Unban Rumraket

[australopithecus]

It's not a bad idea, it's just that there needs to be a line in the sand after which you've basically sealed your own fate.

 

[australopithecus]

Since when did this forum start believing trolls were human and not the subhuman scum the rest of the internet know them to be?

I thought the unspoken rule of this forum (because it has been slow) was trolls were tolerated until things got out of hand, than the troll would be banned, since it is obviously the trolls fault. When did this forum start privileging trolls over members?

People. The word you're not using is people. Not allowing members to wish death on another human being isn't privileging anyone over anyone else, it's just basic civility. Also, Bernie is a member of this forum, regardless of how much he annoys other people or is dishonest is his argumentation, he has the same rights as everyone else here, and that (shocker!!!!) includes being able to post without people wishing him dead.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Agreed, australopithecus.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well, I can see I am not winning anyone over.

I will just address two things. First, I understand why hackenslash was banned. My point was the only reason I did not advocate for his reinstatement as well is because there would have been no point (him changing is password to random characters).

Second, of course the troll is a human being, of course hackenslash wish death upon him, so what? I never knew so many people had such thin skin on this forum.

 

[Prolescum]

...and I've never seen you so belligerent or unnecessarily disrespectful. I guess we've all learned things from this experience, eh?

 

[australopithecus]

Second, of course the troll is a human being, of course hackenslash wish death upon him, so what? I never knew so many people had such thin skin on this forum.

It's not about "thin skin", it's about what is acceptable and what isn't. Wishing death on people isn't acceptable, it's just being a dick.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

...and I've never seen you so belligerent or unnecessarily disrespectful. I guess we've all learned things from this experience, eh?

Awh, I love you too.

Second, of course the troll is a human being, of course hackenslash wish death upon him, so what? I never knew so many people had such thin skin on this forum.

It's not about "thin skin", it's about what is acceptable and what isn't. Wishing death on people isn't acceptable, it's just being a dick.

I honestly do not see the problem. Being a dick to a troll is like blaspheming; they are both victimless crimes.

 

[australopithecus]

He is a member of this forum, the same courtesy will be extended to him as it would to anyone else. I'm finding this insistence of dehumanising the guy to be very worrying.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Being a dick to a troll is like blaspheming; they are both victimless crimes.

But it isn't a victim-less crime when you call for the death of a particular individual. There is a victim, the person who's life has been put into question.
Just imagine this, what would you think if a creationist came to this forum a wished death upon you, how would you react?
If you think they should be banned when the abuse is direct at you, the same rule should apply when it is direct at others. The same protections and treatment should be extend to all users period, not just the ones you like.

Ps. It doesn't matter that a password had been changed to a random string of characters, since there is a password recovery system.

 

[Gnug215]

I honestly do not see the problem. Being a dick to a troll is like blaspheming; they are both victimless crimes.

Is Bernard a troll because he's here to deliberately piss us off?

Or is he a troll because he disagrees with us (with, to us, very stupid ideas and convictions)?

In my world, only one of those two options makes a person an actual "troll".

The other makes one an idiot or other such things, but not a troll - no matter how much their mere existence offends.


Oh, and I think your dehumanizing of him is both somewhat troubling and quite uncharacteristic.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Is Bernard a troll because he's here to deliberately piss us off?

Or is he a troll because he disagrees with us (with, to us, very stupid ideas and convictions)?

I'm honestly not sure which he falls under. Remember when he returned before, saying his only motivation was to force me to atheism? I don't know what was up with that, but it seems like it's deliberate trolling to me.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Just to remind people that I see trolls as human beings.

But it isn't a victim-less crime when you call for the death of a particular individual. There is a victim, the person who's life has been put into question.
Just imagine this, what would you think if a creationist came to this forum a wished death upon you, how would you react?
If you think they should be banned when the abuse is direct at you, the same rule should apply when it is direct at others. The same protections and treatment should be extend to all users period, not just the ones you like.

I would laugh at them. Furthermore, it seems like you are under the impression that I want to see him banned, I do not. I do not think banning is ever the solution (short of dock dropping). Now, you are right that I wanted Rumraket back because I do enjoy his posts, but every banning I have had a problem with. I just never wanted to waste the time or energy getting (what I see as) mostly trolls reinstated. Heck, I advocated that creationist (aka Equestions) should not get banned moments before he actually did get a one week banning.

