Bannings
Considering the recent frequency of discussions querying banning decisions, we've decided to create this single discussion as a means to announce and give reasons for all bannings (except obviously uncontroversial ones of spammers, short-term trolls etc.) and to allow you to give whatever feedback you want on them.
If you think this is a bad idea, blame @unenlightened, as it's his. If you think it's a good one, the mod team is happy to take credit for implementing it.
If you think this is a bad idea, blame @unenlightened, as it's his. If you think it's a good one, the mod team is happy to take credit for implementing it.
Comments (2355)
I think it's a good idea. Well done to the mod team.
I think it's a good idea. Especially as many people do not realise that members have been banned or have left unexpectedly.
Rest in Peace to all those who have left us.
I have a question. Does unenlightened still pull them strings? :wink:
More like an interactive obituary I'd say. :death:
Sparingly and selectively. There's an art to it. You should take lessons. :nerd:
I would be glad to be taught by the master himself ;)
Generally goes something like this.
You have to be tremendously smart, and really the best negotiator, and just have this really slick ability to see instinctively how to make things happen the way you want, which is always the best way if you are tremendously intelligent. I'm thinking of writing a book called "The Art of the Sensible Suggestion" - I'll send you a copy.
:lol: I'm actually looking forward! You do have quite a bit of talent at this art.
In the professional world we use something called an "Exit interview" which is administered upon an employees resignation or firing, to find out why that person is leaving/or being asked to leave and to address any internal issues that might be highlighted in that interview. It is one of the most valuable tools when it comes to retainment of people in your work force.
I have thought about how helpful it would be to know "why" a TPF member chooses to deactivate their account or when a member is banned and their "side" of it. I am not suggesting that there has to be total transparency but I think it is helpful to actually understand how a member got banned in addition to reading the rules.
Hanover:
Please edit your posts and capitalize the first letter of each sentence, per our rules:
"Posts should display an acceptable level of English with regard to grammar, punctuation and layout."
Nothing personal. All your posts are appreciated, and I realize you might be using your phone to post and capitalizing is cumbersome, but such are the rules.
Thanks!
Hanover
a day ago
Hanover:
I previously asked that you edit your posts to properly capitalize, and I see that you have not done that. I also see that you have continued to create additional posts that don't comply with our rules. I will need for you to go back and edit your non-complying posts and for you to respond to this PM and assure me that you will comply in the future. If you don't do both of these things, you will be banned.
22 hours ago
DPMartin:
when you start paying me for services to your satisfaction, then I'll worry about such things as grammar to your satisfaction. you can always, not read what I post, you have that right you know.
11 minutes ago
As a result, he was banned.
i'm slightly confused. i did'nt now we haed to use proper english. that d'oesnt seem fare.
Really?
Eyeball bleeding is a serious condition and a single missed capital can send you into full hemorragia.
Acceptable. I will not rebel against the mods on this instance.
Thanking you.
By the way, I'm just wondering. If a mod bans someone wrongfully, and everyone realizes that there was no reason that person was banned, can that person be unbanned, and what happens to the mod that banned him?
If there's an obvious mistake or error of judgement, we can unban. Jamalrob has the last say on that. Hasn't happened so far. Punishment for banning wrongly will be dinner with Hanover, unless it's Hanover, in which case, dinner with Hanover's wife.
Well I'm glad I'm not a moderator.
:chin:
:shade:
:confused:
:sad:
But you'll put it back up when someone else is banned?
Yes, edited to make that clear.
Cool. I'll just leave then.
Thought about that, but no evidence apart from the name.
It can happen, but the ressurected soul will be eternally burdened with the tagline "previously damned." It's only fair.Quoting Baden
Whatever must I do to be your dinner?
Quoting Baden
The 18 hours or so I have left should be sufficient for all I have to say, which is just about the length of stored episodes of South Park on my DVR, so I'll multi-task while watching.
Sounds good.
I almost want to be banned and then unbanned just for the priviledge :naughty:
I’ve never heard of a grammar whore.
What a shame.
So, for Hanover punishment is just more of the same? I like it! :rofl:
:naughty:
Is there an opportunity to appeal against a 'banning' and are such bans permanent?
I would like to appeal on behalf of internet stranger who has recently been banned.
And it would be useful for me as I feel my own ban is immanent?
"all opinions are equal but some are more equal than others"
and all of that..
M
If you had read the guidelines, you would know the answer to that question. Please go and read them.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Please stop being dramatic and a martyr. There's no need for it. If you were in trouble, you would have received a warning. We're not looking to ban people. It's a hassle and work we don't want.
Apologies
I have always had difficulties with guides and lines. Good ideas invariably tend to break them.
Internetstranger RIP
But I fear we are the loosers,
no doubt he/she would concur.
M
Well, if and when you start your own forum, you might find them useful to prevent the place turning into the equivalent of a YouTube comments page despite all the good ideas therein.
A thankless job, but I fear for the babies, not so much for the dirty water.
:)
M
We have to strike a balance somewhere. I suppose we may kill a few metaphorical babies but if the water's too dirty, the only people who'll want to drink here will be pigs, no?
"Bans:
Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied. Bans are permanent and non-negotiable. Returning banned members will be rebanned.
The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you. "
The question in respect of the opportunity for an appeal is not contained here. Is it somewhere else to be found. Or will you perhaps do me the honour of an explanation?
I don't mean to bang on about it, but I do love internetstranger and wish to appeal upon his behalf.
He/she would probably vomit at the thought of my doing so.
Perhaps I might sponsor him/her and take ownership of any future offense he might generate?
M
Yes it is, very specifically:
"Bans are permanent and non-negotiable."
apologies I am referring to the appeal of such bans
That's what the "non-negotiable" bit pertains to. It just wouldn't be practical to have public appeal trials after bannings and possible reinstatements.
Perhaps the indefinite nature of the ban might be considered, at an administrative level?
Minds change, and people mellow.
All good philosophers are ultimately banned, tis the holy grail.
M
I'm sure internetstranger, if he's reading this, will be comforted by your support, so you may have achieved something, but being honest there will be no dramatic changes in the ban policy in the short term at least. We mods, most of us, have been around this and the previous philosophy forum for years, over a decade in some cases, and our aggregate experience suggests temporary bans (which have been tried before) don't work.
I accept the decision (I have no choice), and the decision to shift/ban/close my last two discussions. But I do wish to register the point that decisions to moderate in some cases (my own included) seem harsh and (IMOP) motivated by personality rather than a deference to Philosophies old and new.
I'll leave it at that, and try to confine my philosophy to the 'rules'; which will mean that for better or for worse, one will read a lot less of my thought.
Doubtless this shall make some happy.
Once again thanks for keeping the wagon on the road.
M
OK, well, it's fair enough to register discontent. That's what this discussion is primarily for.
If I may expand this topic slightly to include closed threads... (If not here, would it be better in the Shoutbox, or a new thread?). First of all, many thanks to the moderators for their work to keep this place up and running, and not devolving into a mud wrestling match. Easier said than done, probably like trying to herd dozens of obstinate cats. :wink:
But I wonder if in some cases, the closing of a thread like for instance the one by @Marcus de Brun about education and racism (which was probably started because of a understandable and deserved banning) was a bit premature. I mean, even if the premise of a thread is borderline wacky, maybe giving it time to be shown or proven to be “wacky” or wrong would perhaps be better than quickly putting a padlock on it. At least for appearances sake, which is not unimportant. And also to let others attempt to argue against the OP or at least give some differing takes. I know you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, but maybe there is a point buried somewhere in the haystack of words. Of course if a poster is trolling, baiting others, or looking for a glorious funeral pyre martyrdom, then that is another thing entirely... Also, for the sake for being fair I think the option of a temporary suspension should be seriously considered. Even IF they “don’t work” 99% of the time, suspensions would STILL be a good idea, imho. The appearances of fairness is not mere window dressing. But, just my two cents. Please do what you think best... :up:
I'll resist the temptation to debate this here as it's off-topic. Marcus has not been banned! :party: . All's I say is I think I gave the opportunity for an elucidation and none was forthcoming. But let's please keep this discussion purely about bannings. Not wanting to be heavy handed but anything else will be considered deleteable. So, last chance to comment on internetstranger's banning before this gets temporarily closed again.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Noted.
Thank you.
Quoting Baden
Sure thing. :up:
Quoting Baden
Yes, I was aware of that, thanks.
If you can't tell the difference between complimenting yourself and impersonating a known academic and using that as a basis to compliment yourself then...I'm not surprised.
:smirk:
Working on it. :up:
You do realize who that would leave in command right? :scream:
Whack a what??
Thanks. :up:
"Since these two sets of feelings are conflict, the natural writing process is tricked in separating one law memory into two locations in the brain. So if we try to do good by the law, the evil side of the coin is repressed. It does not go away, but becomes unconscious as a shadow affect. Sin taking opportunity though the commandment produces sin of every kind. The unconscious side of the coin can become autonomous in an attempt to merge the memory back to neutrality. The result is impulsive evil behavior inductions to merge the memory.
Love your enemy was a way to disrupt the divided mind, due to law tricking the writing process. Forgiveness of sins was a way to change the emotional tagging on the dark side of law memory, in attempt to restore a natural neutral writing process. Jesus was way ahead of his time based on science 2000 years in the future. The atheist position is not based on science, but comes from the dark side of the law memory consolidation, symbolic of Satan. "
Anyway, we're going on the basic (Googled) definitions on this:
Racism is:
1) "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." (as in gurugeorge's case).
2) "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Though gg happened to be a right-winger, we consider racism and anti-semitism not a fundamentally left-right issue at all by the way, but a problem right across the political spectrum. And we will give fair warning in all but the more extreme cases.
