Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-26-2016, 09:34 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 45,021

handsomeharry has been banned


User handsomeharry has been banned for trolling, on the basis of his performance in this thread.

Normally, we don't announce banned trolls in ATMB, but given that the user in question has been around since 2001, I felt it was appropriate in this instance. The situation is also unusual, as compared to most other bannings, in that the user had not been given any previous warnings for bad behavior. I'm going to explain the reasoning for that, and in a third break from normal procedures, I'm going to leave this thread open for a little bit in case anyone has questions or concerns. However, I don't want to see a bunch of people in here just celebrating that we banned someone unpleasant. If the thread starts to turn into a "pile-on the banned guy" thing, I'm going to close this thread. In the meantime, I'm going to do my best to anticipate some likely questions, and answer them ahead of time.

So, first, was handsomeharry banned just for being a self-admitted Nazi? No, or at least, not entirely. The SDMB has always operated under the principle that repulsive speech is best met with more speech, not with suppression. Openly advocating for fascist or explicitly racist policies is not, in and of itself, reason enough for a ban. In the Pit thread in question, harry was not actually advocating for any position at all: he was self-identifying as a Nazi, insulting anyone who drew the most logical assumptions about someone who would self-identify as a Nazi, and then refusing to explain how his version of being a Nazi was any different from anyone's preconception of what being a Nazi means. He was also clear that this was not something he would merely refuse to explain in the Pit, but was rather something he would not discuss with anyone on the board, in any capacity. That's not discussing your honestly held political beliefs, that's just trolling.

Secondly, is trolling against the rules in the Pit now? Yes, and it always has been. However, the definition of trolling in play in the Pit necessarily requires some modifications given the intended purpose of the Pit. The normal definition of "posting things just to provoke a response" doesn't entirely work in a forum that exists specifically to call other posters assholes. There is, however, a general expectation that if you're calling another poster an asshole, you're doing it out of some genuine grievance, and not just because you like stirring shit up. It was clear, in the Pit thread in question, that harry was not posting to defend or advance any particular political position, but simply because he knew that saying, "I'm a Nazi," would be a good kick to the beehive, and get everyone agitated - and that the less he described his actual beliefs, the more agitated the other posters in the thread would become.

Thirdly, can people be banned with no warning now? Yes, and once again, that's always been the case. We're not required to give out warnings or suspensions for rules violations - per the user agreement, we can ban anyone on a first offense. We generally avoid doing this, because we think the 'Dope works best with a diverse range of voices, and we usually recognize that just because we disagree with a particular poster, that doesn't mean they don't bring value to the board. So we're usually pretty liberal (heh) with second chances. But we're talking about an honest-to-God Nazi here. While we're willing to tolerate views even that far out of the mainstream, on the basis that sometimes Dopers like an easy fight, that's not a position that anyone on the moderation staff is particularly happy to see on the board, and not one that we're going to go out of our way to allow to be heard here if they can't otherwise abide by the rules. Particularly one who, as in harry's case, had just demonstrated pretty conclusively that they weren't interested in actually discussing their views.

I think that covers the major questions around this particular banning, but I'm sure I've missed a couple. Go ahead and ask for clarifications on any point you think I didn't touch on, but again, please try to keep the questions focused on moderation policy, and not on the character of the banned poster.
  #2  
Old 04-26-2016, 10:23 PM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 11,111
I just wanted to say that I appreciate the elaboration. Sometimes you all get put in an unenviable position, and it's nice to see the wheels turning on a decision.
  #3  
Old 04-26-2016, 10:39 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 21,241
Yeah, I welcome the transparency. Can't fault your logic either. I like it that SDMB continues to embrace a non-censorious attitude, and that what is forbidden is behavioral, not the content of someone's thoughts and posts per se.
  #4  
Old 04-26-2016, 10:44 PM
CCitizen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,785
Thank you. Zero tolerance for Nazism and Anti-Semitism is one of the few times I agree with Liberals.
  #5  
Old 04-26-2016, 11:04 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,928
If trolling is against the rules in the Pit, how came it to be that, for months on end, one of the Pit's own moderators railed against someone who need not be named, for being a troll?

