Total Posts:228|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Banned for standing up to Bulproof

neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 3:52:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Gents,
Apparently dismissing the constant dickishness of being called a murderer as imbecilic is ban worthy offense.

Stalking, serial harassment, false accusations, etc. constant snide remarks are not.

Enjoy the new moderation team.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 3:56:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 3:52:57 PM, neutral wrote:
Gents,
Apparently dismissing the constant dickishness of being called a murderer as imbecilic is ban worthy offense.

Stalking, serial harassment, false accusations, etc. constant snide remarks are not.

Enjoy the new moderation team.

You've been banned?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 3:58:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 3:56:07 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/10/2015 3:52:57 PM, neutral wrote:
Gents,
Apparently dismissing the constant dickishness of being called a murderer as imbecilic is ban worthy offense.

Stalking, serial harassment, false accusations, etc. constant snide remarks are not.

Enjoy the new moderation team.

You've been banned?

Yep, because when you report being called a murderer one day, its nothing.

Next days its an insult, but saying, "heh, no one wants to deal with an imbecile calling people murderers," is an inappropriate direct attack.

Hush, I'm not reading the rest of your inane rant. Just zip it! Because there are many people here who are more than willing to report every mis-step you make, Neutral. You DO NOT contribute anything positive to this forum, nor have you in the entire time I've been here. You continually poke, prod, insult, instigate, whine, whimper, rage in violent outbursts, and blame everyone but yourself.

So yes, banned shortly.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 4:03:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 4:01:39 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/10/2015 3:58:46 PM, neutral wrote:
Just temporarily I hope.

If it stands I will not come back.

I spent months holding my tongue while bulproof ripped into me. I did fire back eventually when it became clear that moderation team was asleep.

Although I understand the desire to make problems go away, that one side has been allowed to stalk and insult, and never once produced a quality post, while drifting from target to target is failure of epic proportions.

If the moderation team can not get the plainly obvious right. So be it.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 4:07:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 4:03:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:01:39 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/10/2015 3:58:46 PM, neutral wrote:
Just temporarily I hope.

If it stands I will not come back.

I spent months holding my tongue while bulproof ripped into me. I did fire back eventually when it became clear that moderation team was asleep.

Yeah.

Although I understand the desire to make problems go away, that one side has been allowed to stalk and insult, and never once produced a quality post, while drifting from target to target is failure of epic proportions.

I haven't followed it all but yes, it did seem that there were insults on both sides, except that I don't think jodybirdy insulted you much and you got stuck into her a bit. Are you getting banned for that or for something else?

If the moderation team can not get the plainly obvious right. So be it.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 4:14:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ugh. Too late. That's the problem with these moderation decisions - they're so secret it's hard to judge if it's fair or not. I've only seen whiteflame in action that one time and I think he was extremely unfair and also tactless, so it's possible that he was wrong here too, but I don't know the details.

I hope you do come back. A lot of what you say is interesting.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 4:29:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 4:03:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:01:39 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/10/2015 3:58:46 PM, neutral wrote:
Just temporarily I hope.

If it stands I will not come back.

I spent months holding my tongue while bulproof ripped into me. I did fire back eventually when it became clear that moderation team was asleep.

Although I understand the desire to make problems go away, that one side has been allowed to stalk and insult, and never once produced a quality post, while drifting from target to target is failure of epic proportions.

If the moderation team can not get the plainly obvious right. So be it.

I feel for you my fellow member. I knew this would happen when they decided to start moderating this forum. This is the beginning of a dying website. Soon, it will become a haven for a few members to dominate and the rest of us will be at their mercy. It has happened to many forums on the internet and some of them have no action at all in them. The only people left in these dying forums are the one's who incorporated the rules and moderated the rest of the members out of their forum by banning them. Anyone who goes against their rules are banned.

Don't worry, God has planned to destroy this world and end life the way we know it today.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 4:37:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 4:29:45 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:03:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:01:39 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/10/2015 3:58:46 PM, neutral wrote:
Just temporarily I hope.

If it stands I will not come back.

I spent months holding my tongue while bulproof ripped into me. I did fire back eventually when it became clear that moderation team was asleep.

Although I understand the desire to make problems go away, that one side has been allowed to stalk and insult, and never once produced a quality post, while drifting from target to target is failure of epic proportions.

If the moderation team can not get the plainly obvious right. So be it.

I feel for you my fellow member. I knew this would happen when they decided to start moderating this forum. This is the beginning of a dying website. Soon, it will become a haven for a few members to dominate and the rest of us will be at their mercy. It has happened to many forums on the internet and some of them have no action at all in them. The only people left in these dying forums are the one's who incorporated the rules and moderated the rest of the members out of their forum by banning them. Anyone who goes against their rules are banned.

Don't worry, God has planned to destroy this world and end life the way we know it today.

I'm sure he feels better since you told him God will desroy this world and life the way we know it. That's a great encouragement for everybody........kidding, for crying out loud. God loves you and everybody else or we would all be destroyed now.
dee-em
Posts: 6,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 4:41:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 4:03:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:01:39 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/10/2015 3:58:46 PM, neutral wrote:
Just temporarily I hope.

If it stands I will not come back.

Good riddance.

I spent months holding my tongue while bulproof ripped into me. I did fire back eventually when it became clear that moderation team was asleep.

You and bulproof were on mutual warnings not to interact and you both complied. As usual, you lie.

Although I understand the desire to make problems go away, that one side has been allowed to stalk and insult, and never once produced a quality post, while drifting from target to target is failure of epic proportions.

