This seems pretty straightforward to me. When somebody is banned for a week, and during that week they make another account and start posting to avoid the ban, I ban them for life. Point is, any sane institution has to have meta-rules about what happens when you dodge the punishments for the regular rules. A person who steals a comb, and goes to jail for a day, will eventually find himself in prison for life if he keeps on trying to break out of jail. Now, it can be argued that an attempt to escape from prison in which nobody was hurt does not, itself warrant much of a prison sentence. But if it goes unpunished, then in effect EVERYTHING goes unpunished. There's simply no point in banning people if we don't also disallow their proxies from posting on their behalf.
So, Satyr was banned. It doesn't matter why, the purpose of a ban is to say "Your stuff doesn't appear on ILP anymore" in the same way that the purpose of jail is to say "You have to sit in this little box for a while". So, when somebody ignores the consequences of that punishment by getting somebody else to post their stuff, action has to be taken. Now, obviously you don't immediately permaban the person because it's a corner case. You explain to them as I just did that helping somebody get around a ban must itself be a punishable offense, and insist that they stop, making it clear that if they don't stop, you will ultimately ban them too. This was done, and Lys persisted anyway. Lys had every opportunity to stop posting Satyr's shit, and had it made clear that if they didn't, they would be subject to the same punishment as Satyr - which is only natural in my mind since by posting his words they are committing his offenses.
Now, let's assume you don't agree with my justification and still think that a proxy should not be banned for posting a banned person's words. I am going to assume you ALSO don't think that permabanned people should just be allowed to have other people post their stuff on their behalf willy nilly. So what middle ground would you propose?
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.
The most interesting thing, is that if she had used a moniker of Satyr’s name, or used his full name, it is possible that she would not be banned.
But because she specifically posted that Satyr had made these statements, she is silenced.
All you’ve taught people about this is to lie about your source or to name a real name giving credit. And then you can quote to your hearts desire.
That, and you consider us all morons who can’t decide for ourselves what material is acceptable to our minds and what shouldn’t be seen.
Hooray for Nanny State politics.
Satyr was banned for what? Insults, general vitriol towards users? Was the material that Lyssa was posting riddled with the same type of material that got him banned? I think not.
Aussenseite
Unless I’m misunderstanding you, how do you figure THAT? since Satyr was banned. This IS what this thread is all about - deliberately posting and spamming all over the place with a banned person’s text even after having been called on it. And if you will take the time to see some of those posts, you might be able to see just how flagrant and in-your-face they were. Bias on the part of anyone in here doesn’t change reality.
No, that isn’t why she is silenced - she was silenced for breaking the rule which by now has been made quite clear but for some unknown reason - some are unable to swallow and accept.
lol So, from your standards it’s okay to break a rule that is far more than just a simple one and be flagrant about it as long as you keep it out in the open - as long as you’re being honest about who you are? That doesn’t discount the rule being broken. And how honest can a person be seen as being when they deliberately and repeatedly break a rule the same rule? Such virtue in that.
Do you want to know what I’ve learned about all of this - it’s this - that we sometimes are so capable of thinking that we’re such privileged characters, that we can do whatever we want in life to the point of flaunting ourselves and that in the face of others - but at the same time - NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS, especially if we have such friends telling us about how others are wrong and we are right. There are many spoiled brats around here and many enablers.
But inevitably, it comes down to just how one responds to that. Material aside, it is just that kind of thinking that lands men and women in prison. In your world, perhaps, there would be no rules and no laws.
…and here I am banging my head against the wall. lol
We only truly see what we want to and oh how we hang onto that which keeps us comfortable and not having to look at the truth.
Reiteration:
The idiotic moderators seem incapable of fathoming just how incompetent and ridiculous they are for PERMANENTLY banning a user for simply posting quotes.
Temporarily banning is one thing, but permanently banning someone over something so trivial is bewildering.
Why, in the flying fuck, am I not permanently banned for all the vile things I’ve said and done?
Hello? Are you idiot administrators and moderators awake?
What you morons did is tantamount to allowing a deranged lunatic killer to roam around society, while throwing a scholar inside of a fucking human-furnace for reciting Evola.
My middle-finger to Carleas, Humean, and anyone else who supports Lyssa’s perma-ban.
Sure you do. I guarantee that you would get madder at me if people were banned for some types of posts than for others. You know that a new user who posts direct responses written by Satyr for posting on ILP will be banned very quickly. You know that a user who says in the middle of an argument “Satyr made this point well when he said ‘[Satyr quote]’” won’t be banned, and if they were I’m sure you’d start a new thread, and quote everything I had to say in this thread at me.
