Nihonjoe's RfB, Crying moral panic? Options

[Mentifisto]

Here we have what I think is an evolution of modern times - a stellar beginning, a great progression, enter the serpent. A magic word that can bring down anyone, regardless of facts.

First of all I think that Ryan shouldn't have brought what was obviously a controversial dispute on the table, considering it's blatantly drama-prone - he claims it's not a personal matter, but having a block at heart challenged must have provoked some emotional responses. He says that he then doubts Joe's judgement (who wouldn't 'doubt' someone questioning you?) but how much of that is true and how much could possibly be petty revenge? Anyone knows that mentioning heated topics like pedophilia, Nazism etc. destroys any sort of calm debate and renders people irrational. How many are scanning through the opposes, spotting 'pedophile', screaming and immediately opposing?

Now that is analysing the RfB event itself, and not that I'd like to get much into the actual external dispute, but Joe just seemed to question an unexplained block. Ryan didn't even provide proof of his claim in the block rationale, so if anyone can be blocked on baseless accusations, what will WP end up like?

[Kelly Martin]

This guy has 4 RfBs. How many times do you have to knock on the door before you understand that you're not going to be let in?

[Mentifisto]

This guy has 4 RfBs. How many times do you have to knock on the door before you understand that you're not going to be let in?

It was and is to an extent still passing though... not many opposes based on the number of requests.

[A Horse With No Name]

Here we have what I think is an evolution of modern times - a stellar beginning, a great progression, enter the serpent.

Actually, that is not evolution -- the serpent showed up to ruin things in the other side's book. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[The Wales Hunter]

Unless I'm mistaken, the candidate said blocking paedophiles was bad because there was nothing in policy saying paedophiles should be banned?

If that's the case, he should be stripped of adminship, not running for 'crat!

[Kelly Martin]

Unless I'm mistaken, the candidate said blocking paedophiles was bad because there was nothing in policy saying paedophiles should be banned?

Wikipedia policy should strongly support suspending the editing rights of any editor when there is a credible reason to believe that allowing that editor to continue editing is likely to be harmful. However, Wikipedians tend to forget that editing Wikipedia is not a fundamental civil right, and treat it as if it were. Therefore, the notion of "pretrial detention" (as it were) is anathema to the Wikiway.

Of course, there's a balance to be struck here (if you block too readily you will chase off newbies; if you block too sparingly you let your site be overrun by trolls and malcontents). Wikipedia has managed to strike that balance in just about the worst combination possible, in that they routinely use "preventive" blocks when they're not needed, and refrain from using them when they clearly are. Understanding why this is is key to understanding the fundamental malfunctions in Wikipedia's community, and in understanding why Wikipedia has no hope for recovery so long as Jimmy Wales remains a figure of reverence within that community.

[Mentifisto]

However, Wikipedians tend to forget that editing Wikipedia is not a fundamental civil right, and treat it as if it were. Therefore, the notion of "pretrial detention" (as it were) is anathema to the Wikiway.

The 'rights' as it were would be equated to the policies... so blocking someone for no apparent reason would go against policy. Since, of course, I can easily block someone I have a content dispute with. Fundamentally, it's not anyone's right to block anyone else, either...

If that's the case, he should be stripped of adminship, not running for 'crat!

You forgot to hire the lynch mob, sir.

[The Wales Hunter]

Only on Wikipedia would excluding a paedophile be considered in any way controversial.

[Nerd]

This is amazing. Some people are comparing banning pedophiles to banning rapists, Nazis, liberals, homosexuals etc.

They seem to be forgetting one small thing: allowing pedophiles to edit Wikipedia is like letting them into a nursery. There are children everywhere, unsupervised, and pedophiles use the environment to groom their victim.

Rapists cannot rape anyone online. Homosexuality is only a problem if they edit in a biased manner. Allowing pedophiles to edit is always a problem. Until children are banned from editing, this is the case. There is no reason to allow somebody who poses a risk to children to edit, simple as that.

Nihonjoe might be right there is no policy to support blocking. But, damn, common sense! Where did it go? Ignore all rules much?

Crazy.

[MBisanz]

Only on Wikipedia would excluding a paedophile be considered in any way controversial.

