Noble DustMay 01, 2018 at 07:426875 views26 comments
Why Was @Rich Banned? This should remain public so we all know.
Comments (26)
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 01, 2018 at 12:07#1751250 likes
Reply to Noble Dust Maybe it was a personal request to be banned? Either way I think this thread will be moved to "Feedback" so while it remains public (not within the administrators den) you must be a member to log in and read it.
Wow, didn’t know that. Very sorry to hear the news. His thoughtful, theoretical, metaphysical posts will be missed. He added class to this fine forum, imho.
He was banned a while ago. I can't remember the details but unreasonable antagonism towards science was a part of it, and I think he was also on a warning. @StreetlightX or @fdrake may be able to tell you more.
I don't think it was his viewpoints that actually got him banned. Sure, they were pretty tiresome a lot of the time, but this is a philosophy forum. Most people will be tiresome to you most of the time. It was that he produced very low quality posts to defend his viewpoints, often dismissive one liners in response to detailed commentary, explication or rebuttal.
I think one of the things which contributed to it was his habit of treating any ideological enemy - which was pretty much everyone who disagreed with him on the specifics of anything he said - as an uncritical scientistic mouthpiece. This is little more than posturing, signalling your position and the stupidity of anyone who disagrees with you.
The bar's set a bit higher than how he behaved. If he put more effort into arguing and less into posturing he'd probably have avoided the ban.
The stated reason in the Moderator discussion was "he's a low, low quality poster who provides the barest of arguments - if any - for his almost always acerbic posts."
He was banned because he was an incredibly polemic poster who did nothing to actually argue for the positions he held. He degraded the quality of conversation in alot of threads he posted in, and he was warned multiple times to change his behaviour before he was finally banned. I don't remember the exact thing that got him banned, but it was almost certainly another in a long line of bad posts. It was not because of his viewpoints.
I had my own ups and downs with Rich, but I think it would be more respectful if this discussion took place as a PM. I know he's gone, and I have no particular problem with the decision, but it kind of rubs me the wrong way. When I'm banned, after telling @Baden and @TimeLine what I really think of them, please let me rest in a dignified peace.
The started reasons for the ban, combined with intransigence, I find satisfactory. @Baden's initial comment Quoting Baden
unreasonable antagonism towards science was a part of it
was a little disturbing, but it was clear he didn't have first-hand knowledge.
ForgottenticketMay 01, 2018 at 18:32#1752350 likes
I liked some of their posts. But I do think they could have tried a little better to engage alternative ideas and sometimes it seemed trollish.
For bans who aren't spammers, could there be a timeout period? Like a 30 day ban which gives people time to rethink their behavior and maybe longer if they repeat it.
We live in a very all or nothing period where people are held to account for remarks they made years ago and I'm of the opinion people can change overtime and alter their attitude. I agree with Tiff it does not need to be public.
I will agree with Jess’s idea above that maybe a suspension is a more apt response than banning. Don’t know if that has even been done before, though i may have missed it. Most forums I follow have a suspension as well as a banning protocol. Off the top of my head, the dearly departed always seemed conversational and polite to others mostly. Just out of curiosity, I searched his post history.
Nothing shocking. Observations and opinions. He offered some retorts in this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2943/ontological-implications-of-relativity/p1
But nothing impolite or trollish, in my opinion. Quirky perhaps, but quantum physics is a quirky (or is that quarky) subject. And this is a philosophy forum, not a physics site of course.
But however... the HMS Philosophy Forum is your ship, dear moderators. Steer it to shores of your choosing, and godspeed. I am a lowly sailor, and no Fletcher Christian. And Rich may have been no pure-hearted Billy Budd, foretopman. Captain Vere, despite his conscience and reluctance, ordered Billy’s hanging as by the law, in Melville’s story. What is an old salt to do when there is nothing that can be done, save perhaps scrimshawing the letters B and S onto a whale’s tooth. In remembrance of “Billy’s Soul”, of course...
Reply to 0 thru 9 I agree that there's not much in his recent comment history that jumps out. However, he has a lot of comments to sift through: 3,205 to be precise. Also, deleted comments won't show, and edited comments won't show what was deleted from them. There are definitely some good examples of what's been referred to - I remember quoting one myself in the moderator forum.
I think that the following is a good description of how he acted, and it was by far what annoyed me the most about him:
I think one of the things which contributed to it was his habit of treating any ideological enemy - which was pretty much everyone who disagreed with him on the specifics of anything he said - as an uncritical scientistic mouthpiece.
Hyperbole and mischaracterisation. Appeal to ridicule. These were the kind of tactics that he would resort to. He had a track record, and it became quite predicable.
Baden's initial comment
unreasonable antagonism towards science was a part of it
— Baden
was a little disturbing.
