The first ban happened because of the sheer number of people who hit the "report this" button, the abusive language he used, and for slander and personal attacks against others. This was covered by Chemist in his reply (which I linked in my post above).

For what? Expressing frustration that a core group of people keep repeating the same lies, and claiming that people in charge did something "illegal" or immoral? Even after being shown evidence to the contrary multiple times?

You may not like my "tone" or my style of writing. But at no point above did I devolve to name calling, or lying. In the past few days here, I've had people call me all kinds of names. One even claimed I'd been fired from my past jobs, which is both an attack on my character and a bald-faced lie. Yet I don't see you speaking out against that.

Whom do you think is "staff"? Me? Not staff. I've never held, nor wanted, moderator powers here. If you're talking about when I was Council, I can tell you Council had no power over TMO while I was in it. We could make requests, but they were just that. And never did Council or and member there of request anyone be banned. The fact that you believe otherwise shows you're listening to the liars in this debate.

Poor you, sorry I don't follow drama, I treat this as a meritocracy, not popularity contest as some. I'll quote vetsin as he put it very elegantly:

You don't have to use such tone when speaking to someone who's just inquiring. He's not a member of the "fan club" and there is no such thing. There were just a bunch of people who had some interactions with Estel's helpful side and didn't care to watch the drama in the council threads, thus quite clueless on the events.
/quote

I missed (lucky me, though this mud keeps getting pulled out) all the drama, I have yet to see your helpful posts vs Estel's. All I see is wiki-editor level drama, with a lot of huffing and puffing steam around. If Estel got banned by (reworded now) joerg's suggestion, then you should be also. Go back to wiki-wars, you and estel have much in common, that's why I mentioned drinks.

This is a discussion meriting it's own thread. But since it's part and parcel to the topic here, let's have at it here.

Do you really believe you can always resolve things with discussion? I don't.

What happens when that critic starts telling lies and slandering others? When critique becomes accusations against specific people, of doing things they're factually not doing? Accusing others of a "hostile takeover of community assets", equating it with Russia conquering Poland? (Yes, that actually happened... in this forum.)

What if they literally state that they "know" that those in charge are going to steal funds donated to a cause? If they discourage others from donating to a cause that is literally the only viable path forward, that's keeping the lights on here? Doesn't that hurt the community? How damaging does discussion have to be to present a large enough hazard to silence it? Is there a level?

The problem with allowing people to lie, unchecked, long enough is that eventually people start to believe the lie.

This is evident to anyone watching US politics over the past decade. In a poll done just last year, over half the country believes that Sasdam Hussein had a key role in 9-11, and that Iraq had WMD, specifically nuclear weapons. Neither of those statements are factually accurate, but because media and political groups spread the lie, and repeated it day after day for months on end to drum up war support, it became "fact". To the point that even with massive evidence to the contrary, and video admissions by those who said it that it was factually inaccurate, years later it's still accepted as common fact.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all about people being able to express their disbelief in something, or to criticize things. I believe in free speech, and the right to criticize governing bodies and the like without fear of retaliation or retribution. But like many counties, a line is drawn between expressing dislike or disbelief in something, and being slanderous and inciting violence. When that line is crossed, when what they are saying is both non-factual and damaging, there must be a point were ones right to speak is limited by others right to not be slandered against or injured, for the good of the whole. In a world where everything is speech, like this forum, action is called for to limit that damage.


Let's have an example:

Where do you draw that line in this forum you state you moderate?

Would you ban a person for expressing disbelief in Judaism?
Would you ban a person for criticizing Israeli political choices?
Would you ban a person for telling factually inaccurate stories about a particular person?
Would you ban a person for Holocost denial?
Would you ban them for inciting others to injure others?

Do you really believe you can resolve issues with people that unwaveringly espouse the lower forms of this example through dialog and reason? I certainly don't.

Presenting lies as fact, when facts have been clearly established and confirmed by multiple sources, is a ban-able offense in my book. Slandering others, with no proof, and in many cases with proof to the contrary, merits review at a minimum, and when done beyond a reasonable threshold, must result in a cessation of that activity.

I'm also never for permanent bans. I believe some people, given time and life experience, can change. Some, not all. But for that small percent that can, bans should be temporally limited.

That's my take on the matter. I look forward to reading your take on it. And while we don't have to agree, I think you'll be hard pressed to stand in favor of allowing slander and lies without some kind of recourse. That is the situation going on here. It was the reason for the initial 3-day ban (personal attacks and slander). It's the reason this thread was started. And in fact has been the reason for just about every ban on TMO since I've been here, as far as I'm aware.

I look forward to your reply, and the replies of others.

Why people come here in TMO to ofend each other ? Do you do the same in real life, in front of real people ?

Maemo.org community needs help, not hate. The energy and time wasted in these type of debate should be better used for keeping Maemo community alive.

> Would you ban a person for Holocost denial?

Woody just Godwined himself. Go back to being wiki editor. If you have nothning maemo to add to this forum, why don't you leave? All others are liars like hitler... ffs dude get a grip on yourself

Just look at who's 'Thanking' who in this thread. Fractions for fun of estel/woody...

I though those who believed in a meritocratic system believe that only those informed on a topic should speak on it. Yet here you clearly are commenting on something you're not well informed about.

You clearly don't follow anything. If you had, you would have seen in the same archive I linked to a few posts above, the person "inquiring" has made several almost identical inquiries in that forum, and here on TMO. This is not the first time he's posed the question, nor the first time I've answered it. Say what you will, I call that being a fan boy.

Estel was not banned for anything joerg said. Estel was banned for slander against others, and for breaking forum rules (which includes not slandering others). Joerg was relatively inactive on TMO when this occurred (well over two months ago now).

As for your comments on wiki-wars, I think you may be confusing this with something else. I recall maybe one discussion about bylaws involving the mention of using wiki. That has next to nothing to do with anything going on here.

But then why should you care? It's all about merit, right? And I have none of that, having done nothing for the community....

Then perhaps you should leave... the last few posts you've made have added nothing.

And what is your obsession with the wiki? I'm not exactly a high wiki editor... Most of my involvement here has been setting up the structure to keep the lights on after Nokia pulled the plug. (eg The reason you can even come here to make snide ill-informed remarks.)

I'm really honestly puzzled why you think I have much at all to do with the wiki?

I meant you woody behaving as any person with MOD/edit powers (wiki-editors fights are source of never-ending drama, you never edited wiki? posted endless longwinded defences/attacks against other editors who are LIARS (required caps as tomi ahonen, how do you cruise for cool without it)... you're just abusive type who should not be in that position as you freak out

Wikipedia, not maemo wiki, wikipedia editors get the dreams of being something meaningful and fighting to THE DEATH