Your posts, except for a couple I have seen in the last few days, have always been about attacking the person rather than their arguments. Even when posters such as Jodybirdy extended an olive branch, you spurned it and continued the abuse.

If the moderation team can not get the plainly obvious right. So be it.

Again, as usual, blame everyone but yourself. The forum is better off without you and your non-stop personal attacks.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 4:45:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 3:52:57 PM, neutral wrote:
Gents,
Apparently dismissing the constant dickishness of being called a murderer as imbecilic is ban worthy offense.

Stalking, serial harassment, false accusations, etc. constant snide remarks are not.

Enjoy the new moderation team.

Murder, Engaging in the killing of human beings, when such killing is prohibited by law.

The war in which you are involved, was deemed a violation of international law, even before it was declared. Learn to accept reality, even when you don't like that reality. Illegal killing IS murder. Assisting in such killing makes one an accomplice in murder. That's the simple truth no matter how much you were hoping that sitting in at a desk countries away, would be rewarded with instant and mindless respect, and misplaced concepts of honor.

You have earned neither. You receive neither. And you are complicit in "murder", by definition. Stop blaming people for pointing to realities you dislike.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 4:53:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not very ethical to comment about someone who was banned and not in a position to defend himself.
We can continue the mud slinging when he returns, if he returns.
I am new here and hold myself to a higher standard. A high tide raises all boats.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 4:55:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 4:41:43 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:03:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:01:39 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/10/2015 3:58:46 PM, neutral wrote:
Just temporarily I hope.

If it stands I will not come back.

Good riddance.
I agree. How many times must one be admonished, warned, placed on probation, and banned temporarily before they've demonstrated that they lack the capacity to comply with even the most liberal of moderation policies?

I spent months holding my tongue while bulproof ripped into me. I did fire back eventually when it became clear that moderation team was asleep.

You and bulproof were on mutual warnings not to interact and you both complied. As usual, you lie.
Perhaps this time. The time before, they were both warned not to interact. Bulproof complied, Neutral lasted almost a week, then fired off in his usual incorrigible spewing of pure hatred for anything not exactly like himself.


Although I understand the desire to make problems go away, that one side has been allowed to stalk and insult, and never once produced a quality post, while drifting from target to target is failure of epic proportions.

Your posts, except for a couple I have seen in the last few days, have always been about attacking the person rather than their arguments. Even when posters such as Jodybirdy extended an olive branch, you spurned it and continued the abuse.
Hatred is all he knows. And when that finally results in action, he responds with greater hatred.

If the moderation team can not get the plainly obvious right. So be it.

Again, as usual, blame everyone but yourself. The forum is better off without you and your non-stop personal attacks.
Neutral should be asked to provide a list of all of the individuals who have been subjected to an unfair ban, by a moderation team demonstrating a bias. I'm afraid even he would find he could only list himself.

If he has any other questions, perhaps he'd like to open a thread for a vote, just for the purpose of seeing that it's not prejudice from the moderators, but his own behavior toward almost everyone.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 5:03:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's worth getting some perspective on why this happened.

I had actually been in contact with Neutral almost continuously since his return to the site. That started with a series of posts made by him that demonstrably defied the ToS (see: http://www.debate.org...)

The result of all that behavior was a warning. Since that warning was issued, Neutral had been almost continuously issuing complaints to me by PM about other members. Assurances that I would monitor those members were treated with derision.

It is no secret that he and Bulproof, specifically, have had problems and often butted heads. Neutral was not patient in my dealings with him, despite efforts on my part to clarify what I was doing and what would cross the line. Most recently, Neutral was accused of being a murderer by Bulproof, something that is a ban-worthy offense. So was this:

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

Rather than waiting for my response, Neutral took it upon himself to attack back by calling Bulproof an imbecile. The fact that Bulproof started this exchange doesn't excuse his behavior, especially after multiple warnings and personal advisement.

That's all there is to it. Though Neutral may view the situation differently, his behavior could not be excused. He can come back in a month, as that is the duration of the ban.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 5:08:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 4:37:04 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:29:45 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:03:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:01:39 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/10/2015 3:58:46 PM, neutral wrote:
Just temporarily I hope.

If it stands I will not come back.

I spent months holding my tongue while bulproof ripped into me. I did fire back eventually when it became clear that moderation team was asleep.

Although I understand the desire to make problems go away, that one side has been allowed to stalk and insult, and never once produced a quality post, while drifting from target to target is failure of epic proportions.

If the moderation team can not get the plainly obvious right. So be it.

I feel for you my fellow member. I knew this would happen when they decided to start moderating this forum. This is the beginning of a dying website. Soon, it will become a haven for a few members to dominate and the rest of us will be at their mercy. It has happened to many forums on the internet and some of them have no action at all in them. The only people left in these dying forums are the one's who incorporated the rules and moderated the rest of the members out of their forum by banning them. Anyone who goes against their rules are banned.

Don't worry, God has planned to destroy this world and end life the way we know it today.

I'm sure he feels better since you told him God will desroy this world and life the way we know it. That's a great encouragement for everybody........kidding, for crying out loud. God loves you and everybody else or we would all be destroyed now.

It won't be long before everything we observe in this universe will come to an end. Then we'll awaken in new bodies. I can't see anything depressing about waking up in a world that we won't observe death anymore. It's much more depressing living in a world where we have people such as Christians lying to everyone about hell if we don't conform to their laws and listen to their false deities.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 5:16:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 5:08:05 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:37:04 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:29:45 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:03:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 1/10/2015 4:01:39 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/10/2015 3:58:46 PM, neutral wrote:
Just temporarily I hope.