Damn, my brilliant and incisive counter argument was on the verge of converting him to a thorough-going Marxist. Oh well.
He made his disdain for us all clear to me by PM, so I released him from our misery.
[See below:]
I don't expect crowds to be thronging in protest at this one. I hope he finds somewhere where he is appropriately understood.
I think he just did.
I'd have put all this in the banning thread if it had been open already, worth moving ...?
Dunno, but I did it anyway. :up:
I have no objection to this decision, but still feel that a logical case for Nazism can be made. As I see it, the value in such a discussion could be to shine a light on how assumptions taken to be an obvious given by the group consensus can often be not as obvious as they first appear. I just find such an analysis interesting, but am not demanding the mods feel likewise. Sorry, that's all for now, gotta go, my jackboots need polishing again.
Analysing how Naziism took hold and was so persuasive is quite a lot different from believing it to be correct. So some causal/cultural/socioeconomic account of the rise of Naziism is fine, but defending a racist, genocidal worldview is not.
Something made me think to say this.
I see. Thanks, i was just curious, Im new and am still feeling the place out. Im open to any idea really, but not obnoxious, pointless grandstanding and propaganda. Seen those types before, as we all have. Good riddance.
I'm totally agreeable that someone has to make the call of where the boundaries are, and that the mods are assigned agents for that task. So, I'm not arguing against such a policy on the forum. I hope that's clear.
Speaking purely philosophically, it seems somewhat questionable that, as philosophers, we should accept the utter wrongness of Nazism as a matter of faith without making any attempt to see all sides of the question. I'm less interested in Naziism specifically than I am in the fact that assumptions we take to be obviously true are not always so. That's what interests me about Naziism, it is almost universally assumed to be wrong, bad etc, which tends to raise philosophical suspicions.
As example, key opponents of the Nazis such as the Americans, British, and Russians all built their own empires using methods that really differed little from the Nazis. In America we were still lynching blacks as the Nazis came to power, and an oppressive Jim Crow regime was being enforced by the government in part of the country. We'd only just finished exterminating many millions of native peoples a generation or so before the Nazis came to power.
And yet the WWII allies are assumed to be the good guys, and the Nazis are assigned the black hat. Such widely shared beliefs seem ripe for philosophical challenge, a process quite different than the selling of Nazism.
I believe we operate from the position that we've already seen through white nationalism and judge it accordingly. There's no scientific backing to the superiority of whites (genetics reveals that all race differences are purely social artefacts), any differences in intellectual capability have almost all of their variance controlled for by societal mediators, ethnic replacement is just stupid - only people who aren't in their right minds would equate immigration of non-whites to genocide of whites, the idea that Jewish leftists control everything is ridiculous on both fronts never mind together... And so on. This applies as much to Jim Crow and the klans as it does to the Nazis and the contemporary populist right.
Peace
It's a shame he couldn't reign in his asshole flamer tendencies. I imagine the mods together have deleted at least 50 of his posts recently.
Nothing is preventing you from creating a topic that explores all sides of Nazism. Maybe you’re afraid of being stigmatized? A true philosopher is fearless! :strong:
The Nazis had many a good book burning, btw, so I can see the appeal for you.
I tried to in a veiled attempt to keep the waters calm. :flower:
I have endured the wrath of a ticked off Jeremiah in a FB quote. I just wish him peace where ever he lands. And for the love of Tiff, let it not be on FB. :pray:
Um, except that, apologies, this is not true.
As example, here in America those of us of European heritage are still sitting on the stolen property our ancestors ripped from the native peoples with ruthless force, and there's no talk of giving any of it back. We're also still benefiting from the centuries of free labor our ancestors stole from blacks, and there's little to no talk of reparations.
Both American Indians and American blacks still suffer from the crimes of the past right now today (both populations are poorer than whites) and we whites could fix that right now today simply by giving them money which would raise them economically to the same level enjoyed by whites. But we decline to do so, we choose to keep the stolen property instead, thus making ourselves party to the crime.
Have we really seen through white nationalism if we still enjoy the fruits of it without apology or redress?
Again, I'm not interested in selling Nazism, nor am I defending any banned posters. Nor am I attempting to get banned. :smile:
I'm interested in exploring those things which the group consensus assumes without questioning to be true. It's called "philosophy". I sense the mods are not ready to do this kind of philosophy, so I'm testing the waters to see how far I can explore without becoming a subject of this thread.
By we I meant the mods. I'm unsure why you think talking about the effects of racist politics is anything like supporting white nationalism. Regardless, if anyone's a racist they'll be banned.
Jeremiah requested he be banned a few months ago on the basis of not being able to control himself. I didn't accede then because I thought he could. As it turned out, I was wrong.
Does this tell something philosophical of our times?
Why are American Indians and blacks less wealthy than white Americans?
1) Our ancestors ruthlessly stole from Indians and blacks for centuries and today we whites decline to return the stolen property.
2) Indians and blacks are inherently inferior and thus can't successfully compete in the marketplace.
If we decline answer #2 as we should then we are stuck with answer #1, which means we share some traits with Nazis, and thus perhaps shouldn't avoid talking about them.
You're allowed to mention the Nazis. You're not allowed to laud them or to be one. Hope the distinction is clear now.
I just saw he posted a misleadingly edited version of my PM to him in the abortion discussion too. Right, well...
I'm surprised that he was allowed to last so long, given his crystal clear violation of the guideline about evangelists, evidenced in the discussion on Brexit and the discussion on Trump.
I fear it's worse than nothing. He could probably trick someone naive enough to fall for his crap. I'm sure there are such people out there. He just picked the wrong crowd.
That's why it's odd. If you're smart enough to go trawling through the statistics to bend them to your propaganda, how come you're too stupid to put them to better use than trying to convince the obviously wrong crowd. It doesn't even make sense on the level of 'Heh, I get taken seriously by philosophers, so the peasants will believe me'.
He must be one of those smart-dumb people! :lol:
Pbxman: "I'm sick and tired to this anglo-centric forums in which only this USA hero UK (its fave PET) view is allowed and it not they censure you! You talk to people from Russia and Iran and they have totally different world view. How Can I remove my account from this crap?"
If he/she is acquainted with Russian or Iranian culture, the notion of censorship should be pretty familiar. I would think this forum would feel comfortingly familiar, if he/she perceives it to be a censorious place.
Thick coat of irony there, alright.
That's unfortunate, but it did seem like he/she would probably likely continue to quickly get nasty with people, including you moderators.
Fair. :up:
Letting people think about how to approach the issue for a day or two would’ve been more productive.
Not knowing that you cannot say what you think on forums like this is hardly the fault of a newcomer. There are FAR worse people on this forum saying all kinds of horrible things, yet pointing out stupidity is somehow seen as the most unacceptable sin? Or is it just me?
It is quite clear to see when someone has been antagonized. They announce they won’t respond, and against their better judgement get drawn in by the person/s in question professing doe-eyed innocence.
Step it up a bit, is my suggestion. How about sending a PM and issuing a temporary ban (a cool off period?) I that is what the “ban” is then ignore the above. If it isn’t have ponder maybe?
Good day folks :)
This site is aimed at adults not children. If someone is ignorant enough to come on a modded forum and think it's OK to call other posters and mods 'fucking retards' etc, they will be given the courtesy of a warning. Beyond that, we won't be offering them the full spa treatment in the hopes that they'll cool down, but simply showing them the door.
Besides, I don't think the circumstances here were particularly mitigating. If they were, a bit more leeway might have been justified. But even then, we don't do temporary bans.
1) At the lowest level are those banned because they just don't seem worth investing time in. We can debate particular cases, but this seems sound as a general principle.
2) At the middle level is the forum as it currently exists.
3) At the highest level there could be an invitation only section of the forum which serves as a tangible example of what kind of quality content the mods are aiming for.
There's more to being an editor than just showing the riff raff the door. Ideally there should also be an ongoing effort to recruit the kind of members the mods would like to have more of.
A challenge here is that many quality commentators have long ago given up on forums, and invitations won't be successful unless they can be provided a space where conversations are on their level.
Imho, there's a great opportunity for any mod team that understands and implements this invitation concept because few of their competitors will bother.
None of the above is particularly relevant to very many forums, but on a philosophy forum, or any forum with intellectual pretensions, the content is either going to be getting better and better, or it's going to be getting worse and worse.
If you can't or won't provide your better commentators a space where they can do their thing together what happens is that they will wander off one by one to be replaced by mediocre commentators, a process which tends to feed on itself and accelerate over time.
No, it doesn't polarize like that. With consistent standards enforced, the content remains of a consistent standard.
Quoting Jake
This is another thing that hasn't and doesn't happen. Again, consistent enforcement of standards makes the place consistently attractive to those who appreciate those standards.
Quoting Jake
This, even if possible, would result in justified accusations of elitism, impossible-to-refute accusations of favouritism, and general dissatisfaction and strife.
Consistently mediocre. To my knowledge there are few to no professional philosophers here. Many of threads are clogged to overflowing with never ending emotion fueled ego battles between folks barely old enough to vote etc.
To be fair, I would judge this forum to be better than most philosophy forums, which is why I am here. But that is a quite low standard.
Quoting Baden
Elitism is what editing is about, which you would know if you were an actual editor and not just a mod working for free.
Do the editors of the New York Times worry about those who whine their submission was declined? No, they don't. Instead they focus on finding ever better sources of ever better content.
I'm agreeable that you should ignore all the above, because I knew before posting that you would, and I'm at peace with that. But just a reminder, there is no law of nature requiring you to settle for what you've currently got.