If trolling were against the rules, that moderator could have just said, "Modding: don't troll," and life would have been so much happier!
  #6  
Old 04-26-2016, 11:10 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 45,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
If trolling is against the rules in the Pit, how came it to be that, for months on end, one of the Pit's own moderators railed against someone who need not be named, for being a troll?
I don't recall ever calling anyone a troll in the Pit, outside of official moderator actions. Are you maybe confusing me with a different mod?
  #7  
Old 04-26-2016, 11:11 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 44,086
While I agree that discussion is always preferable, holocaust denial is hate speech in more than one country, and isn't tolerated on this board. That alone should have been a banning offense. The trolling was just icing.
  #8  
Old 04-26-2016, 11:18 PM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 11,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
I don't recall ever calling anyone a troll in the Pit, outside of official moderator actions. Are you maybe confusing me with a different mod?
You ARE the only Pit mod, correct?
  #9  
Old 04-26-2016, 11:24 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Defining a troll can be hard at times, but when you see one, you have little doubt about it. In this case, the member did little to promote an unpopular agenda or convince anyone he honestly believed it. Instead, he used that platform to insult just about everyone who posted in the thread.

I appreciate the effort herein in explaining the staff action.
  #10  
Old 04-26-2016, 11:29 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 45,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
While I agree that discussion is always preferable, holocaust denial is hate speech in more than one country, and isn't tolerated on this board. That alone should have been a banning offense. The trolling was just icing.
Holocaust denial isn't an insta-ban. It certainly gets you put on a very short leash, but it's not out-and-out forbidden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
You ARE the only Pit mod, correct?
Yes, but I'm not the only mod who posts in the Pit.
  #11  
Old 04-27-2016, 01:01 AM
Idle Thoughts is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 12,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
If trolling is against the rules in the Pit, how came it to be that, for months on end, one of the Pit's own moderators railed against someone who need not be named, for being a troll?
You're thinking of another mod, who isn't a Pit mod.

Mods can call other posters trolls in the Pit just like any other poster can, but if you're wondering why a mod who thinks a poster is a troll doesn't say, in the Pit "Mod Note: Stop trolling" it's because of two reasons.

1. Other mods usually leave it to the mods of that forum to mod it instead of modding it themselves.

2. More importantly, not all the mods agree on what or who is a troll. A mod may think a poster is a troll that another mod doesn't think is a troll...just like the case is with posters opinions. One mod cannot ban on thinking someone is a troll alone unless it's very obvious, extreme, or clear cut.

Last edited by Idle Thoughts; 04-27-2016 at 01:01 AM.
  #12  
Old 04-27-2016, 02:52 AM
Derleth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCitizen View Post
Thank you. Zero tolerance for Nazism and Anti-Semitism is one of the few times I agree with Liberals.
First, this is entirely contrary to what the OP actually said.

Second, there are plenty of "Liberals", myself among them, who are opposed to all zero-tolerance policies, especially those based on content as opposed to behavior.
  #13  
Old 04-27-2016, 03:03 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
But we're talking about an honest-to-God Nazi here.
[Jeremy Clarkson Voice]Or was he?[/JCV]

Who cares, Jeremy, who cares?
  #14  
Old 04-27-2016, 06:24 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,259
So he was here for fifteen years, and only recently got around to telling he was a Nazi? Not much of a troll if you can keep a secret like that for fifteen years.
  #15  
Old 04-27-2016, 07:19 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,605
Not thrilled about the "no warnings" thing but the man had plenty of chances to be a more constructive addition to the board and passed on all of them. He certainly won't be missed.

Was the decision based solely on that thread or on a broader review of his recent contributions?

Last edited by Gyrate; 04-27-2016 at 07:20 AM. Reason: Forgot to add the question
  #16  
Old 04-27-2016, 07:19 AM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 15,654
Was hh intentionally trying to rile up the SDMB and bathe in negative attention? Maybe. But his pattern of refusing to answer questions, insulting the questioners, and claiming to be unfairly abused by the board are typical tactics of political debaters. I'm just saying precedent has already been established by the potential leaders of our country, and some citizens have become convinced this is the proper way to conduct topic discussion.

hh had no integrity because it's no longer valued.
  #17  
Old 04-27-2016, 07:28 AM
Shodan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,870
Quote:
In the Pit thread in question, harry was not actually advocating for any position at all: he was self-identifying as a Nazi, insulting anyone who drew the most logical assumptions about someone who would self-identify as a Nazi, and then refusing to explain how his version of being a Nazi was any different from anyone's preconception of what being a Nazi means. He was also clear that this was not something he would merely refuse to explain in the Pit, but was rather something he would not discuss with anyone on the board, in any capacity. That's not discussing your honestly held political beliefs, that's just trolling.
So refusing to discuss your political beliefs is trolling? I assume that applies only to some political beliefs - what are they?

