Mr R, no need to be a D.
Cassie, can you say more about the “philosophical ethics” of web forum moderation to which you’re appealing, and how permabanning violates them? Or is it only that it is unsupported? Is negative liberty on a web forum really so broad?
I couldn’t agree with that statement.
People suspect others based upon a heighten concern for the views of the others, not merely what has been judged an abuse. So if anyone comes on here and expresses the same views which I do, someone who hates me or my views is not merely going to start trouble for them, but also accuse them of being me (has happened several times).
People actively try to create excuses to get other people banned. The same is always happening throughout society as well where “banning” = “getting fired, put in jail, put in hospital, suicided, or even assassinated”.
Carleas, its good of you to consider my appeal but before going into the broader ethics of it, look what happened today! on your forum:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185954
A person who is on topic and opens some food for thought without disrupting anyone is banned for “inevitable trolling” - for something that has not even occured yet !
for some future possibility…!
Apparently the member James Saint who makes null remarks like “so what?” with no interest in any “robust” philosophical discussion is not the troll.
Can you see the hypocrisy and unfairness of that?
Someone is punished for something that has not even happened but may happen in some future.
Someone is punished for just being who they are, and who they are has not been disruptive of anything intellectual.
This is plain personal ressentiment, after you said, no one wants to punish another person here, and that is not the mentality of this forum.
This is bad and straight forward hypocrisy happening.
Why dont we just label some people as bad news and jinx forever and cut them off with no conscience.
James, you are saying that??
Making an empty remark like “so what?” and nothing more, trying to provoke others into a non-topic meaningless exchange and trying to get them banned was your doing.
Well he is, and I hope you are satisfied.
Cassie, there is a lot of history that went in to that banning that you couldn’t know about; please allow me to clarify. The username Banshii belongs to someone who has repeatedly returned to ILP to cause trouble, and repeatedly been banned for cause. His return as Banshii is a circumvention of a recent ban for cause of another recent incarnation.
I’ve made the point before, though it’s worth making to every new user that expresses legitimate concerns: what a user sees is rarely the whole story. The optics are bad, of course, and that seems to have been the point of the Banshii account: to make it look like we arbitrarily ban people who are engaging in good faith, and to allow other accounts he may create to attempt to erode the credibility of moderation by pointing to this action. But the back-story is that this user (his original account was “Satyr”, so that’s used to refer to the flesh and blood man behind the string of sock puppets) is a consistently disruptive user who, while potentially capable, has engaged with ILP in a nearly exclusively disruptive way for years.
Satyr is on the one hand chronically unable to participate respectfully and dispassionately in philosophical discussion, and on the other hand fixated on this site (he’s even created his own discussion forum, a significant portion of which is dedicated to the discussion of ILP). ILP is a small, nearly inconsequential site, and you’d be forgiven for thinking that no one could so idolize it; I would not believe it myself if I hadn’t seen it play out over more than half a decade. But as small as ILP is, there are those yet humbler souls who pay us the dubious tribute of obsession.
And the only remedy for such a person ends up being somewhat preemptive. This is the practical reality of web forum moderation. As I believe I’ve said, I think it is justifiable in theory to permanently ban someone. But even if you disagree with the theory, it’s unfortunately the case in practice that a permanent ban of the main account and ban-on-sight for the inevitable reincarnation is the only way to limit such a user’s disruptive potential. And of course we hope that someday the rejection will get through.
I do not understand your post. Please clarify.
I think he’s saying his disagrees with the canned, talk-radio brand of American conservatism, and that he was baited into behavior that would get him banned by someone who holds those views and is able to ban him for a day. I don’t know whether or not this is true, but if I’m not mistaken, that’s the gist of his post.
Well, why not just say that? His post in unintelligible.
Maybe he’s challenging people’s comprehension skills, or maybe english isn’t his first language. People prefer conciseness in varying degrees.
Cassie, my comment on that thread was meant simply as “Okay, you have made about 10 posts on this thread, all alone on the thread, and I don’t strongly disagree with any of them, but what is there to do about it?” or as I literally said, “So, what now?”
