What's new

Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.
Log in Register

Follow Us On Social Media

Ban Discussion Megathread

Adoring Fan said:
@knajjd Are we allowed to post discords of banned members ?
Or discords other than the main are not allowed here ?
Click to expand...
when it's a guy specifically telling his friends to post in his stead, of course not. that means zesto's shit is not allowed since he uses other people to effectively evade his ban. he is malicious.
 
Leucosticte said:
So what if someone just happens to quote or link to or talk about something Zesto said, without Zesto's being the one who told them to? This new measure doesn't seem well-thought-out. Even Wikipedia doesn't ban proxying for banned users:


E.g. if a banned user asks you to post misinformation to Wikipedia on his behalf, and you do it, then you can be sanctioned. But presumably if Zesto's posts had contained misinformation, then they wouldn't have been allowed at Looksmax either.

All the time, on this site we quote people who are basically enemies of the community, if nothing else just for the sake of refuting them. E.g. people will quote CuckTears users who would not be eligible to be part of this site, so that people have a chance to discuss those opposing viewpoints.

Zesto is just another non-member like these other people who get quoted. There's nothing special that merits banning his stuff from getting cited, just because he's banned. If someone quotes him, it's not necessarily just because they're doing a favor for him, and thereby acting as his meatpuppet; it could be because THEY independently think what he has to say is worth discussing.
Click to expand...
there is something special: we know for a fact that he uses his friends to post stuff here, and so do you. no offense, but i don't feel like arguing about this with you. however, i can guarantee that we'll know for sure when it's him asking people, rather than a random mention of him.
 
knajjd said:
there is something special: we know for a fact that he uses his friends to post stuff here, and so do you. no offense, but i don't feel like arguing about this with you. however, i can guarantee that we'll know for sure when it's him asking people, rather than a random mention of him.
Click to expand...
Nobody can guess if it's a message from him or a message from one of his ''friends'' so it's better no Zesto at all but why it's not in the ''rule'' section. Why there are rules not mentioned there hidden from users ?
 
Adoring Fan said:
Nobody can guess if it's a message from him or a message from one of his ''friends'' so it's better no Zesto at all but why it's not in the ''rule'' section. Why there are rules not mentioned there hidden from users ?
Click to expand...
1. Because some things are fairly common sense. As I explained to someone who was doing the same thing with another banned user, is it not common sense that when we ban a person from posting on the forum, it makes no sense for you to act as a proxy for their posts on the same forum? When we ban a user, one of the implied underlying reasons is that we do not want their content to appear on this site in the future, so by posting their content from them, you are undermining the ban.

2. Because if we wrote an autistic all-inclusive list of things not to do, it would be 10 pages long, no one would read it, and "clever" trolls like some of the rule lawyers we have on this site would still find loopholes in the wording or between the lines. It would be a never-ending project of adding and modifying the rules, which new members would obviously have to constantly make themselves aware of if they don't want to get warned.

3. There used to be an explicit rule stating that moderators are deemed fit to act at their own discretion when a situation presents itself that is not covered by the penumbra of the main rules. It seems that in an effort to simplify the rules for easy consumption, Serge has removed this clause and others from being explicitly stated. His reasoning is that it is common sense that in a site with moderation, we have the authority to make decisions on fringe cases. Just to be clear, this was in the original rules, or at least the ones that were in place sometime early this year. However, because they were removed, I presume it would be the "RREEEEEE" heard around the world from rule lawyers, whiners, and exception-beggers if Serge were to put it back in now, even though it is still technically in effect.

We discuss bans for a reason. We check each other's work in high-profile and borderline cases for a reason. We self-moderate, and I know for a fact that some of us openly admit bias in certain situations and ask for an unbiased member of the team to handle the situation. However, in cases like this, there is precedent, and it is cut and dry. I will try to find the conversation I had with that other user so that I can post what I sent to them, which made sense to them at the time.

Zesto is not coming back to this site, both because of his ban, his actions thereafter, and due to a voiced lack of desire to do so. His words/posts shouldn't perpetuate here now that he is gone, either.
 
Leucosticte said:
So what ends up happening is that the precedents form of a body of rules anyway, for interpreting the rules that are explicitly set out. E.g., "You'll get warned if you're caught saying 'Go ER'" was an interpretation of an existing rule; people had to get warned before they realized that, even though there were a lot of people saying "Go ER," so that it might seem like the mods didn't mind it, that was just because it wasn't always getting reported, and you could get a warning if a mod saw you saying it.

So threads like this become a de facto setting forth of new rules, as people ask for clarifications, lay out their arguments, etc., and mods say how they're going to apply the short set of official rules. Either way, it ends up being a long list, where you either have to read a long list (if they were all laid down as official rules) or you have to read the ban discussion megathread or hang around the site long enough to get warned for overstepping various boundaries, or hear about warnings that people have been given, and thereby discover how the rules are going to get applied in each kind of case.

The U.S. Constitution is a pretty short document, but the case law is voluminous. E.g. the Fourth Amendment is only sentence, but at a law library, there will be two thick volumes of precedents about how to properly interpret it, that people are expected to know, since ignorance of the law is no excuse. The Fourth Amendment uses words like "unreasonable" and "properly" which is an invitation to use common sense, but in practice, one person's common sense can differ from another's, so what it comes down to is one has to learn what the founders' and judges' (or in our case, admins' and mods') philosophy and past decisions are and take one's cues from that.

