Unfair Restriction VII

[Sentinel]

New thread started way before the 500 posts mark this time, as the last one was derailed with discussions on board policy. These are the rules of the Unfair Restriction thread:


Note to all members who feel the desire to post in this thread:

As of this post, I will be instructing all mods/admins to issue infractions to members who post in this thread for reasons other than outlined in the OP. I will repost it here:
So in short, you may post in this thread if your post involves the following:
- Appealing your restriction which has not already been appealed within the past 6 months. This consists of your personal posts which demonstrate a) why your restriction was unjustified and/or b) how you have changed since.
- Requesting clarification for your restriction. This refers to the rules you violated and the evidence against you. You are entitled to one post unless that post receives no responses, and/or, the responses at hand do not meet the criteria outlined above.

Any other posts made in this thread, including posts made by the member in question upon making the original appeal/clarificatory post (i.e. debate posts), will result in an infraction.

Once again, post in this thread for reasons other than those outlined in the OP as well as those outlined in this post, and you will receive an infraction.

Have a lovely day.

- August

The BA team will be keeping a close eye on this new thread. Do not test us on this as you will be infracted, no matter what you post, if it isn't within the rules.

[Sotionov]

I want to appeal my restriction, to which the only explanation given was "(cappie)", which is simply nonsensical, being that I am neither a capitalist, nor support capitalism, in fact, I have on many occasions mentioned that I am favor an anarcho-communist economy and adamantly advocate the abolition of capitalism.

[Sotionov]

Is my appeal being addressed?

[Sasha]

no, be glad your not banned for being a sockpuppet, now stop whining Fabian...

[Sotionov]

I didn't even know what a sockpuppet was until I googled it now. I guess it would make sense that an admin who restricted me based on a unsubstantiatable claim whould make more such claims when I appealed against his illegitimate act.

Of cource, I wasn't appealling to the very culprit of that injustice, that would be like begging mercy from a tyrannous ruler, I am appealling to other admins to revoke the restriction because the reason on which it was innacted is nothing more then mere calumny.

[Sotionov]

What's happening with my restriction? Why isn't it revoked, being that the reason given for it is totally bogus.

[Vanguard1917]

Having posted on this forum for quite a length of time (think of that what you will!), i believe that i should receive some justification for this decision:


Restricted Vanguard1917 by vote of the BA 14-2. Sexism, apologism/denial of social discrimination.

I'm assuming that the 'sexism' accusation refers to my comments in this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/lying-manipulating-others-t181507/index.html?t=181507&highlight=rape

A fair look at that thread would reveal not only that my comments received a good deal of support via the 'thanks' button, but also that there were other posters who made arguments in essence almost identical to mine.

Would the BA like to comment on whether action was taken against those other members of the forum?

The 'denial of discrimination' accusation refers to my asking for evidence (in a thread in the Committed Users forum, which i can no longer access) that social oppression against gay men in Britain continues to exist. If i remember correctly, i defined social oppresion as including discrimination with regard to employment, educational opportunities, legal rights and state and media propaganda campaigns. In Marxist terms, this is not a very controversial definition of social oppression. Sticking by this definition, I questioned the idea that school playground bullying by children necessarily constitutes social oppression.

Would the BA like to explain to me which part of my comments was 'denial of discrimination'? Would they also like to confirm that it is against revleft rules to merely ask for evidence for the existence of specific social phenomena in a specific social and historical setting?

Many thanks.

[Sotionov]

Why am I still restricted? The reason for my restriction was a plain and simple lie.

[NGNM85]

I am formally requesting that my restriction be overturned. This isn't about abortion, as many of you already know, I am pro-choice, and I always have been, and, as such, I strongly support, and vociferously defend legalized abortion. So, the point of contention is not abortion, but, rather; infanticide. I'm very familiar with the arguments for infanticide, most clearly articulated by philosophers Peter Singer, and Michael Tooley, most forcefully in Tooley's; Abortion and Infanticide. Obviously, I don't find these arguments very persuasive, and I have articulated my criticism of them on a number of occasions, in fact, this is what led to my restriction, in the first place. However, the merit of these arguments, and I know there are a number of members who agree with them, is really beside the point. What really matters is the undeniable fact that infanticide, or, more fundamentally Singer & Tooley's ethical; `personalism´, if you will, which provides the ethical basis for it, is not, in any sense, fundamental to Anarchism, or Marxism. As such, neither I, nor anyone else, should be restricted for not subscribing to it.