I am a typical lawyer, in that I’ve studied the law enough to know that there is always ambiguity in the law, that modern, just systems are full of exceptions to the exception to the exception (this is no exaggeration). Those systems are hundreds of years old, and they still find ambiguity due to the diversity of cases that can come up under a given law.
As I said before, the law is a fractal. You can zoom in on any part of it, and you will continue to find a complex boundary.
ILP is going on a decade and a half old, and this is the first time this question has come up. What kind of insanity would it be to sit down and try to write up every bright-line rule to perfectly define every eventually that might come up fifteen years hence? You do have plenty of idea what kind of behavior is allowed. What you don’t have is the impossibly precise bright-line you seem to think any reasonable legal regime should have. But that’s a futile exercise, it’s defining a heap.
The question still is;
Did Lyssa quote any of the type of material that got Satyr banned in the first place?
If she was posting the same kind of sometimes vulgar, often condescending, vitriolic material that got Satyr banned, then I can understand it. If not, what is the harm?
As for you Arcturus Descending,
I grew up in a world that protected free speech, no matter who did the speaking, what the words were or whether or not the person who said it before them was imprisoned or not. It’s actually tantamount to the culture and liberty I served the military for. I’m not blind, nor am I stupid and I know you aren’t either. But banning someone’s words because the person who said them before them was likewise banned is still infringing on Lyssa’s freedom of speech. If freedom of speech is not allowed here within reason, then you need to state that somewhere. But this wasn’t even the same speech material that got Satyr banned, so I’m still confused.
But don’t you see how this applies with equal force to the banned user: “Sure, ban them if they come back and keep posting ban-worthy things, but if not, what’s the harm it letting them post?”
If it is legitimate to ban someone, it is legitimate to ban someone who helps a banned user circumvent the ban.
Carleas had no intention of unbanning Lys. And not only that, he had no intention of clarifying the reasons why either.
Like a lot of lawyers, justice isn’t a priority. He merely dragged things out long enough to the point where he feels he’s done enough. He’s done his good moderator deed. He doesn’t need to be clear because he evaluates wrongdoing based on taking each post in the context of all other posts (i.e. rules become flexible when looking at a bigger pattern of misconduct), but since there are no clear rules to even begin with, how he’s able to form a pattern is a mystery.
Obviously, he doesn’t care if he’s embarrassed himself or the forum. He has enough dimwitted cheerleaders to support his decision, and I guess that satisfies justice.
But he’s not directing her to post what she is posting, she is posting things she finds relevant to the discussion or a good topic of discussion. She is not trying to circumvent a ban, she is simply posting an opinion/essay she wants to have a discussion about. It’s not like Satyr is picking material for her to post and sending her over as a messenger. She has a great mind of her own, and just because she agrees and doesn’t want to have to paraphrase entire essays she agrees with, does not mean that she is working as Satyr’s mouthpiece any more than I am or anyone else that might happen to post also on KTS alongside Satyr.
In short, you are vilifying Lyssa for agreeing with material posted by someone she respects and reposting some of that material here. Not really for being a sock-puppet, a messenger or a mouthpiece.
I couldn’t really see a whole lot of difference between her and him. For a while I thought she was an actual sockpuppet. If 90 percent of what you have to say is agreeing with someone who’s banned, and only 10 percent of what you have to say is something else, I mean…
Arbiter- nothing you said is wrong, except maybe the ‘unwillingness to explain and justify to others’ which I think Carleas has attempted here beyond obligation.
Any system of rules is going to have grey areas. The authorities are going to have to use their judgment to interpret those grey areas however seems best to them. This can be phrased, perhaps cynically, as ‘doing whatever they fuck they want’.
That’s all true. Now what?
Well, first le me say Carleas lets me moderate my section my way and leaves me alone to do it. So if anything, it's a semi-feudal republic of city-states. Second, I can sympathize with what you're saying here, but I've seen it tried and I know where it leads. Constitutions only work among communities of like minded people with shared values, which ILP is not. In the case of ILP and just about any other forum, a Constitution simply describes the edges of what bad behavior has to be allowed. So for example, the current situation. It's highly unlikely that if this place had a Consitution, there would be anything in it about disallowing people from posting the writings of banned members. So, it would have to be allowed, which means it would be rampant- anytime somebody was banned, they would get a 'proxy' to post their words for them. And if the proxy just happened to give the banned person the password to their account to cut out the middle man, hell, it's not like you can prove it. And then what would Carleas do? Well, he can't* violate his Constitution, so either he's fucked, or he amends the Constitution. If he can amend the Constitution which only exists to bind his own behavior, then we're back to him doing whatever the fuck he wants. And there's a million instances like this: You tell people they can't say 'shit', and they will say '$hit'. If you ban them for saying '$hit', they will rant and rave that they didn't break any rules and you're a dictator making it up as you go along. Seen it a thousand times.
