Why are we banning wylted?

Author: Lunatic
Hall of Fame

Posts

Total: 302
Topic's author
#1
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,938
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
I know Wylted has always been controversial, and a bit trollish. Dude probably has a bunch of mental issues as well, and I've seen him being offensive. I could almost buy many of the other reasons to ban wylted temporarily (within context to how strict moderators here are, and I've come to accept that isn't going to change). Misterchris said he did something unforgivable, and I got it from warren that he "catfished" a 14 year old or something. That sounds bad on paper, until iLikePie just linked me to the thread. Not only was he clearly non-serious, he was acting like a 13 year to make a point. There was nothing pedophiley about that exchange unless you were already looking for an excuse to ban him again, which, let's be honest, you probably were. If you get on the mods bad side, it seems like they will take any excuse to ban you lol. To be clear I thought the allegations against bsh1 for pedophilia were pretty dumb as well, but I bet most the mods here took bsh's side on that one too lol. 

Wtf. 
#2
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@Lunatic
Please link this thread, I'd like to read it myself
Topic's author
#3
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,938
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
"Repeatedly glorifying rape and sexual assualt"

He wasn't praising people for it. At best I think he is trying to be shocking and get attention, at worse his joke just bad. Regardless, his crime in this therad that he is supposedly banned for is pretty light imo.



#4
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Lunatic
First off, I am going to make a couple of things clear.

1. I don't agree with Wytled in his stances and jokes and believe what he said in the thread is deserving of a prolonged ban
2. I do think Wytled's permaban could arguably be justified, hence why I am neutral on this topic

But what I am not fond of is the banning of his new account. First off, it is public information that Wylted's ban was reconsider and changed to permanent out of nowhere in admitted statement. Virtuoso and Wytled have history and personal vendetta, and he even stated that he'd refuse to take cases with. 

I believe the best basis of action was to allow Wylted to return, on the premise that he would not do anything major to ban, otherwise he would be permabanned. This scenario happened with various other members such as ethang, disgusted, etc, yet the same scenario did not happen with Wylted. In fact, Wylted's account was NEVER banned from my recollection

Finally, what Wylted said in that joke was a poorly taste joke that people who were not on DDO would not understand with Wylted. We have to understand that this isn't DDO, and that poorly tasted jokes like that do not draw the similar attention, and they have to be dealt with on that premise. He has also skinned the line many times, faking being transgender, faking mental illness and being suicidal, and saying derogatory words. However he was not banned for this once, and was only permabanned for that thread
#5
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
After reviewing their history, the moderation team has decided that Singularity, AKA Wylted, will be indefinitely banned from the site. This is an unusual course of action for the moderation team to take. A few key points that went into our decision include:

Repeatedly glorifying rape and sexual assault;
Repeatedly glorifying hate groups
Repeatedly glorifying sexual abuse towards minors, and most disturbingly,
Portraying himself as a 13-year-old-girl towards a 14-year-old boy; and
Multi-accounting to circumvent his ban.

Let me make this clear: The moderation team will not tolerate any glorification of Nazis, rape, pedophilia, and sexual assault.

This is all there is to it. Point blank. I don't care if you're trolling or not. It's about protecting ourselves legally and protecting newcomers to the site. 

#6
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
This thread in regard has been deleted by moderation. This is an overstep in authority
#7
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
I do apologize for deleting the thread in haste I wish there was a way for the moderators to hide a thread from the public. That said, I do have screenshots of that thread. 

Topic's author
#8
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,938
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@David
Repeatedly glorifying rape and sexual assault;
Again how is that "glorifying" it? He raised a question for debate on a debate site. If people dis-agree with him, awesome. Simply bringing a controversial topic into discussion shouldn't be bannable or saying it is "glorifying it".

Repeatedly glorifying hate groups
It's not even illegal to be in a hate group lol or even be discriminatory. It's illegal to act on those things, murder, etc, but if he has views people consider are "gross" then so what? Freedom of speech and all that.

