Joined: July 2011
I just swung by TSZ's Moderation Issues to get screen captures of Alan's unfounded defamatory comments. I noticed that DNA Jock pointed out a comment I made, presumably to provide support for Alan's baseless slurs. If you actually read that for context, Jock, you'd realize that I was making fun of Mung, not hotshoe. The meme hasn't aged well, but you can search the web for Chris Crocker and "Leave Britney alone!" to get the history.
Speaking of DNA Jock, he also dropped this pile of . . . nonsense:
|I am disappointed to see Patrick use the relative safety of AtBC to promulgate rubbish about libel that he KNOWS to be false.|
Relative safety? Jock and anyone else is free to come here to discuss TSZ without the risk of being censored. The same cannot be said of TSZ. (That reminds me of another site . . . right on the tip of my tongue . . . .)
To answer you, Jock, the reason why the situation is different in Alan's case is that he and the site are both under EU jurisdiction. That means a UK court is much more likely to accept a libel case than if both the person complaining and the alleged defamer were in the US. Combined with him abusing his privileges to take over TSZ, the risk to the site is much higher than in the keiths/Swamidass situation, even if keiths had defamed Swamidass. By the standard you used to ban keiths for 30 days, you should do the same to Alan. It would be hypocritical to do otherwise.
Alan could, of course, demonstrate some integrity by retracting his defamatory statements and apologizing. Thus far it doesn't appear he has the character to do so.