[Ostrakon] Pontifex Maximus v2

[Axalon]

Ostrakons are anonymous, hence why the Consul posts them.

That being said I initiated this one.

Thanks for the reply, and for that information. Personally, I believe that the system is really screwed up if the accuser doesn’t have too answer for their own accusations or face the consequences of them by pushing them ahead via proxy. In short, I always believed that the accused should have the right to face their accuser openly - no matter the subject. The TWC have a different view (thus far) and it is one that I don’t agree with, as a matter of principle. You have been open about what you have done, and that gives you credit – and, it instantly makes me take all this a bit more serious as well.

***

... As I think that procedure is a problem for a whole host of reasons, I refuse to help sustain it, and will always act to "out" the accuser so that the subsequent proceedings may be more clear, transparent, and fruitful.

I can totally agree with that...

- A

[Sir Adrian]

Having the accuser and the accused duke it out would only result in a mudslinging contest.

This ostrakon is fueled by petty vendetta and maximum amounts of coping and seething on both sides. If we allowed Akar and Ponti to argue with each other, Ponti's latest tribunal appeal would look like the Munk debates by comparison.

[PikeStance]

Yet, I'm not the initiator of this Ostrakon. However, this "its not insulting if its true" line of slippery slope argumentation is equally problematic.

Not exactly, he is questioning the fact that you do not have a moral high ground to stand on in which to judge.

This doesn't address my question.
This merely makes up excuses for a factually false statement of yours.

I had no intention of doing so; I merely re-clarify my previous point.
If you want to sway people's opinion, being argumentative is not the best course of action.

To refresh your memory; The accusers are no better than the accused. There have not been any consistency in the way any standard has been applied. Until "most" can stand on a reasonable standard of behavior in which they adhere to themselves, I see no point in supporting "which hunts."

It wasn't included in the OP for a variety of reasons, the foremost being that despite scientists best efforts we are unable to confound time's inherent linearity. Due to the events taking place chronologically later in the time line than when this Ostrakon was initiated it was impossible to preemptively include the requested information.

Secondly, it actually WAS included, later on. However it was removed when the Tribunal found Pontifex in contempt and removed his "defense"

I am not following the point. If the issue was the contempt of court, then that would be a better discussion point. What was included was simple pettiness (yadda yadda yadda, no point and repeating myself ad nauseum).

Having the accuser and the accused duke it out would only result in a mudslinging contest.

This ostrakon is fueled by petty vendetta and maximum amounts of coping and seething on both sides. If we allowed Akar and Ponti to argue with each other, Ponti's latest tribunal appeal would look like the Munk debates by comparison.

Well, in an ideal world, it should never matter who the accuser is. In an ideal world, the accuser will come before the Curia with "clean hands" or in this case, a standard of conduct above approach. We never have this. In an ideal world, the accuser own behavior motives will never be questioned. Again, we never have this. So, no ideal world, no transparency, but, ironically, we can always "guess" who the accuser is. That in itself problematic and speaks to the heart of my point.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

If we'd like to continue on the merits or not of ostrakon being an anonymous process to start, by all means carry it in the townhall or its own thread; but I'd like to reiterate the focus being on this case and its merits when it comes to this thread.

[Gigantus]

I am struggling with the impression that what happened in the tribunal is regarded as side show to this ostrakon or gets normalized\downplayed. It ranks at the top of the most appalling behavior I have witnessed in my 15 years on this site, other then behavior that resulted in instant perma ban.

And it wasn't a single incident - the appeal barely a week earlier (based on the same personal fixation) was hardly better but it certainly laid the ground work for the unhinged second one which was accompanied by some choice sprinkling of posts in the commentary as well.

It is totally immaterial who initiated the ostrakon as it is a question of merit, not who has an axe to grind with whom. Flinging feces at each other instead over what caused Ponti to behave this way isn't on a much higher level then the posting habit under discussion - never mind being totally irrelevant: the only one to blame for a post is it's author, period.

[PointOfViewGun]

Not exactly, he is questioning the fact that you do not have a moral high ground to stand on in which to judge.

Not exactly relevant to what you're quoting.

I had no intention of doing so; I merely re-clarify my previous point.
If you want to sway people's opinion, being argumentative is not the best course of action.
To refresh your memory; The accusers are no better than the accused. There have not been any consistency in the way any standard has been applied. Until "most" can stand on a reasonable standard of behavior in which they adhere to themselves, I see no point in supporting "which hunts."

