Please let’s be done. At least on this side of the abyss.
As far as I’m concerned, unless you make some further arguments, you can lock the thread. Hell, I got screenshots of it anyway, so you can delete it too, but I’d prefer it to stay here so people can see and judge for themselves whether it was a fair or an unfair banning.
Somebody else may want to add something tho.
Now you heard that, Satyr, so don’t keep throwing your fecal material at me. I’m not EVER coming over there to KT so forget that shit. Chalk this one up as another loss, and put some tape over your mouth.
Note to ILP: if in the future that piece of shit says anything about me that draws your interest in any way, ASK ME before you form any conclusions. Consider what you are dealing with here; a creature so foul and disgusting the devil himself can’t keep from vomiting when he sees it.
We can hang out, petal… see you around 
For the record. Absolutely untrue.
HA, what sort of sexual advances were these. They were certainly not on the Forum and never by PM, as I chose not to reply to the PM he sent me.
His narcissistic tendencies seem to be unable to accept there are women who have no interest in him.
You know, SM, there is a good lesson to be learned here. You got yourself involved with a place and people where the lies are like an never ending maze, where so many people tell lies to make good their first lie, even the liars forget what lies they have told… and begin to believe it all themselves!
So you’ll pardon me for saying at this point I wouldn’t know who to believe regarding your case. That you even associate with those people makes you a potential liar of magnificent proportion. Not that I really care, mind you, or that my opinion matters, but you must understand the peculiar nature of your relationship to that place and people. You wear the KT scarlet letter.
I understand that, the very nature of KT exudes deceit.
I was invited by Satyr to “come on over” and I did.
I was like Arbiter initially, naive. There were discussions regarding subject matter I had never considered or sighted, which I found interesting and challenging.
when I first came here, my Avatar was labelled with something similar.
I don’t understand why this would be so, when quite a few here on this Forum spent time at KT, why single me out.
I never considered myself one of them, as they in turn, did not consider me in that capacity, I suppose you could say I was the odd man out.
Personally, I would say lock it but leave it - for posterity.
You really got screenshots of it? Really? 
Isn’t that a bit of overkill?
Would you say that your posts were more about seeking the facts and truth of it all or simply more more about what you saw as unfair/unjust?
You don’t even have to answer that question here - just think about it.
Your final decision - IS SHE BANNED OR IS SHE NOT (unbanned with stipulations of course).
The strange and perhaps sad thing about all of this is that it’s very possible that Lys could care less either way about whether she comes or goes in here EXCEPT as being Satyr’s mouthpiece. So perhaps NOT to have made it strictly about her…and to gain something more positive and meaningful as a result of this thread…
Perhaps in the name of future developments, certain Rules and Edicts may need to be more firmly established and spelled out (albeit from my own perspective they have been insofar as the issue of this thread goes) so that there WILL NOT BE any more misunderstanding or questioning of them…no ambiguity whatsoever.
Time to Shut Down the Kitchen. We’ve fed enough!!!
I take it from your elliptical that you see that this isn’t possible. The US Tax Code is over 4 million words long, and there are still new grey areas that come up (e.g. Bitcoin). We can spell things out in more detail, but conversations like this one will always be about the grey area that remains.
At best, the law is a fractal.
I’ll just iterate my own frame of mind.
There are folks here [like me] who quote Satyr. Yes, the philosophy not the huffing and the puffing bullshit. And then I critique his points. Ferociously at times. Contemptuously at times. Unfortunately, he is not able to defend himself. At least not here.He is banned.
And, sure, he dug his own grave. He was unable to contain the ranting and the raving; he spewed vitriol on those who refused to toe his own objectivist line; he was kicked out.
But that doesn’t lessen my qualms about dumping on someone who is not permitted to rebut me. And I clearly get Lys. Here I am tearing into the philosophy [and the personality] of someone she admires and respects, and it pisses her off. So she feels compeled to post/dump his arguments to put my attacks in perspective.
That’s basically how I felt when Satyr dumped me into the dungeon at KT. But now I am back in the agora. For how long, who knows. But I don’t see why someone like Satyr and Lys are not at least permitted to post in rant here.
Again, my reasoning here is selfish: they are objectivists [worse, reactionary objectivists] and exposing them as such is just what I do now.
Come on, at least bring Lys back.
Well, Carleas, I wouldn’t say IMPOSSIBLE. Impossible is for people who have no vision. All I was pointing to within my parenthesis was that the way I view it, insofar as Lys having broken the rules; namely; being a mouthpiece for someone who has been banned and continually having spammed ilp with his text (S’s) the rules are and were quite explicit there and her actions toward having broken them, were quite evident for those who were able to see them, without making allowances for them.
