Thomas Paine: The Vote that Voted First & Last

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 ....

Serenity wrote: 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 ....

Marta! Long time no see! I've missed you
(You really must unblock me one of these days, so we can have a proper catch up)

As I stated, I was talking hypothetically. Perhaps the thread has gone off topic, but the conversation is no longer about the individual that was banned, and therefore nobody is speculating anymore. It's now about what right the Temple has to ban people, and what protocols should be in place (with regards to notifying the wider community) when someone is banned. Which I think is quite an important, worthwhile conversation to have

Well, to agree with the decision & to suggest "scandal" is not so bold, Brick. You didn't take a jeopardy upon yourself nor make a point.

I really think it seems racist.
I read the guys' forum posts & I am leary (not Timothy), while I think it's important to speak up.
Simply because the guy has a political point that he voiced with the Temple of the Jedi Order (I didn't notice articulated rule that was against a single thing that he said), & your admin & the people that are alright with the ban actually are white Americans, I do not agree that the situation looks cool.

Isn't there something about the difficulty of the Temple of the Jedi Order proving that they offer improvement to the morality of its' members? (I thought I read that somewhere & that was somehow important to the group & members.)

(Just so I can reply to myself with a little logic.)
Why should Mayans be put to cope with white American racists?
How would White Americans gain of fellowship with white American racists?

The guy made a sociological point.
Mayans were given a State in 1888 of invaders of this continent, & then that State was invaded & Mayans were murdered & because it's 2018, "get over it" or "this is America" is some sort of a reason?

That's outrageous.

"Trolling".
You're trolling "Jediism".
You're trolling peoples' rights & freedoms.
You're trolling the airwaves & various other things with that "ignorant (k)nonsensical rambling" he mentioned.

The first person to call the other person a "troll" is the troll that doesn't have a point.
You reply to a topic to call the OP a troll? Seriously?

Hi JediEido , there appears to be a bit of confusion here. Hopefully can we get to the bottom of this

JediEido wrote: Well, to agree with the decision & to suggest "scandal" is not so bold, Brick. You didn't take a jeopardy upon yourself nor make a point.

For clarity, I never said that I agreed with the decision, infact I've stated twice that none of us know why the decision was made, so I can't really agree or disagree with something I have no knowledge of

What I did say was that the decision could have been made based on whoever imposed the ban deeming ScottHughes to be a troll, I then said that I wasn't sure if he was a troll because some of his posts did actually contribute something relevant.

I then discussed whether banning a hypothetical individual on the grounds of them breaking the rules would be justifiable. Under the spirit of our doctrine and my (admittedly limited) understanding of contract law

I also never 'suggested scandal', I stated (based on my previous experience at the temple) that most bannings occur due to a public scandal, specifically stating in bold that that comment did not relate to the ScottHughes banning.

JediEido wrote: I really think it seems racist.
I read the guys' forum posts & I am leary (not Timothy), while I think it's important to speak up.

I might be missing something, but I don't understand your 'I am leary (not Timothy)' comment.

JediEido wrote: Simply because the guy has a political point that he voiced with the Temple of the Jedi Order (I didn't notice against a single thing that he said), & your admin & the people that are alright with the ban actually are white Americans, I do not agree that the situation looks cool.

Given that most people's avatars are cartoons/symbols etc I'm not sure how you know that all the people that are ok with the ban are white, or even American for that matter? If you could explain that, I'd appreciate it.

JediEido wrote: Isn't there something about the difficulty of the Temple of the Jedi Order proving that they offer improvement to the morality of its' members? (I thought I read that somewhere & that was somehow important to the group & members.)

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement, can you clarify?

JediEido wrote: "Trolling".
You're trolling "Jediism".
You're trolling peoples' rights & freedoms.
You're trolling the airwaves & various other things with that "ignorant (k)nonsensical rambling" he mentioned.

The first person to call the other person a "troll" is the troll that doesn't have a point.
You reply to a topic to call the OP a troll? Seriously?

Again, I never called him a Troll. I said I thought he might be, but also said I wasn't sure as he was saying stuff of value

I did say that some of his posts appeared nonsensical to me, but I never called them 'ignorant' or said he was 'rambling'. Please don't misquote me