The question was rather simple. Does Pontifex Maximus even represent the general conduct in the MudPit? Do other Citizens continuously jump into most discussions with utmost incivility that results in bunch of their posts to be moderated with bunch of those receiving infractions? They certainly don't. Is he the norm or the exception? I think the argument that the is the norm is an insult to a lot of the other members participating in this forum.

[TheDarkKnight]

If we'd like to continue on the merits or not of ostrakon being an anonymous process to start, by all means carry it in the townhall or its own thread; but I'd like to reiterate the focus being on this case and its merits when it comes to this thread.

Not to tell the heads of the Curia what to do but you may want to use the bold purple on this, as the last request was completely ignored. If you consider my posts to have ALSO been part of the ignoring, then I apologize.

But yes, can we please actually get on with the merits of the Ostrakon and not the technicalities?

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Not to tell the heads of the Curia what to do but you may want to use the bold purple on this, as the last request was completely ignored. If you consider my posts to have ALSO been part of the ignoring, then I apologize.

But yes, can we please actually get on with the merits of the Ostrakon and not the technicalities?

I consider Gigantus stating that the actions in the Tribunal are related + final point and for the most part, POVG's characterization of Ponti's posts in context of the wider mudpit and if that should be acceptable to be quite topical. It was not bold purple because I sought to make a distinction between a split conversation and having the current conversation relate to the case, and in my mind both points relate.

You're actually not the first to mention bold purple, and it is because I like to make an informal statement and appeal to the room's reason before taking official action, where I would consider the coloring to be warranted. Call me soft :p

[Cookiegod]

For the record, Cookiegod, Ponti did not take his most recent appeal well and flamed the Tribunal and the Tribunal commentary thread after his appeal was thrown out for his behavior. The posts were rife with insults and personal attacks all around. I'm not sure if you saw those, as the offending posts have been deleted but you can see the remnants of that incident in their proper threads. Those alone are worthy of losing his citizenship.

I didn't see those. I also would say that accusing Abdülhamid of being a genocide denier would be grounds for it alone, but in that case it'd be up to Abdül to pursue it.

What I'm getting at is that I'd need the ostrakhon-worthy stuff in the OP, and what we have there is very much diminished by the fact that it's 1) from the mudpit (low standards all around) and 2) the personal vendetta which is strongly related to offsite stuff is for me impossible to ignore and tarnishes the procedure. My attitude would have changed significantly if the procedure had been initiated by someone with less involvement.

I don't buy this line of reasoning. A phrase being insulting isn't depending on it's relationship with the truth. Calling an overweight person a "fat " is true, but it's also insulting. Calling someone born out of wedlock a bastard is true, but it's also insulting. Calling a gay person a faggot isn't untrue it's just insulting. Truth is irrelevant and not an affirmative defense for using a pejorative.

With your examples sure. But it fails in this regard because "denier" isn't a pejorative, nor should it be. If it accurately describes a person then it's not a pejorative. If the aggrieved person is a soft denier, which one can observe very frequently around the globe, then that person would still have a case regarding libel. But if it's a 100% accurate description of a belief that the person is not at all coy about then it's a different thing entirely. Ponti accused two people specifically with this. One person has a very strong case to even ban him with this, since I do not think this is a harmless thing to say. The other, to make a case in this regard, would at the very least introduce some ambiguity into the issue, which is not at all the case.

Ostrakons are anonymous, hence why the Consul posts them.

That being said I initiated this one.

That's really the biggest issue to me here. You have a very personal history with him. You should leave the issue to someone who does not have that.

Yet, I'm not the initiator of this Ostrakon. However, this "its not insulting if its true" line of slippery slope argumentation is equally problematic.

If there was even the slightest ambiguity here then sure, you'd have a case. But since it's your unequivocal position that the Armenian genocide did not take place, and given that you yourself have made this front and center of your persona here on this forum, the post in question was disruptive and OT, but not exactly libelous.

I presume, wrongly perhaps, given your opinion on the issue, that you do not think that being an Armenian genocide denier is a bad thing.But feel free to correct me here. If you believe an Armenian genocide denier to be a bad thing, I'm willing to make a 180° turn here.

