1 month ban cause... biblical saying?

[Andres]

For consideration / making the life of the mods a little bit more complicated:

I am not opposed to the death penalty, nor am I a pacifist. I often do wish people who wantonly kill others receive a taste of their own.



However:

Presuming one accepts a 'mainstream / western' view of the war in Afghanistan, then there is no reason to assume that MRD is going to wantonly kill people. MRD is a respected forum member, not known for a spiteful, hateful character. One does not need to pre-emptively deplore him not to go about wantonly killing people.


If one does not accept a 'mainstream / western' view of the war in Afghanistan, then the issue at hand becomes altogether more complicated.
Suppose the following hypothetical examples:
A well-respected British, and a well respected Argentinean member of this board both go off to war over the Falklands. How does one bid them farewell?
When an Israeli member goes off to a war bombing Gaza?
A Palestinian member goes off to 'assymetrical' warfare?
A Pakistani jihadist announces he is off to the war in Afghanistan?

In this last example, how many members here would bid him goodbye with the words 'if you kill somebody, I hope the same fate befalls upon you'? Would they all get banned fotr a month? Would it be .org policy that the replies of other patrons are limited to wishing him good luck and a safe return?

I think it should be pointed out that the reason for the ban is, as The Wizard said:

I think it's pretty obvious that in the Backroom, you don't wish for another poster's death.

You don't wish for the death of a fellow .Org member.

MRD just said: "hey guys, I'm going off to Afghanistan." He didn't make a political statement by that. He's a regular BR'er, he knows we care about him and he says bye. Some people wished him luck and hoped for his safe return.

In the BR, you can open a thread about how unjust the war in Afghanistan is, you can open a thread to explain your pacifist viewpoints, to attack the foreign US politics and what not.

But you cannot, under no circumstances, wish for the death of a fellow .Org member.

[Myrddraal]

I think the key point here is that you made a personal point, which including wishing a member of the forum would die. Personal attacks are against the forum rules. You can attack someone's arguments, but you can't attack them personally.

[CountArach]

In this last example, how many members here would bid him goodbye with the words 'if you kill somebody, I hope the same fate befalls upon you'? Would they all get banned fotr a month? Would it be .org policy that the replies of other patrons are limited to wishing him good luck and a safe return?

If he was widely known to hold strong anti-western sentiments (presumably this hypothetical person had made radical comments in the past in order to be defined as a jihadist) and knowingly wanted to kill people, then their thread would be locked and probably deleted. MRD's thread made no such allusions.

As for the action I would take against those who replied before the locking, I would dish out PM warnings to those people, and I did in fact have to send out at least one for a response to Kadagar in this thread.

[Louis VI the Fat]

But you cannot, under no circumstances, wish for the death of a fellow .Org member.

Hello my fellow orgahs.

I am off to fight British imperialist terrorism by bombing the London Underground.

I hope you'll be stopped by any means necessary before the act.

Should you kill anybody, I hope the same fate will befall you

What is .org policy here? Will there be a ban for orgah X?


Slightly more hypothetical:

Hello my fellow orgahs.

I am writing this from my Brussels hideout, which the Belgian asylum agency has provided me with. My real name is Osama Bin Laden.

Bastard, I pray that you'll end up on the gallows.

Does orgah Y get banned?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Just to be clear

[Andres]

Silly examples.

But you cannot, under no circumstances, wish for the death of a fellow .Org member.

I think that's clear enough, no?

[caravel]

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hello my fellow orgahs.

I am writing this from my Brussels hideout, which the Belgian asylum agency has provided me with. My real name is Osama Bin Laden.

Silly examples.

Silly? Really? :

Belgian joke to cry over : Belgian Offices of counter terror investigative agency burglarised

September 4, 2006
Translation by Beila Rabinowitz director of MIM:


Burglary at anti terror agency


The building which houses the Combined Anti Terrorism Group (AGG) on the night from Thursday to Friday was burglarised on the night of Thursday to Friday.
Weapons and other items were stolen. The AGG is the agency which collects and analyses all the information over terrorist groups.
"On the premises of the AGG several easily sold items,such as weapons, were taken. Preliminary assessments show that no information or containers with information were stolen", according to the anti terror agency.
According to Luc Verheyden,the director of the agency, it is most likely a case of petty crime and no important information dissappeared.


The thieves too the weapon of one of my colleagues and left with other easy to sell objects which they can easily fence on the black market: A motorcycle jacket, small amounts of money, and other things.
In the rest of the building the thieves took off with laptops and other items.
At present their is no sign of the thieves. Verheyden said there are likely to have been several perpetrators. The investigation is being handled by the Brussels public prosecutor.

Oh, choke on it, you meddlesome pest.

Does hypothetical orgah Undres receive a ban?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Louis, you are arguing as if this is a court of law and you want to frame a precedent. You are not going to get an answer that satisfies however much you persist.

The only precedent pertaining here is that Kadagar_AV has form, and whilst he is trying to justify after the fact, his clear intention was to troll with maximum offense.

[Pannonian]

At TWC, I've forumbanned people before for not fitting into the ethos of the place. And in mod forums, even this much reasoning isn't necessary - the mod leader doesn't want you in his forum, so out you go.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think some people need to realise that not only are such comments in poor taste but indeed so are threads of that type. Many of us, including myself, don't "support the troops" or the war and thus cannot logically support those that go to take part in such illegal conflicts. There are two sides to every war, in supporting/condoning such threads the .org is, perhaps unwittingly, taking sides (or at least appearing to do so)?

I don't think so. One can disagree with a war without condemning the people involved, unless you are very very strict in your judgement. But I think you have to be able to say "this action is wrong, but I can see why a good person would still do it". This hits on louis's point as well. Dare I say crushes it ;)

[gollum]

There are two issues; one is about political morality and the other is about morality.

The political morality issue is "what should armies do?" the morality issue is "why should armies exist?"

In that context its very difficult for men and women of service to say that "this action is wrong, but i can see why a good person would still do it" - because then the army would collapse in a flash. Armies have to be the instrument of state policy and by definition thus they are men and women eager to do so and believe in most cases in whatever the state and so army proposes as the moral context within it will operate.

It is in this bit that society at large can do criticism within a democratic system, because policies and political decisions that send the army out can be influenced (among other things) by the home front - ie public opinion.

It is inevitable that pacifists, leftists, socialists etc would always ask soldiers the "why" they would go to fight - this is their job and role within a pluralistic democratic system - as it is inevitable that soldiers would want to fight - as this is their job and role within the same system. Both are sacred and invaluable all the more because they do for the other what it can;t do by itself ie defend itself and think for itself.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am off to create the Undres fan club.

[Strike For The South]

There are no issues here.

Kadgar knew what he was doing and he knew what he was doing was against the rules

Now he's posturing for effect

Color me unimpressed

[TosaInu]

Time to close this.