If people want to deal with idiotic drivel from a crudely artificial persona that spews out hatred and ignorance just visit his site.

I don't think people should have to put up with hateful abuse here. And I know *I* certainly won't put up with it directed at me.

I also find it very ironic that someone is trying to take the moral high ground after posting an article that specifically equated people here, by name, to high-ranking members of the Nazi hierarchy.
To extend the metaphor that was already abused, his (or his cronies') complaining about the "one-sidedness" of the administrators' reaction is like the Germans bitching that the war tribunals were unfair because no French were being prosecuted for committing war crimes, and clearly that shows that the whole thing is biased against Germany.

wow, I had no idea this was such a big thing....

btw, I am gay, and Sir Peter has done nothing to make fun of that...well, once, but he apologized..

Little_Whip: "Mean Spirited" is in the eye of the beholder. People might consider your Christopher Reeve post "mean spirited".

South Park is one of the most popular animated shows. They've insulted about *everyone*, they've panned homosexuals, anti-smoking people, Mormons. They had Chrisopher Reeve tearing the heads off babies and sucking their innerds out. Their commentary, though, is pretty well respected by those that look at the show objectively. In the end, they serve a purpose.

Come on. I respect Brad's decision, and if he doesn't want SPM here, so be it. To make a sweeping differentiation between the kind of things that he says about homosexuals and the kind of hateful stuff I have heard people like Pheonixboi say about moral Conservatives is nit-picking of the worst kind. If there is going to be a standard here, it needs to apply to both sides.

I'm satisfied with the fact that SPM was shunned because of how he treated the admins. If we are going to make this about his general demeanor or "respectfulness", then there are a few more that need to go.

South Park is one of the most popular animated shows. They've insulted about *everyone*, they've panned homosexuals, anti-smoking people, Mormons. They had Chrisopher Reeve tearing the heads off babies and sucking their innerds out. Their commentary, though, is pretty well respected by those that look at the show objectively. In the end, they serve a purpose.

The difference Bakerstreet, is that with South Park you know it is a cartoon, it makes its point and then that is the end of it. It doesnt keep going, and it doesnt get personal, not only personal but inciting hatred and vilification. There is no point in arguing with you because in your eyes you are always right and have no concept of how this twit may have made people such as myself feel. So Im not going to get into a slinging match with you.

With respect for the admins on this site I think blatantly disrespecting them was totally uncalled for, considering it is their site andthey can do with it what they wish, and I respect them for that.

What interests me is that the people who say get over it and move on are the ones who keep reading the same "flame" articles and feel that they need to comment on them. Sure Im a gay boi and like some drama so I follow it, especially if it has affected myself or if I have personally had some experience with the content rather than just seemingly book knowledge.

"But slamming the admins on their own site is a whole different game, and one he was bound to lose."

I have not lost anything, anyone that read my final article knows that it was a blatant attempt to let people know that I am a peasant and like to dance in girly clothes, as I had become so disillusioned with the fact that I am a girl in a boy's body.

I do not consider my banning a 'loss' at all. Especially when I was sent a glorious email from my fairy god mother whom told me it was time to come out of the basement and frolic with the fairies in my backyard. How I miss Buuba the turtle. He was a good old chap!

Why do you think that somebody is impersonating him?  And, why bother posting hiding behind "Anonymous"?

Obviously the acceptable conduct on JU is an evolving thing.

I wouldn't ban someone simply because he said something that was offensive. People can always blacklist him from their blog if they don't like them. And if it is on the forums we might moderate his behavior if he's over the top on something.

He got relegated to his own blog for some of his abusive behavior on the forums. I thought this would be a temporary thing but then he started up with the usual "admins are nazis" type thing. And frankly I just don't see why I should have to put up with some guy, particularly a ficticious guy (there is no Sir Peter Maxwell, he's just an invented persona by some guy) calling me names on my own site.

I was never going to get my status back, that is why I wrote that article, to simply put an end to the whole drawn out affair.

what I was trying to get at was the way other people are still arguing about a comedy character.....

