Free The Devil Part II

krattapopov

Davey has been banned for the second time in a month for the following reason: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=207822

Considering what L!am posted is davey's response not justified?

Is it fair that he was banned for a week when L!am received no punishment for such a statement??

If you give someone negative rep are you liable to be banned if that user complains??

This banning is even more mockingly ridiculous that the last one he recieved.

Gordon

I am of the understanding that Davey Devil is stating that he should be able to say such remarks via rep because he believes such remarks to be fitting, ie to be true. If L!am's remarks were made as the true beliefs of L!am (or Kold or Sangre or whoever) then I can't understand why Davey Devil had a problem with them.

Surely L!am could counter by saying "How is it insulting when it is the only accurate reflection of what I think?"

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

BuffyBot

Is it fair that he was banned for a week when L!am received no punishment for such a statement??

L!am was banned afaik - new account set up by a previously banned member

Raphael

FFS lads, he's only banned for a week. Putting insults in a rep comment is a standing straight out ban. I know, I've got it. He didn't need to call him a sick bastard, he chose to. He could just as easily said "You disgust me" Or "I hope you get banned for this"

He'll be back soon enough, no need to get your knickers in a twist over it

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Raphael

Why?

Assume for a moment he wasn't trolling. He does make a valid point. What arouses you is outside your control. Be it men, women, breasts, legs, feet, or in the case of paedophiles, children. The fact that they find children attractive isn't disgusting, rather the abusing of children. Where's the damage in getting off to a picture of a child?

But, more likely, he was trolling. In which case his post shouold have been nothing but ignored which, it seems from the thread, it was

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Raphael

I don't watch South Park personally. So that reference is wasted on me.

But what I'm referring to isn't the free speech aspect. What is so wrong about finding children attractive, that's what I'm saying. It's outside your jurisdiction, ROM if you will

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Raphael

So, you just object to discussion of a sexual nature, or am I misinterpretting(sp?)

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Gordon

I'm confused as to who you agree with smiaras.

Davey Devil was the guy that posted pictures of adolescents in minor states of undress on the Junior Cert forum is that correct?

As for your "confine to PI" reference - how is it more justifiable having a "distasteful" post confined solely to PI as opposed to Humanities or Afterhours or Junior Cert? I don't see where you stand on this smiaras. What is the problem here?

Incidentally the thread (was actually originally started by bubbles) was confined to PI and then I unconfined it to the relevant board - the Recycle Bin.

Raphael

I'm confused as to what the hell he's on about frankly

krattapopov

Gordon wrote:

I'm confused as to who you agree with smiaras.

Davey Devil was the guy that posted kiddy porn on the Junior Cert forum is that correct?

It should be made clear that he never posted any kiddie porn on the junior cert forum.

Raphael

Um..I seem to remember him posting semi-naked juvenile appearing men on said forum, and I have been frequenting it since it was made

krattapopov

so you consider semi naked male adolescents who appear to be drunk and are on a holiday in crete the same thing as kiddie porn?

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Raphael

Not entirely. But i damn well think it should be kept off a board for Junior Cert students

Victor

Bans handed out on Junior Cert before I became mod will be for admins to remove, not me.

Raphael wrote:

Um..I seem to remember him posting semi-naked juvenile appearing men on said forum, and I have been frequenting it since it was made

Dude thats just sounds wrong.

krattapopov

just so we are clear he didnt post kiddie porn then.... an accusation like that can tarnish a person's character so I think its important to note that it wasn't kiddie porn

Raphael

Now that you point it out...****

And Davey's previous ban isn't really the matter at hand here, that whole issue resolved itself long ago

Gordon

For what it's worth I think the ban was harsh too but in saying that there are strict rules about rep comments and the Admins that run the site have banned quite a few people already for making personal attacks via the rep system.

If such a post was made on PI the poster would be warned and a ban would take place if it happened again. (unless Beruthiel got there first - she would just ban on sight )

Victor

krattapopov wrote:

just so we are clear he didnt post kiddie porn then.... an accusation like that can tarnish a person's character so I think its important to note that it wasn't kiddie porn

Then (a) go look at the Child Pornography and Traffiking Act (b) consider what a jury would consider "indecent".

Raphael

Exactly my point. Abusive rep comments carry an instant temp ban. That's the way it's been since it stopped being anonymous. If it's the fact that L!ams post went unpunished that you object to, show me what rule he broke

krattapopov

So you don't find the comment that L!am posted offensive?

"As long as you don't rape a kid, I don't see the problem in ejaculating over an image of one."

Do you think its a legitamate argument in a debate regarding child pornography?

Personally I find it extremely offensive whether he was trolling or not. If you had a child would you be comfortable with a man pleasuring himself over a picture of them?

DapperGent

I think the point that's being made is that the nature of L!am's post is immaterial. It is against frequently stated rules to send abuse via the rep system, it's not okay under certain circumstances it's just not okay full stop.

It's not really up for argument whether Davey broke the rules because quite clearly he did and from that perspective his ban is merited. I was banned for much the same thing and have five days left to serve after Christmas.

I think the disagreement is about whether the rules should be changed to either:

a. Allow abuse in rep if the post repped is in the opinion of higher powers worthy of abuse.

b. Allow the same level of abuse that is tolerated on thread in rep comments.

c. Have proper case by case discretion rather than a blanket punishment.

To my mind option a is far too much hassle. I'd personally favour option b, but either b or c would make more sense to me than the current situation. But then again I don't have to police boards.

Personally I think the ban is bit harsh given that the poster repped is now banned and also is a complete tool but the ban is completely consistent with previous policy and so is in it's own way completley fair.

Also for the millionth time: Davey never posted child porn. It involved neither children nor pornography.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

spongebob

DapperGent wrote:

c. Have proper case by case discretion rather than a blanket punishment.

And leave this judgement call up to Eeksore ?

M

helpdogscat

ott ban,

funny thing is ppl get bans for abusive rep or pm comments, while at the same time admins openly abuse in threads, hmmm, and before anyone says anythin, yeah yeah, not a democracy etc etc, but it reflects very poorly upon you.