[Jay NotApplicable]

I have been restricted because I identify as pro-life. I would like to explain my views, as they are much different than your stereotypical pro-lifer.

I have no interest in changing politics. I refuse to vote, mostly because politicians are fakes. And in this case we're talking about abortion. "Pro-life" politicians talk the talk. But when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is they are silent.

I walk the walk. I have friends who I love dearly who have had abortions. I don't judge them. And when it comes to a mother having a child that would have otherwise been aborted if it weren't for me, I'm there. I'm changing diapers and giving money. And many people have told me that they are happy they didn't go through with an abortion.

I'm for real. I'm not just a talker. I live it.

[motion denied]

Pro-lifers are restricted here, Jay.

But I guess you could explain your views, as they are "much different".

[Jay NotApplicable]

So if I said I was pro-choice, but that I want to help mothers so they don't have to choose abortion, would I be unrestricted? This seems like a pointless game of words. And I don't see how it has anything to do with me posting on the music forum.

[motion denied]

So if I said I was pro-choice, but that I want to help mothers so they don't have to choose abortion, would I be unrestricted?.

I don't know, a mod/admin probably would.

Every restricted member is not allowed to post on Music, it's not just you. The reason is unknown to myself, as I'm also new to the forum.

[Sentinel]

Infractions to Sotionov, The Falling Rate of Profit and Jay NotApplicable for failing to adhere to the rules outlined in the OP. This is not a debate thread, nor are unrestricted members allowed to post in it.

It is meant solely for restricted members to make one post to appeal their restriction, and BA members to reply to these appeals.

Jay NotApplicable: It doesn't matter what specific kind of pro-life stance you hold, the board rules state:


Do you restrict pro-life/anti-choice members?

Yes. This forum is explicitly Pro-Choice. Any member that holds a Pro-Life position of any kind (a position we hold to be a form of sexism), or who opposes unrestricted access to abortions at any point, will be Restricted.


This rule is not open for interpretation or debate. So unless you are prepared to reconsider your views, you may only post in the OI forum.

[Jay NotApplicable]

Is there a process to appeal the interpretation of the rules?

[Sentinel]

Is there a process to appeal the interpretation of the rules?

In this case no, there is not. 'A Pro-Life position of any kind' leaves preciously little room for interpretation. And as you may have not realised that you just received an infraction for posting in this thread again after your original appeal post, I'm not issuing a second one for the above post.

Any further posting here - until you have changed your views on abortion that is - will however be infracted.

[An Anonymous Leftist]

im posting this under anonymity since i dont want to be banned on these forums. i admit i have created a sockpuppet to post this knowing that there is a good possibility of being banned for mentioning this under my actual account. however, i think its important to speak out against issues that i think really reduce the quality of the discussions on these forums, and undermine free expression.

recently the user Jay NotApplicable was restricted on the basis of being pro-life. while it’s true this is a reactionary belief, it is also true that other users, including mods such as Remus Bleys also hold the same pro-life belief (Bleys in this case happens to subscribe to Liberation Theology). however Jay NotApplicable contented that he did not support imposing these beliefs on others legally. see post #2727741


[Replace "*" with "." and "%" with ":"]
http%//www*revleft*com/vb/catholic-church-purchasing-t184474/index.html?p=2727741#post2727741

i think that is made clear by his comments. it reeks of favoritism to allow Bleys to post unrestricted, while a self-proclaimed anarchist doesn’t enjoy this same freedom.

the reason he was restricted was due to snitching. in this case on behalf of Sinister Intents.


[Replace "*" with "." and "%" with ":"]
http%//www*revleft*com/vb/member.php?u=14401

we can observe in the wall post chain that Sinister Intents specifically called out a mod to ban this user. yet he fails to point out the later post where he clarified his position. this is reminiscent of the secret police in many states that a large portion of this community would be opposed to. i feel this is a despicable act, and works to squelch the nature of free discussion on these forums. again, we are a leftist forum, and this i believe is antithetical to the cause of a free and open society.

the fact that i have to do this under anonymity undergirds my point of the chilling effect on discussion that overzealous restriction and banhammer actions can have on a forum. being this is a leftist forum, i would have expected better.

while this forum speaks against reactionism, it reeks of it when actions like this are taken. it simply proves our adversaries points when we act like hypocrites. how can we be for the emancipation of people, when we ourselves take the exact same actions. it truly works against our own interests as leftists when we do this. its time someone stood up against this crap.



edit: added better replacement characters for URL and TLDs

[#FF0000]

Saying that the BA is really arbitrary with bans and restrictions isn't gonna get you banned lol. I've been doing that for years in the most childish and obnoxious ways possible. The whole I HAVE 2 POST ANONYMOUSLY thing Is hella overdramatic.