This is entirely different with Abdülmecid. He would be in the right to smack Ponti down hard without even making any statement at all regarding the "issue". Just because he's a Turk, doesn't mean he's a denier, nor does Ponti have any right to force anyone to make a statement on the issue, same as no one can call Ponti a native American genocide denier unless he specifically and unequivocally presented himself as one.

E.g. I do not have any issue with someone calling me a White genocide denier, since I do explicitly deny this crazy fringe theory to be true at all.

[PointOfViewGun]

If there was even the slightest ambiguity here then sure, you'd have a case. But since it's your unequivocal position that the Armenian genocide did not take place, and given that you yourself have made this front and center of your persona here on this forum, the post in question was disruptive and OT, but not exactly libelous.

I presume, wrongly perhaps, given your opinion on the issue, that you do not think that being an Armenian genocide denier is a bad thing.But feel free to correct me here. If you believe an Armenian genocide denier to be a bad thing, I'm willing to make a 180° turn here.

This is entirely different with Abdülmecid. He would be in the right to smack Ponti down hard without even making any statement at all regarding the "issue". Just because he's a Turk, doesn't mean he's a denier, nor does Ponti have any right to force anyone to make a statement on the issue, same as no one can call Ponti a native American genocide denier unless he specifically and unequivocally presented himself as one.

E.g. I do not have any issue with someone calling me a White genocide denier, since I do explicitly deny this crazy fringe theory to be true at all.

You seem to have missed the point in its entirety. Just because you think an accusation is true doesn't mean you can use it as a non-insulting statement. Just like I can't call someone a liar who is exposed to be lying. However, calling someone a "denier" regardless of their position, is a derogatory personal reference. What you're missing is that I'm not denying genocide facts. I'm rejecting refutable genocide allegations. What I am is an Armenian genocide allegations rejecter, not an Armenian genocide denier. The latter is akin to me calling others Armenian genocide liars. Can I do that? Nope, just like I can't call someone stupid for making stupid arguments, a liar for lying, etc. It being accompanied with an accusation of being disingenuous also didn't help him.

Yet, that's a very technical and a very small portion of Pontifex Maximus' conduct. We are not here because he dared to call me an Armenian genocide denier. We're here for a wide variety of violations. Why focus on him calling me an Armenian genocide denier when there are many other more severe forms of insults from him?

Are you also insisting that I initiated this Ostrakon?

[Sir Adrian]

I didn't see those. I also would say that accusing Abdülhamid of being a genocide denier would be grounds for it alone, but in that case it'd be up to Abdül to pursue it.

What I'm getting at is that I'd need the ostrakhon-worthy stuff in the OP, and what we have there is very much diminished by the fact that it's 1) from the mudpit (low standards all around) and 2) the personal vendetta which is strongly related to offsite stuff is for me impossible to ignore and tarnishes the procedure. My attitude would have changed significantly if the procedure had been initiated by someone with less involvement.

This is exactly my point of view as well. Had "Abdulmedic" or Iskar or Chris or any of the magistrates initiated the ostrakon, so long Pontifex and thanks for all the fish. But as it stands I cannot abide the use of ostrakons to settle accounts between users who just can't get along. If we allow this, it creates a dangerous precedent that will cost the Curia.

[PointOfViewGun]

The idea that merits of a case can be ignored if it's brought forward by an involved party defies all logic whatsoever.

[Iskar]

We're not here to judge how Ponti and Akar interact, we're here to discuss whether Ponti's behaviour warrants expulsion from the citizenry. This is something we can assess regardless of the motion's origins or author. In fact everyone is free (and somewhat expected) to look into Ponti's posts themselves - instead of expecting the OP to serve it all bite-sized only to reject it because you don't like the cook.

The OP is only there to kick things off. You are the citizenry and it is yours to assess the behaviour of the citizen brought before you. If the accusations are insubstantial you will find that by simply looking at Ponti's posts, but if the authorship of the accusations is the ONLY thing you can find to argue they are insubstantial then they probably aren't.

[Cookiegod]

You seem to have missed the point in its entirety. Just because you think an accusation is true doesn't mean you can use it as a non-insulting statement. Just like I can't call someone a liar who is exposed to be lying. However, calling someone a "denier" regardless of their position, is a derogatory personal reference. What you're missing is that I'm not denying genocide facts. I'm rejecting refutable genocide allegations. What I am is an Armenian genocide allegations rejecter, not an Armenian genocide denier. The latter is akin to me calling others Armenian genocide liars. Can I do that? Nope, just like I can't call someone stupid for making stupid arguments, a liar for lying, etc. It being accompanied with an accusation of being disingenuous also didn't help him.

