John Doe wants to sue the forum admins and call the cops

John Doe said:I’m going to have to disagree with you there.

Look, we can sit here and debate this all day if you want, but if you try to force those kinds of worldviews on me through legislation that ends up impacting my kids—well, I'll break your back!

Forgive my "French"!

PS.
nothing personal
🙂

briskorca19 said:this post here

I honestly want to know why this hasn't been carded yet
and just to be clear, rowdyhawk10, I wasn't even online to hit the icon button, so I'm only just seeing this now☕
and it's not like the mods missed it, because the note underneath literally says "carded"
and yeah, I see the guy got banned, but it just doesn't feel right
to think that because I sent him a message saying I'd break his back if he tries to push his religious views into our laws, I'm the one who should get a massive ban like a house falling down
it feels like discrimination against believers 🙂

rowdyhawk10 said:briskorca19, we don't really operate that way, rather, we act based on your report. I rarely have the chance to read through a thread post by post.

So, in every post, on the left side below the avatar, there are several icons, including one like this: . You need to click that icon to report the post, and in the window that opens, you should probably quote the controversial part of the message. When a post is quite long, simply typing "threat" or "insult" might not even be sufficient—you really ought to specify what the insult or threat actually was, because I try to avoid making unargued reports on lengthy posts. The question is: did you report the post using that method?

As for this specific post, it was relatively brief. In my estimation, John Doe isn't making any threats toward you or any other user here (he even added "nothing personal!" and a smiley at the end 🙂). I suppose I'm wondering what kind of ban you think he deserved? What would our justification for the ban look like? If you were thinking of something like: "threatening users" ... then, in my opinion, that wouldn't be justified. Best regards

briskorca19 said:this post here

I honestly want to know why this hasn't been carded yet
and just to be clear, rowdyhawk10, I wasn't even online to hit the icon button, so I'm only just seeing this now☕
and it's not like the mods missed it, because the note underneath literally says "carded"
and yeah, I see the guy got banned, but it just doesn't feel right
to think that because I sent him a message saying I'd break his back if he tries to push his religious views into our laws, I'm the one who should get a massive ban like a house falling down
it feels like discrimination against believers 🙂

briskorca19 said:Look, I know there's an unwritten rule about not quoting yourself, but honestly, this situation kind of demands it,
and man... I’m gonna break your back and then just smile at you...
seriously
I'll beat you up, laugh in your face, and please, please don't go suing me or calling the cops, because, you know... I was just laughing while doing it, and it wasn't even personal—it's not like I was targeting you specifically, I was just out there beating people up on the street, totally random

Alexander Kern3 said:Look, regarding those kinds of statements—like the one John Doe dropped—I’ll keep this brief: I know someone who posted something almost identical online recently, basically taking a shot at a specific person to criticize what they were doing. Two days later? She was dealing with the cops. A criminal charge for making threats against that individual. And honestly, the fact that the author tried to play it cool by using conditional language didn't really change much in the eyes of the law.

Saying stuff like "I'm gonna corner you" or "I'm gonna break your back" isn't exactly how you communicate if you want to stay within the bounds of US law. It’s pretty obvious that kind of talk is punishable. Maybe the mods and admins ought to start keeping that in mind.

steelskipper5 said:So, let's put it this way: either sanction the reported post the way it deserves, or I am personally going to file a report with the police regarding criminal threats made on this forum, and then you guys can try explaining yourselves to the cops, the admins, and Andrew himself.

Since I apparently have to use a sledgehammer to make people respect the law, so be it.