[An Anonymous Leftist]

Saying that the BA is really arbitrary with bans and restrictions isn't gonna get you banned lol. I've been doing that for years in the most childish and obnoxious ways possible. The whole I HAVE 2 POST ANONYMOUSLY thing Is hella overdramatic.

i disagree. you have said it yourself--BA is arbitrary with bans and restrictions.

[Sentinel]

Hey, whoever you are, and all others tempted to make similar posts. Firstly, please lay off the ridiculously dramatic tone, you are embarassing yourself. This would be a far better reason to be anonymous than your fear of 'repression' in this instance. Seriously.

Secondly, try to understand this: this forum is not a an anarchist/socialist/communist society/commune etc etc. It is frankly very insulting to any victims of repression in actual police states and dictatorships to compare an internet message board to such.

Nobody is imprisoned or murdered by us. They are excluded from an internet discussion forum, but they will live on happily ever after on the rest of the internet and their actual lifes.

Just because this forum exists on the internet and is easy to trespass, it doesn't mean that everyone is welcome to be here or behave as they please. No, we do get to decide who to welcome here.

This is a private discussion space for those that the community here* wish to include in their discussions. Would you break the door to get into such a space in real life, despite not being welcome?

No? Well then respect the rules we have or find somewhere else to spend your online time.

* Veteran users of this board nominate the moderators from their own ranks, from which admins are then chosen. Together we vote on the rules. As for the rule to restrict anti-choicers, much like most of our basic rules, it was decided collectively by an even larger part of the active membership of the board for a long time ago.

***

Also infraction to #FF0000 for failing to adhere to the rules outlined in the OP, while being spot on with the comment..

[Sentinel]

Jesus christ people, READ THE OP, or at least one of my replies in this thread. Infraction to Ember Catching.

[Sentinel]

Call the police, I don't give a fuck.


And I don't give a fuck, whether you give a fuck or not. But after 5 infractions you will be suspended and polled for banning. :)

So my comradely advice would be to follow the rules for your own sake, if you enjoy posting here as I assume you do.

[Jay NotApplicable]

I am making a second appeal to remove my forum restrictions. This appeal is based on what I have to say in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/appeal-reason-t187452/index.html?p=2728882#post2728882) that I started, and on the so-far unanimous support of those who have responded to the thread.

[Sentinel]

It would have been a great idea to read my post in the thread you linked to; your next chance of appeal is in 6 months. Infracted.

[Le Libérer]

Look guys, we allow this thread for those who have been infracted to ask why and maybe resolve the issue. If y'all can't keep within the rules of this thread, we can close it. We have before. And it's usually Sentinel who pleads with the rest of us to give y'all some slack.

SO..... if the OP of this thread cannot be respected, we can close it.

[Vanguard1917]

Look guys, we allow this thread for those who have been infracted to ask why and maybe resolve the issue.

Is the BA supposed to respond to appeals? Or is this thread here just to allow those restricted to let off a bit of steam and then accept the BA's initial decision as final?

It's been half a year since my post in this thread. None of it has been addressed.

I appreciate that it must be very difficult to address my points with convincing counter-arguments - due to the inherently unjustified and arbitrary nature of my restriction - but it would be courteous if the BA at least had a pop.

To make things easier for the BA, here are the two key points:

1. The 'sexism' charge, which refers to my posts in this discussion (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lying-manipulating-others-t181507/index.html?t=181507&highlight=rape). A number of forum members made arguments in essence virtually identical to mine. Why was i restricted and they were not? This is the point about the arbitrary nature of my restriction.

2. The 'denial of discrimination' charge: How can someone be restricted merely for requesting factual evidence for the existence of a specific social phenomenon in a certain time and place? If you believe that social oppression of gay men exists in Britain today - i.e. that gay men are oppressed by the British state and the British ruling class; i'm referring not to bigoted views among individuals, but to systematic discrimination - why would you feel the need to silence such a debate through restriction rather than actually provide the evidence requested? Surely Revleft should be a place where socialists can freely subject matters to rigorous scrutiny without free of banishment? Socialist politics must proceed from facts, not sacred cows.

