Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

If that was all that was done on that thread, then no.

I will stipulate that some of the participants talking about rape victims were also not particularly selective in their ridicule of your views and it escalated on both sides. Your camp responded to it with a similar lack of self-moderation. Both camps are at fault in that regard.

And to clarify things, BBB did not leave that thread because of the comments by Bill and Hawkeye. I asked her to leave it because it was bringing back lots of bad memories for her and was affecting her well-being.

Shhh! Inviting him to this thread is like saying Bloody Mary three times in front of a mirror. Bad luck for all!

Continuing from that thread, I am replying to this post: http://able2know.org/topic/158723-215#post-4392459



Actually, there are a number of arguments I have made that you are ignoring. To summarize:

1) I do not think people should be banned for expressing unpopular opinions. You have repeatedly construed this as "support" for their positions and called me an "asshole" for it but the truth is that I don't support their positions, I simply support their right to express them on able2know as long as they follow the same rules that everyone else does.

This is the core argument I have against your demands.

2) You have identified a "demented duo" you want banned, but have not yet codified any rule under which we should ban them. I do not think able2know should operate like a lynch mob. Instead of calling for certain people to be banned you should propose specific rules. More on this later, you seem to think you have and we'll let the community be the judge of this.

My core argument here is that I do not think you have proposed any objective policy to proscribe their actions, just generalized ranting about "innocents" and "abuse" with no effort at all to define said abuse (which is what I keep asking you and what you repeatedly claim is already answered).




I can certainly make my point more nicely to you but you've been annoying me for months now, taunting me with your nonsense about "catering to trolls" and "able2troll" when you don't get your way and being a total jackass. I have made logical arguments against your position and I'm not defending them on the basis of the attacks on your character, I am attacking your character for demonstrating so little of it in the process of prosecuting your position and for being a douchebag. According to Occom Bill's rules this should be perfectly ok, given how long I simply asked you to stop before having enough of it.

And if you are going to don the mantle as representative of all these victims in your arguments it is not at all irrelevant to point out that you are their self-declared and overly zealous representative, and that to date not a single member has approached us with the concerns you claim to be prosecuting on their behalf. In short, if you claim to represent victims it may be embarrassing to you to have it pointed out that they aren't interested in your services for the most part but it is certainly relevant.



They go hand in hand. You just don't think it is creepy while others do. And folks like you are all too common whenever I see victims I see overzealous wanna be white knights clumsily stepping over themselves to posture themselves most prominently in their defense. Oftentimes they invoke victimhood of people no longer interested in being a victim and just make a general ass out of themselves in their name.

Here is a someone you remind me of to an uncanny degree:

http://www.exfamily.org/ppl/pages/Jim-LaMattery.htm



I just don't see how you making posts about illegal immigration changes that you are a self-proclaimed white knight invoking victims to justify boorish behavior. These are not mutually incompatible concepts and I don't see how you posting about immigration changes the self-proclaimed and unwelcome white knightism any.




No thanks, I have better things to do than visit someone who I would like to see much less of in my life.



The kind obsessed with getting them banned. My suspicions aren't "phony" they aren't even suspicions really, there are a couple of accounts that look very much to have been created by either you or Bill based on what little evidence I have.

My point in mentioning this to you is not to cast suspicion on you, but to point out that it is easy to point a finger but that operating the site fairly should involve more evidence than that and that I do not have enough evidence to tie those couple of accounts to anyone. But put yourself in my shoes for a minute, if I accept the level of evidence you insist I do, I would open up anyone to such attacks, where someone can create sock puppets to vote for the person and then try to get them banned.

Ultimately nobody was banned but some of the puppets and this is not really al that important except for you to think about how able2know should work and whether we should really just accept your demands without enough evidence or not. I don't think we should, and if you stop thinking about how obvious it is to you for a minute and think about what objective evidence a fair process could use this all might get a little clearer to you.




Evidence doesn't have feelings. I don't think you understand that my personal feelings about the individuals involved can't matter and that is one of the key disagreements we have, your demands are largely based on personal feelings about certain people and not objective criteria.

I am not arguing a position of my personal feelings, I find hawkeye and BillRM as annoying as you and have had a lot more personal problems with them than I have with you. But this is not going to be a site governed by personal feelings, if for no other reason because common sense and trusting your gut just doesn't scale. The site needs fair rules, not just a fair judge. Being fair here means insisting that feelings be put aside and that the rules are fairly interpreted.




