In a recent COC poll the moderation team posted a question on whether or not RemyBrown should be banned from the site. The response showed that the majority was in favor of a public trial and a debate on this topic. I, kohai, will prosecute and argue that they should be banned. Whiteflame will defend and argue they should not be banned.
DebateCraft is intended to cultivate intellectually rigorous and dynamic discourse. Its aim is to foster an environment in which logical precision, rhetorical dexterity, and mutual respect are not merely compatible, but expected. Behavioral standards...to preserve its integrity.
DebateCraft is a structured venue for high‑caliber intellectual engagement. This Code of Conduct defines behavioral expectations, ethical boundaries, and enforcement mechanisms necessary to maintain discursive quality. I
II. What is the role of the moderator?
Moderators are empowered to act in the spirit of these rules, including in situations that fall outside their literal wording.Attempts to exploit loophole, technicalities, or edge cases to evade accountability will not prevent appropriate sanction, restriction, or curation, including where individually minor actions form a sustained pattern of disruptive, abusive, or bad-faith conduct.
Moderators on DebateCraft are curators of content, not enforcers of ideological conformity. Their role is to preserve argumentative rigor, platform integrity, and fair process,
Enforcement depends on context, thresholds, and patterns of conduct
III. When is something worthy of curation?
As the COC states, we are curators and not enforcers of an ideology. As a debate site, we expect that offensive and sensitive content and debates will appear, and that is something that I personally encourage. Debating dangerous ideas can be a good thing. My charge against Remy is not that he is wrong in his views or that he is offensive, but because his holistic body of work endangers the overall integrity of the site. When taken as a whole, Remy's content demonstrates consistent identity-based reaction-fishing is his defining method of posting. His modus operandi is to utilize identity groups like women, LGBTQ+, Jews, etc. as a way to create shock content. Thus, my central charge from the COC is this: Accounts operating chiefly to provoke through identity‑based rhetoric may be sanctioned regardless of technical compliance.
The evidence must establish:
Identity-based rhetoric is a dominant feature of the account.
Provocation and reaction-fishing are recurring methods.
The conduct represents a sustained pattern rather than isolated incidents.
The pattern continued after corrective action
The pattern has impaired discussion and users’ experience
In isolation, a rage bait thread or topic may not be worthy of curation actions other than marking the post as offensive and moving along. However, when a user repeatedly seeks attention by utilizing rage bait and shock forum titles as a way to gain attention, this becomes worthy of curation action.
Previous Curaction Action
On November 17, 2025, RemyBrown was banned for 1 month for advocating sexual violence and spam. Of note: This received 5 likes in the moderation log proving there was community support for our actions.
Remy's Body of Work
In his tenure on DebateCraft, RemyBrown produced:
154 forum topics
873 replies
1,027 enteries
79,571 words
Throughout his body of work his arguments can be summarized as: [insert identity group] - [alleged infractions] - [therefore they are stupid and should do better / lose rights].
Women and rape is his largest target:
Woman / women used over 500 times
Rape / raped / rapist used over 200+ times
Although these facts in and of itself does not prove that a rule was violated, it does show that he is consistently uses women and rape as illustrations throughout his post. Moreover, when properly analyzed this content is not used for genuine debates, but to marginalize women, rape victims, and minorities. In addition, even when the forum content itself is not worthy of moderator action, the thread titles themselves are often provocative.
Let's now analyze his content
A: Women / Rape
Women are his largest category. He often portrays women as being stupid. Throughout his work his argument has the same template: Women have some type of defect proving they are inferior to men and deserve less rights.
Few most egregious examples:
How to get feminists to back Hitler he essentially argues feminists are male haters and would support Hitler if only they knew Hitler kiled strange men in a forest. This simply boils down to feminists hate men and thus are stupid.
Why Rape is not as bad as DUI: Argument boils down to DUI victimes are in hospital longer therefore DUI is worse. This is one of his most egregious uses of shock-based content. Not only does he compare apples and oranges but using two extremes to belittle and make light of rape victims.
Violent vs Non violent rapist: The title alone is click-bait rage-bait. His argument is basically "A nonviolent rapist is someone (man or woman) who gets angry at women for choosing the bear over the strange man." This goes back to the "bear vs strange man in a woods" viral debate (which he uses a lot) to demean women for choosing the bear. In this case, he compares men getting angry at this to being a form of non-violent rape. This is provocation devoid of argumentative merit
Women and rape: Women who don't want to get raped should just not leave the house.
Why women are stupid: Women are stupid because they chose the bear. Therefore, they're emotional and thus should lose their voting rights.
Nobody cares about male rape victims: Women won't care if their male partner states they were raped. This argument is again devoid of any merit and has no supporting evidence behind it.
B. Jews
Throughout his content on Jews he has repeatedly utilized antisemitic trope and imagry:
The Jews need to do better: Jews are too scared they'll be murdered for being Jewish; accuses Jews of promoting goy slop; being too favorable to certain positions
Multiple users have expressed negative feelings due to the type of content that Remy is posting and the frequency of those posts.
5 likes in the moderation thread for the ban
Mag1cman: "I’m all for free speech but if someone’s spamming the same topic over and over again, can we get rid of them? I say this with regards to RemyBrown." Also noted (as I have noted as well) how "It’s just the same topic over and over again with this guy"
Sidewalker: "Especially if "same topic over and over again" is advocating a violent crime, rape for instance," Also pointed out multipletimes that he's desperate for attention.
GreatfulGoy: RemyBrown is back and immediately pushes misogyny and lowering the age of consent to 0. This is extremely legally and morally problematic to be enabling. Just permanently ban him or something.
Alyssa: "Ngl, I don't think I've EVER seen a Remy comment that didn't immediately give me the ick."
Myself across multiple moderation chats and private discussions.
AI disclosure
Codex was used to build new moderation tools and to quickly parase his content. Codex was also used to produce the info graphics and give data on his content.
Conclusion
As curators of content Remy should be permamently banned. His body of work shows that he operates via identity-based provocation and rage baiting. He repeatedly recycles inflamatory claims about women and minorities using the same basic template. Because of this, the moderation team is justified in a curation-level action of a permament ban.
As this is a trial and I am representing a member of our site rather than just a position on a topic, I’m going to format this a little differently than I would. I recognize this is not a courtroom, it’s not an actual legal case, but I’ll be treating it in a similar fashion. I’ll resist the urge to call him my client.
I find myself in a strange position today. I’ve been a head moderator for multiple sites now and issued bans before, but today, I’m arguing against one, and not with an account I would personally endorse. RemyBrown (RB) isn't exactly a paragon of virtue, and his post history showcases a willingness to skirt the line and even edge over it when it comes to offensive content. As a mod team, it is our duty to recognize and address objectionable content as well as spam.
However, this case isn’t an issue of establishing what RB has done on the site. We can agree on the objective set of facts. The central question of this debate is: what do we do about it? My opponent, the prosecutor Kohai, argues that his behavior warrants a ban, and not just any ban. He argues for a permanent ban, one that would remove RB from the site entirely. In doing so, he takes his position to the extreme, opting to wash his hands of a user I will admit can often be frustrating and obstinate rather than engage with him further on any level.
Make no mistake: that is a dramatic choice. In the year-long history of this site, exactly one member has been subject to a permanent ban for a combination of spamming multiple threads and multiaccounting, the latter of which objectively violated a key provision of the CoC. Permanent bans are a little-used tool that should remain a last resort, used only in cases where violations of the CoC are so obvious that there is little room for discussion. A trial like this one was not needed back then with such a glaring violation of site rules.
It is needed today.
This case may be about RB specifically, but it sets the tone for moderation of the site in general as well. Moderation has a number of tools at our disposal to address and punish violations of the CoC, including but not limited to: marking individual posts as offensive, marking any posts from their profile as offensive, forum posting restrictions, and short- and long-term bans, all of which can affect change to both how people perceive posts from a given account and how capable said account is of posting content that violates the CoC.
It’s my position that only flagrant violations of the CoC after everything else has been tried should result in a permanent ban. Central to that is my framework: moderator actions should consider site growth, recognizing the effect of our actions on retention. We achieve that by offering members as much opportunity to provide feedback and feel heard as possible, curating their own experience with the site and maintaining a moderator presence that is in line with community desires. I will show that a permanent ban on RB runs counter to these aims, and that other methods are both sufficiently effective and set a better standard for the site generally.
Exhibit A: RB’s prolific contributions
It’s no secret that RB has heavily contributed to the forum posts on DebateCraft. At 160 posts and 1056 comments, he’s ranked third on the forum leaderboard. That places him above all the moderation staff, myself included, combined. And yes, sheer volume matters. Those numbers represent engagement, both in terms of posts that bring users to the site and keep them here, as well as responses to a variety of other threads that expand or start new discussions there.
DebateCraft isn’t DebateArt or DDO, and that’s not solely down to the userbase. Our site admins have worked diligently to afford users a number of new ways to interface with the site, and one of the most important of those is the capacity to opt into and out of seeing offensive content. Users are allowed to choose what they would and would not like to experience, and moderators can apply standards strictly to users who post objectionable topics and/or responses while simultaneously affording other users an opportunity to address them.
This means of self-selection accomplishes three tasks simultaneously.
First, it allows for different levels of moderation beyond the usual three, i.e. bans, restrictions, and warnings. It recognizes that some violations of the CoC regularly skirt the line rather than stepping over it, that warnings and restrictions are often ineffective, and that permanent bans should be treated as a last resort.
Second, it provides users the tools to choose what users see rather than mods being heavy-handed and make those decisions for them. There are obvious limits to what should be allowed on a debate site like ours, but any content that doesn’t showcase a clear rule violation should be up to users to decide, requiring minimal mod intervention.
Third, it allows for meaningful debate over what should be considered to be sufficient for a permanent ban. It’s the reason this debate exists: the discussion over whether RB should remain on the site wouldn’t be happening if a permanent ban had already happened
Exhibit C: Free speech
The freedom of speech is not unlimited here in the US nor elsewhere. Even where it does protect speech, that freedom protects individuals from government censorship, but that doesn’t mean that anyone has the right to use any platform to broadcast their message. As with any website, DebateCraft can control what is said here, moderating content and even banning users without violating free speech rights.
That being said, a debate site is positioned differently from most social media sites. Representing a broad diversity of opinion, both in debates and discussions, is essential to maintaining a thriving community.
It’s no secret that RB tends to stray towards the extreme, but while I can understand being offended by many of his posts, I think RB is a test case of how far we are willing to go in our support of free speech and open discussion on the site. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall once wrote (no, it wasn’t Voltaire, but it was written about Voltaire), “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." We need to recognize that it’s cases like this, where someone is engaging in offensive but not outright hate speech, where we should establish a clear boundary within which all speech should be allowed.
And if you are offended by RB’s speech, then I encourage you to follow the view of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and recognize that "sunlight is the best disinfectant." People maintain views that the general public strongly disagrees with, but the goal should not be to try to relegate them to obscurity by imposing standards that disallow such speech. RB is not the only person who holds these opinions, and offering opportunities to directly address his points is valuable to either disprove them or find value in those arguments that might otherwise go unnoticed.
I rest my opening case and look forward to rebutting my opponent.
Thank you, whiteflame. Note that I'll be deliberately going out of order.
Framework
The framework is really the crux of this debate. Both of our frameworks are rooted squarely within the site's COC. The real debate is how to properly interpret and enforce this CoC and when a user crosses the line and moderators are justified in issuing a perma ban from the site.