This is bullshit, obviously - the poster in question refused to be baited into doing something ban-worthy, so you banned him. No mod notes, no warnings - he was banned for expressing a political opinion, and insulting people. In the Pit.
Quote:
So, first, was handsomeharry banned just for being a self-admitted Nazi? No, or at least, not entirely.
IOW yes, entirely.

Regards,
Shodan
  #18  
Old 04-27-2016, 07:38 AM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 30,664
I don't agree, because he invited the attention, by starting a pit thread about a five-year-old thread and then claiming to be something (a semi-Holocaust denier) that he refused to define (or distinguish from a Holocaust denier).
  #19  
Old 04-27-2016, 07:46 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,856
Saying "I'm a Nazi" and then refusing to answer questions about it seems pretty damn different than, say, saying "I'm a Republican" and then refusing to answer questions about it.

Seems entirely appropriate to me, and I salute the mods. Well done once again.
  #20  
Old 04-27-2016, 07:47 AM
Shodan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,870
IOW in the Pit, he refused to defend his political position, and instead insulted people. And this is a banning offense, with no warnings or mod notes. In the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan
  #21  
Old 04-27-2016, 07:48 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
IOW in the Pit, he refused to defend his political position, and instead insulted people. And this is a banning offense, with no warnings or mod notes. In the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan
Yes, it's different for Nazis. I'm okay with the rules being different for Nazis.
  #22  
Old 04-27-2016, 07:53 AM
Shodan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,870
Then in honesty the rules should be updated to make it clear that the rules are different for some political positions, and to clarify which positions they are.

And as mentioned, the answer to this -
Quote:
was handsomeharry banned just for being a self-admitted Nazi?
is Yes, and Miller's statement to the contrary is untrue.

Regards,
Shodan
  #23  
Old 04-27-2016, 07:55 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Then in honesty the rules should be updated to make it clear that the rules are different for some political positions, and to clarify which positions they are.

And as mentioned, the answer to this -
is Yes, and Miller's statement to the contrary is untrue.

Regards,
Shodan
I don't think so -- I think he was banned for being a self-admitted Nazi and refusing to answer questions about his beliefs, as Miller states. That seems, justifiably to me, to be classified as trolling. If he had answered the questions, then he wouldn't have been banned.
  #24  
Old 04-27-2016, 08:02 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,605
It's the "self-admitted" part that is key. Was he a Nazi? Who knows? We certainly don't, since he never explained it. It's not being a Nazi that was the issue; it's the way he made the claim - and his reaction to requests for elaboration - that made him a troll.

Saying "I'm a Nazi" is a provocative statement. Saying "I'm a serial cat strangler" is a provocative statement. Saying "I'm a pedophile" is a provocative statement. And while I'm not aware of any self-admitted serial cat stranglers, we have had the odd pedophile who lasted far longer than expected because they were willing to discuss their views to all and sundry. None of them said "I like to bugger little boys" and then responded to all queries with abuse and derision.

That's the difference between someone merely holding a repugnant personal viewpoint and someone trolling the board.
  #25  
Old 04-27-2016, 08:21 AM
Shodan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,870
IOW what I said is exactly correct. For some political positions, you must respond to abuse in the Pit by discussing your positions. Insulting back when you are insulted, in the Pit, is trolling. No mod notes, no warnings - you get banned, because it's trolling to respond to insults with insults. In the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan
  #26  
Old 04-27-2016, 08:39 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
IOW what I said is exactly correct. For some political positions, you must respond to abuse in the Pit by discussing your positions. Insulting back when you are insulted, in the Pit, is trolling. No mod notes, no warnings - you get banned, because it's trolling to respond to insults with insults. In the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan
It wasn't the insults -- it was the non-answering questions. If he had answered the questions in addition to throwing back the insults, then he wouldn't have been banned.
  #27  
Old 04-27-2016, 08:40 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
IOW what I said is exactly correct. For some political positions, you must respond to abuse in the Pit by discussing your positions. Insulting back when you are insulted, in the Pit, is trolling. No mod notes, no warnings - you get banned, because it's trolling to respond to insults with insults. In the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan
Is that a bad thing?
  #28  
Old 04-27-2016, 08:42 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 42,176
I have to agree with Shodan. This is an obvious content based banning.
  #29  
Old 04-27-2016, 08:49 AM
aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 8,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
........that's not a position that anyone on the moderation staff is particularly happy to see on the board.
This concerns me a little. Any other positions the moderation staff are particularly unhappy to see on the board? It would be helpful to know what they were.
  #30  
Old 04-27-2016, 08:53 AM
billfish678 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,681
Okay, so not only is "free speech" (in the pit for Gawd's sake) not quite free around here, you are require to incriminate yourself too.

