User talk:LogicMaster777/Archive2

Censored Again for ideological purposes

 * If your "Real" De-facto policy is to vandalize and censor for purely ideological political purposes while representing to donors it is a 501c political neutral it is tortious donor fraud.LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

More Censorship Vandalism
I made a debate to debate the ethical implications of RationalWiki's censorship policies, and instantly the debate page was censored(deleted) by MieKal. Amazing the lengths "Rationalists" will go to to keep their cash cows in the dark.LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd like to reopen this coop, and instead raise the question of whether LogicMaster should be banned for intentionally(if badly) trying to sabotage the much-needed fund raiser. His fantasies of oppression are fine and dandy, but if we're willing to ban serious, if misguided, users for bringing legal threat to the organization, I think at least considering a ban for a non-contributor purposefully trying to sabotage the foundation in combating those problems is a good idea.
 * LogicMaster being completely unaware of the actual oppression of free speech represented by people suing organizations saying things they don't like, really ought to have shown restraint, even if he felt oppressed by us. I say working against the interests of maintaining online continuity is a valid reason for a long-term(6 month to permanent) ban.


 * I further think there are no realistic mitigating circumstances to excuse this behavior. We've given him free-reign to post his off-mission stuff in relevant places, and removed his material only when working against that mission.  Any other editors want to weigh in?  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm for it. This conspiracy concern troll has more or less ceased to be amusing. Dispense with him at will. --Castaigne (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You lot have more patience than me - I'd have liked to have blocked him yonks ago. Scream!! (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * [EC] Not banworthy. Ignore him, other than to collapse/archive/delete anything outside his designated playpen(s). Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When he's encouraging pillocks on the foundation's appeal page I think he's gone too far. He's an arch troll really. Scream!! (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Being a persistent annoyance, hard of thinking, is not worthy of a block. Trying to scare off the donors might be, especially if he does it any more. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My tolerance of him ran out a while ago, but I'll behave and let cooler, more patient heads rule this one. I may also be in a more agitated state due to life pressures. Just know that I see little-to-no benefit to keeping him around; he has no new thoughts to contribute and has proven himself incapable of learning or self-correction. Anyone who wishes to explore discussions of Giant Frog versus "Statism" can just read the few novels' worth of discussion that have happened since Thanksgiving.--Maxus (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) I am for vandal binning him. He really hasn't provided anything constructive to the site so far, he posts his off topic rants in every possible place when he feels ignored, and takes a significant amount of time from on purpose editors with these silly things for almost 6 months.  If he really wants this crap online he can make his own site...I've watched a 12 year old put up a web server on a Raspberry Pi in a few hours.  If he has the time to spend hours repeatedly editing the same thing over and over then he can do that.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)