If it stands I will not come back.

I spent months holding my tongue while bulproof ripped into me. I did fire back eventually when it became clear that moderation team was asleep.

Although I understand the desire to make problems go away, that one side has been allowed to stalk and insult, and never once produced a quality post, while drifting from target to target is failure of epic proportions.

If the moderation team can not get the plainly obvious right. So be it.

I feel for you my fellow member. I knew this would happen when they decided to start moderating this forum. This is the beginning of a dying website. Soon, it will become a haven for a few members to dominate and the rest of us will be at their mercy. It has happened to many forums on the internet and some of them have no action at all in them. The only people left in these dying forums are the one's who incorporated the rules and moderated the rest of the members out of their forum by banning them. Anyone who goes against their rules are banned.

Don't worry, God has planned to destroy this world and end life the way we know it today.

I'm sure he feels better since you told him God will desroy this world and life the way we know it. That's a great encouragement for everybody........kidding, for crying out loud. God loves you and everybody else or we would all be destroyed now.

It won't be long before everything we observe in this universe will come to an end. Then we'll awaken in new bodies. I can't see anything depressing about waking up in a world that we won't observe death anymore. It's much more depressing living in a world where we have people such as Christians lying to everyone about hell if we don't conform to their laws and listen to their false deities.

What do you think motivates such Christians that they want to live forever spreading their tales? Jesus only preached for 3 years and the people got tired of his kingdom come promise. They tried, convicted and put him to death.
bulproof
Posts: 25,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 5:25:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
banned for the truth.
well at least it wasn't newt's lies that I was banned for.
I can live with it, apparently the honourable serviceman needs to cry about it.
hahahahahahaha
dee-em
Posts: 6,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 5:29:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 4:53:11 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Not very ethical to comment about someone who was banned and not in a position to defend himself.
We can continue the mud slinging when he returns, if he returns.
I am new here and hold myself to a higher standard. A high tide raises all boats.

I have a policy of never directly interacting with neutral because he is such a hateful troll. My response was simply about setting the record straight rather than letting him paint himself as a martyr. I make no apologies. When he returns, I will continue to ignore him.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 5:30:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 5:25:05 PM, bulproof wrote:

banned for the truth.
well at least it wasn't newt's lies that I was banned for.
I can live with it, apparently the honourable serviceman needs to cry about it.
hahahahahahaha

sh1t man i thought u just finished here... good to see you D::D
Never fart near dog
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 5:35:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 5:03:53 PM, whiteflame wrote:
It's worth getting some perspective on why this happened.

I had actually been in contact with Neutral almost continuously since his return to the site. That started with a series of posts made by him that demonstrably defied the ToS (see: http://www.debate.org...)

The result of all that behavior was a warning. Since that warning was issued, Neutral had been almost continuously issuing complaints to me by PM about other members. Assurances that I would monitor those members were treated with derision.

It is no secret that he and Bulproof, specifically, have had problems and often butted heads. Neutral was not patient in my dealings with him, despite efforts on my part to clarify what I was doing and what would cross the line. Most recently, Neutral was accused of being a murderer by Bulproof, something that is a ban-worthy offense. So was this:

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

Rather than waiting for my response, Neutral took it upon himself to attack back by calling Bulproof an imbecile. The fact that Bulproof started this exchange doesn't excuse his behavior, especially after multiple warnings and personal advisement.

That's all there is to it. Though Neutral may view the situation differently, his behavior could not be excused. He can come back in a month, as that is the duration of the ban.

If you're feeling that you need to defend the decision to ban, you needn't do so. In my opinion, you are to be applauded. It was a proper decision and the tolerance shown in attempting to avoid it, exceeded what would be expected of any and every moderated forum I've ever utilized. This has been a long time coming. I would suspect (thought I can't speak for everyone), that the primary concern of the user-base would be that he is AGAIN, allowed to return in a month. I've been a member of this forum for 7-months, and in that time, I have not known a time when Neutral was other than abrasive, insulting, completely dishonest, devoid of productive content, and presented only a very rare post here and there, which contained anything of actual debate value. The moderators here should be awarded and commended for their patience and tolerance in dealing with him. The one-month term of the ban is simply a repetition of what has failed to elicit any corrective behaviors in the past.

My feeling is that the rest of us will have 1-month to engage in actual debate (perhaps even productive debate), before we're again forced into corners, where we must be extremely cautious not to post in threads where Neutral is active. I delete multiple notifications from him each and every day without subjecting myself to what he writes, simply because I have learned that no contact with him is ever going to be other than a hate-flame, a series of lies, and will likely result in him generating multiple and fallacious reports against me. Even though the moderators have seen through his facade of disingenuous reports, it degrades the quality of the forum for everyone.

In regard to the action against bulproof; I make no secret of the fact that I enjoy bulproof's profundity, and can also see times when he is abrasive and devoid of valid content. But in the action cited, it would appear (in my opinion), that he is being punished for conveying a reality. Neutral himself has made a point of telling everyone that he is enlisted in a killing force, which is engaged in a campaign that was deemed illegal on an international scale. By definition, that makes him a "murderer". I do not understand why it is that Neutral is allowed to openly admit this, and yet others are banned for categorizing it in accordance with the proper legal term.

As I haven't read the exchange (and really don't care to), perhaps there was far more to it. But killing humans in violation of law is "murder" by definition. It seems to me that we're being told that we must close our eyes to demonstrable and accurate realities, if any member might take offense to an honest and accurate representation. It would be my guess that this is not consistent with the spirit of the ToS. That said, the action against Neutral was more than appropriate, and likely far less than he has earned. I will go on record as stating that he will never offer anything of value to the forum. He seems incapable of cutting through his seething hatred sufficiently to engage others with anything other than fully exposed loathing.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 6:32:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 5:35:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/10/2015 5:03:53 PM, whiteflame wrote:
It's worth getting some perspective on why this happened.

