Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

One of the high points of the election campaign came when Jerry Hanken
wrote an essay based on the famous speech by Mark Anthony in the
Shakespeare play "Julius Caesar".

Mark Anthony said, "Brutus is an Honorable Man. They are all honorable
men."

Based on the moderator's rule that nobody is allowed to make even a
mildly disparaging comment about Susan Polgar, Jerry Hanken wrote,
"Susan Polgar is an honorable woman".

Of course, the moderators saw through this and realizing that it was a
sarcastic remark, deleted it.

At the board meeting in Stillwater, Oklahoma, on May 19-20, 2007 the
board reviewed that particular posting and voted unanimously to
reinstate it. The posting clearly said nothing bad about Susan Polgar.
To the contrary, it said that she was an honorable woman. What could
be wrong with that?

The moderators did follow the board's directive and reinstated the
posting but a few weeks later locked that thread so that it could no
longer be cited.

Sam Sloan

Brian Lafferty wrote:[i]
wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
samsloan wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
wrote:

You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is nothing
wrong with moderators discussing specific postings. It is customary
not to mention the name of the poster, but I have never seen any
rules. You just make this stuff up.


Eric,


I have never seen you post to the USCF Issues Forum and you obviously
know nothing about it.

During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar and
Truong was deleted.

We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of them
were pressured by the higher-ups especially Channing to become more
active in deleting postings. As a result, Mike Aignar resigned in
protest. Duncan Oxley, as you know, killed himself for reasons
unknown.

Their places were taken by several others who soon quit also
complaining about pressures from above and finally Vaughn and
Sawmiller were appointed.

Also, during this time, there was the Forum Oversight Committee or FOC
that had the power to restore a posting that had been deleted by the
moderators. The FOC was also stacked with anti-Sam Sloan and pro-
Polgar posters. However, several of the FOC members finally saw the
light and stopped supporting Polgar and stopped attacking me. Notable
examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also, Louis
Blair stopped attacking me as much as he had previously.

This meant that even the Fanatical Polgaristas such as Gregory
Alexander and Terry Winchester who had been appointed as moderators
often had the posts they had deleted restored. To deal with this
situation, the insiders Goichberg and Channing created a new middle
tier. A new "Moderation Committee" consisting of the pro-Polgar
moderators plus one or two others was created with authority over the
moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of the
FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had not
accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the higher-ups..
So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they took
away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only with
the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.

All this happened while the election campaign was going on. Although
there were not that many regular members of the USCF Issues Forum, all
of them can and do vote in the election. Their votes are easily enough
to swing the election.

Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and politically
independent. Obviously, this was not happening. Bill Hall, the
Executive Director, was doing everything he could to get Polgar and
Truong elected and to stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected. I believe
that Bill Hall even allowed Polgar and Truong to run without paying
the required $250 filing fee. He has never responded to questions
about this.

In short, due to this and other manipulations by the USCF Insiders
including especially Goichberg, Channing and Hall, it cannot be said
that this was a fairly conducted election.

Sam Sloan

Q: How many lies can balance on the point of Sam Sloan's head? A: See
above.

Sam, the voters had ample opportunity to see you and hear you bray.
They threw you in the trash bin where you belong. Democracy works.
Well, John, if you say so it must be true. I'm still waiting for the
citation supporting your first amendment interpretation regarding
harassment. When can I expect you to provide it? Thanks!

Brian, if you are honestly asking for a citation of Volokh's comments
on this (I find it hard to assume good faith on your part, but with a
Herculean effort I suppose I can manage it), here it is. Of course he
could be wrong. But I rather suspect he knows more about the subject
than I ... or you. (Sorry, bolding in the original won't transfer.
Original is he http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1136873535.shtml

__________________________________________________ ____________

[Eugene Volokh, January 10, 2006 at 3:07pm] 58 Trackbacks / Possibly
More Trackbacks
Annoying Anonymous Speech Online:

People are troubled by a just-enacted statute that extends part of
telephone harassment law to the Internet. I think they're right to be
troubled by it, and here's why.

