[Civitate] Diocle (Patron: PikeStance)

[PikeStance]

they don't share his opinions is a false excuse [/B]and I'd even say that's insulting to them somehow as it means they're not able to make an impartial jugement.

How can write it is a false excuse when members have specifically stated that as the reason for their objection?

The main issue with Diocle is not his opinions but the way he expresses them. Limiting that point to the political side only is a false debate.
Below an example:
This (bold part made by the member himself) looks like a Hate Speech from my opinion
Is it that king of attitude you want from citizens?

I think Lord Oda put it best. If you read beyond the bold part you get a much clearer context.
It is ironic that in one sentence you say it isn't his opinion, and then you use an example that is an objection to his opinion. I have read his opinions; opinions I do not share, but I am still waiting for these statements that are "abrasive."

A member publicly calling Muslims as "animals", English language is enough rich to express your ideas/opinions in a civil and respectful manner.

According to my wife there were several bombs that went off in anticipation of the start of Ramadan today. I have to disagree with Diocle; Muslims are not animals at all; animals kill to survive. Muslims kill to kill. is this hate speech or my commentary on how I am appalled at their actions? There isn't anything wrong with writing with an emotional appeal. In education, we call it persuasive writing. Moreover, you are no stranger to the use of hyperbole yourself, though I feel Diocle is far more gifted than either of us.

Are you meaning that the Moderation of the site is too zealous?
To re-use the example above, I suggest you to read the Insulting Others paragraph of the TOS

What does this mean? I know his moderation history. He has not received a moderation infraction since 2 July 2016 (10 months ago). The last note was in November of 2016. He did have a "rash" of moderation infraction in the early part of 2016, but he has since cleaned up his act as I noted above.

The difference is legitimate news sites have a certain journalistic standard. There is no equivalence between, say, the New York Times and Breitbart. Diocle regularly posts stuff from conspiracy sites because of his virulent anti-Muslim sentiments. It's not his beliefs I have an issue with, although I find them to be concerning. It's because he deliberately brings in low-quality information to political debates so long as it feeds into his conspiracy theories.
I'm changing my stance from neutral to opposed.

This would be a better argument if we were discussing Phalera. This is for citizenship.
Diocle has a certain beliefs. We can debate these beliefs are based on false information. I stated that from the beginning. Whether his opinion is based on these sources or he seeks these sources, he at least has sources. There are a number of people who just make wild suppositions on virtually no evidence of any kind.

[Roma_Victrix]

The main issue with Diocle is not his opinions but the way he expresses them. Limiting that point to the political side only is a false debate.
Below an example:

This (bold part made by the member himself) looks like a Hate Speech from my opinion
Is it that king of attitude you want from citizens?

As hilarious as that sounds I don't have a problem with the particular bolded part. For starters he said they should be done away with by putting them on a Russian space station. He also suggested that they be tried and executed for war crimes so it just sounds like a typical exaggeration. That would sort of be like if I said "we must do away with the Jews by forcefully resettling them on Mars", I don't think anyone would take that seriously.

While I agree that he's obviously being hyperbolic and joking here, it's still a pretty tasteless, casual joke about genocide. Phasing out the use of oil in the automotive industry would critically damage the economies of these "oil cartel" nations, yet he went for the "kill them all" angle instead, on top of putting them in psychiatric wards (which made me chuckle, but that sort of dark humor/politically incorrect stuff is best left for the YLYL thread, not a serious discussion). I had not seen this post and was waiting for someone to point out something that's unacceptable, disruptive to regular discourse, or at least something that everyone here should frown upon. He hasn't violated the ToS in roughly a year, per PikeStance's revelations, but that's a minimum qualification for citizenship. I think I'll have to withdraw my tentative support and abstain here. I like Diocle. He's a funny guy with a sharper wit than most. And I would like to support his candidacy in the future, but that's contingent on him toning down this sort of rhetoric.

A shame, really, because I think his solid contributions to the site over the years in regards to discussions centered on historical subjects are top notch material meriting citizenship. Despite that, I'll have to remain neutral. Best of luck, Diocle!