Whiteflame's criteria for a perma ban:
Only flagrant violations of the COC after everything else has been tried...moderator actions should consider site growth, recognizing the effect of our actions on retention. We achieve that by offering members as much opportunity to provide feedback and feel heard as possible, curating their own experience with the site and maintaining a moderator presence that is in line with community desires."
In contrast, I provided a clear criterion on when an account should be curated and a checklist the moderation team can use in weighing their body of work. I will try and show two things: 1) Even if I concede my opponent's framework, the RB's ban can still be justified; and 2) My framework is ultimately superior.
Moderation tools (re whiteflame exhibit b)
As whiteflame noted in their exhibit B, we have the following tools at our disposal:
Mark accounts as offensive and it's viewable only by those who opt-in to viewing offensive content.
Archiving and deleting posts
Issuing warnings and bans
In the case of RB, we have the meaningful tools available: We marked his account as offensive, issued a previous ban, and his body of work still repeatedly violates the COC. If the previous options were not already done, then a perma ban would be significantly harder, if not impossible, to justify. What really remains is when an account becomes perma-worthy.
Let's discuss my opponent's framework. Under my opponent's framework, RB's content flagrantly violates the COC. His body of work is filled with recycling the same basic argument ad nauseam and utilizing identity groups to gain reactions. Recall my central charge from the COC: Accounts operating chiefly to provoke through identity‑based rhetoric may be sanctioned regardless of technical compliance. Because he flagrantly does this repeatedly throughout his content, curation action is justified.
That is ultimately the reason whiteflame's framework and criterion becomes incoherent. It is incoherent because what is flagrant to one person may not be flagrant to another. WF's criteria is too subjective. In contrast, my checklist provides a coherent and useful rubric the moderation team can use when weighing curation decisions:
Identity-based rhetoric is a dominant feature of the account.
Provocation and reaction-fishing are recurring methods.
The conduct represents a sustained pattern rather than isolated incidents.
The pattern continued after corrective action
The pattern has impaired discussion and users’ experience
RB checks every single box.
Exhibit A: RB’s prolific contributions
I do not deny that RB has been a prolific contributor to the site. That is the wrong question. The right question to ask is whether or not his contributions are in line with the COC and if they have been a net positive or negative for the site. As one can see from the data set below, RB does produce a lot of content and some of his content does get a lot of replies. What is interesting is that many of these are extreme outliers. Most of his topics received substantially less engagement and the ones that do are a small number of people going back and forth. See image 1:
One of the most extreme outliers Why Rape is Not as bad as DUI has 133 replies; however, only 9 people were participating in that thread. When that one thread is broken down, 3 users (including RB) made 90/133 comments, or about 67%. Another notable extreme outlier is the thread "Jews need to do better." 70 replies, but again, only 8 people participating. Nearly 4/5 of the comments were between RB and Savant. Again, here's the breakdown:
So the sheer volume and the average replies statistics that whiteflame cited is misleading and depends on several outliers. The mean, median, and mode calculation demonstrates this:
Mean (average): 20.33 total replies
Median (the middle number in a data set): 8 total replies
Mode (the number that appears the most times in the data set): 4 total replies
Median unique outside participants: 3
So although RB does post a lot, his actual audience is concentrated around very few core people. Here's a statistical analysis of his content from the past 90-days:
Topics started by Remy: 24
Visible replies: 488
Replies written by Remy: 133
Replies written by everyone else: 355
Distinct outside participants: 19
Total reply authors including Remy: 20
Almost 60% of the engagement with RB is between SatanLucy, Savant, and SkepticalOne.
If we were to create a leaderboard by audience depth over the past 90 days, RB ranks 6th. This is again the statistical breakdown:
When it comes to distinct engagements, RB ranks below 5 other creators.
Important caveats: Again, this does not prove a rule was violated, and it also does not prove that his contributions have not been meaningful. What it shows is that whiteflame overstates the breadth of RB’s audience and assumes that reply volume proves recruitment, retention, or net benefit.
Even worse for whiteflame, we should not base a user's merits on engagement alone. We must analyze the entire body of work and ask if it is in line with the COC and if their content has been a net positive for the site. My case against RB isn't that he doesn't contribute, is wrong, or is offensive. My case is that his main driving content is provoction via identity-based rhetoric. This is something that I have demonstrated thoroughly in round 1. His content follows the same recycled template: "An identity group has a collective defect and thus requires collective punishment."
Exhibit C: Free speech
Both whiteflame and I have the same goal: Create a debate website with maximum freedom of speech. However, as whiteflame noted this freedom is not absolute. There are lines that, once crossed, moderation curation a bans. We have moderators and a COC for a reason.
One thing whiteflame gets right: "I think RB is a test case of how far we are willing to go in our support of free speech and open discussion on the site." This is why this trial is so badly needed. Instead of mods making a decision behind closed doors, we are making a case and letting the community help decide and guide our choices.
Conclusion
Once again, this debate is not about if RB is right in his views, is too offensive, is too wrong, or does not contribute to the site. This debate is whether or not RB has crossed a line when offensive ideas cease to be a valid debate and instead become a tool for rage bait and provocation. In isolation, many of RB's posts may not warrant any action at all, including marking the post as offensive. However, when taken together and analyzed holistically, RB's body of work establishes the pattern that the COC states may warrant curation: an account operating chiefly to provoke through identity-based rhetoric regardless of technical compliance.
This is the real question that comes before the voters: Has the evidence established that identity-based provocation is RB’s sustained and defining method of participation despite corrective action? If so, does that warrant curation. The answer is yes. A perma ban is warranted because the moderation team has already issued previous correction actions and is still primarily using identity-based rhetoric to provoke instead of creating actual debate. Even worse, the posts follow the same predictable pattern. Furthermore, given the many negative community impacts I highlighted in round 1, a perma ban is warranted.
AI Disclosure
AI was used for research and to create statistical breakdowns of his posts and who was replying to his threads.
I’ll keep this rebuttal focused on Pro's opening round to keep this balanced.
On my opponent’s framework, Pro starts pretty general.
What is DebateCraft?
This point sets up the stakes of the debate. However, whether we’re talking about overall discourse, environment, integrity, engagement, or quality of material on the site, a single user has minimal impact, positively or negatively. Users all experience a variety of perspectives through interactions with multiple users, so it is up to Pro to demonstrate that RB is such a destabilizing influence in one or more of these areas that the only means of addressing it is a permanent ban.
What is the role of a moderator?
Pro is right that we as moderators are in part tasked with curating the content of the website. That duty does not ascribe specific choices like a permanent ban for specific cases. But more broadly, that duty requires us to show that the decision is for curation and not censorship, and draw that line in a clear and widely accepted way.
When is something worthy of curation?
Here is where Pro levies specific charges against RB, including specific data about his posts. He makes some pretty big claims up front, using broad statements like:
his holistic body of work endangers the overall integrity of the site
Note that overarching statements like this lack warrants and evidence.
Much as Pro tries to frame moderator duties and thus this debate as one focused on ensuring effective curation of concerning posts and perspectives, he doesn't really engage with the other side of the coin: that mod actions must also encourage a wide range of perspectives and means to convey them. I agree with his framework insofar as it demands moderator curation within certain discrete bounds. I disagree with how he balances those concerns against our "support [for] both adversarial and cooperative forms of argumentation."
Pro points to the COC, arguing that:
Moderators on DebateCraft are curators of content, not enforcers of ideological conformity.
Yet, Pro calls out RB’s use of certain terms, specifically women and rape, as problematic, enforcing a form of conformity with post language. He calls these “provocative,” but doesn’t explain how provocation violates any site rules, and while he maligns their intended purpose, claiming that it:
is not used for genuine debates, but to marginalize women, rape victims, and minorities
the evidence he uses only considers some specious interpretations that assert intent. What his examples demonstrate is RB's propensity for expressing absurd perspectives (with titles chiefly serving as clickbait or, as he puts it for some, ragebait), but the posts all serve as criticisms of ideology and its application rather than attempts to marginalize.
Why Rape is not as bad as DUI - using a highly specific and narrow method to compare the trauma of two separate physically harmful and criminal behaviors.
Violent vs Non violent rapist - a straw man of liberal perspectives aimed to make them seem more absurd by comparing the act of rape with concerns about encountering males vs. bears.
Women and rape - an admittedly defeatist and extreme argument that places the burden on women to protect themselves from rapists, though this seems to be couched in a genuine (and sourced) concern that the justice system will consistently fail them.
Why women are stupid - an obviously overgeneralized perspective based on the “man vs. bears” survey and taken to an absurd extreme with removing suffrage.
Why gay men are better than liberal women - doesn’t even mention abortions, but does argue that everyone engages in sexism as a means to dismiss it, pushing back on an argument by specifying a definition that applies more broadly.
Nobody cares about male rape victims - holds a fake conversation to claim that perceptions of rape change based on the sex of the victim before claiming their harm should be respected.
The Jews need to do better - a straw man of arguments and priorities he perceives as common in Jewish circles that he believes deserve criticism coupled with an absurd scenario where Jews annex Canada.
Jews and abortion - an assertion that Jews support abortion with an assumed reason.
Why do Jews really love American blacks? - holds an imagined back-and-forth that largely just assumes perspectives of Jews on a variety of issues as they apply to a black Americans, reducing the latter to a single statistic.
What this argument from Pro demonstrates more than anything is that he’s concerned about the use of certain terms in clickbait titles and how they would be perceived. These posts share numerous features: absurdity, caricature, and hyperbole for the sake of ridiculing certain ideologies. It’s biased, inaccurate and clearly meant to get a rise out of anyone who holds these views, but at base, it's all parody argument.
Con argues that corrective actions have not been and will remain ineffective. I'll once again emphasize that anyone can, at any time, change their content settings to avoid seeing these posts (there is value in placing curation in the hands of site members themselves rather than having moderation effectively manage all curation), and that if RB steps over the line, as he has before, the behavior in question can be addressed through short term bans and post removals.
Con undermines his own point about RB's intransigence by mentioning a previous ban addressing RB’s previous advocation of sexual violence. Since that month-long ban, similar calls for sexual violence have not appeared in RB’s posts. While spam posting is in some ways still an issue with some overlap between posting topics, the array of 10 topics represented by the links above shows less repetition than he displayed earlier on the site. Both represent a change in behavior in response to corrective action. And similar corrective actions would be effective to address instances of personal attacks or other behavior that breaches the CoC.
"Pattern of Conduct"
The patterns Pro points to in RB's behavior showcase a willingness to post edgy parody of ideology and mockery of certain types of thinking. It’s often fallacious, employing straw men and red herrings. It is not the duty of moderation of police parody or to remove fallacious arguments. It is not the duty of moderation to protect groups of people from seeing content that mocks or misrepresents their views. Site members are encouraged to respond and challenge RB's posts, and many do so.
Yet it is these very patterns that Pro argues are the basis for his permanent removal despite the posts he's citing to establish that pattern staying up. It's as though these all collectively represent something that is sufficiently harmful to warrant removal of the poster rather than the posts.
There is a difference between the duty to curate content on the site and the duty to permanently remove members, even those that regularly post content that many members dislike and believe should be curated. Moderation exists to strike a balance in our actions, recognizing the distinction between curation and censorship. Most of our interventions are limited, aimed as corrective actions that curate site content while encouraging continued participation. A permanent ban, particularly one based on the content of posts that do not satisfy the conditions for removal, blurs that distinction. That impacts the site far more than RB himself ever could.
I would like to thank whiteflame for a thoughtful and much-needed debate.
What is DebateCraft?
Users all experience a variety of perspectives through interactions with multiple users, so it is up to Pro to demonstrate that RB is such a destabilizing influence in one or more of these areas that the only means of addressing it is a permanent ban.
