The inevitable questions that come from the Castle banning...

Ok, here's my honest thoughts on this....I think last night was too early to drop the ban hammer, but only because I think that Castle's "social experiment" was utter bullshit and if you guys had given it a little while I think you could've gotten a solid admission that he'd just be trolling for years on end. Now you have a but of ambiguity. All that said, it's probably right that he take another vacation (up to you guys whether it genuinely is permanent).

But here's the real question, is the policy for Castle properly exercised across the board? That was one of his big whinges and while I would never give him the benefit of the doubt to legitimise his trolling, I think he has a point. Surely if Castle is gone then Dayton should've been long gone by now. What of folks like Face and WAB who are purposely looking for a reaction? What of people like Gul and I, who have been poking the likes of Castle to undermine themselves?

Sure, it says common sense in the rules, but in the Dayton thread in the Shelter @Lanzman said that you have to be consistent and I agree with him (despite the fact that he was never consistent himself when he owned the place).

So, in that context, is the banning fair?

Common sense is subjective, so no, there will not be agreement on what is fair.

Agreement, no, but majority consensus?

So much for your pledge not to defend Castle. Personally, if I'd have been asked, I'd have said he never should have been allowed back in after his previous banning.

Too much consistency is not a good policy for dealing with trolls. If you have strict rules they'll generally walk right up to the line but not over. Fuzziness and discretion are often necessary tools in dealing with this sort of bad actor. I do agree that the whole "experiment" angle is bullshit from Castle; it's just what he reverts to to soothe his ego whenever he's done something so moronically assholish that even he can't see how to disclaim responsibility.

Hey, Castle, if you're reading this: why don't you, after an appropriate duration time-out, try "experimenting" with coming back under a new user name that doesn't connect you to any past persona and not being an idiot and an asshole? See if you can pull off not being John Castle and being an actual person instead. I'm betting you can't do it and that any kind of regular posting by you will out yourself in short order, but I'd love to see you honestly try the "experiment."

Umm......

Where's the defence?

If you're so certain that its "probably right," then why this thread? Remember what you said?

Contrast that with your first line in this thread:

You're the lawyer, you tell me, is it defending someone when you argue that they're guilty of a crime, but the police were hasty in arresting them for it?

Oh, brother.
What happened now?
Anyone got a link?

No. Defending is saying "he shouldn't have been banned", which is vastly different from "he should've been banned but maybe wait for the ambiguity to end so that you're on stronger footing". I'm actually saying that maybe if the owners had waited a little whole until Castle had confessed that his experiment was a lie, then it would reduce any chance of the inevitable spamming of the Facebook WF page that will ensure sooner or later. What's more, that's entirely separate to the general issues his banning raises for the community going forward.

How you translate that to me wanting the idiot back is beyond me.

Nevermind, found it, last page of the Anglo people thread.

He confessed to doing something you agreed was ban worthy. It doesn't get any more clear than that. There is room to question whether it's ban worthy behavior, but if we agree that it was, then the case was air tight.

I's this. The experiment was just an extreme manifestation of the problem. Consider it the straw that broke the camels back, except straw means saddle bag filled with rocks.

Really? You think that it'll be any different than it was last time?

Which are?

A lawyer who defends a person they believe to be guilty, but also believes that police failed to follow proper procedures isn't saying that they want their defendant back on the street to commit further crimes. They want to see that justice is properly served. Nowhere did I say that you wanted to see Castle back.

Last time his banning was bullshit and entirely different from this occasion. He broke the rules and it was not acting upon, but instead he got canned because of a faux threat Anc manipulated him into.

Which are there if there is consistency then other people could or should quite possibly face the same fate, not least Dayton.

Well, what you said is this......"So much for your pledge not to defend Castle.". A lawyer questioning procedure is not defending the crime. Think about it.

Frankly I think you thought I was asking for him back, realise you were wrong but are now just trying to save face instead of just letting it go.

That's not what I'm discussing though. You and I know that he's a loser with no life. How valid was his confession? What I'm saying is that if you'd have waited until he melted down and confessed that he was telling lies then there would be no ambiguity, which he would've done sooner or later.

Separately, I'm asking that if Castle isa case by himself, what of the likes of Dayton?

Its Castle, any threat he makes is faux. As for Anc manipulating him into making the threat, I don't remember it going down that way, but what if it did? Castle would certainly attempt to manipulate folks into doing things which could get them into trouble.

Dayton's gotten a vacation, and you'll notice who was the one who pointed it out that it needed to be done: Me.

As much as I dislike Dayton, I will say that he has yet to reach the fecal spewing levels that Castle routinely exhibited. Dayton occasionally provides decent comments. Castle? Not so much.

Find where I said that.

Ok, going to cut this off here.

What is it that you're actually arguing about? You started claiming I was defending Castle, have since accepted that's not the case, so what is all this about?