But i can agree with you insofar as your meaning goes - other issues or some issues will sometimes crop up and there will have to be discussions such as what occurred in here. Nothing is written in stone and there are grey areas or can be - depending on the issue. I personally did not see any grey area where this issue was concerned but what I am able to see here is that sometimes the more we quibble about something which in reality, at least from my perspective lol, has no grey area - the more grey areas appear - where, in fact, there really aren’t any. (Redundancy for the sake of emphasis 
).We like to muddy clear waters.
I still think that in the case where some people will only choose to see what they want to see despite evidence to the contrary, it would be a good idea to make for clearer, less ambiguous rules and edicts…and/or to be certain about those which are stated, kind of like reinforcing them with cement or like dotting the "I"s and crossing the T’s. Why not give this thread more value and meaning than what its original purpose seemingly was?
I liked your example of the fractal. Fractals can be quite beautiful. One can also say that the law is a sea, flowing and ebbing, with much hidden beneath - in my book anyway.
Insofar as what I wrote here, I took another glance at it and realized that it was kind of an absolutist statement as I do realize that most things are not necessarily “set in stone”.
So, does she return (with stipulations) or does she stay away? hahahahaha
She is banned, and I am not moved by this discussion to overturn that ban. Reasonable people can disagree, but there is no clear abuse of discretion in the decision to ban her.
Did you mean to say that [un]reasable people can disagree?
I can’t speak for anyone else - they will have to speak for their selves, but based on the preponderance of the evidence, as I see it, in this thread and other threads, I also see no clear (or unclear) abuse of discretion in the decision to either ban her or to hold to that banning. You were not a tyrant/a despot and clearly you gave everyone the opportunity to speak up and you listened to everything which was being said/written in here.
Ultimately the final decision is Yours and it was a fair one. I can say though that I might be capable of feeling kind of disappointed and maybe even a little sad (if I were to allow either of those moods) because it had to come to something like this. Apparently Lys is a highly intelligent person and she might have contributed a great deal to this forum - that can be seen as a loss - but no one is indispensable in this regard and it is a consequence of her own actions which brought her to this place inevitably.
That being said, I kind of intuit that she doesn’t much care - at least not in this moment but perhaps at some point she will. Who can say for sure. Life changes on a dime and so do we, if we’re fortunate enough NOT to be written in stone.
Women really need to learn to be their own persons, and to really be aware - to reflect on whether or not they are being just that, and not minions of others. After all, we are the nucleus of the family, especially the modern family. Anything that can deviate from THAT is suspect and might leave one as simply a follower and/or a minion.
This seems pretty straightforward to me. When somebody is banned for a week, and during that week they make another account and start posting to avoid the ban, I ban them for life. Point is, any sane institution has to have meta-rules about what happens when you dodge the punishments for the regular rules. A person who steals a comb, and goes to jail for a day, will eventually find himself in prison for life if he keeps on trying to break out of jail. Now, it can be argued that an attempt to escape from prison in which nobody was hurt does not, itself warrant much of a prison sentence. But if it goes unpunished, then in effect EVERYTHING goes unpunished. There's simply no point in banning people if we don't also disallow their proxies from posting on their behalf.
So, Satyr was banned. It doesn't matter why, the purpose of a ban is to say "Your stuff doesn't appear on ILP anymore" in the same way that the purpose of jail is to say "You have to sit in this little box for a while". So, when somebody ignores the consequences of that punishment by getting somebody else to post their stuff, action has to be taken. Now, obviously you don't immediately permaban the person because it's a corner case. You explain to them as I just did that helping somebody get around a ban must itself be a punishable offense, and insist that they stop, making it clear that if they don't stop, you will ultimately ban them too. This was done, and Lys persisted anyway. Lys had every opportunity to stop posting Satyr's shit, and had it made clear that if they didn't, they would be subject to the same punishment as Satyr - which is only natural in my mind since by posting his words they are committing his offenses.
Now, let's assume you don't agree with my justification and still think that a proxy should not be banned for posting a banned person's words. I am going to assume you ALSO don't think that permabanned people should just be allowed to have other people post their stuff on their behalf willy nilly. So what middle ground would you propose?
What bothered me about Carleas is that whatever standard I tried to use to point out that he cannot reasonably ban Lys and not some other member, or that absurdities would follow from some of his rules, or when I asked him to take a position and at least say what he leans more to, he only responded with grey areas.
It is page 9 and I still have no fucking idea whether, generally, it is allowed to post ideas of a banned user or not. He is a typical lawyer, I am more confused now than I was at the beginning of the argument. Apparently whatever I say, the response will be gray lines, if I point to a double-standard, grey line, a contradiction, grey line, absurd consequences of rules, grey line. And the grey line, area, or whatever, is always in favor of his side of the argument of course, never in favor of Lyssa not getting banned.