I am an actual editor. It's really funny how people keep doing this :D. But no, I don't work for the New York Times.
That would do more harm than good. Unconscious bias would influence the selection of "elites". And as Baden said, the result would be general dissatisfaction and strife.
Your ageism is showing again. :down:
My life since I got singled out for being the drag on such desired standards. I wasn't even given the possibility of improving myself.
You could improve immediately by stopping the self-indulgent whinging. You didn't even answer my concerned PM to you when you were pissing gibberish all over the site, which PM was the option I preferred to banning you.
I'm just unhappy I can't post any meaningfully satisfying topics.
And I already explained that I was on benzos regarding the gibberish posted some three weeks ago or so.
Can you at least politely ask jamalrob if I can post topics in the lounge area? I'm afraid of bothering him.
Just give it a few months of posting in others' discussions please, Wallows. It's no big deal. You still have more discussions than anyone else on the site as far as I'm aware.
Fine, whatever floats your boat. Mine is sunk. But enough whinging. I shall comply, grudgingly...
Worse shit has happened to better people. And that's a line I've had to use on myself from time to time too.
Tell me about it. I once got someone else's blood all over my brand new shirt because they looked at me funny. And then I had to put up with the screaming parents, "Why did you do that?! What's wrong with you?! He's only five years old!".
The truth is you’re not going to get many people in their early twenties who are ‘worldly’. Some, I am sure, but given that there is no obvious marker on forums to discern age (other than writing ability) we’re thankfully left guessing.
We’ve all been/are young and so understand what it feels like to be what feels like being ‘dismissed’. Personality counts more than age when it comes to communication.
I would say, with obvious bias, that I wasn’t particularly stupid ten or twenty years ago, BUT the difference now is that I have experiences and time through which my thoughts have not exactly ‘changed’ but they’ve certainly matured and refined in many ways opening me up to different paths.
Ageism is probably going to be the next politicized “-ism” I reckon. It’s already on the horizon given the commercialized hyperbole of so-called “left” and “right” policies. By commercialized I mean that the shift is not actually increasing, nor has it ever, it’s just a matter of how media magnifies things - and today the ability to magnify is great.
Such irony! Much wallows!
Quoting S
Indeed.
Whence the supposed irony? Explain yourself.
My Mum always used to say to me the old adage “Youth is wasted on the young!” and I used to rile against this, even though I understood what she meant. The thing is I NEVER fully understood what she meant and no one who is ‘young’ ever can until they are old. Like riding a bike, you can understand the principles and mechanisms yet unless you’ve actually ridden a bike (ability being an almost irrelevant factor) you simply CANNOT know what it feels like - the odd genius probably has the imaginative capacity to get damn close though and in their youthful arrogance believe themselves too! Sometimes self-deceit is a boon :D
I still find people older than me “talking down” to me. I appreciate it a lot more now than I did when I was in my early twenties (note: I was mostly immature in my early twenties in MANY ways).
Oh ya know. This that, lol.
41, oh yee still younggg. Hhaha.
And you like sushi. I used to like sushi, but then I grew out of it. I still remember how naive I used to be when I liked sushi. It's a bit like riding a bike. People who like sushi are typically unable to ride a bike because they're too busy drooling over sushi to handle such complexities as riding a bike. I remember my mother used to say to me, "Don't judge a book by it's cover... unless it's a book about sushi, in which case, throw it straight in the bin", and I never quite understood, but now I realise that she was right all along.
[Hide]She also used to say, "Don't tar with the same brush! Unless you tar with sushi, in which case it's okay to use the same brush".[/hide]
Perhaps more want to jump ship. One never knows.
I think I had you all wrong, thinking you might be a shitard. But now, you are validating my small hunch that you, might in fact, be a genius.
Verdict still in deliberations
Oops, sorry, I hadn't arrived at your post yet.
Could be. If so, I wish him well. Here is not the place for him though.
You just banned Commander Sigma.
How does that make you feel?
That said, it would be great if this process of cleaning up the bottom end of the scale might be complemented with additional efforts to further populate the top of the quality scale.
It would great if the forum could be organized not only by topic but also by content quality, which would of course be defined and determined by the mods.
Having made such suggestions on many forums for about 20 years I can confidently predict what will happen next.
Someone will shout "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!", a totally irrelevant concept in this context, to be followed by a chorus of the Down With Elitism!! theme song.
Then Baden will inform me that I couldn't possibly teach him anything because he already knows everything. :smile:
Ok guys, go ahead, do your thing, let the highly predictable dance begin.
If you don't mind I am just going to reach down into the bottom of the cooler for a tall one. Got an opener? I have the limes :up:
Elitist scum! Elitist scum! Elitist scum! Elitist scum! Elitist scum! Elitist scum!
It's just logistically impossible to subject each thread to vote by the moderators to determine priority, not to mention such voting would be subjective and fraught with political and topic bias by the moderators.
The current system of moderator editing of weak posts and sinking low quality threads off the front page into Siberia or moving them to the lounge seems to work.
Posters will always have to sort the wheat from the chaff themselves to some degree, but such is inherent in a public forum. Sometimes less moderation involvement is a good thing.
Do you need Hanover's last name for that sizable check? :joke:
Yes. I only know his first name, which is Gerald.
That's my nickname. My real name is Tater Manishevitz.
Man on man, woman on woman, or old school?
A partially clad young lady exposing what he quaintly referred to as her 'boobies'. Mild stuff, really.
Do they have boobies there?
Nope. You'd have to go to Hooters or some strip club for that kind of entertainment, and have the means to do so of course.
:sad:
Try Las Vegas. :blush:
I was there last weekend and in the Cirque du Soleil show Zumanity there was indeed many fine bare boobies on display.
Sin City indeed.
:nerd: :sparkle:
Jake was a he I thought. Anyway, for the record, while I found his recent insinuations that he was the only one who cared about quality here annoying, he was generally fine and made some decent posts. And there was nothing wrong with his suggestion except it wouldn't work.
@Frotunes for low quality.
@Pollywalls for low quality+.
Kinda sad to see the guy go. But, his posts were not subject to change, or at least I didn't see much change when he first started posting up until his ban.
I do miss seeing his insecurities and highly stereotypical posts though. :D
[s]Not me. Self-important windbag.[/s]
I definitely think banning was the right move, because he was just spinning his wheels, but there's something somewhere in his story. There but for the grace of god
Hey, if you get rid of all the self-important windbags, there'll be no one left, except me and @S. Personally, I consider myself an important windbag. As for S, he reduced his presence by almost 90% when he changed his name. I guess that makes him a self-effacing windbag.
On a more serious note, the moderators do what the moderators do. This is a good forum and they get a lot of the credit. Banning people for the good of the forum is, I guess, necessary. But gloating over it - speaking ill of the banned - is unbecoming and pointless. A gracious silence or a bit of regret would be more philosophical.
Only a part of my mind is philosophical. Another part wants to gossip. There may be several different personalities instantiated in my single brain, and right now the personality that wants to beat the guy while he’s down (probably because of a personal slight) is at the fore. Don’t ruin our fun!
What is cluster b?
But in all seriousness, I really do feel pity for him.
A number of people have been banned whom I like and have enjoyed being on the forum with. I won't argue the need, but we shouldn't gloat. Let it rest.
personality disorders. intense emotions, unstable sense of self. I have at least one toe dipped in myself.
Agree 100% ...well, 98%....
Yeah, I actually will miss him. It was like rubbernecking at a car wreck or something like that. He was an oddity, but I think he added a certain flavor to the forum that wasn’t without value.
You and me both
:grimace:
:lol: I’ve already done all of this on TPF.
Noted.
You completely ignored the gracious silence, so...
What great pity it is that everyone is not so unfailingly cheerful, respectful, polite, sane and interesting as me. It is not their fault or the moderators' fault, just a regrettable fact of life.
His departure leaves nothing to miss because he never made himself knowable.
Who are we talking about?
@Baden - didn't you hear, he finally banned himself.
"Hi, how are you? I'm Elise, from Germany, please, I would be happy to establish good relations with you, also i have something important to discuss with you. Please I want you to contact me directly on my personal email today.. ok:: [email protected]"
I presume I'm not the only one who received this. Please report this kind of stuff. Cheers.
Some fantasy. I guess s/he doesn't have much faith in the street smarts of philosophy fans.
Bubble gum cherry apple?
I'll find out soon. I sent her my bank information and she said my surprise package would show up in a couple of weeks. Can't wait!
I am sorry. I can't do all this. I have a note form my doctor that exempts me.
But I can do magic circles on the ground*, backward sommersaults and pronouncing three words at once.
*these are done in P.
I know a mouse
He hasn't got a house
I don't know
Why I call him Gerald.
He's getting rather old,
But he's a good mouse.
(Pink Floyd, "Bike")
I got it already in the mail. It's a chain-letter bomb. You get one letter bomb, and you're supposed to send it to ten different people. If you don't, you'll grow a hand out of your back, her letter promised me.
Whatever narcissism and a pathological need for recognition tastes like. I think it tastes like ham, personally. He tasted like ham. Some people taste like bitter herbs like S. Some people taste saccharine sweet like Together Turtle. Ilya tasted like ham.
:lol:
So why would I send it to ten different people?
He’s more spicy than astringent. In fact, if memory serves, S is short for sriracha, a chili sauce that thinks it can burn but ends up being merely mildly amusing.
:lol:
Please be reminded that as per the guidelines:
"Advertisers, spammers: Instant deletion of post followed by ban."
We didn't make this site ad free so members could use it to sell T-shirts. Anyway, regardless of the content, please don't link to your personal site anywhere except in your profile And if in doubt, or if you want us to make an exception, just drop one of us a PM.