Ok, but you should also mention your other nagging across many other mediums. How you went on about PMs and how it was in the site's great interest for me to work on them right away even after I told you I was working on it, your calls to take action and supervise pedophiles in the community and a bunch of other demanding nonsense that you never took unsubtle hints were unwelcome.

This isn't about the last few messages you sent but your unwillingness to let this particular issue go for months and months. This is just nothing new, this is a scab you just won't stop picking. This is why I am now urging you to start pestering the community and the "victims" you purport to represent. I have made patently clear to you that the process of getting your way on able2know does not involve just making a greater nuisance out of yourself. If you want to advocate these changes talk to the community that has, so far to me, nearly universally rejected your demands.




You have been pulling your childish "catering to trolls" and "able2troll" games when you don't get your way for months in public, and I responded to it. It's not like I took some private dispute you had with me and made it public, I am responding to your public douchebaggery by calling it what it is in public.



This is a useless rule to govern behavior on able2know, it's just a vague maxim to live by, not any kind of rule.

You don't even define what "abuse" is or what an "innocent" is. I am asking you to codify said abuse, and you just keep repeating that it is whoever abuses "innocents" first without bothering to try to codify that intelligently. Then you go and vaguely say they should be dealt with "some way". Quite frankly that is vague to the point of uselessness and you haven't bothered even trying, but if that is the best you can do and it is the rule you want to propose that governs banning on able2know then have at it and see who else agrees with you.




Thing is, none of those people ever asked me to ban the people you demand we do, and some have expressed the desire not to do so. So stop invoking other people, other than dlowan I don't know of a single person who has expressed any form of sympathy to your demands and dozens who are vehemently opposed to them.

Stop invoking "victims" who haven't asked for your representation. Let them speak for themselves. So far I have heard universal disagreement with you from the people you became the self-proclaimed champion of. If they want people banned then they can speak for themselves.



I don't think we should be banning people on the basis of deductions of their intent either, even if you don't think it takes a "genius" or that it is super obvious or whatever.

If you would like to propose banning on the basis of Occom Bill's judgments of people's intents then feel free once again to try to codify that and propose it. Instead of just making a larger jackass out of yourself when you don't get your way why not try to engage the community and get consensus?

I think asking moderators to guess intent is a problematic rule upon which to base banning but try to codify it in a way that begins to make more sense and maybe you'll find agreement from others.



You can ratchet up the stupidity in your logical fallacies like this emperor's new clothes argument and it still doesn't change the basics:

I have asked you to propose rules to the community to define the trolling you want to ban for, you come up with nothing specific and just more bluster about just how obvious it should be to anyone intelligent that you are right.



See? Here we go again, you have no arguments, just rhetoric. You can't articulate support for your notions, and just apply more logical fallacies like this.



This is a lie. You asked me why I was referencing hawkeye more than BillRM and I said I had not read all of BillRM's exchanges but was more familiar with hawkeye. And as you know, having asked why I was talking about him, I was talking about hawkeye and not Bill.

You got so offended by him that you started going around frothing at the mouth and calling him a rapist. I think you'll have a hard time making any kind of rule to govern site behavior that doesn't proscribe that kind of thing and your way of justifying it to yourself on the basis of "responding" ignores that there is no equivalent thing that you are responding to.




If this is so "textbook" then why can't you come up with a useful rule that can actually be proposed? You just keep claiming that it is very obvious but seem to have great difficulty in pointing out the objective criteria upon which you supposedly base these claims.



That is not true, we do have moderation but it simply does not do what you demand. You define "moderation of any kind" as being what you demand and this is just another way you hyperbolically try to get what you want, by making exaggerated and false claims.




And I will ask you again, to propose a rule to the community to define trolling, instead of just repeatedly acting incredulous about not being agreed with and pretending that it should all be obvious.

If it is so obvious then why can't you come up with any objective criteria? Why is your stock and store to just essentially repeat how obvious it is.



Well, feel free to see if people on this forum agree. I think right now this might not be the best approach and think threaded conversation solves most of the problems (including us wanting to continue arguing without disturbing the others).



Huh? Code? "Then -if"? I sincerely have no idea what you are talking about but if you can't articulate actual rules, policies and procedures for humans to follow you'll never be able to perfect that logic to the point where an unthinking machine can.

Why don't you just try to start with codifying some human-readable rules that aren't so ridiculously vague first?



