Should a person be banned for harassment even if the person being “harassed” doesn’t feel like it?

Author: ILikePie5

Posts

Total: 85
#61
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@coal
For someone who purportedly didn't support banning Wylted, you sure seem to have a lot of reasons you you think it should remain. 
I have reasons you were wrong about the CoC and rather silly in what you considered relevant to the ban. I did not write the CoC and I do not implicitly agree with any of it. If I was writing the rules I would not tolerate doxing as it is behavior that can in no circumstance constitute an argument, I also would also debate nazis and pedophile-apologists.

Debate is something sacred, it's the only way violence or equivalent deception can truly be avoided. Debating people on ice cream flavor accomplishes nothing, debating people on whether you should kill each other at least has the potential to accomplish a lot.

I fully support the doxing being stopped, I don't know if a ban was warranted; for all I know they asked him not to do it again, he refused, and they felt that left them no choice.

I was completely willing to debate him or anyone else (remember he told everyone to debate me "Everybody on this board who cares about children should be defending them to ADOL and engaging his arguments."), just like on DDO I was completely willing to debate you if you had ever cared to do that more than getting me banned.

If I was a mod and it was a ruleset designed by me specifically to facilitate debate the call out thread would have remained, the accusations would have been allowed, but the call to doxing would have been removed. If he refused to stop calling for doxing of course I would have banned him. You can't expect mods to follow someone around fixing their unrepentant offenses.

Furthermore I would have found his claims to be deceptive or else indicative of a disturbed mind. No one in their right mind could seriously have thought they would stop a pedophile by strutting around on a stage asking for personal information in a way that they MUST know broke the CoC. He could have 'accomplished' the exact same thing by PMing only the mods and people who talked to me. Then he wouldn't have been banned, and he might (in his mind) have actually gotten something on me.

If I had to put money on it: he was bored and wanted to see if the perceived nobility of a pedophile lynching would let him get away with breaking the rules.
#62
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I have no interest in your incoherent rambling.  You're defending banning Wylted, because he argued you use beastiality as a pretext to advocate for pedophilia. 

  • For some inexplicable reason, moderators confused the concept of "propensity" (i.e., not what Wylted argued) with "pretext" (i.e., what Wylted argued).   
  • More inexplicably, they confused an argument for why you appear to be so obsessed with engaging in sexual intercourse with animals, with a lie (i.e., a knowingly false statement of fact), and banned Wylted on that basis as well. 
  • Even more inexplicably, they have recrafted the definition of doxxing to fit Wylted's activity into that category. 
And once more, here you are, typing lengthy and verbose arguments for why Wylted should be banned while you claim not to have supported the same?  
#63
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Vader
I agree that the extravagant lies is a vague term in which can have many interpretations. 
That is not even close to what I said.  Either something is a lie, or it isn't.  If you are a moderator, you cannot undertake this preposterously absurd game of calling into question the meaning of a word that simple.   You claimed Wylted lied about ADOL, and even went so far as to say he did so "extravagantly."  Both claims are false because Wylted did no such thing.  The reasonable approach here is to reverse course, not to play these absurd language games.  

This evidence provided was majorly weak
What conceivable "evidence" are you referring to?  I read the thread.  What Wylted said was obvious to anyone with eyes who undertook the effort to read it, and it bore no resemblance whatsoever to what was described in the moderation log.  

I think call out threads are fine and in my newest MEEP I have
That entire process should be vitiated, but to the extent it remains in use, it should be used to get rid of stupid rules imposed by incompetent prior moderators, at least one of whom has since fled the sight amid shocking controversy.  

Doxxing
You banned Wylted for doxxing, when he engaged in no such activity.  You claimed he "encouraged" doxxing, when Wylted encouraged no such activity.  You have now redefined the meaning of the term, to fit a single activity he engaged in, that has no relationship to doxxing whatsoever.  That's like suspending a student for raising his hand and asking  for information related to homework cheaters, based on having a zero-tolerance policy for fighting, because asking for information could lead to a fight.

Your understanding of what doxxing is, is wrong.  And that's a problem, because you're purporting to enforce a policy it is clear you require training to understand. 