Of course, some people have no need to know Fourth Amendment caselaw, because they don't do the kind of stuff that would attract attention from the cops anyway. Similarly, some people just by nature don't tend to say or do stuff that would overstep what mods consider the boundaries of what's acceptable, so they don't really need to know what all the rules and precedents and philosophies are.
Click to expand...
If you're making a suggestion for what we should do in this case, I would appreciate if you summarized your argument.
 
Leucosticte said:
(which is this thread; probably one of the purposes of having a cagethread to begin with is so that precedents and related discussions are seen by more people who want to know such things).
Click to expand...
The chief purpose of this thread was to establish a standard for how people react to bans, which is to PM the user that was banned to find out why, or discuss bans in general instead of making mass threads about every high-profile ban.

Leucosticte said:
knajjd v. Zesto
Click to expand...
Not really a landmark case, as I said before. This has been how we have handled users with alts for quite some time, he is just the first to have actually gone ahead and made a new one (not counting other banned users like Kointo). A notable example of a user whose alt rights were taken away is theultimate341 because he was LARPing on his new alt, but basically no one heard about that (except people he undoubtedly complained to), because he never got banned for it and didn't make another alt, like a rational user. That's the real goal of the rules and their enforcement - for it to be mostly private and not a source of weeks of drama from overly dramatic individuals and orbiters.
 
Leucosticte said:
The fascinating landmark case of knajjd v. Zesto and the circumstances surrounding it will undoubtedly be studied by students of incel law and culture for generations to come.
Click to expand...
ORDER IN THE COURT!!!
 
Do banned users get alerted when they're @'d? I assume that this is the case, but I'd like to confirm

thx in advance
 
quinn24 said:
Do banned users get alerted when they're @'d? I assume that this is the case, but I'd like to confirm

thx in advance
Click to expand...
I personally have no idea. Wanna test it out?

Just kidding. @SergeantIncel ?
 
I break the rules (or at least I believe I do) all the time, but never get a warning for it. Any particular reason?
 
Sitokirment said:
I break the rules (or at least I believe I do) all the time, but never get a warning for it. Any particular reason?
Click to expand...
Low inhib af.

I'll look over your post history, thanks for the heads up.
 
Sitokirment said:
I break the rules (or at least I believe I do) all the time, but never get a warning for it. Any particular reason?
Click to expand...
After reviewing your history there was only one or two posts that even came close to breaking rules but they were obvious jokes or too vague to warrant any action.

You haven't triggered anyone into reporting you, most likely, or any reports that were filed against you were faulty, so that's why you don't get warned/banned.

Keep up the good work I guess?
 
Leucosticte banned? :feelsrope:

Temporary, right? He's still on the list.
 
knajjd said:
actually, a long-term warning for repeated violations from ages ago was expired manually today. his level went below 60%, so now he’s unbanned.
Click to expand...
:feelsokman::feelsautistic:
 
blickpall said:
After reviewing your history there was only one or two posts that even came close to breaking rules but they were obvious jokes or too vague to warrant any action.

You haven't triggered anyone into reporting you, most likely, or any reports that were filed against you were faulty, so that's why you don't get warned/banned.

Keep up the good work I guess?
Click to expand...

Well shit, I don't even get a prize?
 
r.i.p. tranny smasher
 
@cucktearslol was pretty decent tbh. I've got 1 warning for cherry picking and I'm 16 so I reckon I'll last a while.
 
RegisterUserName said:
@cucktearslol was pretty decent tbh. I've got 1 warning for cherry picking and I'm 16 so I reckon I'll last a while.
Click to expand...

Drop out of school. It will be the best decision you ever make.
 
Can I know why this guy was banned ?
https://incels.is/members/darkhai.13055/
I know it's probably for a long time but he pissed me off a little bit thinking that when he came to my city he was going to ascend just because he is black and ignore my advices when he make a threads for asking advice about my city
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kay'
Gaming Your 8th account has been permanently banned
Replies
10
Views
520
nakolas
nakolas
Shaktiman
RageFuel Left unchecked, incels are radicalizing further: hatred of women, glorification of violence increasing, and now pose a serious threat to children
Replies
31
Views
1K
Friezacel
Friezacel
Esoteric7
  • Poll
Serious My Top 5 Criticisms of This Forum
Replies
45
Views
1K
Esoteric7
Esoteric7
Eremetic
Blackpill Higher Education Is Brainwashing.
Replies
8
Views
773
EgyptianNiggerKANG
EgyptianNiggerKANG
AsiaCel
JFL Online forums breeding grounds for incel extremism and violence
Replies
21
Views
1K
92 drowsiness?
92 drowsiness?

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Fallout
  • gymcel122
  • Master
  • ... and 2 more.
    • Total: 61 (Incels: 5, Bluepillers: 56)

    Follow Us On Social Media

    538,963Threads
    12,515,339Posts
    25,141Members
    DailyGandyPrayerNew Lost Soul

    About Us

    Incels.is is a community for men that struggle with or are unable to get into romantic relationships with women despite trying. We welcome men from all walks of life, and from all cultural and racial backgrounds, as long as you are an incel.

    Online statistics

    Members online
    243
    Guests online
    2,778
    Total visitors
    3,021
    Totals may include hidden visitors.
    shape1
    shape2
    shape3
    shape4
    shape5
    shape6
    Back
    Top