Did you read the questions? All of them involved individuals acting on their own without involving Cesario unless he comes in of his own volition.
This really isn’t that difficult. Let’s say someone posts a thread asking “should Child porn be protected by free speech laws?” You can say “Yes it should.” You can say “No it shouldn’t” You can’t say “Gosh, what would Cesario say about this?” or “Counting down till you know who shows up” or things like that.
I think you’re making it a lot more complicated than it needs to be. If he comes in of his own volition, then the flag is going to be thrown on him. If you somehow use pedophilia as a weapon against him, make reference to him and his inclinations, or ask for his opinion on a related subject, it will be thrown on you. Mods are not going to wield the Ban Hammer for a good faith mistake. I’d expect the first few problems, if any, will draw a mod note or a warning. If you get one of those, you can likely smooth it over as long as you can discuss it reasonably with the Mod that issued it, either via PM/Email, or a thread here in ATMB.
Also, he knows he’s on Double Not-So-Secret Probation. If he wants to stay here and he’s smart, he’ll avoid threads where he might get himself in trouble. If not, it’ll be another suicide by mod.
To the extent that someone can be said to be able to commit suacide by cop while already in police custody with a gun to their temple at any rate.
:rolleyes:
Dude, come on. If the mods wanted you gone, you’d be gone already. They’re giving you a chance to stick around and talk about anything else you want. Plenty of boards would not be that generous, and I think you know that.
Thanks to you and Larryt Borgia for your comments.
I disagree on the first point as it is less than clear to me. I agree on the second, but I’d rather not have to go there or have my thoughts chilled to prevent the risk of having to deal with it. I am sure you understand.
With all due respect, the questions are for the mod, they are real, not hypothetical, and they are more used to dealing with edge cases than those of us in the Teeming Masses. I was specifically instructed to ask them if I had specific questions, I do, and I did. Why not simply let me wait for the answers please?
You asked the mods and got a perfectly understandable answer. I’m not sure why you don’t get it. To return to what you originally had difficulty with,
If there is a discussion about Free Speech and how it relates to child porn then it is obviously not ok to ask for Cesario’s input because it is specifically related to child porn which is directly related to pedophilia. What is difficult to understand?
There is a debate about whether all child porn is related to pedophilia or not. To that extent, the issue is unclear.
It is also unclear, as I outlined above, if everything on this board that is called “pedophilia” is actually about “pedophilia” or is another paraphilia perhaps. That could certainly follow through on Child Porn discussion, hence the debate.
Ok, so why would you ask Cesario, a poster known for his opinions on pedophilia, about this issue?
If I was posting and sought Cesario’s opinion on something, I’d ask myself “would I still be wanting his opinion if he wasn’t a known pedophile?” If the answer to that is “yes”, then I’d go ahead and engage him, if it was “no”, then I wouldn’t.
Ask yourself why you would value his input into free speech. Does it have anything at all to do with the subject that he mustn’t mention? If yes then it is unfair to him to engage him in that way. You’re basically encouraging him to break the rule which is all the mods are trying to prevent.
You are coming across as being willfully obtuse by the way. This is not complicated.
And lose face by appearing to bow to mob rule? Fact of the matter was, they lost the ability to outright ban me when the mob decided to start howling for blood. The current situation is a face saving measure, nothing more. The idea is to reduce my visibility enough that even if I don’t violate a rule, they’ll be able to enact a ban without anyone noticing or questioning their motives.
We’ll see. I do, after all, have a series of threads I’ve been meaning to start over in Great Debates, and if enforced, these new rules could do wonders to keep them on topic.
I think you have a very skewed idea of what is out there in the wider internet. Some places would certainly have banned me outright, but most of those places don’t bother with maintaining a pretence of impartiality. They are refreshingly honest in the fact that I’m being thrown out because of their personal prejudices.
On one other board, I’ve been asked to avoid this topic as well, and have generally complied with it. That compliance is a courtesy I do them, not the other way around. They asked nicely, phrased their request in a reasonable fassion, pointed out honestly their concerns, which were valid and well thought-out, so that was that.