RB does have a unique negative experience for users. This was proven in round 1. This evidence was not addressed so please extend:
Community Impact
Multiple users have expressed negative feelings due to the type of content that Remy is posting and the frequency of those posts.
5 likes in the moderation thread for the ban
Mag1cman: "I’m all for free speech but if someone’s spamming the same topic over and over again, can we get rid of them? I say this with regards to RemyBrown." Also noted (as I have noted as well) how "It’s just the same topic over and over again with this guy"
Sidewalker: "Especially if "same topic over and over again" is advocating a violent crime, rape for instance," Also pointed out multipletimes that he's desperate for attention.
GreatfulGoy: RemyBrown is back and immediately pushes misogyny and lowering the age of consent to 0. This is extremely legally and morally problematic to be enabling. Just permanently ban him or something.
Alyssa: "Ngl, I don't think I've EVER seen a Remy comment that didn't immediately give me the ick."
Myself across multiple moderation chats and private discussions.
Again, although this does not prove a rule was violated, it does show RB's content has a unique documented negative experience for multiple long-time members.
No other member has had so many negative responses to their type of posting.
What is the role of a moderator?
WF is correct that we are curators and not censurs. Once again, my argument throughout this entire debate is not that he should be banned because he is offensive or debates dangerous ideas, but because he operates chiefly to provoke through identity‑based rhetoric
When is something worthy of curation / Remy's Body of Work
I will note that whiteflame created a new defense in this round. This is essentially an admission that RB's content would otherwise violate the COC. Whiteflame is now arguing that RB does not merit any action because satire and parodies are protected in the COC. I will show two things:
Even if I concede this defense, they still are not automatically immune to moderation;
RemyBrown should not be read as parody or satire, but rage bait.
WF mentions that the COC states under no actions merited: "Insincere or clearly satirical attacks on identity groups in trolling or parody contexts"; however, this does not mean that all forms or parody is protected. Indeed, the COC states:
The examples listed under “No Action Merited” describe how moderators evaluate isolated, incidental, or low-impact expressions in the absence of targeting, coordination, or persistence. Conduct that does not merit intervention once or twice may nevertheless warrant enforcement when it becomes sustained, strategic, or directed.
Tolerance of isolated behavior does not confer permission to repeat it. Moderator inaction in isolated cases does not create precedent or limit future enforcement. Repeated engagement in borderline conduct, even when each instance is individually minor or technically compliant, may be evaluated as a pattern and sanctioned accordingly.
Moderators assess conduct holistically, considering frequency, intent, escalation, and cumulative impact rather than treating each instance in isolation.
It also states:
Certain expressions, though potentially offensive, controversial, or provocative in isolation, are either not rule violations or too minor to merit moderation intervention when evaluated strictly in isolation and absent targeting, persistence, or coordinated behavior. Absolute emotional safety is not treated as a governing principle
The governing section of the COC states that we must evaluate the entire body of work and not just isolated cases. Although we are very lenient, we are not a free-for-all. Even in those areas marked as no action merited, action can still be merited in certain cases and if lines are crossed. Simply put: Marking yourself as satire or parody does not make you immune to moderation.
Second, we should reject whiteflame's characterization that RB is engaging in COC-protected satire. Throughout his body of work, Remy never identifies himself as a satirist or parody account. However, on repeatedoccasions, hedoes explicitly label his posts as rage bait.
Parody is typically protected, but rage baiting is not.
There is one thing that wf corrected me on that I want to point out:
Why gay men are better than liberal women - doesn’t even mention abortions, but does argue that everyone engages in sexism as a means to dismiss it, pushing back on an argument by specifying a definition that applies more broadly.
I had linked to the wrong thread. RB created two threads with the same title, "Why gay men are better than liberal women." The one that does mention abortion is this thread.
Why Permaban
RB should be perma banned for the following reasons:
RB already has been moderated via marking as offensive and receiving a previous 30 day ban. Although the 30 day ban appeared to fix the behavior of advocating for sexual violence; however, his content toes this line significantly. Morever, since his ban he has repeatedly marginalized women and rape victims
Moderation does not need to cycle through every possible moderation actions before a permament ban for each behavior. We can easily evaluate a decision via their body of work and previous actions. Combined, it shows that RB is a rage bait troll who will continue to push the envelope as much as he can.
Our site needs to set a strong precedent that we will not tolerate marginalizing women and rape victims for shock content and rage baiting.
RB has had a unique negative impact the site. Multiple long-time users of DebateCraft / Dart / DDO has mentioned that he turns them away from the site.
To put the previous into perspevtive, there were 22 active forum users in the past 7 days. 6/24 represents more than 25% of our active user base. 5/22 (22%) if you remove Alyssa.
His body of work shows
Identity-based rhetoric is a dominant feature of the account.
Provocation and reaction-fishing are recurring methods.
The conduct represents a sustained pattern rather than isolated incidents.
The pattern continued after corrective action
The pattern has impaired discussion and users’ experience
None of those facts is truly challenged by the defense. The only real challenge the defense gives is that they are over the top and thus satire and therefore immune to moderation.
A note to voters
Votes on this debate will not be moderated like a normal debate would. On a normal debate you, voters are required to analyze the arguments presented and write a neutral rfd based on who you thought won the debate. Rather, voters ought to vote on this deabte based on what you think should actually happen to RB. The main purpose of this debate was for both of us to lay out our arguments for and against a ban and to give the community a hand in our moderation. In addition, this debate also exists to convince undecided users and give them greater context about why we are having this debate.
Conclusion
This is now in the hands of the jury. The voters have the following questions to consider. The COC states:
Accounts operating chiefly to provoke through identity-based rhetoric may be sanctioned regardless of technical compliance.
Does RB operate chiefly to provoke via identiy-based rhetoric?
If yes, does it follow that, from one, his content has met the criteria for curation action.
If yes, has he crossed enough lines to where a permament removal from the community warranted.
I believe the answers to all three questions is a yes.
Like Kohai, I appreciated the very thorough and thoughtful debate.
This trial comes down to a few questions that we have to answer, which I will break down over the course of the round.
What risk does RemyBrown pose?
This is subjective. I’ve already shown that his posts can easily be interpreted as parody. Kohai never argues that it’s not parody (aside from claiming that parody can only ever come from a person who actively identifies themselves as a satirist, which is obviously false), he just argues that that isn’t a shield against moderation.
However, that doesn’t engage with the meat of my argument. Kohai never challenges any of my interpretations of RemyBrown’s posts, so parody is a reasonable interpretation of them. That’s despite the view he’s held throughout this trial: that it’s a serious and persistent effort to marginalize and provoke. Kohai's argument relies on a form of intention that assumes why RemyBrown posts as he does, yet he acknowledges that there are multiple ways to view his intentions with these posts. Despite accusing me in R2 of using a subjective framework, Kohai’s own framework relies on a subjective interpretation of RemyBrown's intentions with each post.
I’ve argued that RemyBrown poses no risk to the site generally. Terms like “site integrity” have vanished from Con’s argument, and his focus has shifted to how his posts are perceived by various identity groups and by individual users. Again: subjectivity. Like Kohai, their experiences with RemyBrown’s posts are colored by their interpretation of his intentions and by seeing a lot of these types of posts.
The question for this trial isn’t whether we agree with RemyBrown or condone his methods for getting attention through his posts. It’s whether users should be allowed to engage in this behavior at all on the site. It’s Kohai's position that, so long as a user is persistently using identity-based rhetoric and using provocative titles and language to elicit responses, then they are a net negative for the site and therefore better off permanently banned. And that begs the question:
Has that risk been addressed sufficiently?
Throughout this trial, Kohai has argued that the interventions that moderation has used against RemyBrown have been ineffective. So, let’s review.
RemyBrown’s account has been marked “offensive.” This has had the desired effect: anyone who does not want to see his posts can choose to turn off offensive posts and no longer see them. Kohai cites the fact that users are still frustrated by him, all of whom have chosen to continue seeing offensive posts, as evidence that his posts are still damaging to them. Setting aside the issue of subjective experience and whether that should factor into this decision, these are all people who have made the active decision to continue seeing these posts and thus, on some level, to continue interacting with them. They don’t demonstrate a failure of the “offensive” label; they’re illustrative of the ways users can better curate their own experiences.
RemyBrown received a previous 30 day ban. Kohai acknowledges that this has affected RemyBrown’s behavior: he previously advocated for sexual violence and no longer does post-ban. Kohai argues that other behaviors he views as offensive continue post-ban. Setting aside my issues with Kohai’s interpretation of RemyBrown’s posts, he doesn’t explain how the previous ban failed as a corrective action. Instead, the focus of his arguments has been on issues for which RemyBrown has never been subject to a ban. Kohai acknowledges that no specific posts of RemyBrown have warranted a removal or a ban. Instead he has argued that it’s the sum total of RemyBrown’s posts that warrant not just intervention, but the most severe intervention.
Which brings us to the crux of this debate:
What does a permaban on RemyBrown mean?
For RemyBrown, it means losing access to a place where he feels largely free to post and interact. Anyone who would interact with him necessarily loses that opportunity.
But broadly speaking, the permaban is damaging for two reasons.
One, it sets a precedent that moderation can’t take back, particularly with this focus on “patterns of conduct” rather than individual posts. Permanent removal of users becomes more about the vibes someone creates through their conduct rather than any individual form of misconduct, and interventions in cases where someone posts extensively become more about removing their capacity to post than addressing the type of posting. This blurs the line between curation and censorship, resulting in a more complicated relationship with users going forward as they question where that line is drawn in future decisions.
Two, it bases decisions on the perceptions and frustrations of a few. Whether it’s vocal users or mods, it’s clear that there are a lot of negative opinions of RemyBrown, but those opinions only represent a sliver of the site. Even the votes on this debate will only represent the opinions of a select set of users who are keeping track of it. That allows such an absolute decision as a permaban to be based on a relatively skewed perception of the user in question. It’s the reason posts parodying opinions or straw-manning positions are read throughout the debate by Kohai as marginalizing, why the intention read into them is so clearly negative.
Summation
Kohai has laid the groundwork well for why moderation should curate content posted by RemyBrown. However, by pursuing a permanent ban as the sole remedy for RemyBrown’s behavior, Kohai has placed himself in a difficult position. It’s all or nothing for the prosecution. By contrast, the defense represents multiple means of intervention, ranging from the current "offensive" label to any number of short-, medium-, and long-term bans, all responsive to the content he posts and all considering their impact individually and collectively.
Jurors, you don’t have to like RemyBrown to vote in favor of his defense today. Whether you view his posts as parody or meant sincerely, whether you believe he’s actively marginalizing certain groups, engaging in identity-based rhetoric, or regularly provoking others will likely inform your vote, but it isn't the only factor you should consider. RemyBrown can tell you based on our previous conversations that I have my own issues with his posts. That hasn't prevented me from defending him at length and opposing this specific intervention. We can and should recognize that his speech still has a place here, and that the engagement he elicits is valuable.
The question isn’t whether you view his posts positively. This isn’t a popularity contest. I’ve asked some very simple questions, and I will reframe them a bit here.
Do you believe that RemyBrown has harmed the site?
Do you believe that any harms he has caused have not been and cannot be addressed through any means other than a permaban?
Do you believe that the choice to permaban RemyBrown is worth the broader risks to how site moderation is perceived, both in its use of the tool and who dictates its use?
"The truth is being a vocal and bold conservative is enough to violate the integrity of the site in Kohai's mind."
