Is there a procedure?

[Mowk]

My rights are given to me by God.

You make no sense.

[Mowk]

You are a subject of the British Queen.

You are owned by a person.

Same reply as for your previous post.

[Pedro I Rengel]

My rights are given to me by God.

You make no sense.

To you.

You have to be a free man to get it.

[Mowk]

And you are owned by some god. So when was the last time you went to confession? Forgive me Father for I have sinned, and then you explain about the pooping part. You make your god proud. For certain. But you're so young. It would be hell to end up there at your age.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Nobody owns me. I am not looking for who is going to own me next, like you. My rights are given to me by God.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Mo.

[Mowk]

Nobody owns me. I am not looking for who is going to own me next, like you. My rights are given to me by God.

So when was the last time you went to confession? Forgive me Father, for I've had impure thoughts. I'd imagine you've had to say a LOT of hail mary's for such a youngster.

[Pedro I Rengel]

What are you like 40?

You keep trying to pretend you're a 60 year old but you say things like "LOL" and "bitchy bitch bitch."

Figures that a commie's idea of God is confession.

[Pedro I Rengel]

You are pathetic.

[Mowk]

You're not even in the right thread.

You are pathetic.

that belongs in non-philisophical chat.

Your god shit? You're looking for something in the religion and spirituality forum.

[Pedro I Rengel]

No I'm just saying you're pathetic.

[Mowk]

Pedro is expressing some signal to noise issues.

How uncool is that?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Omg did you just quote Bannon?

That guy is great. He has some cooky tendencies but on the whole a fucking genius.

[Mowk]

Omg did you just quote Bannon?

That guy is great. He has some cooky tendencies but on the whole a fucking genius.

More noise then signal, belongs in the sandbox.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Drop the noise for the signal.

that's classic Steve Bannon.

He gives talks exclusively at commie strongholds.

Man is a legend.

[Mowk]

ILovePhilosophy.com - Registration

By accessing “ILovePhilosophy.com” (hereinafter “we”, “us”, “our”, “ILovePhilosophy.com”, “http://ilovephilosophy.com”), you agree to be legally bound by the following terms. If you do not agree to be legally bound by all of the following terms then please do not access and/or use “ILovePhilosophy.com”. We may change these at any time and we’ll do our utmost in informing you, though it would be prudent to review this regularly yourself as your continued usage of “ILovePhilosophy.com” after changes mean you agree to be legally bound by these terms as they are updated and/or amended.

Our forums are powered by phpBB (hereinafter “they”, “them”, “their”, “phpBB software”, “www.phpbb.com”, “phpBB Group”, “phpBB Teams”) which is a bulletin board solution released under the “General Public License” (hereinafter “GPL”) and can be downloaded from http://www.phpbb.com. The phpBB software only facilitates internet based discussions, the phpBB Group are not responsible for what we allow and/or disallow as permissible content and/or conduct. For further information about phpBB, please see: https://www.phpbb.com/.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “ILovePhilosophy.com” is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us. The IP address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that “ILovePhilosophy.com” have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should we see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered to being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent, neither “ILovePhilosophy.com” nor phpBB shall be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.

Drawing attention to a few key words. abusive, slanderous, hateful. And or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “ILovePhilosophy.com” is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned.

[Mowk]

Warnings? Posh.

Carleas, slander:

Definition of slander (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person

Should not the two meet within some reason?

This Pedro member is uncool... but MagsJ, just flat out crossed the line.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Commies can't stand up for themselves, have to cry to mods.

OK Von Rivers.

I'll leave you alone.

Poor little baby.

[Carleas]

Pedro, knock it off. No one complained, I warned you sua sponte and you deserved it.

If there is access you require, that I have, ask and I will provide it.

Unfortunately, the information I have in mind is not so easily transmitted. The information you and Mags have access to that I don't is your experience of what happened (or didn't happen, as the case may be).

To step back, let me recap the facts as I find them:
- Mags claims you sent "abusive" PMs.
- You object, she does not retract or support the claim.
- You seek a remedy from me.

If I take your claims to be true, then I agree with you that what Mags did was deeply uncool.
If I take her claims to be true, then what Mags is doing is basically fine.

