Total Posts:139|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is this debate a personal attack?

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 6:28:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

We know that it's against site conduct policy to create threads that attack other users on this website.

The above debate technically does not attack a user on this website, because the user has already been banned. However, if that user were to ever return, then this debate would IMHO clearly constitute a personal attack against that user through advocacy that the ban was justified.

Now, if this was an official trial sanctioned by moderators, that would probably be a different matter. But for anyone else on this website to create a forum thread, or even worse, to create a debate attacking a certain user...I would think such behavior is a conduct violation.

On another note, I recognize Mikal's intentions and think that he's not trying to insult jifpop or slander his name. Regardless, the entire purpose of this debate is to argue over a member's behavior and to advocate for his ban, and I don't think that's appropriate for anyone except a moderator to do publicly.

What if it was reversed? What if there was a forum thread or a debate that advocated that Jifpop was unfairly banned? Interestingly enough, this would not constitute a personal attack, yes?

Discuss.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:09:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 6:28:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I recognize Mikal's intentions and think that he's not trying to insult jifpop or slander his name.

Correction:

I actually have no idea what Mikal's intentions are. I'm simply giving him the benefit of the doubt.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:18:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:15:21 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
No.

Why do you think this way?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:33:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:18:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:15:21 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
No.

Why do you think this way?

I don't understand your conclusion that it is a personal attack.

If Fred murdered someone and got sent to jail is it a personal attack to discuss that him going to jail was justified? I don't see where you are getting this whole "personal attack" business.

The debate did not focus on attacking Jiffpop, rather only discussing the things he did, then discussing whether or not he deserved punishment for what he did. No attacks are being placed, it is only a discussion of facts. Most of all though, the debate is not focused on Jiffpop himself, rather on the ethics of his ban. If the debate is bad for his rep that is his fault because he chose to do such deeds.
Nolite Timere
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:54:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:33:01 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:18:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:15:21 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
No.

Why do you think this way?

I don't understand your conclusion that it is a personal attack.

If Fred murdered someone and got sent to jail is it a personal attack to discuss that him going to jail was justified? I don't see where you are getting this whole "personal attack" business.

First, I want to mention that there really isn't a rule in society against personal attacks...well, nothing really written at any rate, except libel and slander (which involves specifically false personal attacks). Obviously most of us have a low tolerance for it and may speak out against it, but it's really not something codified in law.

So, a discussion like this in real life is not really going to incur displeasure in public forums. In fact, it happens all the time in the opinion section of newspapers, yes? (http://www.economist.com...)

However, here, we do have rules against personal attacks and "attack threads" against other users. So, to use your "Fred the murderer" example, one could have a discussion or debate about whether or not a murderer who committed the exact crime that Fred committed (without mentioning Fred's name) deserved to go to jail, and there's nothing personal about that. But, once you put Fred's name in there, yes, that's personal.

The debate did not focus on attacking Jiffpop, rather only discussing the things he did, then discussing whether or not he deserved punishment for what he did. No attacks are being placed, it is only a discussion of facts. Most of all though, the debate is not focused on Jiffpop himself, rather on the ethics of his ban. If the debate is bad for his rep that is his fault because he chose to do such deeds.

You can have a discussion about the things Jifpop did without mentioning Jifpop's name specifically.

I agree that was probably mikal's intentions and that's what was going through my mind when I read the opening, as I don't think mikal is trying make it personal. It's just that, well, once you put that person's name in there, it is personal.

An alternative resolution may be "It is justifiable for moderators to ban someone indefinitely for repeatedly ignoring the warnings of moderators" and that would not be a personal attack, even if a lot of users knew that it was implicitly about a specific incident involving a specific user.

That would allow for someone that was unfamiliar with jifpop to come to a determination on whether or not the ban was justifiable without taking into account anything about the user in question. A truly impersonal approach.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:08:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:54:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I agree that was probably mikal's intentions and that's what was going through my mind when I read the opening, as I don't think mikal is trying make it personal. It's just that, well, once you put that person's name in there, it is personal.

An alternative resolution may be "It is justifiable for moderators to ban someone indefinitely for repeatedly ignoring the warnings of moderators" and that would not be a personal attack, even if a lot of users knew that it was implicitly about a specific incident involving a specific user.

That would allow for someone that was unfamiliar with jifpop to come to a determination on whether or not the ban was justifiable without taking into account anything about the user in question. A truly impersonal approach.

I still do not see why you think it would be against the policy. That it's personal in the sense of mentioning specific users does not inherently make it a personal attack under the context of the policy.

Your suggestion of the impersonal approach would be completely different than the resolution at hand, which not only addresses the impersonal question of banning in general, but the specific actions under consideration.

Further, discussions about specific actions and/or users actions is not prohibited by the policy, except in the context of attack. All accusations here are backed up; per the policy: "if you want to discuss something like an accusation of a supposed vote bomb, you may bring up the vote for discussion, provided you actually have cause to make the accusation."

