Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

PM's which lead to RationalMadman's apology

YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 3:26:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
RM
LD did nothing wrong. not only did that debate have a huge warning sign (three chunky pics to prevent further scrooling). but the pictures were of sex toys and the links of porn were already warned. Besides i'm a socially liberal individual who supports there being no age limit to view porn, only to make it.

YYW
The way this -and most disiplinary situations- on DDO are handled are not good.
I sent the following to Airmax last night, after a brief discussion of events:
I appreciate your talking about this with me, Airmax. I don't want to make it seem like I'm taking you to task because I appreciate that the position you are in is not an easy one to deal with. It's important to me that you know that I don't disagree that RatMan was in the wrong when acting under his previous account, and when he later responded as LatDeb, and especially when he created the various accounts to follow. But, in the future it might be good to first issue a warning (and only one warning), with an explanation of what the offense was that merited it, and an explanation of how you can track IP addresses to ensure that the any multi-accounting will not be tolerated. The warning should also outline consequences that will follow if further abuses continue. If further offenses occur, secondly issue a one week suspension and publicize having done so, that the 'justice' of DDO serve as a reminder of the rules to members, and the process be effectuated in a transparent fashion. If a third offense occurs, a two week suspension, etc. but only after a fourth offense, a ban. The reason why is because warnings alone mean nothing if they do not carry behind them the immediate assurance of force of authority which comes from a knowledge of consequences to come. Equally, a second offense that carries with it a temporary suspension gives the person time to cool off, and the DDO community time to move onto the next bit of frivolous gossip to be infatuated with. Everyone wins, peace in the community is restored, and people are gradually banned such that the choice to be in such a situation is not perceived by the community as something done in the shadows of leadership, but by one of transparent justice being rendered. These are, of course, only my suggestions.

RM
What I don't get is how imabench gets away with trolling but no one else does. he cussed several times in our debate.

YYW
No one complains about Imabench. People complain about others. Airmax responds to complaints, because that's his job.

RM
airmax just ignores it. Also I didn't say my dad was physically abusive. He used to be until i fought back. Now he's just a dick.

YYW
You didn't say anything about your dad being physically abusive. I just guessed that it was the case, and used it as you saw. All you said was that you and your dad had issues. I'm sorry to hear that he was though.

RM
Heineken and imabench sure do represent each other's personality very well. *reflect

YYW
Imabench is a kid. Heineken is an adult and ought to act like it. I'm disappointed with bench, but I'm disgusted with Heineken.

RM
I'm not one to judge by age for I will never let the child in me die.

[After I began to cross-examine Heineken in the thread Heineken started about LatentDebater]

Playing heineken against airmax won't end well.

YYW
I'm not playing anyone against anyone. I want Heineken to see his actions for what they are.

RM
he is extremely confrontational. more so than me or bench.

YYW
I'm not going to provoke Heineken, and if he comes out fighting I'll just side step. I don't think he will though. On some level, I think he's between being annoyed that I'm saying what I am, and frustrated that DEEP down he knows I'm right. I intend to back off from him though once I start to see him change his narrative, because all I want is for him to think about his actions before doing them -that is I want him to behave like an adult.

RM
do you want to discuss philosophy like not debate just talk as companions?

YYW
Sure. What would you like to talk about?

RM
idk xD

YYW
I would like to make a suggestion, though, about how to deal with everything that has happened. Right now Airmax has a conception of you based only on the evidence that he's seen and heard from other members, and I'm telling you it's not a pretty picture. What he has to go on are the private messages you sent Heineken and the posts you made on the open forum, as well as the reactions of various members to both. So, right now he's trying to figure out what to do -given all of that information.

After I was in touch with him about this, he sent me the following:

"The reality is YYW that this guy (Rationalmadman/Latentdebater) will never be able to be a responsible and respectable member. He will continue to violate basic codes of conduct in very extreme ways."

All he [Airmax] want's is to restore peace and order in any way that he can, and right now he thinks the only way to do that is to perma-ban every account he can identify that you have made.

You need to publicly apologize to Heineken, to Imabench to Airmax and to the members of DDO. They won't know what to do with that, because it is an action that is incongruent with your previous activity. I think you're a good kid and you probably want to do well by other people, you just want other people to treat you with respect. That's totally reasonable, but damage has been done and it needs to be repaired.

As you know, Heineken and Bench were both in the wrong, but at the same time you caused a lot of damage to the forum because of them. The problem isn't the forum.. and the real way to win the favor of both Airmax and the forum is to apologize. You have to be sincere in this message. I would recommend that it be a few paragraphs long, specifically acknowledging and apologizing for everything that you did. The reason I want you to do this is because I want them to realize that you aren't a bad person, and that you realize that attacking the forum for what Heineken and Bench did was wrong.

This means, though, that you can't put any of the blame on Heineken or Imabench because if you do, it's going to look like you are making excuses for what you did. I think that you think you were justified in what you did, and at this point what's done is done, but there is a way out. The way out is to sincerely apologize.

I'd like you to be able to openly come back on the site, because I think you're a good member and that you will be a valuable addition to the community, but there are steps that have to be taken before that takes place. You have to apologize. It's the right thing to do. It will also prove that you are incontrovertibly the bigger person (because you will have chosen to publicly do the right thing).

I know this has to be hard to hear and I know it's going to be even harder to do, but it's a choice between what is right and what is easy.

Please do let me know what you think about this, and if you think you're willing to do it or not.

RM
You obviously are going to tell airmax who I am if I don't.

YYW
No I'm not. I want you to make the right choice because it's the right thing to do, not because I coerced you to do it. If I coerced you to do the right thing, then the choice you made to do the right thing would be meaningless. I'm just giving you the choice.

RM
if I did that they would just laugh their heads of at me and get me banned again.

YYW
I think Heineken and Bench probably will, but Airmax won't. What will happen is that he will see that you made the effort to apologize. I know that you can treat other members with respect because you did until Heineken posted that thread, and while I know that, Airmax doesn't.

RM
What is there to actually be sorry for?