That is why the threads involving it have been removed from the forums.  It is being discussed in private blogs.  I have not seen an "new" threads involving SPM.

I doubt anybody took spm's nazi stuff seriously, he is a blatant satirical character

The problem is that *new* people don't know what is real or not, and may not feel comfortable blogging on a site that people can openly say nasty things to each other.

Just the fact that he was pretending to be somebody that he wasn't was against our rules.  We let it slide trying to be fair.

 

I'm just not sure about how I feel about the whole thing. Does that mean the extent of tongue and cheek articles are gone? I can understand baiting the admins, but banning someone in total seems a little wrong. After all, this is a website for the average person, right? Lots of peoples feelings have been hurt, lot of positions challenged. If you want to ban someone, I think you need to look at hte criteria in which to ban not just one person. Of course, that is just my opinion. I am not a admin.

Amitty, lets look at the whole picture:
1) He was pretending to be somebody that he was not, which is against JU terms.
2) He personally attacked people, and was finally confined to his own blog
3) He then wrote an article saying that the admins here are bigoted racists.

There is nothing "tongue and cheek" about hate. Even though he is fake, we left him on here because of his humor.  When that humor turned to hate, then that hate was turned toward us, then we said goodbye.  Pretty simple to figure out.

 

I suppose, not having been around for the whole thing. As far as your list of things, look it like this. There are people here that are probably pretending to be someone their not. THe case I am remembering is the ashley case when I first got on here. This blogger had intentionally lied about who she was, and while it caused a stir, she was never banned, per se. I'm not illustrating this point because I think SPM should be back, I'm just doing it to prove the earlier point. If the rules apply to one, they apply to all.

I've been personally attacked for being gay, but those people that have attacked me don't get punished. LW got attacked for her being in the KKK a gazillion years ago, and none of those people were banned.

When it comes to number three, I can't argue. The final attack was a one time for all thing, and the admins had every right to do it. I read the article, was surprised, having been a mod on many a channel, at the outright disregard for you admins. For that, and that alone, I agree.
Maybe I still haven't got it right, since it is ' Pretty simple to figure out", but I just feel that the rules should be applied for everyone. I like posting here, there are interesting people and all, but i still think that there will be others that will earn it down the road, and there shouldn't be any confusion about what constitues being banned and what doesn't.

I can see the point of why, this is his free ice-cream he's serving and he's got the choice of who to serve or not. He pays for the servers, he pays with his time to design this site and post these insightfull artciles. He's got every right to say No Soup to you, regardless real or not.

Then set up a membership, don't let just anyone submit. Which sucks as a idea, since I like it here, but selective punishment is never fair, regardless. I'm not sure the 'he' you are talking about, but all I'm saying is this: If it is a open site, all the rules should apply to everyone.
Why am I feeling like the bad guy here? I'm just trying to say it should be fair all around.

I'd have to draw a distinction between "pretending to be someone you're not" and "assuming a persona". SPM, I think, came down on the "persona" side. Obviously it's the admins' decision ultimately, but to my mind "pretending to be someone you're not" should generally involve some other physical person. So in that specific regard I wouldn't agree that SPM necessarily was in violation of the TOS.

Ashlee Ryder was a similar case; her initial posts were fiction (as well as most of her later ones, apparently), but they were not done from the "I am using someone else's name and info" perspective, but rather from the "I am creating a personality from the whole cloth" angle.

If I were to come on and pretend to be SPM myself, then I should rightly be banned under the "pretending to be someone you're not" rule (as well as the unwritten "Idiotically pretending to be someone who's already banned" rule).

edit: I also wanted to point out that Ashlee did eventually violate the TOS properly (so to speak) when she created a couple of blogs for some supposed friends and then created all the content on those blogs herself. (simplethings and boots2bottles, I believe, aka Shawn and Emma.)

yes, I agree with that statement Citahellion. I makes more sense broken down like that