Thomas Paine: The Vote that Voted First & Last

P.S. Thomas Paine made the rule: You don't have to own land to vote, not at all, & so thus Thomas Paine actually was the vote that voted 1st & Last.

They banned this guy?

How outrageous.

If this group is racist, then I'm not interested.

racist adjective
1. showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.

I don't think there is any evidence here for racism, but it does have to be said there has been zero public statement on why this decision was made; and whether this is a permanent state of affairs.

I'm sorry it's alarmed you JediEido. Perhaps we will receive a statement soon.

Twigga wrote: Perhaps we will receive a statement soon.

doesn't appear likely, I'm pretty sure he either was, or was mistaken for, a troll.

I'm not sure, as some of his comments in other threads seem fine, but some (particularly the threads he's started himself) seem a 'bit off base', bordering on nonsensical. So I suspect a Mod has seen one or two of those, presumably had a chat with him (though I don't know about that), and made the decision to ban him (either temporarily or, more likely in this situation, permanently).

JediEido wrote: They banned this guy?

How outrageous.

If this group is racist, then I'm not interested.

I share Twigga's remorse if this has alarmed you, but in what way is this outrageous or racist?

Nah. There will be Brick. I have faith in the decision makers. The disappearing of subversives is against our doctrine.

It might take the mods/council a while, because they're busy, but there will be something...

Are you going to use links all the time now that you've learnt how to do it? :laugh:

It depends, I remember seeing his name in that weird greeny/browny/yellowy colour (meaning he's banned) the same day he started this thread. So its been almost a week and we've not heard anything.

I appreciate what're saying, and I do agree with you, but if he was found to be a troll or in breach of the Temple Rules then the banning isn't quite the same as the 'disappearing of subversives'.

Though you're right in that the mods/council are busy people, and they probably have higher priorities to deal with first, before getting around to making an announcement.

For me, the reason why this situation can still have the same psychological impact of disappearing subversives lies in our commitment to the "freedom of association". It's an IP post I would link if I'd finished it; but in it I'll be explaining why this last line of the "Jedi Believe" statement is so much more difficult than ANY of the others in the statement... that might give "us" (temple corporate) a loophole for not having to explain the disappearance of 'persons'; but it still leaves us with rifts in the community based on, effectively, not having enough time to look after "ourselves" (temple corporate).

*Disclaimer: My following comments are entirely hypothetical as I/we have absolutely no knowledge of why ScottHughes was banned, but I think my following response to Twigga's comments is still of some benefit*

That's a really good point Twig! (I shouldn't sound so surprised, all you do is raise good points after all )

I'd counter that by saying, even though freedom of association supports the right of the individual to join/leave as they please, it also supports the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members. If someone is breaking the rules then its not necessarily in the interest of our (corporate temple) members to keep them around.

It almost like a contract. If we (temple corporate) make an offer stating, 'Anyone can join the community so long as they abide by these rules', and then someone joins and breaks those rules then they effectively forfeit their right to freedom of association as they are not meeting the conditions of the offer of invitation of membership to our (temple corporate) community (effectively in breach of contract), so the temple has the right to rescind its invitation and ban them.

With regards to it leaving a rift in the community, I completely agree. I think this is a rare case, as the majority of banning usually occur as a result of quite a loud and open scandal, so there often isn't actually a need to clarify why the individual in question was banned. However in this case, and in the case of another recent temporary ban, then yes, perhaps a little notification wouldn't go a miss

Mods don't ban, they do not have the capability to do it if they wanted to. Generally speaking a mod can edit posts, move posts, soft delete posts, see soft deletes and reinstate them or edit them, and lock/unlock threads.... sort of thing. It's a Council decision whenever a ban happens, AFAIK. I cannot comment on this particular case as I do not know, and am unable to look into it right now.

I think you are right Adder , it would be more usefull to direct questions about banning to the authorities that actually ban people instead of speculating in yet another thread for speculation purposes only. A weird trend that just will not dissapear here ....