Libertarian Utopias

[Res Ipsa]

There you go again, trying to justify your own bad behavior by referring to other people. I’ll keep saying this until you address the issue: your “entertainment” is degrading the entertainment of many others. My duty, per Shades, is to act for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Without changing the subject to anyone else’s behavior, explain how permitting you to entertain yourself at the expense of many other people represents the greatest good for the greatest number.

yes you definitely have the numbers in your progressive cult utopia. And you’re going to definitely get rid of me. The only way you could do that was to strong arm the board founder and you seem extremely proud of that accomplishment. Wait. Actually let me take that back. I can’t remember a time in the past few days you actually spoke up and strong armed Shades, but your butt buddies sure did. And you let them do it, “ for his own good”.

I don’t think you’ll find an example of me ever trying to strong arm Shades. On a couple of occasions, when he seemed at a very low place, I volunteered to take on some extra responsibility to take some of the pressure on him if it would help. When I have a disagreement with Shades about the board, I handle it by PM or on the mod board. That’s my style.

Andy you’re making the same mistake over and over. I am responsible for the content of my posts. I am not responsible for the content of your posts. You are responsible for the content of your posts. I am not responsible for the content of posts by people who publicly criticized Shades. Each of those posters is responsible for the content of their own posts.

As a moderator, I am responsible for enforcing the rules. There is no rule against criticizing Shades for actions he takes or does not take in administering the board. As you may have noticed, the same is true of moderators. Part of the job is being willing to take the heat.

The mistake you keep making over and over again is a common one among Mormons and, therefore, ex Mormons. They often try to make themselves responsible for the behavior of others, while blaming their own behavior on someone else. Both you and Binger do this all the time.

When you accuse me of letting others strong arm Shades, you are completely scrambling up who is responsible for whose speech. As a forum member, I have neither the power nor the responsibility to be responsible for others speech. As a moderator, no rule would allow me to prevent people from criticizing Shades.

And on that subject, it is the height of hypocrisy for you to be criticizing others behavior towards Shades. Despite being aware of his real life pressures and setbacks, you never once let up with your campaign to troll and Piss off folks here. I think it would be fair to say that you took complete advantage of Shades’ circumstances to be as divisive as possible. You’ve displayed complete contempt for Shades’ rules, even bragging that no matter how they may be changed, you’ll be right there finding some loophole to continue to troll. When it comes to showing respect for Shades, you have absolutely no high ground. A person who respected Shades would have made good faith efforts to stay within the spirit and the letter of the rules without playing the “please don’t eat the daisies” game.

[canpakes]

I reread it. Again. In contrast to you, I read all four numbered points. Why did you cut that last one off?

As I told Marcus, I had not remembered Shades's entire post -- just his statement about entertainment. Having read the whole post, I understand his point about new people having the same right to entertainment as old hands. But you aren't new people here.

Having reread the entire post -- including the part you left out -- I think my opinion is much more aligned with Shades's than yours is. Paragraph 4 is completely consistent with the Libertarian value of not using people as means to an end. And the very essence of trolling is using other people as a means to an end. A substantial number of people here have expressed that the way you choose to entertain yourself is degrading their entertainment. So, Shades' intent is clear: we must moderate according to the greatest good for the greatest number.

You can disagree with me about Binger's entertainment. But it is not an insult to state a completely accurate description of what he considers entertainment -- at least his entertainment here. You haven't proven him right about anything. In fact, all you've done is alerted me to Shades's own guidance for what a moderator should do in this exact situation: moderate according to the greatest good for the greatest number. That's not a very hard call at this point, is it?

Of course Shades isn't happy about the action he took. I'm not happy about it either. But he did what he did, and now I'm among the three of us who are specifically charged with acting for the greatest good for the greatest number.

You’re upset because I proved you wrong. 100% wrong and everyone knows lawyers hate being proven wrong, especially by a uneducated roofer. No matter how you use your lawyer spin, Shades said the ultimate goal for this board is entertainment. And in my opinion your clique is 100% trying to remove entertainment from the equation. You’re here to have your cognitive dissonance stroked, not be entertained. That’s exactly what you said in the post above.

Sorry to be fashionably late to the party.

Atlanticmike, you are not correct in any majority sense when it comes to trying to justify your behavior as acceptable under the claim that you find it entertaining. Shades’s other comment completely shuts you down.

Consider a concert, put on by your favorite group. You’d go, and be entertained. And it would be entertaining for everyone else, as well. And if you decided to pour your beer over the heads of several other concert-goers as they were trying to watch the band, then even if you thought that your particular action was entertaining to yourself, chances are that very few others would, and you’d be kicked out of the concert.

If you believe that this is incorrect, then argue that point. In the meantime, everyone from Shades to Binger will tell you that you’re wrong. Especially Binger, considering how strongly he objected to me clapping back at his own shenanigans, to the point where he repeatedly asked for my ouster.