[More to come in later post. Out of character space.]
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 3:34:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
YYW
Members were offended at the sexual stuff you posted, you sent Heineken a message that seemed like a threat and you made several accounts and posted a lot of offensive things under those account names. Particularly, you made a thread against Airmax.

RM
MY single and only true offence on this site has been that I refer to sex often. Airmax is a jackass who is partnered with imabench and heineken do you honestly fall for his nice guy act? He will ban me now as he banned me every time. I have really nothign to be sorry for. I spoke more sexually open than most members, that is all.

YYW
Airmax is not a bad guy and he's not in cohorts with Heineken or Bench. He's trying to do the best he knows how to do for the forum, not effectuate a personal vendetta against you. He has nothing against you personally, he's only trying do do what best he knows how for the forum.

RM
So list out to me what ther eis to apologise for because I fail to see it.

YYW
You need to apologize for making the various accounts that you created, and specifically for creating the one against Airmax. You need to apologize for the threat you sent to Heineken and the hostile words that you exchanged with him and Imabench. You need to apologize to the forum for violating the TOS and for posting material that was perceived to be overtly sexual in nature, and for posting the threads that you did on the forums under the accounts you made that lashed out at the site. You need to acknowledge that those were immature acts and that they were wrong; that they were harmful to the site and its members and you need to say that you are sorry.

Some members won't accept your apology and your account will probably be closed, but give your apology time to sink in. It's reasonable to expect that most members won't really know what to do when you apologize because it's not going to be something they expect, but you need to say that after you have thought about what you did, that you know and accept that it was wrong and that you are truly sorry for doing it.

But specifically, you need to apologize to Heineken, Bench and Airmax. He's not going to know what to do, because he doesn't think that you are capable of playing by the rules of the forum. You need to prove him wrong, and demonstrate that you can.

RM
If he hadn't banned me like an @sshole I wouldn't have done that. What I posted was merely soething that can be deleted and warned upon. A sex toy is not porn, especially now when I post several pictures and a warnign beforehand to prevent scrolling down to it.

YYW
If you apologize, I don't think that your account would be permanently closed and I think there is even the possibility that the LD account could be re-opened. I also think that given the appropriate amount of time, the DDO community would welcome you back only if you apologized -because they feel that you did wrong.

And for the record, I really do want you to be able to be back -openly- on the site. That's what I'm telling you how to do it here. I know this is going to be hard to do, but I think you should do it anyway because it will show everyone that you're not out to hurt the forum and that you're not a bad person -but that you're a mature and reasonable person who can apologize when necessary.

Just think about it, bud. I know it's hard to hear, but it's the right thing to do. Swallowing one's pride is the hardest thing a guy can do, it's also the most noble.

I've got to go for now, and work on some research stuff for my classes that I've been putting off for a while, but I want you to know that I'm telling you what's in your best interest here.

Then, came the apology. I'll post that in a second.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 3:38:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
RationalMadman sent me a copy of the apology he posted, and it needs to be not deleted this time. There is no reason to delete it, because the post itself is not in violation of the TOS. As a note, I edited the apology for grammar.

The apology read:

I appreciate that my tendency to swear, make sexually related jokes about mothers and members in general is a habit I have gained from my predominantly British upbringing. British, for those of you who don't know it, are famous for swearing as if it's second nature (something which I've come to realise Americans are completely abhorrently disgusted by) what I mena is that it literally doesn't really matter if a guy says "F**K YOU A**HOLE" from peer to peer in UK culture. Generally it merely is returned with a middle finger and then you just laugh at each other and move on. It seems that in the culture from which the majority of DDO come from, swearing (or cussing as you call it) is simply intolerable, and thus warrants a ban.

While I probably, for the rest of my life, will never understand conservative individuals in the slightest, I have to thank my friend YYW for opening my mind to my ignorance, which I really was ignorant about. I have been basically insulting every single member of this site whilst thinking that you were all making it up simply to get me banned. It's almost like a murderer who was raised in the dungeon of Batman just realising why he keeps getting sent to prison no matter how many times he sneaks past security and then says "F**K the police."

I'm obviously not going to get any sympathy for this because you guys probably hate me as much as I did before realising our differences lie in inherent differences between our values, it's like I'm Adolf Hitler behaving in a Nazi manner in Israel.

Swearing and sexual innuendo, in American culture, are two clear no-nos as they associate even the most intelligent man immediately with violent, irrational gang members of the slums. I would hate to be associated with those people but, based on my behaviour, realise I have left every single one of you no choice but to believe I am a member of this clique.

The way I behaved, although acceptable in the heat of argument in the culture in which I was brought up, is totally unacceptable in the culture in which most of DDO was. I have failed to respect.

To Heineken, I must apologise for my blatantly idiotic threats that really weren't even funny when I look at the photo he posted and really was so dumb to have done since nothing constructive was to come of it anyway.

To Famer, I must apologise for being aggressive, and for my irrational ways.

To Imabench, I must apologise for turning what could have been a very funny debate into a porno shoot out of women and men battling it out to the filthy finish. I turned humour into filth and got just deserts. You are a very competent debater when you put your mind to it and to say that the only way you could have won that debate was if I forfeited it was wrong of me even though I still emotionally wish and assert that to be true, but rationally in hindsight can see the idiocy of the statement.

To InVinoVeritas, I apologise for wasting a precious round of debate on whether or not I should have been banned.

To Airmax1227, I must apologise for not respecting your position in ways that should only be expected of an immature brat that had just learnt the concept of homosexual anal intercourse. You are the president of DDO, your job is to get rid of those who choose to tear DDO apart and offend its entire population to the extent that they will stop using the site. You have a role as a peacemaker and decorum-maintainer and were simply doing your job correctly when I took my liberty too far. I have to accept that DDO is not anarchy and has many conservative members on it. If I wish to behave in a manner that is so extremely liberal I must do so only to members that would appreciate it. I should never abuse or tease or sexually discuss if a member has not given me permission to discuss in such a manner. I should gently raise the topic and respect that some people simply do not want to be bothered by me.

I know that I deserve to banned, based on past behaviour and that this account will probably be closed, as well as this post taken down soon enough.

