Echo!'s ban

crastopher · Before February 2015

Here's a topic for Echo!'s recent permaban.

crastopher wrote:

Offtopic, but
Can you quote the place where he did this and got banned?
EDIT: Nevermind.
Here's the post echo got banned on:
Echo! wrote:
Innocent kisses
I honestly hate it when people say "a kid under the age of 13 can not give consent for a kiss as they don't understand it" Or something along those lines. A freaking kiss. a 3 year old knows if they want a kiss or not, you should try to kiss one, they will push you away if you they don't want it. So don't freaking tell me that a 12 year old does not know what a kiss is.. I mean can't they see what they're doing? They wonder why the molestation rate is going up, if they haven't figured it out, they're stupid, if they make kissing a child a who is willing to, illegal then, in a pedophiles mind it will be; " no matter what I do, I'm going to get in a lot of trouble for it, so.. I'll just do the worst".
I mean I personally don't see any harm what so ever in kissing someone who doesn't mind, like not every hour either, nothing else involved, just standing up (in my case crouching ;]) and a quick kiss on the lips, and that's it.
In other words if laws are too tight, I feel people will just stop caring about them. I mean there definitely has to be some laws on kissing a child, just like don't get carried away and don't do it in a manner that's inappropriate, and make sure both parties are willing.
I understand if the child does not want to kiss, then this is terrible. but if they want to/or don't mind, then this argument is relevant.
I mean, I just think it's frustrating to not let a pedophile have an outlet, even if it's the smallest thing, like a hug or a kiss.
Here's the agreement they had:
http://i.imgur.com/Ci7921e.jpg
TakoMan02 wrote:
if I see anything even close to a sexual compliment, you're done.
Last time I checked, that wasn't a sexual compliment.
Also,
http://i.imgur.com/BnNXBba.png
last time I checked, there were not any rules stating what Echo! has been posting is illegal, and there also aren't any rules that the forum moderators get to make new rules. So, technically, even if Echo! was breaking Takoman's rule, he still wouldn't be breaking the forum rules and therefore the ban is considered void.

Now, pedophilia is not illegal. It never has been, and TakoMan need to, per say, "check himself". Pedophilia is the state of having an affection for one or more underage person(s). It is completely impossible to control your emotions, and it is not someone's fault if they feel an affection for children. But,if they ACT upon those feelings with a sexual assault, THAT is illegal. Child molestation is the only illegal thing here. And, as I stated in that other post, pedophilia has never been mentioned to be disallowed here. There is nowhere in the current rules that says "Pedophilia is not allowed".
Now please, I want to see TakoMan02's response to HIM being the illegal one and banning void of cause.

Jedpogi

JadElClemens · Before February 2015

I agree with your post for the most part, but Tako having sent Echo! that message and mentioning that pedophilia would not be allowed here means that from that point onward pedophilia was disallowed. It isn't in the rules and pedophilia isn't illegal (molestation is, much like homosexuality isn't illegal but gay marriage is in some places), but from that point it became an offense on the forums.

XxAtillaxX · Before February 2015

Copy of my post from other topic:

Echo hasn't done anything wrong in terms of the actual ToS.
TakoMan02:
>It's disturbing and illegal and the farthest thing from acceptable behavior here.

Pedophilia is not illegal, and according to the ToS it isn't so unacceptable.
It being disturbing is your opinion, just like this banishment was. Get a grip.

TakoMan02:
>This forum is for Everybody Edits
Echo's posts were in categories that were created with the intent of off-topic posts.

Are you trying to say that posts that aren't related to Everybody Edits are impermissible?
Or are you trying to backup your previous statements with factoids that have barely any relation.

All in all,

TakoMan02 has a history of banning/warning people for his own opinions. He'd be my vote for a demote.
Then again, as failgirl said, not a lot of people visit these forums. Maybe they got banned.

So, if some mods would stop running the forum like kimmos that would be really cute, maybe even hot.
See what I did there? Yeah, brilliant.

crastopher · Before February 2015

Still, as I said earlier, I have never seen a rule, statement or agreement that the moderators can make new rules. But that's not the topic I want to talk about at the moment.