I had actually been in contact with Neutral almost continuously since his return to the site. That started with a series of posts made by him that demonstrably defied the ToS (see: http://www.debate.org...)

The result of all that behavior was a warning. Since that warning was issued, Neutral had been almost continuously issuing complaints to me by PM about other members. Assurances that I would monitor those members were treated with derision.

It is no secret that he and Bulproof, specifically, have had problems and often butted heads. Neutral was not patient in my dealings with him, despite efforts on my part to clarify what I was doing and what would cross the line. Most recently, Neutral was accused of being a murderer by Bulproof, something that is a ban-worthy offense. So was this:

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

Rather than waiting for my response, Neutral took it upon himself to attack back by calling Bulproof an imbecile. The fact that Bulproof started this exchange doesn't excuse his behavior, especially after multiple warnings and personal advisement.

That's all there is to it. Though Neutral may view the situation differently, his behavior could not be excused. He can come back in a month, as that is the duration of the ban.

If you're feeling that you need to defend the decision to ban, you needn't do so. In my opinion, you are to be applauded. It was a proper decision and the tolerance shown in attempting to avoid it, exceeded what would be expected of any and every moderated forum I've ever utilized. This has been a long time coming. I would suspect (thought I can't speak for everyone), that the primary concern of the user-base would be that he is AGAIN, allowed to return in a month. I've been a member of this forum for 7-months, and in that time, I have not known a time when Neutral was other than abrasive, insulting, completely dishonest, devoid of productive content, and presented only a very rare post here and there, which contained anything of actual debate value. The moderators here should be awarded and commended for their patience and tolerance in dealing with him. The one-month term of the ban is simply a repetition of what has failed to elicit any corrective behaviors in the past.

My feeling is that the rest of us will have 1-month to engage in actual debate (perhaps even productive debate), before we're again forced into corners, where we must be extremely cautious not to post in threads where Neutral is active. I delete multiple notifications from him each and every day without subjecting myself to what he writes, simply because I have learned that no contact with him is ever going to be other than a hate-flame, a series of lies, and will likely result in him generating multiple and fallacious reports against me. Even though the moderators have seen through his facade of disingenuous reports, it degrades the quality of the forum for everyone.

In regard to the action against bulproof; I make no secret of the fact that I enjoy bulproof's profundity, and can also see times when he is abrasive and devoid of valid content. But in the action cited, it would appear (in my opinion), that he is being punished for conveying a reality. Neutral himself has made a point of telling everyone that he is enlisted in a killing force, which is engaged in a campaign that was deemed illegal on an international scale. By definition, that makes him a "murderer". I do not understand why it is that Neutral is allowed to openly admit this, and yet others are banned for categorizing it in accordance with the proper legal term.

As I haven't read the exchange (and really don't care to), perhaps there was far more to it. But killing humans in violation of law is "murder" by definition. It seems to me that we're being told that we must close our eyes to demonstrable and accurate realities, if any member might take offense to an honest and accurate representation. It would be my guess that this is not consistent with the spirit of the ToS. That said, the action against Neutral was more than appropriate, and likely far less than he has earned. I will go on record as stating that he will never offer anything of value to the forum. He seems incapable of cutting through his seething hatred sufficiently to engage others with anything other than fully exposed loathing.

I like Bulproof, and Neutral and I have had 'difficulties' in the past, but they both deserved consequences they got.

Also, I don't know all the circumstances behind calling Newt a murderer. Being involved in a 'illegal' campaign does not make one a murderer. Do you know if Newt actually killed anyone in this conflict? Do you know the circumstances of those (assumed) deaths? Perhaps you know these specifics and calling him a murderer is appropriate, but just participating in an 'illegal' conflict does not make every participant a murderer.

Also, no matter how you feel about Newt or Bulproof, it is in poor taste to disparage either of them when they cannot defend themselves.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 6:39:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 6:32:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/10/2015 5:35:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/10/2015 5:03:53 PM, whiteflame wrote:
It's worth getting some perspective on why this happened.

I had actually been in contact with Neutral almost continuously since his return to the site. That started with a series of posts made by him that demonstrably defied the ToS (see: http://www.debate.org...)

The result of all that behavior was a warning. Since that warning was issued, Neutral had been almost continuously issuing complaints to me by PM about other members. Assurances that I would monitor those members were treated with derision.

It is no secret that he and Bulproof, specifically, have had problems and often butted heads. Neutral was not patient in my dealings with him, despite efforts on my part to clarify what I was doing and what would cross the line. Most recently, Neutral was accused of being a murderer by Bulproof, something that is a ban-worthy offense. So was this:

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

Rather than waiting for my response, Neutral took it upon himself to attack back by calling Bulproof an imbecile. The fact that Bulproof started this exchange doesn't excuse his behavior, especially after multiple warnings and personal advisement.

That's all there is to it. Though Neutral may view the situation differently, his behavior could not be excused. He can come back in a month, as that is the duration of the ban.