First, the statute, with deletions marked by strikeouts and insertions
marked by underlines:

47 U.S.C. � 223(a)(1)(C): Whoever ... in interstate or foreign
communications ... makes a telephone call or utilizes a
telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or
communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent
to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number
or who receives the communications....

(h)(1) The use of the term �telecommunications device� in this
section --
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station
licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency
provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
(B) does not include an interactive computer service [= any
information service, system, or access software provider that provides
or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server,
including specifically a service or system that provides access to the
Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or
educational institutions].; and
(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes
any device or software that can be used to originate
telecommunications or other types of communications that are
transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet ....

What does this practically mean?

1. This potentially criminalizes any anonymous speech on a Web site
that's intended to annoy at least some readers, even if it's also
intended to inform other readers. This is true whether the poster is
berating a government official, a religious figure, a company that he
thinks provides bad service, an academic who he thinks is doing or
saying something misguided, a sports figure who he thinks is
misbehaving, or what have you; so long as he's trying to annoy any
recipient (whether the target, if the poster thinks the target is
reading the blog, or the target's partisans or fans).

2. How is this different from traditional telephone harassment law?
The trouble is that the change extends traditional telephone
harassment law from a basically one-to-one medium (phone calls) to
include a one-to-many medium (Web sites).

This is a big change. One-to-one speech that's intended to annoy the
one recipient is rarely of very much First Amendment value; people are
just rarely persuaded or enlightened by speech that's intended to
annoy them. It has some value (see item 3 below), but to the extent
that it's in some measure deterred, the loss to public debate isn't
that great � speakers are still free to speak to others besides the
person they're trying to annoy.

But one-to-many speech that is intended to annoy one or a few readers,
but intended and likely to enlighten or persuade many other readers,
is potentially much more valuable. Juan might think that the target of
the speech deserves to be berated for his misconduct, and that the
target's supporters deserve to be berated for siding with the target;
but Juan might also want the rest of the public to hear about the
target's misbehavior, and to be persuaded to think less of the target,
or to act differently themselves.

Though the desire to annoy may sometimes be petty (and I'm using Juan
just because Juan is our one anonymous coblogger here, not because
Juan generally tries to annoy people!), it shouldn't strip the speech
of constitutional protection. "n the world of debate about public
affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable
are protected by the First Amendment.... [E]ven when a speaker or
writer is motivated by hatred or ill will his expression was protected
by the First Amendment ...." And the same is true, I think, in
discussion of consumer matters, of religion, of sports, and of other
things, not just public affairs.

3. Orin suggests that this isn't a problem, because even traditional
telephone harassment law has already been limited to exclude "speech
[that] is protected by the First Amendment." Orin cites United States
v. Popa, a case that set aside as unconstitutional a conviction of Ion
Popa, who made several racist calls to the U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia (the chief federal prosecutor in the District).
The trouble, though, is that it's far from clear just what speech Popa
protects.

A. One possible interpretation of Popa is that it bars telephone
harassment prosecution when the "speech is protected by the First
Amendment." At some level, that's almost tautological � of course when
the speech is protected by the First Amendment, the First Amendment
prohibits prosecution for that speech. But it also returns us to the
underlying question: When is speech that's intended to annoy the
recipient protected by the First Amendment? If someone calls not a
prosecutor but a law professor and leaves an anonymous deliberately
annoying racist message, is that protected? What if he calls a law
student with such a message? What if he posts an anonymous blog post
that says this? The poster would have little guidance about what he
may or may not say.

Of course, when prosecuted, the speaker can say "my speech is
protected by the First Amendment." But given that the statute draws no
distinction between what constitutes protected annoying anonymous
speech and what constitutes unprotected annoying anonymous speech, the
speaker doesn't know what he may safely say, and the prosecutor
doesn't have much guidance about what he should prosecute. It's as if
Congress enacted a whole bunch of speech restrictions but tacked on an
"except if the First Amendment prohibits this" to them. The result
would be speech restrictions that are technically not overbroad (since
by their terms they don't bar First-Amendment-protected speech), but
that are practically too vague, since they provide little guidance to
people about what they may say.

