Continuation of The Ler Argument

Not all the time. When he does "snap", he isn't on the same level as Che. Finally, between his "snaps" he responds to other people's posts with cohesive arguments and facts, a lot more than many of the people who try to say he is bad for "snapping". NOTE: that is not directed at you, actually I think your pretty unbiased.

Hate speech is hate speech, either we're linear on this position or we aren't. The only reason Che was banned is because he outright refused to withdraw his statements.

While this strawman might be relevant in terms of Kali, I have absolutely no reason to hate Ler. And to be clear, I don't hate Ler.

I can confirm he did say this.

You do realize that Che broke many rules right? Not just hate speech.

I am afraid without a link, which leads to what he said. I am SURE Ler wouldn't cover something like that up, it would not be behavior fitting a tribunal candidate.

I'm well aware of that. None of his other offences were either sever enough by this site standers or committed with enough frequency to warrant a permaban.
Although I can see why you would feel the opposite considering how pissed you were about that whole editing your message thing.

Besides the hate speech that Ler was already punished for do you guys actually have any proof of him breaking the rules?

Oh right, editing a message sent by a mod to say something completely different and false is no biggy. He was however punished for that and that's all that that caused. I do not let my personal feelings interfere with actual moderating despite your little claim here. It is false however that they were not done with enough frequency. He broke the rules near constantly.

I did say something along those lines. The quote was somewhat taken out of context though, I posted an explanation in a post on the last page.

If I may ssay something on the topic. First of all, I do not hate Ler. I do however believe he should have definitely been banned for some period of time for the hate speech he spouted (see Shaw's post). Just because he apologizes does not make it any less wrong than if he didnt apologize. Let's say I kill Joe Smith. I claim that it was just a fit of rage I had all of a sudden, and then apologize. Does that mean I do not deserve the same punishment as other people who have murdered somebody? No. I feel like he got some special treatment on his hate speech on that occassion because he apologized and made an excuse. People forget that Che admitted he was bi-polar, but nobody tried to use that as an excuse to justify his hate speech.

*I am not saying Ler is as bad as Che, just trying to make a point*

So, it is proven that Ler did in fact say something along those lines. But at least he has the integrity to admit to it.

Admitting it does not take away what he said. Like I said above, I can murder somebody, turn myself in, claim I was in a psychotic rage, then apologize. That still would not mean I shouldn't be give the same punishment as everyone else.

It was a hot topic in the mods room, if I remember. Kali was trying to push me for 7 points for it (Permaban) - Using the system of which they award infractions, I got 2 points (Which prevented me from running for tribune in the janurary elections) as well as a week suspension from my tribune status.

I believe Stalin also had a say in the issue, although to what degree I'm not sure.

Ler was punished, given a 2 point infraction for his hate speech. It was not ignored. Che was banned because he did other things as well as hate speech and he did them often.

I made no claim.

He broke the personal insult rules constantly. That's about it. But remember, he was stressed out from us being ignorant fools guys.

I still think he should have been banned for at least a week. Toast got banned and he didnt say anything as nearly as offensive as wishing death upon people multiple times.

b. 2nd Tier offenses (2 Points)

v. Hate speech
Toast insults users personally far more than Ler does and so did Che. Ler was given the same punishment anyone else would have been in his shoes.

Difference is Toast has done it constantly, since he joined up. I snapped once.

I want proof of the "many times" Ler has actually broken the rules, besides that hate speech incident.

I agree, these seem to be unfounded accusations.

Did he spew this hate speech while he was a tribune?