I can’t stand the smell.
I’ve debated this idiot a hundred times over the years. I don’t debate him anymore for his or my sake…he is incapable of learning… I will debate him only for the sake of others, so that they may watch. For me, his only value and use is as an example.
For one, are those the type of number we’re talking about with Lys? 20 continuous posts of text? Two, it takes moments to skim through even a very large thread, moments…It takes barely any effort in hand eye coordination to scroll to and spot a post… You’re over-dramatizing it in order to find some reason to justify the banning…
Prove how it was disruptive… If you are so confident that is…But you’ll have to do it from memory I guess…
If there was a thread about Christianity and someone was looking to clarify a theological argument, then it would be justified to include as many quotes from the bible that apply.
People are simply not able to see the trees for the forest - or is it the other way around. lol
I say that we might wipe the slate clean and give Lys another chance. But then again, we might have to do the same for all those who are permanently banned, if they chose to come back albeit many of them are already back under different guises.
Perhaps we can take a vote. This is after all a democracy though in another sense one can think of it as a monarchy - Carleas being King. lol
But allow Lys, if Carleas so chooses and if she so chooses, another chance possibly BUT with the expressed edict that she is not to ever again spam ilp with Satyr’s quotes. Contrary to popular belief or your knowledge, AofC, there have been many of them, and as long as the train which Julie Andrews wore in the Sound of Music on her wedding day, quotes of which are simply Satyr’s voice and not Lys’s - being copied and pasted, copied and pasted… like a run-away train they seemed at times. If I understand correctly, it is not about Satyr having been banned, but it IS about spamming threads with the posts of those who have been banned.
We are not speaking of the quotes of Philosophers/Scientists, et cetera, which allow one to make a point/emphasize something being posted and it’s quite ludicrous to even compare THAT to what Lys has been doing, insofar as pasting Satyr’s thoughts and voice here in ilp. Where is the logic of someone being banned when their thoughts/theories - their voice from the past or the present - are being placed on the Board by someone, Lys, who I think for the most part is not, even as a general rule, voicing her own thoughts in here though I have seen evidence of that, but for the most part, I’d say no but could be wrong.
Lys is a highly intelligent individual from what I hear about her so why would she even take the time to come over here and be someone else’s mouthpiece when she can be contributing her own intelligence and philosophhy – except of course to seek an advantage which has been disallowed.
So I say let her come back but only with the expressed Ruling that she speaks only her words, her fresh thoughts/opinions having to do with a particular thread or response to posts. If she transgresses from this even one time, in light of how long she has been spamming Satyr’s posts from KT over here, then she shall be removed.
Perhaps Satyr too can have another chance - fair is fair - but only on the basis of himself coming back as Satyr with fresh and new thoughts and insights and being civil always or for the most part but I have my doubts as to whether any of this could possibly occur. lol But it’s certainly plausible.
We’re not talking about Satyr though, but Lys…Could you answer my questions then? To reiterate: Was Lys banned because her quoting was not related to the thread topic? Yes, No? I have looked through her posts and can NOT find how her posts are off topic. Am I missing something? I am only interested in the truth. So, at the very least, can you link to a few posts/threads where she is blatantly violating forum rules? Is this really asking too much?
carleas wrote:
As for posting someone else’s thoughts, I’ve tried to explain over at ILP, but the short answer is that acting at ILP as an agent of a banned member is a warnable offense.
That will include posting just about anything written by the banned user for the purpose of posting it on ILP.
This IS what Lys did in copying and pasting Satyr’s posts as responses. I didn’t even take the time to read them…so ongoing. I may be wrong in this but it almost appeared to be a kind of flagrant in-your-face behavior but as a I said, I may be wrong in this.
I am figuring though again I may be wrong that she continued to do this after being warned and ergo, she was banned.
Does it matter if those posts were legitimate insofar as the thread discussion goes, not really, because she WAS breaking forum rules AND I think that any judge making a rule on it would throw those posts out.
We’re talking about both, and the status of each is relevant to this situation.
Satyr is banned, and Lys knows that.
