Appeal to overturn the ban on the Hammer

Author: Wylted

Posts

Total: 44
Topic's author
#1
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
The following plea in no way addresses whether BSH1 abused his power or not, to what extent and to what purpose. It merely acknowledges that he holds power. 

My report on the events surrounding the HOF election will be out when it is ready, either in piecemeal or all in one shot depending on what the community wants to occur. You can discuss below to give me an ideal on how to pursue that. I am taking my role seriously, and all reports will be 100% accurate and the final word on the events that took place.

Conclusion
In reference to theHammer’s ban I have reviewed whether the ban in and of itself was legal or not. According to the letter of the law it seems like a legal  ban. Section C of the code of conduct in sub-section 2, it appears BSH1 was authorized to ban the Hammer for disobeying a mod’s direct order who was acting with-in his authority. With that said there is some extenuating circumstances I am asking the chief moderator to look at and consider when it comes to the Hammer’sban, and hopefully he takes his job seriously enough to read on and consider the facts.

Body

On October 18th the Hammer made a thread claiming to have manipulated the HOF election, it was concluded that he was trolling by BSH1 chief moderator. BSH1 attempted to get him to share screen shots of the alleged vote manipulation. This created a type of double bind for theHammer. IF the allegations were true then the Hammer would be betraying people he communicates with on Facebook routinely, making enemies that know personally identifying information about theHammer. If the confession was false, then coming clean would have also resulted in a ban. Either way, this is an inescapable doublebind.

In the confession it was stated that most of the early voters in the nomination phase of voting were recruited votes. The following people voted for RM in the early phase of nomination voting in this order;

1. Pressf4respect
2. virtuoso
3. Bsh1
4. Bmdrocks
5. Trent405
6. Supa
7. oromagi
8. avoiddeath
9. Arose
10. mharman
11. Waterphoenix

I have decided to eliminate bsh1, virtuoso and supa as suspects in this pool of candidates and have sent PM’s interrogating the rest to determine if they were in Cahoots with the Hammer, I will release the information to the proper authorities once these individuals get backto me. Some of these names aren’t very active in the forum so it is reasonable to suspect a sort of conspiracy to get rational madman into the HOF among this group. I’ll see what is going on when these individuals give me their responses.

A Plea to BSH1

the Hammer did a very brave thing by confessing his involvement in trying to rig the HOF election. I think he genuinely just wanted the truth to come out. Unfortunately we will likely never know because he has most likely decided to be a martyr and will now claim he is lying to protect people close to him. I want to ask BSH1 to reconsider his decision on the length of the ban theHammer has. In order to get to the bottom of this conspiracy, I need access to The Hammer so I can interrogate him. Heseems to want to cooperate. It doesn’t look like his intention wasto take away a win from RM. He seems to acknowledge that RM would have won without his interference, and I agree. Even without the votes mentioned RM was an overwhelming favorite. It would seem that The Hammer’s only goal was to clear his conscience in a very public way.

The problem with such a lengthy ban in this scenario is that it discourages other users complicit in this plot from coming forward and being honest oftheir own accord. It punishes people who can expose conspiracies by showing them if they do come forward they will have to face not just consequences for their actions but severe consequences.

The best mod decision to encourage other conspirators to come forward is to reduce the length of the ban on TheHammer, and to possibly even give these people a limited immunity to confess their crimes. The other option is them staying silent and us forever losing the truth to the sandsof time.

  • 1. In order to encourage other users involved in this plot to come forward, please unban the Hammer.

  • 2. In order to allow me to continue my investigation into possible collusion and obstruction, unban the Hammer.

  • 3. In order to encourage future perpetrators to come forward so that way a path to justice can commence, unban The Hammer.
I know it is tough to walk back a decision, but I think you should consider the evidence, swallow your pride and be mature enough to change your mind. In fact, I already think you are those things, otherwise I would not have even bothered writing this report on his particular situation.

#UnBanTheHam


Topic's author
#2
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
A few of those people have already gotten back to me,this brings down the total number of possible coconspirators to 7
#3
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
Sad thing is, none of this controversy was necessary in any way. He handily won, and even without controversy, he still would've been in at least the top 3. 

Topic's author
#4
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@PressF4Respect
Nobody is more upset about this controversy than me. Who has been tasked with pursuing the truth and disseminating the information to the public. Consuming countless hours of my life that could be better spent elsewhere. 
#5
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
#UnbanTheHam
#6
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
#UnbanTheHam

Don't hop on these, but there is a bit of overreacting fmpov, and a 7 day would have done justice, since the HoF is a subscript of DART, and not in CoC. Not cooperating with mods is a ban, but a 30day is crazy
#7
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
Maybe the alleged "lies" adds an extra 3 days...but still... we don't know if he is being truthful
Topic's author
#8
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Vader
It's clear that this was an emotional response from BSH1, I am hoping now that he has a cooler head he will correct his over reaction
#9
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Wylted
I can agree on that
#10
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I support making it a 14 day ban instead of 30.