#64
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@coal
You're defending banning Wylted, because he argued you use beastiality as a pretext to advocate for pedophilia. 
Your powers of reading comprehension have not improved over the last decade.

Even more inexplicably, they have recrafted the definition of doxxing to fit Wylted's activity into that category. 
Whatever the definition is, Wylted used the word itself. There is no defense except that the CoC is flawed.

And once more, here you are, typing lengthy and verbose arguments for why Wylted should be banned while you claim not to have supported the same?  
I will at some point grow tired of correcting you. There were no lengthy verbose arguments to that effect. Post #61 was more abstract background of how I view the purpose of a debate site and the rules that should govern it. You did express confusion about what bans I would support and that was relevant to clearing that confusion. I support bans or threats of bans when the behavior is harmful to debate and never when the behavior can be seen (by a reasonable person) as an attempt to debate.

I neither support nor condemn the decision in Wylted's case because I do not know if he was given a warning or if he has a long history of ignoring warnings. If banning him was the only way to enforce the rule against doxing I support it.

I do not support the banning of anyone based on the moderator's perception of what constitutes an extravagant lie, however I find the defense of Wylted's actions as reasonable to be absurd. I myself would characterize the call out thread as an extravagant lie. Not because I cannot believe anyone might have a very low evidentiary standard when they're fancying themselves on a pedophile hunt, but because Wylted's actions seem calculated to break rules while at the same time having the least chance of entrapping me or actually doxing me.

If people assure me has become very stupid perhaps it is plausible, otherwise I cannot see it as earnest.
#65
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Wylted must have been right, based on your conduct now. 
#66
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@coal
Wylted must have been right, based on your conduct now. 
I'd ask you to explain but I know you can't.
#67
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@coal
@ILikePie5
You are pretty blind or dumb if you don't see how Wylted did encorage and paetiticpate in wilful defamation and doxxing. Add that to his history of continual abuse and taunting of other users and a ban is more than justified.


You have to appreciate the irony when the hardest free speech advocate (by his own claim) uses blackmail to silence and terrify other users, yet still some morons will defend his actions.


The reality is that Wylted actually sabotaged any chance of ADOL ever slipping up and revealing who they are IRL so that action could be taken. He reminded ADOL precisely why hiding behind TOR browser and being paranoid serve the user well.


So, not only has Wylted threatened and oppresses but the one thing he may have genuinely believed would do good, he has ensured never will come to fruition.

#68
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
You are pretty blind or dumb . . . . 
It was at that point that I stopped reading your post.  This is not the way to speak to other people.  On the internet or in life. 

#69
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@coal
It doesn't surprise me that somebody who goes out of their way to be as passive-aggressive and condescending as yourself can't take it when somebody directly condescends you.
#70
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@coal
I have no interest in your incoherent rambling.
Coal, a few posts up.

Now he is lecturing me about the following:

This is not the way to speak to other people.  On the internet or in life. 
Awww, little coal is offended and has no rebuttal.

You claimed he "encouraged" doxxing, when Wylted encouraged no such activity. 
Awwwww, is that how you talk to people online or irl when the person you're saying didn't encourage doxxing said this:
Everybody on this board who cares about children should be defending them to ADOL and engaging his arguments. I would also request anyone who is good at doing so, to work on doxxing him. This includes mods as well. Feel free to email me any information you find to [censored]. I will get ahold of police departments in his area to make sure he is being watched and does not have contact with children.


Is this one of those moments where you throw a further strop to make the other feel like they have no right to challenge your ego? I put in bold and underlined something to help your reading.
#71
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
I remain uninterested in anything you have to say on this or any subject, until you can conduct yourself properly like any other civilized adult.  
#72
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@coal
I am civilised, it's why I insult instead of beating somebody's brains out, you do the same just with passive-aggressive masking like you did right then and there by saying I'm being a child via saying the opposite. 

Rather than virtue signal at how less you insult, stick to the logic here, I know you struggle with it. Be an adult, yeah? High and mighty holy coaly.