On another, the board’s administration effectively declared war. Bans were handed down for violations of rules that didn’t exist. New rules were written (which were also not violated yet were cited as the reasons for bans). I’m rather convinced that part of the problem was that they were bowing to pressure from an internet vigilante group at the time, since the unreasonable behavior tended to come in spurts of activity that died down as soon as said group moved on to its next target. Regardless, as there was no reasonable listing of grievences, and a clearly demonstrated willingness to violate their own rules and policies in the process, it seemed rather foolish to be conceliatory.
I find the “excessive focus on one topic” nothing more than an excuse. I’d be far more inclined to give credit and the benefit of the doubt if the administration was honest about its reasons and concerns, not to mention far more inclined to comply with their requests.
Where this goes will be up to them, but considering this entire business got to this point precisely because I decided to defer to them and submit to pre-emptive censorship (in requesting approval for the thread), and did not vigorously shout down the morons and bigots who made a circus of the thread and formed the basis of the later mob, I’m less inclined to believe that being conceliatory is the way to go.
I already explained all this. Perhaps the one being willfully obtuse is you, or perhaps you just don’t, won’t, or don’t want to get it.
That is fine by me, it apparently does not concern you, so don’t fret over it.
Like most of our rules here, we do NOT have an extensive list of possibilities and circumstances thought out in advance. We take each case and each situation on its own merits. None of us want to waste our time worrying about hypotheticals.
This one is pretty clear. We have faced this situation, what, maybe five or six times in the past decade. They’ve all been different in detail. We’ve had people who seem to have an agenda, and all (or most) of their posts are related to that agenda. We tell them that they are welcome to stay here as posters, but they are not welcome to stay if they can’t get off that agenda. In most of those cases, our conditions have been sent to them in private email to them, not publicly posted.
However, in any case, we certainly understand that other posters might try goading them – especially in a situation where the agenda is unpopular (to say the least) and yucky. “Let’s get him to break the rules” is a popular game on this board, not just in this situation: I can think of several posters who seem to be targets for such goading. “Let’s get [name deleted] so mad that he/she insults one of us” seems to be a one such game. We tend to be somewhat lenient in such conditions (perhaps issue a “friendly reminder” rather than an Official Warning) when someone has been clearly provoked.
An example does not cover all cases, of course, but I think Larry Borgia’s is particularly apt:
I found five different threads where the mods and admins asked you to stop dragging your topic of choice into other threads. And you really should have been warned for this rather than just being asked. So I think we’re on solid ground.
My emphasis.
If you don’t comply with what you’ve been asked to do, you’re not going to be allowed to post here. I think you’ve been given plenty of rope so far.
You didn’t request pre-emptive approval. You said in October that you might start a thread, and I told you not to do it without our permission. It’s true that you complied with this. If you hadn’t, the thread would have been shut down and you would have been warned for ignoring mod instructions.
Which brings us to the present: aside from Cesario, posters can discuss this subject in whatever context they like. That doesn’t count as provoking anything. Trying to push him into bringing up the subject, or asking him about it in a thread about something else, would count as provoking him into raising the topic. We’re not trying to curtail anybody else’s discussions.
Right. Since Cesario is already banned from discussing pedophilia in any form, everybody else can talk all they want about it without it being a provocation. Just don’t mention his name in a thread about pedophilia and don’t mention pedophilia in a discussion with him. I don’t see what’s so hard about that.
Why isn’t/wasn’t he simply warned for threadshitting? Serous question…
Can Cesario discuss hebephilia or ephebophilia, or chronophilia in general?
I am not trying to be dense, I am sincerely trying to head off issues that might come up later in advance. I don’t see these matters covered in the ruling, and I have seen no claims that he has discussed these topics in the past, and so my first guess is yes, it is allowed. But part of me says it is still a grey area and worth asking mods about, since they have already given much thought to the ruling.
I think I said this upthread, but we didn’t compare notes often enough to realize how often he was being told to stop dragging it into other threads. We emailed each other about some of them but I know I didn’t realize he’d been written up five times for it. Had we known, the last couple likely would have been warnings.
No. I hope that is clear.
I would think that anything even vaguely in the area would fall under this ruling – he’s proven to our satisfaction that he’s here to push his private agenda and really not much more.
The bigger question at this point is why are you so heavily invested in this?