*It’s worth pointing out the absurdity of this ‘can’t’. Carleas literally owns this place and everything said on it and could make it cease to exist any time he felt like it, and we would have absolutely no recourse. So to say that if he wrote down some rules he ‘can’t’ break them is just stupid.
If 98% of what you have to say on a philosophy forum is not philosophy, 1% are copy-pasted quotes and 1% are your pathetic, miserable attempts at philosophy or mocking it, I mean…
You remember that I initially defended you against the opinions of KT members? I claimed that you know your way in real-life (at least, the American reality of human constructs), and hey, I still claim that - props for that, but that’s just the base, as I said. I admitted that and remained neutral regarding your philosophical prowess, only asking you to provide evidence of your claims and nothing more… the lack of evidence, while making huge claims, is what exposed you, mr. money-is-not-an-abstraction-because-I-can-hold-it-in-muh-hands…
I don’t remember that, because I don’t know to that shit hole or read any of the shit that’s posted there. The only reason I know what’s going on there is because so many people come here to copy and paste it.
Also, don’t try and flatter me. You already said that you don’t understand politics, and now you’re demonstrating that.
Now you’ve got to understand. It was a long long time ago when I realized that what most people around here consider philosophy is well…what you consider philosophy. So I gave up and started talking about whatever I wanted. What I don’t do is go around calling people names, and insulting people’s character when I disagree with them. At least not yours, yet. You know how iambiguous is stuck in that loop where no matter what you say to him he just keeps going full circle and doing what he does? As if nothing would be different no matter what you said to him? That’s what your’re doing about the whole insisting that I search the forums for you thing. You do realize that other people can read these exchanges between us and that you look silly keeping on the way you are without actually doing the search…right? You want to make a point, but you’re afraid you wont be able to, so you take a step back and argue who’s got the burden of proof instead of fishing out the proof yourself. It’s hilarious. You may have to look way back to see anything you might call philosophy, and when you find it, you probably wont feel any different about me, you’ll probably grasp at straws in an attempt to keep feeling like you’re right about something. That’s ok. I’m cool with that. Wait…I just posted a little political philosophy in this very post. Maybe read that part.
Uccisore,
It is true that Carleas did not have to entertain a single post of my and at least attempted some sort of explanations. And I retract my statement about him being unwilling - I think it is rather that he is incapable, with which I am not implying that he is stupid or anything similar, but that most of our judgment-making, especially about things with subtle degrees, is subconscious, and we can consciously explain it only to a certain extent, and the subtler the degrees are, the harder it is to put in words or express mathematically.
I disagree with him and his decision, since I had 1-2 years ago the similar political mindset he has. I think he just considers the views of KT members as undesirable/evil and/or wrong to the point of them not being worthy of free expression, and since they are the minority, it is easier to just ban the few dissidents, than ban the guilty parties from both sides and lose the quantity of members. That sacrificing of quality for quantity is something I personally detest.
But as you pointed out, at the end of the day, he can do whatever he wants.
You’ve got to recognize the distinction between these 2 kinds of statements.
“You’re wrong because of X, and X is demonstrable in this or that way.”
As opposed to,
“These cretin imbecile infantile feminine monkey fucking assholes are wrong about X, because based on loose statistics, gross generalizations, and cherry picked historical references I have concluded such and therefore you’ll all a bunch of weakling worthless fucks and you’re what’s wrong with the world, and I"m better than all of you and if you disagree then it’s because you’re stupid. Also, you’re a shit smear and a brown cow and whatever other 3rd grade name calling shit I can come up with.”
mr reasonable, not on KT. I did it back in Rant, remember the exchange with Magnus Anderson?
You honestly think I’m flattering YOU? Hah. I have no reason to do that. I was being as objective as I could be, nothing else. To be honest, most things you do, and say, disgust me, but that does not mean you don’t do some, few other things right. Although if most of your income comes from selling pot and not something that requires actual risks and advanced reasoning and decision making, then you’re worthless when it comes to that, too.