No idea why. My comment is consistent with both what @fdrake and @StreetlightX wrote. Note the word "unreasonable" which is akin to not giving reasons and the phrase "a part of it".
But of course looking through a post history you won't see the most objectionable comments that get any member banned because they would normally have been deleted. Anyway, though I am not as familiar with Rich's case as others, I know he merited discussion in the mod forum and several warnings as mentioned, so it wasn't a rushed decision.
Not sure if I agree with the ban, but all good in the hood. Apologies for this thread, really; I was in a bad mood last night, slightly tipsy, and was reading some threads, and realized he had been banned. Feel free to close the thread..
Ok, thanks guys for the behind-the-scenes story. Appreciate your responses.
Still think having suspensions as an option might be helpful sometimes. Just a suggestion. For those in error, who might still be rehabilitated or whatever. Kind of like an adult version of “time-out”. :victory:
I think that only some members would merit a suspension rather than an outright ban, and that's a bit of a problem, because if it was selective, then it would risk becoming or seeming more arbitrary than otherwise, and if suspensions were enforced indiscriminately, then that wouldn't be right, because some members would merit an outright ban. Also, Paul was of the view that suspensions weren't very successful, and he ran the old forum for well over a decade.
Besides, is it not the case that any banned member with the know-how and discreteness required could return and continue to participate on the forum?
Comments (26)
He was banned a while ago. I can't remember the details but unreasonable antagonism towards science was a part of it, and I think he was also on a warning. @StreetlightX or @fdrake may be able to tell you more.
I think one of the things which contributed to it was his habit of treating any ideological enemy - which was pretty much everyone who disagreed with him on the specifics of anything he said - as an uncritical scientistic mouthpiece. This is little more than posturing, signalling your position and the stupidity of anyone who disagrees with you.
The bar's set a bit higher than how he behaved. If he put more effort into arguing and less into posturing he'd probably have avoided the ban.
I for one would be happier if someone said it definitely wasn't his viewpoints, all of which i disagreed with.
Don't know what you mean. Is it intended as a joke or as a criticism or both?
So it definitely wasn't his viewpoints.
Ah, I think you told TimeLine already. I'm still waiting for my declaration of undying love.
Quoting Michael
Quoting StreetlightX
That's what I meant.
The started reasons for the ban, combined with intransigence, I find satisfactory. @Baden's initial comment
Quoting Baden
was a little disturbing, but it was clear he didn't have first-hand knowledge.
For bans who aren't spammers, could there be a timeout period? Like a 30 day ban which gives people time to rethink their behavior and maybe longer if they repeat it.
We live in a very all or nothing period where people are held to account for remarks they made years ago and I'm of the opinion people can change overtime and alter their attitude. I agree with Tiff it does not need to be public.
Nothing shocking. Observations and opinions. He offered some retorts in this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2943/ontological-implications-of-relativity/p1
But nothing impolite or trollish, in my opinion. Quirky perhaps, but quantum physics is a quirky (or is that quarky) subject. And this is a philosophy forum, not a physics site of course.
But however... the HMS Philosophy Forum is your ship, dear moderators. Steer it to shores of your choosing, and godspeed. I am a lowly sailor, and no Fletcher Christian. And Rich may have been no pure-hearted Billy Budd, foretopman. Captain Vere, despite his conscience and reluctance, ordered Billy’s hanging as by the law, in Melville’s story. What is an old salt to do when there is nothing that can be done, save perhaps scrimshawing the letters B and S onto a whale’s tooth. In remembrance of “Billy’s Soul”, of course...
I think that the following is a good description of how he acted, and it was by far what annoyed me the most about him:
Quoting fdrake
Hyperbole and mischaracterisation. Appeal to ridicule. These were the kind of tactics that he would resort to. He had a track record, and it became quite predicable.
No idea why. My comment is consistent with both what @fdrake and @StreetlightX wrote. Note the word "unreasonable" which is akin to not giving reasons and the phrase "a part of it".
But of course looking through a post history you won't see the most objectionable comments that get any member banned because they would normally have been deleted. Anyway, though I am not as familiar with Rich's case as others, I know he merited discussion in the mod forum and several warnings as mentioned, so it wasn't a rushed decision.
Still think having suspensions as an option might be helpful sometimes. Just a suggestion. For those in error, who might still be rehabilitated or whatever. Kind of like an adult version of “time-out”. :victory:
Besides, is it not the case that any banned member with the know-how and discreteness required could return and continue to participate on the forum?
I think TheGreatWhatever was banned and then re-instated in the old place only to be re-banned later. And then banned again here.
I assume it's hard to stop with the behaviour that gets you banned in the first place, which is why suspensions are unlikely to be successful.
Although if any incognito returning banned members would like to chip in and prove me wrong, let me know.
it would not be possible to avoid my detection.