Olovetto

 

Brian: I know that he doesn't twist the truth, but I'm not sure if the conclusions he comes up with are completely valid.

Any comments/information?

ERO: You make a lot of stupid threads. Hey, you asked for comments.

 

ERO: Why do you make so many threads?

Brian: Why do you have so many problems?

ERO: What do you know about my problems? I'm just telling you that you make A LOT of stupid threads.

E.R. Olovetto,

You know very well this is against the member issues policy.  I'm sick of you stomping around, whining about every little thing that you don't approve of, and injecting hostility and ugliness into this forum on a near-daily basis.

One of the major reasons I reduced your earlier ban and have refrained from banning you since, is that I wanted us to have our debate over argumentation ethics.  But now it is clear that you have chosen to duck out of the debate you promised me, so now there's no point in continuing that course of action.

One-month ban.  If you can't come back without being so high-strung and belligerent, then don't come back.

Mike:

WOW - a ban?? i know my opinion matters not, but i am free to voice it... i for one have not seen aggression or issues from E.R.O. actually thought he added to my thouhjt process.. oh well - i guess this proves even anarchists have rules.. :)

hope yoiu come back ERO

Capitalist_Pig:

Grayson Lilburne:

One of the major reasons I reduced your earlier ban and have refrained from banning you since, is that I wanted us to have our debate over argumentation ethics.  But now it is clear that you have chosen to duck out of the debate you promised me, so now there's no point in continuing that course of action.

He actually addressed the debate earlier today as well as in other threads. I agree he may not always have the nicest tone, but I think his contributions on this forum far outway his negatives.

I've had very pleasant discussions with ERO lately, this is an unfortunate turn of events.

Mike,

Olovetto has

• Found another member's picture and posted it here in an attempt to shame him.
• Mused about reporting another member as a child molester to the NSA/FBI.
• Threatened to call another member's wife to make accusations to her about the member with the home phone number he found on the internet.
• Posted and image of a Star of David (which is a symbol of the religion/tradition of Judaism, NOT of the state of Israel) morphing into a swastika
• Posted an image of a cartoon penis emerging from an obese woman's groin
• Been incredibly hostile and insulting to other members on countless occasions
• Repeatedly insulted forum moderators (including liberty student and myself)

Capitalist_Pig,

Yes Olovetto has read a lot of Rothbard, Block, and Hoppe, and has a lot to say about them. That does NOT give anyone cover to behave as boorishly as they please here without consequences.

"Posted and image of a Star of David (which is a symbol of the religion/tradition of Judaism, NOT of the state of Israel) morphing into a swastika

Posted an image of a cartoon penis emerging from an obese woman's groin"

Maybe its due to my upbringing. Maybe its because of my exposure to some elements of nordic culture. But I would like to know why these are so bad? 

Is there something in the forum rules about this? Is it more to do with the relevance (or rather that they were irrelevant) of the pictures or that it goes against the southern "conservative" cultural element of LVMI?

I realized this was debated in another thread Grayson Lilburne but I still don't quite feel that "enticing flame wars" is a good enough reason for censor. But hey, if thats part of your job description....

I for one don't particularly want pictures like that used on this site, we have succeeded thusfar in creating a nicely (though admittedly nowhere near perfectly) open and intelligent environment for intellectual discourse that involves minimal flaming and obscenity.

"Posted and image of a Star of David (which is a symbol of the religion/tradition of Judaism, NOT of the state of Israel) morphing into a swastika

Posted an image of a cartoon penis emerging from an obese woman's groin"

Maybe its due to my upbringing. Maybe its because of my exposure to some elements of nordic culture. But I would like to know why these are so bad?

Is there something in the forum rules about this?

Forum rules: "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of U.S. law. "

that it goes against the southern "conservative" cultural element of LVMI?

Moderating those images was my call. And far from being a southern cultural conservative, I'm a San Francisco atheist with gay friends. You're barking up the wrong tree, A.L.

