Opinion of the rebanning of Libertas

[politicallefty]

Figures that the True Leftists would rally around Libertas.     

What the hell are you talking about? Noted homophobic true leftist Snowstalker is ecstatic about the banning, while people like BRTD and myself, sworn enemies of the True Leftist menace, are rightfully disgusted.

I'm in full agreement with Lief on this one. I may be a staunch liberal, but I've not identified with those proclaiming themselves as "True Leftists". After all, I don't think you'll be finding too many Hillary Clinton supporters (such as myself) among that group. I objectively, sincerely, and vehemently think this was a terrible decision by those that control the banning process. Those that supported this ban (with very limited exception) are by and large prudes and homophobes, despite some proclaiming themselves as social liberals.

I may not be the most active poster here by any means, but I have to question my own membership here. It's readily apparent that certain people are not wanted here and it's not hard to see some that'll be targeted next. There's something seriously wrong with this forum and it appears that those elements are getting stronger over time. I've seen this sort of action kill forums in the past and this one will be a shell of its former self if it's allowed to continue. Good members have already been pushed out over faulty administrative decisions. This will only exacerbate the situation. If people are being targeted for banning, advance notice would hardly be a bad thing.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Did Adam (Ohio Adam, not Georgia Adam) seriously try to make this into an Atlas repression of gay rights thing?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Figures that the True Leftists would rally around Libertas.     

What the hell are you talking about? Noted homophobic true leftist Snowstalker is ecstatic about the banning, while people like BRTD and myself, sworn enemies of the True Leftist menace, are rightfully disgusted.

what the hell are you talking about? the term "true leftist" means, and has always meant, "people that i don't like who can be considered left-wing"

[IceSpear]

HB. He should've let things go rather than trying to confront his critics at every single opportunity, but he did nothing banworthy.

[IceSpear]

You guys were totally fine when Grumps was smooth talking TexasGurl, but whenever me, Libertas and Mike do it, it automatically becomes some heinous sin.

Example:

I'm keeping this strictly to those whose posts I like to read, because I think some of the others not on this list are admirable people.  In no particular order:

TexasGurl's boobs fixed it for ya.

She knows me too well. 

And nobody said a single thing...

It's kind of telling nobody responded to this post...I'm fairly sure this is more explicit than anything you two have ever said.

[traininthedistance]

Figures that the True Leftists would rally around Libertas.    

What the hell are you talking about? Noted homophobic true leftist Snowstalker is ecstatic about the banning, while people like BRTD and myself, sworn enemies of the True Leftist menace, are rightfully disgusted.

I'm in full agreement with Lief on this one. I may be a staunch liberal, but I've not identified with those proclaiming themselves as "True Leftists". After all, I don't think you'll be finding too many Hillary Clinton supporters (such as myself) among that group. I objectively, sincerely, and vehemently think this was a terrible decision by those that control the banning process. Those that supported this ban (with very limited exception) are by and large prudes and homophobes, despite some proclaiming themselves as social liberals.

I may not be the most active poster here by any means, but I have to question my own membership here. It's readily apparent that certain people are not wanted here and it's not hard to see some that'll be targeted next. There's something seriously wrong with this forum and it appears that those elements are getting stronger over time. I've seen this sort of action kill forums in the past and this one will be a shell of its former self if it's allowed to continue. Good members have already been pushed out over faulty administrative decisions. This will only exacerbate the situation. If people are being targeted for banning, advance notice would hardly be a bad thing.

'
I'm sure that afleitch and Marokai are thrilled to hear that they're homophobic "prudes" now.  And of course let's not forget fact that one of our proudest "anti-pruders", Grumps, was beating the ban drumbeat loudest, whereas Madeleine, who with the possible exception of Simfan is the only poster here who can actually be described in any honest way as "prudish", was in Libertas's corner.  It totally all fits that explanation, duh!

"Very limited exception" my eye.  I don't know why you feel the need to default to this explanation, but repeating it over and over (obviously there are many folks beside you who are doing so, and this post is a response to them as well) doesn't make it any less ludicrous.  

TBH I would argue that the very term "prude" is something without a meaningful and consistent definition except as a term of vague abuse anyway, and thus needs to stop being used so much. But such an argument isn't a necessary part of my point.

The one thing I will agree with here is your last sentence.  The Mods have an obligation to do a better job communicating limits and providing warnings; doing so won't silence every sh*t-stirrer but it's the right thing to do and will certainly help matters.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not entirely surprising; it became pretty clear after his return that though his views had changed, his highly individual style of argument (which, note, was a contributory factor in his original banning) had not. I'm no longer privy to modland discussion o/c, but I would be surprised if Eric was particularly happy with that.