If you're feeling that you need to defend the decision to ban, you needn't do so. In my opinion, you are to be applauded. It was a proper decision and the tolerance shown in attempting to avoid it, exceeded what would be expected of any and every moderated forum I've ever utilized. This has been a long time coming. I would suspect (thought I can't speak for everyone), that the primary concern of the user-base would be that he is AGAIN, allowed to return in a month. I've been a member of this forum for 7-months, and in that time, I have not known a time when Neutral was other than abrasive, insulting, completely dishonest, devoid of productive content, and presented only a very rare post here and there, which contained anything of actual debate value. The moderators here should be awarded and commended for their patience and tolerance in dealing with him. The one-month term of the ban is simply a repetition of what has failed to elicit any corrective behaviors in the past.

My feeling is that the rest of us will have 1-month to engage in actual debate (perhaps even productive debate), before we're again forced into corners, where we must be extremely cautious not to post in threads where Neutral is active. I delete multiple notifications from him each and every day without subjecting myself to what he writes, simply because I have learned that no contact with him is ever going to be other than a hate-flame, a series of lies, and will likely result in him generating multiple and fallacious reports against me. Even though the moderators have seen through his facade of disingenuous reports, it degrades the quality of the forum for everyone.

In regard to the action against bulproof; I make no secret of the fact that I enjoy bulproof's profundity, and can also see times when he is abrasive and devoid of valid content. But in the action cited, it would appear (in my opinion), that he is being punished for conveying a reality. Neutral himself has made a point of telling everyone that he is enlisted in a killing force, which is engaged in a campaign that was deemed illegal on an international scale. By definition, that makes him a "murderer". I do not understand why it is that Neutral is allowed to openly admit this, and yet others are banned for categorizing it in accordance with the proper legal term.

As I haven't read the exchange (and really don't care to), perhaps there was far more to it. But killing humans in violation of law is "murder" by definition. It seems to me that we're being told that we must close our eyes to demonstrable and accurate realities, if any member might take offense to an honest and accurate representation. It would be my guess that this is not consistent with the spirit of the ToS. That said, the action against Neutral was more than appropriate, and likely far less than he has earned. I will go on record as stating that he will never offer anything of value to the forum. He seems incapable of cutting through his seething hatred sufficiently to engage others with anything other than fully exposed loathing.

I like Bulproof, and Neutral and I have had 'difficulties' in the past, but they both deserved consequences they got.

Also, I don't know all the circumstances behind calling Newt a murderer. Being involved in a 'illegal' campaign does not make one a murderer. Do you know if Newt actually killed anyone in this conflict? Do you know the circumstances of those (assumed) deaths? Perhaps you know these specifics and calling him a murderer is appropriate, but just participating in an 'illegal' conflict does not make every participant a murderer.

Also, no matter how you feel about Newt or Bulproof, it is in poor taste to disparage either of them when they cannot defend themselves.

When one engages in illegal killing of humans, the proper legal term is "murder".

When one assists others in illegally killing humans, they are complicit in murder. When one facilitates another in committing a crime, the level of the facilitation is considered to be one step below the crime itself. Murder, being a class-1 felony in the U.S., would thus render being an accomplice in that murder as a class-2 felony.

I find it interesting that you're willing to defend those who can't respond, against a simple textual evaluation, yet don't seem to grasp the magnitude of killing someone who cannot defend themselves, or even assisting another to engage in such killing.

Neutral started the thread. I'm responding to it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 6:47:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is my opinion that this thread is counterproductive. Neutral is gone, permanently according to the thread he started in the DDO forum. He created an account named Neutral2 after he was temp banned and it resulted in a permanent ban.

Maybe we should let this die. It's over. In a way I feel bad for Neutral even though he hated me so much. It's not fair to talk about him publicly.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 6:53:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 6:39:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/10/2015 6:32:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/10/2015 5:35:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/10/2015 5:03:53 PM, whiteflame wrote:
It's worth getting some perspective on why this happened.

I had actually been in contact with Neutral almost continuously since his return to the site. That started with a series of posts made by him that demonstrably defied the ToS (see: http://www.debate.org...)

The result of all that behavior was a warning. Since that warning was issued, Neutral had been almost continuously issuing complaints to me by PM about other members. Assurances that I would monitor those members were treated with derision.

It is no secret that he and Bulproof, specifically, have had problems and often butted heads. Neutral was not patient in my dealings with him, despite efforts on my part to clarify what I was doing and what would cross the line. Most recently, Neutral was accused of being a murderer by Bulproof, something that is a ban-worthy offense. So was this:

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

Rather than waiting for my response, Neutral took it upon himself to attack back by calling Bulproof an imbecile. The fact that Bulproof started this exchange doesn't excuse his behavior, especially after multiple warnings and personal advisement.

That's all there is to it. Though Neutral may view the situation differently, his behavior could not be excused. He can come back in a month, as that is the duration of the ban.

If you're feeling that you need to defend the decision to ban, you needn't do so. In my opinion, you are to be applauded. It was a proper decision and the tolerance shown in attempting to avoid it, exceeded what would be expected of any and every moderated forum I've ever utilized. This has been a long time coming. I would suspect (thought I can't speak for everyone), that the primary concern of the user-base would be that he is AGAIN, allowed to return in a month. I've been a member of this forum for 7-months, and in that time, I have not known a time when Neutral was other than abrasive, insulting, completely dishonest, devoid of productive content, and presented only a very rare post here and there, which contained anything of actual debate value. The moderators here should be awarded and commended for their patience and tolerance in dealing with him. The one-month term of the ban is simply a repetition of what has failed to elicit any corrective behaviors in the past.