I realized this was debated in another thread Grayson Lilburne but I still don't quite feel that "enticing flame wars" is a good enough reason for censor. But hey, if thats part of your job description....

Your feedback is duly noted.

"Moderating those images was my call. And far from being a southern cultural conservative, I am a San Francisco atheist with gay friends. You're barking up the wrong tree, A.L."

 

"I for one don't particularly want pictures like that used on this site, we have succeeded thusfar in creating a nicely (though admittedly nowhere near perfectly) open and intelligent environment for intellectual discourse that involves minimal flaming and obscenity." 

Are you saying that you cannot have an open and intelligent environment for intellectual discourse with those kind of pictures? Perhaps more so of the former (since it was politically related) then the latter. 

"Are you saying that you cannot have an open and intelligent environment for intellectual discourse with those kind of pictures? Perhaps more so of the former (since it was politically related) then the latter." Quite the reverse, I don't have time for people who post obscenity in a serious debate and I feel it just incites anger and things unrelated to the matter at hand

Olovetto, Do not ban dodge again.

Alright but lets assume we have two grown adults debating. People that don't QQ or get angry or let their emotions take hold of them simply because of nasty words or images. Precisely the kind of people that are on this forum 

Then one wishes to express an idea. Say the comparison between Nazi Germany and Isreal? And since essentially the state of Israel is heavily tied in with the religion of Judaism, and the star of David is on the Israeli flag, then why, might I ask, would it be so improper as to post a picture of that? If peoplle are unable to maintain themselves after viewing such an image, then dare I ask how on earth do you expect them to compose themselves when we suggest suchs things as 

Free market anarchy is possible

We don't need the state to prevent kiddie porn.

We don't need state laws with regards to protecting children from their parents. 

Were "ok" with a bunch of "insert morally disgusting obsene behavior here" as long as it does not contradict anothers "rights". 

The U.S government engages in murder, slavery, theft. 

You don't think those sort of ideas will incite flame wars, etc? 

You don't think some people consider some of our ideas to verge on inflammatory, obscene etc. 

---

A.L.Pruitt:

You don't think some people consider some of our ideas to verge on inflammatory, obscene etc. 

If they do, they are welcome not to read or post here.

Your issue is misguided. LvMI has posting policies, and as best possible, they are interpreted by people in a position to enforce them.

If you disagree with LvMI having any posting standards (which is what your position sounds like), then that's not libertarian at all..

liberty student:

If you disagree with LvMI having any posting standards (which is what your position sounds like), then that's not libertarian at all..

I don't disagree with LVMI having any posting standards. 

However what I can disagree with is the reasoning behind the posting standards and what those posting standards are. 

And the part you are quoting is not in relation to LVMI's posting standards but that andrew did not consider it part of a serious intellectual discussion because it incites flame wards. 

Do you understand my reasoning? 

In summaton....

1) LVMI should have x posting standards because enforcement of said standards will help prevent flamewars

2) In contradiction to this, are the very ideas of the LVMI as they incite flame wars. Comon, you know you have seen them about the ones I cited above, e.g kid porn. 

Do you see what I'm getting at? Its not ok to have a star of david morphing into a swastika but it is ok to talk about legalizing drugs? Or that U.S government commits murder, enslavement and theft? 

Do you see what I'm getting at? Its not ok to have a star of david morphing into a swastika but it is ok to talk about legalizing drugs? Or that U.S government commits murder, enslavement and theft?

I'm with this guy. All those things are pretty damn sacrilegious, so banning someone (or even deleting their post) for profaning a hexagram smacks of giving recognized religions in general - or perhaps Judaism in particular - special treatment.

That said, having read the reasons for Olovetto's ban, I'm not saying it wasn't justified; way I see it, that thing about threatening to call a poster's wife was so obscenely out of line that these measures are way overdue.

assimilateur:

so banning someone (or even deleting their post) for profaning a hexagram smacks of giving recognized religions in general - or perhaps Judaism in particular - special treatment.