I am the user who first posed as RationalMadman and then, correctly accused by Heineken and Imabench, came back in what I thought was a very sophisticated manner under the alias LatentDebater.

Additionally my views of Deism and socialism, both of which have since altered, were expressed in a manner that made it seem as if I thought any who did not share my view were complete idiots and deserved to burn in hell.

Militant mind-sets ruin DDO and scare new members from joining most certainly.

I have come to realise, after explanation from YYW, that Newton's third law of motion is in fact far deeper than physics. I acted in a manner so vulgar and offensive that it inevitably irritated the offended and caused them to angrily hunt me down, which in fact was only what I deserved.

I have actually read through the TOS of debate.org and realised just how many policies of theirs I have broken and can't begin to imagine why Juggle should forgive me as I myself am an avid grudge-holder by nature.

I probably will be hated forever in this community and shall be spread as "the idiot who never reformed" but cannot live with this happily as my reputation is something which genuinely does matter to me. I hope I can change the opinion most of you have of me given one last lifeline or one final chance but the problem is you gave me one on LD and I blew it by posting sex toys and links to pornography and ignorantly thought that it was somehow okay. It is just as bad as going to a kindergarten, tell the kids to close their eyes and then playing a porno movie on mute and expecting them not the look.

I've done many wrong things and realise that there is a huge difference between being a [good troll] as Imabench is and being a [jack@ss] as I am/was. The difference is that Imabench's silliness/aggressiveness only targets debates or members who have no purpose other than to disrupt DDO's quality of debating or overall decorum. I, on the other hand, randomly lashed out, thus I became a target of Imabench's trolling.

Sorry DDO. I wish you could forgive me but almost certainly know you won't. Especially those who I personally offended.

I must respect others views more. This is actually what DDO is all about. I have created an image of myself that is ignorant, arrogant, aggressive and unbearably chaotic. There was no rationality there was only a madman who deserved to be shot.

Sorry to everyone for what I've done and made you feel.

If you can forgive me I promise to reform.

If you can't forgive me, I promise to leave you alone and hope that others like me learn a good lesson in life from this amazing site for the deep thinkers out there.

There is a quote I want to say about being sorry which I felt was so true for me right now:

Sorry means you feel the pulse of other people's pain as well as your own, and saying it means you take a share of it. And so it binds us together, makes us trodden and sodden as one another. Sorry is a lot of things. It's a hole refilled. A debt repaid. Sorry is the wake of misdeed. It's the crippling ripple of consequence. Sorry is sadness, just as knowing is sadness. Sorry is sometimes self-pity. But Sorry, really, is not about you. It's theirs to take or leave.

Sorry means you leave yourself open, to embrace or to ridicule or to revenge. Sorry is a question that begs forgiveness, because the metronome of a good heart won't settle until things are set right and true. Sorry doesn't take things back, but it pushes things forward. It bridges the gap.

So there it is. He is sorry.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 4:04:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And I want to reiterate

This demonstrates that (1) RationalMadman acknowledges that he did wrong by the forum and specifically several of its members, (2) that he accepts responsibility for those actions and (3) that he is truly sorry for doing what he did. That he would go to such extent to make that point only further emphasizes his sincerity in making the apology that he did.

There is no question that RationalMadMan was very much in the wrong, but he is sorry.

What is significant in this is that by no coercion from me, he came to realize the wrongness of his actions and made a public effort to acknowledge that and beg forgiveness with sincerity. He admitted he was wrong and made restitution, which is all that anyone can ask of anyone who has harmed another. That he did so despite being publicly lambasted in his absence only further emphasizes the extent of his sincerity.

He was first banned, and then he acted out when provoked. He was banned again, but the difference now is that he acknowledges he is sorry.

We must take into consideration that he is a 17 year old who made a mistake. We all have made mistakes, some of us even really great ones. But when we make mistakes, do we seek forgiveness? Do we, when we understand that we have done wrong, attempt to atone? Only if we mean to reform in the future.
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 5:04:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
He's not British.

As such, he's lying.
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...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 6:10:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't buy the "British" excuse. Stephen Hawkings and Thaddeus are British. As far as I am aware, they do not sexually harass people. StephenHawkings is also a teenager, not an adult.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 6:22:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 6:10:38 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't buy the "British" excuse. Stephen Hawkings and Thaddeus are British. As far as I am aware, they do not sexually harass people. StephenHawkings is also a teenager, not an adult.

If he is british or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the apology -that it was made.
Tsar of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 6:34:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 6:22:53 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/3/2013 6:10:38 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't buy the "British" excuse. Stephen Hawkings and Thaddeus are British. As far as I am aware, they do not sexually harass people. StephenHawkings is also a teenager, not an adult.

If he is british or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the apology -that it was made.

Sure, he made an apology, but let's look at the conversation you posted. The conversation indicates that he doesn't feel sorry. You encouraged him to post the apology and told him that it was possible that airmax would let him return. That's why he posted it. He had no other reason. He doesn't actually care about the people who were affected by his behavior; he just wants to return to the site.

Second, I don't see how posting an apology washes away any wrongs. He was justly given a punishment based on his behavior. Why should we retract that punishment just because he apologized? I'm curious as to whether or not you have been in a courtroom, because they would never operate in the way you seem to want a court of law to operate in. I interned in a courtroom this past summer for a few days. I saw someone break down in court, cry, and apologize profusely for stealing a car because he did not want to go to jail. The judge I was working with felt bad (she told me as much afterwards), but realized that she had to punish him. Justice must be served.

Third, I already mentioned that it wouldn't be fair to other members who have been banned for less severe crimes if he is permitted to return. If they cannot return, why should he be able to return? Izbo was banned for swearing at people. Izbo's brother was banned because he was izbo's brother. What did these individuals do that merits punishment if RationalMadman should be permitted to return?

Fourth, RM does not understand how to follow rules. He was given several chances while he had his RM account to stop sexually harassing other members. He was warned several times. He was temporarily banned as a warning, but he continued to act in the manner that he chose. He had several chances, but he brought this entirely upon himself.

