Quote from: RPGPundit;552476Like I said, to me this is not an issue about rape, or feminism, or threats of violence; BT's banning is about Site Disruption. He's been engaging in a slow and steady teasing-game of escalation for months now, trying to see how much he can get away with, with increasingly outrageous statements.

I think you are reading more into it than is there.

Quote from: RPGPundit;552476Morrow, don't make the mistake of thinking "he got banned for conservative views" or something like that, he didn't.

It has nothing to do with that.  It has to do with two things:

1) This site has staked itself out as a bastion of free speech.  In theRPGSite New Constitution, entry 2 reads, "Speak your mind here, without fear! Our administrators and moderators aren't in the business of censoring what other people have to say. Censorship will not occur on this site. If you personally don't like a thread, then don't read it. If someone is being intentionally disruptive without contributing anything, they may be given sanctions ("sanctions" being a swift beating with the Spiked Baseball Bat of Great Justice), but no one will be moderated, censored, banned or otherwise messed with for expressing their positions."  Benoist asked him some questions and he answered them with his honest opinion, and it looks like he was banned for that without warning.

2) He contributed significantly to the role-playing discussions here, which I think makes it hard to argue that he didn't contribute anything to the role-playing discussions here.  On the first few pages of the Role-Playing forum, threads I see started by B.T. include:

• Just a thought on a potential damage variant in D&D.
  
• A couple of abilities I would like to see to spice up combat for fighters and rogues.
  
• An idea occurs to me.
  
• 5e martial abilities should not focus on hitting things.
  
• 5e Tactical Module
  
• 13th Age NDA Lifted
  
• Climb checks bug me.
  
• 5e Weapon Proficiency
  
• 5e Fighter Redesign
  
• Earthdawn.
  
• WotC is better at producing buzzwords than they are at producing products.

That's almost 10% of the threads in the first six pages started by him.  Yes, some of his comments and threads can be interpreted as trolls, he got himself tangled up in political debates that would be better avoided, and supported some pretty vile positions, too, but he was participating in useful role-playing discussions.

You'll note that I opposed Pseudoephedrine's ban for pretty much the same reasons, that I felt he was banned without sufficient clear warning and he contributed usefully to the role-playing conversation here, despite the fact that we were pretty much on opposite sides of most of the political debates here.

Quote from: RPGPundit;552476He got banned because for months now he was clearly trying to be as offensive as possible as what can only be described as trolling, the entire time testing out our values of freedom of speech by making a mockery of them, and all but trying to give the people that hate this site all kinds of quotable ammo to misrepresent this site as being somehow full of people who agreed with any of the ridiculous and idiotic things he said.

Frankly, I think banning someone for vague and subjective reasons like this does far more to make a mockery of freedom of speech values than his opinions did and if you are trying to blame him for taunting you into banning him, I think that's a silly rationalization.  If freedom of speech is really a value here, then tolerating someone spouting sometimes vile opinions is the best way to show and celebrate it.  That's why the ACLU touts the fact that they've defended the rights of Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood, not because they support Nazis or because they want the Nazis to make a mockery of them but because it proves real dedication to the principle to back someone's right to say something that you don't like.

Quote from: RPGPundit;552476Again, like I said in the other thread, an RPGsite-hater with a sockpuppet account intentionally trying to make this site look bad couldn't possibly have done a better job.

I disagree.  There are plenty of places where he contributed meaningfully and civilly to role-playing threads.  There were also cases where he was disruptive and expressed vile opinions.  And I could describe many of the regulars on TheRPGSite, including you, that way.

And before you pull the, "It's my site and I make the rules," card out, yeah, I know that already.  This is about whether the site lives up to its stated ideals or not.

Quote from: CRKrueger;552506Basically BT said it was ok to commit an act (threaten violence) that is a crime.

RPGPundit has said that he thinks it's OK to commit an act (file sharing) that is a crime.  Should he ban himself, then, by that standard?

Quote from: jeff37923;552496This gets said every time someone gets banned.

Have you seen Kyle posting here lately?

Quote from: jeff37923;552496Freedom of Speech means being responsible and held accountable for what you say. It is not an excuse to be a reprehensible asshole with no repercussions.

You hold people accountable by exercising your own freedom of speech to disagree with them, which I did, for example, when he started spouting racist nonsense.  He's hardly the only "reprehensible asshole" on this site.  Should that be the criteria for banning, then?