The question of the resolution is not "Jifpop is a douchebag", but rather "Airmax's [action] was justified"--and it's in the context of already-acted moderator action, as opposed to a demand for one. A specific action of airmax, the moderator, is being discussed. That, in order to decide whether the action was justified, the reasoning behind the action is necessary, seems rather obvious.

"The goal is to foster debate, and allow for even heated debate and exchange of ideas, without allowing abuse and unwarranted attack."

Here, the "attacks", such as they are, seem warranted--even if you may disagree with the ultimate conclusion.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:16:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:08:24 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:54:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I agree that was probably mikal's intentions and that's what was going through my mind when I read the opening, as I don't think mikal is trying make it personal. It's just that, well, once you put that person's name in there, it is personal.

An alternative resolution may be "It is justifiable for moderators to ban someone indefinitely for repeatedly ignoring the warnings of moderators" and that would not be a personal attack, even if a lot of users knew that it was implicitly about a specific incident involving a specific user.

That would allow for someone that was unfamiliar with jifpop to come to a determination on whether or not the ban was justifiable without taking into account anything about the user in question. A truly impersonal approach.

I still do not see why you think it would be against the policy. That it's personal in the sense of mentioning specific users does not inherently make it a personal attack under the context of the policy.

Your suggestion of the impersonal approach would be completely different than the resolution at hand, which not only addresses the impersonal question of banning in general, but the specific actions under consideration.

I would think the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban is the paramount consideration when it comes to moderation, and to think differently is to think that personal bias and selective is a valid criteria for moderation.

Further, discussions about specific actions and/or users actions is not prohibited by the policy, except in the context of attack. All accusations here are backed up; per the policy: "if you want to discuss something like an accusation of a supposed vote bomb, you may bring up the vote for discussion, provided you actually have cause to make the accusation."

I agree, but the policy is also explicit that no "attack threads" are to be brought up. This debate has jifpop's name in the title, which if it were a thread, would constitute an "attack thread":

"Generalized complaints about generalized behaviors are not direct attacks. But, for example, a thread specifically calling out a member by name, and speaking negatively about them, is a direct attack. Attack threads will be deleted out of hand."

http://www.debate.org...

I also want to point out that in the underlined you actually agree that this debate constitutes a personal attack...just that you find this personal attack to be warranted and with cause.

The question of the resolution is not "Jifpop is a douchebag", but rather "Airmax's [action] was justified"--and it's in the context of already-acted moderator action, as opposed to a demand for one. A specific action of airmax, the moderator, is being discussed. That, in order to decide whether the action was justified, the reasoning behind the action is necessary, seems rather obvious.

The question of the resolution is not "Were Airmax's actions justifiable"...the question of the resolution is "Were Airmax's actions pertaining to Jifpop's ban justifiable". The former is impersonal, the latter is not.

"The goal is to foster debate, and allow for even heated debate and exchange of ideas, without allowing abuse and unwarranted attack."

Here, the "attacks", such as they are, seem warranted--even if you may disagree with the ultimate conclusion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:16:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:16:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:08:24 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:54:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I agree that was probably mikal's intentions and that's what was going through my mind when I read the opening, as I don't think mikal is trying make it personal. It's just that, well, once you put that person's name in there, it is personal.

An alternative resolution may be "It is justifiable for moderators to ban someone indefinitely for repeatedly ignoring the warnings of moderators" and that would not be a personal attack, even if a lot of users knew that it was implicitly about a specific incident involving a specific user.

That would allow for someone that was unfamiliar with jifpop to come to a determination on whether or not the ban was justifiable without taking into account anything about the user in question. A truly impersonal approach.

I still do not see why you think it would be against the policy. That it's personal in the sense of mentioning specific users does not inherently make it a personal attack under the context of the policy.

Your suggestion of the impersonal approach would be completely different than the resolution at hand, which not only addresses the impersonal question of banning in general, but the specific actions under consideration.

I would think the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban is the paramount consideration when it comes to moderation, and to think differently is to think that personal bias and selective [enforcement] is a valid criteria for moderation.

Corrected.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:22:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:16:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:08:24 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:54:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I agree that was probably mikal's intentions and that's what was going through my mind when I read the opening, as I don't think mikal is trying make it personal. It's just that, well, once you put that person's name in there, it is personal.

An alternative resolution may be "It is justifiable for moderators to ban someone indefinitely for repeatedly ignoring the warnings of moderators" and that would not be a personal attack, even if a lot of users knew that it was implicitly about a specific incident involving a specific user.

That would allow for someone that was unfamiliar with jifpop to come to a determination on whether or not the ban was justifiable without taking into account anything about the user in question. A truly impersonal approach.

I still do not see why you think it would be against the policy. That it's personal in the sense of mentioning specific users does not inherently make it a personal attack under the context of the policy.

