Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Askbob Trial

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:22:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Izbo voted bombed with > 50% of his votes and wasn't instantly banned. He had the right to defend himself at trial. innomen received 20+ complaints about izbo, per week, and again, he was still given a fair trial. askbob was banned with no trial. He should, at least, be given a trial. If he loses, he is banned. If he wins, he is reinstated.

Those of you who hate askbob have nothing to fear if the case against him is so clear cut. DDO would then vote overwhelmingly to keep him banned. However, everyone deserves a fair trial, if that's the DDO policy. The 14th Amendment tells us that we must treat everyone equally under the law, and this is a good value to have. If we let some users have a trial, we must let all users have a trial. We can't be selective in who we give this right to, if we believe people should have the right to speak in their own defense.

askbob should have a right to speak or at least participate in his defense. As such, he would need to be temporarily unbanned during the trial.

When he came back to the site as thebaldknobbers to play mafia, he had this to say in his defense: he informed me that a user named brainmaster came and trolled koopin off the site by calling him a "n*gger" in multiple threads. askbob and the other ancaps (sieben, J.Kenyon, etc) used the internet to find pictures of brainmaster and they used these photos to troll him off the site (in defense of koopin). askbob took the heat for the whole group because, well, he's askbob; he was the obvious mod target. Brainmaster was never banned, despite numerous complaints, but askbob was banned within an hour of being reported. At the time, it was unknown who the mod was, but it seems likely it was innomen (innomen kept his mod privileges secret for months). I've still never got the full story on what askbob did or who banned him. askbob furthers that brainmaster was banned 4 times previously as thegodhand, but was not banned for some reason this time. The ancaps were pissed that the mod had done nothing to ban brainmaster but banned askbob instantly, so they all left. The site is much poorer for their loss. J.Kenyon was a great user and an immensely intelligent debater. It would be interesting to see some of the ancaps square off against some of the new conservative users. Alas, this is no longer possible.

Some members of innomen's inner circle showed open contempt for sieben. It's my understanding that sieben tried to form a group to informally police the site. innomen's inner circle infiltrated that group and spied on sieben, while hatching a plan to have sieben banned. I don't know how askbob fits into this, but in some ways, askbob's ban was political. askbob ran the rival political party to innomen and had massive support from the ancaps. It seems that innomen and many of his political allies didn't really give askbob or the other ancaps a fair shake. It seems that there was also dissension over whether askbob should be banned, given that medic wasn't in support of it. Regardless, askbob's ban isn't so simple as "he harassed another user," given 1) the user in question initiated the harassment, 2) there were other users involved, along with askbob, and 3) there were strange political goings-on, behind the scenes.

I ask for a trial because there are a lot of questions that need to, but have never been answered. There is also the appearance of some bias in his ban. Overall, I trust innomen, but there are some shady things that happened with his inner circle. They also infiltrated a "potentially political" PM that I created as well with "inner circle" spies. If DDO politics was all fun and games, this wouldn't matter. But there is a problem when moderation issues are tied into DDO politics. Then, there needs to be no possible allegations of impropriety. These juvenile stunts from innomen's political allies are somehow tied up into askbob's ban and what is known as the "ancap exodus."

Thus, I would like askbob's case reopened and would like to hear from him what he has to say in his own defense. This will also force innomen and Juggle to account for their decision-making practices in this case, and it will ensure that people can no longer be banned, without a trial. I, personally, have a lot of questions I'd like answered. If the result of the trial is that askbob is permanently banned, then I'll accept that and this issue will be put to rest once and for all.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:26:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I second. I think we should allow askbob to a trial. It would especially give the new memebrs an opportunity to see how bad askbob actually is.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:28:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
On the basis that askbob was convicted of being a threat to the community, and unbanning him would mean that we apply new legislation to a case where the legislation did not exist (which is inherently wrong and unjust), it may be justified to have a trial on whether it was justified, and creating political pressure to recant the decision may work. However, the majority of this is To Quoque, and unjust action does not mean unjust reaction.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:31:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think he deserves a trial. Askbob essentially broke one of the most important "internet laws" by violating the privacy of others. He claims the information is already put on there by the user,...however that's false. He's found my school website before.

Izbo offensiveness was nothing compared to Askbob. And,...I'm pretty sure Innomen reserves the right to ban without question.