Kissing is not a pedophilic act. If kissing WAS pedophilic, parents would not be able to kiss their children. And please don't pull the "But they're the kid's parents" poop on me. Foster parents are allowed to kiss the foster child. You can't even pull a "They're going to be adopted", because parents foster children with a 0% chance their kid will be the parents'. I know this because my parents have done this.
tl;dr, kissing a child is not pedophilic, unless perhaps you've never seen the child before.
Echo!'s post was not pedophilic and was not breaking the rules.

EDIT: Thank you for proving my point on how it isn't against the rules, Atilla.

Last edited by crastopher (Jun 24 2013 2:04:23 pm)

XxAtillaxX · Before February 2015

It's a controversial issue for the most part, of kissing being pedophilia.
And being such, I think that the ban shouldn't have applied.

If anything, TakoMan02's behaviour was the only thing that was unacceptable.

crastopher · Before February 2015

That's the problem it usually is.

Anyways, I've been talking to Echo! on a different program, and here's a quote just from him.

Echo! wrote:

"Would you kiss your grandma the way you'd kiss your girlfriend? Depends on the kind of kiss doesn't it."

Different55 · Before February 2015

?tilla wrote:

kimmos

What's that?

JadElClemens · Before February 2015

crastopher wrote:

Still, as I said earlier, I have never seen a rule, statement or agreement that the moderators can make new rules.

I'm not sure when it was removed, but there used to be a disclaimer that warnings/bans/etc. were up to the discretion of the moderators and administrators. I suppose it's not in the rules anymore and, therefore, isn't really valid. Strange.

XxAtillaxX · Before February 2015

Different55 wrote:

?tilla wrote:
kimmos
What's that?

An inside joke. Few people will get it.

I'd like actions like banishments on actual members, to be decided by unbiased and respected persons.
From what I've gathered, there's disagreement upon this issue, even with multiple other mods.

Having a person called upon by an action that doesn't conform to actual guidelines is a recipe for idiocy.
And with idiocy comes abuse. Which is exactly what I see here today.

Zoidy☺ · Before February 2015

I completely agree with everything here related to takoman02, he is a horrible person and unclutch in general. He also declined my ban request on Master1. down with tako! Zoidy for 2014 mod! Nothing could go wrong!

Zoey2070 · Before February 2015

crastopher wrote:

That's the problem it usually is.
Anyways, I've been talking to Echo! on a different program, and here's a quote just from him.
Echo! wrote:
"Would you kiss your grandma the way you'd kiss your girlfriend? Depends on the kind of kiss doesn't it."

The difference here is that Echo is undeniably attracted to children, and most people are not attracted to their grandmother.

Tako · Before February 2015

Alright guys. The theme of this message will be "don't create opinions on things you know literally nothing about". Here are a few things not seen by the public, that Echo! conveniently decided not to share:

1) This isn't a personal decision. Rurigok (an administrator, mind you) and several other mods have agreed with this action. They have for many months. In fact, if I had not banned Echo! when I did, Bash (Bass5098) would have banned him soon after. This is not me banning someone because I don't like them. This is not me banning someone over a controversial issue that I decided on. This is not my opinion. This is not my questionable stance on the subject. This is not "two mods agreed so he went ahead with it". This is unanimous, possibly sans JadElClemens. If you read anything in this post, let it be that.

2) Kissing a kid that you are not related to on the lips is not sexual? Are you sure about that? Think very hard for a few minutes. If this is some joke, I'm waiting for the punchline. You don't kiss a child you have a romantic relationship with on the lips as a neutral act. At least, not in any country I know of. You are showing your affection to that kid in an uncontroversial manner. The only exception is guardian-child, which he was definitely not talking about.

3) Ignoring specifics, let's look at the big picture. The picture that actually matters.

