It’s possible moderators may disagree amongst themselves. It’s one reason why we usually make warnings explicit before taking action, and we discuss the issues amongst ourselves and here. However, having done so, it’s not relevant that another moderator might not have issued the same warning.
Also, bear in mind that at some point, Lys had also suffered no consequences for whatever she was doing. Moderation is a process of human interaction, not a blind algorithm.
Phone makes a good point about stuff missing from his site, I’ve very rarely ever looked at it, but the few times I’ve gone back, it seems the discussion I’m looking for has changed. Its always stumped me.
Now we know.
As to someone saying they are disappointed in Turd Ferguson, oh fucking well… my name is Turd Ferguson. The Shame Game isn’t very effective, especially when its under false context.
Yes, you can wrap up all the elements Zinny claims is the reason for banning someone, and still have a fine philosopher. Diogenes and Crates falls into that category. Its a investigatio n of society on the basis of sexual and family mores, house to house, individual to individual, to find the greater good society should be seeking by finding where people contradict themselves in these matters.
Its been a part of philosophy since Socrates began to teach. Still quite valid, yet in your face. If you can’t handle it Zinby, it means it is meant for you in particular.
My issue is, Satyr understands the mechanisms, but sucks horribly at it. He has gotta be the worst in history, even Borat managed with a higher level of competency.
Satyr is far more fucked up and twisted, and he accepts being a miserable retarded shithead. He glorifies it, he turned the entire endeavor of Diogenes and Socrates from a path seeking the best in philosophy into a satanic left handed path. Nothing positive for the individual comes from it, unless you include dropping Satyr for a sack of shit he is, renouncing him and moving on… in that light, rejecting Satyr is the beginnings of wisdom, and he has done philosophy a favor, in showing individuals what NOT to become.
Every ride in a amusement park has a sign, saying you must be “this tall to ride”. Satyr doesn’t pass that intellectual barrier in his posts when tackling simple ideas like Noumenons… he is barely crawling foreword, and I can’t but help he is making thus effort to show off the idea he isn’t a sack of shit, but can speak philosophicalese.
But in the end, even taking this left handed approach is still within the confines of philosophy. It has a history of method going back to the very roots of the endeavors of the Socratic philosophers. Aristotle recommended tolerance for Diogenes, but I suspect even Diogenes would be horrified at the creature Satyr has become. Clear fundamental difference is, Diogenes would be in a position to rip Satyr apart, while Carleas has found it easier to remain nebulas and largely unconscious of the reasons why… he simply just knows Satyr isn’t good for shit-nothin from long experience.
This however wounds us, as a essential piece of the puzzle inherent in philosophy gas been removed, by someone just as twisted…Only Humean, who really should be on the receiving end of every torture Satyr says he deserves. Why? He doesn’t share Carleas excuse in regards to moderation. He will systematically attack users, ripping them from discussions for the very worst of reasons… because Only Human doesn’t understand, it doesn’t fit into his view of what general discussions of philosophy should be… only then dies he apply the rules. His section is a general section of philosophy, EVERYTHING is open up for discussion. Instead threads are thrown out left and right, and what us left is weak and uninteresting. Its more a reflection of his own biases, derived from his sick concept of comportment, than philosophy. Where is the opportunity if a clash of extreme views? Non existent, they either were banned, asked to post elsewhere, or discouraged from posting due to the drivel passed off as discourse. Under Only-Humean, we’ve managed to reproduce the Islands from The Brave New World, where all the interesting people are exiled. Only people allowed to remain in his forum are the ones who suffered oxygen deprived brain damage.
So no shit we have a ongoing problem on this site. It is asytemmic, and rooted in the mentality if the moderators themselves. The Satyr situation is a byproduct of it, but hardly the only one. This can only continue as time goes on, and get worst, due to the character flaws of the moderation staff. The Javert Syndrome (from the character in Les Miserables)
Only Humean is holding the line against personalities that are aggressive, out of place, and dangerous to him (not us, him) due to a need for a sense of order, a reflection of how the world is, and needs to be, from his own limitations in processing information cognitively. Most people don’t sit where he sits psychologically. He is but one psychological type out there among many, and is remarkably uninventive, but us moronic and self centered enough to think he is right, and needs to make everyone else right, or get rid of them.