Now, Prolescum has said that he is not going to get banned (if I am not mistaken), thus why get mad at others that are reacting to his obvious trolling (and I am not the only one or first one to point this out).

Is Bernard a troll because he's here to deliberately piss us off?

Or is he a troll because he disagrees with us (with, to us, very stupid ideas and convictions)?

I'm honestly not sure which he falls under. Remember when he returned before, saying his only motivation was to force me to atheism? I don't know what was up with that, but it seems like it's deliberate trolling to me.

He obviously falls under Gnug215's first description regardless if he is also doing the second. In an earlier post (I am writing this up on my phone, so sorry it does not have all the links I normally provide) I linked to the beginning of his pestering itsdemtitans. I stopped reading his posts after that and have only been reading what others are quoting, but apparently since than he left of list of insults directed at itsdemtitans, is that correct?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

I stopped reading his posts after that and have only been reading what others are quoting, but apparently since than he left of list of insults directed at itsdemtitans, is that correct?

Yep:

here is my assessment of you at this point:

You are an idiot because of your assertion evolution is a forensic science has no presuppositions
You are a petulant child because of your whining I am being insulting
You are ignorant because you can't even accept evolution is a belief when clearly every evolutionary fossil is half or over half imagination
You are arrogant because you assert things without evidence and claiming in various ways that is the truth
You are blind because you see a picture of a whale with appendages and simply claim legs when in fact they deny the very definition of leg.

The list is long and infamous... If you wish for more just ask.

I laughed when he left this in all honesty. But it's pretty clear he hates me. And rereading this, yep, it's certainly trolling.

 

[Gnug215]

I really, REALLY think we should all just agree to the "correct" and "original" definition of a troll, namely someone who deliberately says inflammatory things for the hell of it.

So basically, a troll is someone who ACTS stupid and offensive, but isn't really so.

As I see it, Bernard actually believes the unbelievably stupid crap he spouts, and as such, he is NOT a troll.

... but he is many, many, many other negative things.

I'm pretty sure the policy on this site is to ban actual trolls (as per my definition), but creationists and other assorted idiots have always been allowed on here, provided they're not putting up an act.

I felt that on this site we've always tried to be above certain things (like direct insults, threats, ad hominems, ad mominems, etc.)

Not because we have thin skin, but because we wanted a proper and constructive debate environment, and not a copy of a YouTube comments section.

Besides, it's not that fucking hard to stop fucking insulting people or saying "fucking" every other fucking word. My mouth may not have a backspace key, but my keyboard fucking does! One even has to click another button to post a post, and one can even edit a post if it contains some insult.

Oh and lastly, if people really want to insult people and get away with it, there are plenty of ways to do that without going for a direct insult. I imagined that everyone here was imaginative enough to be able to pull that off.
So for example, hypothetically, if I were to question Bernard's mental faculties, that would be pretty easy to do without saying outright that I thought he was bloody insane.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I really, REALLY think we should all just agree to the "correct" and "original" definition of a troll, namely someone who deliberately says inflammatory things for the hell of it.

So basically, a troll is someone who ACTS stupid and offensive, but isn't really so.

As I see it, Bernhard.visscher actually believes the unbelievably stupid crap he spouts, and as such, he is NOT a troll.

Oh, so you know Bernhard.visscher in meat space? You sat down with him and had some tea to understand his whole outlook on life? Short of that, I am not sure how you or anyone else can tell if someone is acting or not when they leave comments on the internet. That is why that clause in the definition of a troll has never made sense to me. For all you know, every offensive ignorant asshole you have ever come across online could have been honest with themselves (e.g. my future president). Honestly, it is the "being stupid and offensive" part of the definition that should matter. Those traits are things one is able to see just from their posts. That is why I have always maintained that whether or not a person actually believes what they are saying or not does not matter, it is their actions that should gets one classified as a troll. We cannot tell if someone is acting, but we can see what their actions are.

