Why are we banning wylted?

"Assuming" uhuh - it seems to me more like your trying to explain away pedophiliac behavior to me - furthermore - you have completely ignored the entire - being ableist and homophobic... like you just latch on to the one thing you might have a point on and ignore everything else

Aren't you the one who goes around claiming to be an amazing debater for forum arguments? 

"Assuming" uhuh - it seems to me more like your trying to explain away pedophiliac behavior to me - furthermore - you have completely ignored the entire - being ableist and homophobic... like you just latch on to the one thing you might have a point on and ignore everything else

like you just latch on to the one thing you might have a point on and ignore everything else

""Assuming" uhuh - it seems to me more like your trying to explain away pedophiliac behavior to me - furthermore - you have completely ignored the entire - being ableist and homophobic"

This is becoming my venting place, anyone else know the people who suddenly stop responding whenever you ask for them to actually look at your evidence?

What? When have I said I was some great debater? Yes, I had a fun little post about getting to the top 10, but that's mostly because I never thought I would be able to - jesus fuck you guys are talking about "character assassinations" while being as hypocritical about it as you can 

 secondly I did respond - again with the entire "latching onto the one thing you're might be right about" and then you disregard the entire sentence proceeding that. Do you need me to repeat it for ya?

Whenever I use an ad hominem its because its relevant to the matter at hand - 

yet curiously here you go digging around my other forum posts - how fantastically hypocritical of you - tu quoque much?

The part you haven't ^

If its necessary for you to go digging around my forums, perhaps I should tell you about red herrings - ever heard of those? The funny thing about you and Coal, is that you completely ignore any criticism of yourself, instead completely resorting to ad hominem, as for myself? Yes - whenever I'm spiteful or angry enough I do include ad hominem, after my argument. And then you all like to pretend like there wasn't anything prior? Mm

What? When have I said I was some great debater? Yes, I had a fun little post about getting to the top 10, but that's mostly because I never thought I would be able to - jesus fuck you guys are talking about "character assassinations" while being as hypocritical about it as you can 

Yeah, that's kind of the point lol. You want to substitute personal attacks and mis characterizations about someone instead of sticking to the argument, so that's why I am doing it right back at you. See how it has nothing to do with the original point?

 secondly I did respond - again with the entire "latching onto the one thing you're might be right about" and then you disregard the entire sentence proceeding that. Do you need me to repeat it for ya?

You admitting I was right on one point doesn't provide evidence that he's a pedophile, which is what the admins and others are claiming are the main reason behind his ban. I literally have the screenshots, and posted an argument to you posing how someone can be a pedophile if they themselves are the one pretending to be underage trying to "chris hansen" someone which demonstrates they think the other party is an adult. You completely dropped that and started swinging mis-characterizations at me in a rage because I proved you wrong lol.

There literally wasn't anything prior, as I just pointed out. You can pretend you have an argument here, but I really don't see one other than baseless assertions. Your memory of the thread is either mis-guided, mis-remembered, or biased based on your dis-like of Wylted, which shouldn't be relevant to the topic at hand. Whether or not pedophilia is an accurate charge in this situation, is. Until you can prove to me that it is, this conversation will go no where.

See - the thing is - you guys are literally the ones to start the whole "oh, he's a stupid kid" thing - let's not even start trying to blame me for your immaturity - a tu quoque, as I've said before, does not somehow give you the high ground bud.

Let's back up bud - your claim is that he was joking about being a pedophile, "thinking" that his interlocutor was an adult.

I will concede then - if I don't have the evidence available then I won't continue trying to argue it. Period. I would like to submit the following for the sake of asking if Wylted and his alts ought to be banned however:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1130-we-have-a-moral-obligation-to-murder-politicians

So... yeah - jesus christ - I have spent an hour looking through his posts - the amount of times he tells somebody to "not reproduce"...

Next point - I said that Wylted was homophobic, not you, perhaps that was unclear - I made this argument with only a specific information as his Rain account, but... wooo boy his posts just... hammer that in.

Not unfair - however saying that Wylted is ablist or homophobic isn't really baseless... considering he was saying that being disabled made you inferior to others... the forum was literally called "are incels right", furthermore, please don't make me go back through Wylted's fucking posts, I will literally lose my mind if I have to drag one of his posts through here. 

And I could go on and on, but if I were to post every single post that was ban worthy.... that would take quite a couple hours that I am not willing to put in. So sorry for being a spiteful little shit - not sleeping does that to you - do I still think it was probably pedophilac what Wylted did? Yeah - but I don't have the evidence to necessarily demonstrated so I won't

This is aimed primarily at Lunatic but I want to discuss something with you both.