[PikeStance]

While I agree that he's obviously being hyperbolic and joking here, it's still a pretty tasteless, casual joke about genocide. Phasing out the use of oil in the automotive industry would critically damage the economies of these "oil cartel" nations, yet he went for the "kill them all" angle instead, on top of putting them in psychiatric wards (which made me chuckle, but that sort of dark humor/politically incorrect stuff is best left for the YLYL thread, not a serious discussion). I had not seen this post and was waiting for someone to point out something that's unacceptable, disruptive to regular discourse, or at least something that everyone here should frown upon. He hasn't violated the ToS in roughly a year, per PikeStance's revelations, but that's a minimum qualification for citizenship. I think I'll have to withdraw my tentative support and abstain here. I like Diocle. He's a funny guy with a sharper wit than most. And I would like to support his candidacy in the future, but that's contingent on him toning down this sort of rhetoric.

A shame, really, because I think his solid contributions to the site over the years in regards to discussions centered on historical subjects are top notch material meriting citizenship. Despite that, I'll have to remain neutral. Best of luck, Diocle!

RV, I am old enough that I wrote a paper on Political Correctness back in 1992. Yes, it was hardly a thing when I found it. Political correct speech is the absolute worse and it does nothing but allows those to fovus off the real issue. It was true in 1992 as it is today. It has been around for over20 years and things are not better than worse. My ex-wife was also one of the PC crowd. She hated my humor because i would often mock racists and the like by using their own humor as a parody.

Personally, I find reading the political mudpit to be an absolute bore. One of the reasons is this idea of "serious discussions." I still political stuff but never on this board. It is devoid of humor and wit. Diocle is one of the few that regularly delivers on that. People do not like his wit (or characterize it as bad) because they do not like his views.

As I mentioned before, I read several of his discussions. I did not find one case of him being disruptive- NOT ONE. I am mean NONE. It has if he is applying back when he didn't post within the ToS.
I would really like people to stop making suppositions and make points supported by actual evidence.... you know, something some in this thread is accusing Diocle of not doing. (Note: ironbrig did mentioned specific sources he has used).

[Lifthrasir]

Muslims kill to kill. is this hate speech or my commentary on how I am appalled at their actions?

In the context you're mentionning and according to the T.O.S, Insulting Others paragraph:

Insulting Others (1, 3, or 6 points)

Posts clearly insulting other board members, individually or as a group, directly or indirectly, are not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Name-calling ("You're an idiot", "You moron")
• Direct insults ("Screw you")
• Offensive orders ("Go kill yourself", "Shut up")
• Using threatening, harassing, defamatory, hate-speech, or libelous language
• Using race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, ethnicity, handicap, nationality, or gender as a means of insult, either directly or implied
• Insinuations ("Are you stupid or something?") or insults towards family ("Your mom...")

Instead, members should criticize the post, not the poster. SEGA, the Creative Assembly, and related bodies are considered board members for this purpose, since some of them are. You can still criticize their games without insulting them personally.

I've put in bold the part concerning your comment. Now, the discussion here is about Diocle's application and not about TOS interpretation.

For the rest, I have nothing to add. I said what I have to say. No point to beat around the bush (that's hyperbolic btw) any further.

[chriscase]

Apologies in advance for being a deadbeat Citizen all these years. I see the value Diocle has added in content but also his behavior seems pretty out of bounds sometimes. What is the Curia's position on "rescuing" a potential citizen who keeps messing up? I know there is a higher standard expected of Citizens. Would this higher standard perhaps inspire Diocle to moderate his posting behavior? Or, to the contrary, would Citizenship, awarded now despite his history of outbursts, only confirm to him that such behavior is acceptable?

[Halie Satanus]

According to my wife there were several bombs that went off in anticipation of the start of Ramadan today. I have to disagree with Diocle; Muslims are not animals at all; animals kill to survive. Muslims kill to kill. is this hate speech or my commentary on how I am appalled at their actions?

Yep, that's hate speech. You've generalised all Muslims under the banner of extremism. It's mild but a moderator would be justified in editing the comment.

You're digging a deeper and deeper hole here Pike, we started with a few oppositions based on language which was not fitting of citizenship. You've now dragged us into a farcical defence of ideology. Should Diocle wish to apply again I for one will be thinking of this ridiculous defence. Where he only had to learn to eschew his language for a few months now he's going to be under a microscope.

[Roma_Victrix]

RV, I am old enough that I wrote a paper on Political Correctness back in 1992. Yes, it was hardly a thing when I found it. Political correct speech is the absolute worse and it does nothing but allows those to fovus off the real issue. It was true in 1992 as it is today. It has been around for over20 years and things are not better than worse. My ex-wife was also one of the PC crowd. She hated my humor because i would often mock racists and the like by using their own humor as a parody.