A major issue in this is that most editors are anonymous for all intents and purposes (even if Brandt could out them, most casual reviewers could not.) Being anonymous tends to reduce responsibility as there are not real life consequences for their actions. Think of it as with unionization. When a vote is held in secret, it tends to favor the union since workers are anonymous and cannot be penalized by management (this is a major reason many US states adopted the Australian secret ballot to reduce the power of the landed elite.) I suspect if you put most editors in their boss' office or on Good Morning America and asked them if confessed pedophiles should be permitted to be school janitors, they would probably say no.

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[GlassBeadGame]

However, Wikipedians tend to forget that editing Wikipedia is not a fundamental civil right, and treat it as if it were. Therefore, the notion of "pretrial detention" (as it were) is anathema to the Wikiway.

The 'rights' as it were would be equated to the policies... so blocking someone for no apparent reason would go against policy. Since, of course, I can easily block someone I have a content dispute with. Fundamentally, it's not anyone's right to block anyone else, either...

If that's the case, he should be stripped of adminship, not running for 'crat!

You forgot to hire the lynch mob, sir.

Why don't you just knock it off, this is getting tiresome.

[Peter Damian]

Only on Wikipedia would excluding a paedophile be considered in any way controversial.

A major issue in this is that most editors are anonymous for all intensive purposes (even if Brandt could out them, most casual reviewers could not.) Being anonymous tends to reduce responsibility as there are not real life consequences for their actions. Think of it as with unionization. When a vote is held in secret, it tends to favor the union since workers are anonymous and cannot be penalized by management (this is a major reason many US states adopted the Australian secret ballot to reduce the power of the landed elite.) I suspect if you put most editors in their boss' office or on Good Morning America and asked them if confessed pedophiles should be permitted to be school janitors, they would probably say no.

Run that past me again. The point was made above that Wikipedians as a group have some pretty odd views. Your reply was that these views are not odd at all, and that most people think that way, but would not admit it except anonymously. You were really saying that?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[GlassBeadGame]

Only on Wikipedia would excluding a paedophile be considered in any way controversial.

A major issue in this is that most editors are anonymous for all intensive purposes (even if Brandt could out them, most casual reviewers could not.) Being anonymous tends to reduce responsibility as there are not real life consequences for their actions. Think of it as with unionization. When a vote is held in secret, it tends to favor the union since workers are anonymous and cannot be penalized by management (this is a major reason many US states adopted the Australian secret ballot to reduce the power of the landed elite.) I suspect if you put most editors in their boss' office or on Good Morning America and asked them if confessed pedophiles should be permitted to be school janitors, they would probably say no.

Run that past me again. The point was made above that Wikipedians as a group have some pretty odd views. Your reply was that these views are not odd at all, and that most people think that way, but would not admit it except anonymously. You were really saying that?

I suppose that people with odd and misshapen views might think that silently others agree with them. But that is only because there reality testing is so very bad. It also makes them unresponsive to just about evidence to the contrary, after all others really do secretly agree with the Wikipedians.

[thekohser]

Unless I'm mistaken, the candidate said blocking paedophiles was bad because there was nothing in policy saying paedophiles should be banned?

If that's the case, he should be stripped of adminship, not running for 'crat!

Or, made Deputy Director of the Foundation.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Or, made Deputy Director of the Foundation.

In (a very limited) defense of Erik Moeller, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that he is a pedophile. His stated views on pedophilia are idiotic doctrinaire libertarianism, but that does not make him a pedophile, and we should try to avoid the use of WR as a defamation engine.

[thekohser]

...for all intensive purposes...

<snicker> (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Or, made Deputy Director of the Foundation.

In (a very limited) defense of Erik Moeller, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that he is a pedophile. His stated views on pedophilia are idiotic doctrinaire libertarianism, but that does not make him a pedophile, and we should try to avoid the use of WR as a defamation engine.

I didn't mention any names. I just think this Nihonjoe guy would make a nice Deputy Director of the Foundation.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Sarcasticidealist]

I didn't mention any names. I just think this Nihonjoe guy would make a nice Deputy Director of the Foundation.

Ah - I somehow misread your post as comparing Erik Moeller to the editor blocked for being a pedophile. In fact, you were comparing him to NihonJoe, whom there is also no evidence is a pedophile. My mistake.

[GlassBeadGame]

Or, made Deputy Director of the Foundation.

In (a very limited) defense of Erik Moeller, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that he is a pedophile. His stated views on pedophilia are idiotic doctrinaire libertarianism, but that does not make him a pedophile, and we should try to avoid the use of WR as a defamation engine.

