Well, that was a long time coming.

A difficult call, I gather.

So the lil shit finally wore-out his welcome? Good riddance. Like a stubborn STD, that self-fellating troll will be back soon with a new handle and the same old schtick. Only @Protagoras can stand 3017 and ass-licking like P's is very hard to find online or off, so he'll have to come back. Btw, ignoring them has amused me to no end from thread to thread. Fuckin' douches. :smirk:

And 180 proves the point publicly.

Well done!

All you who say nothing on the above vitriol are what?

We're generally lax with moderating swearing and name calling because this is the internet after all and if it's accompanied with decent philosophy, we tend to not do anything. 3017amen has been on our radar for shitty posts for 2 years already.

@Benkei
With respect,that doesn't make sense. How can someone be on the radar for two years?

And what was the ban,for post quality or ad hom?
A consistent decent explanation would be nice.

How can someone be on the radar for two years? — Protagoras

Oh, I agree - he should have been banned long ago... just on the basis of post quality.

Or is that not what you meant?

Fuck around and find out, troll-stain. :cool:

180,Mr overemotional!

He needs all his energy,he's on the verge of tanking his second debate!

Two years on the radar!!what does that Mean?

The reason for banning has previously been given by Baden. He's previously been discussed by moderators for several reasons, given the benefit of the doubt before, but finally banned due to lack of improvement.

@Benkei
Still inconsistent. And double standards.
Two years!

Banned 3017amen for disruption, trolling, and ignoring warnings. — Baden

Our loss, his gain.

We tend to make a distinction between behavior that's uncharacteristic and/or borne of frustration and what appears to be a modus operandi.

@Baden
OK. But there are posters whose modus operandi is a lot of ad hom and emotionality.

3017 wasn't like that.
Bottom line,that's inconsistent.

It seems to me being a confident theist puts one on the radar.

And do you not take account of defending oneself against the invective of others?

And do you not take account of defending oneself against the invective of others? — Protagoras

Yes, but when, for example, your first post in a thread involves calling someone childish names, you don't get to use the 'defending yourself' excuse.

@Baden
Come on. There is extensive history between 3017 amen and 180 and you know it.

This is just excuses. I've seen much worse calling of names.

You guys really can't be this biased?

The organism was incorrect in relation to the reality of its environment, and so was rendered extinct. Moderators - red in tooth and claw!

There's nothing inconsistent about it, you're just disappointed. You're welcome to vent in this thread.

@Benkei

There is. I wouldn't expect you to have the balls to be consistent anyway.

I don't have balls so yeah, easy enough.

@Benkei
Yes,low courage.

What are you trying to accomplish? That I'll suddenly change my behaviour because some internet random says I'm a coward and don't have integrity? What are the chances of that happening considering your chosen approach?

I'm happy to discuss moderation choices if you have something that resembles an argument. So far your comments here do not invite any sort of discussion.

Think about what you want out of this conversation and reply accordingly (or not). I'll interpret any further comments along the lines as above as venting and not actually about moderation decisions. I'll happily ignore the former.

The organism was incorrect in relation to the reality of its environment, and so was rendered extinct. Moderators - red in tooth and claw! — counterpunch

:strong: Amor fati!

@Benkei
You wouldn't change your current stance no matter how a person approached you.

And that's the point. Think about it.
Moderator random.

I feel that members who initially started personal attacks and abuse on other members in the threads on the basis of gender, social status, race, beliefs, intelligence, qualifications ...etc must be subject to the consideration of ban.

Because it is unfair and unreasonable for the members who suffered those abuses and attacks out of the blue, to keep quiet and play saint, and show the initial attacker, kindness and compassion. Even Nietzsche wouldn't approve it.

We want to discuss philosophy, not getting attacks and abuses thrown at us by emotionally volatile and self centred members who are not interested in genuine philosophical debates, but parading here for some other shady purposes and motives. I am with Protagoras on this issue by the way. 3017 amen has been decent, calm and has never started attacking other people from his side from my knowledge and memory. The ban was a shock to me. Just my 2 cents ...

P.S.: Like yous, I don't take seriously FUCK OFFs as personal attack or abuse, when uttered in right context. :D

You know 3017amen was here for two years. Me and @Corvus can both testify that he is a calm poster.

If others feel the same way,say it by post here.

The irony of a forum full of people debating and talking about ethics, empathy and human rights,and then only two people showing any courage to say," hey this is not right. We can see he wasn't an emotional poster".

Or are all your ethics abstract?
It's how you treat issues like this that expresses your character. Otherwise you are just talkers and echo chamber partisans.

I have never been part of this thread (circus) but as a token for the departed member will say:

can both testify that he is a calm poster. — Protagoras

I will second the above. I will call him a 'good' guy.

The irony of a forum full of people debating and talking about ethics, empathy and human rights,and then only two people showing any courage to say," hey this is not right. We can see he wasn't an emotional poster".

Or are all your ethics abstract?
It's how you treat issues like this that expresses your character. Otherwise you are just talkers and echo chamber partisans. — Protagoras

The above is a good post.

Amor fati! — 180 Proof

Exit...pursued by bear!

I’d say there are plenty of people who should get banned on the site but 3017 was very far down the list for me. Don’t know why you’d start with him/her.

ignoring warnings — Baden

That's the important one IMO. A process was followed. Members are lucky there is a process at all, and even luckier there are volunteer mods to enforce it. There needn't be.