Poll: Should Tapatio89 be banned?

[MarcosZeitola]

He's a crazy guy, clearly. Far too cocky for his own good. But at least he married a foreign woman, so unlike the majority of people here he is not "all talk, no game". I will give him that.

If he ended up being banned, it would probably be good for Tapioca himself as well as for the forum's general quality. But honestly, I don't care much either way. We could just as easily ignore his craziness until he gets bored with being ignored and leaves.

The personal attacks are enough grounds for a ban, so when Winston sees them he will get warned, then eventually the warnings will turn into bans and the bans into a permanent ban. If we just ban him now, that would save Winston and Fschmidt the trouble.

[colibri]

I'll state the obvious again, he has yet to produce a single photo holding a piece of paper saying "happier abroad", "drealm is a bastard" or "i hate anglos".

So there is not one piece of evidence that the photos of the alleged person are the person we are talking to.

He has been asked to follow my instructions multiple times and he has ignored the request. You would think someone who is so in love with taking selfies would have no problem taking one more. I will reiterate that my guess is that he's a random person doing an Andy Kaufman style routine with self deprecating humor and some images he took from someone else. In other words, it is his intention to draw criticism but maintain the facade he's genuinely offended. It's also possible he's trying to attack someone else's real identity who he has a grudge against.

I really cannot imagine any intelligent person thinking that an average bystander who discovered his paper trail online would look at him favorably. Nor can I imagine any intelligent person who is aware that he has an unfavorable history to be so sloppy as to reveal personal information.

Also just for the record:

He joined medhelp in 02/26/16

He first attacked me in 03/09/16

I'm against banning out of principle. This is the only free speech forum that I know of online. I do think it would be wise of Winston to check IP addresses to confirm it's someone who has already been here before. This would help people like Matt Hanson stop taking advice from someone who probably doesn't even live in Mexico.

Well as far of what i have seen and checked hes real and lives in mx city worst of all hes frecuent in places i visit in my city ... his fb,wifes instagram and linkdin accounts match correctly... he has the double nationality too
Yet what boggles my mind is his hate and arrogance towards anything that he believes is underneath his "race" or class he really does represent the worst of the mexican society ...sometimes the way he writes makes me remember the characters of this mx author guadalupe loaeza but i would be giving him too much credit , he has a serious color and class complex , every post of him u can find a "but im not like them ,im way better cause im not dark" wtf ppl ... i pity his friends and wife i wonder how they would feel if they knew how he really thinks of them... :/

[cdnFA]

I'm against banning out of principle. This is the only free speech forum that I know of online. I do think it would be wise of Winston to check IP addresses to confirm it's someone who has already been here before. This would help people like Matt Hanson stop taking advice from someone who probably doesn't even live in Mexico.

I used to be against banning but then I've seen how forums turn to a raging pile of shit without moderation.

Free speech doesn't mean everyone should be able to say everything anywhere, it means that people are allowed to open up their own sources of disseminating speech.

Too many trolls and nutters and other types make banning a very necessary thing.

[colibri]

The MedHelp stuff is timestamped from even before he joined the forum, he can't deny it.

I see a Feb 2, 2016 timestamp at http://www.medhelp.org/posts/HIV-Preven ... ow/2829804 and Tapatio89 joined this forum on Oct 15, 2015.

Ok, i stand corrected, thanks.
But then again, one would have to see if there were any quarrels in that time window that would motivate someone to defame him ahead of time.

He hadn't been exposed as a queer/homo during that time as far as i know. Also, there was a lot less information back then.
Edit; Also he has a posting gap between Dec 1st, and Mar 1st. I really doubt then that somebody would decide to randomly defame him on Feb 2nd, it doesn't add up.

All the other factors we previously presented still incriminate the medhelp post.

The crisis he had with his wife also matches the date writen in the medpost ,style writing is similar too ...

[droid]

I'm against banning out of principle. This is the only free speech forum that I know of online. I do think it would be wise of Winston to check IP addresses to confirm it's someone who has already been here before. This would help people like Matt Hanson stop taking advice from someone who probably doesn't even live in Mexico.

I used to be against banning but then I've seen how forums turn to a raging pile of shit without moderation.

Free speech doesn't mean everyone should be able to say everything anywhere, it means that people are allowed to open up their own sources of disseminating speech.

Too many trolls and nutters and other types make banning a very necessary thing.

The principle can not be made universal, otherwise it will be self-defeating.
I think perhaps the solution lies in actually defining what constitutes speech. I would contend lies and slander do not qualify as 'speech' but rather as 'non-speech' since their discussion/logical value is zero.
Taking this to absurdum, with enough time, one could perform a "denial of service" attack on a forum by posting random characters, But this, being non-speech, would get the "author" justifiably banned.

