[Discussion] Tribun goes nuts, decides DR's don't apply.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We have two threads where the user Tribun has made a complete ass of himself, and in doing so is in violation of DR 6--and possibly of DR 7.

The first thread is in regard to nuclear energy, where Tribun made the following outrageous statements:

You guys with your nuclear fetisch start to make me sick. (By now I know that anything other than your "must have nuclear"-opinion is useless here, so I won't even try.)
And I can live without any anti-atom riots like we had in the 80's and 90's, so good riddance when we are rid of that shit.

God, I hate Nuclear-Hurrahist's.
So and now that I have said my opinon, flame me if you like.

It would be ignored anyway, so I don't even bother with writing down my reasons (and I do have them). It's only that it is a lost cause here anyway to try and explain it, wasting my time for nothing. You could as well try to explain race equality to a bunch of Ku-Klux Klans.

And, after he gets called on it:

I already sent this to Einhander and now I will say it open:

I should have known that this topic is too hot for me...

I admit defeat. In the future I better stay away from anything concerning nuclear power (As I did before).

To make it short: I wrote mostly emotional, and I have NOT all the facts together. I made assumptions without facts. Now that I've thought about it I therefore admit that while I still don't like nuclear power, I have said nothing useful.

He refuses to concede and instead prevaricates.

Further on in the thread, I called him on it, and two days later he hasn't responded with either a real concession or any evidence. Dismissing an argument in advance, as he did in that thread, makes an utter mockery of the debating rules.

But then he does it again, In this thread while debating with Einy.

I suggest you read through it to see all the interplay between the two of them as Tribun starts up on the exact same tricks as in the earlier thread, and then note the most critical part by far, Tribun's latest post, which is in response to a post by Einy (post 23 in the thread) which provides three sources in support of his position:

Einhander, what the HELL is your problem?! You react as if I had just insulted your personal beliefs, and threw profanity against me. And to make it clear: I didn't even SEE your points at 7:21, because I was writing my message at that time. So please stop turning this into some sort of personal vendetta.

I won't deny it, smoking is deadly as well, even more so since it is accepted in society (why, the devil knows) and its easy to get the stuff, and the healthcare costs are eating up a lot (thank all goodness that at least smoking has been reduced much in society in the last 50 years).

Notice that his claim is irrelevant because Einy had since posted additional sources, and that, either way, instead of using this post to address either set of sources, he responds with:

You react as if I had just insulted your personal beliefs, and threw profanity against me.

So please stop turning this into some sort of personal vendetta.

So instead of trying to address Einy's sources, he dismisses the argument with complaints about Einy's profanity.

I think there's definite cause to say that DR 7 has been violated and for the Senate to consider setting up a ban poll.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just as a note the second thread was brought to my attention by a complaint.

[CmdrWilkens]

States opinion as fact, refuses to back it up, and then semi-concedes without actually conceeding. Titling is probably in order simply because nothing he has done is that outrageous just annoying. Hopefully this thread and maybe a title will snap some sense into him.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The reason for suggesting a ban poll is that DR 7 explicitly provides for it, and that appears to be what he broke in the thread with Einy, by replying to Einy's sourced statements with a "Waaa! you swore at me" bitchfest. To me, that is unmistakeably a direct violation of DR 7:

7. If you dismiss an argument because of its use of profanity, you can be instantly banned.

I do not support bannings for first-time DR offences 1 - 6, as I've stated, no matter how egregious, but since DR 7 explicitly provides for banning I feel it should at the least be an option.

[Coyote]

I think this is worth some sort of action, title; temp ban; sig/av revoke, something. It's a straightforward case of emotional flailing passed off as fact, followed by a weaseling out dodge attempt.

[Patrick Degan]

What is Mr. Tribun's history with this sort of behaviour?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I take it Tribun doesn't have a prior record for us to consider, then, leaving this outbursts more of a strange temporary derangement on his part? Or does anyone have any past cases to add to the matter?

[Edi]

Nothing that warrants any action. He mouthed off, got smacked down, end of story.