[NGNM85]

Since it's been 14 days since I posted my appeal, I think it's safe to assume a response is not forthcoming. As per the OP I am availing myself of a second post. (`You are entitled to one post unless that post receives no responses...´) Incidentally, I think it's worth pointing out that while others have recently flagrantly disregarded the guidelines of this thread, I have followed the protocol to the letter.

As I said before; I am formally requesting that my restriction be overturned. This isn't about abortion, as many of you already know, I am pro-choice, and I always have been, and, as such, I strongly support, and vociferously defend legalized abortion. So, the point of contention is not abortion, but, rather; infanticide. I'm very familiar with the arguments for infanticide, most clearly articulated by philosophers Peter Singer, and Michael Tooley, most forcefully in Tooley's; Abortion and Infanticide. Obviously, I don't find these arguments very persuasive, and I have articulated my criticism of them on a number of occasions, in fact, this is what led to my restriction, in the first place. However, the merit of these arguments, and I know there are a number of members who agree with them, is really beside the point. What really matters is the undeniable fact that infanticide, or, more fundamentally Singer & Tooley's ethical; `personalism´, if you will, which provides the ethical basis for it, is not, in any sense, fundamental to Anarchism, or Marxism. As such, neither I, nor anyone else, should be restricted for not subscribing to it.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

For what it matters, I want to say that I've learnt quite a bit from NGNM85 while lurking; his responses are always very valuable. I have really no idea why he was restricted, but from what I've read in this thread it seems to me that it would be a high time letting him to add value in other parts of the forum as well.

[Depardieu]

i was restricted by quail for being "trans-exclusionary."
i strongly support full rights for trans people and have never said otherwise. i do defend the feminist interpretation of gender according to which it constitutes an oppressive social construct that forces women into a subordinate gender role, distinct from the condition of transwomen. if we are to contextualize gender with due consideration for male privilege and socialization under the patriarchy, this distinction is innevitable.

the user who restricted me, i should add, literally denied male privilege by claiming that men are affected negatively by the patriarchy:

Since patriarchy affects men negatively too (albeit to a lesser degree) it makes sense for men to support the goals of feminism.

i know i wont win much favor with you all by saying this, but this person clearly has, at best, a tenuous grasp of feminist theory. sure, it can be said that the patriarchy may have adverse effects on some men, but on the whole it benefits men overwhelmingly, ergo, "male privilege." the effects of which are precisely what distinguish transwomen from women who are involuntarily forced into that role from infancy. i am not denying anybody's gender or sex identity and i am absolutely not defending the gender binary. exactly the opposite, in fact. my position is that gender as it exists is an instrument of oppression and must be abolished rather than relativized as many on these boards like to do. i am merely trying to contextualize gender within patriarchal relations of power.

and if you look closely youll notice that at no point have i claimed to speak for the feminist movement and who should or should not be included. my point is a strictly theoretical one concerning gender as system of violence constructed thru social roles based on outdated notions of femininity and masculinity, rather than the unmaterialistic claim that it's an internal, individual and spontaneous experience, occuring somehow outside of the context of social factors and power relations

again, i am categorically not transphobic and i do defend their rights irrevocably and i sincerely apologize to any transexual and transgender users that i may have offended.

[Quail]

First of all, that (out of context) quote doesn't "literally deny male privilege" - it was posted in a thread about men and their relationship to the feminist movement, and while men overwhelmingly benefit, they are still limited by patriarchal gender roles (e.g. being expected not to show their emotions). I don't think that is a very controversial statement.

Secondly, saying that you're not transphobic doesn't make it so. In your entire post above, you imply that trans women are not women and that they have male privilege, which is demonstrably untrue. Trans women face very high levels of harassment and gendered violence (even in comparison to other women and queer people). If they are read as cis women, they are subject to the exact same gender-based oppression as cis women. Yes, some oppression women face is related to carrying, giving birth to and being expected to raise a child, but there are many cis women who are unable to (or don't want to) get pregnant for whatever reason, and I doubt you would argue that they don't belong in the social category of women.

Anyway, your restriction is being discussed, but it will most likely stand.

[Invincible Summer]

I'd like to appeal my restriction. I don't have any new posts to really back it up since I've been away for a few years, but I know I was restricted for basically becoming a bourgeois liberal reactionary or something to that effect.

I feel like that phase is behind me. I'm more or less back on the revolutionary train, not sure how I fit in anymore though tendency-wise.

Although I may not be as hardline or as well-read as some of you here, I'm definitely done with trying to find excuses for why this economic system we live in can be reformed for the benefit of all.

Not sure what else to say.