[Flake]

You guys were totally fine when Grumps was smooth talking TexasGurl, but whenever me, Libertas and Mike do it, it automatically becomes some heinous sin.

Example:

I'm keeping this strictly to those whose posts I like to read, because I think some of the others not on this list are admirable people.  In no particular order:

TexasGurl's boobs fixed it for ya.

She knows me too well. 

And nobody said a single thing...

It's kind of telling nobody responded to this post...I'm fairly sure this is more explicit than anything you two have ever said.

You do realize the "boobs" part (lol) was added by TexasGurl?

[IceSpear]

You guys were totally fine when Grumps was smooth talking TexasGurl, but whenever me, Libertas and Mike do it, it automatically becomes some heinous sin.

Example:

I'm keeping this strictly to those whose posts I like to read, because I think some of the others not on this list are admirable people.  In no particular order:

TexasGurl's boobs fixed it for ya.

She knows me too well. 

And nobody said a single thing...

It's kind of telling nobody responded to this post...I'm fairly sure this is more explicit than anything you two have ever said.

You do realize the "boobs" part (lol) was added by TexasGurl?

Actually I didn't notice that, but that just makes her the explicit flirter rather than him.

[Fritz]

HB.

Banning should only be done in extreme circumstances.  This forum bans way too indiscriminately.  Libertas did nothing to deserve this, and I'm guessing he wasn't warned that a ban was imminent if he did not change his ways (as was opebo).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Did Adam (Ohio Adam, not Georgia Adam) seriously try to make this into an Atlas repression of gay rights thing?

A bunch of self-hating gays with anti-pro-homosexual agenda teamed up with the Junior Anti-Sex League to purge the Atlas Forum and make it a straight-only domain.

[Ebowed]

Did Adam (Ohio Adam, not Georgia Adam) seriously try to make this into an Atlas repression of gay rights thing?

A bunch of self-hating gays with anti-pro-homosexual agenda teamed up with the Junior Anti-Sex League to purge the Atlas Forum and make it a straight-only domain.

LOL.

I can see two sides to the issue.  The root of the problem seems to be a non conciliatory nature which was intrinsic to his style of debate.  It should have been more evident that this element had not disappeared.  It is unfortunate that the appearance of how this occurred lends credence to the theory that the specific content of his new posts was as much of a factor as his previous history on the forum.

Obviously, there are clear inconsistencies in the manner with which users are banned.  It seems to be as much a flaw in the system in how the death points are accrued as much as any grassroots push from posters; for example, some people have been talking about banning Bushie for years, for trying to scam members into buying into Ameriplan, among other things.  The fact that Krazen is still here, spamming threads with links to faux-news sites, is a mystery.

The more I think about it, the less I understand why he would be permitted to post here only briefly just to be given the boot once again.  It seems like an exercise in pointless 'proving of a point.'

[DemPGH]

Unquestionably horrible, and I have literally nothing in common with Libertas. He didn't do anything, again, in comparison to everything else to warrant a ban.

I post on forums unrelated to politics that are far stricter (50% of the content here would be ban-able, and no threads about other people would ever be tolerated) yet far more consistently moderated than here, and when we go through stretches like this, this place really becomes a corrupt, bully-infested wasteland. People pour so much frustration and anger out on this place that at times like this, it's really sad.

[politicallefty]

I'm sure that afleitch and Marokai are thrilled to hear that they're homophobic "prudes" now.  And of course let's not forget fact that one of our proudest "anti-pruders", Grumps, was beating the ban drumbeat loudest, whereas Madeleine, who with the possible exception of Simfan is the only poster here who can actually be described in any honest way as "prudish", was in Libertas's corner.  It totally all fits that explanation, duh!

"Very limited exception" my eye.  I don't know why you feel the need to default to this explanation, but repeating it over and over (obviously there are many folks beside you who are doing so, and this post is a response to them as well) doesn't make it any less ludicrous.  

TBH I would argue that the very term "prude" is something without a meaningful and consistent definition except as a term of vague abuse anyway, and thus needs to stop being used so much. But such an argument isn't a necessary part of my point.

The one thing I will agree with here is your last sentence.  The Mods have an obligation to do a better job communicating limits and providing warnings; doing so won't silence every sh*t-stirrer but it's the right thing to do and will certainly help matters.

