Ignoring and banning are both are ways of coping with annoying brats, one is just far more effective. People see their behavior and emulate it if they’re not banned, and not banning them lends credibility to their point of view.
A lot of the people I’d like to ban believe there’s a scientific conspiracy out there to stifle creativity for job security. It is hard to challenge mainstream science, and rightfully so. Occasionally this might stifle something truly worthwhile, but it’s worth it to keep the rabble out.
If you want a site with stricter moderation, check out philosophyforums.com One of the things that always strikes me about that site is how dreadfully boring it is.
Indeed Xun - one of the main reasons I chose ILP as my sole philo forum to post at… was for it’s tolerance of thought - tolerance of other’s thoughts is never a bad thing.
To want someone banned just because they disagree with you lacks maturity, but if that person retaliates with profanities then more fool them…
See, I think there is something to be gained, perhaps learned, from keeping some of these “annoying brats” around. I’m interested in philosophy discussions, and I get frustrated when a thread degenerates into something like the one you linked, but on the other hand I’m also interested in people, sociology, and psychology, and it can be a good learning experience to interact with someone who really tries your patience. I’ve often found that if I can hold off on blowing up or throwing back critical and sarcastic remarks at a poster who seems unreasonable, this often surprises the poster and he/she becomes easier to interact with from then on. On the one hand, you learn how to react to posters like that (beyond merely writing them off), and on the other hand, the other poster learns that not everyone is as he/she thinks and maybe becomes more reasonable. I don’t know. I’ve been surprised before. So I’m willing to have even the most frustrating posters around. Maybe banning people from the “philosophy” forum and some of the other more serious places is a good way to control any damage they might cause.
Besides, I’d rather have it all out so that you know what people are really thinking - and then ban them if necessary - as opposed to having stricter rules such that people hold back what they’d really like to say for fear of being banned. I’d rather posters exercise self-control because they want to rather than because they are afraid of being banned.
I understand your point, fuse, but I’m not sure that anyone here really needs to know that another poster thinks they should go fuck themselves. That’s usually the kind of thing that gets people banned.
Of course it’s all about context and history to determine what warrants banning. If you told someone that “they should go fuck themselves,” I don’t think it would cross anyone’s mind to ban you. More likely, people would see it as a momentary lapse of judgment rather than a permanent part of your personality. Because of your history. So while I agree no one really needs to know that another poster thinks they should go fuck themselves, any official rule against saying things like that can never be enforced consistently. I’m not sure there’s a formula to be written out for what it takes to be banned. “Anything that inhibits the community will prevent us from our purposes.” works because it’s a broad statement. Beyond that, the details are always debatable. Ultimately it’s up to those in charge to make wise decisions. I don’t envy the job.
For example, I don’t agree with magnetman (to put it politely), but there’s no reason to ban him. I’d actually like to ban him for his poor posting etiquette, but there’s not much you can do about that I suppose.
What I’d really like to be able to flame him without fear of getting banned myself. It seemed to be okay when Satyr did it because that’s just who he was and he was good at it. Plus, people seemed to be a bit afraid of him. Odd.
When you can prove that someone is wrong and they refuse to accept it in the natural sciences forum I think a good flaming is in order…you’re not entitled to an opinion on how physics or math works. You’re entitled to work out the problem and be wrong and accept that, and it should be up to a scientifically minded mod to determine when someone is out of line (both the flamer and the pseudoscientist).
How about that for a compromise? Righteous flaming instead of more bannings?
Nice to know that you have learned coping mechanisms and tactics, rather than resort to ad homs/calling your aggressor a moron - now if only Sidhe had done that too, hmmmm…
