[DISMISS][Citizen Referral] Magickyleo101

[Nikos]

In the Prothalamos, a thread ([Bill of Attainder] Amagi ) was started.

thread first post in question

Author: Magickyleo101 Supporters: Bill of Attainder RE: Amagi WHEREAS, through his continuously racist and anti-semitic posts Amagi has shown himself to be a poor member of the TWC community; and WHEREAS, through his denial and gross minimization of the holocaust, Amagi has promoted illegal activities by taking actions that are illegal in much of the world; and WHEREAS, through his denial of the holocaust, implication of Israel in 9/11, and attacks on inter-racial marriage Amagi has repeatedly made posts designed to elicit a response that violates the terms of service; and WHEREAS, through his suggestion that minorities harm their country when they marry whites, suggestion that immigration is a Jewish conspiracy, and active encouragment of antisemitism, Amagi has indirectly insulted multiple TWC members; and WHEREAS, through his activities Amagi has harmed the reputation of TWC, discouraged new members from joining the community, and otherwise acted in ways clearly detrimental to the boards and its users; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Curia hereby finds and concludes that Amagi has engaged in the above stated violations of the terms of service; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Curia hereby exhorts the moderation staff of TWC to investigate the above mentioned activities of Amagi, and following such investigation to punish Amagi as may be appropriate; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Curia hereby exhorts the moderation staff of TWC to strictly police the activities of Amagi, to strictly enforce the terms of service against his behavior, and encourage his departure from TWC; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Curia hereby exhorts the moderation staff of TWC to liberally interpret the terms of service as may be needed in order for such regulations to achieve their intended effect. Explanation: So it's my understanding that: (1) pretty much everyone would be happy to see Amagi and his holocaust denial return to stormfront forever, but (2) the the Curia can't actually do anything to punish Amagi directly. Instead, I propose that we pass a resolution containing the above findings of fact. There are certain terms of service that the moderators rarely seem to use to punish members (such as "Other"), and I expect that a lot of that may be due to a lack of clarity regarding what it takes to violate those provisions. A finding by the Curia that Amagi has engaged in "activity ... clearly detrimental to the ... normal activities of the boards," then, might encourage the moderators to employ those provisions more liberally regarding Amagi. Better yet, Amagi might just get the message that he's not wanted and leave...

The thread was closed by a member of Hex.

Hex thread closure comments

If you have a problem with a member's posting behaviour use the report button or PM any moderator. The curia discussing about other members and demanding staff to take action against them is a big NO. Closed.

The very purpose of the Terms of Service is to protect members from this sort of behavior. To do so within the Curia where the Moderation Staff should not as a matter of course intervene and edit, delete, issue infractions, etc. without the request of the Curator makes this even worse.

I personally have contacted Magickyleo101 requesting a public apology for his action. He has chosen not to do so.

I request that CdeC take appropriate action on this member. This behavior should not be allowed to go without consequences.

Regards,

Viking Prince
Citizen
Seniior Moderator
Member of CdeC

So let me start off by saying that I realize that what I did was a mistake. If I had it to do over again, I obviously wouldn't go about raising my complaints with Amagi in the manner I did. For my defense, then, I really just want to point out two mitigating factors:

First, my behavior wasn't something calculated that I thought about for a while and it's not something reflective of my normal behavior on TWC. I lost my head in the middle of the night (I posted at like 5:30am) after I had been up for a long time studying for finals and writing a paper. Two of my closest friends are jewish and one of those friends is married to a hispanic person (also a friend). In my sleep deprived state, watching Amagi blame Jews for 9/11 and attack interracial marriage was too much to bear, and I made a bad decision. If I could take it back I would.

I think Viking Prince has concluded that I don't have any remorse for what I did because I didn't immediately acquiesce to his demand that I make a public apology to Amagi and surrender my citizenship. My reluctance, though, to apologize to a guy who's blaming my friends for 9/11 doesn't mean that I don't have any regret - it just means that I don't think that what VP is demanding is the correct response to my mistake. I just want to be punished the way people are normally punished when they lose their heads (through an infraction) and not by being forced to grovel before a holocaust denier or surrender my citizenship.

