jamest suspended from ratskep for 6 months

[pErvinalia]

Evidently, they also threaten suspension for anyone who communicates in any way with a fellow poster while on suspension. That means that everyone in this thread who is also a member of RatSkep is now liable for suspension from there! Idiotic? Yes. But quite serious. If any mod from there were to stumble on this thread, we'd all be in great trouble. Would they have the face to suspend us all? Maybe.

Stein

They can't suspend me for posting in rationalia, surely? I haven't even berated the mods, nor their decision.

I'd be pretty sure Stein has that wrong. What's not allowed is "channelling" a suspended/banned member.

[pErvinalia]

stein's allegation is manifestly false. The prohibition is against making posts on behalf of suspended users. I myself posted on RatSkep that Jamest started a thread over here about his suspension. What I didn't do is convey any message from Jamest. I haven't been warned nor would such a warning be called for.

Something like this happened 2+ years ago. A self banned user contacted a RatSkep user via another forum and asked her to make a a post on her behalf. The RatSkep user did so and received a sanction.

Over year ago that very same self-banned user contacted me via Facebook and asked me to convey a message to the forum. I however didnot convey her message, but rather informed the commentariat of a very active thread and told them to contact me via PM if interested in the message. I received no warning or sanction about that either.

It puzzles me who fed you that line of crap.

I am aware that a prohibition against posting on behalf of suspended users is sanctionable. But that's only one leg of the information I acquired during my case. The other leg was that any attempt by a suspended user to inquire after someone else's relaying any info from the suspended user is likewise sanctionable for the suspended user and will result in increased penalties. Now I am not dumb enough to divulge exact quotes from and an id. for a private communication! But I can tell you it was an official mod who explicitly told me that a suspended user risks amplifying the penalty still further if there's any perception that the suspended user is attempting to coax any direct or indirect representation in any way from a fellow user in good standing.

Stein

I'd still guess that you are mistaken, but honestly, nothing would surprise me out of that hyper-paranoid environment.

[rainbow]

Evidently, they also threaten suspension for anyone who communicates in any way with a fellow poster while on suspension. That means that everyone in this thread who is also a member of RatSkep is now liable for suspension from there!

Or not. Bet you can't defend that.

How does one defend Irrational Fascist Control Freaks?

[Brian Peacock]

A member in good standing!

[rachelbean]

You can have socks here, in fact I would encourage it...more members

[jamest]

Could be that there's only about a half-dozen members here with numerous sock accounts.

[rachelbean]

Could be. Maybe I'm Pappa and Xamonas and revoltionist, but really a 15 year old boy in America

[jamest]

Could be. Maybe I'm Pappa and Xamonas and revoltionist, but really a 15 year old boy in America

You wouldn't have told me that if it were true. You can't outsmart me.

[hackenslash]

Could be. Maybe I'm Pappa and Xamonas and revoltionist, but really a 15 year old boy in America

You wouldn't have told me that if it were true. You can't outsmart me.

Trust me, she can.

[DaveDodo007]

You can have socks here, in fact I would encourage it...more members

You will have to start banning more members first or the motivation is lacking.

[Seth]

stein's allegation is manifestly false. The prohibition is against making posts on behalf of suspended users. I myself posted on RatSkep that Jamest started a thread over here about his suspension. What I didn't do is convey any message from Jamest. I haven't been warned nor would such a warning be called for.

Something like this happened 2+ years ago. A self banned user contacted a RatSkep user via another forum and asked her to make a a post on her behalf. The RatSkep user did so and received a sanction.

Over year ago that very same self-banned user contacted me via Facebook and asked me to convey a message to the forum. I however didnot convey her message, but rather informed the commentariat of a very active thread and told them to contact me via PM if interested in the message. I received no warning or sanction about that either.

It puzzles me who fed you that line of crap.

I am aware that a prohibition against posting on behalf of suspended users is sanctionable. But that's only one leg of the information I acquired during my case. The other leg was that any attempt by a suspended user to inquire after someone else's relaying any info from the suspended user is likewise sanctionable for the suspended user and will result in increased penalties. Now I am not dumb enough to divulge exact quotes from and an id. for a private communication! But I can tell you it was an official mod who explicitly told me that a suspended user risks amplifying the penalty still further if there's any perception that the suspended user is attempting to coax any direct or indirect representation in any way from a fellow user in good standing.

Stein

I totally agree with that. Even if there is no direct collusion between the RS member and the banned member, merely arguing a position previously taken by a banned member that is substantially the same can and will result in sanctions. The obvious implication is that since the member was banned because his or her positions and opinions are objectionable and heretical to the RS orthodoxy, another member engaging in the same heretical argumentation is presumed without evidence to be the intellectual sock-puppet of the banned individual.

So, if a completely new member joins RS, reads past arguments by a banned individual and takes up the banner and begins arguing in support of that position, it will be automatically assumed that either the new member is a sock-puppet of the banned party, or is an intellectual sock-puppet who must likewise be banned because it's the heretical speech that's really the problem, and always has been, and not the individual's behavior.

[JimC]

They certainly seem a little too controlling over there...

[Seth]

They certainly seem a little too controlling over there...

The word "Orwellian" comes to mind...

[Strontium Dog]

Tight moderation or lax moderation, I can operate under both, and all shades in between. What I cannot abide is inconsistent and biased moderation, and that is RatSkep's overwhelming weakness.

[Seth]

Tight moderation or lax moderation, I can operate under both, and all shades in between. What I cannot abide is inconsistent and biased moderation, and that is RatSkep's overwhelming weakness.

Yup. like I said, it's religious orthodoxy and nothing less.