What bothered me about Carleas is that whatever standard I tried to use to point out that he cannot reasonably ban Lys and not some other member, or that absurdities would follow from some of his rules, or when I asked him to take a position and at least say what he leans more to, he only responded with grey areas.
It is page 9 and I still have no fucking idea whether, generally, it is allowed to post ideas of a banned user or not. He is a typical lawyer, I am more confused now than I was at the beginning of the argument. Apparently whatever I say, the response will be gray lines, if I point to a double-standard, grey line, a contradiction, grey line, absurd consequences of rules, grey line. And the grey line, area, or whatever, is always in favor of his side of the argument of course, never in favor of Lyssa not getting banned.
Maybe I would have been tempted to make one final analysis, but since he’s admitted that Lys isn’t getting unbanned, and I already got what else I wanted to get out of this conversation, I would be wasting my time.
Uccisore, I already wrote what can easily be considered replies for your question.
The distinction was made by Carleas between posting a banned user’s direct, personal replies to other members (usually insults), and posting their philosophy. Then he denied the distinction, claiming grey lines. This grey lines bullshit is in conflict with the clear rules he put forward before.
I point out to him that if there is no distinction, it means that the ideas of a banned user are banned too - which only logically follows. He uses word games to try and evade, but eventually admits that Satyr’s expressions of ideas is not allowed.
I ask him - If the member posting shares the same philosophy/ideals/positions as the banned member, doesn’t it mean that every post of theirs can be considered a reworded version of the banned member’s posts, so I ask him is it allowed to reword the posts of banned members, he again claims grey lines.
This effectively gives him grounds to ban anybody who has the same positions as the banned member, because they can be considered his proxies now even if they do not quote him, and also to not ban those who would otherwise deserve it.
Fuck, Mags already thought/thinks that I directly let Satyr use my account despite of how easily that can be disproven.
Essentially, he will do whatever the fuck he wants because of the personal judgments he’s made in his head(which I assume are based on ideological inclinations, which are in turn based on his emotions) and is not willing or capable to explain and justify to others.
Let’s say that a proper forum, or at least, my idea of a proper forum is a constitutional monarchy with the constitution clearly stated by the monarch - even the monarch has to act within the law, even if the law is imposed by him, but it is more or less clearly stated, only arguable to a degree. But for Carleas, it’s all grey lines.
ILP is like an absolute monarchy, with Carleas being the absolute monarchist who acts according to his will without necessarily being consistent, and justifies anything with grey areas and lines.
It is the condemned who should be the one appealing to grey lines, and the one condemning who should be making his case and providing arguments, but here it is the other way around which itself says something about this decision and the nature of this entire conversation.