Ideas can effect our sense of self, it can be painful to us when they are rejected, undermined, or told simply they are non-factual. The moderators can claim to be protecting certain (often unnamed) individuals in one case, but fail to realize the other poster is likely experiencing the very same phenomena… that the ideas of the first person hurts the sense of self and purpose behind the ideas of the responder.
Its not so easy to see who is the antagonist from this light. Its not the role of philosophy to provide a pain free arena for debate, where moderators can protect the psychology of one class of users they understand, and attack and reject another they can’t. The role is to provide dialectic exchange. Not just the meeting of ideas, but of the personalities those ideas are intricately formed from, and are part and parcel of. You simply can’t separate the idea from the personality, its impossible.
Personalities juggle imperatives differently, we’ve discovered in neurology pain and punishment pathways can differ per region of the brain for different types of thinking. The fact this has gotten so out of control with the bad blood between Satyr and the mids us hardly exclusively Satyr’s fault. You guys are so ignorant of the underlining methods to administer a measured conditioned response to a guy like Satyr it isn’t even funny. Have you paid ANY attention whatsoever to the methods I use in regards to him?
I tell him I’m neutral, but I also nail him in painful, embarrassing points. I’ve had but a thousandth of actual interaction with him that the Mods have had, but had a larger impact in turning motion and attention getting than the mid staff has.
Yeah… His desire for revenge is obvious. Very correct to say his goal is to rip up and destroy. The moderators have inflicted terrible trauma to him by the very means they claim to be protecting others by. Most people admittedly don’t want to associate with someone like Satyr. He sucks as a human… but none the less, has something to say about the mind, and the nature of his own paraphilic complex, that we all unconsciously share. This stuff bubbles up into our culture, and has weird effects. By exiling Satyr, we’ve created a beast. Well, a beastier beast of a lesser beast.
The trick is, to actually let the guys who know what they are doing to counteract Satyr over the long haul, to meet him in the dialectic on his Conscious/Unconscious awareness, and break him down piecemeal, overtime. Don’t be scared of the scope or method if Hus actual debating style.
In regards to the quite marathon, yeah… it’s a clearly inhibitory act designed to kill off thinking in others, rather than to get them to read and engage. Data did this in Startrek when he realized he couldn’t prevent his opponent from winning, so shifted his own goal from trying to win to merely preventing his opponent from winning.
Its a lame dialectic tool best used to distract and disrupt an opponent’s attention on the battlefield, but in philosophical debate, is unwelcomed, as it evades a conclusion that can effect the worth of a position being defended without justification.
So yes, it’s valid to ban someone for this, even if the text quoted was in context, if the overall effect can be shown time after time to arrive not to conclusion, but rather, a collapse of discussion.
Changing Satyr’s name to The Lollypop King (Feminized, Location: The Sugar Factory) is funny, but also quite unethical.This being said, it does show a awareness on the staff he is suffering on the sense of self level from a Paraphilia in regards to Masculinity/Vir. Why you’ve chiosen to take thus assinine course of action instead of pressuring him over time to explain himself in his points of contradiction is beyond me. A reasonable moderator would look up info on how paraphilia is thought to form in the first place (such as its stages psychologically and in culture) and start taking stabs at the presumed weak points in his presentation, emphasize the contradictions, and point out philosophers who more or less nailed the thought processes beyond what Satyr keeps projecting.
You give him a death of a thousand papercuts. Instead, he us doing it to you, and the weak minded follow him. Given the main forum ONLY selects positively for the weak minded, Satyr has managed to hold parity with this site for some time… similar idiots posting here as there. Satyr at least has the attraction he is a amusing egoist, but this site, its bland as fuck when it comes to the moderators. Why do you think people keep defending him when they know so little about him? It effects their sense of right and wrong, they feel they can be punished like he is, he is the underdog, exciting, etc.
In the end, Satyr is merely pathetic. Something worthy of pity. He couldn’t post a real thread of philosophy beyond his sexual dysfunction if his life depended upon it. But he has positive qualities of personality the staff here lacks.
We are eventually going to need to merge Satyr back into the site. He has aspects to himself this forum needs (especially Only Human) if we are going to grow as thinkers. I don’t like this forced lobotomy.
Turd,
You are like a dung beetle who thinks it has the best piece of shit and through your subjective needs evaluate how to understand the world and others - the world being subjective and artifcial and man-made, not understanding that humans are a part of the world and subjugated to its laws. You cannot understand higher quality, for that you need to have potential not limited to that of yours’.