[ashtonh]

Well Im not saying my restriction was unfair because it was deserved I made a mistake im young still learning. Basically as I stated in another post in OI I took a break evaluated myself and talked to people. I realized through speaking with my uncle who,is an obgyn that my position was faulty. Basically even though i am not comfortable with late term abortions that is not my sphere. Women are women and their,bodies theirs. So i may,not like the idea but i defer judgement to her when its her body. No I do not judge women who have abortions for i cant place myself fully in their shoes to pass judgement. All in all my stance has changed pro-choice at anytime during the pregnancy regardless of how i feel about it. Sorry for all the trouble i caused. Got restricted for being anti-choice btw

[Invincible Summer]

So is there any chance I'll be de-restricted? It's been about a week since my appeal, with no replies.

Since my posts are restricted to OI, it's hard to really prove (by way of linking posts) how I've changed, but the few that I've made demonstrate my willingness to participate in the greater forums without pushing a "petit-bourgeois liberal agenda" or whatever, even if it's not the most erudite or entrenched in theory. Previously, I began to feel that it was "wrong" for the radical left to try and push an agenda on others. I think a big part of it was just the fatigue of wanting to fight for something that seemed so tenuous, with so much work to do. Now I feel that worker's struggle and revolutionary change is very necessary - the way capitalist society functions is just too fucked up. Again, I may not be able to quote Marx, Lenin, Bakunin, etc on cue, but I stand against the exploiting class. I want to be able to interact with people of a similar political mindset. Being stuck here in OI doesn't really let me do that.

I've also "Thanked" quite a few posts outside of OI, so there's that too. :lol:

[Sentinel]

Invincible Summer and ashtonh: it is good to hear that you have recanted your respective reactionary positions. The policy is however that in order to be unrestricted, members are to have proven their changed positions in board discussions over some time, before being polled.

The reason behind this is simply that it will make your cases much more likely to succeed. So please take part in the discussions in this forum for a while so that the community here can see why you should be unrestricted.

[cormacobear]

I'd very much like to add my name back to this list. I would very much like to become more involved again but find opposing ideologies too tedious to bother with. If we ignore the authoritarians purge of anarchists, trotsykiests and their like from the CC that I got caught up in; If I recall correctly my restriction was do to my association at the time with liberation theology and a statement the CCpurgists found from several years previous where I had suggested that 'equal but seperate' was a more attainable goal, between those two I was found guilty of being in the wrong CC faction.

I am and have been agnostic for many years now, I appolagize if my statements anyone and understand why they were offended. I recognize that if law must respect the supremecy of factual meaning of terms then we must. My argument was always too acheive equal rights as the posts indicate clearly, but my eagerness to compromise on terminology to avoid conflict was, combined with my former religious beliefs to equall homophobic sentiments.

I very much respect the new (sometime in the last half decade) dedication to being able to see the evidence against one. Under these terms I would like to see the CC threads that constituted my trial, the associated threads that constituted the purge, particularly those that mention me from the 3 months prior and the 2 months following. As I was at the time a full fledged member of the CC my trial and defense was in that thread behind closed doors.

I've checked back every few years for one reason or another to find many admirable improvements over the years that seem to indicate less ideological administrative conflict. I notice a number of formerly restricted or banned members from the purge have been reinstated. I hope for the same consideration. I frequently wish to share news that affects the struggle but will only post it in OI in the most severe of circumstances, both to avoid having to respond to the mouthpeices in there and to avoid being perceived as spamming the OI with articles and replys to threads I can no longer comment to directly, thus hurting my chances for reinstatement.

I hope that by discussing my reinstatement with any long time members will help, Bozg, Connolly, Redstar2000, T_sp if he was ever let back. I have remained in contact with Che_y_marijuana. Also Seth_mor_Macdonald, and Maggy boo who were members from Cali and Quebec that met and fell in love in the Che-Lives chat. I don't know if any of the former are still active members but feel these may be able to attest to my character. If mods or admins wish to contact me I will be glad to share my facebook, and other online activities over the last several years in the hopes that they might indicate my commitment to our shared values and goals. Thank You.

[Sentinel]

Hi Cormacobear! :) I remember you. Very good to hear about your changed positions, funny how we all change over time. I will be happy to start a poll for you, but policy is that one has to demonstrate ones changed views in OI discussions before that can be done.

Perhaps you have been involved in some such debates you could link us to? Otherwise post here again or just PM me once you have, for a while.