In general, airmax is very lenient with bans. He gave RM more opportunities to reform than I would have had I been the mod. RM earned the ban; there is no reason to retract it.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 6:43:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Look, it's great that you feel sympathy for him, and I definitely do not condone what imabench and Heineken did. I feel a little bad for him too, but that doesn't mean he should be able to return.

Did you see what he did when Airmax banned his "LatentDebater" account? He made a new account and started posting sexually demeaning things in this forum. These are not the actions of someone who is remorseful. He is juvenile and he will continue to operate in the manner that he does if he is permitted to return.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 6:55:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 6:34:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/3/2013 6:22:53 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/3/2013 6:10:38 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't buy the "British" excuse. Stephen Hawkings and Thaddeus are British. As far as I am aware, they do not sexually harass people. StephenHawkings is also a teenager, not an adult.

If he is british or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the apology -that it was made.

These are all valid concerns. Let me take some time to address them individually.

Sure, he made an apology, but let's look at the conversation you posted. The conversation indicates that he doesn't feel sorry. You encouraged him to post the apology and told him that it was possible that airmax would let him return. That's why he posted it. He had no other reason. He doesn't actually care about the people who were affected by his behavior; he just wants to return to the site.

To say that he had a good reason to to the right thing is not to say that he chose to do the right thing only because it had the potential to benefit him. Both the fact that he wanted to return to DDO and to make restitution were relevant factors to that end. If he didn't actually care about other people, he would not have made the apology in the first place.

Moreover, he understood that in making this apology that he would not be allowed to conduct himself in an unsavory way any more. The fact that he was willing to return under that condition indicates that his interests were not purely self-motivated, for if they were, he would have just continued to make troll-accounts and harass members with them. It is significant to note that both of these behaviors stopped.

Second, I don't see how posting an apology washes away any wrongs. He was justly given a punishment based on his behavior. Why should we retract that punishment just because he apologized? I'm curious as to whether or not you have been in a courtroom, because they would never operate in the way you seem to want a court of law to operate in. I interned in a courtroom this past summer for a few days. I saw someone break down in court, cry, and apologize profusely for stealing a car because he did not want to go to jail. The judge I was working with felt bad (she told me as much afterwards), but realized that she had to punish him. Justice must be served.

To have apologized is not to undo what has been done. Damage was done and he accepted that -he even went out of his way to note that he did not expect to be forgiven. The other thing here is that this is not a court room. This apology was not extracted on the basis that he wanted to avoid punishment, he wanted to acknowledge that his actions were wrong and demonstrate that he was sorry for doing them.

Third, I already mentioned that it wouldn't be fair to other members who have been banned for less severe crimes if he is permitted to return. If they cannot return, why should he be able to return? Izbo was banned for swearing at people. Izbo's brother was banned because he was izbo's brother. What did these individuals do that merits punishment if RationalMadman should be permitted to return?

As you know, I almost always oppose banning anyone for almost any reason and I agree that the process of banning probably should be reevaluated when all of this has settled down. We need to as a community establish what behaviors merit a banning and do so publicly. That may merit the later reevaluation of previous banning. However, the acts of others are beyond the scope of the issue present. As such, to unban RationalMadman is not an injustice to previously banned members, even if their being banned was unjust.

Fourth, RM does not understand how to follow rules. He was given several chances while he had his RM account to stop sexually harassing other members. He was warned several times. He was temporarily banned as a warning, but he continued to act in the manner that he chose. He had several chances, but he brought this entirely upon himself.

Rational Madman acknowledged that he was in the wrong, and publicly did so. That is not in dispute. The question present is if he will continue to do those bad acts, or if he can reform. That said, it is reasonable to have doubts. There is overwhelming evidence of behaviors that were clearly objectionable. However, previously he did not acknowledge them as so. That he presently does acknowledge he was in the wrong indicates at once an admission of culpability, and indicates a will to reform.

In general, airmax is very lenient with bans. He gave RM more opportunities to reform than I would have had I been the mod. RM earned the ban; there is no reason to retract it.

Airmax seeks to do what is right by the forum, that means only banning those who truly deserve it according to the conditions for banning as best he is able. I agree that an account suspension was merited, but a permanent ban is only sufficiently justified where a member presents a present and enduring threat to the integrity of the site. RationalMadman's apology indicates that he recognizes that he was once a threat to the integrity of the site and that he was in the wrong, but that he also wishes to reform. The change in mentality is significant, to that end.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 6:57:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 6:50:06 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I think you mentioned that you are not familiar with the izbo case.

Read this: http://www.debate.org...

That seems like very strong evidence for the reconsideration of banning protocol, but I don't think I was party to that decision so I will refrain from further comment.
Tsar of DDO
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 6:57:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If we keep making new witch-hunting and rational madman confession threads then rational madman basically wins in his war to annoy everyone on this site. He is almost annoying banned as he was when he was active!
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 7:19:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dude, when he was banned he made a new account so he could spam all the forums with a poem raging at specific people, one of which was me, simply because i called him out for trolling a mafia game.

Hes either insincere/troll or he has major issues.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 7:35:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 6:55:38 AM, YYW wrote:

To say that he had a good reason to to the right thing is not to say that he chose to do the right thing only because it had the potential to benefit him. Both the fact that he wanted to return to DDO and to make restitution were relevant factors to that end. If he didn't actually care about other people, he would not have made the apology in the first place.

I don't think he had any desire to make amends. The reason that I say this is that until you encouraged him to apologize, he demonstrated no remorse and instead opted to attack the community for the behavior that he was exhibiting. After his LatentDebater account was banned, he posted a rant in which he defended his behavior and threatened to leave the site if we did not fix ourselves. Think about this-he wanted us to adhere to his standards; he did not want to apologize and right any wrongs. As far as I am aware, he never once apologized to any of his victims of sexual harassment even after he was given a warning and a temporary ban. As I noted in a previous post, when he returned to the site after LD was banned, he made a parody of the airmax account and posted disgusting, sexually demeaning things, in which he attacked airmax by making light of sexual assault.

RM's only incentive to apologize was that he wanted to return to this website. This is the incentive that you gave him, and this is what he responded to.