If you see my first post in this topic, you'd see that moral disapproval was only part of my complaint (the other being personal dislike). Only one of the posters you mentioned was of those I was talking about. I have nothing but the utmost respect for afleitch and I am unaware of any of any his postings about this matter. As for Grumps, I do like and respect him as a poster, though I also respectfully disagree with his thoughts on this. I was indeed pleasantly surprised to read Madeleine's response, which was most certainly a surprise based on her posting history (and username, for that matter).

If anything, your post has only hardened my position that this ban was completely ridiculous and nonsensical. There is nothing banworthy in his posting history by any objective measure. I still maintain that some posters here that wanted him banned from the start are indeed prudish and quite homophobic, whether or not they hid behind the label of social liberalism. (I really do believe some members here are quite homophobic, despite their proclaimed political leanings.) Those that continued their endless provocation should be punished. I fail to see how defending oneself against said provocation warrants a ban. There is nothing that points to a ban in this case. If there is, almost any current member is fair game.

As you mention those who are sh-t-stirrers, my dad almost literally just told me that "those who stir the sh-t pot should have to lick the spoon". That is a reference to those that have caused this banned and continue to dance around in their apparent victory. To those (not to the above poster): I say screw you and enjoy your pathetic victory while it lasts. It won't be one that lasts.

HB.

Banning should only be done in extreme circumstances.  This forum bans way too indiscriminately.  Libertas did nothing to deserve this, and I'm guessing he wasn't warned that a ban was imminent if he did not change his ways (as was opebo).

^This x1000!

I cannot say how much I agree with this post. As I was saying before, it seems as though mere moral disapproval and personal dislike is enough to warrant a ban at this point. That is absurd and completely ridiculous. If that is the case, this forum needs radically new leadership. Libertas was not a destructive presence on this forum. Other than responding to the provocations of others (to his apparent detriment), I found him to be a quite good poster. He did nothing wrong, unless defending oneself has become a banworthy offense. I'll be one of the first to sign the petition for his reinstatement.

I'm sorry, but this is the functional equivalent of social conservatives running this place, which is disturbing to me. This forum is devolving into a place where mere personal dislike is enough to result in a ban. I've been to forums where excessive rules and regulations override all else and where ban petitions are commonplace. It does not have good results for the overall quality of posters.

[Adam Griffin]

The slut-shaming in this thread is ridiculous. So what if he responded to attacks without impunity? He had the right to, and he shouldn't have had to explain or justify it to any damn person. I tried telling him to be more succinct with his replies (like "Why don't you go drink some more potatoes, leprechaun?" or "the reason you all are trying to rally a ban cry is because you have no lives") but he didn't listen.

The overall point, however, is that he shouldn't have had to listen to other people's advice on his defending himself or the BS coming from critics. The Ban Squad knows exactly how to get someone banned and they do it.

• One or two influentials start attacking
• Start bitching about it in IRC and PMs
• A dozen start attacking
• Bandwagon effect; it spreads forum-wide
• Creeps start digging through post history and quoting the least flattering ones (bonus points if they contain content that will flag Dave's Google ad accounts)
• Combination of all of this leads to ban

They knew he would continue responding in the way he did, that a backlash to "Old Libertas!!!!11" would arise (how everyone is saying, "oh well he defended himself relentlessly - he hasn't changed so time to ban again!"). The only thing he's guilty of is not succintly telling every last one of you detractors to fyck off and eat a big ol' bag of dicks.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Did Adam (Ohio Adam, not Georgia Adam) seriously try to make this into an Atlas repression of gay rights thing?

A bunch of self-hating gays with anti-pro-homosexual agenda teamed up with the Junior Anti-Sex League to purge the Atlas Forum and make it a straight-only domain.

LOL.

I can see two sides to the issue.  The root of the problem seems to be a non conciliatory nature which was intrinsic to his style of debate.  It should have been more evident that this element had not disappeared.  It is unfortunate that the appearance of how this occurred lends credence to the theory that the specific content of his new posts was as much of a factor as his previous history on the forum.

Obviously, there are clear inconsistencies in the manner with which users are banned.  It seems to be as much a flaw in the system in how the death points are accrued as much as any grassroots push from posters; for example, some people have been talking about banning Bushie for years, for trying to scam members into buying into Ameriplan, among other things.  The fact that Krazen is still here, spamming threads with links to faux-news sites, is a mystery.