The same can probably be said for FT2 in relation to bestiality. These are such extreme and disturbing views, even when limited to the advocacy for acceptance and not the actual practice that they deserve derision and ridicule and have absolutely no place whatsoever in a project that foster the involvement of children. The public, media and funders ought to be offended and repelled by even the advocacy for this acceptance. Editors ought to remove themselves from the project for this reason. Still your point is correct.

[A Horse With No Name]

The same can probably be said for FT2 in relation to bestiality.

I need an update on this one, please. Can someone offer me a quickie link for my educational purposes, please?

And I hate to ask, but what kind of beast is he into? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

These are such extreme and disturbing views, even when limited to the advocacy for acceptance and not the actual practice that they deserve derision and ridicule and have absolutely no place whatsoever in a project that foster the involvement of children.

Agreed. They just do not deserve equation with pedophilia (or bestiality).

[GlassBeadGame]

The same can probably be said for FT2 in relation to bestiality.

I need an update on this one, please. Can someone offer me a quickie link for my educational purposes, please?

And I hate to ask, but what kind of beast is he into? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

The whole thread is loaded with the stuff but he is pretty clear here.

[MBisanz]

Only on Wikipedia would excluding a paedophile be considered in any way controversial.

A major issue in this is that most editors are anonymous for all intensive purposes (even if Brandt could out them, most casual reviewers could not.) Being anonymous tends to reduce responsibility as there are not real life consequences for their actions. Think of it as with unionization. When a vote is held in secret, it tends to favor the union since workers are anonymous and cannot be penalized by management (this is a major reason many US states adopted the Australian secret ballot to reduce the power of the landed elite.) I suspect if you put most editors in their boss' office or on Good Morning America and asked them if confessed pedophiles should be permitted to be school janitors, they would probably say no.

Run that past me again. The point was made above that Wikipedians as a group have some pretty odd views. Your reply was that these views are not odd at all, and that most people think that way, but would not admit it except anonymously. You were really saying that?

Well Peter, there are two schools of thought here. The Milgram experiment showed that something like two-thirds of people would actually give another person a lethal electric shock if they believed the responsibility for the shock had been transferred to another person. See also Stanford prison experiment. This would probably (I'm an accountant, not a philosopher) find some support in Hobbes' idea of the social contract serving to suppress mankind's brutish aspects.

The second school of thought would say that people are not naturally brutish and that in both the anonymous and public sphere they would abhor pedophilia and other similar acts. That line of thinking would lead to the conclusion that WP-editors are simply not representative of the generally population and indeed skew towards certain tendencies (good and bad). Given that the UNU survey (I think) showed that 87% of editors were male and that 22% have a post-graduate degree, when a representative sample of the population would give something like 49% and 5%, I think it is more reasonable to assume I meant the second school of thought (which I did indeed mean).

[thekohser]

Or, made Deputy Director of the Foundation.

In (a very limited) defense of Erik Moeller, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that he is a pedophile. His stated views on pedophilia are idiotic doctrinaire libertarianism, but that does not make him a pedophile, and we should try to avoid the use of WR as a defamation engine.

What does it say about an organization whose Deputy Director's views are so readily the butt of jokes that the mere mention of his title can bring about a rebuke that it's just not fair to pin someone else with that title?

I guess it's sunk to the level of "Exxon Valdez captain" or "head of the Office of Financial Stability".

Congratulations, Wikimedia Foundation, on hiring that guy straight off the Board of Trustees without so much as a competitive search, or even a job description!

[GlassBeadGame]

Or, made Deputy Director of the Foundation.

In (a very limited) defense of Erik Moeller, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that he is a pedophile. His stated views on pedophilia are idiotic doctrinaire libertarianism, but that does not make him a pedophile, and we should try to avoid the use of WR as a defamation engine.

What does it say about an organization whose Deputy Director's views are so readily the butt of jokes that the mere mention of his title can bring about a rebuke that it's just not fair to pin someone else with that title?

I guess it's sunk to the level of "Exxon Valdez captain" or "head of the Office of Financial Stability".

Congratulations, Wikimedia Foundation, on hiring that guy straight off the Board of Trustees without so much as a competitive search, or even a job description!

That might have resulted in the selection of a candidate without a record of advocacy for pedophilia. Or at least uncovering the issue prior to selection.