You are NOT A CONSERVATIVE I tell you this from the Bible and my own soul and thoughts combined.
You conserve NOTHING you want to be free to do as you want when you want how you want keep your money to spent on whatever you want at the sake of your fellow countrymen, culture, religion, impoverished, vulnerable, environment and also to say whatever you want and wield a gun however and whenever you want, obtaining it regardless of your history.
A real conservative isn't able to an amoral libertarian. They with sacrifice their freedoms for the greater good and that 'good' is determined by an objectively agreed thing as a culture or as a religion (or both). They don't want all running around as triators to the culture, people, wellbeing etc of the others.
The 'real conservative' is a lost concept in the West and somehow Islamist variants of have hijacked the leftist liberals (facepalm) and leftist anarchists (harder facepalm) to think siding with Sharia is better than siding with Christian rule, but in US's case you ahve no christian option. Trump's not a Christian in any sense that matters.
I am all for banning those who endanger site's functionality, but I simply don't think those posts amount to that. This is because those posts aren't really preventing anyone else from posting.
Also, for those wanting some safe space, it ain't happening on a debate site.
It's a debate. People always get triggered. There is no way around that without changing entire site's function.
Every single person who doesn't like my content and reported it to you is a leftist. Very biased.
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/k6/why-gay-men-are-better-than-liberal-women. It's just generic anti abortion content. If you think this is Rage Bait, then all anti-abortion rhetoric is Rage Bait.
->it wasn’t super obvious what the point about site integrity really means in the grand scheme of things
Pattern recognition would be a useful skill for you to pick up on. An example being the left uses the power of connotations to their advantage whereas the right tends to ignore the power of connotations and they focus on the substance.
When you realize that, "murdering your brother" has a euphemism such as, "using the human touch to rapidly accelerate the passing of your brother", you start to hate euphemisms because they are makeup to disguise horrible actions. The sole difference between "preference" and, "discrimination" is one is a euphemism and the other isn't. But the concept is identical.
When you realize that euphemisms can make MURDER seem acceptable, you start to really hate them. But the left uses euphemisms because they have too; without them, their points are indefensible. That's why when Kohai says that I, "violate the integrity of the site", he HAS to be vague; you drill him on specifics, then he won't ever admit to it, but he will deflect to more euphemisms and dysphemisms.
The truth is being a vocal and bold conservative is enough to violate the integrity of the site in Kohai's mind.
How is it possible that a socially conservative person in your view argues in good faith? Because I think (whether you admit to this or not) that all socially conservative views are backwards and therefore in bad faith. Any response you give is either going to be a dodge or an example of a socially conservative view that you think can be argued in good faith. The truth is, all socially conservative views (to you) are ALWAYS in bad faith, but you care too much about your image to say that.
I mean I haven’t actually seen RemyBrown harass anyone, to my memory at least. If this is just a case of people disliking his opinions… I don’t think he should be banned.
I didn’t actually see any examples from Kohai of threads or comments made by RemyBrown that he considers problematic, so it’s all kinda just down to “hearsay” and speculation.
Also I don’t think throwing out the CoC like that is helpful when someone hasn’t actually personally attacked anyone. And as I near as I can tell, he hasn’t actually violated the CoC unless you take some “ambiguous” wording and make it mean something specific, like the point about site integrity.
Should someone be banned just because their opinions are widely disliked or whatever was my nearest take-away although it wasn’t super obvious what the point about site integrity really means in the grand scheme of things.
No expectations on my end coming in to disappoint. I wasn’t really planning on voting, didn’t have much of an opinion but you two did a great job so the effort itself I think is worthy. To this point I’ve only skimmed but once it’s all said and done I’ll go through it in detail.
“How can someone be socially conservative (by X/TikTok standards) while not pissing you off?”
By arguing in good faith. I don’t give a damn what your views are, only that you represent them seriously. And if you’re going to be a clown, be a clown upfront, don’t pretend you’re serious if you’re not because now you’re just wasting my time and energy. That’s how.
“You don't talk politics at work; so your manager experience is irrelevant here.”
Exactly. I just gave you real life advice that if taken by many people I’ve worked with would have saved their jobs, and your response is to tell me take it somewhere else.
Life moves in predictable directions. Yours is obvious.
" 5 likes in the moderation thread for the ban Mag1cman: "I’m all for free speech but if someone’s spamming the same topic over and over again, can we get rid of them? I say this with regards to RemyBrown." Also noted (as I have noted as well) how "It’s just the same topic over and over again with this guy" Sidewalker: "Especially if "same topic over and over again" is advocating a violent crime, rape for instance," Also pointed out multiple times that he's desperate for attention. GreatfulGoy: RemyBrown is back and immediately pushes misogyny and lowering the age of consent to 0. This is extremely legally and morally problematic to be enabling. Just permanently ban him or something. Alyssa: "Ngl, I don't think I've EVER seen a Remy comment that didn't immediately give me the ick." Myself across multiple moderation chats and private discussions. "
Dang; you just LOVE to do defamation. Your links don't even go to what I said.
Read posts 94 and 95 on this thread. This debate only got so many likes because it's labeled as, "featured" and nobody really dislikes debates (unless I'm jinxing it).
Yeah, compared to Tik Tok, Remy Brown is a moderate. I mean, there are literally women on Tik Tok spamming hate against men constantly. "It's always men!!!", "I hate men!!!"
->Act like the grown man you are, know you can damage the world with your words.
Have you SEEN the online world recently? TikTok and X have white people using the N word (hard er) on a regular basis. I have not used the N word ever on the internet. I'm TAME compared to the online world in 2026; DART seems to be isolated from the real world digitally.
I would also say while both debaters are Jewish, one of them is gay. Gays are very much into censorship because Queers are obsessed with identity (and that means, being as anti-conservative as they can be while being socially accepted). It doesn't matter if they're pretty centrist in ideology, as long as they're on the left team; they're happy, although many are far left as well. Gays in 2015 loved Hilliary Clinton more than Bernie Sanders. It's like the suburban kid who hates the top 1% even though they're in the top 5%. Queers love censorship while flowering up the censorship in a good way, so I'm unsurprised Kohai of all ppl is wanting me banned.
That's why Kohai is trying to claim that offensive speech is fine, but Rage Bait isn't (even though they're the same thing). Queers try and find all of these irrelevant differences to make them feel better and while it should be legal to be gay, their patterns should be observed.
It's 2026; if you check out TikTok and X, then you will see my views are pretty normal. We aren't in 2021 anymore.
->You created threads non stop that pissed off many members here and continued even after the moderators intervened. The problem was never your conservatism, it was your conduct.
How can someone be socially conservative (by X/TikTok standards) while not pissing you off? Is it even possible?
->I am a manager by profession
You don't talk politics at work; so your manager experience is irrelevant here.
“Are you going to be curious as to why I believe that”
I read the thread, commented within it if I’m not mistaken. I know what you were doing, I’m pointing out why your inability to look in the mirror is remarkable. You created threads non stop that pissed off many members here and continued even after the moderators intervened. The problem was never your conservatism, it was your conduct. For you to not see that and instead see persecution for your political ideology demonstrates a remarkable inability to read the room.
I am a manager by profession, one of my basic responsibilities is to determine what level of discipline our employees receive and prepare their file for arbitration in the eventuality that they are terminated. I have always said that the best predictor of someone who will soon be losing their job is when they are coached or written up and place the blame on everything other than themselves. That kind of person is either unwilling or incapable of making the kind of adjustments necessary to protect their own status. You’d be much better served to learn that lesson.
As a fellow autistic guy, I understand why your mind questions all those things and doesn't cease to push for taboo truths.
The problem is, you repeatedly advocate for this stuff and you're like late 20s or something. There has to be a stage you stop that and be responsible. Act like the grown man you are, know you can damage the world with your words.
->It never ceases to amaze me how people will post things like “Why rape is better than DUI”
Are you going to be curious as to why I believe that or do you want to virtue signal?
I can say, "Murder is worse than rape"; nobody cares. Rape causes genital violation; DUI causes broken ribs and punctured heart and lungs. I know which one is worse. My Uncle is a DUI victim so I know.
This is probably the final vote that will be cast in RemyBrown's trial. While I don't imagine that it will make any difference given how lopsided the tally is at the time of writing, here I am anyway. With that out of the way...
Pro quickly establishes that (1). Mods have the authority to issue a ban for RemyBrown, because (2). his speech qualifies for such a punishment. He writes that "Accounts operating chiefly to provoke through identity‑based rhetoric may be sanctioned regardless of technical compliance", which is in fact a verbatim quotation of the CoC. He then breaks down RemyBrown's post history to reveal an unambiguous pattern of identity-based rhetoric.
Con, on his part, doesn't seem to deny that the Mods have this authority. But he observes that, at the end of the day, it is a discretional authority, especially when it comes to how said offenses ought to be punished. The CoC says that "Indefinite bans are potentially permanent and imposed only under grave or persistent violations." Note the distinction between indefinite and permanent, and this is the only place in the document where the word permanent is ever used. In other words, grave or persistent violations may or may not warrant a permanent ban, which is the ultimate, irrevocable penalty being discussed here. The burden, then, is not on Con to disprove egregious conduct on RemyBrown's part that violates the CoC but only to make the case that the ultimate penalty is not warranted.
Con centers his case around (1). the value of free speech in and of itself; (2). the actual content of Remy's posts being generally less offensive and more insightful than their titles would suggest; (3). the practical value of engagement for small communities like this one; and (4). alternate tools in the toolbelts of mods and ordinary users alike to deal with inflammatory content, namely the "mark as offensive" feature.
On the question of (3)., this engagement is largely limited to a handful of regular users, as Con points out. But this should not discount the possibility of "trickle-down engagement". For example, if you're RM and you've gotten into a flame war on the topic of Jews with Skep in one of Remy's threads, and you're periodically refreshing the webpage for this site to see if Skep responded to your latest post, then chances are higher than usual that you'll take note of some other thread while you're waiting and comment on it, or perhaps post a new thread of your own. This is a boon for the site so far as concerns search engine visibility or its perceived lucrativeness for advertisers. The question of trickle-down engagement, at least, warrants further study but it has not come up at all in this debate. Now, the obvious bane is lurkers without accounts or potential advertisers being scared off by unhinged rants about how Jews ought to be gassed a second time. But "mark as offensive" can largely mitigate and minimize this, since you need an account to see said posts, and especially if an account's default setting is for such to be hidden. Admittedly we have had the occasional semi-regular user (re: Zaradi) who left because of a perceived toxic environment as well, because they chose not to hide offensive posts and wound up being duly offended by them. But I would question the soundness of quitters whose commitment to participate regularly on this site was less certain to begin with getting a veto over a regular poster's right to contribute here.
In the aggregate, then, I believe that Con wins on the subject of engagement, though of course that's not the issue at play.
On (2)., Con does genuinely try to defend the actual content of Remy's posts but I find this a weaker point. Even assuming that he has comprehensively gone through every example and ruled out any genuine CoC violations (Con himself has previously issued Remy a temp ban for a thread which, in his judgment, non-satirically advocated for sexual violence) , he underplays the value of a thread title as content in and of itself. There are plenty of people - myself included on occasion - who reply to a question or proposition raised in a thread's title as opposed to having the patience to parse through a wall of text and analyze what is being said before responding. Others, as with news headlines, don't open a thread at all but instead will have (not unreasonably) hurt feelings from an inflammatory title by itself. So I think, then, that Remy's conduct is best defended by defending controversial speech more generally rather than by trying to convince this jury that it is not, in fact, controversial.