Repeatedly glorifying sexual abuse towards minors, and most disturbingly,
Portraying himself as a 13-year-old-girl towards a 14-year-old boy; and
You've now convienently deleted not only the debate you are reffering to, but the thread as well so no one can see how ridiculous the context is. The kid responded to his post saying he was 14 (the post was clearly satirical), and it's not like wylted continued to try and harass him. The kid and apparently you did not understand the satire. I think you were so excited at an oppertunity to ban over a grudge you guys just spun a narrative here that allowed you to ban him easier. People shouldn't be banned just because they are unlikable, yet that continues to happen here all the time. 

Did you think what bsh did classified as sexual abuse towards minors? Because that situation is really no different than this one.

This is all there is to it. Point blank. I don't care if you're trolling or not. It's about protecting ourselves legally and protecting newcomers to the site. 

I think you'd get a lot more newcomers if they thought they could actually post about whatever they wanted without the thread being deleted or them being banned. If you haven't noticed this place is objectively dead. 
Topic's author
#9
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,938
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Vader
2. I do think Wytled's permaban could arguably be justified, hence why I am neutral on this topic
why's that?

Finally, what Wylted said in that joke was a poorly taste joke that people who were not on DDO would not understand with Wylted. We have to understand that this isn't DDO, and that poorly tasted jokes like that do not draw the similar attention, and they have to be dealt with on that premise. He has also skinned the line many times, faking being transgender, faking mental illness and being suicidal, and saying derogatory words. However he was not banned for this once, and was only permabanned for that thread
It's the internet, why does anyone have to be truthful about their life? Unless your trying to do something illegal like solicit nudes from a minor, what people claim online is their perrogative.
#10
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,146
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Wow talk about Mod abuse. MEEP in bound you corrupt hack
#11
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Lunatic
  • I don't  envy the MODs their task of even-handed management of inter-DART relations and I don't think I'd do a better job at it myself so I tend to support the MODs judgement as much as possible.  I
    • I agree that this particular example does not seem particularly damnable but I am highly skeptical that there's some future in which Wylted returns as a law-abiding citizen.
      • Wylted is such an relentless escalator- give-him-an-inch-and-he'll-take-a-mile kind of personality that I have no doubt he will always eventually end up meriting  any ban. 
      • the secret alt'ing by itself is a major violation.
    • I also personally feel no responsibility to learn the ages of DARTers for to adjust my behavior accordingly.    I consider this an adult site and neither encourage nor condemn younger participation so long as I can remain unburdened by their age. 
    • I often enjoyed interacting with Wylted and his many alt's but I've seen too many compulsively offensive trolls like Wylted to believe that any parole might prove worthwhile

Topic's author
#12
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,938
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
I don't  envy the MODs their task of even-handed management of inter-DART relations and I don't think I'd do a better job at it myself so I tend to support the MODs judgement as much as possible.
That's fine, I usually do too. Even when I am calling them out for stuff I generally say stuff like this, and that I think ragnar and virt are good people and believe they are doing best. But I was invited to the mods discord a while back, and one thing I notice is that it's generally a cluster of agreement there, very little in the way of objection. I can tell the group and it's advisors are mostly friends. I try to opine on a few situations and give them a different angle to look at things, because if your opinions go unchecked its easy to just always pat yourself on the back with like minded people and not see how a decision can be controversial if unchecked. Considering the fact that I like this website, and would like to see it do well, I would like to see less permabans like this because I feel like it hurts the site and it's activity. I think Wylted is an asshole sometimes sure, but he's kind of a harmless one in my opinion, and if his biggest crime is stirring up controversy by bringing up a touchy subject, I think he came to the right place to do that. A debate site. 

I agree that this particular example does not seem particularly damnable but I am highly skeptical that there's some future in which Wylted returns as a law-abiding citizen.
When the law is subjective to the whim of a bunch of people who sit around patting each other on the back unchecked so often, yeah I am sure he will just be banned inevitably. We should be discussing how we deal with this stuff, but that seems to be a fruitless avenue each time I have brought it up. The usual response is "That's just the way it is and how it's gonna be" with no real interest in changing how it should be.

