advocating death

[Aclion]

viewtopic.php?p=37697206#p37697206

[New Visayan Islands]

Two for the price of one!

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Uh, no. You got this one wrong, fledgling mod. Sorry.

My post advocated a legal act of killing. It is no different to "if a burglar breaks into your home, you can shoot them, and you should" which is advocated daily on this forum.

Castle Doctrine applies in many US states (and by other names, in other countries including my own) and most importantly it applies in the District of Columbia where the White House is situated.

Since I made the post in dispute, I have had time (*cough*) to research exactly what law applies inside the White House. And now I'm not so sure: it's complicated. The White House is also Federal Property. It may even be subject to Martial Law. But it is still the Official Residence of the President. It is the President's house.

My post was made assuming the following things:

1. Biden is the elected President (appointed by the House and inaugurated at noon 20 Jan 2021)

2. Trump is no longer the President, and the White House is no longer his house.

3. Castle doctrine applies: though Trump might not be an intruder, he is an unwanted guest who can be ordered to leave.

4. Providing that President Biden has clearly ordered mr. Trump to leave, and given reasonable time to do so, Biden may shoot Trump.

Of course I hope none of these things happen. But consider the context, and in particular San Lumen's post which I was replying to. (1) and (2) both apply. San Lumen assumes part of (4) as well: mr Trump has been given orders to leave by the Secret Service, acting under authority of President Biden. Dragging the former President out without first asking him to stand up and walk out, would almost certainly be illegal. San Lumen would never advocate something illegal and nor would I.

So what I suggested was that Biden exercise the rights any householder in the District of Columbia has: to use lethal force against an unwanted guest who refuses to leave.

Aclion knows this. Aclion would never have reported my post if they had read it closely and in context, because Aclion is on record defending the Castle Doctrine, and the right to kill in self-defense more generally. It would be uncivil of me to give examples; if Aclion wants to dispute it they may. I only mention my accuser to make the point that "advocating death" is not a forum offence. Advocating deliberate and immediate death IS within forum rules, providing death is dealt in a lawful way. I have made my case against that.



Against the charge of Trolling what can I say? What can any poster say? A moderator judges the intent of my post, finds that the intent is mostly or entirely to anger other posters. Punishes me. What can I say about my intent then, which you will not read with a jaundiced eye considering I have had 24 hours to devise justifications? I cannot plead for mercy, only for understanding.

Please, New Visayan Islands, read the post again. Read the context (ie previous posts and particularly those of mine). Read the above explanation of the point I was trying to make with the post. My intent was to provoking cognitive dissonance in my ideological opponents (on gun rights), by making a serious point which they should recognize and tying it to political rivalry they are more shallowly involved in.

It is a gun rights argument, turned against Republicans. It is not trolling.

(There's no hurry about this: I have served my ban. I would prefer if New Visayan Islands were to be the first to reply)

[Katganistan]

New Visayan Islands is not incorrect. Advocating murdering someone for trespassing on government property, even if you don't like who they are, is not okay.

[Saiyan Galactic Empire]

New Visayan Islands is not incorrect. Advocating murdering someone for trespassing on government property, even if you don't like who they are, is not okay.

Is it ok to advocate killing someone who trespassed on private property eg castle doctrine? Am curious thx

[Nobel Hobos 2]

New Visayan Islands is not incorrect. Advocating murdering someone for trespassing on government property, even if you don't like who they are, is not okay.

I did not ask for a second moderator opinion, so let's consider this just your opinion, with an exemption from 'spamming moderation' given that you are in fact a Moderator.

I am most interested in the modly consideration of New Visayan Islands. I am not disputing the decision. The fact that I waited out my ban to bring this back up, should show that my primary interest is in the integrity of moderators, rather than my personal trajectory towards being banned from the site.

I believe my 1-day ban for trolling was unjust. But we are going to talk it over, and I am prepared to accept the result if it goes against me. I am not prepared to accept the result if it is so poorly thought out as "trespassing on government property". At no point did I appeal to that, you have fabricated an argument which did not exist in the context the supposed offence of trolling occurred. In fact you are arguing with my post, to give your contrary opinion, which if we're going to get down and dirty with the rules of the forum, would be an abuse of your powers.

Let's keep this going a little longer though, and take your post as a contribution to debate, rather than a ruling. OK?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

New Visayan Islands is not incorrect. Advocating murdering someone for trespassing on government property, even if you don't like who they are, is not okay.

Is it ok to advocate killing someone who trespassed on private property eg castle doctrine? Am curious thx

Thankyou for taking my side. But you are not one of the posters involved in the dispute, so unless you have "evidence" to contribute you should not post here. It's in the rules.

[Lamoni]

New Visayan Islands is not incorrect. Advocating murdering someone for trespassing on government property, even if you don't like who they are, is not okay.

I did not ask for a second moderator opinion, so let's consider this just your opinion, with an exemption from 'spamming moderation' given that you are in fact a Moderator.