Your suggestion of the impersonal approach would be completely different than the resolution at hand, which not only addresses the impersonal question of banning in general, but the specific actions under consideration.

I would think the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban is the paramount consideration when it comes to moderation, and to think differently is to think that personal bias and selective is a valid criteria for moderation.

Further, discussions about specific actions and/or users actions is not prohibited by the policy, except in the context of attack. All accusations here are backed up; per the policy: "if you want to discuss something like an accusation of a supposed vote bomb, you may bring up the vote for discussion, provided you actually have cause to make the accusation."

I agree, but the policy is also explicit that no "attack threads" are to be brought up. This debate has jifpop's name in the title, which if it were a thread, would constitute an "attack thread":

"Generalized complaints about generalized behaviors are not direct attacks. But, for example, a thread specifically calling out a member by name, and speaking negatively about them, is a direct attack. Attack threads will be deleted out of hand."

http://www.debate.org...

I also want to point out that in the underlined you actually agree that this debate constitutes a personal attack...just that you find this personal attack to be warranted and with cause.

Which makes it not a personal attack for the purposes of the policy.

"Personal attack" is a broad term. If I said that your ideas are stupid, it would be personal (YOUR ideas) and an attack (are stupid). Yet mere insult of ideas is allowed under the policy. You were bringing up the question of whether this was a personal attack under the policy. If it's justified accusations, then under the policy it is not.

The question of the resolution is not "Jifpop is a douchebag", but rather "Airmax's [action] was justified"--and it's in the context of already-acted moderator action, as opposed to a demand for one. A specific action of airmax, the moderator, is being discussed. That, in order to decide whether the action was justified, the reasoning behind the action is necessary, seems rather obvious.

The question of the resolution is not "Were Airmax's actions justifiable"...the question of the resolution is "Were Airmax's actions pertaining to Jifpop's ban justifiable". The former is impersonal, the latter is not.

That there is a personal element doesn't make it against policy necessarily, though.

"A personal attack, in the context of this site, is not "anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable". Not only would such a definition be absurd, it would stifle exchange and debate. If someone is being dishonest, calling them out on it could be considered by the literalist to be a "personal attack". You are, after all, saying something negative about them, personally. But that's not what's intended by the policy."
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:23:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I would think the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban is the paramount consideration when it comes to moderation, and to think differently is to think that personal bias and selective [enforcement] is a valid criteria for moderation.

Corrected.

I agree, which is why this debate is, to me, structured in a proper way--not that it couldn't have been done otherwise, but that it's acceptable as it is.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:26:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:22:09 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:16:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:08:24 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:54:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I agree that was probably mikal's intentions and that's what was going through my mind when I read the opening, as I don't think mikal is trying make it personal. It's just that, well, once you put that person's name in there, it is personal.

An alternative resolution may be "It is justifiable for moderators to ban someone indefinitely for repeatedly ignoring the warnings of moderators" and that would not be a personal attack, even if a lot of users knew that it was implicitly about a specific incident involving a specific user.

That would allow for someone that was unfamiliar with jifpop to come to a determination on whether or not the ban was justifiable without taking into account anything about the user in question. A truly impersonal approach.

I still do not see why you think it would be against the policy. That it's personal in the sense of mentioning specific users does not inherently make it a personal attack under the context of the policy.

Your suggestion of the impersonal approach would be completely different than the resolution at hand, which not only addresses the impersonal question of banning in general, but the specific actions under consideration.

I would think the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban is the paramount consideration when it comes to moderation, and to think differently is to think that personal bias and selective is a valid criteria for moderation.

Further, discussions about specific actions and/or users actions is not prohibited by the policy, except in the context of attack. All accusations here are backed up; per the policy: "if you want to discuss something like an accusation of a supposed vote bomb, you may bring up the vote for discussion, provided you actually have cause to make the accusation."

I agree, but the policy is also explicit that no "attack threads" are to be brought up. This debate has jifpop's name in the title, which if it were a thread, would constitute an "attack thread":

"Generalized complaints about generalized behaviors are not direct attacks. But, for example, a thread specifically calling out a member by name, and speaking negatively about them, is a direct attack. Attack threads will be deleted out of hand."

http://www.debate.org...

I also want to point out that in the underlined you actually agree that this debate constitutes a personal attack...just that you find this personal attack to be warranted and with cause.

Which makes it not a personal attack for the purposes of the policy.

I don't think you realize that I'm bringing up an inconsistency with site policy. The policy is clear that anything that speaks negatively about a member with that member's name in the title will be deleted out of hand, i.e. regardless of warrant.

This is why this thread exists, as opposed to me (or someone else) just reporting the matter to moderators.

"Personal attack" is a broad term. If I said that your ideas are stupid, it would be personal (YOUR ideas) and an attack (are stupid). Yet mere insult of ideas is allowed under the policy. You were bringing up the question of whether this was a personal attack under the policy. If it's justified accusations, then under the policy it is not.