Wylted is such an relentless escalator- give-him-an-inch-and-he'll-take-a-mile kind of personality that I have no doubt he will always eventually end up meriting  any ban. 
Wylted's gonna be wylted just like RM is gonna be RM. They are gonna do something that will piss someone off, but it seems the mods also use that as an excuse to hand out more bans as much as possible. The real discussion is around freedom of speech, and why peopel take it so seriously in America. If someone pisses you off you cannot restrict them, like you can here. Is restricting controversial opinions and people the way to actually have a discussion about something? If you think Wylted is racist, or whatever other many things I've heard, debate him, beat him in said debate, let the world see and vote on why your opinion is better. Even if you didn't changed wylteds mind maybe you'll change someone elses, and that's worth something. That's a positive reason for a debate site to exist.

the secret alt'ing by itself is a major violation.
Well he was permabanned for something pretty stupid. Didn't even know about this before, I thought he left of his own free will lmao


Topic's author
#13
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,938
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
Ironically this topic was just recently discussed here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5761-we-should-ban-certain-topics

Read through the thread and really like Fauxlaw's view here: 

"I am opposed to the idea of banning any discussion of any topic for the simple reason that we should not be afraid that the discussion may incite someone else to action, and that is really what is at the root of the fear of discussion of some topics. If one cannot discuss what may make nuclear war good [can't think of any substantiating commentary at present, but that doesn't mean there isn't one], how do we convince that it is bad? there must be opposition in. all things, else we fail to understand both sides of an issue; any issue. Rather, we need to assure that our youth hear both sides of an issue. I don't think it's any healthier to indoctrinate youth with either side of an argument; let them hear, and discuss both sides.  How, unless we can openly discuss whether war of any kind has good and bad consequences and, by so doing, allow the conclusion to develop that nuclear war, specifically, may not be such a good idea. When has ignorance ever been a good idea?"


Wylted defnitely likes to bring up controversial topics, but I don't think that means he should be silenced. Even if he's wrong, this should be the place to air that out and discuss it. If his views offend you, and you are a moderator of a debate site where the sites essential purpose should be to discuss controversial subjects, you should reconsider interest in being a moderator of said debate site. 
#14
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Lunatic
If you think Wylted is racist, or whatever other many things I've heard, debate him, beat him in said debate, let the world see and vote on why your opinion is better. Even if you didn't changed wylteds mind maybe you'll change someone elses, and that's worth something. That's a positive reason for a debate site to exist.

Just to note that I've done so vs. at least three different incarnations on DART and once on DDO


I'm ok debating race or pedophilia or Roko's Basilisk or whatever with Wylted.  If it was just a question of controversial topics I would oppose a continued ban on Wylted but his behavior is pretty bad even before we get to any specifics.   Look at his bad faith claims in round 5 of the Basilisk debate.  I haven't seen him actually vote on one of his own debates but I have seen him agreeing with his own comments in the guise of some other alt.   And he cheats at mafia.  In fact, I should have known it was Wylted right off the bat just based on the volume of PMs he tries to send during DPs.  My argument is that setting any free speech considerations aside, Wylted feels compelled to violate code of conduct.   If the only rule of DART was no dogfights, Wylted would be kidnapping mean-looking poodles right now.  If the only rule of DART was no cheesefarts, Wylted would be chowing down a brick of limburger.
Topic's author
#15
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,938
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
I'm ok debating race or pedophilia or Roko's Basilisk or whatever with Wylted.  If it was just a question of controversial topics I would oppose a continued ban on Wylted but his behavior is pretty bad even before we get to any specifics.   Look at his bad faith claims in round 5 of the Basilisk debate.
I don't see that as bannable, if someone voted for him it was clear their vote should be removed for not reading both sides of the debate. Probably not the best debate practice, but I imagine that would work against him in conduct (and looking at the votes on that debate, it did). All debating wylted does is give you a free win. You should be happy he went to that level of absurdity. lol.