Thanks.
I just asked this question over on The Shoutbox.
Is that why the whole "Emphasizing the Connection Perspective" thread was deleted? It was a really interesting and valuable one for me.
And, as usual, I was brilliant.
Ah ok, I'll consider restoring it minus the link. Steve is staying banned though.
I would appreciate restoration of the thread. As usual, I try to have no position on bannings and, in most cases, I succeed.
Just found this myself, wondering why I couldn't post to that thread. It had morphed into a discussion about consciousness (I know - it's a wonder no-one's thought to discuss the matter before!). Perhaps you could restore it under a different title and remove just the advertising?
No worries. Restored.
Thanks - finally we can nail the whole consciousness thing once and for all!
I thought we had. When @khaled admitted he was wrong, I thought we were done.
Yes, @khaled, I’m joking.
Also could have been banned for Totally Random Capitalisation of Words, but never mind.
Hadn't thought about it. Best just to PM one of us first in a case like that. The main consideration is to preserve the site's integrity and that it not be used by anyone for promotional purposes. So, we'd judge in that context.
TRC is not ABO (a bannable offence), and nor is AA (acronymic addiction), AFAIK. Incidentally the offending link remains in a quote.
>Banned.
Bloody PC police, you can't even say that Islam is a paedophile human trafficking conspiracy being backed by the Clintons!
Only because we're run by the Clintons—as if you didn't know, Bill. :wink:
If someone can find a solid reference to this, then I'll start to understand the state the world is in today.
THAT got him banned? Not his ceaseless topic spamming and discussion killing soapboxing?
Islam is the magic word I guess?
That's what I happened to see. Anyhow, glad to hear he was such a popular guy.
This is why I deleted a lot of his posts.
Seemed like all he did was spam, made worse by his anti-discussion attitude. Like that guy who started the moral subjectivity thread. He banned yet?
I find people prosthetising to be much more intolerable than speaking out against islam as part of some conspiracy theory.
Why? All they're doing is helping people by providing them with artificial limbs. Leave 'em alone.
:lol:
Fuck you lol
Were you aiming for "proselytizing" or "prophesying"?
The former, but I didn't the see the error. S pointed it out already lol
Didn't you already make that joke?...
It was typed out in my comment box so I thought I had forgotten to post it...
It also could be deja vu on my part.
:razz:
The question is, why are you focusing on the Islam bit and not on the "secret pedophile ring run by the Clinton's" bit?
Because anti-Clinton people are not called bigots, and anti Islamic people are called bigots. People would get banned for the latter, not the former. Since we were talking about banning, naturally I would be focusing on the islam bit.
Why? I don’t understand what you are trying to imply.
What sort of secret is it if A Gnostic Agnostic knows about it?
The name says it all.
I had deleted several posts in a long-running dispute between him and another member in the Should hate speech be allowed? discussion. The posts were low quality and mostly off-topic, and @S's were often aggressive. After deleting them I posted this to them both, in the discussion:
Quoting jamalrob
@S replied with this:
I didn't take the decision lightly, particularly because he has been part of this community for a long time. Almost anyone else responding to moderation in that way would have been instantly banned, and we do try to be consistent, but in this case we gave him time to retract. That never happened, so he's gone.
Note also that he had been warned about his behaviour several times before.
If I were to emulate Sapentia right now it would be:
"Haha, he stood no chance against me".
If your reading this S, grow up for fucks sake!
On the plus side, he would not have hesitated to correct this spelling mistake.
Alas, not all Humeans are humane.
Alas, philosophers are not always virtuous.
Well, that's a real shame. I've had a few disagreements with S in my time here. Firstly he was no worse than someone like @StreetlightX in his abusive tone (and StreetlightX is a moderator), but most importantly, I'd take his abrasive angst (and StreetlightX's) over the the condescending ("you obviously don't understand, here's some quote from Plato... "), or the passive-aggressive ("I'm just going to ignore you from now on") that seem the standard response to disagreement here.
Philosophy is meant to be done with a bit of passion.
His passion was not what ultimately got him banned. It was the "fuck you... ban me" bit.
Same.
The forum won't be quite the same without him.
Yeah, and we did offer him an opportunity to explain himself, which he ignored, so I doubt any of this came as as surprise to him, even if it does to others.
I really did like S. We had some good times, but what can you do if someone tells you to fuck off and to ban them when they are being moderated?
Yeah, I understand why. I didn't mean my comment to be read as any disapprobation of the judgment, just it's a shame, that's all.
There's half a dozen members I'd rather were banned for mundanity, but I suppose that's not a bannable offence.
I agree with you, S was at least interesting but what can you do? He wanted to be banned, so I don’t see much of a choice for the mods but to accommodate him.
It's pretty childish to ban someone over that, though, especially given the comments he'd made after that. (Which isn't to say that that wasn't a childish response from S, but that doesn't justify a childish banning in response.)
But I'm not in favor of banning anyone unless they're spamming in the sense of flooding the board with threads or posts that aren't at all conversational.
If they express a desire to be banned though? How is that childish? There are rules with consequences and S not only broke the rule but essentially dared the mod to ban him. He was only going to get worse, cuz he just didn't care anymore, didnt really want to participate anymore.
He almost immediately said that he only suggested banning because he felt he was spending too much time here. In other words, he didn't really want to be banned, but was looking at it like, "Well, at least if I'm banned it will force me to not waste so much time here."
The childish part of the response was the petulance of the "fuck you" after having a bunch of posts removed.
Thanks for your input. I'll put that one in the suggestion box.
Is that the circular file in the corner?
My impression was that he was unable to resist the pull of argument, that he wanted to be banned so he couldnt talk himself into coming back into bang his head against the wall. I think it had become toxic for him, and being banned takes away the opportunity for him to make a poor decision. Im basing that not just on his public posts but private conversation we had as well.
Childish or not childish, you arent allowed to just say “fuck you”. If you do, you court being banned, depending on the rules not being enforced in order to continue on the forum
I think I would not ban over the abuse. Pm 'fuck you's are par for the moderation course. But the 'ban me' challenge is a fairly explicit refusal of moderation and declaration of intent to continue. It leaves no other option. You don't have to agree, but you have to submit. On the old forum we had a submit button rather than a post comment button that made this a little clearer.
Although, as I said, I think it's childish to ban someone just for that. (Whether it's the policy or not. It's a childish policy to have.)
That's too bad. I liked pattern-chaser . . . and actually didn't realize he'd split until you just pointed this out. But yeah, I haven't seen any posts from him for a bit.
[Edit: I just noticed that his profile now says, in his "about" section, "Autistic. Driven from this forum by trolls."]
Well, it might be a childish rule, but enforcing the rule isnt childish itself. I dont agree with the rule either, but a rule it is. The “adult” thing to do is advocate for a rule change, rather than specific rules exemptions.
Ive actually had experience with Pattern Chaser in other forums, where he does the exact same thing. He claims to be picked on and abused, and plays the victim card for his alleged disabilities when no one responds with a warm blanket and trauma counselling. He never used to have disabilities either.
S was spot on in what he said about Pattern Chaser, he is not an honest actor in discourse.
[quote=schopenhauer1]As an aside, you realize, you don't win arguments by showing the most disdain, right? Dispense with the theatrics of snobbery and condescension and actually debate instead of inflate your own ego. See, I feel bad even calling you out on this shit..but that's the difference between me and you.. You don't feel bad.. Again, something odd there. If it is a debate tactic to be patronizing, it sucks. If it is your personality, I'd do some soul searching. If it is just you trying to get a rise out of people, knock it off and just focus on the arguments.[/quote]
That in a nutshell was my frustration with him. If he just knocked off being an asshole, he would could have been a fine forum participant. There are ways to disagree without being disagreeable.
Sapientia, it took me a while to learn how to spell your name and even longer to understand your ways through life but I owe you a Thank you for being you. From the beginning of our relationship we both embraced the absurd and I searching for logic that you seemed to not just possess but could dispose of it at any time. You took the Devil's advocate side of any debate and that is a skill, one that I am still trying to learn. Your contributions much like life have been a reflection of the times and that I will miss.
So Sapientia, please know that our friendship is something that I treasure, you are someone that I will never forget and that you made a difference in my life. Thank you :heart: :heart: :heart:
I'm just going to pass this over in silence...
Actually I seemingly didn't get to this part:
Quoting DingoJones
Are you OK?
I like @S.
Quoting DingoJones
Sounds like getting shot-by-cop suicide.
Quoting schopenhauer1
"First they came for the assholes, and then there weren't many left."
Thanks for a positive comment on @S.
BTW, @S, you should have stuck with Sapientia.
Indeed, good analogy.
Well thanks for noticing my eloquent eulogy up the top of the page. not. :cry:
Pattern-chaser was a philosophical theist, and ‘S’ was misotheistic.
Yes, I never said he should be banned but constant assholiness engenders nothing to no one and ya know, asshole is what asshole does.
But interestingly, I'd hold you up as an example of as someone who is good at disagreeing without being disagreeable. :clap: . That's the very opposite of the S approach.
Yes, agreed.
Really? Engenders nothing to no one? Did you miss the parts of this thread where people were sad to see him go? Some even said they liked the guy. Imagine for a second not everyone shares your delicate sensibilities and next thing you know you’ll be swimming in the deep end with the other adults
What do you want from me? I said what I personally thought about the guy's style. To me, he didn't engender warm feelings. I value arguments where you don't get personal, you don't make petty comments about other people's arguments, and you try to look for positive intent in the other (until you know otherwise). He just didn't do any of that. Because others disagree, I should withdraw my conclusions? It's nothing to do with delicate sensibilities. Look how many times I've had to defend myself against numerous interlocutors, often at the same time, over many years. I really have no problem most of time. I didn't like his super aggressive style. That's my assessment.