The question of the resolution is not "Jifpop is a douchebag", but rather "Airmax's [action] was justified"--and it's in the context of already-acted moderator action, as opposed to a demand for one. A specific action of airmax, the moderator, is being discussed. That, in order to decide whether the action was justified, the reasoning behind the action is necessary, seems rather obvious.

The question of the resolution is not "Were Airmax's actions justifiable"...the question of the resolution is "Were Airmax's actions pertaining to Jifpop's ban justifiable". The former is impersonal, the latter is not.

That there is a personal element doesn't make it against policy necessarily, though.

"A personal attack, in the context of this site, is not "anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable". Not only would such a definition be absurd, it would stifle exchange and debate. If someone is being dishonest, calling them out on it could be considered by the literalist to be a "personal attack". You are, after all, saying something negative about them, personally. But that's not what's intended by the policy."
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:28:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:23:39 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I would think the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban is the paramount consideration when it comes to moderation, and to think differently is to think that personal bias and selective [enforcement] is a valid criteria for moderation.

Corrected.

I agree, which is why this debate is, to me, structured in a proper way--not that it couldn't have been done otherwise, but that it's acceptable as it is.

But you don't agree. Otherwise you would not make a statement like this:

Your suggestion of the impersonal approach would be completely different than the resolution at hand, which not only addresses the impersonal question of banning in general, but the specific actions under consideration.

The resolution at hand specifically discusses the actions of a specific individual, jifpop.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:29:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:26:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:22:09 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:16:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:08:24 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:54:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I agree that was probably mikal's intentions and that's what was going through my mind when I read the opening, as I don't think mikal is trying make it personal. It's just that, well, once you put that person's name in there, it is personal.

An alternative resolution may be "It is justifiable for moderators to ban someone indefinitely for repeatedly ignoring the warnings of moderators" and that would not be a personal attack, even if a lot of users knew that it was implicitly about a specific incident involving a specific user.

That would allow for someone that was unfamiliar with jifpop to come to a determination on whether or not the ban was justifiable without taking into account anything about the user in question. A truly impersonal approach.

I still do not see why you think it would be against the policy. That it's personal in the sense of mentioning specific users does not inherently make it a personal attack under the context of the policy.

Your suggestion of the impersonal approach would be completely different than the resolution at hand, which not only addresses the impersonal question of banning in general, but the specific actions under consideration.

I would think the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban is the paramount consideration when it comes to moderation, and to think differently is to think that personal bias and selective is a valid criteria for moderation.

Further, discussions about specific actions and/or users actions is not prohibited by the policy, except in the context of attack. All accusations here are backed up; per the policy: "if you want to discuss something like an accusation of a supposed vote bomb, you may bring up the vote for discussion, provided you actually have cause to make the accusation."

I agree, but the policy is also explicit that no "attack threads" are to be brought up. This debate has jifpop's name in the title, which if it were a thread, would constitute an "attack thread":

"Generalized complaints about generalized behaviors are not direct attacks. But, for example, a thread specifically calling out a member by name, and speaking negatively about them, is a direct attack. Attack threads will be deleted out of hand."

http://www.debate.org...

I also want to point out that in the underlined you actually agree that this debate constitutes a personal attack...just that you find this personal attack to be warranted and with cause.

Which makes it not a personal attack for the purposes of the policy.

I don't think you realize that I'm bringing up an inconsistency with site policy. The policy is clear that anything that speaks negatively about a member with that member's name in the title will be deleted out of hand, i.e. regardless of warrant.

I disagree. It specifically allows for accusations, provided those accusations are supported. The example given in the policy is to complain about a "vote bomb"--not wildly dissimilar to the situation here, which is a debate about TOS violations. Further, it's relative to the question of airmax's decision--that it of necessity (due to its structure) ALSO brings up jifpop is ancillary.

This is why this thread exists, as opposed to me (or someone else) just reporting the matter to moderators.

You could report the debate to the mods if you wanted.

"Personal attack" is a broad term. If I said that your ideas are stupid, it would be personal (YOUR ideas) and an attack (are stupid). Yet mere insult of ideas is allowed under the policy. You were bringing up the question of whether this was a personal attack under the policy. If it's justified accusations, then under the policy it is not.

The question of the resolution is not "Jifpop is a douchebag", but rather "Airmax's [action] was justified"--and it's in the context of already-acted moderator action, as opposed to a demand for one. A specific action of airmax, the moderator, is being discussed. That, in order to decide whether the action was justified, the reasoning behind the action is necessary, seems rather obvious.

The question of the resolution is not "Were Airmax's actions justifiable"...the question of the resolution is "Were Airmax's actions pertaining to Jifpop's ban justifiable". The former is impersonal, the latter is not.

That there is a personal element doesn't make it against policy necessarily, though.