If LvMI wanted to give religions special treatment, they could and would be completely within their rights to do so, so that's a non-issue. That said, Lilburne is an atheist, and most of the LvMI staff I am aware of that are theists, are Catholics, so this isn't about religion specifically or Judaism in particular. I find such assertions ridiculous.

assimilateur:

That said, having read the reasons for Olovetto's ban, I'm not saying it wasn't justified; way I see it, that thing about threatening to call a poster's wife was so obscenely out of line that these measures are way overdue.

That's the much bigger issue for sure.

A.L.Pruitt:

I don't disagree with LVMI having any posting standards. 

End of conversation then because they do have standards, and any standard will limit something, which will inevitably have someone who is not happy about it. The only solution is to have no standard. And we both agree, LvMI is entitled to have standards.

A.L.Pruitt:

However what I can disagree with is the reasoning behind the posting standards and what those posting standards are. 

You can but it's just your subjective preference.

A.L.Pruitt:

In summaton....

1) LVMI should have x posting standards because enforcement of said standards will help prevent flamewars

2) In contradiction to this, are the very ideas of the LVMI as they incite flame wars. Comon, you know you have seen them about the ones I cited above, e.g kid porn. 

Non sequitur. Also, as the property owners, LvMI doesn't require a reason to remove what it's agents consider obscenity.

A.L.Pruitt:

Its not ok to have a star of david morphing into a swastika but it is ok to talk about legalizing drugs?

The commonality of the two are your subjective valuation. I do not see obscene images as being the same as discussing the right to consume whatever one wishes. I would argue most reasonable people would not.

liberty student:

If LvMI wanted to give religions special treatment, they could and would be completely within their rights to do so

I never implied otherwise, and I'm frankly disappointed that you, of all people, would have to respond that way.

It is indeed perfectly within the rights of the LvMI management to give religions special treatment, just as it is within their rights to mandate using a right-to-left font or that each of us use our real pictures taken in a tuxedo as avatars. That won't make such rules less ridiculous to some and thus open to criticism, or even less likely to make some of us look for greener pastures. That you're seemingly willing to dismiss the questioning of forum policy with what amounts to saying "the admins will do as they please" worries me.

liberty student:

I find such assertions ridiculous.

I said I was getting sort of a hint of special treatment for religions, which I don't think could be called asserting anything; not yet, at least. This would be different had Olovetto gotten banned just for profaning a hexagram, and not for things both of us agree are more important. This is probably all semantics anyway.

assimilateur:

just as it is within their rights to mandate using a right-to-left font or that each of us use our real pictures taken in a tuxedo as avatars. That won't make such rules less ridiculous to some and thus open to criticism, or even less likely to make some of us look for greener pastures

Yet others could find such structure refreshing and more productive. Do you think that there should be no forum rules at all? If not, then you are in the exact same boat the LvMI forum owners.

Angurse:

Do you think that there should be no forum rules at all?

I should be offended by a question as ridiculous as this, as it seems to imply that I'm an idiot.

So when I criticize a certain rule (hypothetically, because it has to be shown that we're dealing with a rule here), you suggest that I want to get rid of all rules; this sort of thing is analogous to someone accusing an anarchist of wanting to get rid of society.

assimilateur:

All those things are pretty damn sacrilegious, so banning someone (or even deleting their post) for profaning a hexagram smacks of giving recognized religions in general - or perhaps Judaism in particular - special treatment.

Fortunately for us mods, that is not why ERO got banned, so, we dodged that bullet. Btw, ERO got banned for attacking another member.

Daniel Muffinburg:

Btw, ERO got banned for attacking another member.

I am aware of that, and said so in the very same post you quoted.

That said, having read the reasons for Olovetto's ban, I'm not saying it wasn't justified; way I see it, that thing about threatening to call a poster's wife was so obscenely out of line that these measures are way overdue.

assimilateur:

I never implied otherwise

assimilateur:

All those things are pretty damn sacrilegious, so banning someone (or even deleting their post) for profaning a hexagram smacks of giving recognized religions in general - or perhaps Judaism in particular - special treatment.