I was the only other person on the thread. I merely asked a question of what else to do after seeing what banshii sees. I doubt that my question had anything at all to do with any mod reaction (although, never can tell).
Carleas, its true I don’t know him from the start, but since I’ve been here, he’s been banned for the third time! I believe he said he has been a really really old member here since 2004, and that would explain his attachment to this forum and not an irrational obsession conferring an idol status to this forum.
And what I can’t understand is how someone like Mr. Reasonable openly “openly” is exhorting to stop analyzing philosophy texts with statements like philosophy has nothing to do with value judgements and living, and in that sense preventing scholarly discussion and exchange, yet no Mod. gives him a single warning!? Not a word against him even. This board shows no stance on his position.
I don’t want to see Rational banned or anything, he has his own view, but I am pointing out Disruption of philosophical discussion cannot be the reason some are permabanned; for if that’s the case, your reason is already invalidated by some members openly exhorting others to stop thinking in whatever subject that interests them.
Observer/Hesperus/Banshii disrupted nothing is all I know, and you can’t deny this in these names he’s tried to participate here.
I also dont understand how you check for reform in someone when you condemn them forever? Are humans like cats whose chance expires after their 9 lives are up?
A hypothetical question. If Satyr is permanently not welcome here, his copy-pasted ideas would be allowed?
I read someone on his forum was willing to do that for him, although he never asked himself.
So is it him you block or his ideas too?
Well, after Humean called Banshii a Troll, you can understand how your comment came across to me; after 10 posts, you say a so what and relatively speaking, that looks more like trolling than someone posting his ideas.
Oh well.
At most that would be harassing, but a “So, what now?” isn’t even that.
Trolling is the constant relentless effort to gather a group into someone’s net (of whatever type).
It is similar to proselytizing. Satyr could easily be accused of trolling simply because he does nothing but proclaim “truth for the world to see”, no reasoning or philosophy being expressed… endlessly. He seems to be merely a preacher out to gather a flock and nothing else.
No, that’s not the only definition of trolling. Trolling is also making trivial remarks.
It is similar to disruption by trying to nullify something with content with unproductive lightness. Making light of things is a way of dismissal.
So does everyone who have their own position to present.
So do you.
Again, it isn’t simply enough to say so, when you make no case for it.
Whatever happened to “Clarify, Verify”…
He puts his ideas for discussions; not his fault if no one is upto rational arguments.
Firstly, I am not the one prosecuting him. I am just now explaining to you what I see has happened and I’m not going to argue over the definitions of trolling vs harassing.
I was all up for rational argumentation concerning various ideas that he presents. I agree with many of them (and frankly can pretty much guarantee that I know him even better than he knows himself), but he is so hyper-sensitive that if I make the slightest sign of confidence, he goes ballistic and attacks, not what I say, but me. He certainly isn’t alone in that regard, but it is frowned on no matter who is doing it to whom (possible exception of certain mods).
He doesn’t do the “rational debating” thing, and certainly not against anyone of confidence, whether right or wrong. In that thread, all he had to do was discuss in a friendly manner. I hadn’t attacked him or what he said at all. But the real problem is that he has been merely preaching for so long and tried to deceive with sock-puppets and gender bending so often, that he didn’t get the chance this time. It was too late. It really had nothing to do with me. I have never complained of him being here even when he was doing the gender bender thing. I don’t personally care and didn’t say a word to anyone about it, until after they already spotted him.
He apparently has been banned due to long-term proselytizing aggravated by being too sensitive to disagreement and counter discussion leading to nothing but derailing ad hom.
I’m no longer participating on this forum anymore. I have all I can stand of your temporary bans here just because somebody gets their feathers roughled.
If people are so damn worried about their feelings perhaps they need a new hobby other than philosophy.
He is an old member; he antedates me. And after his initial ban, we welcomed him back on several occasions, only to regret it in short order when he inevitably puts down everyone he deals with. He’s now been banned longer than he’s been welcome. That makes it seem like obsession.
