So check this out… scroll down 70 comments or so, or do a search for “9/26/11 1:35 AM” where you will find another ultimatum from Spacebunny:

You are controlling because you filter a significant subset of the comments which criticize Vox and this blog, [cl]

Feel free to back up that naked assertion before you comment again. Exact numbers would be helpful, wouldn’t want you pulling anything else untoward out of your backside now would we dear? [Spacebunny]

…so I posted your comment above, in it’s entirety, as it is one of many examples of Spacebunny deleting anything critical of Vox Popoli, Vox Day, etc. She deleted it, and I assume that means I’m no longer allowed to comment there.

Isn’t it odd? She asks for an example of her deleting comments supportive of criticism against Vox, I give it to her, and she just replies “…no dear…. anecdotes won’t cut it.” LOL! So, what? I’ve got to supply a randomized, double-blind trial to prove that Spacebunny deletes comments that don’t portray her man Vox Day in a positive light?

That place is crazy.

Hunt,

Remember when you came over here a few weeks ago, when the Dishonest Atheist thread was going off? Do you remember the comment of yours Spacebunny deleted? Was it critical of Vox and/or supportive of me? If so, there’s another example.

Before the brouhaha between cl and Spacebunny escalated to where resigned as judge in the debate I made 2 short posts, one simply affirming agreement with some of cl’s comments and another in response to taylor saying that “cl had insulted everyone on this blog” where I said that was not true in that I wasn’t insulted.

I posted those under “philip”.

I was fully prepared to be lambasted, ridiculed, cursed or mocked, but I was totally flummoxed to find that they had been just simply EXPUNGED– no 1st warning, no 2nd warning, no reason, no nothing, just “poof”.

I note cl’s post that I commented on is still there intact, as is taylor’s.

I’ll await your response before I go with what I think is the explanation.

If Vox’s proposed scoring system at the end of round 3 declares him the winner, but the judges say ‘I award Vox 2 points for round 1, 0 points for round 3 etc.’ then it’d be a little bit difficult for him to then say ‘yeah, but I totally win based on this scoring system I proposed halfway through without consulting anyone’

It is entirely plausible that VD and SB are inconsistent in enforcing their own commenting policy, but “their place; their rules” — their rules are still legitimately their rules, even if they’re not the ones they have written down.

Ridiculous. Devon’s point doesn’t stand at all. He made a completely false claim. Not a single person was whining about fairness. A few people didn’t want the possibility of a draw before the thing even got started and their concerns have proven to be well-founded, so they complained. And there is more active dissent at VP than on practically any site of similar traffic out there. For crying out loud, the inflation vs deflation argument alone is going on six years now.

Your wife in particular annoys the hell out of me, as her role at VoxWorld is blatantly obvious: attack and denigrate dissenters while rubbing your shoulders and splashing water on your face, deleting any comments that are too unsupportive, with no regard for “The Rules” whatsoever.

In the immortal words of Derrick Coleman, whoop-de-damn-do. She thinks you’re an idiot. And if you can’t figure out how to comment there without being annoying and officious, that’s really your problem not anyone else’s. Hundreds of people have managed to do it every single day for eight years now. And you have completely misunderstood her role… since you don’t realize how little attention I pay to the comments. They’re there for the readers, not me.

It’s just that your little team of sycophantic defense lawyers bring nothing to the table. They discourage the free and rational thought these things need.

If you think they’re sycophantic defense lawyers, you truly do not understand how VP works. Nate, just to give one example, is my leading inflationist critic and fantasy football bete noire. They think for themselves, they’re not interested in defending me. Everyone, including Spacebunny, knows I’m perfectly capable of handling that.

Did he? Last I recall, he said “I have nothing more to say on this,” and left TobyTemple and others to bat cleanup. It got awfully quiet over there once I exposed his false claim [that I redefined "morality"].

There was nothing more to say. Everything required to conclusively show how your assumptions were incorrect had already been said. Everyone else understood it. Now, you can dismiss them as sycophants and demigod worshipers if you like, but that won’t make it true.

CL, I don’t have a problem that you are such a prideful little fellow. That sort of thing doesn’t happen to bother me. But you really appear to have a serious inability to admit that you are wrong, or to back up and reconsider things when someone tells you, repeatedly, that you have failed to understand something significant. And insisting that you understand something while demonstrating to all and sundry that you quite clearly don’t is neither an effective nor convincing tactic.

Nice to make your acquaintance.

alexamenos’ extended commentary matched mine almost point by point, and I think it was really well-reasoned. If he gives permission, I’d be happy to link to his PDF from here. I think you’d concur with most or all of it, as I did.

As far as Round Three goes… see my latest post. I’ve resigned as judge. I’ve got better things to do than pander to their self-aggrandizing scene, but it’s not necessarily over yet. I mention a caveat that might pull me back in, but only because I respect my fellow judges and don’t want to trash their hard work.

Enjoy your weekend.