BTW once you establish that someone in a position of high visibility and responsibility has advocated for pedophilia or bestiality a comment about such behavior is not so much defamation but parody and/or satire. The tricky thing is to not make the comment in a manner that makes a factual assertion. This means constantly re-educating people new to the subject. For example in this thread you could probably make FT2/Moeller bestiality/pedophile wisecracks without it being defamatory.

[thekohser]

The tricky thing is to not make the comment in a manner that makes a factual assertion. This means constantly re-educating people new to the subject. For example in this thread you could probably make FT2/Moeller bestiality/pedophile wisecracks without it being defamatory.

GBG, at this point, I think we ought to just let sleeping dogs lie.

Wikipolitics makes strange bedfellows.

[CharlotteWebb]

This is amazing. Some people are comparing banning pedophiles to banning rapists, Nazis, liberals, homosexuals etc.

Uhh, well… let's be serious about this. If I could cite "ignore all rules" to ban all rapists I would. Regardless of what age they prefer their victims to be. Realize of course I wouldn't expect this to stick.

Same thing with nazis, and animal-sex enthusiasts, etc. because they make me sick to my stomach at a similar level. But I guess the latter is acceptable because it's arbcom-approved, plus it doesn't put users at risk… you know… because nobody knows who's a dog on the internet, and because grooming dogs is usually seen as a healthy activity besides.

I think people hesitate to take action against potentially dangerous individuals, not because they sympathize with any particular group of people, but because society indoctrinates us to celebrate diversity and bend over backward in tolerance of those who differ from us, idealistically and without regard to risk factors, practical effects, probability, or the human condition.

People still have their prejudices, yes, but they also have sort of a smile-and-nod shock collar which inhibits them from speaking their mind (or better, putting their foot down) in regard to groups of people they don't like. You can probably feel it around your own throat at school or work or wherever you go, telling you to mind your own business and not say hateful things like that, but everybody's is tuned differently and few people want to be construed as violent bigots unless they're self-employed.

See at some point malefactors of great stealth abridged "judge not, lest ye be judged" to "judge not". That's roughly why the co-worker in the break-room who replies "Man, I'd like to cut your balls off" gets more startled looks than the other co-worker who first said "Man, I'd like to have sex with an N-year-old". But everyone in the slop-hall is long since jaded, they've heard it all before, and the guys are probably just joking anyway, right? Those still on the payroll being the ones who've come to work rather than pick fights, they tune out what they can and forget the rest because it's somebody else's problem (or even if it is collectively society's self-inflicted problem, they know somebody else will deal with it, eventually dot dot dot).

Yet somehow we expect different results on the internet? That's too stupid to be funny.

[GlassBeadGame]

This is amazing. Some people are comparing banning pedophiles to banning rapists, Nazis, liberals, homosexuals etc.

Uhh, well… let's be serious about this. If I could cite "ignore all rules" to ban all rapists I would. Regardless of what age they prefer their victims to be. Realize of course I wouldn't expect this to stick.

Same thing with nazis, and animal-sex enthusiasts, etc. because they make me sick to my stomach at a similar level. But I guess the latter is acceptable because it's arbcom-approved, plus it doesn't put users at risk… you know… because nobody knows who's a dog on the internet, and because grooming dogs is usually seen as a healthy activity besides.

I think people hesitate to take action against potentially dangerous individuals, not because they sympathize with any particular group of people, but because society indoctrinates us to celebrate diversity and bend over backward in tolerance of those who differ from us, idealistically and without regard to risk factors, practical effects, probability, or the human condition.

People still have their prejudices, yes, but they also have sort of a smile-and-nod shock collar which inhibits them from speaking their mind (or better, putting their foot down) in regard to groups of people they don't like. You can probably feel it around your own throat at school or work or wherever you go, telling you to mind your own business and not say hateful things like that, but everybody's is tuned differently and few people want to be construed as violent bigots unless they're self-employed.

See at some point malefactors of great stealth abridged "judge not, lest ye be judged" to "judge not". That's roughly why the co-worker in the break-room who replies "Man, I'd like to cut your balls off" gets more startled looks than the other co-worker who first said "Man, I'd like to have sex with an N-year-old". But everyone in the slop-hall is long since jaded, they've heard it all before, and the guys are probably just joking anyway, right? Those still on the payroll being the ones who've come to work rather than pick fights, they tune out what they can and forget the rest because it's somebody else's problem (or even if it is collectively society's self-inflicted problem, they know somebody else will deal with it, eventually dot dot dot).