Last year, I went around and around with dandan, who is probably just as dense as Bernhard.visscher. Someone being obtuse is not the problem and if anything, I was the one that was being offensive, since I kept making fun of his memory. Is dandan honest in his belief? I do not know, but he was not a troll. Is Bernhard.visscher honest in his belief? I do not know, but his offensive nature makes him a troll.

Besides, it's not that fucking hard to stop fucking insulting people or saying "fucking" every other fucking word. My mouth may not have a backspace key, but my keyboard fucking does! One even has to click another button to post a post, and one can even edit a post if it contains some insult.

You are right that Bernhard.visscher never uses cuss words. So what? Does Bernhard.visscher's lack of cuss words make his posts less offensive? Reading the string of insults he posted to itsdemtitans and now the new list of insults itsdemtitans just posted makes it seem as if Bernhard.visscher is going out of the way to be offensive, at least to itsdemtitans. One does not need to use cuss words to be offensive, in my opinion. I also do not believe that the use of cuss words arbitrarily makes a post offensive.

 

[Prolescum]

Hello.

This is where I believe we stand:

The thread in question has so many personal attacks flying about I decided to warn everyone at the same time in-thread. Several times. It was only the two excessively aggressive posters who received bans, and only then because they fucking know better. Repeatedly warning everyone wasn't getting the message across, even when given examples. Even after some recently received temporary bans.



While I agree that Bernhard is intentionally provocative (and he has been warned not to do this both in person and again in-thread when his butthurt got the better of his fingers), and given the above posts it is apparent he made a point of antagonising itsdemtitans by splitter's logic, it seems to me to be ribbing, not trolling. A collective warning seemed to be the right level of moderation at the time, excepting Hackenslash and Rumracket who had received many warnings already.


Sure, Bernhard's posts are inane, and he has literally nothing of any qualitative value to add to that discussion due to his misunderstanding (willful or no) of every facet of the thread and the inability to retain information presented, but I genuinely don't believe he qualifies as a troll; he came to take AronRa to task and failed face-first, and has continued his attempts to debunk evolution in an idiosyncratic and idiotic way.

That he's joined in on the personal attacks is really no more than most people do on internet fora.

I hope this clarifies my perspective then and now.

HWIN, when I said I've never seen you so belligerent and unnecessarily disrespectful, I meant to emphasise that I was surprised by your tone and ferocity here; they did (and do) seem somewhat out of character to me. It wasn't meant to give offense or imply there was any ill will on my part, and I apologise if you construed it that way.

As I say above though, I disagree with your assessment of this whole mud pie.




ETA: Also, I don't care if you swear or how much you swear, only that attacks directed at other users are curtailed.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

HWIN, when I said I've never seen you so belligerent and unnecessarily disrespectful, I meant to emphasise that I was surprised by your tone and ferocity here; they did (and do) seem somewhat out of character to me. It wasn't meant to give offense or imply there was any ill will on my part, and I apologise if you construed it that way.

None taken, none given (I hope).

Edit: I am a minority man married to a minority woman in the U.S. It always makes me laugh that any of you Europeans think you could offend me.

As I say above though, I disagree with your assessment of this whole mud pie.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Gnug215]

I really, REALLY think we should all just agree to the "correct" and "original" definition of a troll, namely someone who deliberately says inflammatory things for the hell of it.

So basically, a troll is someone who ACTS stupid and offensive, but isn't really so.

As I see it, Bernhard.visscher actually believes the unbelievably stupid crap he spouts, and as such, he is NOT a troll.

Oh, so you know Bernhard.visscher in meat space? You sat down with him and had some tea to understand his whole outlook on life? Short of that, I am not sure how you or anyone else can tell if someone is acting or not when they leave comments on the internet. That is why that clause in the definition of a troll has never made sense to me. For all you know, every offensive ignorant asshole you have ever come across online could have been honest with themselves (e.g. my future president). Honestly, it is the "being stupid and offensive" part of the definition that should matter. Those traits are things one is able to see just from their posts. That is why I have always maintained that whether or not a person actually believes what they are saying or not does not matter, it is their actions that should gets one classified as a troll. We cannot tell if someone is acting, but we can see what their actions are.