Maybe I would have been tempted to make one final analysis, but since he’s admitted that Lys isn’t getting unbanned, and I already got what else I wanted to get out of this conversation, I would be wasting my time.
Uccisore, I already wrote what can easily be considered replies for your question.
The distinction was made by Carleas between posting a banned user’s direct, personal replies to other members (usually insults), and posting their philosophy. Then he denied the distinction, claiming grey lines. This grey lines bullshit is in conflict with the clear rules he put forward before.
I point out to him that if there is no distinction, it means that the ideas of a banned user are banned too - which only logically follows. He uses word games to try and evade, but eventually admits that Satyr’s expressions of ideas is not allowed.
I ask him - If the member posting shares the same philosophy/ideals/positions as the banned member, doesn’t it mean that every post of theirs can be considered a reworded version of the banned member’s posts, so I ask him is it allowed to reword the posts of banned members, he again claims grey lines.
This effectively gives him grounds to ban anybody who has the same positions as the banned member, because they can be considered his proxies now even if they do not quote him, and also to not ban those who would otherwise deserve it.
Fuck, Mags already thought/thinks that I directly let Satyr use my account despite of how easily that can be disproven.
Essentially, he will do whatever the fuck he wants because of the personal judgments he’s made in his head(which I assume are based on ideological inclinations, which are in turn based on his emotions) and is not willing or capable to explain and justify to others.
Let’s say that a proper forum, or at least, my idea of a proper forum is a constitutional monarchy with the constitution clearly stated by the monarch - even the monarch has to act within the law, even if the law is imposed by him, but it is more or less clearly stated, only arguable to a degree. But for Carleas, it’s all grey lines.
ILP is like an absolute monarchy, with Carleas being the absolute monarchist who acts according to his will without necessarily being consistent, and justifies anything with grey areas and lines.
It is the condemned who should be the one appealing to grey lines, and the one condemning who should be making his case and providing arguments, but here it is the other way around which itself says something about this decision and the nature of this entire conversation.
The most interesting thing, is that if she had used a moniker of Satyr’s name, or used his full name, it is possible that she would not be banned.
But because she specifically posted that Satyr had made these statements, she is silenced.
All you’ve taught people about this is to lie about your source or to name a real name giving credit. And then you can quote to your hearts desire.
That, and you consider us all morons who can’t decide for ourselves what material is acceptable to our minds and what shouldn’t be seen.
Hooray for Nanny State politics.
Satyr was banned for what? Insults, general vitriol towards users? Was the material that Lyssa was posting riddled with the same type of material that got him banned? I think not.
Aussenseite
Unless I’m misunderstanding you, how do you figure THAT? since Satyr was banned. This IS what this thread is all about - deliberately posting and spamming all over the place with a banned person’s text even after having been called on it. And if you will take the time to see some of those posts, you might be able to see just how flagrant and in-your-face they were. Bias on the part of anyone in here doesn’t change reality.
No, that isn’t why she is silenced - she was silenced for breaking the rule which by now has been made quite clear but for some unknown reason - some are unable to swallow and accept.
lol So, from your standards it’s okay to break a rule that is far more than just a simple one and be flagrant about it as long as you keep it out in the open - as long as you’re being honest about who you are? That doesn’t discount the rule being broken. And how honest can a person be seen as being when they deliberately and repeatedly break a rule the same rule? Such virtue in that.
Do you want to know what I’ve learned about all of this - it’s this - that we sometimes are so capable of thinking that we’re such privileged characters, that we can do whatever we want in life to the point of flaunting ourselves and that in the face of others - but at the same time - NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS, especially if we have such friends telling us about how others are wrong and we are right. There are many spoiled brats around here and many enablers.
But inevitably, it comes down to just how one responds to that. Material aside, it is just that kind of thinking that lands men and women in prison. In your world, perhaps, there would be no rules and no laws.
…and here I am banging my head against the wall. lol
We only truly see what we want to and oh how we hang onto that which keeps us comfortable and not having to look at the truth.
Reiteration:
The idiotic moderators seem incapable of fathoming just how incompetent and ridiculous they are for PERMANENTLY banning a user for simply posting quotes.
Temporarily banning is one thing, but permanently banning someone over something so trivial is bewildering.
Why, in the flying fuck, am I not permanently banned for all the vile things I’ve said and done?
Hello? Are you idiot administrators and moderators awake?
What you morons did is tantamount to allowing a deranged lunatic killer to roam around society, while throwing a scholar inside of a fucking human-furnace for reciting Evola.
My middle-finger to Carleas, Humean, and anyone else who supports Lyssa’s perma-ban.