Not to answer for Miller, but it sort of does explain it. Narrowly speaking and ultimately speaking you can say HH was banned for being a jerk. “I am a Nazi, you don’t know what Nazism is, and no I won’t explain myself though I will insult you as I resurrect a 5 year old post,” basically embodies jerkitude. It doesn’t fight ignorance; it only stirs the pot.
Gaming it out though, it’s probable that HH could easily keep refusing to elaborate while hinting at his Nazism from time to time. Or not even doing the latter. The end result would be bannings by other indisciplined members… so that we can protect a Nazi who won’t explain his views. That’s just ridiculous.
There’s a debate to be had about the proper treatment of those who espouse 19th century racism. I’ve generally taken the side of fighting bad speech with good speech. Separately, I agree that some forms of trolling are constitutionally protected, not that anyone is arguing otherwise. I’m just comfortable with not giving a platform to those who post provocative posts for the purposes of provoking, as opposed to discussion.
But really, it seems that the mods did what they did because of anticipated consequences. They gamed the situation out. The expression of unpopular views might deserve special rules. The nonexpression of views both unpopular and generally considered across the spectrum to be genocidal? No. That’s just trolling. That stuff belongs at 4chan.
It’s the pit. How is what HH did any different than any of the random ramblings and general jack-assery that defines that sub-forum other than claiming to be a Nazi? Being banned for non-expression is so silly a precedent that it makes any justification for moderation farcical.
I couldn’t parse this. I couldn’t figure out whether you were arguing that the Pit should be eliminated or not. Apologies and no worries though.
I think HH was trolling pretty hard. There lots of distinctions between his post and most pit posts. I can list them, but I doubt you will be convinced.
Most (not all) pittings don’t take 5 year old posts as their main topic. Most address current issues.
Most pittings have to do with actual gripes, not shit-stirring. The latter is just trolling and is forbidden by this message board.
But really, just look at my argument. The board doesn’t want to lay down special rules for those who shit-stir for the sake of shit-stirring. As opposed to shit-stirring for the sake of fighting ignorance. The latter would be ok. Real trolling is not.
There’s a pretty bright line between genocide advocacy (while refusing to explain oneself) and well lots of things expressed here. I don’t doubt that you could resurrect some borderline pit threads with some effort. But if you’re saying that HH’s effort is typical of the Pit, I’ll have to disagree.
The pit is inflammatory. Especially if posters are being pitted. I find direct personal attacks to be more inflammatory than I do conversing with a self identified Nazi or communist.
Woody Allen: Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Y’know, I read this in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, y’know, get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain things to them.
Party Guest: There is this devastating satirical piece on that on the Op Ed page of the Times, it is devastating.
Woody Allen: Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point.
Have you read **Miller’**s post 246? That addresses your concerns and until you specifically discuss his points the conversation simply won’t move forward.
Of course I read the post you point to. I even quoted it in my response to him. In both my responses on this very page I explain that my problem is that I don’t get why a long term poster wasn’t Warned before being banned.
As far as what else might be at play, I really don’t know. It’s just hat the lack of Warnings—hell, even one—is just so odd. If you want me to guess it’s that the powers that be didn’t want to field more complaints. But that’s just a guess to satisfy the craving you have for an answer.
CNN has projected a mod victory for this thread. Exit polls show mods carrying a 100.0% approval rate in the blue states, and a 87.4% approval rate in the red states, and a 0% approval rate in the states of Confusion.
I can’t fathom what you’re hung up on. Again, my problem is the lack of Warning(s). I don’t see where that specific point has been addressed adequately, if at all. If you disagree, perhaps you can provide the quotes?
The explanation has been given already, and the only problem seems to be is that explanation given does not satisfy you-you’re not being given the one answer you want.
This banning fills me with so much disappointment. A banning without a warning just shows where the board is going, and I refuse to go along anymore.
I’ve watched for years as this message board has declined from what it once was. It’s pretty much a huge echo chamber now. Almost all of the interesting people have left over the years. The pit has become a pathetic joke, there will never again be an epic thread like Cervaise’s telemarketing rant.
This banning has just shown me that the glory days are gone, and the board I remember will never be coming back. I could rage against the dying of the light, but I reckon It’s just time for me to move on. This message board has given me thousands of hours of entertainment over the last fifteen years, and for that I am thankful. It’s been a wonderful mixture of fun, education, and snark.
There is no “best explanation” for you, if you will not accept any explanation that will not give you what you want-capitulation. Your refusal to accept the Mods decision is not my problem to solve.
What the fuck are you talking about? I have yet to see an explanation regarding the lack of Warning. If you’d like, provide what you think comes closest and I’ll comment on it. If not, that’s fine too. At least we’ll no longer have to pretend that the explanation was given. Miller’s post that I was directed to only uses the word “warn” once, and not in relation to HH.
And you may have noticed that I’m not the only one troubled by this.
I thought the explanation was pretty simple – that for egregious violations, banning with no warnings is an option, and that this was an egregious violation, as judged by the moderators.