So one issue is just evidentiary: I don't know what actually happened. Assuming that what you're saying is true, I get why you feel that anything less than a punishment is a miscarriage of justice. But I don't assume that it's true; I don't particularly distrust you, but to take your claim as true is to take Mags' as false, and I don't particularly distrust Mags either. The evidentiary issues isn't just that Mags hasn't defended herself, but that she very well may have nothing to offer beyond what she's already said, and that for completely ordinary and non-culpable reasons. If Mags just said, "It's true, I didn't save it because I hated it, and I don't remember exactly when it was, but it happened"... we're no closer to an answer.

The other issue is conduct in the context of this dispute, i.e. should Mags be forced to support her claim, or, failing that, punished for not supporting it? I don't love that idea. As much as I would prefer for Mags to make a specific claim and provide evidence if she has it, I don't know if punishing her for not doing it is just. Because, again, I am not assuming as fact anyone's claims. If what Mags says is true, and she's decided that she doesn't want to say more about it, it would be very unjust to punish her for that. In that hypothetical world, she would be a victim who is deciding not to pursue a claim against her victimizer.

So where forcing a reply, under threat of punishment, may be unjust, and the best we're likely to get from doing something is to be left in the same place as we are now, it is unjust to issue the threat, let alone to punish Mags.

I don't think you realize how inadequate a statement that was.

Probably not. But it supports what I conclude above: If the harm is small, then it weighs less heavily in favor of a punishment or threat of punishment, and the risk-weighted sum of harms favors inaction.

I know false accusations are galling in a special way, that we're wired to care a lot about our reputations, and depending on cultural background it may feel very important to set the record straight. And so I'm appealing to detached reflection: step out of yourself and consider the harm that is really being done. You've been accused of sending a then-moderator an abusive PM. I can say from my years moderating and administrating that that is no so great a moral failure. You've been accused in vague terms, in the context of a dispute, with someone with whom you've had public disputes in the past. I think that limits how credibly the accusation will be taken, and also provides some idea of what "abusive" might mean. You've been accused in a thread with few participants, so, while public, it was probably not widely read; most likely, this thread will spread the rumor to more people than would read it in its original context.

I'm not particularly sensitive to reputation, so I don't doubt that this is less useful to point out than I imagine, but my take away from this line of thinking is that how big the harm feels and how big the harm is are out of alignment. That true even taking the facts exactly as you allege them.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Because you said sua sponte, I will concede.

[Mowk]

Thanks for taking your time. Your inaction invites exactly what you've got here. You tell a member to cease a behavior and it generally is done, but members, that need be told, will not self moderate, likely they are incapable of it.

That places the more civil members here at a disadvantage, and your inaction seems an encouragement of the less civil to push what they can get away with.

most likely, this thread will spread the rumor to more people than would read it in its original context.

Or if you would have taken some action, it would have had the opposite effect.

No there isn't a procedure.

[Mowk]

However, we are a community first, and as a community we must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness. A community based on the exchange of ideas cannot persist when individuals are attacked as individuals for the ideas they express. Anything that inhibits the community will prevent us from our purposes.

ILP is its members, and the ideas they bring with them. This site is a community. When that community falters, ILP falters in its purpose. The actions of its members define its tone, its quality, and its utility as a haven for the ideas it holds dear. Let your actions here reflect that ethos.

Apparently the meaning of these words is not the same for all of us.

No evidence... none. It's not like there is evidence and it is questionable, there just isn't any evidence.

Innocent until proven otherwise. Other then that it is slander plain and simple.

[Mowk]

I ain’t American dude!

You’re a nasty little man.. you wouldn’t survive here.

I remember the DMs you used to send me.. they were evil.

I barely interacted with you, and yet you spewed venom at me, for no reason at all.

What a vile creature you are. Stay in your lane.

And here is her example of barely interacting. https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=195255

I was sent abusive DMs (known as PMs, in other circles) from him, some years back now, telling me about my conduct on the boards. One wonders if he was getting off on doing so..

He recently tried to draw me into another (weird) drama, but I didn’t bite, and he quickly ceased that line of inquiry.

I’ll cut him some slack.. for now. ; )

No evidence of this claim either.

Liar MagsJ knows it. She knows she's a liar, unlike Trump who doesn't know any better. MagsJ knows she lies. Now the question is how much of what she has said here is a lie as well?

I mean, how to you know when a chronic liar is telling the truth? Pretty much puts any claim she has gotten over anything, in question.

[Mowk]

Her tenor and tone sound nothing like someone who's gotten over anything. A year later and she's still lying about it.

If you're curious, go back and read the comments I posted leading up to her slander. I said nothing even remotely antagonistic to set her off.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Carleas, is it wrong for me to say that this guy sure bitches a lot?