My feeling is that the rest of us will have 1-month to engage in actual debate (perhaps even productive debate), before we're again forced into corners, where we must be extremely cautious not to post in threads where Neutral is active. I delete multiple notifications from him each and every day without subjecting myself to what he writes, simply because I have learned that no contact with him is ever going to be other than a hate-flame, a series of lies, and will likely result in him generating multiple and fallacious reports against me. Even though the moderators have seen through his facade of disingenuous reports, it degrades the quality of the forum for everyone.

In regard to the action against bulproof; I make no secret of the fact that I enjoy bulproof's profundity, and can also see times when he is abrasive and devoid of valid content. But in the action cited, it would appear (in my opinion), that he is being punished for conveying a reality. Neutral himself has made a point of telling everyone that he is enlisted in a killing force, which is engaged in a campaign that was deemed illegal on an international scale. By definition, that makes him a "murderer". I do not understand why it is that Neutral is allowed to openly admit this, and yet others are banned for categorizing it in accordance with the proper legal term.

As I haven't read the exchange (and really don't care to), perhaps there was far more to it. But killing humans in violation of law is "murder" by definition. It seems to me that we're being told that we must close our eyes to demonstrable and accurate realities, if any member might take offense to an honest and accurate representation. It would be my guess that this is not consistent with the spirit of the ToS. That said, the action against Neutral was more than appropriate, and likely far less than he has earned. I will go on record as stating that he will never offer anything of value to the forum. He seems incapable of cutting through his seething hatred sufficiently to engage others with anything other than fully exposed loathing.

I like Bulproof, and Neutral and I have had 'difficulties' in the past, but they both deserved consequences they got.

Also, I don't know all the circumstances behind calling Newt a murderer. Being involved in a 'illegal' campaign does not make one a murderer. Do you know if Newt actually killed anyone in this conflict? Do you know the circumstances of those (assumed) deaths? Perhaps you know these specifics and calling him a murderer is appropriate, but just participating in an 'illegal' conflict does not make every participant a murderer.

Also, no matter how you feel about Newt or Bulproof, it is in poor taste to disparage either of them when they cannot defend themselves.

When one engages in illegal killing of humans, the proper legal term is "murder".

When one assists others in illegally killing humans, they are complicit in murder. When one facilitates another in committing a crime, the level of the facilitation is considered to be one step below the crime itself. Murder, being a class-1 felony in the U.S., would thus render being an accomplice in that murder as a class-2 felony.

I find it interesting that you're willing to defend those who can't respond, against a simple textual evaluation, yet don't seem to grasp the magnitude of killing someone who cannot defend themselves, or even assisting another to engage in such killing.

Apparently, you know more about Newt's participation than you are willing to share. As I said, participating in the conflict does not make one a murderer. There is information I do not have, (and I believe I was pretty clear about that), but according to your logic anyone who contributed, including logistical support and warzone medics, are all murderers. Seriously. And, yes, I find your attack to be opportunistic. Knock it off. You can have at him when he comes back.

Neutral started the thread. I'm responding to it.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 7:13:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 6:53:24 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/10/2015 6:39:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/10/2015 6:32:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/10/2015 5:35:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/10/2015 5:03:53 PM, whiteflame wrote:

If you're feeling that you need to defend the decision to ban, you needn't do so. In my opinion, you are to be applauded. It was a proper decision and the tolerance shown in attempting to avoid it, exceeded what would be expected of any and every moderated forum I've ever utilized. This has been a long time coming. I would suspect (thought I can't speak for everyone), that the primary concern of the user-base would be that he is AGAIN, allowed to return in a month. I've been a member of this forum for 7-months, and in that time, I have not known a time when Neutral was other than abrasive, insulting, completely dishonest, devoid of productive content, and presented only a very rare post here and there, which contained anything of actual debate value. The moderators here should be awarded and commended for their patience and tolerance in dealing with him. The one-month term of the ban is simply a repetition of what has failed to elicit any corrective behaviors in the past.

My feeling is that the rest of us will have 1-month to engage in actual debate (perhaps even productive debate), before we're again forced into corners, where we must be extremely cautious not to post in threads where Neutral is active. I delete multiple notifications from him each and every day without subjecting myself to what he writes, simply because I have learned that no contact with him is ever going to be other than a hate-flame, a series of lies, and will likely result in him generating multiple and fallacious reports against me. Even though the moderators have seen through his facade of disingenuous reports, it degrades the quality of the forum for everyone.

In regard to the action against bulproof; I make no secret of the fact that I enjoy bulproof's profundity, and can also see times when he is abrasive and devoid of valid content. But in the action cited, it would appear (in my opinion), that he is being punished for conveying a reality. Neutral himself has made a point of telling everyone that he is enlisted in a killing force, which is engaged in a campaign that was deemed illegal on an international scale. By definition, that makes him a "murderer". I do not understand why it is that Neutral is allowed to openly admit this, and yet others are banned for categorizing it in accordance with the proper legal term.

As I haven't read the exchange (and really don't care to), perhaps there was far more to it. But killing humans in violation of law is "murder" by definition. It seems to me that we're being told that we must close our eyes to demonstrable and accurate realities, if any member might take offense to an honest and accurate representation. It would be my guess that this is not consistent with the spirit of the ToS. That said, the action against Neutral was more than appropriate, and likely far less than he has earned. I will go on record as stating that he will never offer anything of value to the forum. He seems incapable of cutting through his seething hatred sufficiently to engage others with anything other than fully exposed loathing.

I like Bulproof, and Neutral and I have had 'difficulties' in the past, but they both deserved consequences they got.

Also, I don't know all the circumstances behind calling Newt a murderer. Being involved in a 'illegal' campaign does not make one a murderer. Do you know if Newt actually killed anyone in this conflict? Do you know the circumstances of those (assumed) deaths? Perhaps you know these specifics and calling him a murderer is appropriate, but just participating in an 'illegal' conflict does not make every participant a murderer.