Yet somehow we expect different results on the internet? That's too stupid to be funny.

So the Hivemid is only cowed into acting in an extreme libertarian fashion, and go-along-get-along is your justification for accepting this? The only new thing you bring to the table is the completely wrong idea that this nonsense has currency everywhere. I don't think this fairly encapsulates the idea of "celebrating diversity."

[Peter Damian]

The same can probably be said for FT2 in relation to bestiality.

I need an update on this one, please. Can someone offer me a quickie link for my educational purposes, please?

And I hate to ask, but what kind of beast is he into? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

You must be joking. This was the whole and entire reason for my original ban from Wikipedia.

[edit] For those who don't remember the episode, here is a link to the oversight thread

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=95284

I was indef blocked for some rude remarks about FT2 during 2007 arbcom. The discussion was with Wales and Scrive (who afterwards behaved quite honourably). I accused FT2 of slanted editing of the Zoophilia article. Scribe and Wales asked me to produce edits, and these were promptly oversighted. It turned out much later that FT2 had conspired with David Gerard. FT2 at first denied this, but then the truth came out, and that was actually the reason FT2 had to resign from Arbcom.

Cade Metz has a piece about it here.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/18/zo...ia_wikiscandal/

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[MBisanz]

This is amazing. Some people are comparing banning pedophiles to banning rapists, Nazis, liberals, homosexuals etc.

Uhh, well… let's be serious about this. If I could cite "ignore all rules" to ban all rapists I would. Regardless of what age they prefer their victims to be. Realize of course I wouldn't expect this to stick.

Same thing with nazis, and animal-sex enthusiasts, etc. because they make me sick to my stomach at a similar level. But I guess the latter is acceptable because it's arbcom-approved, plus it doesn't put users at risk… you know… because nobody knows who's a dog on the internet, and because grooming dogs is usually seen as a healthy activity besides.

I think people hesitate to take action against potentially dangerous individuals, not because they sympathize with any particular group of people, but because society indoctrinates us to celebrate diversity and bend over backward in tolerance of those who differ from us, idealistically and without regard to risk factors, practical effects, probability, or the human condition.

People still have their prejudices, yes, but they also have sort of a smile-and-nod shock collar which inhibits them from speaking their mind (or better, putting their foot down) in regard to groups of people they don't like. You can probably feel it around your own throat at school or work or wherever you go, telling you to mind your own business and not say hateful things like that, but everybody's is tuned differently and few people want to be construed as violent bigots unless they're self-employed.

See at some point malefactors of great stealth abridged "judge not, lest ye be judged" to "judge not". That's roughly why the co-worker in the break-room who replies "Man, I'd like to cut your balls off" gets more startled looks than the other co-worker who first said "Man, I'd like to have sex with an N-year-old". But everyone in the slop-hall is long since jaded, they've heard it all before, and the guys are probably just joking anyway, right? Those still on the payroll being the ones who've come to work rather than pick fights, they tune out what they can and forget the rest because it's somebody else's problem (or even if it is collectively society's self-inflicted problem, they know somebody else will deal with it, eventually dot dot dot).

Yet somehow we expect different results on the internet? That's too stupid to be funny.

Generally the way I justify banning pedophiles preemptively as opposed to racists, rapists, or even murderers is that child pornography is actually the only type of speech that the US Supreme Court has found to be outside of the protection of the first amendment (they are deciding now if they should add animal abuse to that list.) When something is so bad that it is the ONLY thing that is not permitted to be protected by the Constitution (yes, yelling fire isn't protected, but that is a matter of degree, not subject matter), it is probably safe to assume WP needs to also ban such behavior simply to avoid the wrath of the society that funds it (again, there are other reason to ban it; crime against God and man, purely evil behavior, etc.) Yes, that argument is weak because it is premised on American exceptionalism and the wisdom of a court that also decided it was ok to imprison Japanese people for being Japanese, but I think it stands up well enough for WPs purposes.

[CharlotteWebb]

So the Hivemid is only cowed into acting in an extreme libertarian fashion, and go-along-get-along is your justification for accepting this? The only new thing you bring to the table is the completely wrong idea that this nonsense has currency everywhere. I don't think this fairly encapsulates the idea of "celebrating diversity."