On the first point, there was no purpose in leaving it out there for him to further trip himself up. Allowing the behavior to continue for the sake of entrapping him in something even bigger kind of goes against the idea that his behavior was already unacceptable.

On the second point, see my comment about Dayton in the released shelter thread. He's not a threat to the functioning of the board, nor does he drive away users to any significant extent. If you think there's a case, argue the merits of that case, but it isn't related to Castle.

If gul & Co. admit that they were too hasty in banning Castle, as you believe, what should they do? Keep him banned? Okay, fine, then why start this thread specifically about Castle? Why not make it about the banning process in general?

Castle isn't really a threat to the functioning of the board beyond his ability to drive users away, but driving people away, or even the suspicion that he might be doing so, is enough reason for a ban given the content of his posting.

The idea proposed in that thread -- that Castle adopting a persona to see how people react constitutes "unethical nonconsensual experimentation" -- is horse hockey.

The rules that apply to people conducting academic or scientific research do not apply uniformly to all laypeople; they attach only to members of that profession.

For example, it is unethical for a lawyer to give specific legal advice on Wordforge; it is, not, however, unethical for me to do so. The lawyer is bound by specific rules that only apply because of their profession.

If doing something in order to see how other people respond is nonconsensual experimentation, then everyone who's ever done A/B testing on an email newsletter is performing an unethical experiment.

It is about the banning process in general!!! That's the whole point of the thread!! Jesus wept. Are you boozed tonight or what?

Ok. I disagree, but fair enough.

On this I do think you're talking shit. Personally I think Dayton is a far more insidious character than Castle is even capable of. Castle is just a pitiable loser, whereas Dayton is a genuinely nasty person. So if Castle get's the can, why doesn't Dayton after 11 years of consistent trolling and self admitted attempts to manipulate users into getting themselves banned? There are no grounds for believing that Castle constitutes a greater threat if you accept that Castle was advancing a loser's delusion. Tell me to read a Shelter thread doesn't mean I will agree with it's reasoning after doing so.

You don't have to agree, but they are nevertheless separate cases, and don't necessarily point to taking the same measures.

Which is why you made it about Castle from the get-go. You don't ask is it fair to ban anyone, you ask is it fair to ban Castle. There's a difference. If you think that Dayton should be banned, then why do you only mention him twice in your OP, while mentioning Castle four times? You're the lawyer, you're supposed to know how to lay out an argument. You've got plenty of examples of Dayton's posting, thanks to his greatest hits thread, that you can use to advocate for his banning. In the rest of the thread, you continue to mention Castle twice the number of times you do Dayton. If you think that Dayton deserves to be banned as much as Castle does (if not moreso), then why isn't the title of the thread something like, "How Can You Justify Banning Castle, But Not Dayton?"

Instead, it seems to be that your contention is gul acted too early in the case of Castle, and that what really needs to happen is that Dayton gets banned, because he's "nasty." And while I agree that Dayton is human garbage, I don't think that his behavior has amounted to the level of disruption to the board that Castle's exhibited over the years. Indeed, when things start going south for Dayton in a thread, he tends to abandon it, rather than continue to post ginormous word salad screeds like Castle did. Which means that the discussion in the threads that Dayton's left, can return to a modicum of sanity, while those involving Castle descend into masses of just Castle flinging poo everywhere.

And its 2 PM here, more than a little early for me to knock one back.

Well, I think that's bad. I'm not particularly using this thread as a reason to ban Dayton, rather to spur the debate, because I've read your Shelter release and would repeat the point of the hypocrite @Lanzman that consistency is important, it's important not least for credibility. Arbitrarily deciding who stays and who gets banned. Deciding bans to the extent of how much you personally think they are worth keeping around can't be a fair policy....so if that were the case then it would make you no better than previous owners. Worth thinking about.

So you're saying it's weird that the first major banning in years is a benchmark?

Haven't said that at all.

Well, no I haven't, because I never posted a debate about the fairness of Castle's banning. I said explicitly that he probably should've been banned. You're labouring pathetically here, and I think it's so sad that someone I otherwise had great respect for is behaving so immaturely. What I a, debating is the precedent it sets.

This is ludicrous, the amount of mentions means what? I'd add that I haven't actually advocated Dayton's banning.

Ah, so we're starting on the personal insults now! Come on, you're no obtuse enough to know what that tactics means.

Because if you had actually bothered to read the opening post you'd realise that it wasn't just about Dayton and not only were other names mentioned but the question was advanced for a debate about board wide policy so you really are playing the straw man here.

I think there's a debate to be had over that.

No, what needs to happen is a debate about the consistency of board policy. Very, very different. Dayton is being used as an example, nothing more, nothing less.

If it were a matter of my personal feelings, Castle would have been gone the day Lanzman handed over the keys. Think about that, why don't you?

This comment undermines you more than you think it does you a favour.