She knows that Satyr can’t post here, and she knows that abetting his effective posting is the same as being a sockpuppet for him.
She was spamming quotes – arguably on topic but still a shitty way to engage in a discussion. That by itself is warn/bannable.
But it’s the combination – that she was bordering on sockpuppeting for a banned user while spamming quotes in light of her knowledge and of previous discussions about this very act – that’s why she was banned.
Yes, that would make ALL the difference, considering Carleas already said that one can still post Satyr’s ideas.
She was banned not because she was breaking the rules but because she was almost breaking the rules (“bordering”)??? How does that make sense?
In the previous discussions was she “arguably on topic” as well?
Do you admit that her posting of Satyr quotes (which by your admission is allowable) was on topic? Is not saying it’s a “shitty way to engage in discussion” a personal bias on your part(or that other moderator)?
Where is the logic here?
There are so many other ILP members that should have been banned but not Lys and some others who have been banned. I am again disappointed by ILP.
Who is really satisfied with the ILP rules and its moderation (cp. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=187220)?
Why do you think those two are so adamant in returning here?
Is it the quality of the Forum?
Most have read the derogatory remarks and the insults written on “Forum” at KT, they smack of rejection.
So I guess it is not because they hold this place in high esteem, or its posters.
Why is this?
Simply, because of the banning.
Which leaves me to wonder at their persistence to return.
Revenge.
To disrupt and dismantle this Forum.
How sweet it would be for them.
You have an invitation to go forth from apaosha, venture into KT land, go forth and be transformed and dazzled by the outstanding intellects that reside there.
These invitations are put out there intermittently when boredom sets in at KT, when all that is left is a half dozen bobbing heads in unison.
pb, we don’t have a defined rule set. We have an explicit purpose, and we warn and ban users who undermine the purpose of ILP. Spamming with huge blocks of text without comment undermines the purpose of ILP. The participation of a member like Satyr also undermines the purpose of ILP. Lys’ spamming blocks of text written by Satyr undermines the purpose of ILP.
We don’t have a rule set because it encourages arguments like this. Lys knew what she was doing, she knew she was spamming and her intent was to spam; she knew that she was not to enable the effective participation of Satyr and it was her intent to do so. You want a rule that says “no user shall post huge blocks of text or enable the effective participation of a banned member nor do each at a slightly reserved level but simultaneously.” But the permutations of the way people can undermine the discussion of philosophy are just too many to list: how many blocks of text is too many? How long a quote? How much commentary? How direct an effective participation is too direct? Lys knew that she was pushing the boundaries (not because we have a rule; not even because she’d asked me and I gave her my interpretation), and her intent was to push.
Arminius, we’re doing alright according to your poll, and I haven’t even voted yet.
Yes, but another fact is that many users do not know anything about that poll (viewtopic.php?f=7&t=187220).
Carleas, do you really know what Lys “knew” at that moment and what “her intent was”?
You don’t have a rule set because it encourages what? The moderators to explain their logic? How terrible would that be?
You keep evading my questions by reformulating reasons for Lys’s ban. So a person can include quotes by Satyr as long as they apply to the topic of the thread, and by your own admission you say she was “arguably on topic”… But now you want to redirect the justification of the ban by saying she was enabling the “effective participation of Satyr” when just before you say that she was " bordering on sockpuppeting"… So how can someone who is simultaneously “arguably on topic” and " bordering on sockpuppeting"(but not ACTUALLY doing it by you own admission), how is it logically then possible for such a person to commit the crime of enabling the “effective participation of Satyr?” …Can’t you see how the reasons for handing out the ban are logically inconsistent, and based more on the sudden emotional mood of the moderator?
Why is it so difficult to point to a thread and explain how she is off-topic and spamming quotes? Wouldn’t this easily and quickly clear things up for you and everyone else? If the truth is so obvious, then point to it and give an explanation? Or is it more convenient to reformulate your reasons arbitrarily? Isn’t this a philosophy forum? Shouldn’t the moderators of all people strive for clarity? Doesn’t this set a bad precedent?
You say her intent was to “push”. But you also say she was on topic. How can one be on topic while pushing? Maybe the moderator upset she was pushing a point relevant to the thread and misinterpreted that as pushing his buttons?
