Free Speech

[KillerMuffin]

H.S., there's a difference between something subjective and something objective.

Spam is concrete and objective. Everyone knows what it is. Threats are concrete and objective. Minors are concrete and objective.

Harassment is subjective. What's harassment to you isn't harassment to me. Problem Child is one of those people that would have to be banned under "harassment" rules. I'm one of those people who would have to be banned under "harassment" rules. Harassment isn't defined by the perpetrator or people on the outside. Harassment is defined by the person who feels harassed.

If we ban Hanns for harassing Intrigued, why shouldn't we ban me for harassing KidRock? Why should be ban PC for harassing vixenshe? Why shouldn't we ban you for harassing yayati?

Where do you draw the line? How can even begin to define that line? You have to harass as bad as Hanns did. Okay. To--oh say TigerJen, I harassed as bad as Hanns did. Should I be banned?

You can't equitably enforce subjectivity and that's what those of us against harassment and hate policies are really concerned about.

 

[DarkAngel]

Can we ban the goverment tax department for harassing? That's what I want to know.

 

[KillerMuffin]

sorry muffin. i'm not buying it.

Of course not, being shut up by the censors hasn't happened to you. And your friends haven't been run off the board simply because they're moderators.

You just harassed PC, glam, you should be banned. Oh, no, what makes you different from Hanns? Because you didn't mean it and he does? How do you know? Sheer volume? Why is some harassment acceptable and others not? The hate factor involved? How do we know you don't hate PC? The lack of rule breaking? What about all your highly copyrighted avs? Why are you different than Hanns? Point this out in an objective and concrete manner. This is what I'm getting at, you can't pick and choose about what's acceptable harassment and what's not acceptable harassment. You can't do it and remain equitable and fair.

I'm not buying your arguments, glam, because your interest in security over liberty is the first step in turning this board into less of a place to say what you like and more into a place where you fear censorship. The desire help humanity is a hidden desire to control humanity. You can say oh paranoid bullshit, this is a porn site aren't you blowing this out of proportion all you like, but rationalizing is what people do best.

 

[glamorilla]

ah...but you see muffin. i'm not saying to ban one poster for harassing another. re~read my post .i'm saying we ban a poster who is breaking existing forum rules.

 

[Guest]

 

[KillerMuffin]

Point in fact: Over half of the posters have broken forum rules at one time or other. Such as yourself with your copyrighted avs. Do we ban you?

Do we ban Belilica for her 1,400 replies of nothing but pure copyright infringement on her anime thread?

What about the people who have lately been referring to one of the locals by her first name? They're friends and not malicious. Do we ban them?

What about bigrednz who got carried away and threatened Hanns? Do we ban him?

Draw your line in the sand, glam, and you'll find half the board has already crossed it.

 

[glamorilla]

it would take a better man than you sweetpea.

 

[Problem Child]

ah...but you see muffin. i'm not saying to ban one poster for harassing another. re~read my post .i'm saying we ban a poster who is breaking existing forum rules.

You ban them and then they get another user name and start over. What's the point? Look how many user names some people have: A_J, Jean Val Jean, SINthesyst, Blah, blah...

This isn't a pay site. Banning someone here is completely symbolic. It's like giving someone an aspirin for a brain tumor. It might make them feel better psychologically, but it doesn't really solve anything.

 

[Problem Child]

it would take a better man than you sweetpea.

You're the problem. You feed them because you don't have the discipline not to. It's as simple as that.

 

[Guest]

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Banning people is for pussies that have no self-discipline.

If this isn't in the Homeland Security Act, it should be.

 

[glamorilla]

Point in fact: Over half of the posters have broken forum rules at one time or other. Such as yourself with your copyrighted avs. Do we ban you?

Do we ban Belilica for her 1,400 replies of nothing but pure copyright infringement on her anime thread?

What about the people who have lately been referring to one of the locals by her first name? They're friends and not malicious. Do we ban them?

What about bigrednz who got carried away and threatened Hanns? Do we ban him?

Draw your line in the sand, glam, and you'll find half the board has already crossed it.

the lines i draw are the rules that were here in effect when i signed onto the board.

you're complicating matters. this isn't about me or my avs or what belilica posts.

this is about one poster who has consistantly broken existng forum rules.

the screenname should be banned.