Inflicting punishment on gods by ceasing to worship them.
He really was a mean bastard.
Mijo, save me the toughness contest.
If we could pit the fideists against the nihilists that would be fun. Anyone left standing would be good people.
I wish he could come back just so I could call him The God Punisher. So cool :cool:
S is my friend. It has been so moving to me how he has changed over the last year or so. I can't believe you banned him now but didn't two years ago. @Baden, @jamalrob, you have no loyalty. You should be ashamed.
I love the forum, but I'm done with it.
Watch this
I blame Donald Trump.
That said, the upkeep of this place makes necessary some sacrifices, and I would like to thank the mods for the constant effort the spend in doing so.
Fairness is [s]an[/s] [s]elusive[/s] a double-edged mistress...
So far, in the less than two weeks I've been here, I'm finding things a lot less detached and dispassionate than the philosophy I did at university, where the individual people didn't seem to matter, it was all about the ideas, and nobody was ever really judged on whether they were right or wrong in their conclusions, just sound or not in their reasoning, clear or not in their explanation. Whereas around here it seems like people care a lot more about how Someone Is Wrong On The Internet, and it's usually This Guy, and I'd kinda appreciate an overview of what all is going on in that respect if it's available.
You can understand that that person is acting in a self-destructive way.
You can realize that sometimes people do things that they later come to regret. The timeframe varies.
You can offer a temporary suspension.
:yikes:
Be well Sapientia.
The trouble is, students at your university were all epistemic peers and part of a community with a shared objective (understand the arguments well enough to be able to use them to pass a degree). Here the lack of either of those constraints, I think, leads to the problems you encounter.
We have a range of contributors from the wackos to the full blown professors (though I don't think - tellingly - that we have any actual philosophy professors), but there's no system of automatic recognition as there is in an institution. So one problem is the 'professor' types getting increasingly angry that they're not simply having their word taken as gospel (or at least with due reverence) as they are used to. On the other side of the coin, the random wackos get to play at being professors without having to actually do the work, they think this is easy (professors make it look easy) and get angry when it isn't and people present straightforward counters to arguments they had thought made them basically the next messiah.
Then there's objective. Understanding the arguments is a necessary stage in university. One can disagree as much as one likes, but not before first showing sufficient understanding to pass the exams. This need to understand creates, I think, at least the tiniest crumb of respect for the person expounding them, even where one disagrees profoundly. Here, there is no such objective. Most people here - objective-wise - seem to fall into three camps; the "I've got a brilliant new idea that no-one's ever thought of that will change philosophy" camp (hint - no you haven't), the slightly more measured supporters of the status quo, and the ones who have a huge store of information about philosophy (or occasionally some other topic) that they're just desperate someone will ask their sagacious advice about. Actually, none of these are very conducive to a discussion format because none of them have any interest or incentive to understand significantly opposing opinions. But again, the other side of that coin is that the arguments you'll be discussing at university are understandable in the first place, so you don't have to contend with something which is obviously garbage, you don't have to basically re-iterate the whole history of investigation in some subject matter, just to counter it.
What would make a good place to discuss things in the atmosphere you're after would probably require an impossible level of moderation (and would probably eliminate half the moderation team too). The best thing that happened to this place was when 'the lounge' was moved off the front page to some other place. The next step is to consign two thirds of the threads/posts there too.
Drama comes, and goes, with any human community. When it's at its best TPF is a place where only ideas matter, creativity is high, and intellectual discord doesn't beget emotional disharmony.
And perhaps the world today is just a bit more tense (and therefore sensitive) than in recent years and decades... We're across-section of the English-speaking and internet-having world, after-all, and nobody is truly immune to passion and the throngs of their environment.
With the amount of turmoil in the world today, we might actually be doing a pretty good job of things on the whole...
For my part, I'm here looking for a little bit of 1 and a little bit of 3, both on my part and in other people.
What I loved most about being in philosophy classes at university was constantly being exposed to new ideas, and the contests between opposing ideas that often each seemed to have good and bad points, and the opportunity to come up with syntheses of those antitheses that it seemed like nobody had thought of before, because the professors weren't teaching them, though in time on my own reading I keep finding that lesser-known but professional published philosophers have often come up with similar ideas already.
Meanwhile one of the things I've loved most in the decade-plus I've been out of there has been being able to expose people who are still mired in those (what seem to me now) trite contests of tired old antitheses to the syntheses either that I've come up with independently or that I've since read about, and the continued process of discovering that other people have already had similar ideas to mine that maybe provide food for thought to further build out my own philosophical system.
Most of the philosophical conversations I've had since school have just been random topics that came up on random internet forums, and it was tiring to keep coming up against the same people completely unversed in any philosophy and yet so completely assured in the rightness of their own tired old opinions I've seen countered a zillion times. I came here hoping to find other people with their own new ideas on how to get past those tired old arguments, or recommendations for published authors to look into for such ideas; or people looking for that themselves, to whom I could maybe provide one or the other.
FWIW I'm not completely disappointed and don't intend to be complaining at all here. Just talking.
Only a percentage of what goes on here is actually related to philosophy. It’s just an online chat forum for quite a few of the people that sign up. That included the most recent subject of the discussion IMO.
Surprised to hear calls for giving friends special treatment. As it happens though, because @S was a long-standing member, @Hanover and I both PMed him to try to find a way to not have him banned. I suppose that is special treatment. But he ignored both of us. Also, there are no temporary bans. That's written in the rules. Which we stick to. Anyway, it should go without saying that no one is immune to getting banned and there is no closed club of veteran members that protect each other at all costs. Anyone who thinks that is the case should leave, frankly. And I'll bet @S didn't think that. Evidence is the fact that he banned @TGW for refusing to change his writing style. And there was no profane abuse or requests to be banned there just TGW's flat refusal to change and the united mod attitude that you play by the rules or you get out no matter who you are. And by the way, I took the public flak for that, not @S. So don't talk to me about loyalty or shame. I stuck by the guy for years, but the principles of this community and how it functions come first. If that doesn't suit you, as I said, please do feel free to leave. And good luck.
There's a teething period. You'll find out who you find worthwhile to engage with and who you find worthwhile to read.
In my view, we don't restrict discussion to approaching academic quality discussion since the public nature of the forum makes that overly restrictive. We don't ban-hammer tone as much as would be expected in academic discussion; just consistent bad behaviour.
In my book it's a shame we get irritated with our fellow idiots, or even get irritated at others' irritation. Though it is expected and usual.
I'd just add, consistent with what you said, is that we can no more protect our friends with relaxed rule enforcement than attack our enemies with strict rule enforcement. Treating everyone as an equal is fundamental to fairness.
I'd also say that bannings are not difficult to avoid. The S situation was really not a complicated one from a rule perspective. When modded had he said "I'll try" instead of "fuck you," I'd expect a different outcome. This wasn't a case of simply failing to comply. It was a refusal to comply. In fact, it was contemptuous, disrespectful defiance.
As you said, the efforts we made to rectify the situation were ignored. We tried and I wish things didn't turn out this way, but we had no other options.
Quoting Wallows
Gangs and factions form only in our heads. Never forget that you are talking to individuals that use their own minds. However much those minds might be influenced by the media, by present politics or by in general the outside World we live in.
(Of course you could be talking to bots here... but perhaps AI hasn't reached that level yet.)
An attitude I despise, because it's the source of a lot of problems in the world.
Jamalrob and whoever else made up the rules. You can make up whatever you like. You can change the rules any way you like. Treating the rules as if they're something akin to physical law that you have no control over is ridiculous.
I concur. Forum rules ought not to be like the scriptures or like the ten commandments: immovable, carved in stone, forever true. Instead, it should be like the constitution of the United States: amendments are possible, when necessary and warranted.
It's about time we separated Church and State on the Forums.
I won't miss him, but I hesitate to say that I am not sorry about what happened. For someone who spent so much time on the site, it can be a hard blow.
The rules do and have changed over time so zero points for you. The mods stick to the rules as they are now and they will stick to the rules when they change and not to the old rules.
Sticking to the rules is short hand for treating equal cases equally and it's converse, to treat unequal cases differently. That's about fairness.
That there are no temporary bans in the rules was given as a reason for not introducing a temporary ban. That's not a good reason for not having temporary bans.
Loyalty, familiarity and appreciation of their good points are the reasons S was treated with such leeway.
He wrote, "Also, there are no temporary bans. That's written in the rules. Which we stick to,"
The response to give is, "There are currently no temporary bans, but we could change the rules to enable them. That's something we'll consider."
You don't stick to the rules as they are and leave it at that. You change them to make them better. We can make them whatever we want to make them, at any time we want to change them.
I'm not sure why you need extremely simple things explained to you in detail. But you're not going to be indulged any more.
So are we going to change the rules so that there are temporary bans?
I don't see any reason to but if you want to open a feedback discussion suggesting that, go ahead and make your case. The debate is off-topic here.
I'm actually not too terribly surprised. I noticed a difference in his posts lately; antagonistic. Almost arguing for the sake of arguing.
Mm. He did seem very irritated at other posters lately. Almost like our speech acts were in a causal relationship with his behaviour... :chin:
Can I ask what the moderation was? Refusing it is obviously a banning offence but, I've encountered some pretty ornery behaviour here from time to time, I just wondered if people are frequently moderated, but just have the good grace to accept it, or if it takes more than ordinary pugnacity to incur the ire of a moderator.
Sure, of course. He repeatedly reposted deleted posts and responded to a ban warning for doing so with an insult.