I'm not going to worry about why none of you seem to care about a pedophile talking flirtatiously to children over the internet. I'm certainly not going to worry about your opinion on him posting pictures of his seven-year-old boyfriend, probably without his parent's permission. But what I will worry about is the safety of the children on this website. I don't care if you think Echo's a good person. I really could not care any less. Mental disabilities or not, he is a possible threat. He has told me that he has the option to travel to the United States, to meet me in person. That could be you, or anyone else for that matter. We can't assume that the users here know to say "no" to creeps like him. We can't assume that this professed pathological liar is telling the truth, despite how so many of you want to believe he's just a harmless guy with no motive to molest a child.

@Muffin =] 4)

I have talked to Echo! via private message specifying what he is and is not allowed to post. Several times. It started out being just sexual compliments, but then later digressed into anything related to children. I stand by my statement: "This forum is for Everybody Edits, a flash game. Not for your sexual fantasies." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Echo has not played a level, created a level, or posted anything actually related to EE in several months. This statement of mine is not aiming to say "nobody posts anything unrelated to EE". What that statement said to him is "this is not the place for your sexual fantasies". He knows that, but is stubborn to obey it.

crastopher · Before February 2015

TakoMan02 wrote:

don't create opinions on things you know literally nothing about

TakoMan02 wrote:

I'm certainly not going to worry about your opinion on him posting pictures of his seven-year-old boyfriend

Hypocracy much? I'm pretty sure that's his best friend.

TakoMan02 wrote:

If you read anything in this post, let it be that.

Hopefully you're not stating I can't debate with you, because last time I checked, forums were created to have conversations and debates with other people publicly.

1) The only thing I'm going to say here is that I, and apparently multiple other users, believe Echo! should not have been banned. A community is more powerful than a leader, because a leader without a community is nothing.

2) Kissing someone you are not related to is NOT sexual, Tako. My parents have foster cared for two children that they were not the guardians of or related to for any other matter, as they were, for the most part, taking care of the children while the mother quit smoking. And, what child exactly does Echo! have a "romantic relationship" with? Also, he is basically trying to BECOME the guardian of Lewis, as Lewis has no one to care for. He cares for this kid, as he is literally not fed and not allowed in the kitchen. So why does that not count, as Lewis' real guardians are not true guardians at all?

3) I have never seen Echo! talking flirtatiously to children over these forums. And who said ANYTHING about mental disabilities? A child would have to give him their address for him to find them. Now that is illegal on these forums, but his simple presence is not. And did he say that he would fly to you and molest you in a threat? Because we all know Echo!, the man who threatens to molest people. See? There's the fine line between why Echo! should and shouldn't be banned. He does NOT ask anybody for their private information, does NOT threaten to molest people, does NOT send people sexual content.

3/4) Uh, maybe he doesn't like playing Everybody Edits. I don't play it anymore, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't browse these forums. Maybe he goes on these forums to hang out with his friends. Is that illegal now,to be with your friends? You have a Tumblr, you post things for your followers to see, correct? Of course it is It's a human response to share things they see with their friends. Well, these are his friends, and he likes sharing the things he finds cool or funny or talented. Again, forums were created to share things with your friends, whether that be your opinion, your hobby, something you find funny, etc. And last time I checked, he can't just go to another forum, unless you find Number1KirbyFan, Arceus64, Failgirl101, Fdoou/Fdoou2, etc. all on a different forum that accepts him.

Last edited by crastopher (Jun 24 2013 3:51:15 pm)

Tachyonic · Before February 2015

crastopher wrote:

<snippitysnippitysnip>

I'd appreciate a TL;DR version.
Just so it makes points easier to distinguish and disintegrate by common sense.

Bash · Before February 2015

crastopher wrote:

Now, pedophilia is not illegal. It never has been, and TakoMan need to, per say, "check himself". Pedophilia is the state of having an affection for one or more underage person(s). It is completely impossible to control your emotions, and it is not someone's fault if they feel an affection for children. But,if they ACT upon those feelings with a sexual assault, THAT is illegal. Child molestation is the only illegal thing here. And, as I stated in that other post, pedophilia has never been mentioned to be disallowed here. There is nowhere in the current rules that says "Pedophilia is not allowed".
Now please, I want to see TakoMan02's response to HIM being the illegal one and banning void of cause.

