Raped teenager commits suicide after rapist only gets 31 days jail

[Askold]

Its a world of bloody difference between saying that Kathy Brennan or Vox Day needs a good brick upside the head

Lol no it isn't. The paranoid reasoning you're giving me has no resemblance to the reality of the situation. Calling a judge to bitch him out about a comment is precisely as "harassing" as saying that Cathy Brennan "needs a good brick upside his head," which is also MUCH more immediately threatening as a comment. And it's no accident that I picked her as an example, either. That's her full name, that actually IS personal identifying information. According to you, shouldn't I only refer to her as "bugbrennan," even though she fucking hands her name & sometimes her number out--unless she's done it HERE? That's one of the things I'm criticizing, actually. You people aren't fucking reading shit, you're just repeating points that clear critiques have been expressed on, & not actually showing that the critiques are wrong.

Ahem...

Its a world of bloody difference between saying that Kathy Brennan or Vox Day needs a good brick upside the head and actually giving out contact information, no matter how public it may be, to someone with the express intent of encouraging others to commit criminal harassment.

Don't quote mine.

Anyway, I really do think there is a difference between bitching about random asshole X online and posting his phonenumber with the added note of "here's his number, so harass him maybe?"

And even if in this particular case that particular information wasn't illegal to spread, I'm not fond of suggestions of harassing people. Well, maybe if there is a "contact your politician" adresses or numbers because then the people of the region certainly have a right to voice their displeasure with the asshole.

[PosthumanHeresy]

I can understand Sigma not wanting to take a chance with that shit so soon afterward, or did you forget Distind saying we should be grateful that he didn't just destroy the forum outright?

This is something I've seen crop up a lot on these boards for a while now. After the split, people were deathly afraid of having or talking about drama, for instance. Another thing is this scapegoating bullshit. It's not just Ironbite, myself, & PHH that "did this." We are only responding to claims that are being made, & I definitely criticized PHH when I felt he stepped out of line. You want to talk about "us vs. them" reasoning, fair enough, but maybe the board has been unconsciously fostering it for a while now.

And, I just wanna say something here. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I don't know what people think about me, but despite the disagreements I've had with people on here, I still respect you all. There's only one member other than trolls I've hated, and that's Distind.

[Yla]

The teacher is a rapist, and the judge is an ass and unworthy of his position, but there is such a thing as the rule of law. You say the law has failed? Okay, screw the law, let's form a lynch mob. That's sure going to be constructive and set a good precedent.[/sarcasm]

The judicial process failing for Cherice does not justify removing Baugh's right of process (or disciplinary action in our case). Which is what doxxing him implicitly calls for, calling to take matters into their own hands. A petition is something different, in that it only calls for action by the authority, but does not act itself bypassing proper authority. I fully support petitioning his oversight to take a look at him.

An anarchist is going to disagree with several things of what I've said. I acknowledge this, and I'll freely admit there are cases where their position not only has merit, but is considered preferable by me. This is not one of them.

despite the disagreements I've had with people on here, I still respect you all.

That's good But please then, stop sensationalizing the actions of people you respect. ("defending a rapist")

[PosthumanHeresy]

The teacher is a rapist, and the judge is an ass and unworthy of his position, but there is such a thing as the rule of law. You say the law has failed? Okay, screw the law, let's form a lynch mob. That's sure going to be constructive and set a good precedent.[/sarcasm]

The judicial process failing for Cherice does not justify removing Baugh's right of process (or disciplinary action in our case). Which is what doxxing him implicitly calls for, calling to take matters into their own hands. A petition is something different, in that it only calls for action by the authority, but does not act itself bypassing proper authority. I fully support petitioning his oversight to take a look at him.

An anarchist is going to disagree with several things of what I've said. I acknowledge this, and I'll freely admit there are cases where their position not only has merit, but is considered preferable by me. This is not one of them.

despite the disagreements I've had with people on here, I still respect you all.

That's good But please then, stop sensationalizing the actions of people you respect. ("defending a rapist")

Sorry, those things are more kneejerk reaction than I like to admit. I get worked up and post my first thoughts, and don't enjoy trying to take them back. I think it's not doxxing, and I think that a petition would target him to step down anyways, but I understand the logic of others, although I believe it is flawed and has holes.

[Lithp]

Don't quote mine.

I didn't. That didn't actually change the content of the conversation, & I specifically mentioned that "Cathy Brennan" IS contact information. Unless you're talking about the omission of some variant of "go get 'em," which I think is kind of nit picky.

Otherwise, fine by me. I really didn't expect this to get so crazy before Sigma even responded to the topic.

[dpareja]

Again:

This board has certain rules. By forming an account here, you are agreeing to these rules and terms. Attempts to violate these rules, no matter what cloak of free speech and liberalism one attaches to it, is disrespectful, rude, foolish, and must not be tolerated. I do not agree with every rule on this board, but I follow it. That's because I'm an adult. If there's something you don't agree with or a rule you don't wish to follow, do it in literally the 99% of other venues that allow you do it online.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Again:

This board has certain rules. By forming an account here, you are agreeing to these rules and terms. Attempts to violate these rules, no matter what cloak of free speech and liberalism one attaches to it, is disrespectful, rude, foolish, and must not be tolerated. I do not agree with every rule on this board, but I follow it. That's because I'm an adult. If there's something you don't agree with or a rule you don't wish to follow, do it in literally the 99% of other venues that allow you do it online.

