Opinion of the rebanning of Libertas

[memphis]

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.

The tldr version of this is that it was Nym's arbitrary decision.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Seems ridiculous. And I'm usually an anti-social fascist.

[politicallefty]

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?

I understand what you're saying. I did notice that afleitch's post was from June. Though it may be odd, I don't see how it adds anything to the aggravating factors supporting a ban. I do understand what you're saying, but I was considering those posters that were instigating provocation. It's hard for me to separate that argument away when I think it was those types of individuals that created such a hostile environment.

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'm in complete and total agreement here. I think the first charge is easily disputable on account of defending oneself, the second is clearly not the case based on posting history, and that last is just ridiculous (if that's spam, then apparently everyone is guilty).

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.

As you are a mod, I would encourage you to look into this further and perhaps bring about an appeal of this case. I firmly believe this was an arbitrary and capricious decision. I don't say this out of some random subjective or personal view, as you can see from my own posting history. I don't generally speak on controversial forum matters, but I felt I must in this case. He did nothing wrong that warranted re-banning and I do hope that you, as a lawyer, can see that based on the weight of the evidence. I feel quite strongly about this, so I do make my personal appeal to you to reexamine this (for whatever possible say you can have in potentially changing this decision). I urge you to use your legalistic approach in this case.

[Oakvale]

The real travesty is that people think banning a poster needs constitutional justification or something. Who cares?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

So you and douchebag Miguel have no finksing clue what you are talking about.  Big surprise asshole.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The real travesty is that people think banning a poster needs constitutional justification or something. Who cares?

Or thinking Atlas is a Democracy?

[badgate]

That's too bad, I liked him.

[politicus]

The real travesty is that people think banning a poster needs constitutional justification or something. Who cares?

Or thinking Atlas is a Democracy?

Republic of Atlasia

[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.

So you and douchebag Miguel have no finksing clue what you are talking about.  Big surprise asshole.

No need to raise your blood pressure gramps. Which one of you posted it was irrelevant to the actual point anyway.

[retromike22]

The point is:

TexasGurl reediting Grumps' post to say TexasGurl's boobs, and Grumps responding with  "She knows me too well.  " is more explicit on both of their parts than anything Adam or I have ever said.

Relative Scale of Forum Explicitness:
8: Libertas' Warehouse Storytime.
5: TexasGurl and Grumps boob editing.
2: "If you're ever in L.A."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That's a pretty mild joke for a "5". Like this goes way beyond that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF84k1be-Uk

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The real travesty is that people think banning a poster needs constitutional justification or something. Who cares?

It's typical for some to act like the internet forum is a real life society, while real life society is like some internet forum.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The real travesty is that people think banning a poster needs constitutional justification or something. Who cares?

famous last words

[Flake]

The point is:

TexasGurl reediting Grumps' post to say TexasGurl's boobs, and Grumps responding with  "She knows me too well.  " is more explicit on both of their parts than anything Adam or I have ever said.

lolol

[Antonio the Sixth]

The real travesty is that people think banning a poster needs constitutional justification or something. Who cares?

famous last words

What? Why?

[Paul Kemp]

The real travesty is that people think banning a poster needs constitutional justification or something. Who cares?

famous last words

What? Why?

oh no tony

[Adam Griffin]

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.

The point isn't that there's a "conspiracy" in there; the point is that it's a medium through which flames are chronically fanned in these cases, based on the whims of a few dominant chatters and absorbed/brought back to the forum by a bunch of impressionables who want to be cool kids. I popped in late the other night for a couple of hours and saw three separate instances of "boo Libertas" chatter (and this was after he was banned).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

People who post on political message boards are the most irrationally paranoid people I've ever met. Or, perhaps, the most irrationally power hungry.

[Simfan34]

The point is:

TexasGurl reediting Grumps' post to say TexasGurl's boobs, and Grumps responding with  "She knows me too well.  " is more explicit on both of their parts than anything Adam or I have ever said.

Relative Scale of Forum Explicitness:
8: Libertas' Warehouse Storytime.
5: TexasGurl and Grumps boob editing.
2: "If you're ever in L.A."

Yes but TexasGurl is a woman. It's not as if Grumps was preying on her or anything.

[Gustaf]

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).

See, this is part of the problem with peoples' attitudes to moderation. Why would you guess that? It's not true, he was warned, I think multiple times, did not show any understanding or willignness to change and as I recall started acting weirdly towards one or two of the moderators in PMs.

To a large extend, Libertas brought this upon himself. While there was some improvement from his old version, he retained essentially the same unnecessary belligerent attitude and just couldn't keep himself from escalating the whole "controversy" by reacting to every provocation by the likes of Snowstalker he should've ignored. The victim complex of some "grand conspiracy to reban him" didn't help either.

I really tried to be helpful to him, and so did the others, but he just didn't listen.

I can't speak to his old version, which I wasn't around for, but this seems about right.  Arguably the leash he was given in the first place was too tight, and I'd have been somewhat more lenient myself, but that's pretty obviously on Nym & co. rather than some imagined fever swamp "ban brigade".  

I guess you could say that his hyperventilating persecution complex turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it was tres disruptive and trollish, and turned off many people (such as myself) who do genuinely believe in second chances and free expression and all that.  But that obviously shouldn't be taken as confirmation of his paranoia any more than the lack of space given to "Jews did 9/11!!!!" conspiracy theories in the media would prove, well, you know.

As for the poll itself, I'm abstaining.

This is amusing since old Libertas was exactly a Jews did 9/11 kind of guy.

Anyway, again, you get taken in on a short leash when you've actually  been banned. There is no right to return here. Think of it as Israel.