On that point, I know where I stand: if I were the owner/moderator of this website, I would run it as a radical experiment in freedom of expression. Saying hurtful/noxious things is not a violation of another person's speech as long as they have the right to tune out without being denied broad access to a public (in the sense of a participating public) space as the only means of exercising said right. The offensive content filter allows for such disassociation. You can go to your settings and ensure that you do not see any of RemyBrown's content; and if at present this site's suite of settings do not allow for such fine calibration as to tune out RemyBrown without also tuning out another user whose contents is marked offensive but who you wish to engage with then that's a question for the site's programmers. If anything, permabanning RemyBrown might compromise said right to disassociate by causing him to spam alt accounts for which his detractors' accounts have no filters set up to block.
But a ban goes beyond individual disassociation. It is a choice made by a singular mod, or at best a small team, that just assumes the consent of all other members of this community. And while I very much appreciate that RemyBrown's trial is up for public debate, not everyone will vote on it - including future members of this site who have yet to join. I believe that, if some users plausibly might find value in RemyBrown's posts, they should be allowed to choose for themselves whether to associate with this individual. The current status quo better upholds freedom of association than a ban, and if it were up to me a new CoC would be written that was in line with the values stated above. But even with the CoC that we have, a permaban is up to the mods' discretion and it's my position that they ought not to exercise that option here.
While I'll freely admit that, to some extent, I have put arguments in Con's mouth that he never put down, a trial is different than other forms of debate in that the debater's job is to help the voter make their own case. I am not obliged to cast my vote simply on the basis of the deficiency of one side's arguments (not to throw this accusation at Con, who IMO did an alright job). Rather, I am free on this occasion to vote my own conscience, and that is what I'm going to do.
I felt most of the prosecution was too focused on the points of how Remy's viewpoints "harm women and minorities"...
I find that idea absurd given that we are a debate website. If you come here, you can expect to see viewpoints from the other side you think are horrific. Given the modern progressive leftists' view, just about any right-wing opinion could be called that nowadays, should the leftist disagree on how best to adress an issue related to demographics. Sure, Remy's posts can be argued to express viewpoints that are blatantly harmful... but the precedent that could be set here is dangerous, albeit limited given the precedent is also to host a trial. But even that could be dangerous. Democracy is inherently flawed, a tyranny by majority... if we must have it, we must curate a thick-skinned user base. Remy's posts, despite being slop, do aid in that.
Now, the defense argument here has a point, many of Remy's posts do appear to be designed to make a point, being as offensive as possible simply to capture attention.
And this is where the prosecution's argument is strongest, which I don't feel he emphasized enough. It's spam. And the dude needs to go touch grass. It's not productive for discussion or for the site at all. Somewhat subjective, but let's be honest here: Who would want to take time out of their day to engage with RemyBrown? We had a user leave the site because of him. While I don't think he was a particularly thick-skinned user, I can imagine a more thick-skinned person looking at the politics forum, seeing Remy's posts, calling it slop, and moving on to the next website. I don't think the prosecution has to outright prove Remy's behavior harms the site- it's common sense, I would argue.
Does this warrant a parmaban? Because the defense has a point: To new users, the posts are already hidden, because Remy's account is labeled as offensive. The block feature exists as well. So the harm normally ascribed in the previous paragraph is very limited. It probably still does, but to a much lesser extent.
Ok, so do his threads create value to anyone but himself? Not really. No one engages with him anymore, save for the other users who should touch grass. His ragebait tactics don't work.
Is this excessive trolling? A little trolling is fine, but Remy's crossed that line by the letter of the law. But in spirit, it's harder to say he's doing it just for personal enjoyment, and not to make a point. A few threads do seem to be just that, however.
I do not think DCraft should be enforcers of who does and doesn't need to touch grass; furthermore, I find that it is more ethical to grant him the freedom to not touch grass, than to force him to touch grass while depriving him of said freedom. So there's no argument for a mercy ban there either.
Ultimately, I think I have been convinced that a permaban is not warranted, on the following grounds: 1. Banning RemyBrown could set a dangerous precedent, and remove one of our shields against a future where users are deemed offensive by a thin-skinned majority and banned, turning DCraft into a leftist echo chamber. 2. The harms of RemyBrown's posts are limited given that they are likely not serious positions, but offensive exaggerations made to clickbait other users. 3. The harms of RemyBrown's posts are limited given that new users will never see his posts until they turn off their content filter. 4. A better block system, plus users ignoring RemyBrown, is more likely to make him choose to quit the site of his own volition, while banning him may incentivise him to find ways to come back or find other corners of the internet, at which point he will never touch grass.
I certainly haven’t hidden my thoughts on this subject, and there’s a reason I’ve been so vocal about it, which as far as I can tell, no one has even touched upon in this “trial”, it’s comments, or vote explanations, so I’m going to rant about it at length. That is the real-world consequences of internet activity of this kind, Remy Brown’s posts typify the type of posts that have serious consequences in the real world. His largest category calls for violence against women, and his second largest category calls for violence against Jews. I’m sure members will consider these descriptions debatable, but I would hate to try to defend it under investigation or scrutiny of law enforcement or platform providers. They will certainly recognize that our blathering about free “speech” or our claimed inalienable right to debate these topics as the bullshit “excuses” that they are.
His repeated calls for violence against women, constant attempts to justify rape, claiming women deserve it, and clearly advocating rape are the types of posts that normalize non-consensual behavior, perpetuates victim-blaming, trivializes sexual violence, and in the end, repeatedly adds the type of post that incites real world violence against women while increasing the incidence of rape. As internet antisemitism has grown severe physical attacks and fatalities directed at Jewish communities have risen to their highest points in over three decades. These are not harmless posts.
If we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem, and whether any particular incident of violence against women or Jews can trace back to these particular posts doesn’t really matter, the problem is a collective problem, and we are undeniably contributing to the collective problem. There is a lot of blathering about “Free Speech” here and that overused and misused “excuse” is no more than a non-sequitur, first because “Free Speech has no application whatsoever to a private website, and second, even if it did apply here, the large number of Remy’s posts that are designed to incite violence against women or Jews are not protected speech. Remy’s favorite excuse is absurd, he argues that his posts are just “ragebait”, he himself offers the strongest argument against him. To argue that these posts should be OK because he is just trying to incite rage, when the primary emotion that results in violence against women and Jews is in fact, rage, is just stupid.
Whiteflame’s argument that the volume of Remy’s posts and responses are themselves good for the growth of the website is flat out misguided. Think about the process by which members join, they first show up and read to get a feel for what the site is about, and then decide if they want to participate, the prevalence of Remy’s posts make it likely that his posts are considered in that evaluation, I don’t believe it gives a positive first impression of our site, many are surely turned away, and those who see Remy’s activity as a reason to join are frankly, not the type of members we want or need. I feel like we are drifting away from being a debate site and towards a “manosphere” or “incel” site, or at least one of those sites featuring antisemitism, or misogyny. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that we have very few female members, since Alyssa left, as far as I can tell, the only two active women posters are Debby and Shoresy, and I’m not so sure Debby isn’t a bot. A large percentage of posts here advocate rape and other forms of violence against women, I think we need to accept that we have become a site that isn’t a safe place for women, Jews, and other people who are offended.
Along that line of thinking, the question as to whether he violates the terms of service/CoC, of course he does. A simple example; recognize that over 20% of women experience either completed or attempted rape, and almost half experience other forms of sexual assault. Victims typically suffer lower self-esteem, self-doubt, severe psychological trauma, guilt, shame, self-blame, PTSD, and other psychological traumas that can last for decades. If a woman who has been a victim reads some of Remy’s posts, I think it is fair to characterize his efforts as deliberate attempts to cause harm to other posters in violation of our CoC. While Section 230 protects the site from liability for what a poster does, it does not protect us from legal and civil liabilities for hate speech, calls for violence, or advocating and justifying rape, all of which have been the subject of Remy posts. So, as deliberate attempts to cause harm to rape victims, Remy and/or the web site could be sued for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED).
In response to Whiteflames’ contention that Remy is in some way good for the site. Rather than increase diversity of opinion as Whiteflames seems to think, I think Remy’s posts drive women, and other marginalized communities he attacks away from the site, narrows debate, widens the gender digital divide, and strips the site of diverse and vital perspectives.
Finally, I think Remy poses a significant threat to the site’s existence. Almost all major social media and major web platforms, hosting providers, and online forums maintain zero-tolerance policies for hate speech, calls for violence and justifying or advocating non-consensual sexual assault that typify Remy’s posts. Hosting providers will err on the side of caution, they certainly have no interest in debating or worse, possibly litigating our so called “right” to the content in question. I believe it would be relatively easy to have this site shut down by simply turning the lights on, I believe that by notifying the hosting platform and selecting a few law enforcement and advocacy agencies NOW or the JDL, a person could simply disappear the site. Despite the protections afforded by Section 230, there is a reason that this type of content is disallowed by almost all social media and wed hosting platforms, and I’m pretty sure it is because it is the right thing to do.
I thought I would have to write a very detailed reasoning behind my vote so I stalled voting for a while, now I see we can just vote what we believe and ignore the debate.
I am literally legally obligated to support his ban, I can be genuinely held legally responsible if I support the content he's posting existing on a website I use.
My vote is not even going to get his stuff deleted, hiding it behind 'offensive content' means nothing. If I owned this website I would 100% be criminally liable across Europe for hosting the extreme level of hate content RB posts and engages in rhetoric supporting.
While protected speech can include offensive or controversial viewpoints, limits exist for speech that incites imminent violence, constitutes true threats, or involves defamation. Free speech is important because it fosters open dialogue, innovation, and accountability. I believe Remy is using innovation in his comments , so I am voting for Con.
Banning a user of this forum for saying something annoying, I think it's exaggerated. You've got to find better ways for the rest of us to avoid Remy's posts if anyone finds him annoying.
I don't remember if the past forums had this feature that consists in blocking other user's comment but I think this forum must have it. So, if Remy ends up blocked by most of us, I'm pretty sure he will adapt to the community.
I really don't think Remy has done anything harmful, mostly the case seems to be that he's annoying/weird (true) and disagrees with pro politically (irrelevant). If the metric here is that he's annoying, there are a lot of way more annoying people on the site who contribute less substance. He's also more responsive to small moderation measures than the other sad cases floating around, probably because his IQ is at least standard deviation above lukewarm.
Hmmm...I prefer tolerance over self righteousness, I prefer ignorance over pretentious offence and I prefer free speech over censorship.
Remy speaks their mind and I am free to choose, not that I find anything that Remy proposes the least bit offensive...I'm not a softy in that respect.
So I've skim read this pseudo debate and vote neither for Pro nor Con, but for Remy, freedom of speech and for the freedom that allows me to make my own decisions.
I'm not actually all that familiar with RemyBrown, since I've not been reading anything they post for a 'long time now. . . Still, if I did vote for a ban, I think he'd need to have broken DebateCraft laws/rules.
Kohai Round 1 COC, categories I expect are Identity‑Based Conduct and Metadata. Argues Rem is a repeat reaction fishing troll. 5 likes, hard to quantify. Will Con disagree with Pro summation of Rem's work targets? "I am a rage baiter, I find it funny." - RemyBrown. Personally I find many of Rem's posts trite and banal, they'd annoy me less if he stopped taking up forum space by creating a 'single thread called RemyBrown. Kohai appears to give 'enourmous amounts of examples and data towards proof of Rem being a rage baiting Identity obsessed annoying number of posts troll. I wonder how whiteflame will counter.
whiteflame Round 1 Argues permanent bans are the most extreme measure. I suppose marking Rem as offensive 'could work, but I also think hide content marked as offensive should be active for users as the default. Sure Rem, is high on the forum leaderboard, but that's a mark 'against him in my book. It shows how much a detrimental user is taking up screen time from useful website users. "entice users to read" " It’s not AI" I don't find such ringing endorsements, and it seems like an attempt at whitewashing, We 'are a small still growing site, but is Rem encouraging or discouraging growth?