Second, at the time I made the post I really sincerely believed that what I did was an appropriate response to Amagi's behavior (again, I realize now that it wasn't). There are two considerations to bear in mind here:

One: I share the reluctance of many members of this board to make things like holocaust denial an infraction. I think there are times when a person might sincerely be confused about the issue, and then a discussion of the topic in the D&D section would be a better option than simply infracting the guy. If you look at Amagi, though, everything he posts is racist and hateful. My thinking, then, was that it was better to deal with racists on a case-by-case basis than by making a rule against any post that might be considered racist. Again, with some sleep I see that that's a bad idea, but at the time my post was a sincere effort to deal with a problem TWC has - I wasn't just trying to cause trouble.

Two: I'm sensitive to Viking Prince's point that members (especially unpopular members) need to be protected from being attacked on the boards in a way that would make them uncomfortable posting here. But that also applies to members who fall into minority groups (e.g. Jewish members), and I think that the behavior of Amagi and certain other members in the mudpit makes it really hard for Jewish or interacially married members to be comfortable as members of the community. At the time I posted I felt (and to be honest, I still feel) that the moderation staff wasn't doing enough to make TWC a welcoming place not only for holocaust deniers but also for Jewish members. In other words, at the time I posted I wasn't disregarding the sorts of concerns Viking Prince raises - I was just acting on them in the wrong way.

Again, I realize that the way I raised that concern was inappropriate. If people feel that I've violated the ToS, the moderation staff should issue me an infraction. I've already been castigated pretty hard by jimkatalanos and I'm embarrassed by my own behavior. I think that that, perhaps in combination with a warning, is punishment enough. If the CdeC really feels the need to take an action, I think a decision to censure me would be most appropriate.

Finally, it's important to remember here that just being a citizen doesn't make you perfect - even people who are normally extremely level headed can be set off in certain circumstances, and that's really how I think this case should be viewed. I'd invite you guys to take a look at all my past behavior on TWC (and not just this one post) in determining whether I still deserve to be a citizen.

-Magickyleo101

[Augustus Lucifer]

He has no history of poor behavior to my knowledge, and what I recall of his posting style in his application was well above the Citizen standard. A censure to get the message across that this is not an appropriate course of action may be in order, but nothing more than that.

[Legio]

^

[Nikos]

Defense posted

[Augustus Lucifer]

He's worse than me!

EDIT: After reading his defense, he seems to be harder on himself than anyone else. He suggested an infraction be issued, but I see nothing in his post that violates the ToS, aside from perhaps the last sentence which might very, very loosely qualify as an 'offensive order'. The "don't talk about other members" rule isn't a ToS rule, it's an ad lib rule enforced ad lib, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the ToS except as pertains to the D&D. Even the mentions he does make are in regards to the posts of a member, which is properly attacking posts(if accusations of violation comprise 'attacks'). Obviously his thread was out of order, but it was not in violation of any statute I'm aware of.

Regarding his refusal to apologize, I'm now curious how it was phrased. If he was asked merely to apologize for posting the thread, he should acquiesce and he has done so in his defense. If however the request was to apologize to Amagi, I can see why he would not desire to do that, seeing as the only member I remember being asked to formally apologize was for a much more serious incident of harassment. If he was asked to resign his citizenship, I can further see why he'd be opposed to that.

Lastly, I don't think this can be qualified as 'harassment':

Continual harassing behavior directed towards a certain individual or group with the intent of creating an intimidating, offensive, or hostile environment on the boards, with or without use of explicit or implicit threats is prohibited.

One occurrence which was not malign in intent does not constitute Harassment by the ToS definition.

[Viking Prince]

First, I requested a public apology and not demanded. I never once stated that he should resign his rank, though I would agree it would be the proper thing to do.

I asked that he apologize to Amalgi, the Curia, the membership of TWC. It was never meant to be simply an apology to Amalgi, though that would be a good start.

As to an appropirate punishment, I agree that complete removal of rank is not warranted. I also believe that this is far more serious than the citizen admits to. I will probably be in favor of a month suspension of rank. I do not care that this is his first time in trouble or not. The behavior is contrary to the entire spirit of TWC. The logic that it is not a violation of the rules is debatable. The Curator did not request the infraction, so the point is also moot.

If a warning was issued by me, it would be for points (off topic and does not rise to the level of disruptive posting -- side note for AL) and we would still be here. I suspect we would also perhaps have the drama of the Tribunal as well -- but that is supposition.

I am not certain what is more of a problem: the actual post, the defense, the lack of comment in the Curial commentary, or that after 12 hours not another citizen thought is worth their time to bring forth this referral even though there are 123 views at this point in time.

[Augustus Lucifer]

First, I requested a public apology and not demanded. I never once stated that he should resign his rank, though I would agree it would be the proper thing to do.

