After months of this and a previous ban for this behavior, I've banned /u/urdaughterisacutie. Whether this ban is temporary or permanent is up to the regulars here, as well as whether new rules are made to deal with situations like this. Throughout this post I'll somewhat try to build a case against them and my interpretation. Disagreements and defense are encouraged to keep some form of democracy, and I expect a consensus to be reached on what to do.

urdaughterisacutie has been consistently trolling throughout their activity on the subreddit. Trolling is not allowed here (see "What this place isn't: [...] A place for bullying or trolling." in the sidebar) and many users a month are banned for behavior.

While most trolling is direct and deliberate through throwing slurs around or insulting members, urdaughterisacutie's focuses not on attacking members but instead creating emotional distress through arguments disguised as debate. It may be possible that this behavior is inadvertent and a result of poor communication skills, but that doesn't excuse it.

Let's look at a few of their threads to see this trolling in action. I urge you to read them before my interpretations.

In the thread "im 16 and already a pedo", this comment chain shows trolling ( https://np.reddit.com/r/pedofriends/comments/452kl7/im_16_and_already_a_pedo/czvaq2f ).

It starts off with /u/PantsuWitches imply sex with children is wrong, and it's good that it feels wrong to have these feelings as it keeps people from acting on it, and urdaughterisacutie disagrees, citing through Wikipedia the idea that willpower alone can't keep people from acting on these feelings. Note that there was no talk of willpower before urdaughterisacutie introduced it. The topic has changed from talk of why bad feelings are a good thing to whether you can use willpower to avoid bad urges. This single constructed arguments leads to a chain of people's wasted time through arguments, textbook trolling.

PantsuWitches notices this and elaborates their opinion and explicitly clarifies that they were talking about feelings in the conscience, not willpower. They question what the argument being had actually is, which is a red flag when dealing with trolls: You argue without a point.

urdaughterisacutie replies to the post, talking about how the topic they brought up is used for supposedly negative things, but in response to being asked what the argument is, clarifies nothing and instead talks about a new idea: That breaking themselves down as a person and feeling guilty about something would degrade their decision making. They then imply that PantsuWitches is playing a game with them and changing their argument, which is uncivil and not in good faith. Lastly they imply that PantsuWitches said in the first place that the person this all started with should wander around feeling guilty. This was not at all what PantsuWitches said, and even uses the term "guilt" which PantsuWitches had never used in the thread.

PantsuWitches notes a lot of this and clarifies what they said, then leaves. urdaughterisacutie just posts a link to quotes from a book about accepting who you are, something that wasn't discussed.

/u/frossenkjerte also responded and had a bit of an intelligent discussion with urdaughterisacutie, and urdaughterisacutie replies talking about guilt and their hypothesis that feeling guilty can lead people to rape children. The difference in civil responses here I suspect is as there's no disagreement.

What we can learn from this thread is that urdaughterisacutie creates arguments vaguely related to topics when disagreements are found. Is this trolling? I'd say it's borderline.

Moving on, let's look at "I'm a pedophile and shrink doesn't work on me! HELP!" ( https://np.reddit.com/r/pedofriends/comments/43ogua/im_a_pedophile_and_shrink_doesnt_work_on_me_help/czkfk8g ). This thread shows deliberate misinformation being spread using science as an authority.

urdaughterisacutie assumes a therapist tried conversion therapy on /u/guy_thaw0000 and talks about how sexual orientation can't be changed. It turns out the therapist is kind of a jerk, and support is given. However, I disagreed with the figure "about one in three people are pedophiles" and pointed out how conversion therapy wasn't applied.

urdaughterisacutie talks about goals that weren't there, then links to a study on arousal to pedophilic stimuli in adult men for the figure ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789405800395?np=y) . This study uses 80 adult males, with over a quarter attracted to children to test the hypothesis of whether "arousal to pedophilic stimuli is a function of general sexual arousability factors". At no point does the study measure the population of pedophiles, nor is the population of pedophiles being represented fairly important to the study.

I point this out and I'm accused of lying, accused of pushing an agenda, that I'm in denial, that the paper isn't attempting to test any hypothesis, and that based on news articles it might be better to just double the numbers, despite it not being a scientific report. It's important to note that I could be wrong, and eventually I left the situation because I figured they linked the wrong paper. What's important here is that assumed bad faith on my end and didn't engage in civil discussion, instead they just argued for the sake of it and wasted people's time.