Personally, I find reading the political mudpit to be an absolute bore. One of the reasons is this idea of "serious discussions." I still political stuff but never on this board. It is devoid of humor and wit. Diocle is one of the few that regularly delivers on that. People do not like his wit (or characterize it as bad) because they do not like his views.

As I mentioned before, I read several of his discussions. I did not find one case of him being disruptive- NOT ONE. I am mean NONE. It has if he is applying back when he didn't post within the ToS.

While I agree that political correctness has gone too far, especially on present-day college campuses where otherwise liberal comedians like Jerry Seinfeld are wary of performing, the mere fact that he made a politically incorrect joke is not the reason I withdrew my support. I withdrew my support because injecting the idea of genocide and ethnic cleansing into a conversation about hybrid vehicles and the power of OPEC/oil industry is the online equivalent of throwing a stink bomb or firecrackers into a conference room where people are trying to have an otherwise normal discussion. Comments like these are unfair to the OP of such threads since these sorts of comments tend to derail threads almost immediately. Diocle managed to do this while technically staying on topic, though, so I'll give him that.

I wouldn't have any problems with him making an edgy racial joke about Arabs or whatever in the YLYL thread, but outside of that it strays into the realm of being off-topic.

[Copperknickers II]

Damn! This is a hard one.

Diocle is a talented artist and an accomplished writer here on the forum.

I'm inclined to support his candidacy, but I will withhold my decision until I know more about his recent posting behavior, at least from the past six months of his posts. I shouldn't be one to judge, seeing how I had my share of infractions during my early days here on TWC, but Diocle is a veteran of the site who should know better, especially now that he seems interested in earning citizenship.

I did not address this element in my previous post and would just like to say, his writing is good and his drawings of Roman infantry is quite something to behold, and also his translations of military texts into English. Perhaps if he had been patronised sooner I might have had a different opinion but it seems if anything his posts have deteriorated in the past few years, with less quality input and more ranting.

We consider someone for citizenship we examine their contribution and their moderation history. As part of the "higher standards" that goes beyond the ToS, we examine the attitude of the poster. What you express above is not relevant to determining his attitude with other members. I do not agree with one political view Diocle has ever written. In fact, we are diametrically opposed on every issue.

His attitude towards Muslims is bad, but that is not relevant for citizenship. We should only care about his attitude towards other members. If not, we run into the problem of judging members based solely on their political views. This is flat out wrong and unfair.

We don't really need to concern ourself about his attitude to individual members because that's a matter for Mods and he hasn't been infracted for it. But I would posit that his general posting style when it bears on communities such as Muslims, Left wingers, and other ideological opponents is more problematic, not because I disagree with him but because those groups are all represented among the membership of TWC with whom he is debating. His abrasiveness in addressing them, however that it might be in the third person and thus allowed by the ToS, is a severe mark of disrespect towards the actual leftists and Muslims and so on who he is talking to.

I don't have a problem with people I disagree with when they are respectful and considered. I do have a problem with supporting an award for quality posting with someone who shows such little regard for maintaining a degree of respectfulness. Ranting and swearing and rhetoric of self-admitted hatred towards entire groups is not only reprehensible but it's also the opposite of solid and sound debating. It's not an attempt to address an issue in a logical or thoughtful way.

There appear to be three points of views here;
1- Those who like his contribution and despite his political views approves.
2- Those who think his political views are bad and will oppose
3- Those who likes his contribution but concerned about his views and are on the fence but are reticent to support.

If you are in the second group, then you are on dangerous grounds. We should not judge people on their political views. We readily bestow citizenship to modders with little or no indication of their political views. For all we know, modder 1 can be a neo- Nazi and would be none the wiser until they decide to retire and actively participate in the Political Mudpit. What should we do then? Are we going to issue a referral to remove his citizenship?

I'm judging nobody on their political views per se, but rather the way they are expressed and whether this can be considered quality posting. And Diocle is not being considered for Artifex, he's being considered for Civitate, so I don't think his political posts can be sidelined as not relevant since you identified them as relevant yourself in the OP. You say that his historical and artistic contributions alone might qualify him for civitate. Would that they were alone, and not accompanied by the political stuff. To take an analogy from the rather painful dinner I ate yesterday, a wonderful curry can be spoiled by too much chilli sauce, because try as you might, you can't easily separate the one from the other in your appreciation of the taste.

[Ybbon]

Perhaps if he had been patronised sooner I might have had a different opinion but it seems if anything his posts have deteriorated in the past few years, with less quality input and more ranting.

This^ If you go back to his writing, you'll find plenty of complimentary comments from me, and that time he would have made a good candidate. Years in moderation and I have changed my opinion.