Thats interesting, I didnt know he was having his posts deleted. Can we know what kinds of posts he was making that had to be deleted? And the insult, out of curiosity.
So this is the second prolific poster that seemed to reach a “go ahead and ban me” stage where they start kind if daring someone to ban them. At least of the cases ive witnessed.
How often does that happen?
The posts were suggesting I was a troll as was the PM.
Quoting DingoJones
Rarely. Only those two in the past year that I remember anyway.
Thanks, I'm not sure whether to be reassured that some sub par posts are being caught before I read them or concerned that what remains is the actively filtered residuum.
A troll? Jeez. That's the go to accusation isnt it? Seems like thats what two people in disagreement online always end up calling each other. Ive caught myself a few times. I think I blame the medium.
This had been brought up before and we get the rationale, but the current software doesn't facilitate doing it automatically, and doing it manually isn't really practical.
If anyone challenged his views with points he could not address he would resort to changing the subject and/or asking irrelevant questions to avoid answering the difficult questions posed to him.
Quoting Baden
Well, one option of course is to simply stop the posting on the thread. Simply state that this thread is not open for replies and give the reason, low quality etc.
We do close discussions. That's a separate issue though. As in we're not going to close a discussion just because one participant is being disruptive.
Oh, right. I suppose closing vs deleting discussions can help with explanations though it does cause more clutter. No easy answers.
A sub forum or archive for closed threads?
I'm not sure about that one. Although it would be more practical than some of the other suggestions. You could always post it here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/30/feature-requests
And this is the obituary pages?
Done, thanks.
Yes.
Right, well, went a bit off-topic there. I'll leave this open for the usual period for anyone else who has something to say.
Yes Janus I've experienced that which you mentioned, as well.
In an attempt to get the good from the bad, and lessons-learned kind of things, it's inspiration of "how not to be". For example I think sometimes while we get into heated passionate discussions or debates, to be self-aware or disiplined enough where stepping back or allowing more time pass before responding can provide for a better discussion, excetera. I think he probably could have benefited some from that maybe.
Of course we are all guilty of that, to a greater or lesser extent.
One other note of inspiration that I'm gleaning from all this is to try to be more positive in my approach to passionate subject matter. I think people are on here because by and large they're interested in gaining knowledge and wisdom as well as testing and practicing their craft. And if we can remind ourselves of our original intentions, that may go a long way in keeping ourselves in check.
Again easier said than done...
I'm not disagreeing with whether banning him was the right move, because reposting deleted posts does seem to be asking for it...
But, didn't you accuse him of trolling in that last thread he participated in?
Ultimately I have no argument against the moderator's decision as I fully understand the practical need for a low tolerance approach. It's just quite lamentable...
I would still like to see a temp ban or an appeal system...We have the technology...
Could be boredom, Terra at least was on point, repeating the exact same talking points while lamenting how inadequate everyones responses were (always made me laugh when he called people aspies lol), so I think that he got bored and just said something like “ah fuck it, let them ban me”. S said basically the same thing. I think they are ready to quit and just go out swinging and just push the limits until they get banned.
Sometimes it's just best to say "ok"... and do it. Especially when someone else who tells you to is the boss of you!
:wink:
It is sad.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
We live in an age of diminishing returns. Those who have been here longest have seen the returns diminish the most.
I agree that it was justified, and that he had a poor signal-to-noise ratio, at least in theory...I just find it sad, in a weird way, to see cantankerous folks who boiled my blood suddenly gone. I don't know, it's a weird paradox. Maybe the "iron sharpens iron" trope. Posters who were essentially my polar opposite getting banned makes me feel less...present.
True, I'm just one of the few nostalgic types around here I guess. Or if anything, I think the sort of spiritual analogy of being "banned" hits me, or something. It's that pesky Christian-ese.
He was tenacious (but usually calm) when dealing with people who failed to address what he actually said (and this happened frequently). I think this contributed to the impression some have that he was unresponsive.
He got banned for that stuff in the Life is Sacred thread? That doesnt seem worse than alot of other poor posters that go unbanned...was it because of the quality, or his opinions?
I looked through his history. He didn't make the grade. I don't really know much about his opinions.
Have at his last posts, which I found alarming:
Quoting OmniscientNihilist
Injustice against Manson? Yeah, that's some Helter-Skelter, racial wars, end of the world poop.
Good Moderation there. 10/10
RIP ON. Maybe one day you'll find your place but with the FB ban and the Ban here you have a lot going against you.
Btw Baden how does banning even work, as I noticed you were still able to tag OM? Do you guys delete accounts if they are banned or offline for a certain long period of time?
No, the accounts just stay there. Anyone can go look at their comments and that often helps to explain why (although the very worst of banned posters contributions tend to get deleted).
Phew! His posts were really making me question how seriously the mods take the basic grammar and spelling requirements.
I don't know if it was just me, but it certainly seemed like the more his posts slipped into drivel, the worse his writing got as well.
Maybe pitch it too the other moderators. My work would be free but he would probably need some form of payment however I could sort that out and do a long term reimbursement through member donations until I'm made whole financially, barring my own contribution of about 10% of whatever he'd charge. I love this forum so would be happy to pay for us to have an app. :)
He didnt state any opinions in the history you “looked” through? How does that work?
Ya, his opinions. You wanted Baden to intervene because you didnt like his opinions.
Well, I'm sorry if you found his comments insightful. Can we get a show of hands, to this matter?
I didnt say that, I offered no opinion about his statements at all. I was noticing that your problem is his opinion, not his post “quality”.
What would a show of hands matter? Are you trying to get people to agree his opinions are bad, to reinforce your own opinion about his opinions being bad? Why? You are entitled to your opinion, regardless whether or not you can get it popularised. I think everyone should be so entitled, din’t you? Or is it just the opinions you like that should be allowed?
I just check the site on my Android's Chrome app. What do you think a special app would add?
Im not trying to be difficult here but what is the relevance of what you said to the banning?
Are you suggesting that he should be banned cuz he was boring, or had boring “opening moves”?
And, if I may be so bold, why shouldn't we shouldn't voice opinions towards a position that is untenable?
Go read the post I quoted. It's pretty clear, that tolerance towards intolerance was violated deeply, due to guarding one's self from scrutiny by an appeal to "free speech".
Eh, fair, I'll delete the comment. :up:
Ive already read it, I was following along. You were more than voicing your opinion on what he said, you made an implicit call for moderator intervention.
Read what I said then reread what you said. If you can't work out where you've gone wrong, turn on a few more bulbs on the Christmas tree.
I really don't see why this is becoming a personalized attack towards my taste on the matter of Charles Manson being quoted in a meme that got deleted. The only reason why I'm so vocal about this is that had Charles Manson invited his family to attack a house 2 blocks away from my own at the time, my parents would be dead.
Oh, well thats your prerogative, I was honestly asking if that was something you advocated. (Ok, like, 20% making a point as well.)
I could see moderators not wanting really boring contributors.
Its not a personal attack, and its not about Manson and the sort of batshit comment that Omni-guy made about him. Its about whether or not you think people should be banned (or otherwise dealt with by mods) for opinions you do not like.
No, my opinions shouldn't be a factor in the decision to ban OmniscientNihilist. And, this was made clear by Baden deciding to ban him on the ground of poor quality posts.
I mentioned Project Gutenberg which is a free online library of 1000s of out of print books and classics that are still in print today; like Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, Descartes, Machiavellis principles and lots lots more on any subject you can think of.
What an app can do really, especially with Chris designing it; is provide streamlined quick easy custom functions and features that would suit a philosophy app. I've only just started conceiving of the idea so I'm thinking out the Project Gutenberg connection at the moment but I might start a discussion and ask the community for ideas and sughestions on what they would like to see from an app for this forum.
There could be Ted connections, news on current events and publications, maybe even a mechanism where members could pitch in for community owned Ebooks, subscriptions for philosophy related content and the ability to incorporate and share all these easily into related discussion threads at the push of a button or two.
I feel this could greatly enhance the quality of our debates and discussions as well as accelerate our learning potential and save us a lot of time into the bargain which we can spend focussing on our contributions more or just being able to handle our free time better.
Lots of possibilities and potential in it I feel :)
Sure, Ill guess as to which posts you meant me to review, correct me if these aren’t the comments you are referring to.
You said:
“I looked through his history. He didn't make the grade. I don't really know much about his opinions.“
So you looked at his posts, which is what I thought you meant by “history”. Then you say you didnt know much about his opinions.
So I said:
“He didnt state any opinions in the history you “looked” through? How does that work?“
Since it seems dubious that you were able to properly judge the quality of the posts without “much” noticing what those posts said, I wanted to know how that works. How did you miss his opinions but locked down his post “quality” so thoroughly that you were comfortable banning the guy?
Im not sure why you think you needed to be snarky with your response, Im just asking questions. I want to know what im potentially allowed/not allowed to say, thats all.
Yes, I know Badens stated reasons for banning the guy. I was asking you, not him. I was careful not to mix up his banning with your call to intervention, That was what was intended by including “or otherwise dealt with by mods” but I see now that I could have been more explicit.
He was banned for low quality, more specifically for a stream of poorly written, badly punctuated, largely vacuous posts, not his opinions, which I didn't take much notice of seeing as there were none of significant moderation relevance in his history.
Quoting DingoJones
You'll have to be more specific.
Right, you mentioned that already. My purpose in quoting those posts was to review them and perhaps clarify them but also to understand what it is you think I was too dim to comprehend.
What exactly was your Christmas bulb comment referencing? Those posts?
