Stag's ban

Hey y'all,

So, as you may know last year's "member of the year" was just banned. I want to give a bit of context here as to why, but also use this as an opportunity to discuss the rules a little further.

The points of rules on edeb8 are:
1. to ensure we comply with the law
2. to ensure we comply with web hosts' demands
3. to ensure we are age-appropriate
4. to ensure we have a happy, healthy community
(in approximate order of how much of a judgement call is needed, from least to most)

In general on edeb8, I've exercised a policy of giving people chances. For example, on two occasions, I had to censor content that Stag posted because it was too violent. While of course violence is appropriate to discuss in the context of a healthy debate, graphic depictions of beheaded bodies are a clear violation of the rules, in particular, the third purpose of the rules. But I offered a ton of leeway with that. There are numerous other rules Stag has broken over the years (and yip, I keep records), but in each case, warnings were issued, and Stag moved on.

Nor did I give in to pressure from numerous people across the net to ban Stag for his general antics. On edeb8 specifically, two other members had claimed Stag had targetted and attacked them. In each case, Stag apologized after discussing with me, and that's why I had let it slide. Nevertheless, in both cases, the apology appeared insincere enough to cause the victims to abandon the site. That's hardly consistent with the 4th point, but I don't want to ban people just over nothing.

It's when the same happens over a longer period of time, that it then becomes a problem. In this case, the victim was myself, and I let it slide for about 7 months. The reason I kept letting it slide, despite many repeated warnings to Stag, was twofold. First, I wanted to be absolutely sure I had enough evidence. I didn't want to simply do this as a gut emotional reaction and wanted to give Stag the same fair chance he had all those other times. Second, I wanted to make it absolutely abundantly clear that Stag knows what the boundaries are, and that Stag crossed them.

I turn therefore to the two specific issues that Stag encountered on edeb8. Before I do, let me briefly say that despite these things, Stag was one of the best members on edeb8. He posted a lot of cool and interesting stuff. That, however, is no excuse to act like a bully or troll on edeb8 at other times.

First, Stag was banned for bullying. Bullying has previously been defined by me as a pattern of personal attacks on edeb8 targeting particular individuals on edeb8.
Second, Stag was banned for trolling. Trolling has previously been defined by me as posting any content for the purpose of annoying another. It is the purpose of the communication, not the content, that defines trolling.

He is not the first member to be banned for either offence. In each case, I applied the same standard to Stag as I did to others. That's part of being impartial. For example, members of the church of Chickadee were banned for trolling. RM was banned on two counts as well, one of which was bullying (and not towards me).

I've made it clear to Stag, as others, that there's an easy pathway to come back if Stag wants to. That's to apologize for breaking site rules. Any ban on edeb8 can be immediately revoked by offering an apology to me, and to the affected parties.

Here's what Stag emailed me just a few minutes ago:

So the truth is that I do not want to apologize.

Your behavior is indicative of a man of serious inner weakness and fortitude (personal opinion; deal with it)

You go around whining like a baby to be treated with respect, but people in this world do not have respect for grown ass men who act like children.

Which you do happen to be a grown ass man, so start acting like one for god sakes!

To be clear: in isolation this would have been fine, but there's a long and demonstrable pattern of Stag targeting me specifically. If he has a view I don't deserve respect, that's fine, but everyone on edeb8 needs to respect the rules. In addition, telling me to act like a man is hardly a defence of Stag's actions.

Even further than that, the specific kind of communication Stag posted actually violated the Harmful Digital Communications Bill in New Zealand law. I want to highlight the 10 principles of digital communication in that law, which I would apply as one measure of the kind of communication that warrants a very serious personal attack:

Principle 1
A digital communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about anotheran individual.
Principle 2
A digital communication should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing.
Principle 3
A digital communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.
Principle 4
A digital communication should not be indecent or obscene.
Principle 5
A digital communication should not be used to harass an individual.
Principle 6
A digital communication should not make a false allegation.
Principle 7
A digital communication should not contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.
Principle 8
A digital communication should not incite or encourage anyone to send a message to an individual for the purpose of causing harm to the individual.
Principle 9
A digital communication should not incite or encourage anotheran individual to commit suicide.
Principle 10
A digital communication should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

I hope this serves as a useful reminder of the site rules for everyone.

admin: So he got banned in part because he violated NZ Law?

Stag, if you are reading this:

If you have a problem with Admin and you dislike him as a person or you dislike the way that he runs edeb8, then you should return to Debate.org. Imabench doesn't post very often these days. Neither does Mikal or several other people who you hate.
I won't go around saying "hey guiz its Jifpop under a new account" like I did last time, so you don't have to worry about that.

I think that you have some behavioral issues which cause you to get into trouble wherever you go on the internet eventually. The key to this not happening to you is self-restraint. Don't let your emotions get a hold of you (though I'm hardly the one to talk I must admit) and don't insult people, even if you feel like they deserve it or that they're idiots. That's the key to not getting banned and not having everyone turn against you.

Stag (continued)
By the end of my LogicalLunatic and the beginning of my Vox_Veritas account on DDO I had created a pretty bad reputation for myself. Through long periods of time of not doing retarded stuff and posting fairly worthwhile content I managed to regain much of my reputation. Even you can regain your DDO reputation with time if you try. That's all.

Dassault Papillon: My understanding is that for an actual prosecution you'd need to be able to demonstrate damages or a harm. Hurt feelings isn't usually enough for a successful prosecution. Nonetheless, the actual act is definitely borderline illegal, and I'm not taking chances with that kind of thing.

Dassault Papillon: Also, this post is super sensible.

admin: Which post? The OP?

Dassault Papillon: The second one you posted in this thread. Which that post was in reply to.

admin: I see.

So, if Stag PMs you and apologizes will he be unbanned?

Dassault Papillon: He can't PM me because he's banned, but he knows my email - an email will do. The point, though, is yes. Sincere sorry = welcome back.

admin: Permanent ban, or just temporary? I'm not really sure how things work around here.

Dassault Papillon: You're Vox? Cool!

ColeTrain: The rule here is that all bans last until the relevant transgressions are sincerely apologized for. So semi-permanent.

admin: Okay. Permanent in the regard that they don't have a specified time limit, but not permanent in that usership can be attained via sincere apology. Fair enough.

It's kind of disappointing that this happened, though. Stag was probably 40% of this Site's activity.

Ye poor stag:/

Hopefully Stag moves on to Debate.org to show off his talented (master) debating skills.