B.T. was banned because of his comments in here.  While I believe B.T. has said many truly offensive things, has expressed many truly awful opinions, and may even be a terrible person, I do not believe this ban was warranted.

Benoist asked, about speech:

Quote from: Benoist;552326Are you saying she deserved comments like "she doesn't deserve consent and she needs to get fucked"?

Quote from: Benoist;552326So it's okay to say "I'm going to rape you" to someone... "because the internet"?

B.T. responded in the affirmative, and then Benoist claimed that B.T. had endorsed actual sexual violence:

Quote from: Benoist;552371I can't believe the SOB actually said that. I mean we're all more or less in agreement that Maladicta indeed has an agenda and is going about her protest the wrong way. But going from there to say it's okay to call for rape and that "it'd do her some good and maybe she'd think twice before lying" that is NOT on. Not at all. Period.

While it was actually OHT that banned him, Benoist asked the question and approved, so I'm focusing on his comments and interpretation as the catalyst and cause of his banning.  

Benoist asked about speech.  B.T. responded about speech.  And while I don't agree with his opinion and people may find his opinion wrong or even offensive, I don't believe this opinion was more offensive than plenty of others that B.T. has expressed, nor do I think it's all that different from the opinion expressed by others about the topic at hand, nor is such an attitude toward free speech all that surprising given B.T.'s hyper-libertarianism on the topic.  If Benoist wanted to ask for a further clarification and B.T. had endorsed actual sexual assault, then that would be a serious problem, but that's not what happened.

In defense of the ban, OHT wrote:

Quote from: One Horse Town;552386Mate, the guy has been warned for posting links to porn - against forum rules. He could have gone then. As it was, we all had to put up with his drivel for months more.

Sometimes, my good friend, freedom of speech or not, you really have to look at who you're sharing a camp-fire with.

If B.T. had posted more links to porn after being warned, then his ban would be warranted and had he endorsed a woman actually being raped, then I think his ban would be warranted, but I think a "look at who you're sharing a camp-fire with" is a poor standard for determining who gets banned on a site that prides itself for valuing free speech and a very narrow set of criteria under which a person should actually be banned, especially without a warning  about the particular offense first.

As I mentioned in the thread, bear in mind that I also spoke out against Pseudoephedrine's ban without warning, so this is not some matter of political solidarity, support for B.T.s opinion, or even liking B.T.  It's a matter of valuing the free speech here, not liking bans without warning about the particular cause of the ban unless the cause is extreme (which I don't think it was here), and, like Pseudoephedrine, I think B.T. does often generate useful discussions about actual role-playing here, even if he has some fairly vile opinions, particularly on race.

It is not okay to call for rape "because the internet".

It is not okay to say "I'm going to rape you" "because the internet".

The RPG Site does have a very clear rule against physical threats of any kind. Condoning threats of rape against anybody, whoever they are, whether they are ugly, maladjusted, have a liberal bias or a specific agenda in going about their personal crusades, is NOT acceptable. Under any circumstance.

I asked for specific advice to the Pundit via PM (because ultimately it's his place and we're here at his own convenience, period) to know if he was reading the same thing I did in BT's answer and his answer to me was very clear: it was up to me. So I took a decision and was about to ban him seconds later if OHT had not ninja'd me on it.

OHT was right to do what he did. There are some things that are not okay to say, ever, the end. Period. And BT has gone at it in various ways for months now, getting warned multiple times for his actions, including the actual posting of gay porn, various racist comments, hateful, homophobic bullshit, and on and on and on. It was enough. ENOUGH.

BT deserved the boot on that gay porn thing. And we had to put up with the same shit over and over from there. Well, not this time. Not when you're congratulating people on sending threats of rape to a person because she's on a personal crusade and has a liberal bias and "is probably ugly, anyway" and that'll "do her some good and make her think before lying again".

Fuck that.

EVER.

The end.

I 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.

Quote from: Benoist;552408OHT was right to do what he did. There are some things that are not okay to say, ever, the end. Period. And BT has gone at it in various ways for months now, getting warned multiple times for his actions, including the actual posting of gay porn, various racist comments, hateful, homophobic bullshit, and on and on and on. It was enough. ENOUGH.