Aside from you kind of lying and downplaying what Wylted has done (he has indeed joked about what you said he hasn't joked about), would you like to treat this topic as about more than that one act where he said he was an age he wasn't?

Theweakeredge is trying to get you to do this and you are generally dodging the topic. I understand that you are an extreme libertarian who thinks we should say and do whatever we want. Most people, including me even, are not. I actually side closer to you on the general idea of free speech but the issue isn't just what he's saying, it's what it actually means and represents.

You would agree with me if I said to you that people who say the wrong thing can get it twisted out of proportion. However, you suddenly disagree when I suggest the opposite can occur. You are doing to Wylted, the inverse of what cancel culture is. You are part of a phenomenon I would dub as vindication culture.

To avoid this being solely an attack and refusing to find middle ground I will ask both you and theweakeredge to answer me the following:

Rules, in their true form, should represent aspects of a type of bad actor or personality that needs to be tamed and avoided for the good of the community, would you not agree? If so, what type of person is Wylted and what do you suggest we do to make him become anything other than negative for the community of DART?

Aside from you kind of lying and downplaying what Wylted has done (he has indeed joked about what you said he hasn't joked about), would you like to treat this topic as about more than that one act where he said he was an age he wasn't?

Most people, including me even, are not. I actually side closer to you on the general idea of free speech but the issue isn't just what he's saying, it's what it actually means and represents.

You would agree with me if I said to you that people who say the wrong thing can get it twisted out of proportion. However, you suddenly disagree when I suggest the opposite can occur. You are doing to Wylted, the inverse of what cancel culture is. You are part of a phenomenon I would dub as vindication culture.

To avoid this being solely an attack and refusing to find middle ground I will ask both you and theweakeredge to answer me the following:

Rules, in their true form, should represent aspects of a type of bad actor or personality that needs to be tamed and avoided for the good of the community, would you not agree? If so, what type of person is Wylted and what do you suggest we do to make him become anything other than negative for the community of DART?

"“Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration."

What do you mean "affirmed" it? I have the screenshots lol.

Other than my accusation to Mikal, I wasn't banned for my views. There areassice differences between Wylted and myself, it's you failing to see that which is more disturbing than the idea I'm a hypocrite.

There are thick, strict lines Wylted has crossed. He is racist to a strong lev. This is a fact. If you're trolling and pretending to be racist, you deserve to be punsihed for what you're typing, not what we assume you really are.

When it comes to views, Wylted is the epitome of abhorrent but that's not all there is to it. His interactions all revolve around getting the most distress out of other users as is possible. I am aware it's possible you think I'm the same, which is complete nonsense and part of the entire idsue with the recent ban I received and way the mods handled it.

I can and have been toxic (less so bow than years before) but I've matured and learned harsh lessons in life. The current me wouldn't have clashed much with Bench back then, I'd have blocked him and got on with my life. Regardless, even at what you think is my absolute worst, my intentions and people I beefed with were never based on who is eays to prey on and wind up.

Wylted actively, consistently picks out any member who is easy to wind up and goes out of his way to piss them off if they happen to grab his attention for any reason. This is also why he resents bsh1 for beating him in a DDO presidency election where Wylted was running as the equivalent of Trump; intending to both incite conflicts within DDO and make a complete mockery of Juggle and the entire establishment.

You can argue this way and that about who I am and how I am wired. It's your perogative to delude yourself into thinking I'm the simplistic thug like troll that you identify someone like Wylted as but you're wrong. 

You're playing a dirty game here where you try to alter the conversation to be about me or theweakeredge and our character. I'm not going to play that bullshit game and attack your character.

Wylted's behavior is atrocious and much more than that one event. If you'd like I will compile a series of posts and threads solely from DART to show you the type of person you're defending.

I think there is a core difference in somebody who makes a claim that is intrinsically violent or harmful (such as if molestation is good or if we should kill politicians)  and points that we disagree with. That kind of talk is illegal in most instances... so even if you disagree with the banning on an ethical level, for legal protection its for sure the right move - 

its similar to why I think movies can be "canceled" its about how harmful the rhetoric is - that rhetoric that could and has harmed people who were molested, or people who were assaulted, and its not like that's a tiny number.

anywho - my point is that being allowed to have a conversation - is not worth somebody being harmed - especially not with the level of trauma that these extreme subjects bring up -

my point is that being allowed to have a conversation - is not worth somebody being harmed - especially not with the level of trauma that these extreme subjects bring up - now - if it were - say - to say how we could reduce the number of people getting assaulted, fine - that could actually stop somebody from going through the same experience, but arguing if its "right", yeah - the moral exchange is just not equal.