That guy doesn't belong on DDO. There's no question that he committed some messed up and punishable offenses, so I see little to no basis for a trial here.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:32:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 1:28:03 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
On the basis that askbob was convicted of being a threat to the community, and unbanning him would mean that we apply new legislation to a case where the legislation did not exist (which is inherently wrong and unjust), it may be justified to have a trial on whether it was justified, and creating political pressure to recant the decision may work. However, the majority of this is To Quoque, and unjust action does not mean unjust reaction.

askbob was convicted by an inner circle of political insiders, not by a jury of his peers. At least, this should merit his case being reopened.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:34:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 1:31:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't think he deserves a trial. Askbob essentially broke one of the most important "internet laws" by violating the privacy of others. He claims the information is already put on there by the user,...however that's false. He's found my school website before.

Izbo offensiveness was nothing compared to Askbob. And,...I'm pretty sure Innomen reserves the right to ban without question.

That guy doesn't belong on DDO. There's no question that he committed some messed up and punishable offenses, so I see little to no basis for a trial here.

I am not a defender of Askbob but I can see the frustration of dealing with members who propagate strong stances against a member they have not actually met or seen in action.....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:35:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 1:22:04 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Izbo voted bombed with > 50% of his votes and wasn't instantly banned. He had the right to defend himself at trial. innomen received 20+ complaints about izbo, per week, and again, he was still given a fair trial. askbob was banned with no trial. He should, at least, be given a trial. If he loses, he is banned. If he wins, he is reinstated.

Those of you who hate askbob have nothing to fear if the case against him is so clear cut. DDO would then vote overwhelmingly to keep him banned. However, everyone deserves a fair trial, if that's the DDO policy. The 14th Amendment tells us that we must treat everyone equally under the law, and this is a good value to have. If we let some users have a trial, we must let all users have a trial. We can't be selective in who we give this right to, if we believe people should have the right to speak in their own defense.

The Constitution also forbids ex post facto laws. From a merely practical stance, we can't retry every banned member every time there is a change in DDO's due process.

Furthermore, it isn't even the process to try everyone, otherwise we would have to go out and have a trial for all of those "love" spammers.

It seems to me that, regardless of any trial, the banning authorities retain unilateral power over banning, with trials being more like a dramatic form of petition that holds no more weight than those authorities decide to give it.


askbob should have a right to speak or at least participate in his defense. As such, he would need to be temporarily unbanned during the trial.

When he came back to the site as thebaldknobbers to play mafia, he had this to say in his defense: he informed me that a user named brainmaster came and trolled koopin off the site by calling him a "n*gger" in multiple threads. askbob and the other ancaps (sieben, J.Kenyon, etc) used the internet to find pictures of brainmaster and they used these photos to troll him off the site (in defense of koopin). askbob took the heat for the whole group because, well, he's askbob; he was the obvious mod target. Brainmaster was never banned, despite numerous complaints, but askbob was banned within an hour of being reported. At the time, it was unknown who the mod was, but it seems likely it was innomen (innomen kept his mod privileges secret for months). I've still never got the full story on what askbob did or who banned him. askbob furthers that brainmaster was banned 4 times previously as thegodhand, but was not banned for some reason this time. The ancaps were pissed that the mod had done nothing to ban brainmaster but banned askbob instantly, so they all left. The site is much poorer for their loss. J.Kenyon was a great user and an immensely intelligent debater. It would be interesting to see some of the ancaps square off against some of the new conservative users. Alas, this is no longer possible.

Some members of innomen's inner circle showed open contempt for sieben. It's my understanding that sieben tried to form a group to informally police the site. innomen's inner circle infiltrated that group and spied on sieben, while hatching a plan to have sieben banned. I don't know how askbob fits into this, but in some ways, askbob's ban was political. askbob ran the rival political party to innomen and had massive support from the ancaps. It seems that innomen and many of his political allies didn't really give askbob or the other ancaps a fair shake. It seems that there was also dissension over whether askbob should be banned, given that medic wasn't in support of it. Regardless, askbob's ban isn't so simple as "he harassed another user," given 1) the user in question initiated the harassment, 2) there were other users involved, along with askbob, and 3) there were strange political goings-on, behind the scenes.