Yes, really. Again, this is going back to nuanced versus black and white rules. You’re quoting a bright-line rule: posting on behalf of a banned user is clearly and obviously circumventing a ban. That is, if a banned user writes up posts that he wants to see on ILP, and you deliver them, you’re clearly and obviously in the wrong. No doubts. Bright line.
But to put that in logical terms, meeting the bright line criteria is sufficient, but not necessary. You’re committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent: If Lys’ is posting on behalf of Satyr his words written to be posted on ILP, she will be banned, she [arguably] hasn’t done that, therefore she shouldn’t be banned. That’s fallacious.
I think there’s a bright-line rule on the other side: if Lys were engaging in a discussion, and she cited Satyr as in the phrase, “This is what Satyr was talking about with respect to [XYZ]”, or even, “you’re wrong because [XYZ]. Carleas made the same argument when he said [quoting Carleas] But Satyr showed that argument fails: [quoting Satyr]”. I don’t think such specific, context-relevant uses of Satyr’s ideas or words are problematic. But between that and the banned-user-proxy bright line is a field of greys.
A third clear fact in this case is that Lys is in the grey area between the lines. So we look to the bright lines and analogize to them (is this bright-line-like?); we look to other relevant bright lines (flooding with copypasta is clearly prohibited) and analogize to them; we look to history and to knowledge and to intent. And we make a judgement call.
In a nuanced, totality of the circumstances evaluation, we use the bright-line rules to evaluate the shades of grey. And certainly moderators can disagree, thought I don’t think OH and I are actually in disagreement here; we might break to one side or the other differently at the margins, but I think our general topology is much the same. And anyway, this is not a marginal case.
I bet you I can. I just smoked a blunt the size of small submarine not ten minutes after I woke up. Breakfast of champions. I am to too high. Ya’ll be cool.
Maybe it’s time to take that poll now - just my suggestion.
The trees are getting thicker obscuring the forest.
Oh, and Zooty, you click in in the evening. A blunt might veil your honest opinion. 
No… we don’t ban people on KT. We confine them to the Dungeon, where they have moderator privileges. The idea is to separate quality of minds, not to silence or censor what makes one uncomfortable. The behaviour of the people who run this forum exposes just that.
The only people who have ever been banned on KT were pedophiles or stalkers of other users. You have to be seriously disruptive of the forum or of other users real lives to warrant permanent banning. Erik, for example, who threatened to cut off Satyr’s son’s face, or to expose Lyssa’s identity, or what he thought was her identity, because he’s an idiot. Or Mannequin, a homosexual who is obsessed with Satyr and called his house.
Indeed there is a threshold that we will tolerate, but our methods in dealing with those who pass that threshold are transparent and reasonable, unlike ILP. In reality we are infinitely more tolerant than the people here and it is mainly because what we are called upon to tolerate is infinitely less threatening to us than Lys reposting some of Satyr’s quotes.
Yes, that’s right. Reposting of quotes is more threatening than actual death threats and stalkers. This is why I think it is at some level futile to discuss this subject because at the core the mods here are fundamentally unreasonable and hypocritical, one expects honesty and rationality in turn because that is what one offers.
I understand that it is bewildering and frustrating to logically address statements made by certain people only to have them immediately redefine the argument and redirect into another subject or excuse… but as I said in the previous post it becomes necessary to de-invest the self in what you can’t fix. Use the place and the people, as examples, as learning material, as whatever. Show the spectators what is occurring here. Demonstrate reality, uncover reality, reveal reality. Reality is there for all to see.
But the mods here won’t admit they’re wrong. Even if you back them into a corner all you’ll get is silence and maybe a ban, until this blows over. That’s how it works. Point is, they’re irrelevant. Do it for the others. Don’t think of it as a contest, don’t expect to win. There is nothing to win, and there is no one to contest with. Think of it as an exploration. A safari.
You will be offered excuses as to why Lys can’t post here, or why Satyr can’t post here. They will be pure bullshit, but it will be up to you to figure out why they are bullshit and to explore the reasoning and motivations behind them.
That’s precisely how it should be, Carleas. You get the both of best worlds…I mean the best of both worlds (I’m high man) when you do it that way. This is your crib, you are the autocratic ruler and shining symbol of our philosophical pride. But you must be benevolent!
The people of ILP have spoken and the onus is upon you, Carleas. Open the doors of ILP to all those from Know Thyself. Create a subforum for them, allow them to have their own culture and worship their own gods. Integrate, Carleas. Darius the king of kings did it, and so should you.