First off, nowhere does it say Tako couldn't ban him. Illegal vs immoral vs against the rules, please choose the right words. Rules are not laws, both can be changed, etc.

Pedophilia is not illegal, you're right. But in most (all?) of the US, acting upon some pedophilia-related urges is. You may not live in the US, everyone else may not live in the US, but that doesn't matter, as the server is located in the US. That means you fall under US law. Once again, pedophilia isn't illegal, it's just immoral to some.

crastopher wrote:

last time I checked, there were not any rules stating what Echo! has been posting is illegal, and there also aren't any rules that the forum moderators get to make new rules. So, technically, even if Echo! was breaking TakoMan's rule, he still wouldn't be breaking the forum rules and therefore the ban is considered void.

First, this wasn't a rule, it was an agreement. The staff will always reserve the right to make agreements regarding bans, and some notable agreements have been made already that were not contested. What this means is that while the agreement may have not been a rule, it was an agreement that was up to the judgement of those who made it. In this case, TakoMan02 and Echo!. TakoMan02 made the judgement that Echo! had broken the agreement, and the ban was placed.

Also, actions are never considered void if they are not part of the forum rules. That was a great statement, and I give you props for it, but that is certainly not true.

crastopher wrote:

3) I have never seen Echo! talking flirtatiously to children over these forums. And who said ANYTHING about mental disabilities?

I don't feel like hunting down quotes, mainly because I tend to remove content like that (it happened on at least one occasion, and yes it was my opinion). The comment about mental disabilities may have been a safeguard, don't take it to heart.

crastopher wrote:

He does NOT ask anybody for their private information, does NOT threaten to molest people, does NOT send people sexual content.

The definition of "private information" is debatable, and for that I'm not going to argue it. You are also basing your opinion off of what you have experienced, and that appears to be that you may have not been on the receiving end of any of what you specified.

Last edited by Bash (Jun 24 2013 4:07:49 pm)

XxAtillaxX · Before February 2015

Overall the decision should be left to Cyclone. I think it would be best for him to decide the outcome, as he could change the rules anytime, and make - most of - these arguments rendered useless.

From my own personal perspective, is that Echo has indubitably perversion in accordance to pedophilia.
It can come across as either unacceptable/acceptable by each one of our moral views.

My experience in talking to Echo about these things in an near-anonymous encrypted conversation has led me to think he's honest when he says he wouldn't harm someone.

He has enough control over his actions, but the pedophilia on the forum I agree shouldn't continue.
However, I disagree that kissing a child in explicitly sexual.

So, all in all.
Just give him another chance, or just let an administrator decide the outcome, since it's their forum and thus <mostly> their rules.

Deetz · Before February 2015

Am I the only person here that thinks Echo's ban is fair? He broke his agreement, resulting in a ban. True, a permaban may be a bit harsh, but that's just how the cookie crumbles.

crastopher · Before February 2015

?tilla wrote:

Overall the decision should be left to Cyclone.

Actually, the reason I haven't stated that is because I don't know if Cyclone will really show up again.

Tako · Before February 2015

?tilla wrote:

So, all in all.
Just give him another chance, or just let an administrator decide the outcome, since it's their forum and thus <mostly> their rules.

As I said, Rurigok does indeed endorse the action.

RhazzleFrazzle · Before February 2015

i say we unban echo for the lulz.

JadElClemens · Before February 2015

Deetz wrote:

Am I the only person here that thinks Echo's ban is fair? He broke his agreement, resulting in a ban.

Everybody keeps saying this, but how, exactly, did he break the agreement? The ban was instated over this one post, in which I fail to find anything remotely sexual.

From what I can tell, the agreement was that Echo! was to refrain from posting sexual content, and he would be allowed to remain on these forums until he did so. And, again, from what I can tell the post that supposedly infringed upon this agreement has nothing sexual about it.

I don't want to hear about his past actions. That has little to do with the final terms of the agreement and are not what immediately led to his permaban (unless you count that the agreement was made due to said actions, which is still not direct causation as I see it).

