Why was The Wall temp-banned?

[Jasede]

FREE THE WALL

FREE THE WALL

FREE THE WALL

WOW, I LOVE QUAD POSTING

Good try, it's almost as if he were back.
But it's just not the same.

 

[King Crispy]

"utterly deranged" lmao what? he's like a 6 out of 10 at best on the scale of deranged codexers

You would know.

 

[agris]

0 to crispy in 1.9 infinitrons

 

[†††]

I'm sure being banned by the Jewish admin will cure his anti-semitism completely.

 

[You]

Did @You want me to ban @You?

you will get banned in exchange for The Wall being unbanned now - you will accept this

 

[Kruno]

Did @You want me to ban @You?

you will get banned in exchange for The Wall being unbanned now - you will accept this

we aren't fat because we chose to be
we are fat because we were born that way

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

What is it with jews and walls?

Cool it with the antisemitic remarks.

 

[Gregz]

The only reason this site is worth a shit is because of The Administration's purported stance on free and open discussion of RPGs:

From Rules of the Codex - Enhanced Edition, Director's Cut (2013):

The Codex is a place to debate and discuss computer-based roleplaying games. It was founded by a group of RPG fans who wanted somewhere to discuss how terrible RPGs were without getting banned on various developers' official forums or having their posts deleted (it turns out if you call a game's combat system crap on the developer's official forums, they don't like you very much). As such, the Codex is quite happy for people to come here and vigourously debate - until they run out of breath - how good or bad their favourite / least favourite RPG is. Codexians should feel free to do so without fear of being banned for using "offensive language", having their thread locked because it "got too heated" or warned for "flaming". By all means, feel free to troll each other as much as you please and incite flame-wars with whichever willing participants you are able to find.

If the core and founding tenet of this site has changed, then The Rules should probably be amended to reflect that.

 

[Rincewind]

If some idiot hits you up on the street and starts blabbering about the end of the world and conspiracy theories and shit, how long until you tell him to fuck off? Even worse, he starts calling you names when you just politely disagree with him. Why should that crap be even tolerated?

The difference is that you can actually ignore people here using standard forum functions. You virtually erase their presence from your sight. You don't have to or need to tolerate anyone here, simply place them on your ignore list and that's it. Easy, simple, powerful solution.

Yeah, that's true. I'm mainly here for information about games, and I've got a few good indirect tips even from individuals whose views I find very questionable, so I prefer not to ignore anybody.

I get the free speech angle in the sense to be able to freely criticise games, etc. There are for example some semi-professional forums that I frequent that are basically heavily vendor-sponsored, which means any criticism against their products is usually silenced. Which is... unfortunate, but then it's the owner's decision, and they must represent the interests of their sponsors, otherwise they'd be losing money. Once you accept that, they're still quite good forums.

I agree it's good to have a forum where you can say anything you want about any game without getting banned or whatever, in a *civil* manner. I'm all for that. Notice that *civil manner* part? I don't know where you get the idea from, that you can behave any way you want under the "protection" of free speech, that's insane...

 

[Sjukob]

Answer: Ask anybody who reads the Kingdom Come: Deliverance thread.

Seriously, enough is enough.

Why do you do nothing about anime avatar idiots, even though people ask for some measures being taken, yet go for some random sperg out that nobody has a problem with?

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Did @You want me to ban @You?

You will get banned in exchange for The Wall being unbanned now - You will accept this

'k

 

[Roguey]

If the core and founding tenet of this site has changed, then The Rules should probably be amended to reflect that.

And as owners of the pub, we reserve the right to throw your ass out at any time, for whatever reason.

 

[King Crispy]

You got banned.

 

[LostHisMarbles]

What would you retards do without Crispy and Infinitron, lol?

The forum would go down the shitter in a couple of weeks; probably overly optimistic here, make it a couple of days more like.
Mods have come and gone, sometimes returned only to fuck off again, sometimes within less than a month. Others that stayed have other priorities or merely assist, as they clearly can't take the moderating bulk off either's back.
You really think anyone else has both the patience and the knack for this site?

* Without going all howling at the moon mind you

 

[Rincewind]

We don't need no thought control.

 

[Drop Duck]

I guess some people think this magical idea of "free-speech" also gives them free license to be obnoxious to everyone

I never thought I would write a defense of free speech for the benefit of a toxic poster like The Wall but you are forcing my hand here. If you value free speech it must not just apply to people you don't like or find obnoxious but especially to them since you would never want to ban speech you like or find pleasant. The same goes for the idea of tolerance, if you actually don't mind someone or something you have nothing to tolerate.

To misquote a political commentator I like: "Free speech doesn't care about your feelings." Being Jewish and having a direct generational wound from your kind of thinking let loose in the oppressive and tyrannical USSR I think I know a lot better than you about the value of a free and open society. It might be old now but it remains true:

First they came for the monarchists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a monarchist.
Then they came for the bourgeoisie and I did not speak out—because I was not bourgeoisie
Then they came for the kulaks, and I did not speak out—because I was not a kulak.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

If there wasn't any free speech principle here you might be one of the first to be thrown out and banned for saying the wrong thing or having the wrong opinion. Look at the ratings you received for your post, if it would be put to vote whom people find most obnoxious you would be far up on the list. For not cowering when it comes to discussions here I too would be.