But were you banned? Wasn’t that thread put back? It’s not like you couldn’t keep posting, right?
If a thread is edited, it’s not like you can’t ask for an explanation and get something that actually resembles a reasonable answer… Unlike here, where apparently the most simple and direct questions need to reformulated to keep a bad decision intact…
Did you keep a diary? You must be older than I thought. Did you have a curfew?
“That said” lol… “That said, even though deleting that thread was an insult to everyone, and is completely unjustified… I guess I can sympathize a little with the moderators given how absolutely arduous it is to take a couple of extra seconds to scroll through a thread”
The difference is that the one quoting Nietzsche wouldn’t or shouldn’t be seeing things from only Nietzsche’s perspective… Didn’t Nietzsche say one should find one’s own way?
Do you think my criticism is unwarranted? Are my questions to the moderators from a place of blind emotion? Do they make reasonable sense to you? Are my questions “distressed”… Somehow I doubt Lys is distressed by the banning…
Or, to paraphrase John Fowles:
KT was like a forum that wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with its impotence; and had only ILP, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest.
One man’s opinion as it were.
If that happens, I am obviously in the wrong, yes. I did not doubt whether I am wrong if it happens, but whether it happened at all. Can you point one instance of Lyssa posting something of Satyr’s that was written purely for ILP? He has over 9000 posts on KT, is it such a big wonder that some of them are fit as responses to some subjects being discussed here?
I am familiar with logic 101, thank you very much and no, I didn’t commit that fallacy. I realize there are other possible conditions for why one can be banned, I just want to point out that IF she hasn’t posted on behalf of Satyr his words written to be posted on ILP, THEN that particular condition, obviously, cannot be used as grounds for banning her.
Some other condition may still apply, and if it does, which one?
No, I do not see anything as a clear fact here - the only gray area appear to be the rules, which aren’t clearly stated and seem to vary from one moderator to the next, Carleas even having the contradictory rule where it is allowed and not allowed to post texts from banned users.
The way I see it:
Lys is a user who shares a decent amount of ideals, opinions, etc. about the world with Satyr. Satyr has expressed a lot of these ideals and opinions in a way that Lys thinks is good enough to not need improvement or any sort of further modification. Lys comes to ILP sometimes, every few weeks or so, and posts a little, not much more or less than an average, normal person does. She sometimes quotes Satyr, sometimes without further comment, like some other users here did and some still do quote without being reprimanded, or warned and threatened with banning. Carleas, the forum administrator, has said that posting Satyr’s ideas is fine, and also said that it is not fine, but did not react. All of a sudden, another moderator is not fine with it, and bans Lys.
What is the reason Lys was banned in the first place?
Posting ideas of another, banned user? Your latest judgment about it seems to be that it is allowed, if I am not mistaken, while Humean thinks it isn’t.
Spamming? I’ve pointed out the statistics for you, plenty of us here who post far more than her. The only thread she can be argued to have flooded lately is Aidon (Satyr’s) “Nihilism” thread in Rant, but then again, plenty of people had or still have their own threads in Rant, where they write as much as they want… it IS the rant after all, no?
The source of all light is in the eye.”
― Alan W. Watts
You don’t win a game by hitting the ball out of the court.”
― Carlos Ruiz Zafón,
“I am willing to take life as a game of chess in which the first rules are not open to discussion. No one asks why the knight is allowed his eccentric hop, why the castle may only go straight and the bishop obliquely. These things are to be accepted, and with these rules the game must be played: it is foolish to complain of them.”
― W. Somerset Maugham
By the way, very recently I also became popular at kts, though I do not mind that.
With love,
Sanjay
Ridiculous.
This Turd here can write paragraph upon paragraph about Satyr being a “sack of shit”, and nothing.
Zooty too, the pretentious coward, postures and declares he would like to be locked in the chamber of debate with Satyr. Like a child, trying to attract attention and impress others by claiming he would like to be locked in cage with a lion, but when asked to act on his claims, and when the lion cage is opened, he returns back to posturing and declaring, at a safe distance, poking and provoking from the outside. Despicable. Zooty, I told you in PM, if you so much desire to debate Satyr, come to KT. The worst thing that can happen is the discussion moved to the dungeon, where you could still post.
shit-Smears left, and these 2 came just in time to replace his role of attacking and posturing from a safe distance, where they can’t be reached, where Satyr can’t retaliate.
um… KT would have to be an 18+ website for zoot to be able to go there, aoc.