As to what Im potentially allowed/not allowed to say, I meant in the sense that a moderator (I guess you specifically in this case) would consider ban worthy. Since I sometimes say unpopular things and sometimes make posts that are less than polite shall we say, and since I do not want to be banned, I am curious about the kinds of things people get banned for. This one seemed to happen quickly, and at the behest of another poster whose only reasoning is that he didnt like the opinion expressed. (Although I understand that might not be the case, and that you have more information than I do with which to act upon)
@Baden I'm also assuming ON had a few warnings about his etiquette and effort here before being banned, am I correct?
Dingo I don't think its worth getting into an argument with them about this unless no warnings were given.
You are fine in my opinion. We don't always agree but you have raised good constructive points with me in the past which I appreciate; take my advice and just keep doing you and try not to take offense from the moderators as they get easily swamped and don't always mean to be callous or short with you. Time is precious and in too short supply these days.
There are actually very few limitations on what you can say here in this forum. More important is how you say it, and that there is some philosophical value in the content. Hard limits pertain to things like racism and bigotry; we will not let people argue in favor of nazi policies and other blatantly harmful crap; that's a banning... So if you aren't nazi-esque, you really don't need to worry about having your actual ideas censored. You can explore controversial topics, and you can even take controversial positions, but if they even vaguely appear to border the pure hate ideologies that we refuse to see promoted, then you really should go out of your way to delineate your position clearly.
One of the consistent issues that leads to banning seems to be hostility... Conversations can quite easily become heated (anonymity disinhibiting our [s]road[/s] internet rage). When hostility, ad hominems, and vulgarity are concensually reciprocated by two posters in an argument, it's not necessarily a problem, but when one poster is consistently vulgar without provocation, they become toxic to the forum. If such a poster refuses moderation, or is a prolific re-offender, that's a banning... If you can keep your verbal cool, this facet of the ban hammer is not a threat...
Finally there is post quality, which I'm guessing is the most consistent issue for the mod team...
Here there can be no precise rules or rulings, because quality of this nature is subjective and relative. When the grammatical/verbal quality of posts are too low, it's generally uncontroversial to delete them, but that said, non english natives should be given a bit more wiggle room when it comes to grammar and such.The important thing here is that people are actually putting effort into their posts.
So if your posts aren't bigoted, aren't unprovokedly hostile, and are amply coherent, why then could they have been removed?
"Philosophical value" is even more subjective than writing quality. When people post one-liner questions better fit for google, there's no philosophical value in the post. When people hastily smear their shower-thoughts onto our forum walls, there's no philosophical value. @Baden put it succinctly in one of his recent posts regarding how to build a quality OP: you can explore a subject, you can take a supporting or critical position, but you can't just thrust us all into a dark room; original posts must shine a light on the subject matter they address (otherwise you're leaving all the work to the respondents).
I think the most important thing is simply that effort be put into original posts, because it's quite obvious to veteran readers when posts are thoughtfully considered vs lazy afterthoughts. NOS4A2 is an example of a poster who toes the line of philosophical value vs effort. His posts are intellectually bankrupt, but they're also coherent and not poorly written. He genuinely seems to believe his ideas, and he definitely puts some degree of effort into posts. He could actually be a paid Russian troll, but even if that's true, his posts still meet that good-faith "effort" requirement, and he otherwise colors inside the aforementioned hostility lines, so even if we knew he was getting paid to write his posts, it might still be worth letting him stick around.
P.S: I'm not privy to the moderator forum or the going formula behind their decisions. My take is just based on what I've observed. Also, I don't mean to suggest that you're a nazi (I'm not aware of if or why you might have been censored); I intend this advice to apply to everyone.
:100:
Quoting Baden
Or read the guidelines.
Im not taking offence, and im not intending to argue so much as get clarity...as I mentioned to Baden the banning came off to me in a certain way.
Anyway, its nice to know my comments are constructive to someone at least!
It's understandable that it came off to you in a certain way. But there's not much I can do about that except point to his comment history. You are not on our radar re bans and as far as I know haven't been.
Wow, call me niave, but that's plausible...
I did read the guidelines when I first arrived, but obviously there is going to be some variance in application between different mods, thats what im trying to track.
Quoting Baden
Thats good news, but Im still interested in not getting on that radar in the future as well.
If you could indulge me a bit further, Id like to offer an example id like b your take on.
So there is that “colorblind” thread, where race is being discussed. Ive said things in that thread that got me called a racist (I think a bigot as well if I remember right), and strictly speaking that is ban worthy, right? No mods said anything to me about it, but then this omni guy puts out something much more mild and he got banned...so I thought maybe I’d just slipped under the radar but still would be at risk should I be noticed by a mod the next time. Hence im feeling it out here.
If you are familiar with the colorblind thread, do you think I was playing with fire with the ideas I expressed?
Its hard to tell online when someones being lighthearted, its mostly interaction and experience that indicates when a person might be having a little fun with things. Consider your impish impulses duly noted, so long as you return the favour in kind. :wink:
No, I didn't see anything mod-worthy at the time and looking at it again I still don't.
Sure thing. :up:
Thanks for that post, appreciated.
Ok, thanks.
Yes, this was very unexpected.
:gasp: Aw, that's too bad. Despite our rocky start, we were getting along just fine and I appreciated much of his commentary. Too bad he couldn't back down from that whole issue.
We've had a series of (semi-)unexpected bannings in the past few months. I wonder what's up with that. Statistical happenstance? It can't be the weather, cause we live so dispersed. Is the era of Trump just making everyone cranky? Hmmmm...
In what way was he refusing moderation?
Take it to The Lounge. Maybe you'll find some sympathy. Or you might just bore everyone to sleep.
I asked this before, but if he wants Pigliucci to hear his life story so bad, why doesn't he just email him himself?
That's bannable?
:brow:
Oh... fake... like information that contradicts each other?
The refusing moderation bit was refusing to accept us editing out personal information from the questions, first about his mother then about this father. But what got him banned in the end was his setting up of sockpuppet accounts and posting with them.
We don't fully understand this either.
Quoting creativesoul
Yes. But taken in context.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7257/my-posts-are-being-removed-i-wish-to-know-on-what-grounds
"So that even the dumb fuckers can understand it. "
I'm not a prude by any stretch, but when a person posts that type of language on a public forum...well..it kinda tells you something... .
What the fuck does it tell you?
Kinda
Great question! Maybe start a thread on why people feel the need to swear all the time. Currently, cognitive science suggests swearing could be a sign of poor character, dishonesty, and other deficient social skills... I think Freud called it the phenomenon of parapraxis (no pun intended).
I can assure you that I've made no recent slip of the tongue (or fingers), so lighten up, buttercup.
Oh okay.
Why not? He may have feared that a private email would not have been intercepted by lurkers everywhere, and read by thousands of complete strangers.
This is not a fact, but a stab at the truth. I may be totally off the target.
Concurrently, behavoural research suggests that swearing releaves kindey stone pressure, restores dead hair follicles to life (Hallelluyyah!) and mixes mortar for the building blocks of the Stairway to Heaven.
Some of the famous swearers in history:
V. I. Lenin (eeg'ee v huy),
Inge Merkel (Schweinhunden! Der ganze Rat!)
The Buddha (I can't believe this shit...)
Saul, or St. Paul of the Bible (Arsenokoitei)
The President of the United States of America (I like to grab their ***s; I like to **** with everybody's ****;
it gives me joy to put my **** in their ****.)
I wrote a perfectly reasonable and acceptable thread on religious circumcision being a crime.
It was removed because it's your forum but no logical excuse could be/was provided.
It's bad for philosophy to restrict philsophical discussion because one man thinks it's wrong. Whoever removes the threads, are obviously enjoying themselves.
If this insults you, I find that repulsive. It means your hiding from debate with potentially greater minds.
What does that say about what you're running here?
Give people the freedom to discuss, if the thread is unpopular, it will show - you do not know if it's unpopular - the community decides.
Or there is no community; just your heads and slaves.
I just want to know how to write a good thread by this elusive mind's standards.
I'm trying to fit in - I'm being courteous and try to resolve any confusion to my statements. I DON'T be stupid. Any thought on the matter is a hunkered laugh, at most, I say well-thought out - fool proof - information. I accept if you don't agree and I present arguments for my points. The fact I may be banned soon shows a corrupt, opinionated system. It's not philosophy in this scenario, is babyish, small fame.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines
"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."
Quoting Qwex
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op
There's a whole moderation team. I am only one of them
The insulting demeanour of your post seemed more stupid than anything I've ever said.
You saying I have a clept pallate? I don't.
What sort of logic were you expecting me to think? I don't see any argument - thesis - or retort.
So, I'll take the buzz and be on my merry way.
... *hay rolls by*
Somehow I'm not surprised.
What kinda extremism? Don’t get me wrong, no big loss imo but I only read ignorant, repetitive religious stuff. None of it was extreme that I saw. Whats he say?
Stop smoking the crack.
Most recently there was this.
Quoting alcontali
And no it's not a joke. He had already been warned for religious misogyny etc.
You're next on the list for continuously posting low-effort OPs in the main categories. I've had to delete four or five in just the last few days. For the very last time, stop doing that.
Who was he talking to when he said that? Whenever someone mentions whipping in conjunction with a winking face my mind can't help but go there.
He wasn't looking for a gf. I can tell you that much.
Ooo, I feel so motivated. You feel like banning me then do it. If the cognitive dissonance is that strong then so be it.
And, maybe this might come off as a surprise to you but, good threads don't only consist of a solid OP. Like, people can make mistakes, OK?
Yeah. And I didn't even read any of the religion, gender, race or politics stuff, which is what usually gets people into hot water.