"A personal attack, in the context of this site, is not "anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable". Not only would such a definition be absurd, it would stifle exchange and debate. If someone is being dishonest, calling them out on it could be considered by the literalist to be a "personal attack". You are, after all, saying something negative about them, personally. But that's not what's intended by the policy."
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:32:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:28:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:23:39 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I would think the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban is the paramount consideration when it comes to moderation, and to think differently is to think that personal bias and selective [enforcement] is a valid criteria for moderation.

Corrected.

I agree, which is why this debate is, to me, structured in a proper way--not that it couldn't have been done otherwise, but that it's acceptable as it is.

But you don't agree. Otherwise you would not make a statement like this:

Your suggestion of the impersonal approach would be completely different than the resolution at hand, which not only addresses the impersonal question of banning in general, but the specific actions under consideration.

The resolution at hand specifically discusses the actions of a specific individual, jifpop.

Exactly--it is jifpop's actions that are "the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban", which as you agree is of paramound importance.

They could have left jifpop's name off, I suppose, but considering all of their sources would have directly referenced him and/or his actions, and considering his own defense thread includes his name, there was no real way to discuss "the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban" without reference to his name.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:34:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:29:52 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:26:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:22:09 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:16:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:08:24 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:54:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I agree that was probably mikal's intentions and that's what was going through my mind when I read the opening, as I don't think mikal is trying make it personal. It's just that, well, once you put that person's name in there, it is personal.

An alternative resolution may be "It is justifiable for moderators to ban someone indefinitely for repeatedly ignoring the warnings of moderators" and that would not be a personal attack, even if a lot of users knew that it was implicitly about a specific incident involving a specific user.

That would allow for someone that was unfamiliar with jifpop to come to a determination on whether or not the ban was justifiable without taking into account anything about the user in question. A truly impersonal approach.

I still do not see why you think it would be against the policy. That it's personal in the sense of mentioning specific users does not inherently make it a personal attack under the context of the policy.

Your suggestion of the impersonal approach would be completely different than the resolution at hand, which not only addresses the impersonal question of banning in general, but the specific actions under consideration.

I would think the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban is the paramount consideration when it comes to moderation, and to think differently is to think that personal bias and selective is a valid criteria for moderation.

Further, discussions about specific actions and/or users actions is not prohibited by the policy, except in the context of attack. All accusations here are backed up; per the policy: "if you want to discuss something like an accusation of a supposed vote bomb, you may bring up the vote for discussion, provided you actually have cause to make the accusation."

I agree, but the policy is also explicit that no "attack threads" are to be brought up. This debate has jifpop's name in the title, which if it were a thread, would constitute an "attack thread":

"Generalized complaints about generalized behaviors are not direct attacks. But, for example, a thread specifically calling out a member by name, and speaking negatively about them, is a direct attack. Attack threads will be deleted out of hand."

http://www.debate.org...

I also want to point out that in the underlined you actually agree that this debate constitutes a personal attack...just that you find this personal attack to be warranted and with cause.

Which makes it not a personal attack for the purposes of the policy.

I don't think you realize that I'm bringing up an inconsistency with site policy. The policy is clear that anything that speaks negatively about a member with that member's name in the title will be deleted out of hand, i.e. regardless of warrant.

I disagree. It specifically allows for accusations, provided those accusations are supported. The example given in the policy is to complain about a "vote bomb"--not wildly dissimilar to the situation here, which is a debate about TOS violations. Further, it's relative to the question of airmax's decision--that it of necessity (due to its structure) ALSO brings up jifpop is ancillary.

So, if members began making threads like the following, all with supposed warrant, cause, and justification:

"Bladerunner060 should be banned from this website"
"Bladerunner060 is a Jew-hating Nazi"
"Bladerunner060 has cooties"


...you'd allow all of these threads just because someone attempted to argue that position? I'm sorry, but that does seem to fly in the face of the spirit of existing policy.

My understanding is that moderators have been quick to delete threads with far less offensive titles than what I just posited.

This is why this thread exists, as opposed to me (or someone else) just reporting the matter to moderators.

You could report the debate to the mods if you wanted.

I'm not sure why I would. That's why this thread exists (I'm repeating myself here).

"Personal attack" is a broad term. If I said that your ideas are stupid, it would be personal (YOUR ideas) and an attack (are stupid). Yet mere insult of ideas is allowed under the policy. You were bringing up the question of whether this was a personal attack under the policy. If it's justified accusations, then under the policy it is not.

The question of the resolution is not "Jifpop is a douchebag", but rather "Airmax's [action] was justified"--and it's in the context of already-acted moderator action, as opposed to a demand for one. A specific action of airmax, the moderator, is being discussed. That, in order to decide whether the action was justified, the reasoning behind the action is necessary, seems rather obvious.

The question of the resolution is not "Were Airmax's actions justifiable"...the question of the resolution is "Were Airmax's actions pertaining to Jifpop's ban justifiable". The former is impersonal, the latter is not.