[PikeStance]

First, I want to thank everyone for posting in the application. To often citizenship applications receive little or no attention and as citizens, it is our responsibility to vet potential candidates. Regardless of your position, I wholeheartedly appreciate your input and I hope you continue to comment on future applicants. Whether or not applicants pass or fail the information they receive will be invaluable in future applications.

---

Yep, that's hate speech. You've generalised all Muslims under the banner of extremism. It's mild but a moderator would be justified in editing the comment.
You're digging a deeper and deeper hole here Pike, we started with a few oppositions based on language which was not fitting of citizenship. You've now dragged us into a farcical defence of ideology. Should Diocle wish to apply again I for one will be thinking of this ridiculous defence. Where he only had to learn to eschew his language for a few months now he's going to be under a microscope.

I agree. It was not my intention to digress. However, to your point, I didn't say all Muslims. It was also truncated as it did not contain, evidence to that specific statement which would have given it greater context. Moreover, in order for hate Speech to apply, it needs to be referring to a specific member of the forum. Even if indirectly spoken, you need to connect back to a specific member or group of members. For example, if I say all, then that could be an indirect link. This is a debate forum, so you do not want to suppress these sorts of statements because you want to challenge people who may hold these beliefs. It is only through dialogue that people can change their mind. There is a difficult line to draw here, but then again, we digress haven't we. Let's get back to Diocle, because he has not been guilty of this in quite some time.

While I agree that political correctness has gone too far, especially on present-day college campuses where otherwise liberal comedians like Jerry Seinfeld are wary of performing, the mere fact that he made a politically incorrect joke is not the reason I withdrew my support. I withdrew my support because injecting the idea of genocide and ethnic cleansing into a conversation about hybrid vehicles and the power of OPEC/oil industry is the online equivalent of throwing a stink bomb or firecrackers into a conference room where people are trying to have an otherwise normal discussion. Comments like these are unfair to the OP of such threads since these sorts of comments tend to derail threads almost immediately. Diocle managed to do this while technically staying on topic, though, so I'll give him that.

I wouldn't have any problems with him making an edgy racial joke about Arabs or whatever in the YLYL thread, but outside of that it strays into the realm of being off-topic.

Hyperboles, metaphors, etc... can all be effective tools to getting your point across. I do not see an issue in any forum with the use of such methods. What is too often the case; what is humorous rests on your political disposition.

We don't really need to concern ourself about his attitude to individual members because that's a matter for Mods and he hasn't been infracted for it. But I would posit that his general posting style when it bears on communities such as Muslims, Left wingers, and other ideological opponents is more problematic, not because I disagree with him but because those groups are all represented among the membership of TWC with whom he is debating. His abrasiveness in addressing them, however that it might be in the third person and thus allowed by the ToS, is a severe mark of disrespect towards the actual leftists and Muslims and so on who he is talking to.

I don't have a problem with people I disagree with when they are respectful and considered. I do have a problem with supporting an award for quality posting with someone who shows such little regard for maintaining a degree of respectfulness. Ranting and swearing and rhetoric of self-admitted hatred towards entire groups is not only reprehensible but it's also the opposite of solid and sound debating. It's not an attempt to address an issue in a logical or thoughtful way.

I'm judging nobody on their political views per se, but rather the way they are expressed and whether this can be considered quality posting. And Diocle is not being considered for Artifex, he's being considered for Civitate, so I don't think his political posts can be sidelined as not relevant since you identified them as relevant yourself in the OP. You say that his historical and artistic contributions alone might qualify him for civitate. Would that they were alone, and not accompanied by the political stuff. To take an analogy from the rather painful dinner I ate yesterday, a wonderful curry can be spoiled by too much chilli sauce, because try as you might, you can't easily separate the one from the other in your appreciation of the taste.

This^ If you go back to his writing, you'll find plenty of complimentary comments from me, and that time he would have made a good candidate. Years in moderation and I have changed my opinion.