Because it encourages the arguments that look to find technical gaps in the rules. It encourages pushing several boundaries at once, and being maximally disruptive while remaining within the letter of the law. Arguments like this:
as though there is a specific set of enumerated crimes, and any and all behavior, whatever it’s intent or effect upon the community, is permissible so long as it hasn’t been enumerated as a crime down to every last detail.
I have pointed to posts. You looked at them and disagreed. That is your right, but note that clarity is not the problem. It’s not that it’s unclear, it’s that the laws of ILP are nuanced, they account by design for the grey areas. You’re asking for black and white law, and I can’t give that to you. There may be a rule in one of the individual rule sets that accounts for this, but I’m not appealing to any such rule to uphold this action; in any case, the forum philosophy would trump any specific rule. This is a “totality of the circumstances” case, and under the totality of circumstances as I’ve described them in this thread, it was reasonable to intervene.
I agree with Carleas.
Lyssa is a worthless, brainless spammer. If she spoke for herself, in addition to endless quotations, then she should stay.
But all she does is ECHO the words of another. So she should be burned alive. Fuck her, and not in the good way.
I think posters are not getting the point.
The real issue is not whether Satyr or Lys can post here or not. The real issue is their insistence of using their terms.
Means, if they are only interested in posting their philosophy at ILP, they can still do it even being banned, from different machines and under different names. I do not think that ILP has enough means to catch them. Their purpose would be solved.
But, that is not what they want. They want not only to express their ideas, but also in the way they want. Furthermore, they want to that in their name. And, that brings us again to square one. That is the problem.
Again, It is not fair to expect fairness after intentionally doing what is not fair, or not considered fair by concerned ones, at least.
If you have a neighbour who not only has disagreements but has been abusing you since long, though loudly but sitting in his own house, you just would not allow his wife to have dinner with your family every night. Would you! The neighbor has to stop abusing you first before sending his wife to your house again.
That is not done. It is as simple as that. Technically, one may call it unfair, but it is how it goes. And, that is going to happen every time, whether at ILP or in real life.
We are ordinary people, not Buddha who would not mind spitting on him. We are also not Gandhi, who can offer the other cheek after being slapped on first one. I think Satyr would be agree with that too.
They can blow their trumpets as loudly and as long as they like there, but at the same time they should not expect that they will be allowed to do the same at ILP.
Even Satyr and Lys will do the same to othes at KYT. It is useless to cry foul or play victim card.
With love,
Sanjay
I want to draw the attention of all posters to this quote, which I borrowed from Kyt.
This is precisely I was talking about in the last post.
Is it not unfair to to be particular about who enters your house or not?
Is it not unfair to have very low threshold for stupid ( in one’ s subjective opinion)?
So, the question is why ILP cannot have its own threshold, just like Satyr?
I think that concludes the debate.
With love,
Sanjay
Let me just state for the record that I think all forms of censorship are shameful. It is one thing to put a stop to disruptive behavior, but it is an entirely different thing to erase the record of a public discussion.
You remember I left kts once when a post of mine was moved from a thread without any reference to the original thread, and refused to return until they were moved back. You called me melodramatic or something.
You must remember that shortly after that, perhaps in a protest of his own, satyr deleted dozens of threads from kts and apaosha had to restore the forum from a backup that was a couple of days old, don’t you?
Have you ever gone in a thread on kts looking for that certain OP from way back that had an interesting point, only to find out that it has been replaced by something else? I have.
Maybe it is because I am from Brazil that this matters so much to me. Not because I think my life is as melodramatic as a novela, but because we were a military dictatorship for 30 years during my own lifetime, and saying the wrong thing there could cause you to disappear.
I think that deleting that thread was an insult to everyone here, not just lyssa. It creates a precedent for unjustified cleaning of records that does not belong in a free society.