I ask for a trial because there are a lot of questions that need to, but have never been answered. There is also the appearance of some bias in his ban. Overall, I trust innomen, but there are some shady things that happened with his inner circle. They also infiltrated a "potentially political" PM that I created as well with "inner circle" spies. If DDO politics was all fun and games, this wouldn't matter. But there is a problem when moderation issues are tied into DDO politics. Then, there needs to be no possible allegations of impropriety. These juvenile stunts from innomen's political allies are somehow tied up into askbob's ban and what is known as the "ancap exodus."

Thus, I would like askbob's case reopened and would like to hear from him what he has to say in his own defense. This will also force innomen and Juggle to account for their decision-making practices in this case, and it will ensure that people can no longer be banned, without a trial. I, personally, have a lot of questions I'd like answered. If the result of the trial is that askbob is permanently banned, then I'll accept that and this issue will be put to rest once and for all.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:36:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 1:34:24 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/10/2012 1:31:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't think he deserves a trial. Askbob essentially broke one of the most important "internet laws" by violating the privacy of others. He claims the information is already put on there by the user,...however that's false. He's found my school website before.

Izbo offensiveness was nothing compared to Askbob. And,...I'm pretty sure Innomen reserves the right to ban without question.

That guy doesn't belong on DDO. There's no question that he committed some messed up and punishable offenses, so I see little to no basis for a trial here.

I am not a defender of Askbob but I can see the frustration of dealing with members who propagate strong stances against a member they have not actually met or seen in action.....

Askbob has posted my name and my facebook picture on DDO before, which have been deleted. I've had plenty of encounters with him. So, shut up.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:37:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 1:36:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/10/2012 1:34:24 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/10/2012 1:31:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't think he deserves a trial. Askbob essentially broke one of the most important "internet laws" by violating the privacy of others. He claims the information is already put on there by the user,...however that's false. He's found my school website before.

Izbo offensiveness was nothing compared to Askbob. And,...I'm pretty sure Innomen reserves the right to ban without question.

That guy doesn't belong on DDO. There's no question that he committed some messed up and punishable offenses, so I see little to no basis for a trial here.

I am not a defender of Askbob but I can see the frustration of dealing with members who propagate strong stances against a member they have not actually met or seen in action.....

Askbob has posted my name and my facebook picture on DDO before, which have been deleted. I've had plenty of encounters with him. So, shut up.

And yet that wouldn't be the worst of Askbob's excesses, would it?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:41:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@bluesteel:

I'd like to know why askbob is being singled out here. There have only been a few trials that I'm aware of and I'm fairly certain that, even discounting the spammers, there have to be plenty of people that have been banned.

Why is only ask bob deserving of a trial on these merits? Why not petition innomen to release the names of all those banned without trial and try them each in turn?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:45:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The decision to ban askbob was done by juggle and prior to me becoming president. So much of the OP is false that it cannot be taken seriously. Oh, and I was actually a proponent of Sieben, until he had his little melt down and was looking to be banned.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:46:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@drafter

Read the rest of what I wrote, in regards to whether unilateral banning authority should reside with an unnamed inner circle.

As to why askbob and not others, like no no, there's a huge difference between askbob and spammers. Many users had positive interactions with askbob. This cannot be said for the lover spammers (as far as I know). He wasn't a troll. Supposedly the reason I was forced to spent hours of my time gathering evidence against izbo was because there were users that wanted him to stay. The same is true of askbob.

But that's only how askbob differs from those users. I still want an accounting of what he did and how innomen decided to ban him, and what happened with the other ancaps, with askbob's version of events as well. I never got a straight answer to many of these questions.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:47:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 1:45:37 PM, innomen wrote:
The decision to ban askbob was done by juggle and prior to me becoming president. So much of the OP is false that it cannot be taken seriously. Oh, and I was actually a proponent of Sieben, until he had his little melt down and was looking to be banned.

I appreciate the answers innomen, but what did happen with your inner circle. I've seen multiple references to what they did to sieben, but no one has given me the full story.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:49:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So if you didn't have mod privileges, then what medic says is true, right? askbob and the ancaps were reacting to Juggle's lack of moderation of the site.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:50:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 1:32:13 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/10/2012 1:28:03 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
On the basis that askbob was convicted of being a threat to the community, and unbanning him would mean that we apply new legislation to a case where the legislation did not exist (which is inherently wrong and unjust), it may be justified to have a trial on whether it was justified, and creating political pressure to recant the decision may work. However, the majority of this is To Quoque, and unjust action does not mean unjust reaction.

askbob was convicted by an inner circle of political insiders, not by a jury of his peers. At least, this should merit his case being reopened.