What baloney.

When they came for the Nazi in the Pit I said nothing...blah blah blah...
  #31  
Old 04-27-2016, 08:53 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,042
The guy implied to a poster that said poster's relatives that were killed in the Holocaust were more responsible for their own deaths than the nazis were. That's not a political belief. That's bullshit.
  #32  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:00 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Saying "I'm a Nazi" and then refusing to answer questions about it seems pretty damn different than, say, saying "I'm a Republican" and then refusing to answer questions about it.

Seems entirely appropriate to me, and I salute the mods. Well done once again.
Does that salute involve any gestures like extending the arm forward and upward, palm down? A picture might be helpful here...

Last edited by John Mace; 04-27-2016 at 09:00 AM.
  #33  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:04 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
This concerns me a little. Any other positions the moderation staff are particularly unhappy to see on the board? It would be helpful to know what they were.
Really? I'd be unhappy to see (for example) someone say that it's okay to commit rape... and I expect the moderators would be too. Wouldn't you?

It seems entirely reasonable for the moderators (or anyone) to be unhappy at seeing abominable positions supported, whether on this board or anywhere else.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-27-2016 at 09:05 AM.
  #34  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:22 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
This concerns me a little. Any other positions the moderation staff are particularly unhappy to see on the board? It would be helpful to know what they were.
Well paedophilia for one. This:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
...we have had the odd pedophile who lasted far longer than expected because they were willing to discuss their views to all and sundry. None of them said "I like to bugger little boys" and then responded to all queries with abuse and derision.
... is dead wrong unless I am completely failing to recall correctly. We did have a paedophile who was willing to calmly discuss the matter. He was run out on a rail.
  #35  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:22 AM
Shodan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Really? I'd be unhappy to see (for example) someone say that it's okay to commit rape... and I expect the moderators would be too. Wouldn't you?
IOW this statement -
Quote:
The SDMB has always operated under the principle that repulsive speech is best met with more speech, not with suppression.
is also not true.

Again - in the Pit, if you express some political position, you must respond to insults by explaining your position. If you refuse, you get banned. In the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan
  #36  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:25 AM
Crotalus's Avatar
Crotalus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio
Posts: 6,133
Iím not in favor of banning in general as a moderating tool, and I think this particular banning was a mistake. My general dislike for banning people is related to the nature of this board and the need for higher traffic levels to its intellectual and social health.

In the ten years or so that I have been posting here, I have seen the bannings of posters who accounted for hundreds of thousands of posts on this board, and I have seen the number of posts and threads here decline steadily as well. Obviously, there are lots of new posters in that time, and there have been prolific posters who died or moved on to other things (come back, Marley), so I'm not claiming bannings account for all of the decline. There have been prolific posters whose banning I silently applauded at the time, but in retrospect I feel differently.

Threads like the one that Miller cited in his OP arenít a valid reason for banning someone, IMO. I started reading it when it was new and after a while found it uninteresting. It appears to me that most of the people who stayed involved and attempted to engage handsomeharry are long-time, savvy posters who had a pretty good idea of what they were involved in. They chose to stay involved, and for some, posting in and reading a thread like that is entertaining.

I really think that banning regular, long-time posters should be so rare as to be a big shock when it happens.
  #37  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:26 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 42,176
I don't really have a problem with the jerk rule applied to Nazis who choose to make their only argument in the Pit through insults and whatever trolling is. But let's not pretend that it's not content based. Someone arguing that a recent deceased artist is over-rated wouldn't be banned for the same type of posting.

This banning was for the odious statements of the recently banned Doper on the particular subject, not for violation of rules applied blindly without regard to the subject.