Since you are gonna just be a pushover and concede the debate by playing the 'insulted' card, I'll leave you with this:


As somebody who complains how soft and pathetic these new age Gen Z'ers and Y'ers have become, you sure do seem easily triggered and crybaby-like in an argument that you could just be the fucking 'bigger adult' you pretend to be in this and admit defeat, you were wrong about Wylted not directly encouraging doxxing. It's simple, just say 'shit, I was wrong' or keep saying 'waaaa waaa be an adult RM' I am an adult but even my teen self could run circles around you in this exchange, your approach is pathetic.
#73
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
I am civilised, it's why I insult instead of beating somebody's brains out,
I stopped reading at that point.  I don't even know what you're talking about.
#74
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@coal
 I don't even know what you're talking about.
We agree on that much. Does your brain comprehend that? Can you read that?
#75
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Nyxified
"The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour." James Kelley, Ph. D.

Or as Bucky Fuller presented, '...the further back we can pull our arrow, --into the past---, the further forward were best able to see our forward trajectory to the future....'

Patterms of behaviour, as set within the context of environmetal circumstances of those dates of time.

Well, there is an eternal motion of flow, ergo, we have not choice, however, we do seemingly have choice of directing the flow, this way,and that way, and back around old patterns, as the flow brings us to new and semi-related old patterns of behaviour.
 
Each of a complex of sine-waves, spirally within the flow of all that matters and all that matters to special-case set of possiblities that occur in the ever flowing stream of matter as consciousness and consciousness as what does, and does not matter to us, /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

I am data, a complex set of bits, the create my consciousness stream, flowing along the with other biologic patterns of similar my genetic kin.
#76
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Why do you feel like it is acceptable to speak to other people like that? 
Topic's author
#77
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,162
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@coal
I’d suspect childhood trauma
#78
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@coal
Sorry, I struggled to read what you wrote, I will reply to you when you learn to write and debate as a grown, civilised adult.

Please respect my mental and emotional deficiency while I parade like I am a bigger person.
#79
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Trauma could be what causes a person who has lost an argument completely to need to resort to several trolling oneliners where they pretend reading incompetence and maturoty superiority to get under the skin of the other user.

Coal needs to learn to take an L and say sorry, he was wrong. That is what a mature adult does.
#80
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@ILikePie5
I don't want to speculate in a public context because that would be inappropriate.  I am happy to engage with Rational Madman, but that will take place on acceptable terms.  There is no need to exchange for this unidirectional hostility.  
#81
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@coal
We aren't having an exchange, we have me and ADOL spitting facts and you going 'oh dear how rude, you pointed out the truth to me I didn't read it but I will pretend I'm too offended and unable to read what you right past the point of offense'.

Why are you on a debate site? You could stick to facebook threads and maintain that posturing just fine.
#82
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
There's nothing more ironic, truly there couldn't be anything more ironic, than somebody defending Wylted and then playing butthurt over some mild rudeness. Wylted's as rude as they come, what high horse are you sitting on? 

Like really, this is a fucking joke.

11 days later

#83
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@ILikePie5
[ILikePie5] You could be a pedophile. If you’re not, you have nothing to fear.
[ADOL] What rock have you been living under? There is plenty to fear from baseless investigations. The investigation itself is used as evidence for defamation, sometimes the investigators plant evidence, sometimes people are so emotional that they convict you even when there is reasonable doubt.

I have nothing to fear because I'm anonymous. I would have an enormous amount to fear otherwise, my trust in the justice system and my fellow citizens when taboo sexual matters are at issue is 0/10.
Yea, bumping the thread but this one did stick in my craw so when I read this I felt like pounding it some more. I have the next 23 years to fear for, and so does everyone within a km of a child with this accusation.

In the code of Hammurabi a person who makes a false accusation, and it is proven that they knew it was false; they get the punishment set for the crime that they accused someone of. Something like that needs to make a come back.
Topic's author
#84
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,162
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In the code of Hammurabi a person who makes a false accusation, and it is proven that they knew it was false; they get the punishment set for the crime that they accused someone of. Something like that needs to make a come back.
Well we also know that peasant on elite punishment was not the same as elite on peasant punishment. Gonna have to strongly disagree 
#85
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@ILikePie5
In the code of Hammurabi a person who makes a false accusation, and it is proven that they knew it was false; they get the punishment set for the crime that they accused someone of. Something like that needs to make a come back.
Well we also know that peasant on elite punishment was not the same as elite on peasant punishment.
That is unrelated to the point.