Your move, dear moderators.

rowdyhawk10 said:Due to other commitments, I will keep this brief (just so you can follow along easily):
The main conflict erupted—which is quite symptomatic of our American religion subforum—between certain atheists and certain believers. The subject was the Church opposing gay marriage..., started by user John Doe. It is worth noting that, according to his own declaration, he identifies as gay. Basically, the discussion kicked off with criticisms of the church "interfering in state politics", and so on. Over the following pages, three distinct camps emerged among the users:

1. Those who view homosexuality as normal (mostly users with an atheist perspective);

2. Those who view it as unnatural (mostly users who identify as believers).

3. A third group consisting of both decent believers and atheists who tried to lower the temperature and calm things down, attempting to create a more peaceful atmosphere regarding the topic. That didn't really work, as the loud voices were simply too loud. 😢 Throughout the discussion... the thread frequently devolved into ad hominem attacks, disparagement, trolling... and often harsh insults from both sides. Some atheists insulted and mocked certain believers, and vice versa... On several occasions, there were instances of serious hate speech and threats. During this thread, we issued dozens of warnings, as well as several bans.

A) REGARDING THE ATHEISTS: As a moderator, I was flooded with hundreds of reports on this thread, where for instance, atheists demand that every statement such as "homosexuality is unnatural" be warned—thereby forcing moderators to treat homosexuality as a taboo subject or a forbidden zone on the forum we manage... essentially implying a normal person shouldn't be allowed to say they find homosexuality disgusting... or at least unacceptable, which is how anyone with those inclinations feels.

B) Regarding this clash between believers and atheists, I have spoken more extensively in the thread Discrimination against believers, here, then here, as well as here. (Of course, I am referring to the discrimination against believers on the "Religion" subforum). And you can see the kinds of responses I received from users, such as the replies from steelskipper5. 🤷 In fact, because of these views, I have been accused a few times of being a religious fanatic and so on.

C) REGARDING THE BELIEVERS: On the other hand, most of those declaring themselves as believers showed a high rate of intolerance and a great deal of creativity in finding ways to most effectively hurt the homosexuals, a few of whom did show up in the thread.

D) REGARDING HOMOSEXUALS: There might be a way for them to have their own dedicated subforum or something similar, so they would stop imposing their homosexuality as a sacred cow on dozens of threads within the religion subforum... Or perhaps allow them a subforum within the scope of Science or Biology... topics that always drift back toward religion. Quite simply, there are people who cannot stand them, and then these gays start mocking the Holy Bible, religions, Gods... and this has been going on for quite some time. So, I would ask, if at all possible, that they receive a subforum; it would greatly help relieve the pressure on the Religion subforum.

I should mention, this is just my opinion as one of the five moderators on this subforum... and perhaps my colleagues might not agree with me. I would be interested to hear other opinions if there are any.

E) REGARDING STEELESKIPPER5'S THREAT TO CALL THE POLICE: The user John Doe, whose post triggered this question, received 500 points for reporting violence (like the Mafia), but now steelskipper5 is forcing us to issue warnings for...this post isn't grounds for a ban, despite my earlier explanation as to why. It’s quite clear from the context that this isn't some personal threat directed at a female member, but rather... well, I believe I already clarified the nature of the situation in my previous entry in this thread.

That's all from me, I suppose. Best,

steelskipper5 said:So, let's put it this way: either sanction the reported post the way it deserves, or I am personally going to file a report with the police regarding criminal threats made on this forum, and then you guys can try explaining yourselves to the cops, the admins, and Andrew himself.

Since I apparently have to use a sledgehammer to make people respect the law, so be it.

Your move, dear moderators.

Mark Torres14 said:You can only file a request to initiate criminal proceedings based on suspicion of making a threat under Section 129 of the Penal Code, and that's only if the threat was directed specifically at you. This isn't something the state prosecutes automatically on its own; it requires a formal complaint from the victim.

Mark Torres14 said:You can only file a request to initiate criminal proceedings based on suspicion of making a threat under Section 129 of the Penal Code, and that's only if the threat was directed specifically at you. This isn't something the state prosecutes automatically on its own; it requires a formal complaint from the victim.

steelskipper5 said:So, my post got nuked here, yet the threat itself is still just sitting there without any action taken.

Listen, mods—you’ve got until tomorrow. I’m emailing the police first thing Monday morning.

Nothing personal. 🙂