As for the purges in the CC, there sure were some hefty ones but I don't recall authoritarians (stalinists?) ever getting the upper hand over anarchists and trots. But never mind as this isn't a debate thread. ;)

If you have further questions/viewpoints send a PM.

[NGNM85]

I request that my Restriction be overturned. For the billionth time; I believe that healthcare, which, at least as I define it, includes abortions, is a fundamental human right, and, therefore, should be available to everyone who needs it, at no cost. I also believe that abortions, specifically, should be available at every hospital, because, (unfortunately) unlike abortion clinics, hospitals are absolutely everywhere, and there's no reason they can't do these procedures. Furthermore, I oppose the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, or any other legislation that creates arbitrary (In case it wasn't abundantly clear, by 'arbitrary', I mean; 'for which there is no legitimate medical justification.') limitations on the method, or the time by which a pregnancy may be terminated. In summation; I am emphatically pro-choice, and I always have been. Therefore, as previously stated, I ask, yet again, that my Restriction be overturned. At the very least, if you won't overturn my Restriction, I would ask, again, as I have innumerable times, to know why not. In case this last part is unclear what I am asking for (in the event that my request is denied) is the reasoning behind that decision, in other words; what is the administration's reasoning in making that determination. I think that all of the above is crystal clear, however, in the extraordinarily unlikely event that there are lingering questions, you know how to reach me.

[Thug Lessons]

I was restricted five years ago for third worldism before ever making a post. Unrestrict me because nothing I believe or have stated is particularly noxious, or at least give me the explanation of what constitutes restrictable third worldism that I haven't been able to get in the past five years despite asking multiple times ITT and directly to moderators (once again it's been five years so maybe respond this time).

[ZrianKobani]

I last used this site 4 years ago and my views have radically changed in that time. I'm no longer a Mormon or a pacifist and would describe myself as a socialist caught between Marxism and anarchism, primarily Maoism and insurrectionism. I've been to Kurdistan to fight ISIS and this only deepened my militant convictions with plans to return again for fighting. I request the admins take a look at my previous posts, take them into consideration with my current situation of thought, and reconsider whether I ought be banned. Thank you.

PS. How do I go about changing my profile name? Victor Rius sounds corny and such new positions require a new name, ha.

[Sentinel]

I was restricted five years ago for third worldism before ever making a post. Unrestrict me because nothing I believe or have stated is particularly noxious, or at least give me the explanation of what constitutes restrictable third worldism that I haven't been able to get in the past five years despite asking multiple times ITT and directly to moderators (once again it's been five years so maybe respond this time).

Self-described leftists are restricted on a case-by-case basis. So the question would be whether you believe that there is a proletariat, and would you support a socialist revolution by that proletariat, in the so called first world?

If you have made posts demonstrating this to be the case, and can link us to them a poll may be started in the BA section about your position on the forum.

***


I last used this site 4 years ago and my views have radically changed in that time. I'm no longer a Mormon or a pacifist and would describe myself as a socialist caught between Marxism and anarchism, primarily Maoism and insurrectionism. I've been to Kurdistan to fight ISIS and this only deepened my militant convictions with plans to return again for fighting. I request the admins take a look at my previous posts, take them into consideration with my current situation of thought, and reconsider whether I ought be banned. Thank you.

PS. How do I go about changing my profile name? Victor Rius sounds corny and such new positions require a new name, ha.

Hello, very interesting background there. I am tempted to bring this up with the BA team for voting right away, but our rules state that one has to take part in some discussions to demonstrate the changed views, so I will only start a discussion at this point.

I see you have started a thread about Rojava, which could serve this purpose, but I still have to ask you to get back to us after the thread has run for a while and we can get somewhat a grasp of your current outlook on things. Please PM an admin or post here again after posting for a little while to remind us, then we can have a poll on your status.

Please do start and participate in other discussons too, the more the better. In the meanwhile, what would you like to change your name into?

[ZrianKobani]

Hello, very interesting background there. I am tempted to bring this up with the BA team for voting right away, but our rules state that one has to take part in some discussions to demonstrate the changed views, so I will only start a discussion at this point.

I see you have started a thread about Rojava, which could serve this purpose, but I still have to ask you to get back to us after the thread has run for a while and we can get somewhat a grasp of your current outlook on things. Please PM an admin or post here again after posting for a little while to remind us, then we can have a poll on your status.

Please do start and participate in other discussons too, the more the better. In the meanwhile, what would you like to change your name into?

ZrianKobani. Thanks for the update, I'll keep you guys posted.