And he didn't get banned for all of that other stuff.  Why not and why this?

Quote from: Benoist;552408BT deserved the boot on that gay porn thing.

Then he should have been banned for that.  

The "straw that broke the camel's back" reminds me too much of the justification used on the RPGnet to ban people like Kyle -- no one thing in particular but we just don't like you.  Yeah, he had some really vile opinions and made some really vile comments, but he also drove quite a bit of role-playing oriented discussion, too.

Quote from: One Horse Town;552410In fact, i feel i have done this site a favour.

Censorship is a two-edged sword.  It can be both a good thing and a bad thing, even at the same time.

Quote from: Benoist;552408The RPG Site does have a very clear rule against physical threats of any kind. Condoning threats of rape against anybody, whoever they are, whether they are ugly, maladjusted, have a liberal bias or a specific agenda in going about their personal crusades, is NOT acceptable. Under any circumstance.

I suggest that the theRPGsite new Constitution be modified to make it absolutely clear specifically which types of posts are actionable by banning without warning.  Condoning a threat is not making a threat or acting on a threat.  I can see why a site would want to prohibit such opinions but it should be clear that they are prohibited.

Reposting my position on this from the original thread.

+++

Quote from: Benoist;552371But going from there to say it's okay to call for rape and that "it'd do her some good and maybe she'd think twice before lying" that is NOT on.

I am pretty sure from the wording he meant the 'Rape Threats' would 'do her good', rather than her actual rape.

This statement should not be read as me supporting B.T.s position.

You'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.

In 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.

None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence.

JOHN MILTON, Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

Like 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 its demeaning for anyone else to imagine that they would be in a comparable position to him; Morrow, don't make the mistake of thinking "he got banned for conservative views" or something like that, he didn't.  He 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.

Again, 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.

RPGPundit

This place is slowly turning into RPGNet, and this is just one more step along the path.

In any case, I'm not really going to miss BT a whole lot. While he did have some good gaming stuff, he trolled constantly.

Quote from: danbuter;552495This place is slowly turning into RPGNet, and this is just one more step along the path.

This gets said every time someone gets banned.

Quote from: danbuter;552495In any case, I'm not really going to miss BT a whole lot. While he did have some good gaming stuff, he trolled constantly.

Freedom 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.

This site has probably the freest moderation of an RPG site anywhere but 4chan.

And even 4chan bans people all the time.  

I think we're allowed to ban one deliberately despicable troll from time to time.  

Compared to what folks have been banned for in the past, he got it easy as fuck to have been allowed to go this long.

Pundit is right.  He was proving to be nothing more than ammunition for jackasses like RPGnet and SA to point to and mistake tolerance of freedom of speech for endorsement.  

He is probably the most vile person we've ever had here, short perhaps of that one guy who was a fucking pedophile, and even he managed to contribute more to the board than BT.

So fuck him, and fuck you  too if you think giving that assclown of a pathetic troll the boot somehow signals some long slide into fascism or whatever the fuck.

Basically BT said it was ok to commit an act (threaten violence) that is a crime.  It's why you can't link to Stormfront or pornographic sites or anything else that might raise legal issues for the owner.  It might be a crime the police cannot prosecute without a lot of evidence, but that doesn't make it not a crime.

Quote from: J Arcane;552505He is probably the most vile person we've ever had here, short perhaps of that one guy who was a fucking pedophile, and even he managed to contribute more to the board than BT.

That's saying a lot, as I know I'm considered quite vile myself. In fact, given the way some threads have gone and what some of the moderators have said to me in the past, I've wonder how I've managed to avoid a ban for "Site Disruption".

In the specific case of B.T., I'm torn. Disagreeing with John Morrow is to me an indication that I need to rethink my opinion. So I'm going to having to think this one through a bit more.

I will however say that IMO banning for porn or actual physical threats is the correct stance. Support for actual physical threats is worth at least a warning, and a ban upon a repeat offense. And that claiming "Site Disruption" in lue of those type of offenses is lame.