This message was self-deleted by its author

[beevul]

84. Objective standards.

"For example, no links to right-wing sources like Glenn Beck or the Washington Times."

In that context, objective standards means a source of information is judged on its factual content, rather than whos electrons its written on.

But thats not what I meant.

I meant objective standards of BEHAVIOR - rather than a jury system.

"Try to understand that if the only people who agree with something are all from one side, that makes it "one-sided".

Yes, I know, the debate over guns is mostly "one sided". Perhaps you should give that some thought.

"The most objective measure we have of disruptive behavior is juries, and by that standard very few of Hoyt's posts were hidden."

Thats like saying "the most seaworthy boat we have, is that one over there with 300 holes in it...".

There is nothing what so ever objective about the jury system.

And again, everyone here, including I suspect, you, knows it.

Certain posters come to this forum and do NOTHING except post in an effort to agitate others. Those posters stick out like sore thumb, and their intent is crystal clear to anyone who isn't completely biased.

Hoyt was one of those posters.

"I agree it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than krispos banning people that pro-gunners don't like, without any kind of balance or process or fairness."

Hoyt wasn't blocked because of his viewpoints. He was blocked for the way he expressed them. As in a completely and unapologetically uncivil manor.

"There was nothing objective about banning Hoyt."

Remember what skinner said about iverglas:

"Constantly surly and rude, iverglas had become pretty much the epitome of "making DU suck."

That sentence fits hoyt to a t. The only difference, is that he only pulls that shit ONLY in the guns forum, where juries that are biased, and/or dont give two shits, and let it stand.

His sort of behavior in ANY OTHER FORUM on DU would have gotten him PPR'd long ago. Think real long and hard about that and let it sink in.


"Of course you agree with banning him: you are a pro-gunner."

Him being blocked from this group makes me smile, yes it does.

However, I don't support his blocking because he was on the other side of the issue, I support it because he was "Constantly surly and rude", and "had become pretty much the epitome of "making the guns forum (a part of DU) suck."

I'm sure there were people that thought the same way about iverglas, as whatever youre going to say about hoyt in his defense.

"The truth is that Hoyt was banned because he reminded the group that the gun culture is rife with racism, extremism, and bloodlust."

You state that as if it was the truth. Its not. You know it. We know it.

"Pro-gunners would like to ignore that fact, and find it offensive when anyone points it out."

Except its not a fact.

"But this is not FR, this is DU, and pointing out the truth about the right-wing gun culture is not grounds for banning."

What you assert and perhaps perceive as the truth, and whats actually truth, are far different things.

"That's why Hoyt had very few hidden posts, and was not banned by MIRT or by admins, only by krispos."

No. Just no. Hoyt had as few posts hidden as he did, and was allowed to get away with murder so to speak, the way he did, because the jury system is just plain broken, and people from opposite sides of the gun issue are not held to the same standards of behavior by juries in any way shape size or form.

And everyone knows it.

"When I posted about Hoyt in Meta, there were a total of zero non-pro-gun DUers that supported the move. Many people, including many people that never post in the gungeon, and at least two DU2 admins, expressed dismay. "

You state this as if it proves something. It doesnt.

Hoyt made his bed, crossed the line after very carefully and deliberately riding it for a very long time, and now he gets to sleep in it.

Thats what youre complaining about.

Do you think he was banned because he was from your side of the issue? How does that square with the other poster that was blocked?

I can't help but notice, you haven't said so much as a word about that.

Why is that?