His Mideration is not an issue....(I have permission from Diocle to discuss is moderation history, since it has become an issue). X- Infractions |
2013: [J] - - - - [F] - - - - [M] - - - - [A] - - - - [M] - - - - [J] - - - - [J] - - - - [A] - - - - [S] - - - - [O] - - - - [N] - - - - [D] - - - -
2014: [J] - - X - [F] - - - - [M] - - - - [A] - - - - [M] - - - - [J] - - - - [J] - - - - [A] - - - - [S] - - - - [O] - - - - [N] - - - - [D] - X - -
2015: [J] - - - - [F] - - - - [M] - - - - [A] - - - - [M] - - - - [J] - - - - [J] - - - - [A] - - - - [S] - - - - [O] - - - - [N] - - X - [D] - - - -
2016: [J] - - - - [F] - - - - [M] - - - - [A] - X - - [M] - - - XX [J] - - - - [J] X - - - [A] - - - [S] - - - - [O] - - - - [N] - - - - [D] - - - -
2017: [J] - - - - [F] - - - - [M] - - - - [A] - - - - [M] - - - -

I am going to guess the "abrasive" attitude took place between April- July of 2016 and most of you is basing your opinion on his behavior at that time. I should note as well that he received the harshest penalty in July. This was the last moderation against him. I will guess, based on I have read from him recently and the fact that he has not received an infraction that he got the message. This is why I asked people to show me a discussion where he was "abrasive" and rude to fellow members because I keep looking and I can't seem to find it. This is why I am guessing that this all took place last year. If this is the case, this should not be taken into account. One reason is that he has appeared to have learned his lesson. He received several infractions in a short period of time and since July of last year has not received an infraction. (disclosure, he had one reversed).

As we stand:
People like;
-His creative writing
-His participation in the Picture of the Week.
-His gallery
People do not like;
-His "attitude"
On to the point of the "don't like" is there any instances within the past 10 months where he has shown disdain for fellow members or has shown an "abrasive" attitude towards fellow members? If everything you say about him took place in the first half of 2016, then how much time must pass before he has proven that he is no longer posting that way? 10 months is a long time to show and he appears to have shown that. When I first approach Diolce it was before 2013. By all accounts, he probably would have been made a citizen then. Obviously last year, he would have. However, it has been 10 months and I review his postings and I do not see anything resembling what people are saying. People have written that he has been disruptive but in the discussion, I have seen that he had a cordial discussion with many different posters and the discussions did not digress into off-topic discussions or juvenile rantings. This is why I ask for specific examples of his post being disruptive. if this was not my application, as a citizen, I would want to see this.

[Abdülmecid I]

However, to your point, I didn't say all Muslims. It was also truncated as it did not contain, evidence to that specific statement which would have given it greater context. Moreover, in order for hate Speech to apply, it needs to be referring to a specific member of the forum. Even if indirectly spoken, you need to connect back to a specific member or group of members.

In Engish, omitting the article in the plural implies a general reference, which, unless specified explicitly otherwise, means that it concerns every single member of the group. Your sentence is the most typical example of hate-speech, I can think of.

Politics [1]

Sincerely, I don't think it helps your candidate much, when you link to a post that implicitly advocates for extrajudicial violence, an act worryingly close to violating the Terms of Service and the moral standards established for the citizenry. The problem with Diocle is not his extraordinary views, but the fact that these views are frequently insulting towards many members of the forum and sometimes involve thinly veiled hate-speech and promotion of illegal activities. Furthermore, in many cases, the problem of unusual views is not their limited popularity, but the fact that the reason for their obscurity is their irrationality. Some of Diocle's post are not special interpetations of controversial events, but simply logically fallacious, ranging from non-sequiturs to distortion of reality and, therefore, they do not contribute crucially to the quality of the debate.

On the other hand, I know Diocle since I registered in the site and I am optimist that his recent, unnecessary aggressiveness is the result of frustration over the Tavern's closure and the political polarization, which was initiated in the presidential elections of the United States and which gradually managed to poison the rest of the world. Diocle doubtlessly remains, in my opinion, capable of some exceptional contributions, from linguistics and architecture to the siege of Amida, while I am still grateful to him for his participation in fascinating discussions occuring in the Invasio Barbarorum sub-forums, from criticizing the Ostrogothic phalanxes of the Creative Assembly to discussing about the Nestorian Church and the contributions of the Red Army to humanity, which decisively encouraged me to continue to be active here. Additionally, I immensely appreciate his cultivated character, his artistic taste and the elegance and wisedom with which he defends Napoleon the Great against the sneaky attacks of anti-Bonapartists. After all, I admit of regularly visiting his profile to check about a new update of his music videos collection, while I know that Diocle can easily be very friendly and polite towards people he appreciates. In conclusion, I would have gladly voted for Diocle becoming citizen, hadn't been for his recent and hopefully temporary controversies that will quickly disappear, once the professional partisanship of the media allows society to examine her difficulties more soberly.
For now, I must abstain, cordially wishing Diocle good luck.

