I quoted Sod posting elsewhere bragging that this forum was doomed to failure and he clearly indicated that he wanted to see this happen: it isn't unlikely that he would attempt to damage the forum by spamming and trolling.

Banning him is not a choice between his presence or absence: it is a choice between his presence and the presence of other posters that may leave because of his antics and potential members that may be put off from joining as a direct consequence of his spam.

When trolls and idiots are given a chance... Hmmh, pearls for pigs?

Here we go...

You don't need to shill about Icke here, it's over. You did your best work at the DIF, you've always kind of been anti everything the DIF was about, especially while posting there. You even started a "you know, I don't think 9-11 was inside job" thread before you got banned. Not to mention you're anti-chemtrails, mind control etc.... You were posting on a forum you had little or nothing in common with ...... Now, funny enough, here you are again, questioning moderation on a moderated forum, whose mission statement is quite clear. Maybe you're just kinda thick?

I don't mind trolls either, TBH. Or shills who post on multiple forums all the time. You can really say anything you want to them, no respect and no quarter given. Why bother? Are they there for intelligent debate, or just there to spam a place with their bullshit? Their non-stop bullshit..... And I don't persoanlly give a shit if you trash Icke, or Sean, or whoever it's your opinion. It really doesn't influence much. They aren't friends of mine, and I've never given them any money, I just post on the forum.

So I for one, completely disagree with the OP, the bannings were justified, and it serves notice. It says "Stupidity will not be tolerated here". As the OP pointed out, there is a forum out there where anything goes, and folks are free to do and say as they please, and be as stupid as they want. That seems like a great idea.... for a troll. I don't think the folks who put this site together want to be known like that. Hard work and good intent go down the toilet quick if that happens.

spectero has her good qualities, but can't resist making racist comments in PM's and posts, and enjoys making people uncomfortable. sod was just here to get banned.

mikey mikey wrote:
Its a common theme with the egits, they ALL say this forum is doomed without exception.
And yet what do we see happening? Quite the opposite, this one thrives while DIF ends up going down the plughole.

/shrugs
/knowing grin.

I'm all for giving anyone a second chance but as soon as you see a return to previous form, it's one warning then "git".
"Release the Krakken!"



No point letting it bank up into a predictable ruckus imo.

More reason to keep a lid on things.

Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

Websites will soon be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.

But privacy advocates are worried websites might end up divulging user details in a wider range of cases.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, will make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.
End to 'scurrilous rumour'

Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.
Nicola Brookes Nicola Brookes said the abuse started after she posted a message about an X Factor star

"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."
Privacy concerns

But Privacy International, an organisation that campaigns at an international level on privacy issues, says that there is a concern that "gun-shy website operators will start automatically divulging user details the moment someone alleges defamation in order to shield themselves from libel actions".

"A great deal of the content posted by internet trolls is not actually defamatory, instead constituting harassment, invasion of privacy or simply unpleasant but lawfully-expressed opinion," said Emma Draper, head of communications at Privacy International.

"However, if the choice is between protecting users' anonymity and avoiding a potentially costly lawsuit, many small operators are not going to be overly concerned about whether or not a user has genuinely defamed the complainant."

feather wrote:
Well this is the strength of this forum at the moment, there are no pillocks here.
Many other forums are infested with them and these new rules that I have mentioned myself on DIF for example will lead to the inevitable downfall of them. DIF will be amongst the first to go along with stormfront no matter how they try and weasle out of it.

The good side to all this is that sites like stormfront will die, however free speech will die along with it.

Theres no motive in govt to educate people towards freedom and for govt to have a plan in sight to remove itself.
The whole aim of govt is to be like a parent educating kids to become adults. Govt itself is as corrupt and irresponsible as all hell so how can it ever possibly achieve such a thing?
The sort of people who you would want running govt you would have to drag kicking and screaming into the job, lol

I don't welcome the news of this law feather.

However, it does mean that Endless Vodka and other CertainlyNotNazis might have to think twice...

feather wrote:
There's that FEAR word again which always seems to be expressed by government officials.

Personally I think the Government should worry about cleaning their own treasonous and down right questionable behavior up before they open their holes about any other issue bar none.

The government should be in fear of the populous as it is the people who employ them and actually allow them to dictate any policy.

That proposed legislation is a back door attempt at policing the opinions expressed by people on the web. The troll angle is simply the mechanism by which they intend engineer a campaign which draws on the average persons aversion to trollish behavior. The fact of the matter is that people are more than capable of policing themselves which is a position of empowerment. This proposal is designed to remove the power from individuals and groups by removing self determination and personal responsibility.

feather wrote:
Thought police in full force.... the beauty of this scam is it's simplicity; Al this government agency has to do is go all Warman on a site. Sock it up with a few different handles, victim and victimizers. One is being attacked, the others do the attacking, Attention is drawn, the media creates a big hubbub, then every website out there is open to scrutiny.... very clever.

A troll could also be someone who is really schooled in 9-11 and 7-7 inside job lore, and they are "bothering" a concerned poster who thinks that they may be "crazy" because the government says that these folks are paranoid and need help. Concerned poster contacts this agency via e-mail... IP address given, location is no longer private.... then the real fun begins. That's what this BS is ultimnately all about, IMO. Stopping the flow of certain types of information.