B. Another possible view is that the telephone harassment statute bars
any prosecution for speech unless the speech falls within the
traditional First Amendment exceptions, such as threats, obscenity
(which means hard-core pornography), false statements of fact,
fighting words, and the like. These exceptions are at least tolerably
well-defined, and all of us already generally have to avoid speech
that falls within these exceptions (since the federal and state
governments have taken advantage of most of these exceptions to in
fact outlaw or at least make tortious speech that fits in the
exceptions).

But if that's the interpretation of Popa, then most garden-variety
telephone harassment, of the sort that most people assume is fully
prosecutable, would be unpunishable. Calling someone anonymously
simply to insult them wouldn't be covered (such insults don't fit
within the "fighting words" exception, since the anonymity and
distance of the speaker makes it unlikely that the speech will start a
fight). Likewise for calling someone to make an indecent suggestion,
except when the suggestion is an actual threat of violence or is so
sexually explicit as to be obscene (which is a pretty high threshold
to meet). The very premise of telephone harassment law, as it's
generally understood, is that some such speech � while protected in
many media � is unprotected when said with the intent to annoy (and
perhaps said to a particular person). Harassment law thus rests on the
theory that there should be a new First Amendment exception recognized
for "telephone harassment" that goes beyond just threats, fighting
words, and the like. So the "speech is protected unless it's threats,
fighting words, obscenity, incitement, or false statements of fact"
theory is thus almost certainly not what Congress has had in mind, and
is unlikely to be adopted by the courts.

C. Popa can easily be read, I think, as holding that speech that's
"intend[ed] in part to communicate a political message" is protected
from punishment by the statute. But it's far from clear that this
would protect speech on a Web site that's intended to communicate a
message about some company's allegedly mistreatment of its consumers,
that's intended to criticize the performance of a sports figure,
that's intended to express an annoying view about theology, or
whatever else. What's more, it's often not easy to tell exactly what's
a "political" message and what's not. The court in Popa held that
racist insults of a high-level official are political. What about
speech that criticizes law professors (whether racist speech, speech
that casts aspersions on their intellect or teaching ability, or what
have you)? What about speech that criticizes a particular student in
racist terms, but implicitly conveys a message about school
admissions? (Not that I would endorse such speech, of course; I just
think that (a) it ought to be constitutionally protected, when posted
on a Web site, even if it's intended to annoy, and (b) there's likely
to be controversy about whether it's political.)

D. Finally, Popa can also be read as holding that speech is protected
from the statute when the speaker "intend[ed] to engage in public or
political discourse." "Public discourse" is broader than just
"political message," and would certainly include religion and probably
consumer matters involving large businesses and the like. But it too
is a pretty vague term. Is publicly distributed personal criticism of
a particular professional's skills, for instance, a lawyer's or a
professor's, "public discourse"? There's no well-established First
Amendment test for this, and the Court's use of the related term
"public concern" has proven to be unpredictable and, I think, often
misguided (see Part V.B of this article, starting with PDF page 46).

So on balance I think the extension of the telephone harassment
statute to the Web is a mistake. The statute already has problems, and
the extension risks substantially exacerbating those problems, by
potentially covering one-to-many annoying Web speech as well as the
somewhat less valuable one-to-one annoying telephone calls.

LOL. Mr. V. conflates annoyance to harassment. Wrong. Sounds good in a
forum such as the one he posted to for general consumption by aging,
budding legal beagles such as you. Annoying behavior does not
necessarily rise to harassment, civil or criminal. There's a reason the
statute uses the word harassment, not annoyance.

Now, provide a citation to a scholarly work by Mr. V. in which he makes
this argument.


You're really getting desperate, Brian. I know you find it painful to
have to back down (though you should be used to it by now). But since
you are so ready yourself to argue credentialism, don't you think a
UCLA law professor specializing in the 1st Amendment probably knows
more about the subject than a two-bit former lawyer from New York? If
you want to try to make new case law on this, go ahead. I note that
your threat to get a U.S. Attorney to file charges against Truong has
proved as exiguous as I expected.

Stick to cycling. That end of your anatomy seems more intellectually
competent.

On May 6, 6:50 am, wrote:

Stick to cycling. That end of your anatomy seems more intellectually
competent.

I wish both Judge Lafferty and Mr. Hillery would learn to trim posts.
Even a lawyer should be able to handle that task.