That said, I can tell you from memory, yes, as I was one of a handful of people who posted in that thread. It was mostly a discussion between lyssa and fixed, with a lot of posts from artful pauper, and a few posts from me and a couple other minor participants. It is particularly interesting that the subject of that threads was a criticism of living as an economically productive entity, if I understood it correctly, and my posts were somewhat to the point that it is the excess that our productive efficiency has produced which allows for the very existence of scholars as a career, able to sit around and make 300 quotes a day on the internet and shutting out everyone else who is out there trying to make some food for them.
By the time I saw fixed’s replies to me, I was always a couple of pages and a few miles of webpages behid, because the quotes were coming in by the bucketfulls. If anyone read all that shit, props to them I suppose. As to me, I’ve got toys to deliver.
If someone is a christian and sees everything through the prism of christianity, then they will see every subject as one that has been addressed in the christian body of work and will feel like he needs to quote from that work and talk about it everywhere, the evangelist that he is.
Now replace every mention of “christian” by “nietzsche”, and you might see my point.
In any case, I’ve already said that my vote would be for lyssa to be allowed back. I think that she contributes best when she posts her own musings on the nature of womanhood, which can at times be quite beautiful. I wish she would post more of that instead of that repetitive gibberish satyr continues to ooze year in and year out as if it mattered a lame fuck.
That is my opinion which I would say is rather impartial, unlike yours, who literally only ever come to ilp running to the rescue of your damsel in distress. But please don’t let me stand in the way of your great white horse, please stomp away. I’ll brush off the dust with the back of my fingers, just as I always brush off any criticism from you, baby.
For clarity, I’m the moderator who permabanned Lys.
I had contacted her in PM to explain the consequences of acting as a mouthpiece for a banned member. For a ban to have any sense, that can’t be acceptable. It’s not the fact that Satyr’s computer is in some way connected to the ILP servers, or that he has an account, that is the problem - it’s the wilful and childish disruption of his words.
In a short space of time, and having been explicitly warned against doing so, she then posted several posts that were solely extensive quotes of the banned member. One would have to question her motives for doing so.
The Performance Ontology thread was suspended while I took a look at what to do with it (time is sometimes at a premium for moderators). I’ve removed the last two offending posts and replaced it in Philosophy.
I appreciate that there was insufficient explanation at the time, given that the warnings had been passed through PM and not on the board. My apologies for this, I’ll work on improving my communication.
Carleas, it is one thing to have flexible, non black-white rules, and yet another to have a contradiction for a rule.
[size=150]Please clarify once and for all, which one of these, 1) or 2) is closer to your actual position, because they are contradictory:[/size]
“As for posting someone else’s thoughts, I’ve tried to explain over at ILP, but the short answer is that acting at ILP as an agent of a banned member is a warnable offense. That will include posting just about anything written by the banned user for the purpose of posting it on ILP.” - Carleas
“I will reaffirm that Satyr can be cited, quoted, discussed, applauded, etc. Jar his pee, show it around, have a ball.” - Carleas
According to 1), posting anything written by the banned user (Satyr) on ILP is a warnable offense, according to 2) citing, quoting (posting things written by the banned user) a banned user is allowed
Now, the arguable part is the “for the purpose of posting it on ILP” - really? Satyr has numerous threads of his own where he posts stuff, his post count on KT is over 9000. Among over 9000 posts about philosophy, I think it is a reasonable assumption that some of it will be related to some topic on another philosophy forum.
And as I said, I have not noticed Lys posting Satyr’s posts which are intended to communicate specifically with other members, or insult them. Just posts pertaining to the topic at hand.
So please - do clarify, especially since Only_Humean seems to agree with 1), that posting anything (including pure ideas/thoughts) written by a banned user isn’t, or shouldn’t be allowed, and that apparently any words of a banned user, NOT only insults or text directed towards particular members, is disruptive, as he wrote:
And if I understand him correctly, Carleas at least claims to lean more to 2). Before even hoping for this entire issue to get resolved, I think the moderator and admin should at least agree on what the rules actually are - whether posting ideas/thoughts of a banned member is allowed or not (while I take it as granted that posting insults written by him specifically is not allowed).
Once that is finally agreed upon, we can begin discussing if what Lys was doing was spamming or not compared to other members who have done similar things, but suffered no consequences.