Also, no matter how you feel about Newt or Bulproof, it is in poor taste to disparage either of them when they cannot defend themselves.

When one engages in illegal killing of humans, the proper legal term is "murder".

When one assists others in illegally killing humans, they are complicit in murder. When one facilitates another in committing a crime, the level of the facilitation is considered to be one step below the crime itself. Murder, being a class-1 felony in the U.S., would thus render being an accomplice in that murder as a class-2 felony.

I find it interesting that you're willing to defend those who can't respond, against a simple textual evaluation, yet don't seem to grasp the magnitude of killing someone who cannot defend themselves, or even assisting another to engage in such killing.

Apparently, you know more about Newt's participation than you are willing to share. As I said, participating in the conflict does not make one a murderer. There is information I do not have, (and I believe I was pretty clear about that), but according to your logic anyone who contributed, including logistical support and warzone medics, are all murderers. Seriously. And, yes, I find your attack to be opportunistic. Knock it off. You can have at him when he comes back.

Neutral started the thread. I'm responding to it.

Okay, let's start here. Unless you have recently been enlisted as a moderator, don't tell me to "knock it off". You're seriously over-stepping and seemingly suffering delusions of grandeur. Neutral has held this entire forum hostage for most of the time I've been here, and employees blatant lies, insults, evasions and constant reports as his only means of "debate". So what is said in his absence is well earned. He started the thread, knowing he would not be here to respond. That in no way implies a gag for the rest of us.

And as you apparently understood little of what I wrote, when one facilitates a crime, they have indeed committed a crime themselves. "Facilitation" is the heading of specific statutes in most jurisdictions. If I obtain a key to the home of another, and provide you with that key with the knowledge is that your intent is to enter the residence and commit theft, you will have committed burglary. I have facilitated that burglary and am also guilty of a crime. You will likely be charged with a class-4 felony. I will then be charged with a class-5 felony for "facilitation of burglary". It's not the same crime, but it's a related crime. So if you want to get technical, the proper phrasing would be "facilitation of murder". If that rescues his character in your estimation, then I will make an effort to reference it as "facilitation of murder". But let us also be clear that this was a decision not made by him, specifically. Had the gun been placed in his hands, he had already agreed to be the murderer.

If one does not actually commit murder, but aids another in doing so, they have facilitated the crime of murder. And as premeditated murder (homicide), is a class-1 felony, the facilitation of that murder is a class-2 felony. I hope that's easy enough to understand.

And no, I will not "knock it off". I'm speaking openly and honestly. To the best of my knowledge, that does not violate the ToS. I am simply expressing realities in honest terms, as facilitated by Neutral himself, in starting the thread knowing he would not be here to respond.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 7:55:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I like Bulproof, and Neutral and I have had 'difficulties' in the past, but they both deserved consequences they got.

Also, I don't know all the circumstances behind calling Newt a murderer. Being involved in a 'illegal' campaign does not make one a murderer. Do you know if Newt actually killed anyone in this conflict? Do you know the circumstances of those (assumed) deaths? Perhaps you know these specifics and calling him a murderer is appropriate, but just participating in an 'illegal' conflict does not make every participant a murderer.

Also, no matter how you feel about Newt or Bulproof, it is in poor taste to disparage either of them when they cannot defend themselves.

When one engages in illegal killing of humans, the proper legal term is "murder".

When one assists others in illegally killing humans, they are complicit in murder. When one facilitates another in committing a crime, the level of the facilitation is considered to be one step below the crime itself. Murder, being a class-1 felony in the U.S., would thus render being an accomplice in that murder as a class-2 felony.

I find it interesting that you're willing to defend those who can't respond, against a simple textual evaluation, yet don't seem to grasp the magnitude of killing someone who cannot defend themselves, or even assisting another to engage in such killing.

Apparently, you know more about Newt's participation than you are willing to share. As I said, participating in the conflict does not make one a murderer. There is information I do not have, (and I believe I was pretty clear about that), but according to your logic anyone who contributed, including logistical support and warzone medics, are all murderers. Seriously. And, yes, I find your attack to be opportunistic. Knock it off. You can have at him when he comes back.

Neutral started the thread. I'm responding to it.

Okay, let's start here. Unless you have recently been enlisted as a moderator, don't tell me to "knock it off". You're seriously over-stepping and seemingly suffering delusions of grandeur. Neutral has held this entire forum hostage for most of the time I've been here, and employees blatant lies, insults, evasions and constant reports as his only means of "debate". So what is said in his absence is well earned. He started the thread, knowing he would not be here to respond. That in no way implies a gag for the rest of us.

Neutral has never held this forum hostage. That is an exaggeration. Written flames only get bigger when fanned.

And as you apparently understood little of what I wrote, when one facilitates a crime, they have indeed committed a crime themselves. "Facilitation" is the heading of specific statutes in most jurisdictions. If I obtain a key to the home of another, and provide you with that key with the knowledge is that your intent is to enter the residence and commit theft, you will have committed burglary. I have facilitated that burglary and am also guilty of a crime. You will likely be charged with a class-4 felony. I will then be charged with a class-5 felony for "facilitation of burglary". It's not the same crime, but it's a related crime. So if you want to get technical, the proper phrasing would be "facilitation of murder". If that rescues his character in your estimation, then I will make an effort to reference it as "facilitation of murder". But let us also be clear that this was a decision not made by him, specifically. Had the gun been placed in his hands, he had already agreed to be the murderer.