You might not notice it but the first one to suffer from the diminished freedom of speech is you, your rights are being eroded, your privilege to say what you want. You are not gaining anything from silencing someone that you disagree with. And if free speech remains everyone will think that you fear the other person for calling for it. What could be so important they have to say that you couldn't handle it being said?

If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?

 

[Rincewind]

The same goes for the idea of tolerance, if you actually don't mind someone or something you have nothing to tolerate.

I disagree, there has to be a balance. Surely tolerance has its limits too, if we're getting philosophical about this; for instance, "tolerating" extremely intolerant people is probably not a very good idea, overall.

All forms of extremism tend to be harmful in general, which includes extreme notions of "freedom", "free speech", whatever. That way you'll just get anarchy. But even in anarchy some form of order will sooner or later emerge.

And just a reality check: we're talking about shitposters in a fucking gaming forum here...

 

[BanEvader]

I'll solve it for you guys.
Free speech doesn't matter.
But The Wall shouldn't have been temp banned cause fuck mods.
There, that's the only correct position here.

 

[Drop Duck]

Surely tolerance has its limits too, if we're getting philosophical about this; for instance, "tolerating" extremely intolerant people is probably not a very good idea, overall.

Who gets to decide who the intolerant are then? It seems to me you just want intolerance in the first place. What makes you think they won't say exactly the same about you? That you must be removed for being intolerant.

All forms of extremism tend to be harmful in general, which includes extreme notions of "freedom", "free speech", whatever.

This is proto-fascism. You can't be extremist about freedom or free speech since they must encompass everything and doesn't force anyone to do anything or forbid anyone from anything, nothing is being imposed. You sound like one of those far-right communists that want to cancel everyone.

And just a reality check: we're talking about shitposters in a fucking gaming forum here...

This is how the nazis in Germany did it. They were only banning films and art. They were only marking Jewish shops and people. They were only... It always starts small.

 

[LJ40]

Motherfucker just compared shitposting on a video game forum to films and art.

Holy shit that's, well, completely unsurprising.

 

[Rincewind]

Who gets to decide who the intolerant are then? It seems to me you just want intolerance in the first place. What makes you think they won't say exactly the same about you? That you must be removed for being intolerant.

The owner of the website, in this particular case. Say I own a website that publishes articles from time to time. If I don't like your article, it won't get published, simple as that. Citing "free speech" won't work — it's my website. Exact same deal with comments in a blog or in a forum; the owner of the site decides, end of story. Hopefully you're not trying to imply that privately owned websites *must* be forced to publish *anything* against their wishes because of "free speech"...

Reminder: this is a privately owned website.

You, just like many others here, are very confused about the true definition of "free speech". It's basically protection against prosecution (at the state/government level) for holding various religious and political beliefs and/or speaking about them publicly. That's about it. If you "exercise your free speech" to defame someone, for instance, you'll very quickly find yourself in the middle of a lawsuit.

That is the theory, at least, because as long as people are people, there's always ways to make someone's life miserable if they piss you off, whatever the laws might be. I'm quite sure many "problematic" people were "proven" to be communist spies even in that Wonderful Land of Freedom(TM) and got thrown into jail if they pissed off some high-ranking guys enough... That's just people for you.

Reality check again: most shitposters here are "fighting" for their "freedom" to basically do something like this: "I've watched the trailer for game X / played it for 5 minutes; now let me broadcast to the world in the most excruciating detail, using the most colourful language, why trannies/gays/lesbians/blacks/communists/whatever are the source of all my inadequacies in life in general". Sure, the right to do just that (in a *private* forum!) is something worth "protecting"...

In contrast with all this crap, posts and reviews from people like Vault Dweller were what drew me to this place in the first place a long time ago (only as a reader, for quite some time). Those were blunt, to the point, funny, and informative posts — none of this low-brow, veiled or direct racist/misoginistic/etc shit.

But you know what, maybe it's just not possible to bring the former glory back, and we just gotta deal with it.

 

[Bester]

for instance, "tolerating" extremely intolerant people is probably not a very good idea, overall.

Then you should be thankful that we do tolerate you, the intolerant libtard.

 

[SlamDunk]

 

[Drop Duck]

The owner of the website, in this particular case. Say I own a website that publishes articles from time to time. If I don't like your article, it won't get published, simple as that. Citing "free speech" won't work — it's my website. Exact same deal with comments in a blog or in a forum; the owner of the site decides, end of story. Hopefully you're not trying to imply that privately owned websites *must* be forced to publish *anything* against their wishes because of "free speech"...

I will let my mum know that I'm a published author and journalist on top of my other successes now, she'll be very impressed.

You, just like many others here, are very confused about the true definition of "free speech".

That I am not. If a phone company decides to cut off the calls of someone and ban them from their service then that would be on behalf of government persecution if the calls did not break the law or the terms of agreement of the service. Your initial post in this thread was a direct argument against all free speech and did not limit it to what private enterprises did, it seems you have backtracked a lot on that.

 

[Tavar]

I've now read the discussion in the KCD-thread and while I agree with The Wall that it is very optimistic to believe that eastern europeans are immune to the woke mind virus, he clearly was overly zealous in the thread. I think a couple of hours of time out would've been enough to cool him down, though. How long is the temporary ban?