Not banned, but given a timeout, and not for his Islamaphobia/racism, but rather for his insults. Being a racist isn't grounds for being banned. Being a jackass might be but even then it should be temporary. I think he needs more of a month "timeout" so he can come back and act a bit more civil towards others.
No need to ban him. I don't agree with banning someone because of what they choose to post about. The times when he tries to twist peoples posts and make illogical conclusions in order to brand people in a negative light may not be fun to read, but at least he tries to bring up evidence and support his positions. I actually enjoy his posts on topics that aren't dealing with Islam. Nothing wrong with ATW posting here. There are far worse than him on these boards.
No. He is entitled to his opinion. I might disagree with his and he has an interesting post style. But he should not be banned or controlled
I think the real issue isn't his opinions or what he posts, it's how often he posts the same threads. A lot of us, I know I do, probably use this of forum to kind of sift through the fluff in the news and get the more important news. So when you look on the page and there are five ATW Muslim threads, it just kind of ruins the utility of the forum. The ignore function doesn't really solve that. I think that's what's frustrating to me. It's basically what basso used to do so often with his dumb thread titles.
Then start a thread calling for the banning of samfisher or one of the "I'm not saying he should have his cut off but he should definitely live his life in fear" cadre that regularly throws around insults.
I was just going to chime in and say that if one poster is constantly doing as you say we do limit their thread creating privileges at other sites I am a moderator at to real good effect. If they are to strident about that sensible idea I usually just give them time outs from 24 to 76 hours until they show good character again. Some people need to be trained like we do animals.
He certainly could, but it's obvious he doesn't want commit the time and effort to do so. Now, why is that? Because he prefers people be censored and made to shut up if they disagree with his sensitivities rather than engage or ignore them. This way his world view stays wholesome and unmolested by people he deems unworthy.
Hello first time D&D poster who just registered about a month ago. Thanks for letting us know how you handle things at that other unnamed site you are a moderator at. What limit for thread starting do you suggest? One per week? Is that enough to "train people like we do animals"? How often do you think I post "the same threads"? Do tell. In the last year, I started 45 threads in the D&D, less than one per week, and 33 of these could be viewed as critical of Islam - usually referring to an event that is a big deal in world news and therefore a topic for discussion. It's not like I make ISIS up so I can talk badly about Islam. It's not like I make Boko Haram up so that I can talk badly about Islam. It's not like I made these Pew polls up so that I can talk badly about Islam. I am critical of Islam because these things exist. So just about one of those threads every other week or every 11 days or so. Do tell where you would set the limit. And then you realize it's not the thread posting, it's the content that bugs you. You and people like glynch would love to shut someone up who you don't agree with. Let's see. We have two insults in this very post by New Yorker. By his own standards, he should ask for a month "timeout" so he can come back and act a bit more civil towards others. But of course, there is more. This is just from the last two weeks. I ignored most of the insults. Hey, I called him stupid and things like that. Which he is. But I didn't ask for any of these guys to be banned just because they are stupid or they insulted me. I think it's kind of funny that New Yorker is the pot calling the kettle black. The key thing to know with him is that it's all fake. He is just trying to get attention. He never responds to the substance of posts. Just goes on these fake outrage rants that he thinks will endear him to some people. Let's face it - glynch and New Yorker are massively frustrated because they lack arguments, intellectual capability and rhetorical skills, and, most importantly, the facts are against them. Therefore they are crying to mommy and are trying to silence me that way.
There are currently five of your threads in active conversation in the last five days focusing on Muslims. Do tell. So by your count, only 73% of your threads are about Muslims? Well, I can't imagine why anyone would believe you're a single issue poster.
That just goes to show that this is a topic that is of concern to people. Also, they are not about Muslims. They are about the ideology of Islam - there is a difference. Only 73 % of my threads in the D&D last year. One every 11 days or so on average. If you cannot bear that, then you probably can't bear watching the news either. Feel free to put me on ignore. Your loss.
I rarely spend time at this place anymore because I have too much going on but I couldn't help but comment on this. I am confused by why someone should be banned for posting things here that although repetitive do not constitute personal attacks against another poster. I have seen worse people here by far compared to ATW. IMO, ATW is one of the better posters around (granted I don't read D&D) but if he bothers you that much, put him on ignore. Not a hard concept to do, IMO.
I enjoy ATW's posts. I don't always agree, but I certainly don't want him censored or banned. That is ridiculous.
