should be in psychiatric ward to begin with.
No, people should not be obligated to "remove ideas they don't agree with" you stupid Orwellian wank biscuit.
Now go bother someone who gives a rats ass about your whiny, annoying finger wagging BS.”
“Listen up you fucking barrel of monkey cunts.”
“You are an ignorant neo-liberal cock holster that thinks being a leftist is about feelings and virtue signaling meanwhile you support the same capitalist establishment that is gang raping the earth and the human race. You know what you are? You're just a fucking conservative with a testosterone deficiency.”
Harassment. From Ramshutu's Round 1
-->
@Alec
If you want a free speech sh*thole - replete with thousands of debates about how bad jews are and dozens and dozens of spam debates where the individual starts a topic to be incendiary and which drown out all other legitimate debate content in a way that is detrimental for genuine users and debaters to engage, and so there is a deterioration into a collection of trolls, Call out thread and insults over time with little new or engaging content, you can have that just go to createdebate.
-->
@Ramshutu
As of right now, good point.
Type1 is using the website as Sparrow and probably another account as well.
-->
@Alec
Yeah, good that Ramshutu said it... the idea of this type of speech restriction is what most social media platforms are using as their reasoning. To ban harmful people / trolls to allow real speech happen that's constructive. Plus, it will bring more users or users won't leave bc the harmful people. I don't know how much i agree with it.. bc they can take that far like banning people for misgendering... that's taking it too far in my opinion. Bc we are telling the people that are biologically correct they're wrong. If i'm being respectful but don't want to call a guy a she... then they can either stop talking to me or looking at my posts. Forcing your beliefs on others is always wrong. But i agree with keeping things clean in regards to harmful users as long as the context was correct.
-->
@Alec
Type1 was aware of the site's rules and code of conduct. These rules apply equally to all users. He chose to violate those rules repeatedly, despite warnings. He was banned temporarily as a slap on the wrist for his choice to engage in misconduct. He will be back on the site shortly, when his temp ban expires.
-->
@Outplayz
We should modify the site's rules and CoC in order to prevent the type1s of the internet from being here but something that allows people to preach any honest opinion that they want. The CoC states that anti simetic speech is banned. I met this guy on DDO(Philipinoman) who had these views. He is not a spammer. He is not a troll. He just has extreme opinions on Jews. Should he be allowed on this site?
-->
@Alec
Someone with extreme views is allowed on this site. While the COC prohibits hate speech, the ban on hate speech is currently only enforced with that hate speech is used to harass or personally attack another user. In this respect, the COC could probably be updated to reflect current practices. But, I think it is demonstrably false to suggest that any user might not be allowed on this site due to the opinions they happen to hold. People of all opinions are welcome, so long as they do not engage in behavior which is abusive towards other users.
-->
@bsh1
+1 preach
-->
@Alec
Type1 is an extremist and is very irrational in his views. He blatently ignores the rules and breaks them by making fun of people and PERSONALLY insulting them.
It's not his views that got him banned, it was his attacks on people
-->
@Alec
This is false. Type1 was warned multiple times and notified about his imminent banning prior to being banned. So far as I can recall, only one user (not Type1) has ever been banned without prior notification, a step which was taken to prevent them going apesh*t towards other site users.Type1 did not recieve warning.
-->
@Alec
I know he acts like a jerk, but jerks should not be banned from this site. I know plenty of other people that act like jerks and they aren't banned. I support free speech for everyone, even for type1. I don't know if the mods can overturn bans, but if they can, they should limit bans to spammers and people who troll vote and leave.
I'd argue that Type1 is a type of spammer in that he fails debates in such quantity at such minimum effort that he distorts debate ratings and creates trash that obstructs access to more worthy works of effort. I think I would prefer that Type1 had been a troll vote and leave kind of person because then at least he'd be gone. If your limit is spammers and trolls, I think type1 exceeds that limit.
Look, we all know type1 is the sort to keep touching the electric fence even after the voltage has knocked him out a few times. Type1 is bound to make mgmt. escort him out the door eventually because at heart that is the game that type1 is playing.
-->
@Ramshutu
Monty Pyhton was funny af
He's here on an alt as Sparrow, bsh1 and virtuoso seem okay with this.
-->
@RationalMadman
That's odd. But are you are reliable source for this information? Is it possible you are wrong?
-->
@Ramshutu
and there was much rejoicing.
-->
@oromagi
Hahaha I have given irrefutable proof in private, just worry about yourself thanks.
12 days later
Look, we all know type1 is the sort to keep touching the electric fence even after the voltage has knocked him out a few times. Type1 is bound to make mgmt. escort him out the door eventually because at heart that is the game that type1 is playing.
...zzzaaap.....thud
-->
@oromagi
There's a high voltage on that there fence...esp. for people who threaten to engage in retaliatory voting and acts of violence against other users.