An issue with an unmoderated post

[Erich von Manstein]

I don't think the ToS takes into account whether the receiver takes offence or not.

Sure it does. As Hotspur said, context is everything. Inside jokes are prevalent at this site and I frequently see infractions overturned when it is revealed to Staff that the "insult" was anything but. Additionally, many of the other ToS provisions require someone to actually be offended before remedial action is taken by Staff.

[Lord Bohemond]

I'm sure about that and I don't claim that it is otherwise. Still, for me, it's a matter of moderating principle not of the "gravitas" of the specific insult.

Hypothetical situation:

You state you are a Nazi. Yet you get someone a warning because they call you a Nazi... that argument makes no sense. If the label is true and accurate, there is nothing wrong with it.

I've gotten myself at least one or two warnings in this context, so this is definitely an issue I want sorted out.

BTW, ferrets54, you are a pedophile.

Has Ferret admitted to having sex with children, or can you provide credible evidence to back up your claim?

If not, then this would be a flame.

Sure it does. As Hotspur said, context is everything. Inside jokes are prevalent at this site and I frequently see infractions overturned when it is revealed to Staff that the "insult" was anything but. Additionally, many of the other ToS provisions require someone to actually be offended before remedial action is taken by Staff.

Wow, you actually said something I agree with. This makes me begin to suspect your identity...

[Scorch]

Hypothetical situation:

You state you are a Nazi. Yet you get someone a warning because they call you a Nazi... that argument makes no sense. If the label is true and accurate, there is nothing wrong with it.

I've gotten myself at least one or two warnings in this context, so this is definitely an issue I want sorted out.

If the user is not actually advocating Nazi political views and arguments, the way the term has evolved today, I'd consider the word Nazi a flame.

Has Ferret admitted to having sex with children, or can you provide credible evidence to back up your claim?

If not, then this would be a flame.

That is a good point. As I believe I said, Dao admitted to having sex with a child, so technically, the statement is closer to a statement of fact. Secondly, that user is banned, and the user that made the remark is currently (as far as I can recall) banned, which makes punishing the remark rather counter-productive, pedantic and ridiculous.

[Lord Bohemond]

If the user is not actually advocating Nazi political views and arguments, the way the term has evolved today, I'd consider the word Nazi a flame.

That is a good point. As I believe I said, Dao admitted to having sex with a child, so technically, the statement is closer to a statement of fact. Secondly, that user is banned, and the user that made the remark is currently (as far as I can recall) banned, which makes punishing the remark rather counter-productive, pedantic and ridiculous.

So if I go on a thread, and somebody says "You Republican!", or "You white man!", he could receive a warning?

Now if the user in question said "You no good disgusting piece of **** pedo!", I could understand your point. But he just said Dao is a pedo, which is just a statement of fact.

[Scorch]

So if I go on a thread, and somebody says "You Republican!", or "You white man!", he could receive a warning?

If you read what I said, I actually said it is a flame if the user is not openly advocating Nazi ideology. As I said, the word Nazi today has evolved into an insult, and the only way I can see it not being a flame is if it is a statement of fact, that is, if a user is openly advocating advocating Nazi ideology.

Now if the user in question said "You no good disgusting piece of **** pedo!", I could understand your point. But he just said Dao is a pedo, which is just a statement of fact.

You may have misunderstood me, I was saying that it is not punishable for two reasons, firstly it is closer to a statement of fact and secondly because it was made by a currently suspended member to another suspended member. The target of the flame is likely never going to see the post, and punishing a member that is currently serving out a punishment as it is would be counter-productive.

[Lord Bohemond]

If you read what I said, I actually said it is a flame if the user is not openly advocating Nazi ideology. As I said, the word Nazi today has evolved into an insult, and the only way I can see it not being a flame is if it is a statement of fact, that is, if a user is openly advocating advocating Nazi ideology.

Well then, perhaps I used a poor analogy.

But if someone is a Nazi, or a Democrat, or a Republican, or a Socialist, or whatever... wouldn't those attitudes show whenever he went into the Political Mudpit?

You may have misunderstood me, I was saying that it is not punishable for two reasons, firstly it is closer to a statement of fact and secondly because it was made by a currently suspended member to another suspended member. The target of the flame is likely never going to see the post, and punishing a member that is currently serving out a punishment as it is would be counter-productive.

Yes, it would seem I did misunderstand you. Thanks for clarifying.

[Scorch]

Well then, perhaps I used a poor analogy.

But if someone is a Nazi, or a Democrat, or a Republican, or a Socialist, or whatever... wouldn't those attitudes show whenever he went into the Political Mudpit?