There are already ways of locating suspected peodphiles and scammers online. It's more than trolling when someone is accusing someone of somthing like pedophilia, it's potential slander, and libel. There are already things in place to combat that.

This new thing is just a new form of policing, and it's encouraging self starters to get on the job.

Can you have "collective defamation"? Ie. when misinformed reports of actions being those of "anarchists" in the press can I feel defamed by association?

For the record I have no problem with sites such as Stormfront, if I don't want to read race hate I don't go to race hate sites. *contemplates impersonating a speaking meerkat*

mikey mikey wrote:
Humm lets do the math on that one how many hardline antisocial people will actually be effected in relation to genuine people expressing their views?

What is the single biggest threat to government power? Is it a minority of foul trolls or a large and growing majority of decent people who are sick of the shit being handed out by virtually every government on the planet?

This proposal has absolutely ZERO to do with policing trolls or hardline marginal views and everything to do with policing dissenting voices of rational members of the public.

Maybe we should consider moving our site on to a German server?

Frog wrote:
Absolutley. Well said.
Which means precisley the opposite, of course.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18404621

mikey mikey wrote:
Bwahaha

oioioi wrote:
lmao!!!

ronisron wrote:
I don't think that he's shilling. Is he to keep his lips sealed about icke?..If so, I hope that goes for everyone else on the forum as well as hada.

I don't think he was anti icke 'everything' on the DIF and if he was anti certain subjects...so what?....Do you think he didn't have a right to be there or to question others theories?

He has the right to question moderation as does everyone else...well, that's what I and others have been told,,,so I don't see a problem.

He is not thick and I feel that comment was a little uncalled for.....Glass houses and all that,

pheony wrote:
Here we go part deux....

Here is hada on the "+ive Icke..." thread

Not much else to add, and he's mentioned neat things about Icke's family on here too, paricularly his son. Why the F would you want to be on a site just to be contrary to everything the site's namesake is about? And post a ridiculous amount in a very short period of time, while posting on multiple other forums at the same time, basically doing the same thing? Hmmmm.... as well as laying about as much BS as any poster I can think of. Some folks find him amusing, I don't. Hmmm.... I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on our opinions 'K? It's not really that big of a deal.

ronisron wrote:
I don't think that's fair. Loads of people have questioned me because of my sceptical stance, but then do people really want backslapping clubs where everyone agrees?
And though it's natural that people on the 'conspiracy scene' generally expect people to believe it, nobody believes the same things anyway - like people who both believe 911 was an inside job might argue about the moon landing or chemtrails or whatever. And like on the DIF, I found that I agreed with someone like, say, theabominablephenomenon on general opinions and outlook a hell of a lot. Far more than, say, a reffer who was a Republican voter or something where we'd only agree on not believing 911 was an inside job or whatever. The DIF is naturally Icke/conspiracy focused, but it's not just about that. Take Lauren Almighty - from what I've seen she doesn't talk directly about conspiracy stuff very much at all, but she comes across as a lovely person and makes interesting posts on all kinds of stuff.

For me, Hada has always had an amazing knack of coming out with one-liners that just sum up a situation perfectly. As well as being admirably direct and frequently very funny.

Though accused of it a lot, I've only self-consciously trolled when I've felt it's legitimate - like with those Nazi clowns who are impervious to reason anyway. But I've caused a lot more trouble on the DIF overall than Hada ever has. What's bizarre is, my account there is hanging on a thread not because of e.g. mercilessly lampooning amaralsright and getting away with some pretty outrageous posts back in the day, but for really minor things where I happened to conflict with the personal belief system of a particular mod. Anyway, I don't know about Hada, but I found lots in common with lots of people on the DIF beyond certain conspiracy subjects. And I think you'll be going wrong if it does become about either past baggage or questioning something. But really my presence here should precipitate more wariness than his on these sorts of grounds.
Beyond the obvious problems we all know about, the good thing about the DIF is it's a madcap place where people talk about anything and everything.

Beyond not wanting blatant racism etc - totally not unreasonable and in fact something enforeced on a lot of forums - hell, i haven't followed what he's up to recently, but rodin was on the DIF when he'd been banned from a whole range of other forums for blatant anti-semitism - how far are you going to go about conflicting beliefs? Like that comment earlier about KOTG - frankly I think he's a proto-fascist without realising it and I find his apparent belief in some romantic world of noble tradition that never existed fundamentally bizarre. But could people really stop him from coming here if he wanted on the basis he thinks the wrong things?

dogsmilk wrote:
I obviously don't like backslapping clubs, and I'm not for stopping anyone from coming here. Or who is here that is currently posting. A few members have already had tiffs and disgreements and left and came back. I put in my two cents for one in particular, and they returned with a thank you. I felt the bannings were justified that already went down, I explained my position in the above post of which you only quoted part of, then explained it again, above. That's pretty much it. I don't care if he posts here, not at all, he's easy enough to skip over.