Quote from: Benoist;552427You're mistaking this place for RPGnet, John. Not going to happen. These things are not decided based on a laundry list of caveats within caveats, but on a case by case basis, according to broad principles of moderation as defined by the RPGPundit.

I have participated in a variety of discussions on RPGnet, including a defense of Sarah Palin on Tangency in the past couple of years, and have never been suspended or banned, which is more than a lot of people here can say.  The reason for that is that despite their draconian regulations, I know where I stand there and can use that knowledge to avoid being banned.  The TheRPGSite New Constitution says, "Speak your mind here, without fear!"  Watching people getting banned without warning and without clear rules is where the fear comes in.  It's the same thing as watching a co-worker get fired without warning and having no clear understanding of why they were fired.  That creates fear.

Quote from: Benoist;552427In this specific case, I had to make a call. OHT did the same thing. The end result is that BT is no longer welcome to the campfire. That's it, as far as I'm concerned.

You didn't have to do anything.  Heck, you didn't have to ask B.T. to clarify his position if you knew you'd ban him for an answer he might give.  Yeah, I'm sure you are cool with it because you are the guy with the banhammer.  The police rarely worry about the police getting out of hand.

Quote from: John Morrow;552532RPGPundit has said that he thinks it's OK to commit an act (file sharing) that is a crime.  Should he ban himself, then, by that standard?

Actually copyright violation isn't automatically a crime.

Quote from: John Morrow;552533Have you seen Kyle posting here lately?

No, but if you are trying to compare the contributions of Kyle Aaron to B.T. then you may be far off base.

Quote from: John Morrow;552533You hold people accountable by exercising your own freedom of speech to disagree with them, which I did, for example, when he started spouting racist nonsense.  He's hardly the only "reprehensible asshole" on this site.  Should that be the criteria for banning, then?

Yes. The content of what he is speaking freely about must be considered. By the same criteria you are using to defend B.T., MalaDicta's lie about GRIM's stated stand on rape as a plot device should also get a free pass. What is being said is just as important as having the freedom to say it, otherwise this site will be seen as having standards that are not high enough to merit its existance as a forum for discussion. The repercussions of his free speech are that he now cannot use this forum as a platform for his odious beliefs.

B.T. can advocate rape and threats of rape along with his racism and loathing of homosexuals somewhere else. Not from this internet soapbox, because that is not what I (at least) want this forum to be known for.

I agree with you in principle John, however, this isn't the Law of the Land we're talking about.  I've seen a handful of bans since I've gotten here and every one I've agreed with.  I don't see us creeping closer to the slippery slope, and I don't think it's enough simply to point out that there is one.

I do think however, there should be some method of petitioning a ban, explaining your side, etc.

Quote from: CRKrueger;552538Actually copyright violation isn't automatically a crime.

Neither is threatening violence, conviction for which may require, that the threat is made in a manner and under circumstances which would cause a reasonable person to believe that the threat is likely to be carried out.  From what I saw based on the summaries that various people posted is that those excusing the threats seem to believe that it was not reasonable to believe that the threat would be carried out.  And if anyone was actually supporting the threats with the belief that they would likely be carried out and actual violence would be done, I'd fully understand them being banned.

Quote from: jeff37923;552541No, but if you are trying to compare the contributions of Kyle Aaron to B.T. then you may be far off base.

No, I am pointing out that Kyle and others have left TheRPGSite because there are people who believe this site is traveling down a slippery slope on free speech.  

Quote from: jeff37923;552541Yes. The content of what he is speaking freely about must be considered. By the same criteria you are using to defend B.T., MalaDicta's lie about GRIM's stated stand on rape as a plot device should also get a free pass.

The solution to MalaDicta's lies is not to ban her account.  The solution is to call her out on her lies and prove they are lies.  That's a free speech solution to free speech using more free speech, not less.

Quote from: jeff37923;552541What is being said is just as important as having the freedom to say it, otherwise this site will be seen as having standards that are not high enough to merit its existance as a forum for discussion. The repercussions of his free speech are that he now cannot use this forum as a platform for his odious beliefs.

Seriously, the standards of this site are pretty low.  I can provide details if you really want them, but if the site can praise a book where the artwork graphically depicts a zombie with his arm up a woman's genitals as the flesh is being ripped from her bones, we're already wallowing in garbage that's going to freak normal people out.  If people really care about the image that this site projects to the larger public, then advocate a shift to the "grandmother standard" (subject matter and language you wouldn't be embarrassed to give your grandmother to read) and go from there.