I don’t think you will search the forums for me anymore… you have nothing to search for, and you ARE the demonstration of what the KT people are talking about.
I’m leaving now… let me be the ‘last word bitch’ this time?
Or will you take all the glory for yourself, again…
You’re cracking me up.
Oh, well, it looks like Lys is getting lost in the shuffle.
And speaking of loops to get stuck in: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=179879
Pick one: 
:-" 
Aussenseite
I don’t understand why people keep insisting on offering those questions since they’ve already been answered and answered to a point that was very clear and perhaps to a point of exhaustion. The only thing I can think of is that we human beings have such “blind spots”. Our biases certainly complicate and add to those blind spots.
Let me ask you something, Aussenseite. I don’t know how good an example this is but I imagine that you frequent a number of places. You do have a life I’m figuring. Do you knowingly, deliberately and callously break the rules of these places, expecting that you can and will get away with that kind of behavior, simply because you ARE WHO YOU ARE and no one is going to tell YOU what to do ~~~ or do you more or less abide by the rules set up by these places?; for instance, banks, churches, libraries,clubs, restaurants, schools, et cetera. That’s not to say that you’re some kind of a wimp and afraid of your own shadow but intelligent human beings realize, even on a unconscious level, that Rules are set up for a reason. They actually can and do provide harmony, organization and a sense of beauty and balance. You’ve served in the military you said so you must have an idea of the intelligence behind the rule. Try going somewhere where there is a racial riot going on, complete chaos, bedlam, anarchy - what would the rules mean to do you then?
But she was forewarned and persisted; ergo, she was banned, according to the Rules of ILP which she knew about.
C’'mon - look around you. i can’t even believe that you would make a statement like this. Even outside of Rant, there is glowing, glowing, glowing lol evidence of how much freedom of speech is allowed here even though some of it is (reasonably) eventually censored - much of it is not - even to the point of my sometimes being disgusted by it.
Satyr got banned for his speech and Lys or Lyssa whoever was banned for being his mouthpiece, a mouthpiece which to my way of thinking was being blasted more or less all over the place. I believe that if she had simply occasionally quoted him with reference to something which she was posting from her own mind and thoughts, as one would another philosopher or scientist, etc., she wouldn’t have been breaking the rules. This was already explained in this thread.
[b]Limits on freedom of speechThe general public’s understanding of the protections of free speech afforded in the United States by the Constitution are generally broader than the protections actually are. Conservatives are known for defending their pundits by stating that “it’s a free country” - pundits can say what they want, without being “censored” for their beliefs.[8] Ditto, supposedly scientists being paid to produce science can defend their poor science on the grounds that “it’s a free country,” and they can say what they want to say.[9] Technically, yes. The right to free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. But, it is guaranteed vis a vis the government - not necessarily vis a vis private individuals. [/color While individuals have a high level of protection of their speech against government censorship, these high levels are triggered only by state action - that is, the government’s actual use of power. On the contrary, just as in discrimination law, lower levels of protection attend non-state based limitations on speech. While the Constitution prevents the government from punishing you for your speech (generally unless such speech has as its purpose “imminent lawless action”[10]), …[size=150]the Constitution also cannot protect you from a private organization censoring your speech by taking some private, non-state action against you[/size].[11] In fact, the First Amendment has been held to protect the freedom not to promote views other than one’s own.[12]
So while it’s a free country, and pundits may be pundits, and say what they will, they need not be surprised, and may not claim the First Amendment as a protection, when they are fired for making ridiculous statements. One must also note, too, that the assertion to the contrary by conservative networks only triggers when one of their own gets in trouble - when someone else starts to say something controversial, all of a sudden, they seem to back down.[13][14[/b]
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Of course, for those who feel that they are “entitled” and “priviledged” to break the Rules, the above will be meaningless and perhaps nothing but a laughing matter but for those who [are] intelligent and capable of recognizing practical wisdom and do indeed also have some “emotional” intelligence, they will be able to see and understand Exceptions and those little grey lines and read between the lines, though I don’t see where any reading between the lines is even necessary.
The following in itself may or may not have bearing on the above (I’ll leave that for you to decide) but the above does have a lot of bearing on Carleas’s decision ------------ but aside from that, I can’t understand for the world of me how some people do not realize that freedom of speech at least in my book needs to come with some semblance and consciousness of a sense of responsibility for the words which are being spoken or written. Freedom of speech does not mean total freedom - as has been explained by the above excerpt - at least I hope that it has been explained.