And if we disagree that it is "disrespectful, rude, foolish, and must not be tolerated"?

[dpareja]

Again:

This board has certain rules. By forming an account here, you are agreeing to these rules and terms. Attempts to violate these rules, no matter what cloak of free speech and liberalism one attaches to it, is disrespectful, rude, foolish, and must not be tolerated. I do not agree with every rule on this board, but I follow it. That's because I'm an adult. If there's something you don't agree with or a rule you don't wish to follow, do it in literally the 99% of other venues that allow you do it online.

And if we disagree that it is "disrespectful, rude, foolish, and must not be tolerated"?

That what is? What was done was adjudged to be in violation of the board rules by the forum administrator. Violating the board rules is what is "disrespectful, rude, foolish and must not be tolerated".

[PosthumanHeresy]

Again:

This board has certain rules. By forming an account here, you are agreeing to these rules and terms. Attempts to violate these rules, no matter what cloak of free speech and liberalism one attaches to it, is disrespectful, rude, foolish, and must not be tolerated. I do not agree with every rule on this board, but I follow it. That's because I'm an adult. If there's something you don't agree with or a rule you don't wish to follow, do it in literally the 99% of other venues that allow you do it online.

And if we disagree that it is "disrespectful, rude, foolish, and must not be tolerated"?

That what is? What was done was adjudged to be in violation of the board rules by the forum administrator. Violating the board rules is what is "disrespectful, rude, foolish and must not be tolerated".

No, it's an opinion that it is those.

[ironbite]

Guys while it's sweet of ya'll to fight my battles for me....knock it the fuck off.

I was wrong with posting the information and then ending it with a "you know what to do."  Had I specifically instructed you guys to call and write in letters detailing how stupid this judge's decision is then I'd have a leg to stand on.  As is, I didn't.  I know this now.

Ironbite-now can we get back on topic or am I gonna have to drop a pipebomb again?

[Sigmaleph]

Jesus fucking Christ, I should've checked this thread when I had a chance to log in earlier today.


When I first removed the information from Ironbite's post, I mistakenly believed it was private information, which is why I described it as doxxing. Later I realised (because Ironbite pointed it out) that it was his office number, which is less serious, but still a problem. Why? Because posting someone's phone number, in a thread such as this one, is an invitation to a harassment campaign. An FQA-organised harassment campaign. Regardless of legality, I'm very much uncomfortable with that notion. I don't want FQA to function as a platform for that sort of thing.

Arguing about whether this is technically covered in The Rules under private information is a red herring. I made it clear on day one that I will interpret the rules as loosely or strictly as I deem it appropriate for the situation at hand, and in this case I ruled that posting the judge's office number falls under the spirit of 'no doxxing'. You are, as always, welcome to discuss whether this is the correct decision to make. But "The text of the rules should be interpreted this way" is not an argument I will find very convincing. "You are wrong to ban FQA-organised harassment campaigns against assholes" might be, if you can defend it adequately.

I will also remark that I think Ironbite made an honest mistake and there were no repercussions beyond editing out the information.


Finally, as for the notion that I'm defending a rape apologist: I will plead guilty to defending him from getting phone calls by people who found his number in this forum. Not much more.

[MadCatTLX]

I have to ask, what do you think calling and bitching at him, or more likely, his secretary, would actually do?

[Lithp]

Guys while it's sweet of ya'll to fight my battles for me....knock it the fuck off.

You're welcome, but I actually wasn't. Much like I haven't actually been arguing with Sigma all of this time, just a few other members,& I wasn't sure if their claims were related to Sigma's or independent. If I'm going to stick around, I want to keep an eye on how things are working around here. Many things have changed since I've been away, & they've changed again since I've got back, but I'm still not sure what or how.

It really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that I'm still very dubious about situational interpreting of rules. I'm pretty sure I've voiced being against that sort of thing literally since Yahweh. What, did you expect me to pull a 180 just because I stopped complaining about it for a while? That was just me doing much the same thing I'm going to do now--stop beating a dead horse, & observe how things progress.

Jesus fucking Christ, I should've checked this thread when I had a chance to log in earlier today.

I wouldn't have blamed you if you just avoided it altogether, really.

[guizonde]

It really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that I'm still very dubious about situational interpreting of rules. I'm pretty sure I've voiced being against that sort of thing literally since Yahweh. What, did you expect me to pull a 180 just because I stopped complaining about it for a while? That was just me doing much the same thing I'm going to do now--stop beating a dead horse, & observe how things progress.

really, this is my main problem with democracy "too many heads creates too many viewpoints". regarding the rules as a historian, if ONE person makes the rules, it takes off the edge of different interpretations. there's one interpretation, and that's the boss'. i'm not saying it's better, just different. but since the boss (sigma, in this case) ruled it one way, i'm not gonna go against it, unless it's a very clear abuse of power. in this case, the rule is thought-out, explained, so i have no problem with it.

this is probably making me sound like a sycophant, but i don't care all that much... sigma called it, i'm ok with it. (even if i didn't find it to be troublesome in the first place)