Later the same discussion happens at "Is there any evidence that hebephilic preferences are normal for men or biologically adaptive?" ( https://np.reddit.com/r/pedofriends/comments/4lumyc/is_there_any_evidence_that_hebephilic_preferences/d3qe1ei ) and we see a pattern: Making claims and pointing to studies that don't test these claims. This is a bit like saying "all geese are white" because a study on duck teeth was looking at a specific family of geese. It's worth noting that facts and studies I presented in this thread were sometimes ignored. In one case I noted a paper and Wikipedia, and they attacked Wikipedia but ignored the paper. At that point I quit out of the argument. It's interesting to note that in a previous thread I mentioned they themselves linked to Wikipedia. Perhaps not on the same topic, but at the end of the thread there was no discussion had, just arguments.

Another exchange recently happened with /u/throwawaychilder at "/r/PublicHealthWatch is a sick nosy subreddit" ( https://np.reddit.com/r/pedofriends/comments/4loo1f/rpublichealthwatch_is_a_sick_nosy_subreddit/d3p135h ). Reading this thread makes me feel a little ill given how much it's like watching a pigeon play chess. I may get some of this wrong, so I'd much like more people's interpretations on this. throwawaychilder talks about how society generally views us negatively and PublicHealthWatch partly shows this, and urdaughterisacutie reframes this in to an argument about how many redditors attack the subreddit in a population of everyone. Made up statistics are thrown around and numbers multiplied or divided to fit.

In "Arguments for and against pedophilia" ( https://np.reddit.com/r/pedofriends/comments/4m0zkx/arguments_for_and_against_pedophilia/d3vfc9y ) makes the claim to a social worker ( /u/Redhoteagle ) of all people that "in all (statistical) cases, children with a sexual partner fare better than children without a sexual partner". They link to a study "The worst combinations of child abuse and neglect" ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8000901 ) that talks about how children are often abused in multiple ways, not just one. It also talks about how physical neglect, physical abuse and verbal abuse are the worst combination. This study does not test their hypothesis, they just as usual are reading the articles and making their own assumptions from them. Furthermore, they

At this point I figured this person's behavior was unacceptable and rules could be introduced regarding posting studies as support for arguments. One option was indeed to ban linking to studies: Nobody can seem to come to agreement on what constitutes a study that supports their arguments. After thinking a while a good system may be that studies must be directly testing the claim made in the post, and if not, the post gets removed. Less harsh, but still uncertain. In response to just the first option being noted in the post I get a "Wait, wut?" which I can't imagine why- I explained my thoughts and expected something a bit more constructive as a reply, if any.

However, it seems the problem in this case really is trolling. urdaughterisacutie tends to attack groups and people, especially people attacking pedophiles. Attacking isn't welcome here, at all. The only reason one would do this is to stir up trouble.

Upon seeing a not-so-great poem being trolled ( https://np.reddit.com/r/pedofriends/comments/4mg8po/wrote_a_letterpoem_to_my_mom/d3vc3z9 ) urdaughterisacutie jokes about brewing popcorn, rather than being supportive.

In this comment in a rant by /u/datingMAP ( https://np.reddit.com/r/pedofriends/comments/4mlofg/apparently_wearing_a_bathing_suit_and_playing_in/d3whjiv ) urdaughterisacutie implies that people against pedophiles don't care about child abuse and that Redhoteagle doesn't care either even after being presented with "hard evidence". Later in the thread they straight up say "If the strangler rapes your daughter, it's legal in most of the US, because "no pedo.""

Finally in this comment in the same thread ( https://np.reddit.com/r/pedofriends/comments/4mlofg/apparently_wearing_a_bathing_suit_and_playing_in/d3wkn89 ) they talk about how they associate people like /u/ardaighmadra with rapist animal abusers. Mentioning this person by name is only meant to create trouble, especially since they know from the thread with throwawaychilder that ardaighmadra has been abused in the past which may explain some harsh behavior towards this community. Lastly, they misrepresent that I had banned science from from the subreddit since it came to conclusions I disagreed with.

There's a lot of things happening with this person and while I try to be sympathetic, this behavior of misrepresenting people and fueling arguments breaks the rules, at least in my opinion.

If this ban was to be made temporary or repealed altogether, I'd suggest that more rules be added to refocus this subreddit to support rather than debate, and have threads clearly marked with debate tags for this kind of stuff. I'd also suggest referencing people to be toned down. But these are just suggestions.