And he cheats at mafia.  In fact, I should have known it was Wylted right off the bat just based on the volume of PMs he tries to send during DPs.
Report it to the mafia mod, mafia mod can take action as they see fit.I fail to see the relevance to the discussion I want to have on moderation however. I am not arguing that wylted is an asshole with questionable morals, just whether he should be silenced from a debate site because of those.

My argument is that setting any free speech considerations aside, Wylted feels compelled to violate code of conduct.   If the only rule of DART was no dogfights, Wylted would be kidnapping mean-looking poodles right now.  If the only rule of DART was no cheesefarts, Wylted would be chowing down a brick of limburger.
Yeah he is a bit of an unlikeable attention whore, but so are a great many of Trump supporters in my opinion. I don't think they should be silenced either even if they do annoy me. Saying someone rides the line a lot to be edgy means nothing to me. Imabench did that a lot too, but he was also better liked than wylted so got more free passes for it. Let him ride the line, and if he crosses it, ban him, whatever. 1 week ban. These month long bans are ridiculously petty and not needed. Wylted's gonna be a wylted. RM is gonna be RM. People are who they are. We ban everyone we dislike pretty soon that conversation about controversial things that you claim you are open to having isn't happening anymore.

#16
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
Fuck off comparing me to him. There are lines I would never cross. 
#17
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
OK I have thoughts on this whole situation that I've expressed to the mods privately and I'll express them publicly tomorrow. I need a break from the site drama for lil bit tho lmao. Gonna turn in for the night
Topic's author
#18
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,938
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
Fuck off comparing me to him. There are lines I would never cross. 
I am comparing him to you in so far as how the mods treat people they don't like. My point isn't that you are the same, you clearly haven't read anything  I said if you think that was the point.

If the mods think giving you a month long ban is going to make you any less likely to be who you are, then they are wrong. Your gonna post whatever you feel like it regardless, just like wylted is. Banning you doesn't make you or the things you say any less controversial. My point is that the mods solution to this is to "give him one more chance" by just giving him a temp ban they might as well permaban him.

The real issue is about banning in general and whether or not the reasons for said bans are sufficient, other than an arbitrary dis-like for said person. 
#19
Undefeatable
Undefeatable's avatar
Debates: 64
Posts: 126
1
6
11
Undefeatable's avatar
Undefeatable
1
6
11
I just checked Wylted's profile.

So hold up

are you telling me

my most controversial debate yet

was decided by Wylted 

Damn.

He gave the illusion of being a debater nearly on par with me -- with solid reasoning and somewhat reasonable ideas (though his "let's argue post abortion" might've been an alarm for those who knew him)
#20
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Wow. Just realized one of Wylted's alts was Bringerofrain. To bad; we just started a debate. 

As Oscar Wilde once said, "Be yourself, everyone else is taken." I guess that's true of everyone but alt personalities.
#21
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
I'm publicly retracting my previous position of supporting Wylted's permanent ban. 

I thank Lunatic for posting this thread and sharing the link to Wylted's posts. I had no idea that the thread that yielded the accusation of catfishing in the first place was available to the public eye, as this kind of stuff almost always happen in PMs. 

All I was going off of before now was David's summarization, which made the situation appear a lot more malicious than it was... I literally thought Wylted was going full pedo. Instead, while he lied about his age, it wasn't a means to any malicious end.

Lunatic is right that the mods can twist contexts to suit their agendas when it comes to this kind of thing, and I've been aware of this issue for a while... Before this all went down, Pie and I had even been discussing a MEEP to solve the problem (nearly all of which is his ideas, just some refinement on my part). My belief that this is a problem is  enhanced by the recent events... I'd normally give the benefit of the doubt to David if he admitted that this was an exaggeration on his part and corrected himself, but instead he deleted the thread altogether to prevent the criticism from happening. This was blatant censorship to prevent scrutiny. 

Thankfully, he's admitted that that was a wrong move and has provided screenshots... still, David's handling of the situation really disappoints me.

Anyway, having now read Wylted's thread myself, my personal view is that he hasn't warranted himself a permanent ban. 