The mods and admins of this board must now make it clear that this is now how the rules will be applied. They also should re-instate the alleged Nazi scumbag with a warning if fair unbiased application of the rules means anything. I'm not sure it does mean anything here, but then let's not pretend that it does either.

Last edited by TriPolar; 04-27-2016 at 09:27 AM.
  #38  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:31 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
IOW this statement -
is also not true.
Why would being unhappy with something preclude more speech? I'm unhappy with plenty of things that I respond to with speech! The moderators' unhappiness with a Nazi position were not the reason for the ban.

Quote:
Again - in the Pit, if you express some political position, you must respond to insults by explaining your position. If you refuse, you get banned. In the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan
If it's a Nazi position, yes. Presumably there are some others -- I would guess pro-pedophilia, pro-rape, pro-terrorism, and a few others. Maybe these should be better laid out, but it seems entirely reasonable and appropriate to me.
  #39  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:31 AM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 30,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Again - in the Pit, if you express some political position, you must respond to insults by explaining your position. If you refuse, you get banned. In the Pit.
He started a thread in the pit, in part, to espouse his views. He could have started the SDMB equivalent of an Ask-Me-Anything thread elsewhere and then he could have discussed his views without being banned or insulted for them. Or, since he was unwilling to discuss or even define his views, he was free not to bring them up. Remember that he reanimated a five-year-old thread just to pit it. It seemed to be blatant attention-seeking (and the unwillingness to discuss his "unusual" views seemed to be blatant trolling).
  #40  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:33 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,533
I am not surprised. I pointed out in the pit that his actions were clearly trolling by board standards. And, since some people disagree, I thought I'd explain my reasoning. It appears to me to align with that of the mods, but they can obviously correct me if I'm wrong.

My claim had absolutely nothing to do with his beliefs nor with the fact he was insulting people. We've had racists on the board many times, and a Nazi is just a special form of racist. And of course he can insult whomever he wants.

As Miller explained, he was baiting people. He was laughing at the accusations. He was clearly getting off on people being upset. That is disingenuous. That is insincere.

And that is the line that delineates between what is allowed and not allowed in the Pit. Having a legitimate grievance is fine. Stirring up crap to watch people get angry is not.

The delineation I was told about the last time someone got banned in for trolling in the pit was this: Outside the pit, only the part about deliberately stirring stuff up matters. Inside the Pit, they must also be insincere. Otherwise, one could argue that any poster being pitted was actually trolling.

I have seen too many people with absolutely abhorrent views being left alone. So I do not believe any accusation that this is about their views is valid. And anything about it being about insulting people is obviously false, as that always happens. And it's not as if a modern Nazi is any worse than a race realist.

So that's my take on why Miller is right, and why this is not banning people for wrong views or insults.
  #41  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:40 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 64,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
IOW this statement -
is also not true.

Again - in the Pit, if you express some political position, you must respond to insults by explaining your position. If you refuse, you get banned. In the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan
"IOW". You've said that a lot in this thread. Got any response to "TOW"(The Original Words)?
  #42  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:46 AM
Shodan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Why would being unhappy with something preclude more speech?
Because they banned him with no warning or mod notes.
Quote:
The moderators' unhappiness with a Nazi position were not the reason for the ban.
Yes, it was. As you mentioned, the rules are different for this poster exactly because of his position.
Quote:
If it's a Nazi position, yes. Presumably there are some others -- I would guess pro-pedophilia, pro-rape, pro-terrorism, and a few others.
Then again, what Miller claimed about silencing is untrue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm
"IOW". You've said that a lot in this thread. Got any response to "TOW"(The Original Words)?
I have quoted the original words, and pointed out the contradictions. Do you have any substantive response, or should you be banned for refusing to explain yourself?

Regards,
Shodan
  #43  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:50 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because they banned him with no warning or mod notes.
Yes, it was. As you mentioned, the rules are different for this poster exactly because of his position.
Because he stated his position as a Nazi but refused to answer questions about it. Both together, not one or the other. So yes, the rules are different for self-admitting Nazis, but admitting one is a Nazi is not a bannable offense by itself.

Quote:
Then again, what Miller claimed about silencing is untrue.
Not sure which claim you're referring too.
  #44  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:54 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,731
I wasn't going to involve myself in this discussion but a number of recent comments seem to me to be disturbingly misguided. So let me first of all say, with respect to the OP, job well done, and as others have said, the transparency is appreciated.