????

assimilateur:

I'm frankly disappointed that you, of all people, would have to respond that way.

I am having a two for one sale on disappointment right now.

assimilateur:

That won't make such rules less ridiculous to some and thus open to criticism, or even less likely to make some of us look for greener pastures.

By agreeing to the forum rules by participating, aren't you in fact engaging in a performative contradiction by disagreeing with said rules? They can't be that egregious if you voluntarily agreed to them, right?

Or do you not see agreeing to the terms of service as binding or serious? Also, I've left many times. If you choose to do so, then go for it. Let 1000 websites bloom.

assimilateur:

That you're seemingly willing to dismiss the questioning of forum policy with what amounts to saying "the admins will do as they please" worries me.

But that is not at all the case. Admins will do what they do, what I am questioning is why people think that they are performing a service by complaining and questioning, when the most libertarian thing you can do is compete! If people are serious about their discontent, then they should put their time and money where their mouth is, because if they aren't willing to pay the costs for what they want, how can anyone price the value of their opinion?

Everyone has an opinion. Neocons have opinions about what LvMI should do too. Same thing with anarcho-syndicalists, democratic socialists, satanists, Buddhists and sexists. One can't make decisions trying to please everyone, and no decision will please everyone. It becomes paralyzing when that is what people expect from organizations and businesses.

assimilateur:

This is probably all semantics anyway.

I think so and I am sorry for any ill will I have caused.

Daniel Muffinburg:

Btw, ERO got banned for attacking another member.

I am aware of that, and said so in the very same post you quoted.

That said, having read the reasons for Olovetto's ban, I'm not saying it wasn't justified; way I see it, that thing about threatening to call a poster's wife was so obscenely out of line that these measures are way overdue.

Okay, great.

liberty student:

????

What I meant was that I recognize the management's right to run this forum anyway they please. You seemed to imply that I somehow arrogated to myself the right to order moderators or admins what to do, as opposed to merely voice my opinion.

liberty student:

By agreeing to the forum rules by participating, aren't you in fact engaging in a performative contradiction by disagreeing with said rules?

If said rules literally entail agreeing with, as opposed to agreeing to abide by, said rules, then that would indeed be true. I apologize for treating the rules here - or on any other forum - somewhat less than literally and not having memorized them. If you tell me to stop discussing forum policy with you then I will stop.

liberty student:

Admins will do what they do, what I am questioning is why people think that they are performing a service by complaining and questioning, when the most libertarian thing you can do is compete!

Are you saying that the management doesn't want us to provide feedback? I can understand your objection if a user behaves like they run this place, but surely this is not the vibe you should be getting from me.

assimilateur:

So when I criticize a certain rule (hypothetically, because it has to be shown that we're dealing with a rule here), you suggest that I want to get rid of all rules; this sort of thing is analogous to someone accusing an anarchist of wanting to get rid of society.

That isn't what I suggested though. All rules give special treatment, I don't see how its such a bad thing (unless from the view of no rules).

Please go back and read the last line of my last post.

You mean this line?

liberty student:

I think so and I am sorry for any ill will I have caused.

I took the liberty of not responding to a sarcastic apology.

Angurse:

That isn't what I suggested though. All rules give special treatment, I don't see how its such a bad thing (unless from the view of no rules).

Which is exactly my point.

assimilateur:

I took the liberty of not responding to a sarcastic apology.

It wasn't sarcastic.

liberty student:

Which is exactly my point.

Good point.

liberty student:

It wasn't sarcastic.

I don't know whether I should be accepting your apology, offering an apology of my own, or treating this as a misunderstanding and moving on. I'm leaning towards the latter.

No harm, no foul. Let's just carry on.

It has been over a month now and I am still banned. Could you guys fix this?

Yeah, bring Olly back! I need a foil, and no one does Libertarian Orthodoxy quite as zealously and militantly as my man, ERO (except maybe Conza, but he isn't nearly as apt to fly off the handle).