On May 6, 1:32 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
Thank you again. We have an applicable situation. John Hillery of Los
Angeles attacks every single thing that I write. He has been doing
this for about the past five years. He is doing this again today on
this thread.

Sam Sloan

Demonstrably false. Much of what you post here is of no interest to me
(Japanese swearing? Jack Kennedy's mistress?), and I certainly haven't
attacked it. On the USCF forum, I have even agreed with you once or
twice (though admittedly it's rare). But I find lying offensive, and
you do a lot of it. Or, if you want to argue that you _think_ you are
telling the truth -- I find mental disease equally repugnant.

You know you've arrived in rgcp when a nutter claims you attack them
constantly. Welcome, John!

wrote:


So on balance I think the extension of the telephone harassment
statute to the Web is a mistake. The statute already has problems, and
the extension risks substantially exacerbating those problems, by
potentially covering one-to-many annoying Web speech as well as the
somewhat less valuable one-to-one annoying telephone calls.
LOL. Mr. V. conflates annoyance to harassment. Wrong. Sounds good in a
forum such as the one he posted to for general consumption by aging,
budding legal beagles such as you. Annoying behavior does not
necessarily rise to harassment, civil or criminal. There's a reason the
statute uses the word harassment, not annoyance.

Now, provide a citation to a scholarly work by Mr. V. in which he makes
this argument.


You're really getting desperate, Brian. I know you find it painful to
have to back down (though you should be used to it by now). But since
you are so ready yourself to argue credentialism, don't you think a
UCLA law professor specializing in the 1st Amendment probably knows
more about the subject than a two-bit former lawyer from New York? If
you want to try to make new case law on this, go ahead. I note that
your threat to get a U.S. Attorney to file charges against Truong has
proved as exiguous as I expected.

Stick to cycling. That end of your anatomy seems more intellectually
competent.

ROTFL! John, do you understand the difference between annoying actions
(such as speech) and criminal harassment? They are quite different. I
suspect that Mr. V. understands this. I've looked a several of his
published law review articles and do not see where, in any of those
articles which are effectively peer reviewed, he equates annoyance
speech with actions that are criminally harassing. Perhaps he has made
that argument, with citations to case law and or other statutes, but I
haven't seen it. Do you have a citation for that?

BTW, this is not about credentialism(sic). This is about supporting
one's legal argument. If we were to merely rely on credentialism(sic),
you'd be nothing more than the aging poser that you are, absent a law
degree.

On May 5, 5:20 pm, wrote:

Sam, the voters had ample opportunity to see you and hear you bray.
They threw you in the trash bin where you belong. Democracy works.

My exact point was that Democracy was not allowed to work because
during the election period this group rec.games.chess.politics was so
filled with postings by the Fake Sam Sloan that is was difficult to
get through this junk and find anything else. On the text based Google
version of this group, there is space for 30 threads. Typically, all
30 threads would be topped with articles by the Fake Sam Sloan. It
would say Sam Sloan Sam Sloan Sam Sloan all the way down to the bottom
of the author's column.

To get to read something else, most serious voters went over to the
USCF Issues Forum. That Forum was controlled by moderators who were
fanatical Polgaristas and Polgarites who had been appointed by USCF
President Bill Goichberg and USCF Executive Director Bill Hall to get
Polgar elected. Nothing negative about Polgar or Truong was allowed to
be said on the USCF Issues Forum.

In view of the developments since the election, the situation has
changed. The only supporter of Polgar and Truong left on the USCF
Issues Forum as far as I know is Mark Nibbelin. Gregory Alexander who
was the most rabid supporter of Polgar and Truong has been suspended
due to his attacks on other posters.

Almost all of the people who previously supported Polgar and Truong no
longer support them.

If the election were held today, Truong would definitely not be
elected. He would not get much more than two votes. Polgar might get
elected due to her star status but even this is by no means certain.

This is not by any means to say that I would be elected. I would
probably not be elected. However, I will run if there is another
election anyway. The reality is that these constant attacks have not
helped my reputation.

There is also some doubt that Goichberg would be elected if he had to
run again. Certainly his performance on the USCF Board and as USCF
President has been poor.