For this to be an insulting statement you must consider Armenian genocide denial to be a bad thing. If you do think that to be the case, then sure, the discussion can change, but you never presented yourself that way. Saying rejecter instead of denier doesn't clarify things, it removes precision as there's more than one definition of the verb. It can be misinterpreted as someone rejecting the Armenian genocide because of the immorality, not denying the fact that it happened.

"Denier" is in no shape a derogatory term. Of course it often gets brought up with things such as climate change or holocaust, but those people too, like you, will claim to not be denying facts, but "allegations". But whether it's a negative thing entirely depends on context and the stance of the individual. I have no problem with being called a white genocide denier, since I do not think such a thing is taking place. You can call me that and I will not take it as an insult.

Besides, I'm very much against this idea of exchanging the entire vocabulary of a language every couple of years because we inevitably run out of euphemisms as every word invariably inherits the negative connotations of the word it was meant to replace.

If the goal is to distance one self from negativity, the far better course is to not talk genocide in the first place.

EDIT: I forgot to press send when I wrote it and of course when I finally sent it new answers came up.

Iskar's point in #53 is quite good, and I can't refute it completely. But for one I still refuse to be drawn into vendettas, and secondly the other big issue (also raised before) is that all the problem posts are from the mudpit.

And sadly he isn't the only one with that kind of attitude there. We can of course argue that this is about him as an individual and the general culture (including by some other citizens there, and this might well include me the very rare times I post there) should not factor in, but I still can't not see this as a "strafmildernder Umstand", even as I disagree on 99% of his opinions I know of.

All said and done I do believe that his ostrakon will take place this time around and just because I'm likely going to vote no or abstain on this, doesn't mean that I'll see the outcome as a miscarriage of justice. I concur with Adrian 100% in that Ponti's behaviour has been quite poor as of late. I can see Ponti's trolling for what it is, and he's presenting himself as a victim, which, given his provocative behaviour he obviously is undeserving of. But the issue is that the moment I decide to kick him out because of his poor standards I'd have to immediately support a number of other ostraka, and in spite of my avatar I'm really not into that sort of thing. So as a matter of personal preference I'd like causes that are not tainted for the earlier mentioned reasons.

[Gigantus]

Cookie - your argument has a fundamental flaw. Labeling a persona is always off topic, eg will attract punitive action. As it did in both of Ponti's appeals.
It also takes care of any argument that labeling a persona is fine if it is based on 'if true then ok'.

You might have noticed that 'Armenian genocide denier' from the first appeal (treated as off topic, simply because a persona will never be the topic for obvious reasons) morphed into 'Holocaust denier' in the second appeal where it was categorized as insulting others for the simple reason that it was no longer a simple labeling but rather a denigrating of the persona, implied by the connotations of the word 'holocaust'. I think you will find that PoVG never made a statement to that effect, which means even the 'he said it so I can call him such' defense will not fly here.

What will fly is the observation that within two weeks from one appeal to the next an issue that might have been explained by emotional stress turned into a full fledged, no holds barred orgy of abuse that was aimed at literally everyone involved in the appeal: his interlocutor, the issuing moderator and the tribunal.
Will this be ignored because it hasn't been listed in the OP? I was under the impression this ostrakon is about whether Ponti's posting behavior should be cause to remove his citizenship, not if Akar did an outstanding presentation of the case or not.

And I think I will also have to repeat once more that only the author is responsible for his posts - the notion 'he made me\him do it' displayed in this thread is about the most ridiculous defense that can be applied to Ponti's posting behavior.

I am having difficulties understanding why you maintain supporting this ostarkon will require you to support future ostrakons as well and that's why you won't. This was way beyond the poor standards that might be prevalent in the mudpit. But for that you need to look beyond the pit. Each individual case is different anyhow, giving you the opportunity to weigh it's merit. And yes, when the ostrakon is based on posting habits it will always be based on the mudpit because that's where 95% of the feces are being thrown around. The commentaries are recipients as well, but that's after the fact.

[PikeStance]

Not exactly relevant to what you're quoting.

Too bad, that was his point

The question was rather simple. Does Pontifex Maximus even represent the general conduct in the MudPit? Do other Citizens continuously jump into most discussions with utmost incivility that results in bunch of their posts to be moderated with bunch of those receiving infractions? They certainly don't. Is he the norm or the exception? I think the argument that the is the norm is an insult to a lot of the other members participating in this forum.