No, I'm not trying to justify anything, only to understand why so many people would rather look the other way and ignore the problem against their better judgment.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[A Horse With No Name]

You must be joking. This was the whole and entire reason for my original ban from Wikipedia.

I am not joking, Petey. I am just now getting up to speed on the nastier elements of WP history. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Peter Damian]

You must be joking. This was the whole and entire reason for my original ban from Wikipedia.

I am not joking, Petey. I am just now getting up to speed on the nastier elements of WP history. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Goodness. Well there are the links above, and there is this amusing thread

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19195

See also this very disturbing article that FT2 got oversighted, but which was sent to me (or may have been Kohs) by a tipster.

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...on_Animal_Films

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[CharlotteWebb]

Generally the way I justify banning pedophiles preemptively as opposed to racists, rapists, or even murderers…

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Do you mean you would decline to ban a self-identified rapist pre-emptively if he makes it clear that he only rapes adults? I know, I know, you have to draw a line somewhere, but that's a strange place to do it. Do you think the individual in question would draw a line in the same place and stick to it?

Besides I thought this was about making a measured judgment call in the interest of users' well-being, not a farcical exercise in What-Would-James-Madison-Do.

[Nerd]

Generally the way I justify banning pedophiles preemptively as opposed to racists, rapists, or even murderers…

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Do you mean you would decline to ban a self-identified rapist pre-emptively if he makes it clear that he only rapes adults? I know, I know, you have to draw a line somewhere, but that's a strange place to do it. Do you think the individual in question would draw a line in the same place and stick to it?

Besides I thought this was about making a measured judgment call in the interest of users' well-being, not a farcical exercise in What-Would-James-Madison-Do.

You can't rape someone over the internet. Child grooming can and does occur over it.

[CharlotteWebb]

Generally the way I justify banning pedophiles preemptively as opposed to racists, rapists, or even murderers…

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Do you mean you would decline to ban a self-identified rapist pre-emptively if he makes it clear that he only rapes adults? I know, I know, you have to draw a line somewhere, but that's a strange place to do it. Do you think the individual in question would draw a line in the same place and stick to it?

Besides I thought this was about making a measured judgment call in the interest of users' well-being, not a farcical exercise in What-Would-James-Madison-Do.

You can't rape someone over the internet. Child grooming can and does occur over it.

Anymore I can't remember whom I'm talking to, but should I interpret this as a "yes" to one or both questions?

[One]

You can't rape someone over the internet. Child grooming can and does occur over it.

Yep. This is why generally prohibiting pedophiles on Wikipedia is sensible, while discriminating against pot smokers and communists, say, is not similarly sensible.

That particular slippery slope is false (as most of them are).

[Mentifisto]

I'm not sure why no one discussed Ryan's oppose itself and whether it was motivated by revenge or not. All I know is that my theory on 'emotional responses' was correct. As soon as this thread was posted Ryan called me a 'total cunt', which I think is entirely inappropriate as I'm maintaining my civility myself. I don't want to be a passive recipient of verbal abuse and will retaliate if I had to, but I thought we were a community that discussed things rationally and not violently. If we've become that then that's escaped me, but I consider this unfair. I also invite Ryan himself to comment here since I notice he's been a regular reader of this thread since it started.

[A Horse With No Name]

Besides I thought this was about making a measured judgment call in the interest of users' well-being, not a farcical exercise in What-Would-James-Madison-Do.

Would James Madison sing "Hello, Dolley"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

I also invite Ryan himself to comment here since I notice he's been a regular reader of this thread since it started.

We should invite Ryan's hot chili mama of a girlfriend, too. She's a lot more interesting than Ryan, for sure! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Nerd]

I'm not sure why no one discussed Ryan's oppose itself and whether it was motivated by revenge or not.

They did discuss it.

[Mentifisto]

I'm not sure why no one discussed Ryan's oppose itself and whether it was motivated by revenge or not.

They did discuss it.

No, since I wrote the initial post all they discussed was the Nihonjoe event, controversial topics and the concepts in general... surely someone has an opinion of what I wrote originally.

We should invite Ryan's hot chili mama of a girlfriend, too. She's a lot more interesting than Ryan, for sure! evilgrin.gif

Heh, possibly... and for some apt British humour:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvsoVdvtZC4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCywGhHQMEw

It's just brilliantly funny (and could possibly be utilized on the request itself right now, to calm down the situation).