 

[Problem Child]

If this isn't in the Homeland Security Act, it should be.

Actually, Admiral Poindexter might like that phraseology.

 

[Freya]

the lines i draw are the rules that were here in effect when i signed onto the board.

you're complicating matters. this isn't about me or my avs or what belilica posts.

this is about one poster who has consistantly broken existng forum rules.

the screenname should be banned.

Sure he should - along with everyone else who has broken existing forum rules.

 

[HeavyStick]

KM.

IMO, I believe we are saying the same thing from a different soapbox.


There is a difference in harrassment and threatening communications.

Individuals have the option to put people on ignore. Individuals have the responsibility to avoiding a conflict by not replying to a thread or a post.

My complaint (not towards you) are the weak minded individuals who are overpowered by words they don't have to acknowledge. In person we have to address someone who is in our face. On a forum, who is twisting our arm to retaliate?

I have harrassed people here, it's safe to say 95% of the members here have in one form or another. But I have never threatened anybody here.

 

[glamorilla]

You're the problem. You feed them because you don't have the discipline not to. It's as simple as that.

we'll see.

 

[KillerMuffin]

*irked* Bush is a fucking pussy. Homeland security my left butt cheek. We need that like we need a frigging hole in the head.

Y'know, Republicans are supposed to be for less government not more government.

I have half a mind to throw a fit over this. I hope there are enough moderate Repubs in congress to prevent this piece of stinky cheese from sliding through. Buncha hogwashed bullshit.

Homeland security, shya right. Let's play hold my ittle widdle hand because I'm afraid of terrorists my ass. I got your "homeland security" right here. It's called my boot up someone's butt!

 

[Gord]

the lines i draw are the rules that were here in effect when i signed onto the board.

you're complicating matters. this isn't about me or my avs or what belilica posts.

this is about one poster who has consistantly broken existng forum rules.

the screenname should be banned.

then you just get hannns_schmidt , then hans_schmidt and then hanns-schmit, etc etc

It cant be done if someone wants to be here he will be here

 

[HeavyStick]

You ban them and then they get another user name and start over. What's the point? Look how many user names some people have: A_J, Jean Val Jean, SINthesyst, Blah, blah...

This isn't a pay site. Banning someone here is completely symbolic. It's like giving someone an aspirin for a brain tumor. It might make them feel better psychologically, but it doesn't really solve anything.

What he said.

 

[Problem Child]

forum rules.

the screenname should be banned.

And voila! everything is fixed! lol...

Do you seriously think Hanns just miraculously showed up on our doorstep one day out of the blue? Do you think that if we ban Hanns he won't just get another screen name in about three minutes? Do you think that anyone that would go to all the trouble to create a web page specifically just to troll this site isn't a tiny bit dedicated to being here?

Wake up, please. I know you're one of the more intelligent people here.

 

[Guest]

 

[glamorilla]

And voila! everything is fixed! lol...

Do you seriously think Hanns just miraculously showed up on our doorstep one day out of the blue? Do you think that if we ban Hanns he won't just get another screen name in about three minutes? Do you think that anyone that would go to all the trouble to create a web page specifically just to troll this site isn't a tiny bit dedicated to being here?

Wake up, please. I know you're one of the more intelligent people here.

when i first signed onto the boards i spent a lot of my time off reading old posts. i'm pretty sure hanns has been here some time.

i also know the get banned~sign on onto a different screenname game.

it gets effective effective after awhile. you wouldve gotten rid of this piece of shit a year or so ago.

 

[KillerMuffin]

You didn't do very well preventing the WTC attacks

Stop spewing utter shit about politics, you have no fucking clue

Stick to your mundane spew about moderation on Lit and stop trying to act mentally sophisticated

Moron.

The only way to prevent terrorist attacks is to become one with Big Brother. Don't tell me that you believe that human life is more important than civil liberty.

[sarcasm]Stick to your uzis, bubba. You know them so well. [/sarcasm]

 

[sunstruck]

If this isn't in the Homeland Security Act, it should be.

A sub clause maybe? It's actually the same basic point. How much freedom are you willing to give up to end your fear?

 

[Guest]