Guess he doesn’t like the color scheme of KT. Me its a day to day thing, sometimes I like the KT beige, othertimes I like the blue and whiteness of ILP, similar to Facebook, a social gathering. Sometimes KT makes me use all sectors of my brain, which keeps me up at night, and sometimes you just need the steady stream, the cacophony of rubbish that only ILP can offer. Kind of like counting sheep. My advise, is please dont ban me. I need my sleep and mental rest. Its nice to only have to use 1 percent of your brain at times.
I didn’t post those in an attempt to justify what ILP moderator team did to lyssa. Quite the contrary, I posted those to remind you of my stance against post deletions, which you might notice places me on lyssa’s side on the argument.
Of course I had a curfew, I was 3 
Well, the dictatorship effectively ended in 1985, but we didn’t have a new constitution until 1988 I think, so the 1985 elections were not direct, they were voted on by a collegiate. In fact if I remember correctly, the impending election of 1989 was one of the driving factors for the new constitution. I was 7 then, and I remember we all getting our faces painted and going out to the streets. To me it was all a great party, specially when our team won and we got to vote to elect some piece of shit.
So no, I didn’t get thrown in jail for speaking my mind. I just got a timeout. But I had an uncle who did and he still has the scars from that. And I had my own parents whose money was frozen in their bank account while they were in process of building our home, which caused us to live within 4 walls of cinder blocks with a tin roof and a dirt floor for a few years. That too I thought was kind of fun. Never once I heard my mom and dad complain about how we lived, but I did hear their outrage and desire to protest, however not doing so for the sake of the children.
In other words, although I was little, I was raised in this cultural environment of understanding that when you lose freedom it is an upward battle to gain it back, and that when see these abuses of power which are precedent setters for insults to freedom, it is imperative that we face it head-on.
Anyway, kind of going off topic here.
That said, disruptive behavior does not warrant record deletion. Follow?
This is what lyssa does. She goes away for a week or so and browses a bunch of books, clipping away little morsels that she finds relevant to a point she is trying to make and putting them in a text file. Then when she is satisfied, she comes in and dumps her week long file in a single day in a rate that nobody who actually wants to give merit to her argument would be able to keep up (naturally, it might take a week to read all that), but then it doesn’t even matter because she won’t be here to hear the answer. That is the very definition of spamming.
It’s like the philosophical pinterest.
They wouldn’t?
Heck, to the confessional with them! Repent, nietzscheans!
No, not unwarranted. Of course I can’t fault others for my inability to spend the whole day reading online as online chick wants me to read long book passages and extract from them the point she wants to make, instead of her telling me what the point is. However, from the point of view of forum administration, whose intent is to preserve the quality of discussion, I do not think that it is unfair to call that a disruption.
And not blind, but not emotionless… you’re just letting all your affects speak about this, or something.
No? She said “fuck” and “cunt”… Mon dieu! I even blushed.
I am not even sure if you’re kidding or not, knowing his pedophile past 
What is an 18+ website? How can any website guarantee that all its members are 18+? Is ILP 18+?
Sounds as stupid and pointless as those useless ‘Click continue if you’re 18’ functions on porn sites.
Aaanyway, that was not the response he gave me, his response was more along the lines of ‘I’d rather burn in hell than ever join that place’…
aposha,
I will reply the rest of your post later. I want you to address this before that.
With love,
Sanjay
This is the part that most concerns me of course. And that is because I often quote both Satyr and Lyssa in my own posts. My motives may be entirely different [and I always react to their points with points of my own] but I can readily imagine a moderator who does not particularly like me [and my own point of view here is not particularly likable] using that as an excuse to ban me.
It’s a slippery slope precisely because it can readily become entangled in the politics that will always pervade any discussion venue like this one.
And if there is one thing that ILP should not discourage are posts [whatever the motivation for submitting them] that does in fact focus that beam on actual philosophical issues.
And though I am convinced I’m in the dungeon over at KT solely because my point of view was upending Satyr’s objectivist agenda in the uberman “clubhouse” that is the agora, the bottom line is that I am still permitted to post. At least for now.
So, why not include something similar to that here? If for no other reason that we can’t have too many opportunities to expose just how delusional and dangerous the objectivist mind is.