Perhaps some new person, somebody we do not know about now, would run
and be elected.

Sam Sloan

From:
Date: Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:50 AM

Subject: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators
From:
Date: Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:50 AM


In a message dated 5/6/2008 7:29:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:

One of the high points of the election campaign came when Jerry Hanken
wrote an essay based on the famous speech by Mark Anthony in the
Shakespeare play "Julius Caesar".

Mark Anthony said, "Brutus is an Honorable Man. They are all honorable
men."

Based on the moderator's rule that nobody is allowed to make even a
mildly disparaging comment about Susan Polgar, Jerry Hanken wrote,
"Susan Polgar is an honorable woman".
Following is what Jerry actually wrote, which I posted at www.checkmate.us.
I don't see "Susan Polgar is an honorable woman" included.


IS THIS "INTEGRITY," "HONESTY" AND "CREDIBILITY?"
by Jerry Hanken
"Restore respectability, integrity, credibility and professionalsm to
the USCF." - Polgar, April Chess Life

"Too little integrity, honesty, credibility and professionalism by
some board members." - Polgar May Chess Life

"Restore responsibility, integrity, credibility and professionalism to
the USCF." - Polgar, May Chess Life

"Too little integrity, honesty, credibility and professionalism by
some board members." Polgar, June Chess Life

"Restore responsibility, integrity, credibility and professionalism to
the USCF." - Polgar, June Chess Life

"...restore the much-needed integrity, credibility and professionalism
back to the USCF." - Truong, May Chess Life

"...restore credibility, integrity, efficiency and professionalism to
the USCF." - Truong, June Chess Life

Please note that the words integrity, credibility and honesty ring
through the campaigns of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. This reminds me
of two of my favorite Shakesperean characters. Throughout
Shakespeare's tragedy of betrayal and murder, Othello, the words used
to describe the consumate villain, Iago, by other characters, are
similar. "Honest Iago," "Honorable Iago," etc. echo throughout the
play. As we learn more about his true character, the words take on a
sharpened irony.

Also, Shakespeare's character, Mark Anthony, speaks over the body of
his friend Julius Caesar, and again and again he uses the word
"honorable" to describe Brutus and the other conspirators who murdered
his friend and patron Caesar. He takes great care in repeating this
word- "Brutus is an honorable man. So are they all honorable men." By
the end of the speech the aroused crowd sets out to destroy Brutus and
the conspirators.

The use of the words "integrity," "honesty" and "credibility" in the
campaigns of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong have the same hollow ring as
do those Shakesperean ironies.

What kind of credibility does it show when these two, who we now know
have been legally married for about five months, have each announced
for the Executive Board and conveniently forgot to disclose that fact
to the voters?

On Feb. 16, 2007, Susan posted in response to an inquiry, "Paul is my
business manager and one of my best friends for more than 20 years...
Paul handles the media, publicity, PR and technical stuff for me, my
website, blogs, chess center and the SPF. He does not get paid for
what he does." How disengenuous. What else are they hiding?

When Paul Truong claims extensive executive business experience, but
refuses to provide specifics, how credible is that?

When Susan and Paul claim that the Susan Polgar Foundation awarded
$400,000 in scholarships and chess prizes in the last few years but
their 990 tax form filed with the IRS shows a vastly smaller number,
how credible is that? And how many of the offered scholarships were
actually declined by winners who preferred other schools?

When Susan and Paul claim that USCF is falling apart and only they can
save it, even though membership is up strongly and we have had a
surplus of over $600,000 in the last four years, how credible is
that?

When they complain about "little attempt to positively promote chess
or USCF" or "too little focus on positive chess promotion" when our
publications and website have been improved and our rating system
dramatically updated, how credible is that?

When Susan's three Chess Life campaign statements all say, "End the
petty and destructive politics," what does she have in mind? If she
means that Sam Sloan should be defeated, I strongly agree, but I'm
afraid she plans much more if her slate gains control.

Have we ever seen an EB candidate attack "politics" while campaigning
for a political slate in every Chess Life statement?

Do we see a sample of what could be coming on her blog, where posts
not conforming to her party line are deleted faster than you can read
them? (Example: someone actually had the temerity to put up a post
supporting one but not the other. That was gone in a flash.)

