The Terrible Sweal

[Cartman]

I noticed that Sweal was banned. May I ask how long this ban is to be in place? Is it permanent?

[Guest eureka]

If it is because he lost his cool finally at what he considered to be an egregious personal attack on his character, then I do not understand why he was banned at all.

The kind of erudition and intelligence he brought is not easily replaced.

[Melanie_]

I certainly hope the ban isn't permanent; he lost his temper, sure, but that wasn't his usual approach to this forum. His contributions to the discussions far outweigh a momentary lapse in judgement.

[August1991]

I too would prefer that Sweal be re-admitted. IMV, Sweal's posts were a positive contribution to this forum.

I believe in free speech, as this link will describe (if you have the patience or interest to wade through it).

I have changed my mind, partly, about free speech on Internet forums. If Greg warned Sweal on several occasions of a potential ban, and Sweal persisted, then IMV Greg is right to ban Sweal.

The remarkable feature of this forum is that Canadians feel free to express their viewpoints in English - and then, they want to respond to the civilised responses to their viewpoints. Greg, whatever you do, please preserve this feature of the forum.

[Argus]

I certainly hope the ban isn't permanent; he lost his temper, sure, but that wasn't his usual approach to this forum. His contributions to the discussions far outweigh a momentary lapse in judgement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

His usual approach was snide, snotty, and hateful. He probably expressed his hate of those who disagreed with him more than anyone here (leaving aside ScottBrison's recent ranting and obscenities). He also inspired a like approach in those he argued with.

A political forum is far better off with respectful conversation, with intelligent debate. Those who attack their opponents as Sweal often does inspire the same in reply and the entire forum deteriorates. And yes, I realize I have responded to Sweal and others with insults myself. I am not trying to come off as a choirboy. But I do try to stick to the subject and not personalise a discussion if my opposite side does the same.

That being said, I am generally against bans. I would only ban people after full notice and discussion takes place between the alleged offender, and the moderator and the offender is given the chance to reform.

Btw, how do you guys know when someone is banned? Is notice given somewhere?

[Melanie_]

Btw, how do you guys know when someone is banned? Is notice given somewhere?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look on the sidebar, where it says Members under someone's name. It says Banned under Sweal's name on all of his previous posts.

[Shakeyhands]

I do hope it is not a permanent ban, Sweals posts are always a pleasure to read.

[PocketRocket]

Well, while I usually like reading SWEAL'S posts, and agree that he's quite intelligent and a good contributor to these forums, I have to agree with GREG'S decision.

I did a search to find the offending post, and yes, it was quite offending.

IMO, there's no room for phrases like "you are an ignorant, lying scumbag f*ck" (I paraphrase) in what is supposed to be rational debate.

If I had done the same, I would not expect any warning.

Hopefully it is a temporary ban, and SWEAL will indeed return.

He has more smarts than most, and I believe this was a temporary lapse.

[Guest eureka]

Should there not have been consideration of what provoked the outburst? I think that was far more offensive if not taken as a joke.

Frankly, I don't like this ban at all. This does not seem to be any pattern of obscenity or disruption: just an angry response to an extreme provocation.

[Argus]

Should there not have been consideration of what provoked the outburst? I think that was far more offensive if not taken as a joke.

Frankly, I don't like this ban at all. This does not seem to be any pattern of obscenity or disruption: just an angry response to an extreme provocation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look again. I did a search on Sweal, and more than half of the posts which showed up were full of insults. And it was not just one obscenity riddled post which got him yanked. There were two or three. Sweal has to learn to stop personalizing every disagreement or find somewhere else to post.

[Cartman]

I looked at his last 20 or so posts and a couple did include profanity. Sweal has always been an emotional poster. But, unlike others I believe should be banned but are not, he usually engages people in a substantive way. With over 1,700 posts, his ideas are usually and obviously thoughtful and worthy of consideration. There was also a reason for this particular use of profanity and the emotional outburst that I suspect most people can understand touched a sensitive nerve with him.

Profanity is not helpful, but what I find more useless even embarrassing are the knee-jerk one-liners that can always be predicted about some people. I also dislike intentionally stupid, trolling topics. I quickly looked at our first page of federal politics topics and here are a few I think lower the intelligence of everyone here.

“Conservative Government’s: Horrible?”

“Paul Martin - SLIME”

“Toronto: The perennial small town”

“Paul Martin a Bigot?”

“Do Rats Leave A Sinking Ship?”

“More Conservative BS Exposed”

“Who is the Bigot?”

“Out of the closet: Gays and Bigots”

None of these titles were generated by Sweal or veteran posters for that matter. Personally, I think the word "bigot" should be stricken from MLW. Insinuating that any person is full of hatred is a serious accusation.

So, I hope that Sweal's ban is temporary.

[Argus]

None of these titles were generated by Sweal or veteran posters for that matter.  Personally, I think the word "bigot" should be stricken from MLW.  Insinuating that any person is full of hatred is a serious accusation. 

I wonder if it wouldn't be a step up if we adopted, to a degree, the rules which strike "unparliamentary language" from use in the House of Commons? I think most of us would agree that certain words are not conducive to intelligent, rational discussion or debate when being used against other posters. Bigot is among them, as is racist, slime, scum, nazi, fascist, and liar, and, of course all obscenities No doubt there are others, some of which all would agree with, some which would cause disagreement.

[Riverwind]

Bigot is among them, as is racist, slime, scum, nazi, fascist, and liar, and, of course all obscenities No doubt there are others, some of which all would agree with, some which would cause disagreement.

This board probably has an automatic profanity filter available. We could ask Greg to enable it for that set of words.

[cybercoma]

Bigot is among them, as is racist, slime, scum, nazi, fascist, and liar, and, of course all obscenities No doubt there are others, some of which all would agree with, some which would cause disagreement.

This board probably has an automatic profanity filter available. We could ask Greg to enable it for that set of words.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And we could replace them with other, more comedic words. That'd be fun!

[Guest eureka]

I like the constructive thought in the last few posts. I just don't know howit could be policed. The filter would, for example, cut out the use of, say, bigot, where the use is warranted and is not used as a pejorative for another poster.

[Argus]

Bigot is among them, as is racist, slime, scum, nazi, fascist, and liar, and, of course all obscenities No doubt there are others, some of which all would agree with, some which would cause disagreement.

This board probably has an automatic profanity filter available. We could ask Greg to enable it for that set of words.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not that easy. You would want to strike 'racist' when applied to another poster, as in "You are a racist". But the word should be available when used in other context. As in "that is a racist argument" or "I think Mr. So and so's organization is racist".

You would also not want to be banned from calling politicians liars, or saying they are lying, but should not call other posters liars. Likewise if the argument came to the Nazi party of Germany, you ought to be able to use the term, though not against other posters. No, an autobot wouldn't do, except for the obscenities.

[Argus]

I like the constructive thought in the last few posts. I just don't know howit could be policed. The filter would, for example, cut out the use of, say, bigot, where the use is warranted and is not used as a pejorative for another poster.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. And best punishment for using one of these terms as a pejoritive would be not a banning from the site, but banning from that particular thread, if that is possible. That should be enough to persuade people not to use "parliamentary language". Of course, if they continued to use it a site banning would be called for.

[Cartman]

Some great, constructive ideas from people who generally obey current rules and make the forum work as is.

I do not want to force the matter, but I would really like to know if The Terrible Sweal will be given a break here. Sweal appears to be a Liberal to me and I am certainly no Liberal, but I really enjoy his posts even if they are arrogant and bold at times.

Cartman

[theloniusfleabag]

I have to agree with Argus,

You would want to strike 'racist' when applied to another poster, as in "You are a racist". But the word should be available when used in other context.

there are some instances where the word can have legitimate use. It is up to the posters to use such terms responsibly.

You would also not want to be banned from calling politicians liars, or saying they are lying, but should not call other posters liars. Likewise if the argument came to the Nazi party of Germany, you ought to be able to use the term, though not against other posters. No, an autobot wouldn't do, except for the obscenities

Defamation and slander cases in court have recently (I know this sounds wacky, but I was told this by a lawyer about 6 years ago) allowed 'the truth' as a defense.

[Advocat]

I've found from long experience both in running my own forums and participating in others that there's one cardinal rule which cuts down infighting... "members should attack the idea, not the poster". Discuss the thoughts/ideas, but don't get personal; insults and attacks just show a weakness in the insulter's argument.