On top of this, I would say that an apology is only relevant if it is wholly motivated by non-selfish reasons. I think it's pretty clear even from your perspective that this is not the case. "Moral" actions are not moral unless they are done for the proper reasons.
Moreover, he understood that in making this apology that he would not be allowed to conduct himself in an unsavory way any more.
He understood that when he was temp banned, but he still did what he pleased anyways. He already had his second and third chances. Why are we giving him another one?
The fact that he was willing to return under that condition indicates that his interests were not purely self-motivated, for if they were, he would have just continued to make troll-accounts and harass members with them.
Um, no, because that's what's causing him to be identified and banned. RM doesn't want to be banned; he wants to be on the site and also do those things. If he's banned, he cannot troll and harass people for very long, as these past few days have demonstrated.
It is significant to note that both of these behaviors stopped.

I can't believe that you actually just said that. It's literally been only 24 hours. Oh, look, he didn't do anything for 24 hours, so we should let him back the site after he sexually harassed almost every female member and made light of sexual assault.

To have apologized is not to undo what has been done.
I'm glad we agree about this.
Damage was done and he accepted that
So that means we should let him back because . . .

If someone acknowledges that she has murdered another and feels remorse, should she not be punished? The purpose of punishment is not to reform but rather to protect the victim from feeling dominated and to express disapproval for the behavior that was conducted. How do you think the victims will feel if he returns after he continued to harass them even though he was temp banned? Is that a safe environment for people on DDO?
-he even went out of his way to note that he did not expect to be forgiven.
Yes, because he knows that we don't care about his "apology" and that the mods are going to keep hammering him in accordance with their policy. This is not an expression of remorse. You are letting your sympathy for him cloud your judgment.
The other thing here is that this is not a court room.
Of course not, but the modding procedures should be treated with that degree of professionalism and with similar expectations of punishment. He earned the punishment.
This apology was not extracted on the basis that he wanted to avoid punishment, he wanted to acknowledge that his actions were wrong and demonstrate that he was sorry for doing them.

No, he is not sorry. I don't want to type out what I've already typed out, but just see my response above. He only cares about being allowed to return without having the entire website hunt him down and get him banned.


As you know, I almost always oppose banning anyone for almost any reason and I agree that the process of banning probably should be reevaluated when all of this has settled down. We need to as a community establish what behaviors merit a banning and do so publicly. That may merit the later reevaluation of previous banning. However, the acts of others are beyond the scope of the issue present. As such, to unban RationalMadman is not an injustice to previously banned members, even if their being banned was unjust.

Yes, it is unjust because in this community, the mods are expected to treat all members equally. It is an injustice to allow some to get away with crimes and return to the site if other members are not afforded the same consideration just as it is unjust to ban some people for doing things that others are not banned for.


Rational Madman acknowledged that he was in the wrong, and publicly did so.
Only after you told him it would benefit him. He had no "remorse" otherwise,and even if he did, he should still not be permitted to return.
That is not in dispute
No, I think it is. I don't believe that he felt any remorse.
The question present is if he will continue to do those bad acts, or if he can reform.
No, he won't do either because he's going to be banned. The mods didn't ban him to make him a better person, they banned him as an expression of sympathy for his victims and because he violated the contract that he signed when he joined this website. Juggle can take legal action against him if they desire as a result of his current behavior (making new accounts after his ban, spamming, etc.)
That said, it is reasonable to have doubts. There is overwhelming evidence of behaviors that were clearly objectionable. However, previously he did not acknowledge them as so. That he presently does acknowledge he was in the wrong indicates at once an admission of culpability, and indicates a will to reform.

I don't care if he's willing to reform. He already had his chance to reform when he was warned by airmax and then issued a temporary ban. You don't let someone choose to reform after they have been dealt the punishment. He made his decisions, so to treat him as a moral actor, we ought to let him face the consequences that others would face if they were in his position.

Airmax seeks to do what is right by the forum, that means only banning those who truly deserve it according to the conditions for banning as best he is able. I agree that an account suspension was merited, but a permanent ban is only sufficiently justified where a member presents a present and enduring threat to the integrity of the site.
I'm sorry, so you don't think that repeatedly and remorseless sexually harassing the members of this site after being warned and temporarily banned warrants an account closure? What type of behavior does warrant this then? He was making this site unsafe and given a chance to reform.
RationalMadman's apology indicates that he recognizes that he was once a threat to the integrity of the site and that he was in the wrong, but that he also wishes to reform. The change in mentality is significant, to that end.
No, it's not. He doesn't want to reform, and even if he did, it, it doesn't matter because he he's receiving the punishment that he agreed to receive when he signed the TOS. You don't suspend sentences just because someone wants to reform. Banning has multiple purposes, not just eliminating enduring threats and then letting them back when they make accounts they aren't supposed
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 7:53:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 6:57:25 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
If we keep making new witch-hunting and rational madman confession threads then rational madman basically wins in his war to annoy everyone on this site. He is almost annoying banned as he was when he was active!

You're right, and I think that if Juggle can find out who he is in real life, they should take legal action against him.
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 8:14:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gawd...this is so sad. YYW, I'm gonna make you the attention-wh*re of the month.
I need to 'prints-screen' this thread for future enjoyment.

The hypocracy behind you making this thread is delicious.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 8:21:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 7:35:55 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

These are the facts:

By doing what was right, Rational Madman was acting in his self interest.
That the act served his self interest does not detract from the fact that it was the right thing to do.

I wanted him to want to apologize because it was the right thing to do, and he did because I showed him it was both.

These are valid concerns. Let me address them:

RationalMadman is an inherently bad person.
We all make mistakes, some of us worse than others. We all deserve to be judged for our mistakes, but that we have made mistakes does not make us unworthy of forgiveness.

RationalMadman only wants to hurt others.
His wanting to rejoin the forum demonstrates that this is not the case, because he knows that if he rejoins the forum and then violates the TOS that he will be banned forever. If RationalMadman wanted only to hurt others, he would have continued over the night to make false accounts and use them to harm members. He was online all of last night, and didn't.

RationalMadman acted only out of self interest when he apologized.
RationalMadman apologized, and did so publicly which required that he admit his mistakes and do so at the expense of his pride. His self interest, then, is in doing what is right by DDO, because he accepts that what he did was wrong.