If I claimed that whatever I said or did to Binger was entertaining to me, then why would he complain so vehemently against that ‘entertainment’?

[Gadianton]

The explosive; the volcanic irony here, is that it's Res's progressive, uber-inclusive, torture-oneself-to-be-fair-to everyone mode of operation that has allowed one particular poster waging a war against progressives to still be here. Res is genuinely good and caring person.

As a libertarian myself, I don't care if people feel welcome or are valued as people on a message board, generally speaking. Not many rules are needed, it doesn't take much to tell who wants to be a part of a community. I trolled the apologists for years. It was no surprise when DCP banned me from SeN after my first post. What would any reasonable person expect? However, I could go to SeN or FAIR, or anywhere else under a sock, and be critical and never get banned, if I wanted to. In fact, FAIR never banned me. It takes a minimum understanding of human nature.

Ironically, the way I moderate (I could never be a mod here nor want to be) would be more in line with what A-mike would respect in a cop in the real world. Non-nonsense; fix the problem; no rubber bullets. That would have left him banned long ago.

[canpakes]

Ironically, the way I moderate (I could never be a mod here nor want to be) would be more in line with what A-mike would respect in a cop in the real world. Non-nonsense; fix the problem; no rubber bullets. That would have left him banned long ago.

You’re not wrong about this. If the board was moderated in the way that Binger or AtlanticMike claimed that they wanted, they’d be the first to be banned under their own rules of order.

[Jersey Girl]

The explosive; the volcanic irony here, is that it's Res's progressive, uber-inclusive, torture-oneself-to-be-fair-to everyone mode of operation that has allowed one particular poster waging a war against progressives to still be here. Res is genuinely good and caring person.

As a libertarian myself, I don't care if people feel welcome or are valued as people on a message board, generally speaking. Not many rules are needed, it doesn't take much to tell who wants to be a part of a community. I trolled the apologists for years. It was no surprise when DCP banned me from SeN after my first post. What would any reasonable person expect? However, I could go to SeN or FAIR, or anywhere else under a sock, and be critical and never get banned, if I wanted to. In fact, FAIR never banned me. It takes a minimum understanding of human nature.

Ironically, the way I moderate (I could never be a mod here nor want to be) would be more in line with what A-mike would respect in a cop in the real world. Non-nonsense; fix the problem; no rubber bullets. That would have left him banned long ago.

And all of the above qualities you have are exactly why I would like to see you moderate here. I guess you are not a good fit for this board. But I wish you would consider all the same. I suggested you as temp. admin in Shades' absence for those very reasons.

I think I know what you'd do and know that you'd do it to me as soon as you'd do it to anyone else.

[Gadianton]

While I appreciate the sentiment, I think the rule of law should prevail. I'm happy to see these three fine individuals take the reigns.

Shades' rules are pretty brilliant, I'll admit that. They are kind of like a mini constitution. But one person can't write it and enforce it and everything in between, and Res, Xen, and Canpakes will do an awesome job. Probably they will error on the side of sympathy to trolls, but I think ultimately they will find a solution. I think that a free-speech forum should be slow to ban people and should give people chances.

I was heartened by Res' red ink on the latest youtube link and drive-by.

[Jersey Girl]

While I appreciate the sentiment, I think the rule of law should prevail. I'm happy to see these three fine individuals take the reigns.

Shades' rules are pretty brilliant, I'll admit that. They are kind of like a mini constitution. But one person can't write it and enforce it and everything in between, and Res, Xen, and Canpakes will do an awesome job. Probably they will error on the side of sympathy to trolls, but I think ultimately they will find a solution. I think that a free-speech forum should be slow to ban people and should give people chances.

I was heartened by Res' red ink on the latest youtube link and drive-by.

The first board you and I were on at the same time was without moderation. It took an act of God to get admin to do anything until we bought the board and then the new admin was willing to protect people's in real life considerations, mainly my own for reasons I'd rather not go into here.

ZLMB was, in my view, high level moderation with a bias towards LDS posters. I accept that is how it was. I eventually adjusted to the moderation there until ZLMB crumbled.

This board seemed like the best of both worlds and it IS the best of both worlds. However, what I am seeing happening here has got virtually nothing to do with the right to free speech. It has got to do with harassment and disruption, with the end game being that of thwarting communication which is the cornerstone of any discussion/debate forum. What I see isn't about someone who wants to speak freely and openly, but a person who wants to make the most noise.

Anyway, I do think that we have a crackerjack mod team. And I mean what I said about you and your no-nonsense get it done approach. I would trust you implicitly even if you were to take mod action against me in which case I would just take it.

[Atlanticmike]

yes you definitely have the numbers in your progressive cult utopia. And you’re going to definitely get rid of me. The only way you could do that was to strong arm the board founder and you seem extremely proud of that accomplishment. Wait. Actually let me take that back. I can’t remember a time in the past few days you actually spoke up and strong armed Shades, but your butt buddies sure did. And you let them do it, “ for his own good”.