Mod Tools Argues again the use of hide offensive content, and that this site is tooled towards user choice. Argues the value of free speech, (I do find this persuasive) I find my opinion tied. Reason, though Kohai has done well in making case that Rem is a spam troll, whiteflame has sanded sharp edges of that depiction. whiteflame has also leaned into lesser methods of mod intervention and value of free speech. Hm, at this point I think Kohai needs to lean more into if Rem has broken site rules.
Kohai Round 2 Argues Mods have already used the lesser moderator tools, yet Rem has persisted in the same behavior. "recycling the same basic argument ad nauseam and utilizing identity groups to gain reactions." (Yeah, that 'is pretty annoying waste of space by Rem) Argues his framework and checklist are clearer than the one suggested by whiteflame. Argues the replies to Rem's threads are by a small number of people. Inflating it's seeming posative engagement. (Additionally as Rem say's themself, they are trying to rage bait people, thus the number is inflated even more by just being a rage bait thread, little of value added.) "an account operating chiefly to provoke through identity-based rhetoric regardless of technical compliance." I like the way Kohai uses AI, for data 'finding, not in writing his arguments. whiteflame needs to address troll accusation against Rem.
whiteflame Round 2 Argues Rem is merely using parody and absurdity in forum to highlight social issues. Hm coc, "Insincere or clearly satirical attacks on identity groups in trolling or parody contexts." This conflicts with Metadata not allowing "Trolling, deceptive, or incendiary identifiers." Again emphasize that anyone can, at any time, change their content settings to avoid seeing Rems posts. Argues some past conduct by Rem has already been addressed by the Mods, and should not weigh heavily unless repeated, which whiteflame argues they have not. Argues it is not duty of Mods to remove bad or parody arguments. I 'suppose, but Rems content still seems an irritating amount of human slop troll spam to me. I'll need to skim debate again, bit undecided.
Kohai Round 3 Argues Round 1 negative experience was not addressed. "because he operates chiefly to provoke through identity‑based rhetoric" "not be read as parody or satire, but rage bait." "WF mentions that the COC states under no actions merited: "Insincere or clearly satirical attacks on identity groups in trolling or parody contexts"; however, this does not mean that all forms or parody is protected. " "Marking yourself as satire or parody does not make you immune to moderation." "Throughout his body of work, Remy never identifies himself as a satirist or parody account. However, on repeated occasions, he does explicitly label his posts as rage bait." Hm, is there a difference between clickbait and 'ragebait? Personally I think either often results in lack of earnest honest conversation.
My reason for voting out Rem 'needs to be due to breaking the site laws. COC does not allow "Slurs or persistent identity‑based hostility." or "Trolling, deceptive, or incendiary identifiers." A problem though is I assume Rem avoids outright slurs. I'm not a fan of not allowing people the ability to state their gripes with group/s. Politics and religion are full of such. The COC is broad, but a bit vague. Heh, which is what this debate is about I suppose, example/precedent. "I know it when I see it" - Potter Stewart "Our site needs to set a strong precedent that we will not tolerate marginalizing women and rape victims for shock content and rage baiting." "for shock content and rage baiting." is what stands out to me. Hm, need to consider again whiteflame parody argument. I'm leaning Pro.
whiteflame Round 3 I'm not strongly moved by the risk argument either way. What matters is the law/rules we decided on for the site, and whether Rem is breaking them. Kohai quote of Rem 'identifying as a Rage Baiter is compelling. I'll probably read comments in debate as well, since such is where I expect Rem will make their own case. Rems posts are more than values one disagrees with though, arguably he 'is a troll rather than satirist. If he didn't post his arguments in the 'way he does, I'd be less inclined to vote against Rem. Also the 'amount is annoying. Argues against cumulation of many small events. I'm not sure about this argument. I've heard some stores keep a tally of small thefts, until the amount stolen is worth jailtime. People sometimes build up multiple offensives in crime, that are not weighed individually but according to pattern and amount. 3 strikes are made of three 1 strikes, 3rd strike straw camels back. Bridge weight limit exceeded. Beaver gnawed through the tree. "Do you believe that RemyBrown has harmed the site?" YES "Do you believe that any harms he has caused have not been and cannot be addressed through any means other than a permaban?" YES, BUT SUCH IS DIFFICULT, VIOLATIONS ARE NOT EXACTLY QUANTIFIED. "Do you believe that the choice to permaban RemyBrown is worth the broader risks to how site moderation is perceived, both in its use of the tool and who dictates its use?" YES, BUT WHAT MATTERS MORE IS WHETHER REM 'IS A TROLL OR NOT. WHAT MATTERS IS WHETHER HE CAN BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BROKEN SITE RULES/LAWS.
I am inclined to vote for a ban, guy identifies as a ragebaiter, their threads are intentional. . . . Debate was a tie I'd say, both sides did well, easy to read. Kohai impressive data gathering, whiteflame impressive mitigation, alternate views of Rem and consequences of decision. LEANING THINKING, WILL READ OTHER VOTES AND COMMENTS Savant, What is to stop 'any offensive person from claiming they are just doing satire? How can a request to Rem, that they stop being 'so rage baity, repetitive, crude, and offensive, be measured? "It was voted in Survey #2 that an account that existed solely to make rage bait posts should be banned, but as has been pointed out, Remy’s account does not solely make rage bait posts" Argues Rem should not be blindsided with law changes. Argues worry of Mod changes in future, and given precedent power. (I find this convincing) Mikal, Various animals I've had, like to keep edging forward into places or towards food they know they're not supposed to have. "So what now, Jack Sparrow? Are we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound?" - Barbossa When the site becomes big, I dislike the idea of a mass of individuals 'constantly having to be shooed away from the rules line. Shoresy, I appreciate freedom of speech and different views and values. I don't appreciate people who are irritants for the sake of being irritants. . . . I dislike people who tried to prevent Jordan Peterson from speaking. . . . Society has many venues, but not all venues need accept all people, such as trolls. fauxlaw, Argues parody subjective. Argues for Free Speech. (I appreciate Free Speech, but social clubs have a right to limit free speech in the case of rage baiters.) Double_R, Argues for progressive punishments, not outright ban, but that there needs to be 'a ban at 'some 'point. I find thins convincing as reason to vote Con, and soon push for another 'temporary ban on Rem. Helz, Argues Rem repeatedly identifies as a rage baiter. Suicide taunts, (Well, I do think 'greater society ought allow even that. Smaller communities 'within that society though, I am for allowing their banning of such. Course it's a difficulty of 'what to allow smaller communities to ban or not. Where does larger society and small community line exist? Personally I think stores 'should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, for religion, race, or creed. . . 'Except, the problem of 'living. One 'needs food to live. Darn socialism pops in as a solution, allow federal stores that deny service to no one. But allow private store discrimination. Tangent by me) Mod team enabling Rem, (Fair point. . . But I think it will be easier to get a vote here against Rem) RemyBrown, Takes no responsibility and claims all political disagreement is rage bait. I was leaning tie, now leaning Pro. SatanLucy, I don't agree with 'too 'much free speech. Law is vague sometimes, frustrating, but just how existence is often. I think the main people that talk to Rem are either outraged or puzzled by him. SkepticalOne, Thinking about the line. "Slurs or persistent identity‑based hostility." "Trolling, deceptive, or incendiary identifiers." Grr, I find it hard to vote Pro.
Final RFV, While annoying Rage Baiters are not 'necessarily Trolls. Ragebait is sometimes like clickbait on YouTube videos, which I usually always dislike button. I dislike Rem, but I am not convinced he has crossed the blurry hazy line. Grr, But the blasted line blurs and fades between, so he kind of 'has crossed it 'repeatedly. Avoiding blindsiding him is a strong argument. People 'can hide offensive users and content.
. . . My vote goes to tie. If just debate, I'd vote Pro. Difficulty is information outside of debate. I am not deeply familiar with Rem. I've not kept track of when he was banned and how much his behavior has or has not changed.
To permaban or not to permaban—that is the question:
Remybrown (RB) frequently relies on ragebait, consistently skating the line of acceptable conduct. He has crossed that line often and has already faced sanctions, yet we find ourselves debating further action.
I will admit I favored a permanent ban entering this discussion. However, the defense made me reconsider by suggesting RB was engaging in parody. I respect parody, and I wondered if I had simply missed the nuance. Then I remembered RB's "Why rape is not a bad as DUI" thread. What is the parody there? Who is the target, and what is the joke? If there is humor intended, it targets victims for the entertainment of a toxic audience. Good parody punches up at power; it does not punch down at the vulnerable. This type of speech harms the site. Some might argue that RB generates traffic, but it is not healthy traffic.
So, what is our next step? RB has already served a month-long ban. Does anyone truly believe more temporary sanctions will change his behavior? I do not. At some point, we must draw a hard line, and crossing it must carry permanent consequences. That line has been crossed. While the current vote may not favor permanent expulsion, a platform worth its salt must respect its own rules enough to strictly enforce them. Maybe we will get it right at the next RB trial.
I am opening up by voting for Con, because thats my position on this issue.
My position is maximal free speech, and RemyBrown didnt remove free speech from anyone else.
So framework would be:
P1. Behavior which removes free speech from others is a behavior which deserves ban P2. RemyBrown didnt do any behavior which removes free speech from others C. RemyBrown doesnt deserve ban
I defend P1 by extended tautology:
Free speech can be justified to be removed for arbitrary reasons = All free speech can be justified to be removed for arbitrary reasons.
So unless we want to lose all free speech, arbitrary reasons cannot be used to justify its removal.
Arbitrary reasons such as "I dont like what this user posts" are entirely subjective reasons, and banning people on that basis could ban anyone.
So if this whole case is "I dont like what Remy posts", then its obviously not going to be any objective justification for removing free speech.
Objective justification for removing free speech would be something like "this person removes free speech from others, so removing his free speech is justified by symmetry."
However, as far as I know, Remy doesnt remove free speech from anyone. He doesnt ban anyone from posting. So banning him from posting is asymmetry treatment. Asymmetry treatment cannot be justified by symmetry, and as such, it is objectively impossible to justify.
As for who won this debate.
Framework for this debate should be:
P1. Remy does behavior X P2. Behavior X is permaban worthy C. Remy is permaban worthy
Pro starts by using code of conduct to support P2, however code of conduct interpretation itself is up to debate.
Pro lists a very big list of premise 1, in other words, he lists a lot of Remy's behavior. Now, I dont disagree that Remy did that behavior. thats not even a question. Question is, does the behavior Remy did deserve a permanent ban?
Now, Pro did nothing in round 1 to explain why specifically permaban. He never quoted where code of conduct mentions permaban. Now, this is crucial because he used code of conduct as an attempt to establish premise 2. However, if code of conduct doesnt mention permaban for Remy's specific behavior, premise 2 is not established.
Con opens by saying there are other ways of management, such as non-perma bans, marking posts as offensive. I disagree with Con here, I dont think Remy deserves short term or long term bans, because he has already improved his behavior compared to the past, and he is not really harming anyone. I understand that Con took the more defensible position in a debate here, however I disagree with such position.
Con also adds that Remy actually does motivate user engagement with topics. this debate is probably best proof of it. I mean, over 200 comments where average debate gets like two comments.