Last year, I went around and around with dandan, who is probably just as dense as Bernhard.visscher. Someone being obtuse is not the problem and if anything, I was the one that was being offensive, since I kept making fun of his memory. Is dandan honest in his belief? I do not know, but he was not a troll. Is Bernhard.visscher honest in his belief? I do not know, but his offensive nature makes him a troll.

... I said "as I see it."

Besides, I'm not the one who's already put a label on him. So the highly sarcastic put down you just tried to apply to me actually applies to you.

And what kind of irrational overraction is this from you anyway? Is something wrong, or what?

Besides, it's not that fucking hard to stop fucking insulting people or saying "fucking" every other fucking word. My mouth may not have a backspace key, but my keyboard fucking does! One even has to click another button to post a post, and one can even edit a post if it contains some insult.

You are right that Bernhard.visscher never uses cuss words. So what? Does Bernhard.visscher's lack of cuss words make his posts less offensive? Reading the string of insults he posted to itsdemtitans and now the new list of insults itsdemtitans just posted makes it seem as if Bernhard.visscher is going out of the way to be offensive, at least to itsdemtitans. One does not need to use cuss words to be offensive, in my opinion. I also do not believe that the use of cuss words arbitrarily makes a post offensive.[/quote]


I was swearing to make a point. Swearing was NOT the point. The point was insults. Swearing is not really against the rules, insults are to some extent. Either way, bo

So again, off the mark. Uncharacteristically so.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

... I said "as I see it."

Besides, I'm not the one who's already put a label on him. So the highly sarcastic put down you just tried to apply to me actually applies to you.

I wrote up my sarcastic remarks this morning and thought it was pretty good. Besides that, I defined what I thought "troll" meant on a forum such as this, apparently no one else agrees. That is fine, I will use a term we can all agree Bernhard.visscher is, that is a dick. If one wants, one can go back and reread all my posts on this thread with the term "dick" instead of "troll". Am I labeling him? Yes. Is that really a problem? I guess my point is that once someone starts acting like a dick, I see no problem with people giving it back. It is not my modus operandi, but who am I to judge.

And what kind of irrational overraction is this from you anyway? Is something wrong, or what?

If anything, it has to do with the fact that I have always been against the banning of people. Bernhard.visscher's behavior led to behavior (that I see as being equal) from Rumraket and hackenslash. Two members that I greatly enjoy(ed). If any of the regulars were banned for just about any reason, I would have reacted the same.

I was swearing to make a point. Swearing was NOT the point. The point was insults. Swearing is not really against the rules, insults are to some extent. Either way, bo

Yes, but insults do not lead directly to a ban, if that were the case Bernhard.visscher would have been banned weeks before Rumraket or hackenslash were banned. I guess a point I have been failing to make, that is because I have been beating around the bush, is what is the cut off? Just taking Rumraket's insults, why was he banned but not Bernhard.visscher for insulting and antagonizing? I mean, in so many words he wished hell onto itsdemtitans, which depending on ones perspective (itsdemtitans is a Christian), is worse than death.

So again, off the mark. Uncharacteristically so.

I guess I missed the mark of that comment (mostly because I have been beating around the bush: I hope the above clarifies that), but I am not sure why everyone thinks this is so uncharacteristic. I am super passionate about what I believe, loyal, and autistic. This seems exactly inline with my character.

 

[Gnug215]

I guess I missed the mark of that comment (mostly because I have been beating around the bush: I hope the above clarifies that), but I am not sure why everyone thinks this is so uncharacteristic. I am super passionate about what I believe, loyal, and autistic. This seems exactly inline with my character.

What is uncharacteristic is that you seemed to downright misunderstand my points. And not so much due to me being my usual vague and confusing self in my posts, but more because it seemd you are so emotionally clouded by this issue.

I guess a point I have been failing to make, that is because I have been beating around the bush, is what is the cut off?

Yeah, I guess you have failed to make that point, because I haven't really seen you make it so far.

So what is the cut off? Well, you're right if you're also hinting that we're not entirely consistent on this site with what we ban for, and when.

But I think one "cut off" is probably when you get dozens of warnings.

I guess our inconsistency in this case was primarily that hackenslash had gotten way more warnings than Rumraket.