Obviously, yes. If a user actually shares Nazi views and advocates Nazi ideology, the term Nazi is an accurate description. However if a user is clearly not doing this, the history of the term, the people who labelled themselves as 'Nazis' and those sorts of factors make it a fairly clear flame.

Yes, it would seem I did misunderstand you. Thanks for clarifying.

No worries.

[Lord Bohemond]

Obviously, yes. If a user actually shares Nazi views and advocates Nazi ideology, the term Nazi is an accurate description. However if a user is clearly not doing this, the history of the term, the people who labelled themselves as 'Nazis' and those sorts of factors make it a fairly clear flame.

So wouldn't this case fit your definition? The user did publicly state that he had enaged in pedophilic sex (Though this is a second hand account, I wasn't an actual witness to this.) on this forum, so wouldn't it be appropriate to use the label on this forum?

[Scorch]

So wouldn't this case fit your definition? The user did publicly state that he had enaged in pedophilic sex (Though this is a second hand account, I wasn't an actual witness to this.) on this forum, so wouldn't it be appropriate to use the label on this forum?

Yep. I'd say it would. As I said, he said he had sex with and was attracted to a child. A paedophile is, technically, the very description for that kind of behaviour/activity.

[The Good]

I see that Dismounted was suspended recently, was it just for calling Dao a pedophile? Just curious, because Dao really admit to this heinous act....he really said he's a pedophile.

[Scorch]

I see that Dismounted was suspended recently, was it just for calling Dao a pedophile? Just curious, because Dao really admit to this heinous act....he really said he's a pedophile.

We generally don't share details about why other members were banned, though if you check the Tribunal archives, you may be able to find the details, if he appealed the infraction, that is.

[Dismounted H@Xx0rZ]

I was banned for off topic posting. A little transparency in the Tribunal's unintelligent decisions wouldn't hurt you.

PS: DAO IS A PEDOPHILE. He admitted it.

[Каие]

If you get banned ten times, shouldn't it become permanent?

[Miraj]

Hey, DH is back!

[Каие]

Unfortunately..

[Captain Arrrgh!]

**Ahem**
Pedophile: A person whats likes bicycle pedals. A lot.
Source: Thar Pirate's Dikshunary.

[eventhorizen]

Agree with Ferrets here. Calling white white or a fork a fork should not be punishable.

Having said that there is a difference between "eventhorizen lied" and "eventhorizen the liar". The quote in the OP clearly shows the intention of slander, whether warranted or not.

Dao might be a "pedo" but the attitude displayed in the quote should be discouraged.

[Dismounted H@Xx0rZ]

Unfortunately..

I love you too.

[Каие]

I love you too.

I don't have anything against you, personally, but the number of times you have been suspended I'm guessing others have a problem?

[Kanaric]

wrong topicMy response to the admin:
Its not an insult. Thats my problem with this. Its an accurate description its what they are they are saying they want to have sex with young girls. How is describing that an as pedophilia, the definition of the word, an insult. Sure its "insulting" to a person but is calling someone who kills his wife a murderer an insult as well? Perhaps it is but its an accurate description of what he did. I am wondering what you think of this. I mean wouldn't you call them a pedophile? Like I said its an accurate by the books definitive description of what they are doing.

Its like calling a liar a liar you can call a persons source . So i'm allowed to call him a pedophile because he is factually a pedophile. I mean if calling him accurately a pedophile is in this way then any descriptor like calling someone a socialist, communist, nazi etc should also be banned. Especially Nazi since it is an insult but if someone is literally saying they are denying the holocaust and believe the jews fabricated the whole thing then they are factually perhaps a nazi. Except in this case this person flat out SAYS hes attracted and would have sex with young girls. Its for more concrete than my Nazi explanation because that person could be muslim or simply discussing the holocaust.

Also it doesn't matter if hes trolling or not. On the debate forum people say all kinds of things are are supposedly trolls like some people who are russian communists but live in canada like Russki Soldat and a current poster. When they post they are supposed to be taken seriously as you are debating against them. So if this person is going to be a pedophile, something that has no valid position, then calling them what they are is simply describing their behavior. A thief is a thief, a murderer is a murderer, a pedophile is a pedophile. What other language am I expected to call someone who is attracted to young girls and admits they would have sex with them? Am I expected to debate seriously on such a subject? The merits of having sex with 8 year olds?

Also when the posts were deleted no explanation was given and the topic was allowed to be derailed. As the "young girls" post still remained, which is HIGHLY offensive. As a result it devolved into the same thing that I was involved in.


This is a relavant topic to what is going on with this pedophile post.