I don’t think you’ll find an example of me ever trying to strong arm Shades. On a couple of occasions, when he seemed at a very low place, I volunteered to take on some extra responsibility to take some of the pressure on him if it would help. When I have a disagreement with Shades about the board, I handle it by PM or on the mod board. That’s my style.

Andy you’re making the same mistake over and over. I am responsible for the content of my posts. I am not responsible for the content of your posts. You are responsible for the content of your posts. I am not responsible for the content of posts by people who publicly criticized Shades. Each of those posters is responsible for the content of their own posts.

As a moderator, I am responsible for enforcing the rules. There is no rule against criticizing Shades for actions he takes or does not take in administering the board. As you may have noticed, the same is true of moderators. Part of the job is being willing to take the heat.

The mistake you keep making over and over again is a common one among Mormons and, therefore, ex Mormons. They often try to make themselves responsible for the behavior of others, while blaming their own behavior on someone else. Both you and Binger do this all the time.

When you accuse me of letting others strong arm Shades, you are completely scrambling up who is responsible for whose speech. As a forum member, I have neither the power nor the responsibility to be responsible for others speech. As a moderator, no rule would allow me to prevent people from criticizing Shades.

And on that subject, it is the height of hypocrisy for you to be criticizing others behavior towards Shades. Despite being aware of his real life pressures and setbacks, you never once let up with your campaign to troll and Piss off folks here. I think it would be fair to say that you took complete advantage of Shades’ circumstances to be as divisive as possible. You’ve displayed complete contempt for Shades’ rules, even bragging that no matter how they may be changed, you’ll be right there finding some loophole to continue to troll. When it comes to showing respect for Shades, you have absolutely no high ground. A person who respected Shades would have made good faith efforts to stay within the spirit and the letter of the rules without playing the “please don’t eat the daisies” game.

Anyone who disagrees with the progressive narrative that has infected this board is considered a troll. The most recent example is Markk. He post one time and the next post is from Kevin, one of Doc Cams lieutenants, posting how Markk is a troll. That’s your problem. You have a handful of posters on here that don’t want an opposing view point here and they know they have free reign of the board to go out and do exactly what Kevin did without actually being disciplined. That’s exactly what this board has turned into. You guys have taken advantage of Dr. shades generosity and essentially taken over his board with your progressive disease. There’s so many of you now there’s really nothing he can do. The boards infested with progressive cockroaches and every time an exterminator comes around you guys change the rules.

[canpakes]

That’s your problem. You have a handful of posters on here that don’t want an opposing view point here …

We’ve seen a few. One of the better examples is the fellow always whining about ‘progressive cockroaches’. ; )

[Atlanticmike]

That’s your problem. You have a handful of posters on here that don’t want an opposing view point here …

We’ve seen a few. One of the better examples is the fellow always whining about ‘progressive cockroaches’. ; )

When I first found this board I read the rules and here are the first words I read, “”1. Everyone is welcome. Every opinion is welcome. Therefore, do not de-invite anyone or suggest they go elsewhere. Please do not do this via email or private message either.”” And after that, I started reading through threads and I suddenly realized whoever set up those rules is as an extremely nice person with a good heart and that person had been taken advantage of by a bunch of whiny loud mouth progressives that set up a clique on the board. I also noticed the clique was using a handful of their devoted members to moderate the board by Intimidation and by insulting posters with a differing view point? The clique devised a plan to send out certain members to insult other poster by calling them a racist, nazi, sexist, misogynist, trumpeter, White supremacist and so on. And I’ll admit the clique strategy was very affective. Within posting just a handful of times I had two board members PM me and warn me of the progressives narrative found in Spirit paradise. They flat out told me I was going to be attacked if I post my actual views. One of the members actually new of me from MDDB and said I wasn’t going to last a week in Spirit paradise. My wife is amazed at how absolutely insane and vicious the attitude is in spirit paradise, she thinks it’s a cesspool. My buddy from mddb won’t use his account because he doesn’t do well with confrontation.

Your clique has taken advantage of Shades and it happened way before I came along. Universal rule #1 means absolutely nothing, not because of Shades, but because of his so called friends that formed a clique and now tell him if he doesn’t comply with their demands they’ll leave him. That’s not friendship.

But go ahead and change the rules, i’m a chameleon and I can change my colors overnight. You’re going to have to get rid of me by deleting my account. Like Gadianton said, no one actually wants me here because I’m Mormon. Like the backwards Professor said, this place is an ECHO CHAMBER and you guys should be proud of that fact. Because everyone knows the reason you don’t want me here is because of my opinion. You’re upset because I won’t accept being called names like Ajax accepts it. That’s not who I am and it drives you guys crazy. So much so, you’ve performed a psychological coup d’état on one of your own friends. Shades has bent over backwards to give you guys exactly what you want, exactly. And now you have his power. So let’s see what you do with it.