Con also adds argument of free speech, just how far are we ready to go in defending free speech of people we disagree with.
Obviously, if people could deny others of free speech on basis of disagreement, anyone could deny anyone of free speech. So disagreement and disliking posts is a very poor justification for removing someone's free speech on a debate site designed to promote free speech.
Pro basically extends his case in round 2. He leans back on CoC, and he writes more about what Remy posted. He says Remy is 6th user with most engagement, but that alone is already good. However, Remy ranks 3rd by number of replies, so he does drive engagement more than one stats would show.
Con basically says there is more than one way to interpret Remy's posts, and Pro's interpretation of them is subjective.
Con also says Remy's behavior improved, serving as strong counter for Pro's claim that previous moderation actions didnt achieve desired effect.
And finally, probably most important Con's argument. It is not moderation's duty to remove bad arguments and fallacies, that pretty much concludes this debate. Just because some argument is considered bad, offensive or what not, its not moderation job to deal with such subjectivism.
And Pro never explained just why is RemyBrown a threat. Offensive post is about as much as a threat as a butterfly. I dont see how offensive posts hurt people, other than people choosing to be offended by them instead of just not reading them. there are a lot of offensive books in the world, offensive songs, offensive anything, the idea that we should ban anything offensive even when no real threat from it is proved, is just way out there.
Anyone can mark anything as offensive. trans people can mark disagreeing on their definition of woman as offensive, and they do. If we ban anything currently considered offensive, well, the offensive content could be correct and we would be harming truth with our emotions.
there are also people who like to talk with RemyBrown, and those who dont like to talk to him can just not talk to him. Its not like anyone on this site is forced to read RemyBrown's posts, and its not like his posts are causing harm.
Pro's reasons for wanting me to be permanently banned are:
"As curators of content Remy should be permanently banned. His body of work shows that he operates via identity-based provocation and rage baiting. "
2 things are his main arguments: Identity based provocation and Rage Baiting.
The issue with doing this is if I scroll to his forums, he hasn't made a political post in the past 9 months or so.
But he has posted political posts before:
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/ho/zohran-mamdani-should-be-a-wakeup-call-for-the-left - Here, there is Identity rhetoric and Rage Baiting, "should serve as a wakeup call for how deeply unpopular the far left lunatics actually are". The left after all is an identity, just like Jews, Gays, Blacks, etc.
Now, I'm certain while the host hates me, he approves of people like Double R. Double R's posts:
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/wz/trump-will-be-removed-from-office-before-2029. He says, "MAGA cult"; Identity Rhetoric And Rage Bait (IRARB).
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/w7/trump-corruption-thread. The IRARB present here, "Trumper"
Recent posts, all political speech somebody does can be argued to be IRARB. You say abortion should be legal, it can be perceived as IRARB to the unborn and to pro-lifers (whose identity you're attacking by telling them to become pro-choice).
The Prosecution's reasons for wanting me to be permanently banned are present in every single person who posts any political views on the internet. All political views can be argued to be IRARB. You can say weed should be legal, it's IRARB to those who want it banned because you're threatening their identity as anti-drug (as there will be times when you are forced to smell weed, such as being in a classroom with a stoner).
I am kinda new and I do not even know if I have ever interacted with Remy but my vote is largely in line with the prosecutions early points. The sites code of conduct has a very clear standard of behavior that is being flagrantly disregarded. I have not seen a single person argue either that its not happening or (and more importantly) that it is not intentional. The defense even acknowledges the behavior as intentional followed by the prosecutor pointing out Remy himself repeatedly refers to his posts as rage bait.
So if we unpack what rage bait is- Its an attempt to piss people off causing harm so they can laugh at the person being upset and troll. This is toxic negative behavior that is done in absolute bad faith that is against the spirit of the COC as pointed out by Kohai.
I have a lot of experience managing communities and I have a simple belief that such bad faith actors are essentially parasites. They need a healthy community to troll in and cause harm for their enjoyment at the expense of others while the community itself is worse off for them being there. This cripples the growth driving off other good faith actors fostering an environment that would not encourage healthy good faith discussion that will- "foster an environment in which logical precision, rhetorical dexterity, and mutual respect are not merely compatible, but expected." or be a "structured venue for high‑caliber intellectual engagement."
One major consideration I always have in moderation is the intent of the offender. It would be one thing if they truly had beliefs that edged rules and they struggled to interact while keeping quite on an offensive view. Or if they were ignorant of what they were behavior and unintentionally offensive. I have not seen anyone argue Remys conduct is anything but intentionally designed to offend as they do as much as they feel they can get away with following only the rules enforced upon them.
What that translates to in my experience is an individual that can not be rehabilitated until they grow as a person. Corrective measures work for good faith actors. By the defences words the previous moderation resulted in them avoiding one specific topic while still embracing the underlying toxic behavior. For that reason I do not see justification in repeating the same actions just to 'check a box' and say more chances were given.
If we accept they know what they are doing is wrong, that it has been constantly communicated over a long period of time with multiple warnings and actions by staff and they just want to keep up the same behavior I do not see validity in demanding more lower moderation.
The second point people keep bringing up 'free speech.' I flatly do not see how that applies to a community. I am totally free to tell someone I feel they are an absolute idiot and the greatest thing they could do for humanity is kill themselves so not reproduce and spread their stupidity with free speech. Should such conduct be allowed in a community? Absolutely not.
There are many hard limitations on free speech for any community to exist at all, much less foster a healthy environment like this community is striving for. I do not think that should carry over to limiting topics. Some of the most interesting topics to me edge on very uncomfortable subjects that require an open mind to discuss without someone assuming the opposing party is overtly hateful. The beauty of debate itself is that it fosters the understanding of views you do not hold and allows you to understand other perspectives.
In Remys situation I again look at intent. A substantial number of his posts may not be because he is a hateful person (he may or may not be. I do not know.) They were not an reasoned examination of an uncomfortable subject discussing ugly subjects objectively. They were designed to piss people off and cause harm for fun. While freedom of speech declares such conduct may be allowed in his country this community has its own established rules that say its unacceptable.
The third point is something I will mention that almost had me vote for a tie. From everything I have seen communicated in this debate, my digging through the forum, reading others vote reasoning, and reading the comments I believe there is an issue in the 'culture of moderation' that slightly excuses his behavior. This user has been allowed to behave in this way for a very long time and has gotten use to flirting with the lines and disregarding poorly enforced standards. As many have pointed out more could have been done by moderators.
I am not saying that as a jab at the mod team, I do hope that some post action is held by them after this situation is resolved on steps moving forward to improve. But I do feel a portion of the blame for the extent of Remys behavior can be attributed to enforcement. There may be some obscure law in Gainesville Georgia that "It is strictly illegal to eat fried chicken with a fork or any other eating utensil" (Gainesville Code of Ordinances under Section 4-3-38) but if not enforced how much blame can be placed on someone for not following it? This is worth consideration when discussing an individuals punishment. Ultimately I disregarded it given the volume of communication I saw from the community and team that he was crossing lines but I figured its worth mentioning.
TLDR- I would favor a perma-ban with an option to appeal after a measure of time. At the end of the day the potential harm to the community should be considered at a greater level than the technical arguments to excuse edging rules in bad faith to cause harm.
I think this decision can be simplified into a few questions. What are the site’s expectations for acceptable behavior? Have those expectations been formalized and communicated? Has RB violated them? Has the site made clear to him that his behavior is unacceptable? If so, has he responded meaningfully or shown any intention of meeting those expectations?
I personally couldn’t care less about RB’s posts. They don’t offend me and my vote has nothing to do with protecting myself or anyone else from offensive opinions. I’m looking at this from the site’s perspective, and DebateCraft seems to have already answered whether RB’s conduct is acceptable. The CoC establishes standards for patterns of conduct, his account has been marked offensive, moderators have intervened, and most importantly, he has already been banned for a month over his posting behavior. Even the defense acknowledges there are legitimate problems with his conduct. So this isn’t really a question of whether the site accepts the behavior. Its own actions demonstrate that it doesn’t.
The question then becomes whether corrective action has worked. This is where the defense came closest to changing my vote. After the final round, I went through RB’s post history myself. If I had seen meaningful change following the one-month ban, I would have voted Con. I didn’t. The specific conduct that resulted in that ban may have changed, but the broader pattern continued. More importantly, RB isn’t arguing that he misunderstood the expectations and would behave differently if they were clearer. Everything I have seen suggests the opposite. He remains resolute in his right to participate in substantially the same manner.
I would have preferred to see more progressive moderation before the one-month ban, the record there seems light. But the ban happened, and at some point corrective action has to mean something. If the conduct remains unacceptable, continues after serious intervention, and the user shows no intention of changing it, what exactly is another temporary intervention supposed to accomplish? Another ban, then another?
That is ultimately where the defense loses me. Permanent removal should be a last resort, but a moderation system also has to have an endpoint. Otherwise the standards the site has established and repeatedly enforced eventually become meaningless. At some point continued moderation stops being corrective and becomes indefinite management of conduct the site has already decided is unacceptable. I think we are at that point here, so I vote Pro.
Since this is not a debate in the traditional sense, but a trial, I am likely to make some comments not based upon any verbiage in the participants' arguments, or, more to the point, lack of possible text by the participants that would have made their argument more complete. As I am not certain of the moderation of vote commentary, this vote may be at risk based upon the above admission. So be it. These are my thoughts on the matter as a judge/juror.
I'll admit up front that I do not appreciate much of RemyBrown's commentary, finding it is often offensive in virtually every way, and in spite of past conflicts with moderation. In fact, though the Defense offered by Whiteflame is an excellent display, I find his commentary relative to the following issues problematic:
A. Parody B. Satire C. DC Code of Conduct [CofC]
A. Whiteflame refers to much of RemyBrown's commentary as "parody;" a work that imitates, critiques, or mocks the work or commentary of another, generally in a humorous attitude. Humor is an an equally operative word as the three qualfiers defining "parody," but humor according to whom? Not those to whom the parody is targeted.
B. RemyBrown's typical post engages "satire;" use of humor, irony, and exaggeration to expose and criticize flaws and corruption in people and society. Humor is fine until it is used as a verbal weapon against another. The First Amendment is not a laissez-faire document. Harm is a factor restricting that laissez-faire attitude.
C. Whiteflame's assessment of the DC CofC, in his R1 argument, said "It’s my position that only flagrant violations of the CoC after everything else has been tried should result in a permanent ban."
Whiteflame further points to RemyBrown's participation in the Forum with 160 [it's now 168] posts and 1,056 [now 1,207] comments, pujtting him in 3rd place on the Forum leaderboard. Well, not to brag, butI lead the leaderboard with 229 posts and 1,772 comments. The latter does not lead, but in posts, I do. RemyBrown and I are virtually matched in time of our membership on DC; he leads me by 3 days. Yet he has been short-term banned once, and risking some penalty now. I have never been sanctioned at all. I do not raise this to brag, as I said, but to point out that participation doesn't matter much in my view if posts/comments in the Forum cannot be held to a reasonable standard.
Whiteflame argued in R3, relative to sanctions on members that "...interventions in cases where someone posts extensively become more about removing their capacity to post than addressing the type of posting..." "This blurs the line between curation and censorship" as if the CofC has naught to say about it. But it does. The CofC, criticized as it is, does contain 11 separate points of conduct under the section, "Heuristic Overview" that seem reasonable to me: *Responsible Engagement, Criminal Conduct, *Harassment, *Banter & Profanity, *Identity Based Conduct, *Content Standards, *Metadata, Formal Debate, Voting Etiquette; all having "What's allowed," and "What's not" criteria. By my observation, RemyBrown habitually violates 6 of these 11, but two of them, the last, dealing with Debate rather than Forum, are discounted because RemyBrown, with 1 debate, and 1 vote in his year-plus participation, is not an active participant in debate, so, RB's record is a violation of 6 of 9 of the Forum's CofC qualifiers; a 67% negative participation.