That there is a personal element doesn't make it against policy necessarily, though.

"A personal attack, in the context of this site, is not "anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable". Not only would such a definition be absurd, it would stifle exchange and debate. If someone is being dishonest, calling them out on it could be considered by the literalist to be a "personal attack". You are, after all, saying something negative about them, personally. But that's not what's intended by the policy."
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:36:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:32:12 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:28:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:23:39 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I would think the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban is the paramount consideration when it comes to moderation, and to think differently is to think that personal bias and selective [enforcement] is a valid criteria for moderation.

Corrected.

I agree, which is why this debate is, to me, structured in a proper way--not that it couldn't have been done otherwise, but that it's acceptable as it is.

But you don't agree. Otherwise you would not make a statement like this:

Your suggestion of the impersonal approach would be completely different than the resolution at hand, which not only addresses the impersonal question of banning in general, but the specific actions under consideration.

The resolution at hand specifically discusses the actions of a specific individual, jifpop.

Exactly--it is jifpop's actions that are "the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban", which as you agree is of paramound importance.

They could have left jifpop's name off, I suppose, but considering all of their sources would have directly referenced him and/or his actions, and considering his own defense thread includes his name, there was no real way to discuss "the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban" without reference to his name.

The entire point is leaving jifpop's name off. The sources would have to redact his name.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:38:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:36:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:32:12 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:28:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:23:39 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I would think the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban is the paramount consideration when it comes to moderation, and to think differently is to think that personal bias and selective [enforcement] is a valid criteria for moderation.

Corrected.

I agree, which is why this debate is, to me, structured in a proper way--not that it couldn't have been done otherwise, but that it's acceptable as it is.

But you don't agree. Otherwise you would not make a statement like this:

Your suggestion of the impersonal approach would be completely different than the resolution at hand, which not only addresses the impersonal question of banning in general, but the specific actions under consideration.

The resolution at hand specifically discusses the actions of a specific individual, jifpop.

Exactly--it is jifpop's actions that are "the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban", which as you agree is of paramound importance.

They could have left jifpop's name off, I suppose, but considering all of their sources would have directly referenced him and/or his actions, and considering his own defense thread includes his name, there was no real way to discuss "the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban" without reference to his name.

The entire point is leaving jifpop's name off. The sources would have to redact his name.

I would add that if it became clear that the entire point of the debate was to argue over jifpop's actions, even leaving his name out of it would still constitute a personal attack.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 11:13:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it is a personal attack, although it was probably intended as a discussion of the justification and methods for the ban. Referring to the member by name makes it open to discussion of what the member did, and to opinions about how bad those things were. The debate should have been cast in the abstract, such as "Violating site rules justifies banning." It's a fairly fine line. Stating facts about what a member did is not of itself an insult or attack. it's the opinions about the actions that qualify as attacks.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 1:12:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:34:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I disagree. It specifically allows for accusations, provided those accusations are supported. The example given in the policy is to complain about a "vote bomb"--not wildly dissimilar to the situation here, which is a debate about TOS violations. Further, it's relative to the question of airmax's decision--that it of necessity (due to its structure) ALSO brings up jifpop is ancillary.

So, if members began making threads like the following, all with supposed warrant, cause, and justification:

"Bladerunner060 should be banned from this website"
"Bladerunner060 is a Jew-hating Nazi"
"Bladerunner060 has cooties"


...you'd allow all of these threads just because someone attempted to argue that position? I'm sorry, but that does seem to fly in the face of the spirit of existing policy.

Not really--It would depend on how honest that warrant, cause, and justificaiton were.

I've I've gone on at length about how Hitler had the right idea, and how I hate the jews, saying so would be a perfectly reasonable accusation.

My understanding is that moderators have been quick to delete threads with far less offensive titles than what I just posited.

Forum threads are different than debates.

This is why this thread exists, as opposed to me (or someone else) just reporting the matter to moderators.

You could report the debate to the mods if you wanted.

I'm not sure why I would. That's why this thread exists (I'm repeating myself here).

You believe it's a personal attack. If you believe it is, you should report it. The mods are the final arbiters of whether it is or not.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 1:14:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:36:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:32:12 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:28:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:23:39 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I would think the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban is the paramount consideration when it comes to moderation, and to think differently is to think that personal bias and selective [enforcement] is a valid criteria for moderation.

Corrected.

I agree, which is why this debate is, to me, structured in a proper way--not that it couldn't have been done otherwise, but that it's acceptable as it is.

But you don't agree. Otherwise you would not make a statement like this:

Your suggestion of the impersonal approach would be completely different than the resolution at hand, which not only addresses the impersonal question of banning in general, but the specific actions under consideration.

The resolution at hand specifically discusses the actions of a specific individual, jifpop.

Exactly--it is jifpop's actions that are "the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban", which as you agree is of paramound importance.

