Rules update: new policy (#10) and its immediate implementation

That went way too far. Sometimes finding my way in this world is just too much.

The world - by which I mean both this Earth, [its] containing universe, and all realms beyond where afterlives take place - is too vast to expect ourselves to be free of error.

Sometimes all one can do is try and practice self-reflection with a dose of self-forgiveness.

Thanks, it is nice to be back!

I'd like to put in a plea for Vortex. If he is right and all he did was to discuss paedophilia, I think he should come back also. I mean, anyone can discuss murder, but it doesn't mean he should be treated as a murderer! I HATE the idea of paedophilia, but I have talked to him by email, and he confirmed that he only discussed it in the abstract.

David

Thanks, it is nice to be back!

I'd like to put in a plea for Vortex. If he is right and all he did was to discuss paedophilia, I think he should come back also. I mean, anyone can discuss murder, but it doesn't mean he should be treated as a murderer! I HATE the idea of paedophilia, but I have talked to him by email, and he confirmed that he only discussed it in the abstract.

David

Vortex already defended paedophilia on the Skeptiko forum and it seems that he has continued similar behavior here. Good riddance.

Vortex already defended paedophilia on the Skeptiko forum and it seems that he has continued similar behavior here. Good riddance.

OK - fair enough - I am happy with Laird's decision.

David

[Laird]

Vortex already defended paedophilia on the Skeptiko forum and it seems that he has continued similar behavior here.

In fairness, he didn't defend nor even discuss paedophilia at all on Psience Quest as far as I'm aware, at least not publicly. He did on the Skeptiko forums though.

I've been offline for a few days due to reasons beyond my control. Now that I'm back, the bans that were temporarily lifted have been reimplemented. Their lifting was a momentary lapse, corrected shortly afterwards, except that two of them were mistakenly reset to one-day bans rather than permanent. They are now permanent, but can be lifted should sanity prevail and support for the serious harm(s) in question be sincerely retracted, whether via this board's Contact Us form or otherwise.

In response to some of these ongoing harms in this world (which had been a focus for me in recent months) and those who support or condone them, some of my posts were unnecessarily aggressive and/or crude. Before going offline, I'd soft-deleted the two most severe examples (one in the now anyway inaccessible opt-in forums). My most recent previous post in this thread is best interpreted in that light.

I understand that this is an unpopular policy. I'm open to a good-faith discussion about what qualifies as (support for) a serious harm. Please let's avoid bad-faith responses though. In any case, given that politics is now totally off-topic on our board, it's a policy that is unlikely to be applied going forward, and I certainly hope the need doesn't arise.

In any case, here's wishing a happy festive season to all.

In fairness, he didn't defend nor even discuss paedophilia at all on Psience Quest as far as I'm aware, at least not publicly. He did on the Skeptiko forums though.

I've been offline for a few days due to reasons beyond my control. Now that I'm back, the bans that were temporarily lifted have been reimplemented. Their lifting was a momentary lapse, corrected shortly afterwards, except that two of them were mistakenly reset to one-day bans rather than permanent. They are now permanent, but can be lifted should sanity prevail and support for the serious harm(s) in question be sincerely retracted, whether via this board's Contact Us form or otherwise.

In response to some of these ongoing harms in this world (which had been a focus for me in recent months) and those who support or condone them, some of my posts were unnecessarily aggressive and/or crude. Before going offline, I'd soft-deleted the two most severe examples (one in the now anyway inaccessible opt-in forums). My most recent previous post in this thread is best interpreted in that light.

I understand that this is an unpopular policy. I'm open to a good-faith discussion about what qualifies as (support for) a serious harm. Please let's avoid bad-faith responses though. In any case, given that politics is now totally off-topic on our board, it's a policy that is unlikely to be applied going forward, and I certainly hope the need doesn't arise.

In any case, here's wishing a happy festive season to all.

I think it's reasonable to un-ban at least David, who AFAICTell never said anything that wasn't explicitly permitted in the politics forums.

I haven't looked too deeply at the other ones but from what I saw David only disagreed with your positions and never in some deeply offensive manner?

[Laird]

There was no explicit permission to advocate for (nor against) anything in particular in those forums, and let's not confuse politeness and civility with inoffensiveness. Disagreement also isn't a problem in and of itself.

Unbanning is contingent on retraction, but I doubt that that will eventuate because I don't expect anything to have sincerely changed.

[Laird]

I have a disagreement with Laird as to Valmar being included in the list of bans, as I don't think he shares the same history of socio-political statements that go beyond the pale, and I have enjoyed exchanging him a lot when I have.

Just for closure on this: I've agreed with Ian to exclude Valmar (edit: from the ban list, that is). While my personal view of his tacit support remains the same, given Ian's sentiments, it seems reasonable for the purposes of this policy, in the context of this invitation to clarifying discussion...

I'm open to a good-faith discussion about what qualifies as (support for) a serious harm.

...to clarify that support being both implicit and equivocal is a mitigating factor. That's the only form of support that Valmar has expressed on these (opt-in) forums, and I have no knowledge of anything explicit and unequivocal that he might have said privately or elsewhere. This decision is provisional on that remaining the case.

It feels difficult to me. I've never visited the opt-in forums, and if I understand correctly, that means I would not have come across any of the evidence in this context. That makes the specifics of what is the issue very abstract.

[Laird]

I've edited my post for clarity, @Typoz (see the new parenthetical). I get the sense you misunderstood it, which is fair enough given the wording.