RationalMadman only wanted to be able to rejoin the forum.
This is a natural assumption, because in order for one to accept the truth of an apology, one must first accept the credibility of the one who apologizes. Granted his history, it's rational to question that credibility, but to believe that he will continue to hurt people if allowed to rejoin ignores the fact that he knows now that his behavior is wrong.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 8:25:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 8:14:07 AM, Heineken wrote:
Gawd...this is so sad. YYW, I'm gonna make you the attention-wh*re of the month.
I need to 'prints-screen' this thread for future enjoyment.

The hypocracy behind you making this thread is delicious.

It is sad is that you were the direct cause of all of this, and are too pompous to acknowledge it. It is sad that you usurped Arimax's authority and provoked an emotionally unstable kid, which directly led to the undermining of the integrity of the forum. It is sad that even after he was banned, you continued to antagonize the situation. I am irrelevant in all of this. I am only trying to get people to see this whole mess for what it is. You are a 31 year old adult who should have acted with sounder judgement. But that is now in the past. It is in everyone's best interest if it stays there.
Tsar of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 8:27:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
No, those are not the facts. I'll respond in detail later, but you're acting as if RationalMadman didn't know that repeatedly sexually harassing as many people as possible was wrong. Here are the real facts:

1. RationalMadman sexually harassed some members. Airmax sent him a warning and told him to stop. Even if RM had no idea that sexual harassment was wrong, at this point Airmax told him that it was wrong.

2. RationalMadman continued to sexually harass members. Airmax issued a temporary, two day ban and told him that if he did it again, he would be permanently banned.

3. After returning to the site, RationalMadman continued to sexually harass members. Airmax issued a permanent ban.

Your argument is that he should be allowed to return because he now knows that it's wrong and that he will be permanently banned if he does it again, but guess what? He already knew it was wrong and that he would be permanently banned if he did it again, and he did it again anyways!
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 8:30:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 8:27:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, those are not the facts. I'll respond in detail later, but you're acting as if RationalMadman didn't know that repeatedly sexually harassing as many people as possible was wrong. Here are the real facts:

1. RationalMadman sexually harassed some members. Airmax sent him a warning and told him to stop. Even if RM had no idea that sexual harassment was wrong, at this point Airmax told him that it was wrong.

I actually do think that he knew it was wrong, but that he didn't realize how terribly wrong it was.

2. RationalMadman continued to sexually harass members. Airmax issued a temporary, two day ban and told him that if he did it again, he would be permanently banned.

3. After returning to the site, RationalMadman continued to sexually harass members. Airmax issued a permanent ban.

Your argument is that he should be allowed to return because he now knows that it's wrong and that he will be permanently banned if he does it again, but guess what? He already knew it was wrong and that he would be permanently banned if he did it again, and he did it again anyways!

I'm not sure that he should be allowed to return without sanction, only that his apology be accepted as an apology. No more, at this point anyway. It's too soon for that. I know I suggested it in the other thread, but right now I'm just asking for people to acknowledge that RM knew that what he did was wrong, and that he is sorry.
Tsar of DDO
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 8:44:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 8:25:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/3/2013 8:14:07 AM, Heineken wrote:
Gawd...this is so sad. YYW, I'm gonna make you the attention-wh*re of the month.
I need to 'prints-screen' this thread for future enjoyment.

The hypocracy behind you making this thread is delicious.

It is sad is that you were the direct cause of all of this, and are too pompous to acknowledge it. It is sad that you usurped Arimax's authority and provoked an emotionally unstable kid, which directly led to the undermining of the integrity of the forum. It is sad that even after he was banned, you continued to antagonize the situation. I am irrelevant in all of this. I am only trying to get people to see this whole mess for what it is. You are a 31 year old adult who should have acted with sounder judgement. But that is now in the past. It is in everyone's best interest if it stays there.

Oh Jesus...it gets better with every post.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 9:23:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 6:34:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
He doesn't actually care about the people who were affected by his behavior; he just wants to return to the site.

While that could be, is that, itself, necessarily a problem? If the problem was his behavior, and he so desires to be a member, that he is willing to apologize (essentially showing he is willing to attempt to change his behavior), whether or not he is sorry in his heart doesn't really matter, does it?

Second, I don't see how posting an apology washes away any wrongs. He was justly given a punishment based on his behavior. Why should we retract that punishment just because he apologized?

Punishment should be about reform, not retribution.

I'm curious as to whether or not you have been in a courtroom, because they would never operate in the way you seem to want a court of law to operate in. I interned in a courtroom this past summer for a few days. I saw someone break down in court, cry, and apologize profusely for stealing a car because he did not want to go to jail. The judge I was working with felt bad (she told me as much afterwards), but realized that she had to punish him. Justice must be served.

So...you're defending a system in which everyone is made miserable? Why?

Third, I already mentioned that it wouldn't be fair to other members who have been banned for less severe crimes if he is permitted to return.

Past injustices do not justify future ones.

Fourth, RM does not understand how to follow rules. He was given several chances while he had his RM account to stop sexually harassing other members. He was warned several times. He was temporarily banned as a warning, but he continued to act in the manner that he chose. He had several chances, but he brought this entirely upon himself.

Agreed, he did indeed bring this upon himself.

But sometimes it takes that before someone gets it.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 4:12:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 8:21:01 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/3/2013 7:35:55 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

These are the facts:

By doing what was right, Rational Madman was acting in his self interest.
That the act served his self interest does not detract from the fact that it was the right thing to do.

1. You're mixing this up. RatMan was only doing what was right because it was in his interest. It was not an incidental matter.

2. Doing a moral thing for the wrong reasons is not moral. This is because the intent of the action is important. If you attempt to beat up someone and in the process save him from death by stabbing because he didn't go home and find a thief in his house, your action was not moral. The intent matters. RM's intent was not sincere-it was to act in his own interests. Therefore, his actions were not moral.
I wanted him to want to apologize because it was the right thing to do, and he did because I showed him it was both.