You aren't beginning to make sense here, why don't you try to make sense with human applied rules first before trying to make sense with computers that you seem to understand to a much lesser degree?

If you can make your demands into something that makes sense for humans it will go a long way towards making them then make sense to machines.




Sounds like an awful lot of imagination but why don't you get the community to agree on what you are trying to do before trying to make convoluted code to automate it?



I never "decided there was no trolling issue" on the site and this is just more of your hyperbole and exaggeration.



Then don't be silent about it. But by all means start making more sense. You can start by trying to define the rules governing trolling and abuse and stop pretending like you have already done so by issuing ultra-vague maxims about "innocents" who you don't represent.



I thought "wannabe white knight" was both apropos and funny. I don't know of a single "victim" on able2know who wants your loud-mouthed representation and ham-handed approach to discussion of sensitive subjects, despite how much you invoke their cause to justify yourself.

I had no worry in summoning Hawkeye as I had along with all my computer software protections taken the precaution to had drawn a pentagram around my computer desk.

Would a week's suspension for the worst of the lot (including those who falsely accuse others of illegal activity) be a reasonable and appropriate judgement if the sentence is handed down by 3 impartial members?

I think tsartespan is onto something there!

I've had BillRM on Ignore for months now. I don't know why others don't. Reading his babble is a waste of time, responding to it is an even bigger waste of time. I see no reason to ban anyone if we have the option to ignore them.

You are correct. We would sometimes actually remove and ban over that to be honest. If someone comes here and actually advocates that we kill minorities or advocates rape I support removal of the content and banning but we are talking about situations where people show frustrating levels of ignorance, apathy or lack of sensitivity and the accusations of defending people who "support rape" is hyperbole.

Seriously supporting rape, crime or violence on able2know is something that I will not host and that is not up for discussion. If someone comes here and advocates rape the content will be removed and they will be banned. We are talking about opinions that can be construed that way with a bit of hyperbole.

NO. If it is unclear, I was one of the people who disclosed about being raped on that thread. I agree with Robert here, and appreciate his last post, though I already knew that.

I do agree treatment of one poster was hard to read, bizarre, ludicrous, very hurtful, so I can understand O'Bill's emotion.

The simple answer to that is for you to stop posting false information with no facts but your own sordid opinion. You have never been able to provide factual supporting evidence for anything that you have challenged.

Your name calling and total disrespect for the female population on A2K and, indeed, women in general is beyond understanding.

Your use of sock puppets to bolster your down votes is ridiculous. I understand that there may have been the use of sock puppets to also increase your down vote. That is just as bad.

It appears that many have not read the thread in question to see the real you. I have read every post on that thread and have made many posts myself. You admit, in many posts, to doing exactly what you have been accused of doing and you gloat in it.

Your lack of social graces and the fact that you come across as a total ass should not be reason for banning, but there has to be some form of moderation that would be effective.

Unfortunately, I am at a loss as to what that may be.

To which you freely admitted that it was true and even bragged about having TOR software to cover your tracks.

Apparently, you have a poor memory. Either that or you are a chronic liar.

And you would have no problem with Firefly being ban for her Child Porn collection charge AM? LOL............

I can't swim so I tend to prefer things that don't involve rocking and tipping the boat over, (the boat being a2k). I'm too facile that way.

Another easy way around this which I know neither side will like is just to napalm that particular thread and place off this whole scandal to the next explosive social/political/cultural thread.

Are you serious?

I guess not. I tried my best not to fish for an answer but if you would like to pose the question to the community another way have at it. I've been trying to get you to engage them instead of me exclusively.



We already have "some level of moderation that could eventually result in banning" so you should be more specific with what you advocate.



Define it. Was Brooke relentlessly spamming the thread when she would mock Bill about votes? Are you relentlessly spamming the thread with hateful mockery when you start calling people rapists?

And before you do another flabbergasted act take personality out of it, I am trying to get you to be SPECIFIC, as vague rules do not work very well.




Sure. But remember, you have been nagging me about very specific ones for months: banning them. We might as well talk about what your incessant demand has actually been with specificity instead of being deliberately vague here.



If the intent is so "clear" can you go about codifying it then? For all you have explained you may as well be asking us to use a troll divining rod. You have proposed nothing objective in way of establishing how to discern what constitutes this abuse.

I do agree with you to the degree that ignore is a wonderful tool in my case to deal with Bill O.

My my non of the links to scientific studies I had posted here work for you?