Why are Susan and Paul the only EB candidates who refuse to interact
with the members on the USCF Issues Forum, preferring their own
controlled environment where anonymous poster after anonymous poster
sing their praises? How credible is that?

Those of you who recall my coverage of the 2006 National Open might
recall that I praised Susan Polgar quite highly for her effectiveness
as a role model for girls. However, her Executive Board campaign, like
that of her husband, has been disappointingly hollow and without
substance. I will not be voting for any member of the Polgar slate.

Jerry Hanken


Of course, the moderators saw through this and realizing that it was a
sarcastic remark, deleted it.

At the board meeting in Stillwater, Oklahoma, on May 19-20, 2007 the
board reviewed that particular posting and voted unanimously to
reinstate it.

The board has never voted on whether any post should be allowed or
reinstated. Why do you report a unanimous board vote when no motion
was even made?

Bill Goichberg

The posting clearly said nothing bad about Susan Polgar. To the
contrary, it said that she was an honorable woman. What could be wrong
with that?

The moderators did follow the board's directive and reinstated the
posting but a few weeks later locked that thread so that it could no
longer be cited.

Sam Sloan

OK. I agree. Bill Goichberg is technically correct. The board did not
actually vote to restore this posting by Jerry Hanken, but that was
because Louis Blair, who was Chairman of the Forum Oversight
Committee, was on the line on the speaker phone while this issue was
being debated by the board, and he said that they were agreeing to
restore this posting. This made a formal vote unnecessary, especially
since the board wanted to avoid any vote of this sort.

Bill Goichberg is also correct that the posting by Jerry Hanken does
not contain the words "Susan Polgar is an Honorable Woman".

I want to thank Bill Goichberg for supplying the original text of the
Hanken article.

However, the point is that this posting had been deleted by the
moderators and, in spite of numerous complaints about this deletion,
the moderators had refused to reinstate it.

Now that we can read the posting, one can see that there was nothing
wrong with it. It was legitimate political commentary. The fact that
the moderators would delete such a posting and nothing could be done
to reinstate it until the board was on the verge of voting to
reinstate it is a good example of how the moderators were using their
positions to control political controversy and to influence the
results of the election.

Also it is important to remember that this was the only one ever to be
reinstated. There were thousands of other equal legitimate postings
that were deleted by the USCF Issues Forum Moderators during the
election campaign that were never restored and have never been seen
again.

Sam Sloan

wrote:
I find mental disease equally repugnant.

Um. Is that what you really meant to say?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Radioactive Chocolate Priest (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a man of the cloth that's
made of chocolate but it'll make you
glow in the dark!

samsloan wrote:

However, as applied in the USCF Issues Forum, anybody is
allowed to attack Sam Sloan including even calling me a
child molester, but nobody was allowed to make even a
mildly negative comment about Susan Polgar, Paul Truong
or Joel Channing.

Your point being?

Look, Sam, there are people who are members of polite society.
They respond to social pressure (like the social pressure of
having everyone in a newsgroup tell you to stop doing something).
They follow the rules, Yes, they can be complete assholes, but
they are *rule-following* *social-pressure-responding* assholes.

Then there are outcasts like you who are not part of polite
society. They ignore social pressure, and thus have to be
forced to conform. They don't follow the rules, and thus
have to be forced to follow the rules. Neither group can
do as they please; the difference is that members of polite
society do it voluntarily.

Members of polite society are allowed a lot of leeway when
dealing with outcasts. This leeway is needed, because the
outcasts only understand force. The best example of this
is a courtroom. The judge is there to deal with outcasts.
He is allowed to say things and do things that the outcasts
who appear before him are not allowed to say or do. Another
good example is a forum moderator. He is given many powers
and excused from many rules the better to apply force to
outcasts like yourself.

You *can*, if you wish, decide to no longer be an outcast
and to join polite society. There will be a transition
period until people figure out that you are serious, but
the day will come when you get all the rights and privileges
that are currently denied you.

Or you can go on as you have been, getting kicked in the
teeth again and again, all the while wondering why everyone
else gets some slack but you never do.

Your choice.