I was surprised I wasn't banned for my official statement.

Quote from: Ian Warner;552373I was surprised I wasn't banned for my official statement.

What was that?

Quote from: Benoist;552371But going from there to say it's okay to call for rape and that "it'd do her some good and maybe she'd think twice before lying" that is NOT on.

I am pretty sure from the wording he meant the 'Rape Threats' would 'do her good', rather than her actual rape.

This statement should not be read as me supporting B.T.s position.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;552290Hasn't the former already posted on this very thread?

Yes sorry I didn't notice.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;552374What was that?

Linky

Quote from: Ian Warner;552377Linky

Oh, OK.

Thanks.

Quote from: One Horse Town;552361Goodbye, sweetheart.

About fucking time.

While I suspect this is exactly what he's wanted all along, his presence nevertheless cheapened this site to the extreme and gave far too much ammunition to the folks who mistake our allowance of free speech for actual support of such trash.

Quote from: One Horse Town;552361Goodbye, sweetheart.

Thank you.

Quote from: Ian Warner;552377Linky

Thanks for that it's helping me to conceptualize the actual subtext of what's actually happening.

Quote from: One Horse Town;552361Goodbye, sweetheart.

Quote from: Benoist;552365Was about to do it. Thank you.

Honestly, I think there were plenty of things that B.T. has said that were far more ban-worthy than this, particularly on a site that places a high value on free speech and without warning.

As far as I can tell, he was not saying that it was OK to sexually assault her but saying that he thought she deserved the nasty comments because of her own unethical behavior -- basically that she was reaping what she sowed in the form of speech.  While there are plenty of reasons to believe that attitude is wrong and to disagree with him, I would argue that it's not all that different from the attitude that leads lying about opponents in order to destroy them and their livelihood and a Chicago Way attitude toward such arguments is hardly uncommon and is well represented in the comments that I've read about this particular issue.  Yes, I think B.T. can be quite the lawcrapper and holds some mighty offensive views on various topics, but I'd hate to see the banning criteria here slide down the slippery slope toward banning people for being offensive or for rubbing the moral sensibilities of the moderators the wrong way.  Down that path lies the end of free speech because the biggest test of free speech is letting someone say something you find really offensive.

And please note that I also opposed the banning of Pseudoephedrine, even though I understand why it happened, so this isn't a matter of liking what B.T. was saying or agreeing with his politics.  

Now, if he had said that she actually deserved to be raped, and you certainly could have asked him to clarify that point, then I'd agree he needed an instant banning without a warning.  But I don't think that's what he said.

Quote from: John Morrow;552385Honestly, I think there were plenty of things that B.T. has said that were far more ban-worthy than this, particularly on a site that places a high value on free speech and without warning.

As far as I can tell, he was not saying that it was OK to sexually assault her but saying that he thought she deserved the nasty comments because of her own unethical behavior -- basically that she was reaping what she sowed in the form of speech.  While there are plenty of reasons to believe that attitude is wrong and to disagree with him, I would argue that it's not all that different from the attitude that leads lying about opponents in order to destroy them and their livelihood and a Chicago Way attitude toward such arguments is hardly uncommon and is well represented in the comments that I've read about this particular issue.  Yes, I think B.T. can be quite the lawcrapper and holds some mighty offensive views on various topics, but I'd hate to see the banning criteria here slide down the slippery slope toward banning people for being offensive or for rubbing the moral sensibilities of the moderators the wrong way.  Down that path lies the end of free speech because the biggest test of free speech is letting someone say something you find really offensive.

And please note that I also opposed the banning of Pseudoephedrine, even though I understand why it happened, so this isn't a matter of liking what B.T. was saying or agreeing with his politics.  

Now, if he had said that she actually deserved to be raped, and you certainly could have asked him to clarify that point, then I'd agree he needed an instant banning without a warning.  But I don't think that's what he said.

Mate, the guy has been warned for posting links to porn - against forum rules. He could have gone then. As it was, we all had to put up with his drivel for months more.

Sometimes, my good friend, freedom of speech or not, you really have to look at who you're sharing a camp-fire with.

Quote from: Benoist;552371I can't believe the SOB actually said that. I mean we're all more or less in agreement that Maladicta indeed has an agenda and is going about her protest the wrong way. But going from there to say it's okay to call for rape and that "it'd do her some good and maybe she'd think twice before lying" that is NOT on. Not at all. Period.

Not what he said, Benoist, and unless you are turning into an RPGnet trap moderator, you should know that.

Quote from: Benoist;552326Are you saying she deserved comments like "she doesn't deserve consent and she needs to get fucked"?

Quote from: Benoist;552326So it's okay to say "I'm going to rape you" to someone... "because the internet"?

You asked him about speech, not actual rape.  He responded about speech, not rape.  Now, if you had asked him to further clarify if he would support her actual rape and he did, I'd support the banning call here, but that's not what I see happening here.  What it looks like is you baited him to say he supported one thing and then banned him for supporting something else.  Not cool.

And as jadrax said, please don't read this as support for B.T.'s position.  It's not.  But I think the free speech guarantees here are critically important and don't want to see people banned for offending the moderators.  If I wanted that, I could go back to RPGnet, since I've never been banned there.

If you feel that strongly about the ban, open a thread in the Help Desk.

Who knows, Pundit might agree with you and reinstate him.

Quote from: One Horse Town;552386Mate, the guy has been warned for posting links to porn - against forum rules. He could have gone then. As it was, we all had to put up with his drivel for months more.

Then you should have banned him there for that.  Did he post porn links after the warning?  Is he being banned for what he said or because you don't like him?

Quote from: One Horse Town;552386Sometimes, my good friend, freedom of speech or not, you really have to look at who you're sharing a camp-fire with.

And once the moderators vote people off the island because they don't like someone, where does that lead?

Quote from: One Horse Town;552389If you feel that strongly about the ban, open a thread in the Help Desk.

Who knows, Pundit might agree with you and reinstate him.

OK.  Will do.