They could have left jifpop's name off, I suppose, but considering all of their sources would have directly referenced him and/or his actions, and considering his own defense thread includes his name, there was no real way to discuss "the specific actions that led to the decision of the ban" without reference to his name.

The entire point is leaving jifpop's name off. The sources would have to redact his name.

That, to me, is unreasonable. The debate in question is a debate about publicly available knowledge, and you want that knowledge redacted within the context of hte deabte just because the person's actions will reflect poorly on them. I see no necessity for that.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 1:14:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 11:13:56 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think it is a personal attack, although it was probably intended as a discussion of the justification and methods for the ban. Referring to the member by name makes it open to discussion of what the member did, and to opinions about how bad those things were. The debate should have been cast in the abstract, such as "Violating site rules justifies banning." It's a fairly fine line. Stating facts about what a member did is not of itself an insult or attack. it's the opinions about the actions that qualify as attacks.

Within the context of site policy, I disagree.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 1:15:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:38:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I would add that if it became clear that the entire point of the debate was to argue over jifpop's actions, even leaving his name out of it would still constitute a personal attack.

That may be your opinion, but I do not believe it is a defensible one using site policy.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 2:43:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 11:13:56 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think it is a personal attack, although it was probably intended as a discussion of the justification and methods for the ban. Referring to the member by name makes it open to discussion of what the member did, and to opinions about how bad those things were. The debate should have been cast in the abstract, such as "Violating site rules justifies banning." It's a fairly fine line. Stating facts about what a member did is not of itself an insult or attack. it's the opinions about the actions that qualify as attacks.

I almost fully agree with this perspective, with the caveat that it is possible that some may choose to omit a person's name while attempting to slander/harass that person.

The debate/discussion would have to be more abstract and more general...as you said it's a fine line.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 2:52:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 1:12:43 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:34:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I disagree. It specifically allows for accusations, provided those accusations are supported. The example given in the policy is to complain about a "vote bomb"--not wildly dissimilar to the situation here, which is a debate about TOS violations. Further, it's relative to the question of airmax's decision--that it of necessity (due to its structure) ALSO brings up jifpop is ancillary.

So, if members began making threads like the following, all with supposed warrant, cause, and justification:

"Bladerunner060 should be banned from this website"
"Bladerunner060 is a Jew-hating Nazi"
"Bladerunner060 has cooties"


...you'd allow all of these threads just because someone attempted to argue that position? I'm sorry, but that does seem to fly in the face of the spirit of existing policy.

Not really--It would depend on how honest that warrant, cause, and justificaiton were.

I've I've gone on at length about how Hitler had the right idea, and how I hate the jews, saying so would be a perfectly reasonable accusation.

Perhaps someone thought that anyone who was a Muslim is a Jew-hating Nazi (I've seen some on this website making this argument in earnest, citing Nazi propaganda prevalent during WWII in Muslim countries, and how ostensibly this propaganda took root in the Middle East during the 1947 war in Israel).

Would that constitute warrant to call all Muslims Jew-hating Nazis? Let's say it did...would that constitute calling YOU, who happened to be a Muslim (hypothetical), a Jew-hating Nazi, and creating a thread titled "Bladerunner060 is a Jew--hating Nazi"?

At what point here would you say that this poster is engaging in inappropriate behavior?

My understanding is that moderators have been quick to delete threads with far less offensive titles than what I just posited.

Forum threads are different than debates.

Indeed...I would think that the standard for civility in debates is far higher than it is for forums, so if it's not allowable in the forums, it should be treated with even more swiftness in the debate section.

---

That, to me, is unreasonable. The debate in question is a debate about publicly available knowledge, and you want that knowledge redacted within the context of hte deabte <just because the person's actions will reflect poorly on them. I see no necessity for that.

The debate is NOT about publicly available knowledge...it involved several PMs to jifpop's friends list and some between airmax and other users. In fact, Mikal's main source is a PM from Jifpop.

---

I would add that if it became clear that the entire point of the debate was to argue over jifpop's actions, even leaving his name out of it would still constitute a personal attack.

That may be your opinion, but I do not believe it is a defensible one using site policy.

I suppose we're both free to our opinion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 3:15:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 1:12:43 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:34:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I disagree. It specifically allows for accusations, provided those accusations are supported. The example given in the policy is to complain about a "vote bomb"--not wildly dissimilar to the situation here, which is a debate about TOS violations. Further, it's relative to the question of airmax's decision--that it of necessity (due to its structure) ALSO brings up jifpop is ancillary.

So, if members began making threads like the following, all with supposed warrant, cause, and justification:

"Bladerunner060 should be banned from this website"
"Bladerunner060 is a Jew-hating Nazi"
"Bladerunner060 has cooties"


...you'd allow all of these threads just because someone attempted to argue that position? I'm sorry, but that does seem to fly in the face of the spirit of existing policy.