If and only if the system at the time was one where we had a judiciary where we use a jury of peers.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:51:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 1:49:47 PM, bluesteel wrote:
So if you didn't have mod privileges, then what medic says is true, right? askbob and the ancaps were reacting to Juggle's lack of moderation of the site.

Yes. Innomen did not have mod priviliges at that time.

Isn't it quite contradictory for an anarchist to want moderation on a website?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:53:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 1:46:21 PM, bluesteel wrote:
@drafter

Read the rest of what I wrote, in regards to whether unilateral banning authority should reside with an unnamed inner circle.

That's a separate issue. The authority to ban is where it is and will not be changed dependent on askbob staying banned or coming back.


As to why askbob and not others, like no no, there's a huge difference between askbob and spammers. Many users had positive interactions with askbob. This cannot be said for the lover spammers (as far as I know). He wasn't a troll. Supposedly the reason I was forced to spent hours of my time gathering evidence against izbo was because there were users that wanted him to stay. The same is true of askbob.

I find it hard to believe that there are no non-spammer users that were ever banned without a trial. Why aren't you lobbying for them? It seems the focus on askbob is inherently political, which is ironic given that you seem to be railing against the poltical component here.


But that's only how askbob differs from those users. I still want an accounting of what he did and how innomen decided to ban him, and what happened with the other ancaps, with askbob's version of events as well. I never got a straight answer to many of these questions.

Thaddeus alleges to be Facebook friends with askbob. It seems that you can get his version of events without him having to be reinstated. Also, if you accept that he has returned under other names, then he has had plenty of opportunities to provide his side of things, but has decided to use his time pursuing other avenues.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:57:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I feel Askbob deserves a trial, but I also feel he deserves to be convicted.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:59:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I voted for airmax. I still want the discussion over askbob re-opened. Airmax told me he was willing to consider it.

innomen, I was told about cliff stamp leaving because of izbo. If I have bad info, it's because other users gave it to me. This is your opportunity to correct the record.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 2:02:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 1:47:38 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/10/2012 1:45:37 PM, innomen wrote:
The decision to ban askbob was done by juggle and prior to me becoming president. So much of the OP is false that it cannot be taken seriously. Oh, and I was actually a proponent of Sieben, until he had his little melt down and was looking to be banned.

I appreciate the answers innomen, but what did happen with your inner circle. I've seen multiple references to what they did to sieben, but no one has given me the full story.

As I said, i was a proponent of Sieben, and found his bold approach admirable in many cases. He was an arrogant prick often, but still I found his posts to be of value. YOu are not getting the full story, because things happened in a domino sort of fashion. Askbob was originally allowed to return to the site after Phil handed it over to Juggle, but with the condition that he would behave himself and not harass members, but of course askbob is not in control of himself with such matters and began to do what he does best. He doesn't just go after trolls that the site would agree should be gone, but rather goes after anyone he deems unworthy, or can provide an entertainment factor, and he did so and Juggle (not me) banned him, this also happened right around the first election too. He ran and lost by a very large margin, and keep in mind that I only ran because people were asking me to because they feared him as president. So it all came together that he lost the presidency, he was banned, and then in sort of solidarity the ancaps left too, but Sieben was determined to leave by way of being banned, so he stepped it up and became an intolerable presence in the last week of being here, and he really wanted to leave. This also was at the same time that they began their own site. At the end, when Sieben was looking to be banned, the inner circle was tallying up the infractions, and it just got to the point when it had to stop and he had to be banned.

Also, at this time I had Eric at juggle who was giving me their input and position. Juggle had been contacted by several members about askbob, and a parent called them too. Eric told me that he was a liability to Juggle and he is not allowed on the site.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 2:04:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What is the group that sieben formed and why did your inner circle infiltrate it?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 2:06:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jkenyon was an extremely reasonable person, as was LaissezFaire - I find it hard to believe they left unless there was some serious injustice in the way askbob was banned. But then, I'm only allowed to hear one side.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 2:08:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 1:46:21 PM, bluesteel wrote:
@drafter

Read the rest of what I wrote, in regards to whether unilateral banning authority should reside with an unnamed inner circle.

