Thank god we found more dumb drama everybody can get worked up about. With any luck this too will stretch out for weeks and cause 10x more damage to the community than whatever stupid non-issue it’s trying to solve.
3 Likes
I didn’t think this would be particularly controversial tbh.
2 Likes
He took in a handicapped 16 year old and posted some pictures with her and her dollhouse.
Dragging up an account that hasn’t even been here since May for misdeeds bearing no relation to the forum and committed 13 years ago is a somewhat eyebrow-raising mindset. Put it this way - imagine you found out that a member of the forum committed an assault or some other violent crime 13 years ago. Would you want to ban them? The email is indefensible and I don’t care if Sklansky is banned or not but let’s face the reality that this thread only exists because of who Sklansky is and the fact that you don’t like him.
Edit: I’m gonna vote no on the grounds that I don’t really think this thread should exist.
10 Likes
Was there a lot of arguing in your house when you were a child?
2 Likes
This thread exists because today I clicked on a french bbv thread on this forum, read a post about an email i had heard about but never seen before, read the email, and had my conscience fucking shocked and felt I should do something about it.
Fair enough, but I still don’t think we should be in the business of dragging up real-life stuff from more than a decade ago and using it as justification to ban posters. Or even publicising it on here, frankly. Again, suppose it came to your attention that a poster had an assault conviction from 13 years ago. Would you start a thread about it? I sure fucking hope not. I don’t think Sklansky meets the definition of a public figure any more, if he ever did, and I don’t think we should be holding trials on the moral character of posters on a politics forum. People should be able to do stupid or even terrible things and have a reasonable expectation of not having it dragged up 13 years later in an unrelated context. It’s the principle of it rather than being about Sklansky in particular.
2 Likes
This isn’t an assault. Would anyone really care if someone was convicted 10 years ago for getting into a bar fight? I’m going with no. This is a different level.
I’m actually going to campaign here. That email is horrific on a level that I’m not sure everyone is fully processing. This a dude thoughtfully and carefully leveraging a power differential to threaten life-altering physical torture and maximize emotional distress to a vulnerable young woman. What the fuck are we doing if that gets a pass from us?
Please imagine being her and opening this email. Because it’s obvious that DS did.
8 Likes
Good point. I’ll vote for a ban if it’s done correctly. Unban and redo the RFC as a real RFC.
“Not holding tribunals on the moral character of posters” would be my answer. I think this would be a bad precedent.
1 Like
man you guys like voting
6 Likes
Pretty much any felony battery is worse than what he wrote.
2 Likes
Do we really need a process argument on this one? I mean, really, this isn’t some convoluted forum rule we’re coming up with here. You either think he shoudl be allowed to post here or you don’t.
This is a slippery slope argument. That email is fucking horrible I have no worries we are setting a precedent.
Come on.
I think we do. If you want a more streamlined process, then write an RFC.
I see what you did there.
Whether or not mods can perma anyone at any time or whether they can just decide this RFC gets a week while the other one gets 10 minutes is more important to me, by a lot, than whether Sklansky can post here.
Bingo
1 Like
I mean, are we sure we want to set a precedent for banning lecherous old pervy dudes? We aren’t getting any younger, afterall.
But anyhow, I doubt he really wants to post much here, and he is a scumbert so I guess sure?
1 Like
That’s results-oriented thinking.
2 Likes