I asked that he apologize to Amalgi, the Curia, the membership of TWC. It was never meant to be simply an apology to Amalgi, though that would be a good start.

It's not unreasonable that he offer a public apology. But an apology should come from the person or it is not sincere, which makes its utility null.

As to an appropirate punishment, I agree that complete removal of rank is not warranted. I also believe that this is far more serious than the citizen admits to. I will probably be in favor of a month suspension of rank. I do not care that this is his first time in trouble or not. The behavior is contrary to the entire spirit of TWC. The logic that it is not a violation of the rules is debatable. The Curator did not request the infraction, so the point is also moot.

We'll have to agree to disagree about what action is warranted here.

Regarding the spirit of TWC, that's a matter for a lot of discussion. His thread contained pretensions and an approach which was poorly pursued, and in that respect you're absolutely right, but the general sentiment that reprehensible opinion should be weeded out by rebuking and chastising it whenever it rears its ugly head is in accordance with the spirit of TWC. The question of what to do about racists has been around for a long time(see post and follow-up two, and don't ask how I came upon that).

So in the spirit of TWC we should allow all opinions to be expressed within some defined boundaries, and not persecute in the rules or institutionally these opinions. But we also can't seek to prevent the types of community response that discourages these irrational opinions(not referring to his thread), otherwise we simply get overrun with them because it's a case of punishing the rational for rebuking the irrational because they responded emotionally. I may be a robot in debate, and Sim/Mim may be robots in debate, but the vast majority can't be expected to distance themselves all the time in the face of rampant ridiculousness.

If a warning was issued by me, it would be for points (off topic and does not rise to the level of disruptive posting -- side note for AL) and we would still be here. I suspect we would also perhaps have the drama of the Tribunal as well -- but that is supposition.

Is the bold referring to this decision? Because I'd say you've evaluated the options under that decision incorrectly. His thread is a textbook example of:

Threads whose nature is designed to contravene the topic of a forum or start a degenerative line of discussion.

which is provided for under Disruptive Posting and may be issued in note, 1-pt, 3-pt, or 6-pt form depending on severity. For it to fit the current OT rule, the only argument is that it 'contains no material that can reasonably be discussed', since any thread in proposal form is inherently topical in the Prothalmos, as there are no guidelines on what a proposal constitutes, and past decisions such as Meg Should Stay show decisions can discuss other members. The difference is not in the member discussing, but that it's negative discussion which is prevented ad lib.

I am not certain what is more of a problem: the actual post, the defense, the lack of comment in the Curial commentary, or that after 12 hours not another citizen thought is worth their time to bring forth this referral even though there are 123 views at this point in time.

The post was a poor decision. The defense I don't take issue with. The Curial commentary is not often utilized, and if it were to be utilized to admonish magickyleo then other members would be doing exactly what you're suggesting is so wrong about his thread. The lack of a Citizen Referral can be attributed both to the fact that it's an oft unrealized course of action, and that 12 hours isn't as much time as it's made out to be. Let's not make this more than it is, which is one incident involving one Citizen.

[Justinian]

I have no real problem with what he posted; since it's never happened before, there's no rule against it. Amagi is almost certainly a troll account to whom I lend as much credence as George Bush's left testicle; the member didn't actually break a rule; I don't see any real reason to pursue further action here.

[Viking Prince]

So the argument is: Since the member is not popular, that this ia not really a big deal.

The member did break the rules. He simply did not receive a warning. I cannot believe that I even need to be discussing this.

[Augustus Lucifer]

So the argument is: Since the member is not popular, that this ia not really a big deal.

Not sure if you're referring to myself or to Justy. That's certainly not my argument, as the member being referred to negatively is irrelevant to the discussion, in the same way that whether or not a member is a Nazi is irrelevant to calling them a Nazi.

[Justinian]

So the argument is: Since the member is not popular, that this ia not really a big deal.

No: that, irrelevant to the case, the member is almost certainly a troll or alternate account of gojira whose sole purpose is to piss people off in the Mudpit and not the kind of person we need on this site.

The member did break the rules. He simply did not receive a warning. I cannot believe that I even need to be discussing this.

What rule did he break?

Also, due to my unabashed dislike of Amagi, I am going to be abstaining from the voting on this case. I still do not see what rule, either in the ToS or Curia, was broken by this member, or why we should punish him for doing something he may well not have known he couldn't do.