Which makes it ironic that a number of posters seem to think that the banning was content-based, and it's doubly ironic because this is probably the most tolerant board I've ever participated in with respect to permissiveness of diverse and sometimes bizarre views. When someone like Shodan demands to know what political views are unacceptable here, this is a laughable attempt to suggest some kind of extreme political bias in effect. Which is absolutely ludicrous. And now others have piled on with assertions of content-based banning, completely missing the point.

Here's the point as I see it. State your case, back it up, argue it with some modicum of intelligence, and you'll be fine, unless you're advocating something illegal or beyond all bounds of decency. Start trolling just to attract conflict and attention, and you won't be fine. How is this a problem?

The poster in question was deemed a troll because he went out of his way to declare a reprehensible and obviously confrontational POV with no interest in discussing it or even any evidence that he actually believed it, but did use the opportunity to escalate hostility and insults. This is not constructive and doesn't represent any sort of honest argument, it's pointless and disruptive. End of story.

There are different kinds of trolls. Another banning that occurred not too long ago was an individual monomaniacially obsessed with one particular subject, and survived for quite a long period of time until the evidence for trolling became pretty much undeniable along with other transgressions. Among the indications of trolling was the simple fact that his arguments weren't even consistent, so much so that in some cases arguments made at different times could be shown to be mutually contradictory. As long as he was making waves and the boat was rocking, that was all that mattered. And again, it had nothing to do with the content per se, but with fundamental dishonesty and disruptive intent.
  #45  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:54 AM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
IOW what I said is exactly correct. For some political positions, you must respond to abuse in the Pit by discussing your positions. Insulting back when you are insulted, in the Pit, is trolling. No mod notes, no warnings - you get banned, because it's trolling to respond to insults with insults. In the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan

No Shodan. That's not what happened.


In fact, a mod mentioned in that thread that he was trolling. That comment wasn't in the form of a warning or a mod note, but it did use the word trolling. That should have caused a second thought. I realize mods are posters too and free to post as they choose, but seriously, when a mod posts, as a poster, that you're a troll, wtf do you think he's thinking when, thereafter, he puts his mod hat on? A wise man would take note at such an event. Not to mention that others pointed out his trollish behavior too.

Shodan, I agree with you often on this board. I enjoy reading what you post for the most part. But this time, I think you're wrong. The departed poster knew what he was doing, and he made no effort to fix it.
  #46  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:54 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 13,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
While I agree that discussion is always preferable, holocaust denial is hate speech in more than one country, and isn't tolerated on this board. That alone should have been a banning offense. The trolling was just icing.
Well, as I recall, he was only a semi-denier.

But he e certainly violated the jerk rule.
  #47  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:58 AM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 11,094
There was no banning of handsomeharry. It never happened.

Last edited by Larry Borgia; 04-27-2016 at 09:59 AM.
  #48  
Old 04-27-2016, 10:02 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
I don't really care that hh was banned. I never engaged with him much, but he was clearly a jerk. Ask yourself: Is this MB better with our without him? So let's just say he was banned for being a jerk and forget all the Nazi hand-waving/rationalizing.
  #49  
Old 04-27-2016, 10:04 AM
leftfield6 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta Metro
Posts: 2,961
I'm okay with something happening to his posting ability, although a warning or two would have made the inevitable banning seem less draconian. And, since he seemed determined to death-by-mod, he would have likely ignored a mod warning anyway.

To me, he needed some kind of censure for his behavior in that thread. Yes, I know it's the PIT, but still. He intentionally threw out an extreme position, and then ridiculed anyone who dared question it. Jerkish behavior? Yep. He directed incendiary remarks at people personally, stating them as facts, but provided no evidence to back up his "denier" claims. He was there purely to incite. Even the Pit should be better than that.

I know the Pit has a different definition of "Don't be a jerk" but still.........

Last edited by leftfield6; 04-27-2016 at 10:06 AM. Reason: found out that a comma can make a big difference
  #50  
Old 04-27-2016, 10:05 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 64,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I have quoted the original words, and pointed out the contradictions. Do you have any substantive response, or should you be banned for refusing to explain yourself?

Regards,
Shodan
You pointed out supposed contradictions in the "other words" you created from the original posts, perhaps. My "substantive response" is that the explanation Miller gave at the start of this thread for the banning was thorough and left no doubt in my mind that said banning was totally justified.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017