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 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.