I have been calling the Mudpit, the "Mudpit" for years now. I have made efforts to 'clean it up," as well, as supported other members' causes too do the same. After all these years, now you have become to sensitive to hear it???

This is exactly the sort of responses I alluded to in the last post. You being argumentative rather than come up with any constructive argument to sway my or any other person's opinion.

This is exactly my point of view as well. Had "Abdulmedic" or Iskar or Chris or any of the magistrates initiated the ostrakon, so long Pontifex and thanks for all the fish. But as it stands I cannot abide the use of ostrakons to settle accounts between users who just can't get along. If we allow this, it creates a dangerous precedent that will cost the Curia.

The issue who brought this here, it is the hypocrisy by those that have. The OP does not have any merit unless we consider multiple members. (read my previous posts for details).
Personally, the nonsense in the OP should have never been brought to light. However, if Ponti's shenanigans in the Tribunal is as accurate as many suggest, then that is worth consideration.

[PointOfViewGun]

Too bad, that was his point

I have been calling the Mudpit, the "Mudpit" for years now. I have made efforts to 'clean it up," as well, as supported other members' causes too do the same. After all these years, now you have become to sensitive to hear it???

This is exactly the sort of responses I alluded to in the last post. You being argumentative rather than come up with any constructive argument to sway my or any other person's opinion.

Thank you for making things obvious.

[Akar]

Will this be ignored because it hasn't been listed in the OP?

As I said in my previous post, it WAS included but it was removed because Ponti's posts were removed.

Personally, the nonsense in the OP should have never been brought to light. However, if Ponti's shenanigans in the Tribunal is as accurate as many suggest, then that is worth consideration.

His shenanigans in the tribunal is literally the first thing listed in the Ostrakon, Pike. Additionally, there was an entire second post with his stuff from the second tribunal thread that took place after the Ostrakon was issued that was deleted by Abdul because the original post had been deleted.

[Kilo11]

I would hope that no one is dismissing this simply because of who brought it up. That is a fact that is wholly irrelevant to the ultimate proceedings. I think it is worthwhile to know who brought it up, as it can make certain elements of the case more clear at the outset, but the ultimate merit or lack thereof has to do with Ponti's behavior alone. And whether or not it was Akar who started this or myself is besides the point. And you know what, if some of you really think the instigator matters, then know that had I known all of the posts which Akar linked in the OP, then I myself would have instigated this! I don't have a history with Ponti. I don't have a political vendetta due to participating in the mudpit. But seeing that litany of posts and that underlying behavior, I would certainly call for ostrakon. So let's just leave the whole "The accuser taints the case" thing by the wayside.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For those who want a little more force to this, I'll use a trick of my trade, namely a thought-experiment.

Suppose I've got a long-standing feud with my neighbor. One day my neighbor then breaks into my house and tears up the place. I've got good evidence he did it, some forensic, some video tape, and I bring that forward to the authorities. Does the fact that we have a previous feud mean my accusation has no merit? Or is the merit of the case to be determined by the facts attending the accused misdeed? I would hope that you would all agree that simply having a feud does not render one incapable of leveling legitimate accusations. Moreover, when evidence is provided with said accusation, I would hope that you would all look to the evidence, and not to the accuser to see if he has previous beef.

The standard of behavior has never been "standardized." Moreover, the so called "higher standard" has been so inconsistently applied, it comes across as political rather than any upholding of any standard of any kind.

...

I would gladly "enforce" a higher standard when and if "we" can hold ourselves to those standards.
In other words, if we hold Ponti to the same standard we hold ourselves, then there isn't anything egregious about Ponti's behavior or attitude.

Not exactly, he [Pontifex Maximus] is questioning the fact that you do not have a moral high ground to stand on in which to judge.

...

To refresh your memory; The accusers are no better than the accused. There have not been any consistency in the way any standard has been applied. Until "most" can stand on a reasonable standard of behavior in which they adhere to themselves, I see no point in supporting "which hunts."

I am going to be honest, Pike, I find this offensive! I have never had a point against me, or had cause for a moderator to moderate my posts (that I can remember). And in those rare cases where I do get a friendly warning (which, mind you, is always friendly, because my posting requires nothing more than that), I take that to heart and do my best to be better. In fact, in activities with people off the server, I know that others have seen me to be as level-headed and respectful as possible in those rare instances when I lose my cool. Once or twice I have had rather nasty interactions with other fellas because the topic was close to home, or I was stressed, or whatever. It happens to all of us. But then, when I had calmed myself a bit, I came back to that person and said sorry and did my best to make things right. Cause that's what a decent person does. Even online. And I know a lot of the people here act the same. Maybe not all, but plenty enough. As such, your characterization of the group here as acting as bad as Ponti is something I take exception to.

Maybe some folks act the exact same as Ponti does, but you will find that the vast majority of citizens do not. And the standard definitely is far above what you are finding in his posts. Which brings me to the next point...

I have been calling the Mudpit, the "Mudpit" for years now. I have made efforts to 'clean it up," as well, as supported other members' causes too do the same. After all these years, now you have become to sensitive to hear it???

...

The issue who brought this here, it is the hypocrisy by those that have. The OP does not have any merit unless we consider multiple members. (read my previous posts for details).
Personally, the nonsense in the OP should have never been brought to light. However, if Ponti's shenanigans in the Tribunal is as accurate as many suggest, then that is worth consideration.

If you genuinely care about the Mudpit being a better place, and you wish to "clean it up", then you should welcome this ostrakon. If we hold ourselves to a higher standard, and see that through, then maybe areas like the mudpit could be cleaner and nicer. I am not saying that'll happen (I ain't that naive), but it takes at least a step toward checking bad behavior if you want anyone to do better. Moreover, the sentiment that "others have acted worse, so this is okay" is again besides the point. Others having acted worse than Ponti in the past is an indicator that the past Curia and/or mudpit would tolerate such things (which I actually doubt). But someone wanting to reign in such behavior is definitely acceptable, and the mere fact that others haven't been ostrakoned before is not reason to not do it now. Perhaps we need more ostrakons. I am not saying we actually do, but I just want to show that that argument cuts both ways. If others really are acting as badly as Ponti is, then I would be all for checking their behavior as well. That is the point of the Curia, after all, to have a body of individuals who do better, and who provide an example to others.

[Cookiegod]

Cookie - your argument has a fundamental flaw. Labeling a persona is always off topic, eg will attract punitive action. As it did in both of Ponti's appeals.
It also takes care of any argument that labeling a persona is fine if it is based on 'if true then ok'.

You might have noticed that 'Armenian genocide denier' from the first appeal (treated as off topic, simply because a persona will never be the topic for obvious reasons) morphed into 'Holocaust denier' in the second appeal where it was categorized as insulting others for the simple reason that it was no longer a simple labeling but rather a denigrating of the persona, implied by the connotations of the word 'holocaust'. I think you will find that PoVG never made a statement to that effect, which means even the 'he said it so I can call him such' defense will not fly here.

What will fly is the observation that within two weeks from one appeal to the next an issue that might have been explained by emotional stress turned into a full fledged, no holds barred orgy of abuse that was aimed at literally everyone involved in the appeal: his interlocutor, the issuing moderator and the tribunal.
Will this be ignored because it hasn't been listed in the OP? I was under the impression this ostrakon is about whether Ponti's posting behavior should be cause to remove his citizenship, not if Akar did an outstanding presentation of the case or not.

And I think I will also have to repeat once more that only the author is responsible for his posts - the notion 'he made me\him do it' displayed in this thread is about the most ridiculous defense that can be applied to Ponti's posting behavior.

I am having difficulties understanding why you maintain supporting this ostarkon will require you to support future ostrakons as well and that's why you won't. This was way beyond the poor standards that might be prevalent in the mudpit. But for that you need to look beyond the pit. Each individual case is different anyhow, giving you the opportunity to weigh it's merit. And yes, when the ostrakon is based on posting habits it will always be based on the mudpit because that's where 95% of the feces are being thrown around. The commentaries are recipients as well, but that's after the fact.

I think it's worthwhile addressing two fundamental issues here:

1) I do not frequently peruse Ponti's posts. As such the luggage I'm carrying regarding him is a different one from yours. It may very well be that your assessment is more accurate of him than mine. Maybe. What I don't know of, I can't judge him on.

