Whee... blocked.

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/4343379/

From nekogirl1257:

The fact that what you're saying that if someone gets harmed and no one does something to stop it before it gets out of hand is the right thing to do, then you're just as retarded at the admins and the owner of this website. Now as I said, stop talking. You're being a absolute fool standing up for a stalker. And not just that! But starting fights that had nothing to do with you no one told you to comment on others, so do yourself a favor and shut up. 

To nekogirl1257:

I don't recall ever standing up for a stalker.  I'm actually in more of a neutral stance wherein I recognize that neither the person who is typing words on the Internet nor the other person typing other words on the Internet that warn others about the words that the first person typed are doing anything worth any attention by the admins at all.  It might be worth the attention of the proper authorities, but not the admins of the site.

I'm also saying that they might need attention of the actual, proper authorities should the action of typing words escalate to the action of actually doing something outside the Internet.  If there's a suspicion of that potentially happening, based on the words that were typed on the Internet, it would be prudent to bring it to the attention of the proper authorities, just as it would be prudent to call the police if a fight breaks out in your establishment.  When it's only a suspicion that something "might" happen (cyberstalking escalating to real life physical harm but hasn't done so yet), rather than something actually happening (a fight breaking out in front of you), it's up to the "victim" or the person who suspects that it would escalate to take it to the authorities because they're the one best equipped to present the required evidence.

Any way you look at it, though, it's ends up looking bad if the neutral third party (the admins of the site) decides to do something to one person and not the other because they would then be taking sides in a personal issue between 2 people.  What's unfortunate is that they have now appeared to take sides with someone that a large number of people are labeling as undesirable.  Removing the journal from the public eye was done only because that journal broke a rule of the site, but the backlash in public perception is that they're "punishing a victim" instead of "punishing a stalker" when the "punishment" had nothing to do with the specifics of the situation - only a rule violation.

I also don't recall starting any fights.  I saw some misinformation, so I posted a correction to that misinformation.


From Riektas:

The fact that you own a social networking site means ditty to me, because having one and having a successful one are two different things.
Also in case you have failed to pay attention to the posts, both above and below, the issue is that they are protecting someone who is morally deplorable, and have punished a victim. That is what this whole mess is about, last time I checked Failing to report a crime is also obstruction, and you can get them for that. Thing is they left themselves vulnerable, and 'Neers class act comebacks have only made it more of a legal mess for FA.

Question; since when did Godwin's Law Nullify a statement? Oh it doesn't, so explain how my argument that support people of a deplorable nature is invalid? Do some homework on your Debate terms before you cite them.

Look here, if you support pedophiles, stalkers and criminals that is your business, especially if you wish to allocate your time to defend them. My only beef with you is that you are misinformed and delusional.

To Riektas:

The problem with using "failure to report a crime" and "obstruction", as an argument in this debate, is the question of whether a crime has actually been committed or not - particularly in the context of what was done on this site.  It is waaay too much of a gray area for it to be even marginally a legal consideration.

As far as Godwin's law nullifying things goes:  When you resort to comparing something that's of such a grossly non-comparable scope, you position yourself as incapable of actually forming a coherent argument.  Someone doing something stupid on the Internet is of such a minuscule scope when compared to nazi Germany.  Using them as comparisons is absurd.

I'm also well aware of what the entirety of the argument is about and my take on it is that the "no call-out journals" rule is retarded and administrative action toward EITHER party was unwarranted.  You're absolutely correct that because action was taken toward one for breaking an actual rule and not toward the other (until just a short while ago when it was discovered that he had broken a rule), they've created a pretty nasty public perception that they punish victims and support attackers.  I never argued against that notion.

I don't support pedophiles, stalkers and criminals. Implying that I do is absurd.  The only thing I support is freedom of speech and expression.  I'm also not defending anyone.  I just saw misinformation and provided corrections.  If you must think I'm defending anyone, I suppose I'm marginally defending the FA admins, but really, I'm defending neutrality.

My beef with you is that you are misinformed and delusional as well.  I guess it takes one to know one.