Since you're trying to shake away just how severely bad he is, I request you to reply to this post: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5791/post-links/252861

I am shocked and appalled at how you downplay just what being a full-on racist itself is but he is much more than just that (and not in a good way of being 'more than that'). I elaborated in the linked post.

Since the closing statement of your most recent post at the point of me replying this admits how bad Wylted is, I won't assume you're demanding proof.

Moderators are guardians, they are supposed to safeguard the community that they moderate. I cannot fathom how blaming victims by default is efficient moderation but you keep saying it is.

I am not going to buy into the notion that I am even disliked in the same way and to the same level that Wylted is (by the general userbase).

 This tactic is not just you alone. Many people like to use this tactic of 'everyone dislikes you, some even hate you' and it's a terrible thing to feel and experience. I have sat back and really considered if I am truly loathed by all here before returning. The haters are more readily vocal about their views. That's all. 

Wylted, on the flip side, is indeed resented by almost all users. He has gone out of his way to ensure this is the case. I cannot begin to grasp how you are defending him while admitting what he has said and done. You're solely focusing on the final act, rather than seeing the bigger picture.

I think there is a core difference in somebody who makes a claim that is intrinsically violent or harmful (such as if molestation is good or if we should kill politicians)  and points that we disagree with. That kind of talk is illegal in most instances... so even if you disagree with the banning on an ethical level, for legal protection its for sure the right move - 

I don't think discussing moral implications around killing politicians is quite the same as actually threatening government officials. 

There are three elements of the offense of making an illegal threat: (i) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must be a communication containing the threat; (iii) and the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another. (1)

its similar to why I think movies can be "canceled" its about how harmful the rhetoric is - that rhetoric that could and has harmed people who were molested, or people who were assaulted, and its not like that's a tiny number.

There are plenty of movies with controversial views, namely documentaries. If people want to "cancel" something they find offensive they have the right to choose not to participate in it or publicly talk about why that thing is harmful. Freedom of speech right? The government isn't silencing these movies though, and that's all I am suggesting we do with controversial people here as well. Don't silence them, make a point the way cancel culture people make a point about something that disgusts them. 

anywho - my point is that being allowed to have a conversation - is not worth somebody being harmed - especially not with the level of trauma that these extreme subjects bring up -

I wholeheartedly dis-agree with this. I don't think someone's views has to harm someone who views otherwise, and that is a slippery slope that you can get loosey with the definition of. If you are a victim of rape, abuse, etc, you can't expect the real world to shelter you from these things. It's a sad but harsh reality, but they need to seek counseling, and find with ways to deal with these triggers, because you can't call up the police everytime someone triggers you with an offensive rape joke. If you join a website where controversial opinions are encouraged (surely a debate site would fall under this category) then you should be prepared to face others with conflicting ideas and backgrounds who don't see things the same way. 

my point is that being allowed to have a conversation - is not worth somebody being harmed - especially not with the level of trauma that these extreme subjects bring up - now - if it were - say - to say how we could reduce the number of people getting assaulted, fine - that could actually stop somebody from going through the same experience, but arguing if its "right", yeah - the moral exchange is just not equal.

This is to suggest having a conversation with someone can't overall influence who they are as a person and effect their beliefs. I know their are a lot of stubborn people, but I've seen a great many people cahgne their minds on a subject they've debated thoroughly. I'd say you probably stand a better chance changing someone's perspective by discussing an issue with them, rather than calling to have them banned over their opinions. In the case where you feel that person's views aren't changeable, and their views are harmful to your mental health, you can easily block the individual or refuse to engage them further. You can't completely remove all responsibility from a victim to not get offended or react when something they feel is harmful to them happens. Again this is the real world.

He should not be banned because everyone dislikes him, we agree on that. He should be banned and is disliked. They are not entirely coincidental, the reason for both is the missing link you don't see. It's the 'why'.

So.. which part about "we should kill politicians" doesn't achieve those standards? IS it not specific enough? Because then it would not be a slippery slope that the process of the conversation would undoubtedly create specific threats - in fact - Wylted has made such threats... and we don't even have to look to politicians... just how he interacts with other users on the site. It is clear that this is at best legally questionable, and at worst an offence that could have the site leaders culpable. 