He did do wrong and did obstruct justice and must be made an example of to a degree. He barely uses the website for months and comes back to do that, he deserves a 2 week ban nothing more, for the sake of deterrence of others doing what he did more than accurate retribution in and of itself.

#11
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wylted
1. You don't know the intentions of the TheHammer so don't act like it.
2. The intent doesn't escape you from the a rule breaking. Maybe TheHammer could get a weaker ruling but TheHammer did break 3 rules that bsh1 made clear.
3. You would still have conspiracy theories. Don't pretend you would do otherwise. You and RM can't help but spread your opinions. 
4. This is also heavily loaded with your opinions. This means I am either taking bsh1's side or Wylted's side. Optics of course would be pro bsh1 because he is the head moderator and even consistency sake because bsh1 actually does explain his point and puts his own motives if other people disagree. This can be easily see when we had a vote for the public ban log. bsh1 was not for it but eventually decided to do it anyway. I can't see the same thing from you.
5. Your investigation doesn't matter. You are no authority on the matter instead just some random user who has opinions.
6. The rules shouldn't be broke just because you say so and until you can counter the 3 claims bsh1 made then you have no ground to stand on. 

but I think you should consider the evidence
Lol. Where?

swallow your pride and be mature enough to change your mind 
Rich coming from you.

In fact, I already think you are those things, otherwise I would not have even bothered writing this report on his particular situation.
I find this hypocritical. You have shown to like conspiracy theories not swallow up your pride while bsh1 has. This is an unfair ask of bsh1 removing TheHammer did break the rules. I thought conservatives cared about the rule of law but all I see is double standards. 
Topic's author
#12
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As a conservative, I can tell you I could give a shit less about the rule of law. My ideology comes first
#13
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wylted
As a conservative, I can tell you I could give a shit less about the rule of law. My ideology comes first
At least you are being honest. Nothing else was addressed and I only threw that in to see what you would say but didn't realize you were incapable of dealing with everything else but the obvious thing that is going on.

Why should bsh1 set a side his kind of duty to governing this site properly for your favoritism to TheHammer?
Topic's author
#14
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'll address the rest when I am not between sets or at work. I think between this thread and the wylted commission final report I have already addressed your criticisms and at this point you are talking past me and ignoring my already supplied rebuttals in both threads. On a side note. The rule of law is why I ended up in an abusive foster home, why the nazis were allowed to kill 6 million Jews and why a kid smoking a joint one time with some friends can have his future destroyed and not ve able to contribute as maximally possible to the betterment of humanity. Anybody who is pro rule of law, and even lawyers not actively fighting against the system and other participants who do participate in the system as opposed to it, are all pieces of shits who I would have exterminated if I were in power. 
Topic's author
#15
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
1. Not knowing the motives of the hammer for example was already addressed in the portion of the report where it  also talks about how BSH1 does not know the motives but acted on the assumption he was not actually helping the investigation.  
Topic's author
#16
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
So I acknowledged that neither me nor bsh1 know his motives but bsh1 acted under the assumption his motives were to hinder the investigation when his efforts theoretically could have provided more fruits if bsh1 did not ban him. Bsh1 whether knowingly or intentionally actually obstructed my investigation into collusion by banning the hammer and the community burdened me with the responsibility of investigating this matter
Topic's author
#17
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Furthermore, ai am now burdened with impeachment proceedings by the highest authority of the DART elite, and since we do bot have elected officials which I plan to remedy by December than I am the closest thing to the voice of the community, which I reluctantly accept
#18
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Wylted
"As a conservative, I can tell you I could give a shit less about the rule of law. My ideology comes first"

That scraping sound beneath you is William F. Buckley carving curses on the coffin lid.