[drealm]

I'm against banning out of principle. This is the only free speech forum that I know of online. I do think it would be wise of Winston to check IP addresses to confirm it's someone who has already been here before. This would help people like Matt Hanson stop taking advice from someone who probably doesn't even live in Mexico.

I used to be against banning but then I've seen how forums turn to a raging pile of shit without moderation.

Free speech doesn't mean everyone should be able to say everything anywhere, it means that people are allowed to open up their own sources of disseminating speech.

Too many trolls and nutters and other types make banning a very necessary thing.

The principle can not be made universal, otherwise it will be self-defeating.
I think perhaps the solution lies in actually defining what constitutes speech. I would contend lies and slander do not qualify as 'speech' but rather 'non-speech' as their discussion/logical value is zero.
Taking this to absurdum, with enough time, one could perform a "denial of service" attack on the forum by posting random characters But this being non-speech, would get the "author" justifiably banned.

I think there is a simple solution here and it doesn't require any moderation. It will not be done but this is because it requires a technical fix and a willing forum owner.

The solution is technical. A block should also hide threads created by either the blocking party or the blocked party. This would address the issue with people derailing threads. If they can't see your thread they won't comment. It would also naturally discourage trolls because every time a troll is blocked, a big percentage of the forum would shrink for them. It should also be done deceptively so that a troll doesn't know they are blocked. They will eventually just lose interest and leave.

[Rock]

http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/view ... 60#p258160

Tap, you're claimed identity here is married to a foreign woman (Japanese), a Mexican national living in Mexico, has experience living in USA, and is fluent in Spanish and English. Those qualities make you a great candidate for being part of the HA community. But many of your posts have been very toxic and combative. So you are under review.

First thing we need to do is verify that you are not a troll, that you are who you claim to be. If you wish to retain posting rights here, the first thing you need to do is post a photo of yourself holding a piece of paper with "Happier Abroad" written on it. If you fail to do that within a day or two, I will talk to Winston about banning your username and IP.

We'll give you a full day and night to produce the photo. Otherwise, you will likely loose posting rights in short order. It's about 2:40 pm June 1, 2016 here in Taiwan. You've got till tomorrow late afternoon Taiwan time to full-fill this request.

[E Irizarry R&B Singer]

Mainly for E.Irrizary, but It's up to you really, if it applies lol

How is My Spanish half-assed? I hardly converse with him in Spanish. Your feeble attempt at trolling.
Fuera pichon. Ya tu sabe.

[droid]

lol

[droid]

I am not sure what Winston does all day

He's watching 2-hour long videos of "200 proofs the earth is flat"

[Ghost]

.

[cdnFA]

I'm against banning out of principle. This is the only free speech forum that I know of online. I do think it would be wise of Winston to check IP addresses to confirm it's someone who has already been here before. This would help people like Matt Hanson stop taking advice from someone who probably doesn't even live in Mexico.

I used to be against banning but then I've seen how forums turn to a raging pile of shit without moderation.

Free speech doesn't mean everyone should be able to say everything anywhere, it means that people are allowed to open up their own sources of disseminating speech.

Too many trolls and nutters and other types make banning a very necessary thing.

The principle can not be made universal, otherwise it will be self-defeating.
I think perhaps the solution lies in actually defining what constitutes speech. I would contend lies and slander do not qualify as 'speech' but rather as 'non-speech' since their discussion/logical value is zero.
Taking this to absurdum, with enough time, one could perform a "denial of service" attack on a forum by posting random characters, But this, being non-speech, would get the "author" justifiably banned.

Personally I think it is perfectly cromulent for an owner of a forum to define what is acceptable or not.
If you have a bunch of fellows at your home and one of them loudly and with persistence demands that instead of discussing sports like everyone else does want to proclaim his love of the mighty house hippo and demands that everyone sees the awesomeness of said animal, you would tell him to shut it or leave.
Even in less extreme examples, moderation and banning are a practice of freedom of assembly and as long as you don't prevent others from doing the same, freedom of speech is served.

There is a big difference in telling someone to STFU period like the SJW types do and telling someone to STFU and GTFO which allows them to practice their speech with those who are more interested in the message.

[droid]

And I don't want to share any of my really valuable thoughts and experiences because there are too many trolls and crap posters.

Yeah why would you want to share something, if you are to be immediately shat upon or unnecessarily "one uped" with lies

[Yohan]

Banning a member is up to the admin to decide - there is however the ignore-option.
It is possible to avoid to read his comments.
If you don't reply anymore to him, he might feel it's a boring place and leave anyway.

[Winston]

Which rules has he violated? Oh I see. He used a lot of insults and ad hominem attacks. I'll issue him a warning on his account.