Kohai in R1 cited about RemyBrown: "Women and rape is his largest target; Woman / women used over 500 time. Rape / raped / rapist used over 200+ times."
Kohai's first argument in R1 was: "DebateCraft is intended to cultivate intellectually rigorous and dynamic discourse. Its aim is to foster an environment in which logical precision, rhetorical dexterity, and mutual respect are not merely compatible, but expected. Behavioral standards...to preserve its integrity."
Couple this argument with the fact that words can be mentally, emotionally, and even physically harmful, and this has been demonstrated in our long history of legal action in the United States. If you have stayed with me thus far, you may be convinced how I am going to conclude with a vote. I sought advice on freedom of speech by going first to that document, and then to a particular Supreme Court case that pre-dates all of us, and has, perhaps, the most brilliant exercise on freedom of speech I have ever encountered. I was pleased to have been reminded that it was one of the most highly respected Justices ever to serve on the Court; Justice Louis Brandeis, who offered this opinion. The case was Whitney v. California [1927]. Justice Brandeis wrote in his assenting opinion for the plaintiff:
"Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exult order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incident of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may be fall before there is an opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
I cannot, in good conscience, determine that Justice Brandeis was wrong, that nefarious speech should be distanced at arms' length, or further. I detest RemyBrown's speech. I abhor that he denigrates women and rape victims, and various identity types. It serves no purpose I can describe. It is harmful to some who endure it as personal attack. However, as Whiteflame argued, we have the means to avoid it. It is branded as objectionable, and we must click on that warning to expose it. To we, personally, who have already allowed the exposure to occur to ourselves, all bets are off to then cry foul, as I have done, myself, even within the comments on this debate. My reminding by Brandeis, a research I suggested in front may invalidate my vote, since neither Kohai nor Whiteflame argued Brandeis. I accept that risk. I, personally, do not feel threatened by RemyBrown. His speech is not, for me, personally, a clear and present danger of the destruction of my own personal beliefs and standards.
With the First Amendment's cautionary shield that it is not absolute, but very, very flexible, that we may be offended, but should not censor by response, but rather suggest greater enlightenment, I vote for Whiteflame's argument, waving the Brandeis flag.
Free speech that protects only comfortable speech is NOT free speech; it is permission granted by whomever the authoritarian is who happens to control the room. The entire point of this USA principle is that people are allowed to say things that offend us, anger us, challenge our values, or make us profoundly uncomfortable. Socrates understood this deeper principle more than two thousand years ago....
“The unexamined life is not worth living.”
You cannot meaningfully examine your beliefs if every competing idea has first been scrubbed clean of anything disturbing.
That is especially true in debates. A debate that teaches the crowd only how to encounter approved opinions is not preparing them for real-world citizenship. It is preparing them for intellectual dependency and compliance. Put the difficult argument on DCraft. Let students read it, interrogate it, identify its assumptions, attack its evidence, and defend their objections. The answer to an ugly idea is not pretending the idea doesn't exist. It is giving the crowd enough knowledge and confidence to confront it. Critical thinking requires something to criticize, or it never exists.
Sure, I get there are reasonable boundaries for direct threats, targeted harassment, and genuinely unlawful conduct, but reducing discomfort alone as a virtue cannot be the standard. Once “this makes me uncomfortable” becomes sufficient grounds for suppressing an argument, whoever claims the greatest discomfort acquires a veto over everyone else's inquiry. Real education should demand something harder from us: hear the argument, examine it, challenge it, and decide whether it survives. If an idea is wrong, expose why it is wrong. If we're so afraid to examine it, we've allowed fear to discredit Socrates before the discussion has even begun.
Since this is an opinion im not going to spend a lot of time laying out a massove rfd. I think this debate can be summarized into a few points
Did Remy break the tos? Potentially in isolated cases but as con points out. Deciphering whether portions of this are trolling or rage baiting are hard to gauge
Past that its how to proceed. Bro dislikes Remy so he is left arguing that a permanent ban is the solve to his behavior and this is a hard stance to take. As mentioned step ups from warnings and temp bans are likley a better way to address this if they are ever needed
The framework for all this should he bases on the coc and community feedback. Near unanimously the feedback has also been the site should be more laid back and steer away from heavy handed approaches like dark had
While pro lays a framework for Remy issues. Con brings enough points to make me question whether the only solution is a permanent ban
From my own pov and separate from the debate. Unless someone is harassing, doxing or committing egregious content a perma ban is not warranted. And I dont think Remy has met that threshold even if he is retarted.
Since this isn’t a traditional debate with traditional voting rules, my approach here will be a bit different than usual. I’ll give an analysis of the arguments from each side, though a more brief one than I would in a traditional debate, and conclude with my own decision, which is influenced a bit by factors not mentioned in the debate. Much like the debaters themselves mentioned, I’m glad that the decision is being put in the hands of the community and that arguments for both sides have been laid out, even if it’s impossible to cover all possible concerns here.
I think the prosecution does a very good job drawing a line, and (ignoring my own view of whether I agree with that line) shows how Remy crosses it repeatedly. There’s a good amount of satire in Remy’s posts, as the defense points out, but also a fair amount of rage baiting and posts that are clearly meant primarily to get a rise out of people. Additionally, he makes a lot of people uncomfortable. The defense shows a lot of engagement brought forth from Remy’s posting, but the prosecution shows that a lot of this engagement is coming from the same people. This mitigates the benefit, though it’s not clear how the benefit of some engagement is to be weighed against the CoC. Both sides seem to agree that the CoC and the duties of moderators are important, so I feel like duties in the CoC are implied to take precedence. I think the CoC’s note that repeated borderline behavior is enough to justify a ban does a good deal to back up the points the prosecution is making and lend some credibility to the line he’s drawing. With the repeated pattern of posts and admissions of rage baiting, I think the conclusion the prosecution draws is reasonable about Remy operating “chiefly to provoke through identity‑based rhetoric.”
That said, the protection on satire does give a plausible line of defense to Remy’s actions that I’m not sure how to weigh, but it does leave the posts a little ambiguous. And the defense makes a strong point about a permaban being a pretty extreme response. Despite a permanent ban being the subject of the debate, only the defense is really addressing the harsh nature of such a ban. If the temporary ban prevented calls for sexual violence, then why would a temporary ban for offensiveness not have a shot at reducing that? Ignoring my personal opinions on whether such a ban is warranted, the defense makes a pretty good point that more gradual steps might be effective. So were I judging this debate purely on flow, I’d probably give it to the defense just because their argument about a permanent ban being an overreaction doesn’t get addressed enough by the prosecution to effectively refute it. The defense also made arguments about punishing patterns of conduct setting a bad precedent, which I agree with personally, but it’s fleshed out a bit late, and the earlier emphasis on the CoC makes me look at that when grading the flow. The CoC looks vague enough that “repeated engagement in borderline conduct” still warrants punishment if I take it at face value. Had the resolution been about some sort of punishment less than a permaban and had the arguments otherwise been the same, and if I was voting on this as a debate, then I may have given it to the prosecution just on flow.
But this is a trial, which brings me to my own personal view of the circumstances. One big thing that I never saw mentioned were the apparent discrepancies between the frequent referendums the community has held and the more loosely-worded code of conduct. In the results of all three surveys, the community has repeatedly voted for the “mark as offensive” option for the kind of content Remy posts, as opposed to action akin to banning. It was voted in Survey #2 that an account that existed solely to make rage bait posts should be banned, but as has been pointed out, Remy’s account does not solely make rage bait posts even if he does rage bait significantly. He does engage with responses and offer substantive arguments even if they lead to erroneous conclusions. And with the way offensive content has been moderated in the past, the offensive marking is not treated as a “warning” for an actual ban unless a user steps significantly beyond that, toward action that the user base has voted should result in a ban. Until now, these survey results have in effect been treated as the “law of the land,” even if there was some discussion about potentially overriding them later. I remain opposed to overriding them even in cases like this, but that is my personal view and not the view of every mod.
Meanwhile, if I take the Code of Conduct at face value (which I believe grandfathered over some of the rules from DebateArt since it’s the same wiki, but I may be wrong), then moderators are seemingly given broad discretion to crack down on repeated “borderline” conduct, with borderline not being super strictly defined. I get the desire to avoid loopholes, but from the repeated votes by the community in favor of a more laissez-faire moderation style, I think that using the CoC as a justification here without looking at those votes would kind of be overriding them. Which, to be fair, I think the mods (or in this case, the community), can technically do. The way I would read this is that the mods have a wide array of actions they CAN do, but I don’t think they or even the community as a whole SHOULD use all the enforcement actions available. As an old phrase goes, “not everything that is permitted is beneficial.” This applies both to Remy’s posts and to the enforcement actions we might take against them, since the CoC is written by maybe 1-2 people but the referendums are voted on by the community as a whole. Since mods have never gone against the referendums before to my knowledge, and sense the community seems to generally agree that people should not be retroactively punished for actions that were not bannable at the time they were committed, I am pretty strongly opposed to banning Remy for actions that he (at the time) had every reason to believe would not result in a ban. Additionally, I don’t think that repeated borderline infractions or a “holistic” view of content requires going beyond what’s addressed in the code of conduct polls, as we can and have polled people on whether certain types of posts like ragebait should be limited in quantity, particularly on the most recent survey. Even then, the community has taken a more laissez-faire approach. I’d be fine setting up these kinds of limits going forward or even setting more broad and discretion-based rules if necessary, but there’s a big difference between that and ex-post-facto penalties, particularly one as harsh as a permanent ban.
I believe that the community is within its rights to set a new standard and prohibit rage-baiting, but I think that whatever standard it is, whatever line in the sand is not to be crossed, should be drawn in advance and with fair warning before a user is banned for violating it. If we use the broad wording of the CoC to ban Remy now, then the user base has a justification to ban many users without a fair warning, simply by arguing their content is borderline. Even if overriding the community vote were necessary, then I’d rather the mods just come out and say “this is the new law of the land that’s going to be enforced going forward, if you cross it here are the penalties.” Then we’re not taking people by surprise. I also think that there are productive arguments that could be had on controversial subjects, and I would not want users to avoid engaging in them in fear that the content might one day be considered “borderline” and they could be retroactively punished for it. And if this trial is used as precedent, then next time there may not even be a trial. It may be argued, if Remy is banned, that the community has given assent for the mods to ban users in similar murky cases, and that’s not a precedent I would like to set. I don’t think the current mods have given me any reason to distrust them personally, but I expect that the community will grow, leadership may change, and the burden of concentrated power over a large community may lead even the most well-intentioned mods to make decisions that end up backfiring against the community.
For these reasons, it is my view that Remy ought not to be banned. However, I concur with both debaters that it is best to let the community make this decision. If anything, one precedent I’m more than happy to set is to leave the median voter in charge of enforcement, which I think is the least bad option in cases like this. Much as I think banning Remy for these specific charges would be a mistake, if that mistake were to be made I’d rather it happen by a transparent community vote than be a decision by mods behind closed doors.
Pro
#1
Another notable extreme outlier is the thread "
So the sheer volume and the average replies statistics that whiteflame cited is misleading and depends on several outliers. The mean, median, and mode calculation demonstrates this:
