CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 29, 2012 06:44 PM UTC

Should Pols Ban Repeat Offenders?

  • 81 Comments
  • by: Aristotle

(With Tad in the penalty box once again… – promoted by Pita)

UPDATE FROM COLORADO POLS: It has always been our intention to use The Penalty Box as a cooling-off area and as a warning to behave nicely on these pages. But it appears as though The Penalty Box doesn’t always rehabilitate a Pols criminal. This is the third stay for Libertad in The Penalty Box, and there will not be a fourth. If you can’t follow the rules, then go somewhere else. Hopefully Libertad will not make any further transgressions, but if he does, he will be banned from Pols.

For more information on staying out of the joint, read our Posting Policies.

—–

OR: The Curious Case of Libertad.

Every regular Polster is familiar with Libertad. He has been part of the Pols family for years (can’t access his suspended account now, so I can’t see how long it’s been, exactly) and is known for conservative views, the quality of which ranges from factually wrong to incoherent. He was fond of posting poll information from Rasmussen, an outfit known for it’s conservative bias, until even they showed good approval ratings for President Obama. And he holds the distinction of being the only Polster to be sent to the penalty box more than once – and more than twice, too.

This really raises the issue of why he isn’t simply given the boot for good. At best, he’s colorful, a buffoon tolerated because his posts have entertainment value. At worst, he’s an insulting moron who has a long record of disruptive posts. Until his first trip to the penalty box, he was known for posting irrelevant videos that sometimes autoplayed. He’s also posted many mean-spirited accounts. And while his most recent banishment was for racism, I recall previous racist posts about our president, usually phrased in subtle enough ways that some folks here (notably Laughing Boy) believed I was overreacting when I called him on it.* I no longer think anyone will dispute it.

Last I checked, Pols has no rules regarding the use of racism in posting. (The TOS page seems to be down at the moment, so I can’t totally confirm this, but it’s not mentioned anywhere on the Pols Posting Policy page.) So it may be that Pols simply has no rules about it, and thus a temporary ban is their only real remedy. But again, we’re speaking of a polster who has earned three trips to the box, and had one of those stays extended when he registered a sockpuppet account to get around it, which essentially means that he’s had four temporary bans. This in a span of 16 months.

I should note that the Posting Policy Page defines banishment terms of 2, 5, and 10 days, and that ‘tad’s latest 3 day stay isn’t in conformity with what Pols has written.

When is it enough? Should polsters be allowed to remain with a record of disruption like this? Do these incidents add up to equal the transgressions that have led to previous permanent bans? Should Pols adapt a “three strikes” rule?

* I tried using google to find those earlier instances, but was unable. It’s unfortunate, but I can no longer remember the exact word he used. I will look again later – maybe I’ll remember what he actually said, which would make locating it easier.

Should Libertad be permanently banned, based on his three temporary bans?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tweet
Share

Comments

81 thoughts on “Should Pols Ban Repeat Offenders?”

    3. as Voltaire once said “I will defend to my death your right to be a village idiot” (or something like that)

      I do take note of what Ari said, that Pols

      should follow its rules and lengthen the time for repeated infractions.  

    4. it’s not the question I was asking.

      I don’t care that ‘tad is an idiot, but I do care that he’s so disruptive that he keeps getting sent to the box. It matters because, if he’s kept around, others may realize that there’s little to lose – apparently, as GG notes below, only outing someone rises to the level of a permanent ban.

      Now, nothing may come of that concern. But I do think some consistency is in order. Wasn’t RioGrande banned for disruptive behavior alone? (Maybe he tried to out someone – I can’t remember now, and of course the offending comments were deleted before I got to read them.) If so, why does Libby get a pass?

      1. I forget just how, but it was his banning and ultimate reinstatement that led to the creation of the Penalty Box. He definitely didn’t “out” anyone, otherwise I wouldn’t have argued for him.

        The greater point, I think, is that CoPols’ original comment policy was that they could rule any unnecessary comments ban worthy. So has that basic principle become moot since the creation of the PB? I don’t think so.

        Arguably, that one guy (let’s call him “Blah-blah-blah”) was banned more for the slur than the semi-outing. So why it wouldn’t apply to someone doing it often and subverting PB rules (the first time) is beyond me.

        But it’s not my blog, so this could come down to neener-neener rule. 🙂 It’s also a long standing rule that s/he who has the gold owns the blog makes the rules.

          2. a fixture here as long as his contollers continue to pay him to remain .  .  . that “decision” is not in his hands, nor his position description.  

    5. Inside the Pols penalty box

      Poor Libby sulked and sat,

      Amusing himself

      By abusing himself

      And catching it in his hat.

      I voted no. If there were a three-strikes rule–perhaps. If Pols enforced their own 2-5-10 rule (sounds like another Republican “flat” tax)–perhaps. But I think posting here falls within the guidelines of “Sticks and stones…”

  2. because I can’t always tell where the posts attempting to educate the poor sod stop.  The problem with us polsters is we keep feeding the trolls.  (Myself included.)

    Banning ‘Tadpole would give us one less troll to feed.

    1. ‘turd reverts to classic troll activities in most all of his posts.  He doesn’t want a conversation, he doesn’t want to enter into a discourse.  He wants to disrupt and given the chance, he’d threadjack to get attention (though he pretty much sticks with the open threads).

      and don’t worry about rightie clowns, they’ll be swarming the site as we near Nov. — you’ll have your pick of clowns to take ‘turds place.  

  3. It was my understanding that the only ultimate No-No was trying to out someone’s identity.

    We need all the conservative assholes that we can get on this site to make it the madcap and merry site that it has been over the years.

  4. I believe it should be 3 strikes (3 visits to the penalty box) and you’re out, ie. permanently banned.

    I had always thought his irrational anger stemmed from misguided ideas that were not very well thought out.  Turns out it was just racism.

  5. against using explicitly racist terms in posts then it wouldn’t be fair. Perhaps such a rule can be added.  Then it would be up to Libertad  to obey it or get banished for good. But would that really be  more desirable than our present system where racist and bigots make their views known and we jump all over them? I don’t think so.

    That’s why, if I were French I’d oppose the proposed law to outlaw denying the Armenian genocide. As a Jewish American I’d hate to see a law against the denial of the holocaust.  Such suppressive laws simply make heroes out of those who defy them.  The best antidote to disinformation and bigotry is the accurate information and decency that make the purveyors of the poison look like the hateful little twisted souls they are.

    Like this guy:

    A congressional candidate running as a Republican in the upcoming Illinois primary says the “Holocaust never happened.”

    Arthur Jones, 64, a Lyons, IL, insurance salesman who organizes family-friendly, neo-Nazi events around Adolf Hitler’s birthday, hopes to be the Republican candidate chosen to run against Democratic Congressman Dan Lipinski in Illinois’ 3rd Congressional District.

    “As far as I’m concerned, the Holocaust is nothing more than an international extortion racket by the Jews,” Jones said. “It’s the blackest lie in history. Millions of dollars are being made by Jews telling this tale of woe and misfortune in books, movies, plays and TV.

    “The more survivors, the more lies that are told.”

    On the plus side

    Jones hopes three’s a charm after blowing his retirement savings on two prior congressional runs

    http://oaklawn.patch.com/artic…

      1. on repeat offending, I still think the kind of offence matters. Outing, for instance, is completely unacceptable in the world of  blogging set free by anonymity, if desired. But when we start banning people for good for offending us, where does it end? As for the “disruptive” argument, this isn’t a grade school class room. I’m sticking with my “no”, though I appreciate where you’re coming from.  Let’s see how the votes pan out.  

        1. Couple of points. First, there’s a difference between simple offense and disruption. I’m speaking of disruption, which is the sole thing that has earned Libby all his trips to the penalty box. Second, I think a simple “three strikes” or even “four strikes” rule would ensure that there’s no slippery slope to worry about.

          Free speech isn’t about letting the loud and obnoxious be loud and obnoxious. We on the left sometimes seem to not understand that.

          1. Not in a theater where the management has every right to impose rules of decorum for the enjoyment of paying patrons but on a blog for the free expression of views or in the public square, where our rights to free speech are guaranteed, I think it is. That’s why I oppose the proposed French law against genocide denial and would oppose any law here against holocaust denial.  

            We just disagree on this. Isn’t that what the vote is for? To see where the majority stands on this? If the majority wants ‘tad banned and Pols agrees, so be it.    

            1. because ultimately, yes, only Pols has any real say. But because it’s rhetorical, I’m taking the opportunity to challenge this assumption that’s common among progressives.

              Something to keep in mind about a blog is that it is more analogous to a theater than a public square, because it is a private, not public, entity. We have zero right to free speech here. Our ability to speak freely is a privilege granted us by the administers of this blog. In part, they are bowing to expectation, and at this point in their history (online for over seven years now) they can’t just implement the same kind of restrictive rules conservative blogs like redstate.com are known to do. (During the 2008 campaign, they wholesale banned Ron Paul supporters.) In short, they’re not totally free to restrict content here since a large part of their credibility rides on it.

              But being booted from here is no impingement on our rights. We aren’t restricted from expressing our opinions; we’re merely denied a private forum in which to do so. You can go and set up your own forum, if you choose; Steve did that after he left, or you can find other sites that are more agreeable. It’s not like being thrown in jail indefinitely.

              1. If you market your blog as a public forum, and then behave with the caprice permitted a host in a private home, your patrons have a right to call you out on it. It’s not an infringement on free speech; it’s false advertising.

                1. And make it clear that some things won’t be allowed.

                  Is that somehow false advertising, too?

                  “Free expression” has limits. Do you agree? If not, would you explain your position?

                  1. and, as I said in my comment above, this has nothing to do with free expression, since it is a privately owned website. The question is one of consistency, caprice, and unexamined biases (not necessarily of the most commonly identified kinds) that affect how rules are applied. Rules that are unilateraly made and unilateraly and inconsistently interpreted and enforced are identical to an absence of rules. That’s fine: Ownership grants the right of autocracy. It is what it is.

      1. And why a ban of three days, when you specify two, five, and ten day bans?

        I guess the consensus is let Libby spout off repeatedly and indefinitely, and not set any kind of “enough is enough” limit. But a bit of consistency would be appreciated.

        1. Rude

          Clueless

          Bombastic &

          Has no idea what E Pluribus Unum means.

          He gets most of his facts from forwarded emails from anonymous sources who swear they are true.

          but

          As far as we know he isn’t paid like H-man to spread misinformation.

          We probably won’t see another Laughing Boy who was witty and could write for quite a while.

          so

          You blog with the extremists you have not the ones you wish you had.

  7. How’s Alva ever gonna pay all those guards if he can’t keep his for-profit prison well stocked with miscreants?

    My biggest regret is the shortage of inmates with the literary and comic capabilities of SXP51 . . .  

  8. Poster MichaelEllis was banned, as I recall, for continuing to post with an alternate account while his main account was in the penalty box. The same offense did not get Libertad banned.

    Steve Harvey was banned for using the term “cracker.” The same offense did not get Libertad banned.

    Clearly Libertad operates under his own set of rules. I think posters like Harvey and Ellis were considered expendable because they tended to get in a lot of arguments with people without necessarily bringing a new viewpoint to the discussion. Libertad gets in lots of arguments because he disagrees with most of us, and except for ArapaGOP there’s nobody else on the site left like that. I think that’s why he gets special treatment.

    It’s a tough call for me, but I think we should let him stay and accept that the Terms of Service are going to be applied selectively. If there were an absolute rule about it, and I were in charge, I would probably cast a wider net and ban everyone who uses the word “retarded” as an insult, which would catch a lot more people. Similarly, there are a number of things that are vaguely racist but not quite so overt, like people who support racial profiling without ever quite saying why.

    TL;DR version: Libertad shouldn’t be banned and Steve Harvey shouldn’t have been banned either.

    1. which seems a reasonable grounds for banning. If anyone has been banned for just being obnoxious I hope Pols will refresh our collective memory.  I don’t remember H-man or anyone else as being banned for just that offense but my memory could be wrong.

      I notice that so far, the voting seems to support the “no” position. Can’t believe I voted against banning ‘tad.    

      1. Harvey, for example, was banned for both using a slur and trying to make someone’s identity public.

        None of this is as cut-and-dried as we would all prefer, because context makes a big difference. For example, Harvey argued that he wasn’t outing someone because that person had previously disclosed personal information in their own comments. That may be technically true, but what was important to us was that Harvey was putting different information together with the specific intent of trying to show readers the identity of the commenter.

        It is a delicate balance, to be sure. We don’t want Polsters to be so worried about saying the wrong thing that they are almost afraid to comment. At the same time, we don’t want the comments to turn into a hate-filled vulgarity marathon. We do the best we can to keep that balance, and we recognize that we’re probably never going to get it excactly right.

        1. And agree on the Harvey incident.  Just because someone puts out enough info that an enterprising person could put it together doesn’t make doing so and sharing conclusions to out the person OK.  No outing really is pretty straight forward. This thing with ‘tad isn’t but doesn’t look like the vote is going to result in a request for the banishing.  

    3. or at least that is the story as I understood it.

      I tend to see the Penalty Box as a time out between combatants.  It gets tedious reading some ongoing squabble between two posters that spills over onto multiple dairies.  Better to give one a time out to cool off kind of like Laura Bradford going home for the weekend.

      1. He was banned partly for remembering several things bjwilson83 had stated about himself, a standard not applied to others. By the same standard, anyone who refers to DavidThi808 by his last name is committing a bannable offense.

        The only clearly applied standard for Harvey’s banning was the use of a racial slur, which of course is not the standard for others (though Harvey was banned before the penalty box existed, I think).

        2. Anyone who is guilty of “remembering several things [DavidThi808] had stated about himself” is really rendering his or her own punishment and has probably suffered enough already.

  9. I’m totally ok with ‘tad’s Constitutional Right to display the depth of his ignorance. I’ll ignore his crap most of the time, and torture him when I have the energy and time.

    I agree that racism is bad in any public forum, but then how much energy do we expend codifying the bad words? Can I call a female polster a “cunt” because an official in higher education claimed it was a term of endearment? (I will still always use it when describing Ann Coulter.)

    As much as I despite the creature known as Libertad, I generally wouldn’t ban him.

    When someone veers off into attacking someone personally or outs someone, OR the repeat offender rule as proposed above, THEN I’m ok with banning.  

    1. I can’t think of anyone here I haven’t attacked personally, from a certain point of view. What precisely does that mean? I can certainly recall Libertad attacking you personally via your family.

      1. ‘tad can unleash a torrent of stupid insults on me all he wants. I feel free to return the same.

        when he starts spewing his crap about him spouse, then it crosses the line.

      2. Ayn Rand worship, Libertad emulating swine like you, sxp!

        I can’t think of anyone here I haven’t attacked personally, from a certain point of view. What precisely does that mean?

  10. Though private enterprise is not governed by the first amendment or its philosophical progeny, I do feel that media should respect a diversity of opinion.

    Lib does his views no service and progressives are better served by letting his jaw droppingly ridiculous posts stand.

    However, I would recommend not responding to him(especially his attempts to jack threads near the top).

  11. I enjoy reading more than posting, and frankly, I enjoy reading Lib even though I find him absolutely wrong on most things.  The art of constructing arguments, even whacked ones, is to be admired.

    When he crosses the line, penalize.  Excessive banning will lead to vanilla groupthink.

  13. Banning is so……authoritarian. I’m more inclined to individual liberty, and personal responsibility.

    ‘Tad is simply a poor representative of whatever it is he represents.

    I typically just ignore him.

            1. in and of itself isn’t problematic. If you are reading a text about the great apes, for instance, no problem.  You’re just being willfully obtuse.

    1. all the times he earned a trip to the box, it was because he couldn’t be ignored.

      Believe me – I’ve been in a loooooong habit of scrolling past his nonsense. You simply couldn’t do that with his penalties.

  15. I voted Yes because I come home late last night in a fowl mood and I find Libertad to be a bore in the highest degree.

    But actually, I just prefer to ignore his posts as they generally don’tadd much of any value to the discussion (except to prove that there really are some boorish people on the conservative side who believe some of thetalking points that the leaders only put out there long enough to push an agenda.)

    If he got permanently banned, he would just come back in another form with his boorishness.

  16. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. History is replete with liars, obfuscators, dipshits, detractors, maligners, manipulators, character assassins, etc. It’s best to be aware of who they are and what they’re up to, than ignore them or have their maliciousness done in the dark.

    Like Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.  

    1. ” Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1932, “that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

      The original proponet of Citizens Initiative and States rights!

      Regarding banning, or in other words, intolernace of thought and free expression thereof, glad Pols and its cronic posters do not run the entire Country, oy vey.

      1. considered a landslide in any election has voted not to ban and that the majority of comments from regulars support the “no” position? So what are you talking about?  

      2. Banning has nothing to do with “intolernace” of anything, expect bad behavior.

        We’re not talking about someone who should go because of his views. We all have absolutely no problem with them. But he DOES have a long record of not following the rules here.

        Free expression is not violated by requiring participants to adhere to certain standards. Nor would the subject of it be denied his right to go out and say whatever he wishes.

        If you’re going to disagree, you need to address exactly how one’s free expression is suppressed by such a ban.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

241 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!