He did it because he saw the benefit, not because it was the right thing to do. That's clear from the conversation.
These are valid concerns. Let me address them:

RationalMadman is an inherently bad person.
We all make mistakes, some of us worse than others. We all deserve to be judged for our mistakes, but that we have made mistakes does not make us unworthy of forgiveness.

Someone who has refused to reform, refused to apologize to his victims, and continued his behavior despite the sanctions does not deserve to have forgiveness.

Also, you can't force me to forgive him. This is a major point of contention I had with the South African forgiveness process. It's wrong to make me forgive-that's my choice. I get to decide whether or not someone is worthy of forgiveness if he or she has hurt me, not you, and not the state.
RationalMadman only wants to hurt others.
His wanting to rejoin the forum demonstrates that this is not the case, because he knows that if he rejoins the forum and then violates the TOS that he will be banned forever.
Just like he knew that last time and chose not to harass people as a result? Oh, wait . . .
If RationalMadman wanted only to hurt others, he would have continued over the night to make false accounts and use them to harm members. He was online all of last night, and didn't.

Yes, because he doesn't want to be immediately banned. It doesn't do him any immediate good to do that. You seem to be strawmanning my position. I'm not saying that he ONLY wants to sexually harass people. What I am saying is that he wants to sexually harass people and also be on the site for other reasons. So yes, maybe he didn't do anything wrong last night, but that doesn't mean he has no interest in further doing it. Even when he had his account here, he didn't sexually harass people every day.
RationalMadman acted only out of self interest when he apologized.
RationalMadman apologized, and did so publicly which required that he admit his mistakes and do so at the expense of his pride. His self interest, then, is in doing what is right by DDO, because he accepts that what he did was wrong.

You didn't respond to any of my counters to this from before. He never apologized to his victims, he only apologized to the site because you asked him to, he posted a rant attacking us, made light of sexual assault, and refused (and still refuses) to adhere to the rules that the community gave him. If he cannot adhere to the basic rule that Juggle gave him-don't come back-why should we allow him to return?
RationalMadman only wanted to be able to rejoin the forum.
This is a natural assumption, because in order for one to accept the truth of an apology, one must first accept the credibility of the one who apologizes. Granted his history, it's rational to question that credibility, but to believe that he will continue to hurt people if allowed to rejoin ignores the fact that he knows now that his behavior is wrong.

He already knew his behavior was wrong. Airmax made that very clear to him.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 4:17:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
God, I thought I would escape the winter that now confronts us everyday, but I can only come and see it being enacted, not manifested, before my very eyes. Good god...
"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
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 4:22:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 9:23:36 AM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 2/3/2013 6:34:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
He doesn't actually care about the people who were affected by his behavior; he just wants to return to the site.

While that could be, is that, itself, necessarily a problem? If the problem was his behavior, and he so desires to be a member, that he is willing to apologize (essentially showing he is willing to attempt to change his behavior), whether or not he is sorry in his heart doesn't really matter, does it?

Yes, it does matter. His action is not a moral action if he did not have the proper intent. I have already proven that he is not sorry and is unlikely willing to change. Has he apologized to his victims? Nope. The first thing he did when he returned after he was banned was make light of sexual assault in order to attack airmax.
Second, I don't see how posting an apology washes away any wrongs. He was justly given a punishment based on his behavior. Why should we retract that punishment just because he apologized?

Punishment should be about reform, not retribution.

This is a bare assertion. I already proved that it should not be because punishment is the means to express solidarity with the victim (i.e. nobody gets to do this to you with impunity) and to express the social moral code to the perpetrator without violating his stance as a moral agent. In addition, blind rehabilitation is futile. RM was given a chance to reform. He was told he would be banned if he did not. At what point should we stop trying to reform him? Should he keep being "banned", forced to apologize, and then permitted to return, only to commit the same action again so that he can be banned the next time? That's essentially what you're advocating for given that he was already banned temporarily once before in an effort to reform his behavior.

Juggle is not his kindergarten teacher. It is not Juggle's job to teach him to be nice to others. Juggle is supposed to keep its members as safe as possible while they are online, and RM is a threat to that safety.
I'm curious as to whether or not you have been in a courtroom, because they would never operate in the way you seem to want a court of law to operate in. I interned in a courtroom this past summer for a few days. I saw someone break down in court, cry, and apologize profusely for stealing a car because he did not want to go to jail. The judge I was working with felt bad (she told me as much afterwards), but realized that she had to punish him. Justice must be served.

So...you're defending a system in which everyone is made miserable? Why?

I'm not defending all aspects of the courtroom-just that specific one. However, I do think his victims are very pleased with is ban based on what they said to him when he returned and threatened to leave if we didn't tolerate his behavior. That means that most people are not miserable.
Third, I already mentioned that it wouldn't be fair to other members who have been banned for less severe crimes if he is permitted to return.

Past injustices do not justify future ones.

That's a strawman. I'm saying that people have to expect equal treatment. Arbitrary injustice is more unjust than consistent, equal injustice.
Fourth, RM does not understand how to follow rules. He was given several chances while he had his RM account to stop sexually harassing other members. He was warned several times. He was temporarily banned as a warning, but he continued to act in the manner that he chose. He had several chances, but he brought this entirely upon himself.

Agreed, he did indeed bring this upon himself.

But sometimes it takes that before someone gets it.

Ok, so letting him return would just defeat the point of this lesson.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 4:40:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I haven't read this whole thread but how many second chances do you think should be given?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 5:12:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"To Imabench, I must apologise for turning what could have been a very funny debate into a porno shoot out of women and men battling it out to the filthy finish. I turned humour into filth and got just deserts. You are a very competent debater when you put your mind to it and to say that the only way you could have won that debate was if I forfeited it was wrong of me even though I still emotionally wish and assert that to be true, but rationally in hindsight can see the idiocy of the statement."

If youre reading this RM, I completely forgive you and I'll go ahead and apologize for anything and everything dickish and wrong that Ive done to you over the past couple of weeks. It takes massive balls to do what you did and I respect you a lot for it....