But exhorting people to stop thinking, especially in the Social forums, is not disruptive. One can advocate for a complex and orderly philosophical framework in a disruptive way, andone can advocate for chaos civilly.
That’s an interesting hypothetical, and the answer is not straightforward. Given that you’re specifically criticizing permabans, I take it you mean to implicitly endorse short term bans. But a ban of any length is meaningless if the person banned can simply post-by-proxy right away. When someone is banned, we immediately ban new accounts they create to circumvent the ban. It seems there is strong reason to ban an account that acts as someone else’ account. But of course, quoting someone can be done in degrees.
A bright line seems to be quotes that a banned user has written in direct response to an ongoing discussion on ILP, and which are posted by a proxy user in the discussion where the banned user would have placed them, will earn a good faith proxy user a warning, and bans as become warranted. Grey areas will be fact sensitive.
Let’s talk about the abuse of all that temporary banning going on.
What do you have to say on that fearless leader?
I can understand that he’s invested a lot in this forum since 2004, and of course you have put your time and thoughts and energy and have had relations both positive and negative here with people for over such a long time, you are going to feel related to this forum. I wouldn’t see that as an obsession.
Its in his absence after being banned, and when he can’t defend himself or his ideas, and knowing full well that he can’t, there are some who make accusations about him - now I would call that obsessed and personalizing, after the person isn’t present himself. These are instigating provocations that make one want to come here and defend their name, that gives the appearance of an obession. Such instigating provocations are never factored and the one-sidedness of someone’s coming here takes the appearance of an obession. There’s a lot of objectivity and behind-the-scenes that is being lost, in this particular case.
No. The statement that philosophy should not be about value judgements and the exhortation to stop thinking was in the Philosophy section when Mr.Reasonable was a ‘Smears’. Observer/Satyr was reminding him of it in the Rant section, and then Reasonable continued to repeat the same in the Rant section.
I do not wish to reduce this issue to some children’s playground tit-for-tat, but I feel there is a serious flaw here - one of double-standards. You are also sending out the message that a soft violence is more acceptable if the disruption is not visibly perceptible. Someone can say “philosophy is not valuing” and “there should be no analysis of texts” and “stop thinking, and valuing as this is not real living”, etc.in a ‘philosophy section’ - is apparently less of a disruption of a Philosophy forum’s goal and purpose of existence, than someone impersonally but vociferously challenging statements like that and is banned for it. The destructive streak to the purpose of this forum is more in the former than in the latter.
Although I understand this is your forum and its not your job to convince anybody, I am sorry to say that I am not satisfied with the justification you provided as it doesn’t hold water. Fact is someone was just posting their ideas and did not even"intend" to disrupt anything and got banned for it.
I am someone who acknowledges there is a grain of goodness in everybody as you claimed to do too, and no one should be condemned as some sort of Criminal forever, much less for something he did not even do yet.
That is just bad.
p.s. I hope you know I have no personal vested interest in any particular individual, and Satyr/Reasonable, etc. is just being a good example of a phenomenon.
[/quote]
I’m afraid you have misunderstood my question.
I am not referring to “tit-for-tat responses of the banned user being carried over by a proxy user here”, but someone who is both a member here as well as a member on KT wishing voluntarily to Re-present the ideas of the banned user here as food for thought. A whole thread just containing the “Ideas” alone of the banned user and not his personal responses.
So my question was would the export of his ideas here, be banned too?
Thanks for your time.
Firstly he is no criminal (yet) to be “prosecuted”.
Same. I was explaining how your comments came across to me in the context that was set by Humean.
When you are repeatedly banned, and you know you are going to be banned again, then you share as much as you can in the limited time, and it appears as though you are not open for debating when the posts come all together. I’m sure you understand.
And I told you, I only inferred it that way about you because of Humean’s remark. I have nothing personal against you, as much as I’m sure he couldn’t care about personalizing it with you either - his short shrift “deal with the ideas or be silent if you have nothing to say” says as much and not an attack on ‘you’.