Quote from: jeff37923;552541B.T. can advocate rape and threats of rape along with his racism and loathing of homosexuals somewhere else. Not from this internet soapbox, because that is not what I (at least) want this forum to be known for.

So it's much better to have this form known for people who curse like they have Tourette syndrome, who praise for games like the Lamentations of the Flame Princess Grindhouse Edition, and who treat ridicule as the primary response to disagreement?  It's going to take a lot more than banning B.T. to make this site presentable to normal people.  In my opinion, it's main attraction is as a bastion of free speech where you won't get banned for speaking your mind and this banning undermines that perception of the site.

Quote from: CRKrueger;552542I agree with you in principle John, however, this isn't the Law of the Land we're talking about.  I've seen a handful of bans since I've gotten here and every one I've agreed with.

Quite a few people left this site because they didn't agree with Pseudoephedrine's ban, even though I think RPGPundit had a much more solid reason for banning him for a specific offense.  So just because you are comfortable with it doesn't mean that everyone is.  Again, the test of free speech is to support speech that one doesn't like and support.

Quote from: CRKrueger;552542I don't see us creeping closer to the slippery slope, and I don't think it's enough simply to point out that there is one.

When Pseudoephedrine was banned and people complained, we got a very clear and understandable explanation of why he was banned.  I'm not seeing that here.  To me, that's a slide down the slippery slope.

Quote from: CRKrueger;552542I do think however, there should be some method of petitioning a ban, explaining your side, etc.

I think that people should get a specific warning specifically detailing their offense and clearly asking them not to repeat it unless the offense clearly warrants an instant banning.  In both this case and Pseudoephedrine's case, I don't think it was clear to the person who was banned that the message that got them banned would get them banned.  I don't think "Speak your mind here, without fear!" is compatible with, "We're going to permaban you without warning if you push us too far."

Quote from: John Morrow;552549So it's much better to have this form known for people who curse like they have Tourette syndrome, who praise for games like the Lamentations of the Flame Princess Grindhouse Edition, and who treat ridicule as the primary response to disagreement?  It's going to take a lot more than banning B.T. to make this site presentable to normal people.

Ok, this puts things into the proper perspective in my mind. As bad as B.T. was, he's really not all that far from the people who banned him (with one possible exception).

In the end one group of jerks with power kicked out a lone jerk because they could- ignoring their own high-minded words about the speech freedom in order to do so.

I never expected it to be otherwise.

John, I get where you are coming from on this. However, being able to exercise Free Speech does not give one license to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. To me, B.T. was abusing the Free Speech stance of this site in order to voice some of the most objectionable crap possible because he knew that he would have been banned far sooner at any other site.

Quote from: jeff37923;552559John, I get where you are coming from on this. However, being able to exercise Free Speech does not give one license to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. To me, B.T. was abusing the Free Speech stance of this site in order to voice some of the most objectionable crap possible because he knew that he would have been banned far sooner at any other site.

Literally.  He openly admitted to being an alias for an RPGnet poster whose identity he refused to reveal out of fear of cross-forum retribution.  

He was here to troll with a bunch of ultra-psychotic bigoted garbage.  The trivial amount of gaming content he contributed will not be missed, and I foresee a lot fewer conversations devolving once again into people trying to argue with the useless troll.

That's what "disrupt the site" means.  It means someone who goes out of their way to derail every conversation, in this case with hate-filled horseshit.  

BT was either the most deeply unpleasant person I know, or an absolute liar, but either way, it doesn't matter.  What mattered was he made it his mission to make the site about whatever hateful shit was spewing out of his keyboard that minute, and that's precisely what theRPGsite DOES ban people for.

Quote from: One Horse Town;552410I had no idea Benoist had PMed Pundit or what the reply was. I just banned the fucker.

I feel i have nothing to apologise for. In fact, i feel i have done this site a favour.

However, as always, want me out and out i'll go. Life's too short.

You made the right call in my opinion.

Quote from: John Morrow;552532RPGPundit has said that he thinks it's OK to commit an act (file sharing) that is a crime.  Should he ban himself, then, by that standard?

That isn't a violent crime Like rape or assault. I think there is a huge difference there.