As to why askbob and not others, like no no, there's a huge difference between askbob and spammers. Many users had positive interactions with askbob. This cannot be said for the lover spammers (as far as I know). He wasn't a troll. Supposedly the reason I was forced to spent hours of my time gathering evidence against izbo was because there were users that wanted him to stay. The same is true of askbob.

But that's only how askbob differs from those users. I still want an accounting of what he did and how innomen decided to ban him, and what happened with the other ancaps, with askbob's version of events as well. I never got a straight answer to many of these questions.

Did you not just say, " If we let some users have a trial, we must let all users have a trial. We can't be selective in who we give this right to, if we believe people should have the right to speak in their own defense," in the OP?

How can you have the masculine fortitude to shout out that we must give everyone equal treatment, then come back and say, no, these other people don't need equal treatment.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 2:12:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok, this is why I hate the forums. People just nitpick what you say and don't respond to your broader message.

That was just rhetoric. Even if innomen applies trials on a case by case basis, I was arguing one should be given in this case. askbob wasn't just some throwaway troll.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 2:13:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
+1million
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 2:15:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just for clarification, I was not a member of the inner-circle when askbob got banned, so I never had any say-so in the issue. When I did become part of the inner circle, I did help to enforce the ban that was in place, because I felt that was Juggle's decision to make.

My opinion on the askbob issue has evolved over time on the site. I don't know about previous askbob issues, but I can speak from experience in saying that Brainmaster was a huge troll and a big pain in the a$$, and after requests to stop, he wouldn't. In my opinion, askbob did the site a favor, using the only means available at the time. Where no system of justice exists, vigilante justice is inevitable and in many cases, is appreciated. This is one such case.

Additionally, if Askbob was banned because he posted someone's picture thus invading their privacy, then there is another member here who should be banned for the same reason, but hasn't been.

I respect Innomen, and I think he did a very good job as president, and as mod, but we just disagree on this issue. I fully support Askbob's unbanning, or giving him a chance to defend his case in a trial, with the membership as his jury.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 2:17:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 2:12:52 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Ok, this is why I hate the forums. People just nitpick what you say and don't respond to your broader message.

That was just rhetoric. Even if innomen applies trials on a case by case basis, I was arguing one should be given in this case. askbob wasn't just some throwaway troll.

The "broader" issue is an accusation of corruption, unilateral and unfair banning, and unequal treatment of those coming under the banning hammer.

The problem is, the broader issue is a lie. It isn't actually about any of those things. It's about askbob and only askbob. It's really about that specific issue, not any broader one.

If you don't want your message derailed and nitpicked, then doing portray yourself as some civil champion, citing Contitutional amendments as if you were fighting for some set of disenfranchised people. Be open and honest that this is only about askbob and you don't care one wit about anyone else that might have been banned and it isn't about fair trials for all, it's just about askbob. You derailed yourself by trying portray this as operating under some greater ideal.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 2:18:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
askbob was banned multiple times on the site, even before you were around bluesteel. A repeat offender against site policy and a consistent force against juggle's (or Philip's, back in the day) authority. To bring him back, I guarantee, would cause new(er) members to leave AGAIN because of his irrational, "voluntary" vigilante action because of the alleged "lack of action" from juggle. I'm not taking sides on who is doing a better job of policing the site, but I am going to stand firm in that askbob is a complete harm to the site. There is no reason for him to come back.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, f*ck you.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 2:19:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 2:17:57 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/10/2012 2:12:52 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Ok, this is why I hate the forums. People just nitpick what you say and don't respond to your broader message.

That was just rhetoric. Even if innomen applies trials on a case by case basis, I was arguing one should be given in this case. askbob wasn't just some throwaway troll.

The "broader" issue is an accusation of corruption, unilateral and unfair banning, and unequal treatment of those coming under the banning hammer.

The problem is, the broader issue is a lie. It isn't actually about any of those things. It's about askbob and only askbob. It's really about that specific issue, not any broader one.

If you don't want your message derailed and nitpicked, then don't portray yourself as some civil champion, citing Contitutional amendments as if you were fighting for some set of disenfranchised people. Be open and honest that this is only about askbob and you don't care one wit about anyone else that might have been banned and it isn't about fair trials for all, it's just about askbob. You derailed yourself by trying portray this as operating under some greater ideal.