[PikeStance]

In Engish, omitting the article in the plural implies a general reference, which, unless specified explicitly otherwise, means that it concerns every single member of the group. Your sentence is the most typical example of hate-speech, I can think of.

It absolutely does not, but this is a discussion elsewhere.

Sincerely, I don't think it helps your candidate much, when you link to a post that implicitly advocates for extrajudicial violence, an act worryingly close to violating the Terms of Service and the moral standards established for the citizenry. The problem with Diocle is not his extraordinary views, but the fact that these views are frequently insulting towards many members of the forum and sometimes involve thinly veiled hate-speech and promotion of illegal activities. Furthermore, in many cases, the problem of unusual views is not their limited popularity, but the fact that the reason for their obscurity is their irrationality. Some of Diocle's post are not special interpetations of controversial events, but simply logically fallacious, ranging from non-sequiturs to distortion of reality and, therefore, they do not contribute crucially to the quality of the debate.

A "fallacy in debate" is that fallacies are in their nature bad. They actually are not if used effectively in a debate (ideally a live debate). A good use of a fallacy can have your opponent "chasing shadows" instead of dealing with issue directly.
A non-sequitur is a tricky one to employ here. Making connections can be tricky to make and more difficult to argue. What is obvious to one person isn't so obvious to another. However, this is the sort of thing that forums are design to vet. Even if Diolce makes a series of of non-sequitur this is by definition a contribution by allowing a platform to discuss the matter. A member does not have to be a master debater to become a citizen. They only need to do is provide a platform for discussion or debate to take place without resorting to flaming techniques. Ad I repeatedly noted, Diocle has not been engages in a debate that was disruptive. The discussions were carried out positively. Was this always the case? No, but that, in forum time, is ancient history. We beed to examine his action today. On regard to "distortion of truth, well that is also subjective. One man's truth is another man's myth. if a member wishes to discuss every conspiracy theory in existence on this forum and he can do it with intelligence and tact, then I wouldn't have a problem with granting citizenship in the least. He is contributing to the site and brings in traffic, which is what we are looking for even though the guy could be considered a "crackpot" by many. The argument o refused would be similar here right? He would obviously use a number of fallacies by those who do not believe. This is the problem with judging something based on a perceived fallacy; it leads to a backdoor judging of content. Citizenship isn't about content, but about contribution and attitude. While Diocle had a bad attitude and has been infracted for in the past, he is not being infracted now. (within the past 10 months).

On the other hand, I know Diocle since I registered in the site and I am optimist that his recent, unnecessary aggressiveness is the result of frustration over the Tavern's closure and the political polarization, which was initiated in the presidential elections of the United States and which gradually managed to poison the rest of the world. Diocle doubtlessly remains, in my opinion, capable of some exceptional contributions, from linguistics and architecture to the siege of Amida, while I am still grateful to him for his participation in fascinating discussions occuring in the Invasio Barbarorum sub-forums, from criticizing the Ostrogothic phalanxes of the Creative Assembly to discussing about the Nestorian Church and the contributions of the Red Army to humanity, which decisively encouraged me to continue to be active here. Additionally, I immensely appreciate his cultivated character, his artistic taste and the elegance and wisedom with which he defends Napoleon the Great against the sneaky attacks of anti-Bonapartists. After all, I admit of regularly visiting his profile to check about a new update of his music videos collection, while I know that Diocle can easily be very friendly and polite towards people he appreciates. In conclusion, I would have gladly voted for Diocle becoming citizen, hadn't been for his recent and hopefully temporary controversies that will quickly disappear, once the professional partisanship of the media allows society to examine her difficulties more soberly.
For now, I must abstain, cordially wishing Diocle good luck.

This is a nice piece about Diocle. I think Diocle has nationalist feelings. I do not think that is going to go away. I do not think he will go back to being insulting. He manage to actively debate for the past 10 months without any infractions. Ultimatelt, pass or fail, i think we will see a different Diocle, but we won't see a different opinion.

Thank for your input.

Pike

[Frunk]

Poll up.

[Parafix]

Duty done.

[Halie Satanus]

Voted.

[ElvenKind]

Duty done.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I voted.

[b0Gia de Bodemloze]

Duty done

[Noif de Bodemloze]

I have read all other people's comments and I took them to my notes. Well... He's a great artist as I have seen it in Picture of the week, but if that is true he can't stick on rules and have a good behavior. I can't give my approve yet, so....

Opposed.

[Copperknickers II]

Voted.