Don't get me wrong, with his multitude of deplorable posts, he had a ban coming... But I don't think that ban should be a permanent one. At least not at this point. Wylted's behavior was bad, but at least he had positive qualities to weigh against the bad behavior *cough* unlike mgtowdemon *cough*

Wylted has also convincingly expressed to me that he wants to clean up his act and that he will stay well-behaved should he be let back onto the site, and I made it clear to him that further violations would probably result in another permanent ban should he be allowed to return.  

Worse case scenario, it’s a bust, we all admit David was right, and Wylted goes back to being a troll under the bridge. Best case scenario, he actually reforms his act. If he can continue to behave as he has under his Bringer account, then as far as I'm concerned he can stay indefinitely. Either way, no harm done. 









#22
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@MisterChris
I, for one, find agreement with MisterChris. The fact is, having no prior knowledge of Wylted's alt's, and otherwise thinking that Bringer seemed like a guy I could and have befriended on this site, I'm willing to agree to a timed ban, but not permanent. Not that my opinion means diddly, but there it is. Besides, although I've seen the mention of a a permanent ban, I noted on Bringer's profile that that particular alt is given a timed ban of one month. Is that the way to read the ban? "Wylted," as a member.. is permanently banned, but "Bringerofrain" is just for a month? I hope that's the correct interpretation.
#23
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@MisterChris
Expecting honesty from David is a foolish move.
#24
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Undefeatable
Wylted was always a skilled debater. His flaws are to do with character, not skill at debating.
#25
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
There was nothing pedophiley about that exchange unless you were already looking for an excuse to ban him again, which, let's be honest, you probably were.
I haven't actually read the thread that got wylted banned first-hand myself but...

To be clear I thought the allegations against bsh1 for pedophilia were pretty dumb as well
... I did read the thread that got bsh banned and wholeheartedly agree with this statement so would not be surprised if we agree about wylted too.

#26
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Lunatic
2. I do think Wytled's permaban could arguably be justified, hence why I am neutral on this topic
why's that?
I know that he has done a plethora of things, faking he committed suicide, saying derogatory words, mutli-accounting (which is taken serious by mods)

Finally, what Wylted said in that joke was a poorly taste joke that people who were not on DDO would not understand with Wylted. We have to understand that this isn't DDO, and that poorly tasted jokes like that do not draw the similar attention, and they have to be dealt with on that premise. He has also skinned the line many times, faking being transgender, faking mental illness and being suicidal, and saying derogatory words. However he was not banned for this once, and was only permabanned for that thread
It's the internet, why does anyone have to be truthful about their life? Unless your trying to do something illegal like solicit nudes from a minor, what people claim online is their perrogative.

I'd agree with that as well, but there's a line that should be drawn
#27
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Lunatic
Also note that he also blackfaced himself by pretending to be black and then using his alt account he said was black and vote illegaly 
Topic's author
#28
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,938
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Vader
Also note that he also blackfaced himself by pretending to be black and then using his alt account he said was black and vote illegaly 
Yeah I know about that. He is an asshole, but its freedom of speech. I'd rather not silence people like that on a debate site. Beat their @ss logically.
Topic's author
#29
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,938
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Vader
I know that he has done a plethora of things, faking he committed suicide, saying derogatory words, mutli-accounting (which is taken serious by mods)
Bringer isn't a multi account if his main is banned. Also the rest falls under freedom of speech

I'd agree with that as well, but there's a line that should be drawn
What line? Be specific.
#30
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Lunatic
In the past, he multi accounted when under, Wylted.

-------

A line of what should be tolerated as trolling that is freedom of speech. Even in America, a place with relative free speech, you can't just shout in a movie theatre, "i have a gun and am gonna shoot you!"

In Wylted's case, he was trolling, but to what extent should be tolerated? I obviously lean to more lighter versions of this, but do you feel he crossed a line by blackfacing, saying the n-word, etc. You have to draw a line somewhere. The issue is that the moderation team is haziness with this line and I feel there should be initiative with it. I could do the same thing I did with RO's where I lead a reform of some sort, but I know Chris and Pie are working on something

Like I said, I think lassiez-fair, but a clear line should be drawn