I am most interested in the modly consideration of New Visayan Islands. I am not disputing the decision. The fact that I waited out my ban to bring this back up, should show that my primary interest is in the integrity of moderators, rather than my personal trajectory towards being banned from the site.

I believe my 1-day ban for trolling was unjust. But we are going to talk it over, and I am prepared to accept the result if it goes against me. I am not prepared to accept the result if it is so poorly thought out as "trespassing on government property". At no point did I appeal to that, you have fabricated an argument which did not exist in the context the supposed offence of trolling occurred. In fact you are arguing with my post, to give your contrary opinion, which if we're going to get down and dirty with the rules of the forum, would be an abuse of your powers.

Let's keep this going a little longer though, and take your post as a contribution to debate, rather than a ruling. OK?

You might not have asked for a moderator 2nd opinion, but you got it. The ruling stands. Your only recourse now is a final appeal, and you can find out how to make one here.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I advocated death, as Aclion accused. But I have given a full explanation of how it is legal. And approved, and in fact advocated daily on this forum.

I have defended myself, by laying out the purpose and point of my post, against the ruling that I was trolling.

I have demonstrated that what I advocated (in narrow future circumstances) was not violence against the President.

I require from moderators some explanation for the ruling of "trolling"! You claim my intent was to offend other posters. I say my intent was otherwise, my intent was to make a political point and a point about how Castle Doctrine should apply to everyone within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, including Donald Trump in the event he flagrantly breaks the law in future.

If I am wrong about the law as it applies inside the White House, a sufficient rebuttal would be "you are wrong <link to law>"

That three mods have now told me a sufficient rebuttal is "that's offensive to most people" means to me one of two things:

(a) The mods are wrong
(b) I'm too good for this shitty little forum

[Mannixa Prime]

I advocated death, as Aclion accused. But I have given a full explanation of how it is legal. And approved, and in fact advocated daily on this forum.

I have defended myself, by laying out the purpose and point of my post, against the ruling that I was trolling.

I have demonstrated that what I advocated (in narrow future circumstances) was not violence against the President.

I require from moderators some explanation for the ruling of "trolling"! You claim my intent was to offend other posters. I say my intent was otherwise, my intent was to make a political point and a point about how Castle Doctrine should apply to everyone within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, including Donald Trump in the event he flagrantly breaks the law in future.

If I am wrong about the law as it applies inside the White House, a sufficient rebuttal would be "you are wrong <link to law>"

That three mods have now told me a sufficient rebuttal is "that's offensive to most people" means to me one of two things:

(a) The mods are wrong
(b) I'm too good for this shitty little forum

You are the definition of cringe lol

[Santheres]

I advocated death, as Aclion accused. But I have given a full explanation of how it is legal. And approved, and in fact advocated daily on this forum.

I have defended myself, by laying out the purpose and point of my post, against the ruling that I was trolling.

I have demonstrated that what I advocated (in narrow future circumstances) was not violence against the President.

I require from moderators some explanation for the ruling of "trolling"! You claim my intent was to offend other posters. I say my intent was otherwise, my intent was to make a political point and a point about how Castle Doctrine should apply to everyone within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, including Donald Trump in the event he flagrantly breaks the law in future.

If I am wrong about the law as it applies inside the White House, a sufficient rebuttal would be "you are wrong <link to law>"

That three mods have now told me a sufficient rebuttal is "that's offensive to most people" means to me one of two things:

(a) The mods are wrong
(b) I'm too good for this shitty little forum

You are the definition of cringe lol

Do not spam in Moderation. Especially do not spam with additional trolling when you've already been warned recently about such things. Take a *** 24-hour ban *** to think about that.

[Katganistan]

(b) I'm too good for this shitty little forum

In that case, I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

[Aclion]

Just be glad you only got a day for literally advocating the murder of the president of the united states.

[Farnhamia]

Just be glad you only got a day for literally advocating the murder of the president of the united states.

We ruled in your favor, there's no need to pile on.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Just be glad you only got a day for literally advocating the murder of the president of the united states.

We ruled in your favor, there's no need to pile on.

Excuse me, but that is insufficient rebuke to Aclion for arguing against me in Moderation AND BEING WRONG.

I did not ever advocate the murder of the president of the united states. I advocated the lawful killing of an ex-president, in the unlikely event he refuses to leave the lawful residence of an actual president.

Aclion being wrong about what I actually did would be entirely permissible IF he'd done that in the thread. Aclion being RIGHT while debating in Moderation (with gloating thrown in) would perhaps be excusable.

But Aclion just trolled me. Right before your eyes in Moderation, and I should not need to report him since you plainly saw it.

I am reporting Aclion for Baiting.

Just be glad you only got a day for literally advocating the murder of the president of the united states.

In context of the thread it is in, this is Gloating, Trolling, Contempt of Court, and Baiting!

[Santheres]

Quite frankly, no. Aclion already got an unofficial for it. We're done here.

Thanks!