You’re valued here too, and that was out of character for you from everything I’ve seen/can recall. We all feel the rage over what’s going on, just try to avoid posts like that and don’t make a habit out of it. No apology necessary!
2 Likes
As I say repeatedly, mods should rotate. It shouldn’t be that big a deal to be a mod.
But, this should not cause you to step down. Hiding the post may have been the wrong call, but not a big deal, and reconsidering it right off is exemplary modding.
3 Likes
I suspended NotBruceZ for a week for his posts about Waco and Ruby Ridge, this being the main one.
For those who are unaware, over 80 people died in Waco, including 20 children.
5 Likes
I wish to express my outrage in the strongest terms possible.
For one, Waco happened in the early 1990’s. And two, relatedly, the stated “support” of the result of the Waco siege in no way can be seen to “incite” any violence today if anybody read that post. What “rule” (real or imagined) did that post violate?
In my opinion this is simply blatant mod over-reach at this point.
3 Likes
I was temp banned once and only once from the old place, but I think it was for “a lack of human decency”
3 Likes
Start a poll to demod me then if you feel that strongly.
NBZ’s post can be read as an incitement to violence in that he’s hoping for similar situations to end the same way rather than more peacefully.
It is also clearly in violation of the proposed Rule #7, which has not yet been voted on. Until the community either puts that rule in place or votes it down, it’s up to the mods to use their judgment. NBZ has been warned numerous times and has received escalating temp bans as he’s continued to push the limits repeatedly.
1 Like
I reported the post.
nbz said: Waco results were great. I approve.
I said: Dude, 20 children burned alive.
nbz said: lol don’t care. fuck 'em.
I said: Wow. You need to gtfo for real.
Then I reported the posts.
I’m paraphrasing obviously, but do you really want to defend that? The full exchange is still there if you want to read it.
6 Likes
He’s inciting the government?
That post seems completely out of line to me, I really don’t understand the NBZ defenders.
6 Likes
I approve of this ban, not that it’s worth anything. I assume most of the posts will be from people disagreeing, so I wanted to voice my support.
5 Likes
He’s trolling us. This isn’t hard.
3 Likes
If, hypothetically, a person were to defend or try to justify the approach taken in the Moscow Theatre Incident, would they be banned?
That said, that post has convinced me he’s either a troll or so relentlessly singular in intent as to be indistinguishable. Leaning a little to the idea that it’s one of the psychos from the old country - one of the calipers-wielding ATF-moaners, pardon the pun. If we’re confident we can meaningfully enforce a ban, then it might be for the best, though I assumed we couldn’t.
1 Like
Seems consistent to me. He’s the most open and conscious statist on the board. If he’s a lefty, he’s definitely a tankie. (And trolling for sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s not basically his political perspective)
1 Like
Cosign
It’s not just the “incitement of violence” its the blatant disregard for innocent victims. It’s psychopathic and adds nothing to the forum, so why keep it around.
2 Likes
That would be a more relevant question if NBZ said he supported the approach taken. Instead, he said he supported the result which I think is widely agreed was unintended and/or directly caused by the Branch Davidians.
In any case, I would not support banning someone who argued that like that was an ok decision in a difficult situation. If that person went on to say they were happy with how things turned out and wished that a bunch of civilians also died in other conflicts that in fact ended more peacefully (wtf!?!) then they should be banned.
2 Likes
The posts in question are now deleted so I cannot judge them or their context.
My understanding is that NBZ was making one of his “out there” posts about how he would support a Waco-style government action if and when certain guns (think AR-15’s) were deemed illegal and people refused to give up (turn in?) their AR-15’s.
Somebody then mentioned that many children died at Waco. That is totally orthogonal to the point that NBZ was making.
I suppose that some children may die if and when gun-nuts want to shoot it out with government agents if and when AR-15’s are deemed illegal to possess. That would have a very small effect on my supporting or not supporting such a government protocol of removing guns from the populace.
I really really really am upset by this.
3 Likes
I’m in support of the actions @anon38180840 has taken at this moment and agree wrt y’all fleshing out by what he meant. But it sounds real bad.
And tbh I ain’t in to much support if at all of any live rounds by any GOVs or police.
1 Like
The posts are not deleted. You can see them by clicking the “View ignored content” link.
Please start with this post and read the next half dozen. If you think that’s ok or defensible, I’m really not sure what else to say. He explicitly said the OUTCOME was desirable, even after being told that 20 children were burned alive.
2 Likes
The gregorio extra camgirl script (link) goes a long way toward keeping me from taking this forum drama too seriously. I can’t get worked up when everyone’s avatar is some camgirl spanking herself.
3 Likes
Having re-read the posts, I stand by my comments.
1 Like