The more I think about it, the less I understand why he would be permitted to post here only briefly just to be given the boot once again.  It seems like an exercise in pointless 'proving of a point.'

You're making lots of good points. Banning policy is hardly consistent.

As of Libertas' particular case, I must admit the swiftness of his banning was surprising, especially as he just gave up arguing in certain thread. I still feel he mishandled his return, not realizing that, as freshly re-banned controversial poster he should have displayed less belligerent attitude (at least for some time). Yet his return was somewhat derailed by hostility he received (including from those who weren't even around for his original tenure). Behavior of some during the "affair" leaves bad taste.

[traininthedistance]

I have nothing but the utmost respect for afleitch and I am unaware of any of any his postings about this matter

He hasn't said much but this bit on the Atlas subforum makes it pretty clear, I think:

I just don't get it. Does no one else think his PM's are creepy? I've had two in which he's congratulated me on my physique, mentioned how good he looks in tight pink leggings from H&M and offered to send me verified photos of himself, his partner and a recommendation from his employer. Something still doesn't sit right with me.

I'm happy to concede that there are some serious issues with consistency and communication from the Mod team that, in the end, do make this re-ban really problematic.  I just wish that the legitimate anti-ban arguments could be separated out from the "sexless joyless Prude Brood" and "evil ban warrior Oakvale" nonsense that they seem to always get packaged with.  Does that make any sense?

[Simfan34]

Rockingham was also banned. The moderation is fair and balanced, albeit increasingly opaque in the matter of a Communist Central Committee. So perhaps a purge is coming.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Let's keep things in perspective. It has always been the case that unbanned posters are only allowed back under the strict understanding that they will behave impeccably. I'm also not aware of any conspiracy - I'm an IRC regular and don't recall any discussion to that effect (even if Libertas was/is hardly flavour of the month there) - not that one would have been needed.

[ElectionsGuy]

Wait a minute, he was banned already after just being unbanned?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Can the moderators who banned him please give us an example of a rule violation that would warrant banning?


All I'm seeing is "He responds to attacks too much" (which is within his rights), "He's the same Libertas as he was 4-5 years ago" (seriously? Let it go), and "He spams" (then let's ban BRTD and Bushie for the ridiculous amount of spam they post about their personal lives or about Opebo).


This is so stupid. Just let him back and let the kid be.

I don't care what happens ... but this kind of view (which does reject context, and does ignore some of the other non-public behaviour) makes me really irritated and only feeds the conspiracy theories. Mind you, the way this was handled only invited these complaints.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I, one of the self-hating, sexless, prudish, anti-fun, slut-shaming, anti-pro-homosexual gays on the moderation team, was against him coming back in the first place.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I, one of the self-hating, sexless, prudish, anti-fun, slut-shaming, anti-pro-homosexual gays on the moderation team, was against him coming back in the first place.

What did this guy even do that makes you hate him so much lol? I mean, I didn't agree with him on everything, but he made some damn good threads and contributed a lot to the forum in terms of content. Apparently he had been banned back before I joined, but unless he was literally destroying the forum, let it go.

I don't say this to criticize your authority.

Too late.

RIP, FF.

[Torie]

Well, look, Mods have different approaches in what they consider ban worthy, although I think most Mods give a previously banned poster a shorter leash after reinstatement, at least for a period of time. Some Mods like myself and Muon2, and to a lessor extent Badger, take a highly "legalistic" approach, other Mods less so, some not much at all perhaps. In this case some Mods broached the topic that Libertas' reinstatement had proved to be mistake based on overall conduct, and the legal beagles really were not motivated to dig into the matter like myself, or simply did not think the discussion had reached the point, that a ban was in serious play, or both, and did not participate in that discussion, and then suddenly, Nym decided to ban.

Nym is the judge, the Mods are but advocates before him as judge. In this case, perhaps Libertas did not have adequate "representation" in the sense that not all advocates with different points of view participated. And there you have it. There was not some grand unified policy change or conspiracy, or anything else. It was just an unusual case "procedurally" shall we say - all sound and fury signifying not much beyond the result itself.

Hope this helps. I do understand why the decision was controversial, and perhaps in this case there is some merit in the concern.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Having no access to the mods cave I can only speculate, but I'd guess one of the reasons for banning policy being inconsistent is that moderators can be quite divided in their opinions in individual cases. While Nym is the sole decision maker, moderators' voice surely matters a lot, especially in controversial cases, such as opebo's (with no consensus reached until last moments, as explained already by the mods, Nym was reluctant to press the button).