And to answer your question about why im allowed to curse and not get banned.... Im sort of the village idiot of DDO who exists mostly for entertainment of others at this point.... Ill even make debates that I know I'll lose just for sh*ts + giggles, my most recent one involving gay soldiers making the movie "Saving Private Ryan" an hour and a half shorter based on the idea that it would never take a group of gay guys longer then an hour to find Matt Damon..... As long as people on DDO find me entertaining, then I wont get the banhammer for cursing....

To be fair though I have been warned by Airmax and Juggle about my cursing frequently though throughout my stay on DDO, and on more then one occasion Ive actually been censored into sounding like an 8 year old british kid.... I have taken measures to reduce how much I curse (it doesnt work very well as you probably f**king know by now) and I also always censor my curse words whenever I curse.

Being an idiot though isnt the only reason why people accept me around here. I was actually a very serious and legit debater for the first five months I was on DDO before I trolled even a single debate or a single forum. Then everything changed with the "Poop has DNA" debate I had..... That unleashed the inner troll I had within me and ever since that debate, the trolling persona that was unleashed grew over time to the point where now it dominates how people know me on DDO. Im more then happy with this though because it is WAY easier for me to troll then to be smart ;D Im sure that the Imabench of 8 months ago wouldnt even recognize the Imabench who you know right now, thats how much ive changed.

If you have established yourself as a legit debater, then you can start getting away with small stuff as long as you use caution and restraint.

As for Airmax though, hes not an a**, hes one of the nicest people you can meet on DDO. You sort of forced him into doing what he had to do though. You had an extensive history of multiaccounting, sexually harassing people, and being really liberal with references to sex and porn on DDO with complete disregard to people trying to get you to stop, which are things that do get people banned for life without a second thought ever being given to them..... And on top of that youve done this multiple times over the course of multiple different accounts leading just about everybody to believe that this is how you will always act even if youve now genuinely changed.....

So even though I more then forgive you and would welcome you back to the site personally, im afraid at this point that even if your apology is sincere and you really will try to be better, youve crossed the point of no return long ago :/
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 6:18:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 4:22:21 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yes, it does matter. His action is not a moral action if he did not have the proper intent.

Not necessarily. A moral action is a moral action, regardless of the intent. Now, did he do so for a moral reason? Maybe not. But that doesn't change whether or not apologizing and attempting to change behavior was the right thing to do.

I have already proven that he is not sorry and is unlikely willing to change.

Uhhh...when?

Has he apologized to his victims? Nope. The first thing he did when he returned after he was banned was make light of sexual assault in order to attack airmax.

I am aware that he did that. Lashing out of anger is commonplace. But how does that invalidate the apology which happened later?

This is a bare assertion.

It's not a bare assertion, it's (supposed to be) the fundamental point of all punishment. Why do we punish? We punish because someone does something wrong. So you propose we should just leave it at that? that people who do wrong should just be left out in the wind, with no chance of reform? That generates more harm than good. No, if we want punishment to have any morally relevant meaning, is must be about teaching people right from wrong, so they can better themselves as people.

This is less about a reasonable opinion on punishment, and more about your personal issues with RM, isn't it?

I already proved

You keep saying that, but the fact that I am contesting this claim of yours means you haven't "proven" it.

that it should not be because punishment is the means to express solidarity with the victim (i.e. nobody gets to do this to you with impunity) and to express the social moral code to the perpetrator without violating his stance as a moral agent.

But again, if we want morality to have any relevant meaning, we need to teach right from wrong. Punishment that is not about reform is therefore no better than the very lashing out RM did to airmax.

RM was given a chance to reform. He was told he would be banned if he did not. At what point should we stop trying to reform him?

Never.

Should he keep being "banned", forced to apologize, and then permitted to return, only to commit the same action again so that he can be banned the next time?

Perhaps, if that is what it takes. You act as if no one can ever change; everyone can change. That potential exists in every living creature. So long as that potential exists, we must seek to bring it about.

Juggle is not his kindergarten teacher. It is not Juggle's job to teach him to be nice to others. Juggle is supposed to keep its members as safe as possible while they are online, and RM is a threat to that safety.

A "threat to safety"? Pfft. RM is no threat to safety. Does he annoy you? Yeah. Piss you off? Maybe. Offend you? Undoubtably.

But threaten you? Give me a break. you are in no danger by him being a member. Quit the dramatics.

I'm not defending all aspects of the courtroom-just that specific one. However, I do think his victims are very pleased with is ban based on what they said to him when he returned and threatened to leave if we didn't tolerate his behavior. That means that most people are not miserable.

Fair enough; his victims may be pleased with his being banned. However, should always give the victim whatever they want? I say no, not always.

That's a strawman.

No, it's not. You're trying to justify keeping RM banned forever, with no chance of reform, because the same has been done for past members who have been unjustly banned in your eyes.

I am contesting that keeping RM banned forever with no chance of reform is an injustice. Therefore, you are attempting to justify an current injustice, by citing past injustices.

I'm saying that people have to expect equal treatment. Arbitrary injustice is more unjust than consistent, equal injustice.

I disagree entirely. Arbitrary injustice, at least, occasionally generates justice. Equal injustice generates constant injustice. One objectively creates less suffering and injustice.

Ok, so letting him return would just defeat the point of this lesson.

No, it wouldn't. The point of the lesson should be "Your behavior was bad." If someone changes their behavior, the point of the lesson has been learned. The punishment is no longer necessary. To continue it would then mean it is no longer about reform, and is now about childish vengeance and petty grudge holding.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 6:39:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 6:18:49 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:

... The point of the lesson should be "Your behavior was bad." If someone changes their behavior, the point of the lesson has been learned. The punishment is no longer necessary. To continue it would then mean it is no longer about reform, and is now about childish vengeance and petty grudge holding.

Ignoring, for now, the difference between public and private venues (our illustrious hosts have every right to be exactly as capricious and unfair as they choose to be), I am curious as to how your interpretation of punishment would work in the "real world" of crime...

A criminal murderst 20 people. Every other murderer has been put in jail for X amount of time (or set for capital punishment), and this murderer was sentenced to X amount of time (or set for capital punishment). The murderer says he's sorry, and promises never to do it again. Do we say "Oh, well, the lesson has been learned, come out of jail now, good sir"? Or is there more to justice than simple reformation?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!