Topic's author
#19
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@oromagi
I think this is am area where my mind can be changed, which is why I bring it up all the time, but nobody ever tries to persuade me they just shame my beliefs. I want an in depth conversation on this. So I can either solidify my belief or change my mind. Hopefully one day I will get it. 
Topic's author
#20
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
People who do offer arguments, ignore my arguments altogether.  Just one time I would like some rebuttals to my premises instead of having them overlooked on this matter
Topic's author
#21
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
I think to be fair, a lot of it has to do with narcissism and thinking I am above rules. I have empathy for others, which makes my brand of narcissism distinct, but it doesn't change what it is. 
#22
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Wylted
I know we live bewildered by the age of Trump but there is no intellectual harmony between actual conservatism and some wholesale rejection of the rule of law.
Topic's author
#23
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@oromagi
To be fair, Trump admits to not being a conservative, and I call myself that, so people know I am not some brain dead progressive.  I think John Adam's is the intellectual founder of modern conservatism and seemed pretty pro rule of law, despite his unethical attempts to retain power when he clearly lost to Jefferson. 
#24
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
again,seriously
#25
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wylted
The rule of law is why I ended up in an abusive foster home
Not my fault. Was this supposed to guilt trip me? This is an appeal to emotion. Should I list my personal experiences as well so that we have an feelings fight? I wouldn't because unlike you I am not even going to attempt to use my personal experiences in anyway to poison the well or at worst as an argument for you being convincing. Instead of actually building upon those misfortunes you instead bring it up to help your case.
why the nazis were allowed to kill 6 million Jews
So it was the because of the rule of law instead of well the white supremacist ideology? Okay. 
why a kid smoking a joint one time with some friends can have his future destroyed 
So you are against rules then? If not why bring this up? I would definitely enjoy your answer and see if one you don't come back with a non-sequitur while also other holes I can predict just by typing this. I'll wait.
Anybody who is pro rule of law, and even lawyers not actively fighting against the system and other participants who do participate in the system as opposed to it, are all pieces of shits who I would have exterminated if I were in power. 
I am guessing you are for Anarchy. I'll wait for that revolution. I think the socialist revolution is more likely than this so do keep in mind how unlikely it is to occur.

To summarize Wylted would use his own bad memories to guilt trip a person who had no part to play in his bad past events. This shows he is willing to use his own feelings to win an argument, not go above it but instead try to poison the well because he doesn't actually give a damn about logical arguments instead cares about using any cheap tactic to look better. Everything else requires answers because I didn't know he was a Christian anarchist. If not then stop making an argument for anarchy. 
#26
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wylted
Not knowing the motives of the hammer for example was already addressed in the portion of the report where it  also talks about how BSH1 does not know the motives but acted on the assumption he was not actually helping the investigation.  
Please stop removing key information that bsh1 has stated that came into his conclusion. This would be clear if you care about what is right instead of being an ideologue or maybe you don't care and you spend a lot of time thinking, typing these long-ass opinions. I'll choose the first claim I made. 

"I make my rulings based on what I find probable, and all available evidence indicates that Hammer willfully lied to me. That's really the bottom line. I use a probability standard, not a "no reasonable doubt" standard, so the fact that other explanations exist is not a sufficient reason to exonerate Hammer."

Since I have reminded you of this. Actually rebut the claims brought forward instead of feigning ignorance. You have no excuse now because I directly messaged you bsh1's response. 
Bsh1 whether knowingly or intentionally actually obstructed my investigation into collusion by banning the hammer and the community burdened me with the responsibility of investigating this matter
Why should anyone care about your investigation? You are a random conspiracy theorist online and no authority figure. You have no excuse spreading your opinions when bsh1 has already made his comments regarding this.
i am now burdened with impeachment proceedings by the highest authority of the DART elite
Whatever you do publicly make sure to tag me because I will be addressing all the nonsensical ideas you have.
since we do bot have elected officials which I plan to remedy by December than I am the closest thing to the voice of the community, which I reluctantly accept 
If you do it within the bounds of what is allowed then I won't care. 
Topic's author
#27
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't propose a lawless society, but one with perfect laws. If a law is imperfect there is no reason to follow it. This was to point out we should not adhere to or care about imperfect laws, because being willing to adhere to bad laws, is why we had slavery and why Hitler got away with killing 6 million Jews. I used a personal anecdote, to further prove my point that laws are imperfect and should be disregarded. Not all laws are imperfect. Not raping people seems like a good law for most circumstances, so I would advise following g that law.
#28
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wylted
I don't propose a lawless society, but one with perfect laws.
Quote where you advocated for laws. Give me a break. You advocated laws were bad which heavily implies you are against laws. You even got baited by my off-hand comment to be an anarchist.
This was to point out we should not adhere to or care about imperfect laws, because being willing to adhere to bad laws, is why we had slavery and why Hitler got away with killing 6 million Jews.
The word "bad" was missing from your previous responses. Not my fault you pretty much made an argument for anarchy because of the crucial words you missed.
I used a personal anecdote, to further prove my point that laws are imperfect and should be disregarded. Not all laws are imperfect. Not raping people seems like a good law for most circumstances, so I would advise following g that law.
No you didn't. It was an appeal to emotion because you were using an emotional anecdote to appear convincing. Even here you can't even make a good point. Instead of explaining how anything was supporting a hidden imperfect law claim you pretty much state a truism. Good job showing how incompetent you are at addressing my points and even developing your own points while also not clearly laying out what you mean.

I look forward to another not well thought through response. I also like it how you didn't even bother to address the other complaints. You are simply picking what you like because maybe you can't argue against the other points.
Topic's author
#29
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Your IQ is showing. I never advocated for anarchy, you assumed my premises. All you have to do is ask for my premises and you can skip assumptions and straw manning
#30
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wylted
All you had to do is clearly lay out positions but it is my fault you can't answer questions giving arguments for anarchy.