He simply made a far, far more direct (and more serious, judging by his defense) point than I made with my "Ban Stupidity" bill; are you going to prosecute me for violating a nonexistant rule, as well? He seems sincere enough in his apology, and does not need to punished, in my opinion, for doing something that he thought he could do.

[Viking Prince]

It was in response to Justinian's post.

I agree that the apology needs to be an honest one from the heart and not forced. That is why I made the suggestion in the private messages. That is also why I waited for him to have time to respond. My first pm may have been a bit harsh looking back on it.

Maybe it is because I see this as more of the bully/pick on the little guy sort of behavior that I do not like it when I see it. I do not know.

The excuse of 'I have friends' does not hold water with me. I also have friends that are Jewish that would be appalled at this type of behavior in posting such a manifesto -- some of whom are now only a memory since they are (were) the age of my parent's generation. Some had left Europe as young children prior to the outbreak of WWII. Some were also surviviors from WWII and the camps. To deny such events having existed is wrong. To ban the speakers of such denial is wrong. If such threads did not need moderation, I would be in the heart of such discussions. Perhaps I should participate actively and not moderate those threads. Maybe it is because I am older and I have seen more of this over time. Again, I do not know.

If the complaint is with moderation, this was certainly the wrong way to solve the problem by attacking a member. Magickyleo101 somehow seems to think (as I read his defense plus from his pms) that this should be simply a matter of points by moderation and then we move on. Points are not a punishment in and of themselves. To be honest, I would rather send a pm and discuss why a post is in error and what to do in the future. I do this via notes and pms as a moderator.

This was not a moderation action. This was done in the Curia and in theory in an area that moderation is discouraged from acting independantly. A member of Hex intervened and closed the thread as a violation of the rules. He did not wait for the Curator (nor does Hex need to wait). That alone indicates the seriousness of such a violation of TWC rules.

To issue only a censure will be looked upon probably the same as some points and then move on. This ought to be dealt with a firmer consequence. I still think a month away from the Curia is sufficient to send a strong message that this type of behavior is not acceptable.

I obviously have strong feelings on this type of behavior. I can only hope some of what I have stated hits home to some degree.

[Justinian]

I can see where you're coming from VP. I don't know, it just doesn't illicit a reaction from me as something that requires a censure. Maybe it's both my Jewishness and my dislike for Amagi clouding my judgment, which is why I will abstain.

[Søren]

His thread was misjudged, but from his defence it seems that he objects to his behaviour more than I do. I'd favour no further action.

[Heinz Guderian]

Not exactly the best use of the Curia. I can see VP's point, but i can understand AL's position on this too. Justy's position i can safely ignore. I'm thinking, how about showing our disapproval without punishing too harshly what was an obviously emotional post?

Just to be clear, was the member given any points/infracted? Sorry if this information has already been posted.

[Søren]

Just to be clear, was the member given any points/infracted? Sorry if this information has already been posted.

No, he hasn't so far.

[Heinz Guderian]

No, he hasn't so far.

are you guys considering infracting him? (sorry if this info is not shareable). If not, i think our disapproval can be shown by perhaps a week or two off from the Curia without the addition of points. He'll see what he has done as a "big no" as Jim put it, without unduly being too harsh. He'll learn from it.

On the other hand, if he is given points (which i personally believe is not necessary), i think that is more than enough and so no further action.

[Viking Prince]

Justinian -- I really do understand your dislike for Amagi's post history. This is about something else. I also think that it is important to maintain standards of behavior within the Curia. That is why we are all taking some time to serve here in CdeC in the first place.

Heinz -- I think you should reread my rants. (not as a punishment exerise though )

Points are not an issue with a referrral unless it is by moderation staff for a moderation action. This post was closed by a member of Hex and no points were issued as of this time. I am certain that if the Curator requests such an action, it would be considered. I cannot think what purpose that would serve here. The issue is his actions as a citizen within the Curia.

I have no issues with him as a member beyond this post personally or officially. I cannot dream that such a post would be ignored if the member was applying for citizenship. My suggestion of a time out is my suggestion to give this type of offense a much stronger disapproval than a censure.

[Søren]

are you guys considering infracting him? (sorry if this info is not shareable).

Personally I don't think it merits an infraction.

If not, i think our disapproval can be shown by perhaps a week or two off from the Curia without the addition of points. He'll see what he has done as a "big no" as Jim put it, without unduly being too harsh. He'll learn from it.

I think he already has learnt from it.

[Augustus Lucifer]

This is an interesting case in terms of its ambiguity. I could see a vote for every single option at this rate; multiple transferable is sure to come in handy.