We are not talking about "controversial movies" we are talking about harmful movies, there is a very big difference, and to pretend as if there isn't is a false equivalence. To be traumatized and harmed by a film is not to be "offended", there is a fundamental difference is there not? Furthermore, cancel culture is not necessarily about silencing people, it is about social ostracization as a form of punishment - not that I necessarily agree with it - but it is something that I find sometimes practical.

This is a fundamental individualistic take, you have a moral obligation to not do harm to others no? Perhaps you disagree with that sentiment, but then if you are aware that your "takes" are harmful to others, then you are intentionally harming others, especially in such instances as rape and molestation. I am not saying that the real world is to shelter people, but the real world does have a moral obligation to not make it worse. Again - having conversation is not worth harming people - your argument against such a thing is essentially that it will happen anyway - just because something will happen, does not mean that you have the right to speed that along - just because people will die does not mean you have the right to kill them, 

First of all, this isn't the main point, but something "offending" people is not the same as empirically harming them, such as allegories in the 1950s harming black people with their black face demonization. 

That is something that should be canceled because it is recognized as wrong - yes people can change their minds I agree, but not in a public manner capable of harming other people.

"Saving" people from a harmful mindset does not excuse people from a moral obligation to "protect" those with a damaged one. It comes down to the means not justifying the ends - if changing the mind of a person, ultimately causes more harm, then what was the point? Again, yes, discussing these things can be and are sometimes helpful; but, it is not worth it to do thin public, rather than privately, which is typically more conducive for changing minds anyways. There are PMS about this after all.

I concede absolutely nothing. In the Chief Mod position, I'd permaban Wylted.

• The moral obligation of not "offending" others
  
• The subjectiveness of harm
  
• That we should only "cancel" Wylted by not participating in his forums
  
• The legal ramification of discussing harm
  

I did not do that. I have gone out of my way to defend the ban despite having every reason to side with you against the mods if this was about me being vengeful to those who stood in my way.

I don't like Ragnar or David. They indeed can often twist things out of proportion to justify bans. If you made a thread that was not specifically about that one Wylted incident, I would be on your side 100%. I am furious that they still have written those things about me on the moderation thread because they are literally lies that someone will come and read.

When I say 'furious', no I am not sitting here anymore actively raging about it but it caused me severe distress at the time and remains a source of irritation for me. This site meant a lot to me back then, that act was one of the biggest reasons I couldn't give the slightest shit if this site shut down right now, today. I'd find somewhere else to debate.

I do dig the idea of this website in the same way I loved the idea of DDO, the problem is not in the concept and is why I will still use this website even though I have reasons not to and definitely don't 'love' it anymore.

I am sided both against the moderation and against Wylted and this is 0% the time for me to feign resentment towards the mods for flexing their muscle. Even when Bsh1 was in charge, I congratulated him when he correctly punished prominent and popular members such as samstevens who had been bullying me in particular and forcing me to bite back as Bsh1 had sat back and done nothing.

There is such as thing as too lax/little moderation and it's a very nasty atmosphere which you may personally desire (only the most emotionally gritty people will remain in the long run). The problem with moderation that starts off like that is that it inevitably, over time, becomes 'ban the unpopular troublemakers' anyway, since only the corrupt 'frat boy' or 'sorority sister' types end up as mods.

There are many less well known forums, discussion boards etc moderated in this way, it's not rare.

The mods here are annoying, they don't reason with us about their bans and it's such a small community that it does kind of matter.

I am here defending their actions because this one in particular strikes me as a solid ban, this time I don't have an agenda. I wish they'd speak but I will speak on their behalf since all that was done here is David said 'it's for legal reasons end of discussion' and I can understand what he means if he means the hate speech and way Wylted defends very nasty things but you and him disagree that most on the final act and what exactly the context was.

I wish he'd reply to you, I wish Ragnar would post here. Instead, they sit back and let members such as myself and theweakeredge defend on their behalf and I am happy to do so because justice and debating do matter to me and you in particular are making this thread out of genuine concern, not to troll the mods.

I'm finding the point to point rebuttals tiring and unnecessary, instead, I will acknowledge the biggest points here - correct me if I'm wrong - we disagree on:

• The moral obligation of not "offending" others
  
• The subjectiveness of harm
  
• That we should only "cancel" Wylted by not participating in his forums
  
• The legal ramification of discussing harm
  

Before I go into detail, are these the main points we disagree on?