I was interested in your character more than Newt's.

If one does not actually commit murder, but aids another in doing so, they have facilitated the crime of murder. And as premeditated murder (homicide), is a class-1 felony, the facilitation of that murder is a class-2 felony. I hope that's easy enough to understand.

And no, I will not "knock it off". I'm speaking openly and honestly. To the best of my knowledge, that does not violate the ToS. I am simply expressing realities in honest terms, as facilitated by Neutral himself, in starting the thread knowing he would not be here to respond.

I encourage you to stop, but you are certainly welcome to do as you please. I do not pretend I have the authority to restrict you in any way, nor would I use it if I did. However, I find your tactic tasteless, and my opinion of you has diminished.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 8:17:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 7:55:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I like Bulproof, and Neutral and I have had 'difficulties' in the past, but they both deserved consequences they got.

Also, I don't know all the circumstances behind calling Newt a murderer. Being involved in a 'illegal' campaign does not make one a murderer. Do you know if Newt actually killed anyone in this conflict? Do you know the circumstances of those (assumed) deaths? Perhaps you know these specifics and calling him a murderer is appropriate, but just participating in an 'illegal' conflict does not make every participant a murderer.

Also, no matter how you feel about Newt or Bulproof, it is in poor taste to disparage either of them when they cannot defend themselves.

When one engages in illegal killing of humans, the proper legal term is "murder".

When one assists others in illegally killing humans, they are complicit in murder. When one facilitates another in committing a crime, the level of the facilitation is considered to be one step below the crime itself. Murder, being a class-1 felony in the U.S., would thus render being an accomplice in that murder as a class-2 felony.

I find it interesting that you're willing to defend those who can't respond, against a simple textual evaluation, yet don't seem to grasp the magnitude of killing someone who cannot defend themselves, or even assisting another to engage in such killing.

Apparently, you know more about Newt's participation than you are willing to share. As I said, participating in the conflict does not make one a murderer. There is information I do not have, (and I believe I was pretty clear about that), but according to your logic anyone who contributed, including logistical support and warzone medics, are all murderers. Seriously. And, yes, I find your attack to be opportunistic. Knock it off. You can have at him when he comes back.

Neutral started the thread. I'm responding to it.

Okay, let's start here. Unless you have recently been enlisted as a moderator, don't tell me to "knock it off". You're seriously over-stepping and seemingly suffering delusions of grandeur. Neutral has held this entire forum hostage for most of the time I've been here, and employees blatant lies, insults, evasions and constant reports as his only means of "debate". So what is said in his absence is well earned. He started the thread, knowing he would not be here to respond. That in no way implies a gag for the rest of us.

Neutral has never held this forum hostage. That is an exaggeration. Written flames only get bigger when fanned.
I can't blame you for presenting the situation only as it has (or hasn't) affected you directly. I would suggest it is no more appropriate for you to blame me for the manner in which he affected me as well as many others. I spend my days deleting notifications from him because there is simply no talking to him. He spews nothing but loathing, hatred and lies. So any exchange with him is fruitless before it starts.

And as you apparently understood little of what I wrote, when one facilitates a crime, they have indeed committed a crime themselves. "Facilitation" is the heading of specific statutes in most jurisdictions. If I obtain a key to the home of another, and provide you with that key with the knowledge is that your intent is to enter the residence and commit theft, you will have committed burglary. I have facilitated that burglary and am also guilty of a crime. You will likely be charged with a class-4 felony. I will then be charged with a class-5 felony for "facilitation of burglary". It's not the same crime, but it's a related crime. So if you want to get technical, the proper phrasing would be "facilitation of murder". If that rescues his character in your estimation, then I will make an effort to reference it as "facilitation of murder". But let us also be clear that this was a decision not made by him, specifically. Had the gun been placed in his hands, he had already agreed to be the murderer.

I was interested in your character more than Newt's.
Well, I don't sign up to kill people, or to help others to engage in unlawful killing. That's only one of the differences between he and I. See it, how you see it.

If one does not actually commit murder, but aids another in doing so, they have facilitated the crime of murder. And as premeditated murder (homicide), is a class-1 felony, the facilitation of that murder is a class-2 felony. I hope that's easy enough to understand.

And no, I will not "knock it off". I'm speaking openly and honestly. To the best of my knowledge, that does not violate the ToS. I am simply expressing realities in honest terms, as facilitated by Neutral himself, in starting the thread knowing he would not be here to respond.

I encourage you to stop, but you are certainly welcome to do as you please. I do not pretend I have the authority to restrict you in any way, nor would I use it if I did. However, I find your tactic tasteless, and my opinion of you has diminished.
The feeling is mutual. The site is here for debate. When someone lashes out with pure hatred whenever an attempt is made at rational discourse, they offer nothing of interest to the forum. His continual dishonesty makes it impossible to attempt to reason with him, to explain why his behaviors are unproductive, or to be at all, otherwise productive. So, after weeks of feeling bound and gagged by his incessant lying, on-going attacks, fallacious reports to moderators, and viciousness toward other members, I'm taking a moment to express my concerns.

Sorry
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 8:48:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 3:52:57 PM, neutral wrote:
Gents,
Apparently dismissing the constant dickishness of being called a murderer as imbecilic is ban worthy offense.

Stalking, serial harassment, false accusations, etc. constant snide remarks are not.

Enjoy the new moderation team.

Response: Wow. Just.......wow.

I see the direction of this forum now. Like others, it is moderated by an atheist for atheism. So theists will be getting absurd bans and censorship while the atheists run a muck.

Just....Wow.