2) The second difference which the curia definitely should have to talk about is regarding the set of paradigms to be applied. It's highly individualised and I'll freely admit that mine is likely from yours. But I feel that the flaws you see are more like misunderstandings, so I'll expound on them here:

• Even though all kinds of personal references are infractable, I see differences regarding gravity, hence why it was important to me to distinguish such.
• Some accusations (akar gave some examples) are always insults regardless of context. Others depend very much on context. Let's also remind ourselves that we're not so much talking insults here and more libel, which is worse yet also comes with a higher standard in my point of view.
• So here's the thing. I know for a fact that Ponti made libelous statements against at least one person. However, it's up to the aggrieved party and aggrieved party alone (in my point of view) whether this should be acted upon (apart from decorum and moderative house keeping).
• If an aggrieved person asks for it and if the libelous statement is grave enough, then oh god yes, ostrakon immediately. An additional ban wouldn't be out of the question as well.
• But it's up to such an aggrieved person to ask for it (not asking for it isn't the same as accepting the claim btw), and the objection has to be to the fundamentals, not just to the wording.
• The bizarre thing here is that we have one person who Ponti libelled against very clearly, but that person isn't asking for anything (which, again, he doesn't have to, but I do not presume the right to be offended on his behalf - stoic calmness is most certainly a valid response), and we have one person who objects, but only to the wording, but that simply isn't enough.
• I have to honestly admit that I haven't seen the holocaust denial accusation, Gig, and this could well be a string to hand him with. Given that POVG isn't a holocaust denier, this would most certainly constitute a libellous accusation, so if any of you could refer me to it, I'll change my vote to a yes immediately. Same goes for any other accusations he might have made. I haven't seen any deleted posts of his. This is again where the divergence in information comes in. Any clarification here would be greatly appreciated and I'm sure those would be enough to flip most of us who hold back.
• And yes you can say that only the poster himself is responsible for his posts. On the one hand yes, on the other hand I can only apply a metric that is consistent.
• Hence why I can't judge mudpit posts on the same level as posts outside the mudpit. Because whenever I do make the mistake of visiting it, I'd see plenty of insufferable behaviour (and I'm sure others have felt similar about me). So how can I judge Ponti on this kind of stuff stricter than other users? Tbh I can't. I don't think that handing out half a dozen ostraka would be a good idea.
• And again with regards to the users individual responsibility, but from another angle: Sure, but again in my opinion there are more degrees of severity than one. To me, the emotional state of someone is absolutely relevant, because it makes the action either worse or better.
• And again you can say that only the action itself should matter, or that he would have the ability to reapply once he stabilises, and I can't say that you're wrong on that. I can only say that I don't necessarily agree. My sentiment is more in line with this:
  

  We too must remember to be courteous, if he's going through a rough patch, our kneejerk action should be of a helping and supportive nature, before a mindset set on punishment.

• Ponti obviously doesn't want empathy. He wants to have his ostrakon. To quote Kilo:
  

  A heavily entrenched pattern of posting in a manner that does seem calculated to be disruptive; baiting language, unfounded accusations, and red herrings are riddled throughout(his posts)

  So again I can accept the attitude to simply give him what he requests. Here's simply where my personal attitude comes in, and I don't necessarily want to give him what he wants. I have no problem with his ostrakon, it just has to be clearly enough over the line so that there's no martyr card or "cancel culture" claim to be pulled.
• And again the issue with how this all came about. I can fully understand you and Iskar when you say it shouldn't be relevant. Except it kinda is. The minimum requirement to an ostrakon in my book is that the behaviour is egregious enough for someone without skin in the game to make the move. It's one of the very few semi-objective measures we can have in this regard. Would we be here talking about Ponti if this ostrakon hadn't been levelled by akar? Probably not. :/

Anyway, I know this was long, anyone can feel free to correct me on where I go wrong. It's approximately the metric that I'd apply to any case going forward, and we should all strive to at least be in the same book, if not the same page, so clarifying it this once might have been worth the text wall. The TL;DR is that if there's a link to hardcore libel with an aggrieved party I'll most likely admit to having been wrong and flip to a yes.

---

EDIT:
I have just been provided with some screenshots and change my stance accordingly to a yes on the ostrakon. Let it be said clearly that this is not because of some political disagreement, but because libel is so clearly beyond the pale, and abusing events such as the holocaust for cheap shots are simply bad. I still feel like leaving the above, as the standards applied to a citizenship are still worthy of a talk and I'd still like to know if I went wrong somewhere, since this is the metric I'd generally apply to any ostrakon, not just Pontis.