Not really--It would depend on how honest that warrant, cause, and justificaiton were.

I've I've gone on at length about how Hitler had the right idea, and how I hate the jews, saying so would be a perfectly reasonable accusation.

I'm going to give you a plausible scenario.

I have what I consider to be rock-solid evidence that the user Mirza is a woman-hating misogynist. I've actually stated such and provided the evidence whenever he makes what I consider to be misogynistic statements, which includes his persistent usage of "Ma'am" when addressing anyone he dislikes.

Now, even though I have this evidence, and even though I am more than willing to call him out on it whenever he spreads his good cheer in a thread I'm reading, I see absolutely no reason to make a thread or a debate titled "Mirza is a woman-hating misogynist", because I don't see what benefit anyone would get from a discussion from a thread with such a title. I certainly don't see it as a constructive action in getting Mirza to change his behavior...it would only seem to be an action aimed at humiliating Mirza, which is why I don't do it.

Apply such logic to this debate, and regardless of Mikal's intentions, there is a distinct possibility that anyone could interpret a debate with the title "XXX member deserves to be banned from DDO" as an effort to kick someone while he's down, spit on their grave, or in some other way humiliate the user.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 3:18:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It looks like Bladerunner took up where I left off, so I don't really think I need to respond. I will if you want me to though wrich.
Nolite Timere
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 3:21:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 3:18:02 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
It looks like Bladerunner took up where I left off, so I don't really think I need to respond. I will if you want me to though wrich.

It's up to you. If you have nothing to add, you have nothing to add.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 4:09:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 2:52:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 1:12:43 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:34:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I disagree. It specifically allows for accusations, provided those accusations are supported. The example given in the policy is to complain about a "vote bomb"--not wildly dissimilar to the situation here, which is a debate about TOS violations. Further, it's relative to the question of airmax's decision--that it of necessity (due to its structure) ALSO brings up jifpop is ancillary.

So, if members began making threads like the following, all with supposed warrant, cause, and justification:

"Bladerunner060 should be banned from this website"
"Bladerunner060 is a Jew-hating Nazi"
"Bladerunner060 has cooties"


...you'd allow all of these threads just because someone attempted to argue that position? I'm sorry, but that does seem to fly in the face of the spirit of existing policy.

Not really--It would depend on how honest that warrant, cause, and justificaiton were.

I've I've gone on at length about how Hitler had the right idea, and how I hate the jews, saying so would be a perfectly reasonable accusation.

Just to be very clear (though I know you understood it, wrichcirw--this is more for other readers), that should have been If I've gone on at length. Obviously, it was a hypothetical, because I have not done so, nor would I.

Perhaps someone thought that anyone who was a Muslim is a Jew-hating Nazi (I've seen some on this website making this argument in earnest, citing Nazi propaganda prevalent during WWII in Muslim countries, and how ostensibly this propaganda took root in the Middle East during the 1947 war in Israel).

Would that constitute warrant to call all Muslims Jew-hating Nazis?

That is pretty clearly not a warrant to do so.

Let's say it did...would that constitute calling YOU, who happened to be a Muslim (hypothetical), a Jew-hating Nazi, and creating a thread titled "Bladerunner060 is a Jew--hating Nazi"?

I can't accept that arguendo. Since it wouldn't be a warrant to do so, then no.

At what point here would you say that this poster is engaging in inappropriate behavior?

Fundamentally, my opinion doesn't matter as I'm not the moderator interpreting the TOS or the policy under consideration. However, I would say that 1, debates are different than forum posts and 2, you have to have warrant for the person, which is wholly lacking here. The warrant for such a strong accusation would have to be quite strong for it to be taken seriously as a matter of discussion, instead of simple insult.

"remember that serious accusations require serious evidence"

My understanding is that moderators have been quick to delete threads with far less offensive titles than what I just posited.

Forum threads are different than debates.

Indeed...I would think that the standard for civility in debates is far higher than it is for forums, so if it's not allowable in the forums, it should be treated with even more swiftness in the debate section.

I will just say that your understanding of "civility" is vastly different than mine, so we will have a hard time reconciling our views here. However, I cetainly concede that the standards are different but, at the same time, the topics allowed should be broader, since this is an actual debate with consequences (as little as W/L records may generally matter). And, again, the topic wasn't "Jifpop sucks" or "jifpop should be banned", but rather "X action by the mods was justified".

That, to me, is unreasonable. The debate in question is a debate about publicly available knowledge, and you want that knowledge redacted within the context of hte deabte <just because the person's actions will reflect poorly on them. I see no necessity for that.

The debate is NOT about publicly available knowledge...it involved several PMs to jifpop's friends list and some between airmax and other users. In fact, Mikal's main source is a PM from Jifpop.

A PM which he has publicly admitted exists, and which he spammed to over 100 people. As far as I'm concerned, that's publicly available knowledge.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!