Well here we go, looks like I needed a reread.

Takoman02 wrote:

2) Kissing a kid that you are not related to on the lips is not sexual? Are you sure about that? Think very hard for a few minutes. If this is some joke, I'm waiting for the punchline. You don't kiss a child you have a romantic relationship with on the lips as a neutral act

Perhaps he doesn't love this kid in a romantic way, or if he does perhaps it's not on a sexual way. I get that this wouldn't be normal, but isn't it possible that he just loves this kid in a platonic way? Platonism isn't exclusively for family. Furthermore, isn't it possible that Echo! loves this kid like family? It's unlikely but not entirely impossible.

Last edited by JadElClemens (Jun 25 2013 1:13:18 am)

SkyFalcon · Before February 2015

If this ban is just about Echo! and Takoman02's agreement, the ban just depends on if he broke the agreement or not. Takoman02 judged the agreement to be broken, so Echo! got banned. I personally think Echo!'s post wasn't sexual, and he didn't break the agreement. But I also understand Takoman02's deccision. I believe he is not banning anyone for his own opinions, and the idea for a demote, just becausse he made a deccision that is wrong in your eyes, is ridiculous.

Tako · Before February 2015

JadElClemens wrote:

Deetz wrote:
Am I the only person here that thinks Echo's ban is fair? He broke his agreement, resulting in a ban.
Everybody keeps saying this, but how, exactly, did he break the agreement? The ban was instated over this one post, in which I fail to find anything remotely sexual.
[...]
Perhaps he doesn't love this kid in a romantic way, or if he does perhaps it's not on a sexual way. I get that this wouldn't be normal, but isn't it possible that he just loves this kid in a platonic way? Platonism isn't exclusively for family. Furthermore, isn't it possible that Echo! loves this kid like family? It's unlikely but not entirely impossible.

I don't know how many times I need to say it - the post was about pedophilia. Sexual attraction to children. Platonic? No. Guardian-child? No. CPR? No. Pe-do-phil-i-a.

Pedophilia is sexual, and he was talking about kissing a child as an act of pedophilia, therefore... do you follow me?... therefore, the kiss was sexual. What was our agreement? Don't post anything sexual related to children.

Calicara · Before February 2015

Based only on your argument above Takoman02 I must disagree with you. I think the fact that you find Echo!'s post sexual is more of a personal opinion. I do not ever recall Echo! condoning such an action, but rather questioning the idea of it.

Personally I don't think a kiss is sexual. In fact in some cultures it's just more of a greeting or a sign of respect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_kissing

Just because in the USA it is less common to see a kiss used in a "Non-sexual" way, doesn't mean that every kiss is sexual. Just because a person kisses a child, doesn't make them a pedophile, and nor do I think Echo!'s discussion of it deserves a ban.

I think you are only basing your opinion on your culture alone, but wake up, Americans aren't the only people in the world.

Last edited by Calicara (Jun 25 2013 12:56:44 pm)

Rurigok · Before February 2015

I'll start off with one thing: Echo should have been banned a long time ago. The members of the community may not know it, but there was much more going on than what you saw. You may think we're being harsh, but it's hard to judge something when you don't have all of the evidence. I won't go into specifics, but I know many people who would agree with me. It may sound mean to put it like this, but those who defend him do not know who they are defending.

Regarding the post, you may not think it could be considered "sexual" alone, but you must also consider the context. Echo's attitude towards children would seem to lean in the direction of sexuality, and that is just not okay for these forums. This not only comes from his posts but from private messages and such. His previous behavior and attitudes MUST be considered in the context of that post. I would indeed consider the post to have pedophilic undertones taking into consideration everything else.

All that being said, the ban is final; the decision is made and will not be reversed.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 Before February 2015

Echo!'s ban

#2 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#3 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#4 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#5 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#6 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#7 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#8 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#9 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#10 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#11 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#12 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#13 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#14 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#15 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#16 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#17 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#18 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#19 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#20 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#21 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#22 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#23 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#24 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

#25 Before February 2015

Re: Echo!'s ban

Board footer