A person who can't discuss a topic without retreating into personal slurs or innuendo should certainly be banned from the topic in question, as their invective detracts from the items under discussion and the tone of the forum as a whole. If the same person shows they can't restrain themselves from personal attacks in multiple forums, they should be banned from the board, for the same reasons.

[Argus]

I've found from long experience both in running my own forums and participating in others that there's one cardinal rule which cuts down infighting... "members should attack the idea, not the poster".  Discuss the thoughts/ideas, but don't get personal; insults and attacks just show a weakness in the insulter's argument.

That's the stupidest, dumbest, most moronic idea I've ever read!

Heh. You see, attacking the idea can still be seen as an offensive attack on the person who put forth the idea. So while I think that idea has merit, there are still plenty of ways to have a forum full of yelling and screaming even with it in place.

[Advocat]

I've found from long experience both in running my own forums and participating in others that there's one cardinal rule which cuts down infighting... "members should attack the idea, not the poster".  Discuss the thoughts/ideas, but don't get personal; insults and attacks just show a weakness in the insulter's argument.

That's the stupidest, dumbest, most moronic idea I've ever read!

Heh. You see, attacking the idea can still be seen as an offensive attack on the person who put forth the idea. So while I think that idea has merit, there are still plenty of ways to have a forum full of yelling and screaming even with it in place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Notice I also mentioned the use of innuendo as an offense; a lot of people will try to walk that fine line between direct insult/belittling and insinuation in the hopes of getting away with insulting people. If someone tries that, they should be held just as accountable as if they had used a direct insult, IMO.

It's up to the moderators to draw the line at what is permissible; if people find the atmosphere too contentious, they'll simply vote with their feet and move on. On the other hand, maybe the moderators have decided they like that kind of argumentative forum.

The mods build it, and then attract the kind of people suited to the atmosphere they maintain. Just my two cents...

[Greg]

I noticed that Sweal was banned. May I ask how long this ban is to be in place? Is it permanent?

Sweal was originally suspended for one month due to a number of incidents ranging from using insults to swear words in threads. Sweal was repeatedly warned and he choice to ignore the warnings. The suspension has been moved up to a ban because of reasons I can not discuss here.

This was more than a case of him losing his temper. I gave him ample time to correct his behaviour and he chose to ignore me.

Should there not have been consideration of what provoked the outburst? I think that was far more offensive if not taken as a joke.

I read the whole thread and consider Sweals reaction over the top. This is not the only time this has happened either. This forum software allows me to track the amounts of warnings I give to each participant, Sweal was up to seven warnings for insults and disruptive behaviour before he was suspended.

None of these titles were generated by Sweal or veteran posters for that matter. Personally, I think the word "bigot" should be stricken from MLW. Insinuating that any person is full of hatred is a serious accusation.

I agree. This is party my fault, as I have not been enforcing the rules strictly enough when it comes to introducing new topics. Perhaps I will institute a new rule relating to partisan trolling.

I wonder if it wouldn't be a step up if we adopted, to a degree, the rules which strike "unparliamentary language" from use in the House of Commons?

How about this, simply do not use swear words or insults. If you chose to ignore the rules and guidelines, then you'll be subjecting yourself to a suspension and worse, a ban. I really don't want this forum's rules and guidelines to take its queue from our parliament - have you watched question period lately; it's more partisan bickering then democratic debate.

This board probably has an automatic profanity filter available. We could ask Greg to enable it for that set of words.

No. We are intellegant people here, we have the ability to monitor what we personally say. By turning that filter on, I'll be queitly condoning bahaviour that is strickly against the rules.

Exactly. And best punishment for using one of these terms as a pejoritive would be not a banning from the site, but banning from that particular thread, if that is possible.

No. Again, we're all intellegant people; we should be able to control our behaviour in the forum without being banned from certain threads. If you cannot control your behavour in a particular thread, then the forum is better off without your input.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Could someone direct me to the offending post please? Thanks.

[Tawasakm]

I check back in from time to time to see whats been happening here. Plenty as it turns out. I was curious too 'I miss Trudeau' so I searched through the Sweals posts and came up with this. A couple of posts above that is some more profanity.

Certainly seems over the top as I read it. Which is a shame.