Ya, his winking emojis dont convince me either. So much for his claims of practicing a peaceful religion.
So from what I gather you exercise banning because of people not heeding your warnings more than shitty behaviour. Is that right?
I think he should stop making silly threats of 'violence', such as in the "sexual ethics" thread.
Both. It just depends.
We stopped it for him.
misogyny. Good riddance.
:100:/ :100: :clap: One of the best things you have done for the forum. Not the best but one of them.
Personally I would have banned him for just being a twat that loves to paste Wiki stuff, but then I am probably not as ethical as you. :wink:
Keep up the good work mate. :up:
Thanking you. :halo:
The latter.
I was wondering why I hadn't seen him recently. It's too bad - I was having some interesting exchanges with him. He had a unique point of view - sort of an Islamic Chomsky-ite. And very knowledgeable about math.
Edit added: I'm not criticizing your decision.
No worries.
Maybe. Anyway, feel free to take turns on the world's smallest violin.
I don't know the specific reason as @jamalrob banned him, but I presume it was some combination of low quality and his apparent inability to accept that we weren't going to let him call COVID, the "China virus".
If they was another instance of the same schoolyard name calling ... fair enough I guess! Otherwise a harsh and firm warning would’ve probably worked - it was clearly an emotional explosion (it happens to everyone).
It depends on the school, of course. For instance, the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry may offer a magical defense against emotional outbursts spell as part of its graduate program.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines
His language was grounds for an instant ban, and I was initially pretty lenient in applying the rules.
When you decide to attack someone's race or sexual preference, you make it really difficult on the moderators to be lenient, regardless of who you are. We all want to be understanding and forgiving, but it's really not our place to forgive someone for insulting someone else, and no one should feel like they're not proactively being protected against truly offensive comments. I guess the takeaway here is obviously not to make those comments in the first place, but if you do, sincerely apologize to all you may have offended, and, even then, don't be terribly surprised if your behavior still results in a ban.
There has never been an instance where N-word flaming hasn't led to a ban and there probably never will be.
All in all a bizarre episode.
Odd, I have a pretty keen eye for flakes, and he didn't seem too flaky.
We couldn't work it out either.
Very hard to believe that he meant that. He's been expressing frustration and disillusionment with the forum lately, so to me, it sounds like another fuck-this-place-ban-me kind of thing.
He was disillusioned with the forum because we weren't all praising his work and calling him the second coming of Russell or Wittgenstein, which he believed himself to be. Not the first time someone's used their intellect to (sort of) mask an inner rottenness. Honestly, I've been engaging with him for 6 months and while I've had deep philosophical disagreements with other members Pfhorrest was just in his own category of unbearableness.
On several occasions, he mentioned issues related to stress, so as I see it he was remarkably open. I've had anxiety issues in the past so I can relate.
Nah, you are exaggerating. He was perhaps self-centered, but not uncommonly so. (You should see what a really self-obsessed flake looks like. There's at least one that is active right now.)
I never thought that. Welcome back Forrest.
:lol:
Because your benevolent overseers allow it.
Also on a totally unrelated note somewhat richer.
Bribery? The plot thickens. :chin:
I do think he should at least atone for his sins, against human kind!
Especially to Sushi for taking it so well and speaking in my favor even though he was the target. (I still find that “not trying” remark really offensive and don’t want to engage with you anymore, but it didn’t warrant that kind of flaming).
To clear up for everyone what I already explained to Jamalrob, the last sentence of the offending post was a pre-formulated “worse insult possible” that I constructed as an intellectual exercise a long while ago when thinking about what makes swear words offensive, intentionally including a variety of different types of offense (sexual, religious, maternal, self-esteem, etc), and ending with a racist-homophobic term precisely because that’s the most offensive thing to my ear.
I definitely do not harbor any actual racist or homophobic sentiments. I do regret actually unleashing that in public, and surely would have deleted it myself if Jamalrob hadn’t gotten to it first, which he did almost immediately because I actually @ed him in the same post. I was glad it was deleted even then and grateful for the warning in lieu of a ban he gave me, and thought that was that until a few days later it suddenly wasn’t.
In any case, glad to be back and sorry for all the drama.
Great post :up:
An insult cocktail, what do you call it? Nevermind, it failed with Sushi because hot buttons need to be designed for the particular sensibilities of the target.
My hot button is when someone changes their avatar to a leprechaun. :rage: :rage: :lol:
Hmm
I will engaging with you though. If you still think what I said was ‘really offensive’ you have a problem. I’ve looked back through what I said and the only thing that was off-colour was the ‘high-school’ comment because I neglected to explain what I meant by it - which I did explain as soon as I realised.
What did you find so offensive? You’re maxim says practically the same thing.
The emotional attachment you have to your project is the only logical explanation I have (that happens to everyone to some degree - it’s helpful to realise this though in order to make possible improvements by receiving critique).
That you said I wasn't trying hard enough, and directly in response to me referencing my maxim, admitting that maybe I shouldn't reasonably have had any hopes for something, but that I was at least trying for it.
You have every right to critique the products of my efforts (and I have every right to disregard them if I think they're without value, which I now intend to do with you), but you have no right to tell me I'm not putting enough effort in.
Like I said before, you're not my boss, hovering over my shoulder to make sure I'm not slacking off. You don't have any grounds to tell me I'm not working hard enough. You can be dissatisfied with the result of my work, but it's my work on my own initiative; I am my boss in this matter. You don't know what else is on my plate, and you don't get to judge whether I'm putting in enough effort.
This is also a particularly hot-button issue for me because my father was emotionally abusive in exactly this way when I was younger, turning every dissatisfaction with some outcome of my actions into an attack on my character. (Unexpected problem occurred that I didn't think would happen? "That's right you didn't think!"Any other explanation of how something turned out worse than I meant it to? "No excuses!" It's because of that that I now feel guilty whenever anything bad happens, no matter how out of my control reasonable people would say it was, because I've internalized that I should have been smart enough to foresee every possible problem and proactive enough to preemptively prevent it.)
I also said pretty much this, but shorter, already. I wasn't angry at all about the critique of my work. I was trying to listen reasonably to your criticism even while multiple other people were telling me I ought to just ignore you (and not all of them anyone personally close to me who has any reason to care about my feelings; even Jamalrob said right there in the thread that I should just ignore you). It was only when you attacked my character (immediately after I had finished making yet more revisions based on your feedback) that I lost it.
That doesn't excuse deploying that offense-bomb I used, but here's your explanation as to why I was so offended.
Okay, first two points. Of course. Last point is untrue and I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a reasonable number of people who’d find this ‘really offensive’:
I have every right to point out that me, you and everyone else make excuses and blame the world often enough rather than look to our own faults.
Quoting Pfhorrest
But I do, as does everyone else here, when you come online expressing views of internet forums and how you’re not getting what you’re looking for.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I don’t really come here to be empathetic about peoples hopes, dreams, worries and personal baggage. Professionals can do that to some degree on a personal one-to-one basis. I can only offer a broad point from personal experience (which I wouldn’t normally express here or anywhere else online).
I can relate. In my family my brothers and sister have a very hard time dealing with our parents. I don’t though. For some reason they don’t see them as humans who make the same stupid mistakes in life they make. I used to be angry at my parents for a while and shifted blame onto them. At the end of the day life is tough for everyone sometime more so for others than yourself.
Both my parents repeatedly said exactly the same things as what you’ve shown above and a hell of a lot worse. It might, just might, be your problem not theirs - and that isn’t a bad or derogatory thought to address, just an extremely useful way to deal with who and what you are as an individual. We’re all effectively fucked up in one way or another and often better off for it sometimes :)
Quoting Pfhorrest
I agree with your maxim. What we do is never enough, we never try hard enough and yet we should really keep at it. That is essentially what I said, but with emphasis on pushing ourselves on regardless.
If you were offended by what I said you should be equally offended by your own words. They are, at their heart, the same. The difference was only in the delivery.
It’s the difference between encouragement and berating. Between “you can succeed, I believe in you” and “it’s your fault you haven’t succeeded yet.”
I've been following your exchange with on your book and here as well.
I like sushi is providing you useful advice.
To make any advance in philosophical understanding requires subjecting one's thoughts to the harshest possible criticism. I like sushi is providing this sort of value to you for free; there exists no onus to bundle that value with other kinds such as encouragement or accolades.
Crafting good arguments is a destructive testing process. Since they are within us and not at a distance behind a barrier, it is a intrinsically painful task and it is impossible to know ahead of time which arguments can withstand the conditions asked of it and which cannot. Therefore, to engage in authentic philosophical reflection and debate is to gamble with one's very self. I like sushi can only show you the door, it is you that must walk through it. Your recent comments seem to reflect a discomfort with such a position, but it is what it is.
I did not miss it, that is why I say you are in an uncomfortable position. You know what you must do, to advance in philosophy, but you do not know if you have the strength to do it.
Quoting Pfhorrest
This is why I point out that there is no clear separation between yourself and your arguments; therefore, you should expect to be personally attacked in this sense. There is no way to differentiate between an attack on yourself and your argument, unless you already know that your argument is really true apart from your own satisfaction with it, in which case you feel nothing about the agitation of fools.
Quoting StreetlightX
This doesn't violate any forum guidelines? If you can ban people for not capitalizing their words, what happens in this case? And how is this person allowed to be a moderator in the first place?
I've seen this behavior repeatedly from this person. What is the protocol? I genuinely ask.
You're allowed to insult politicians and other public figures, obviously. So, no, it doesn't violate any forum guidelines. That should be clear from reading them.
I agree in theory, but in the real world the "harshest possible criticism" typically triggers ego storms which derail the investigation. And then there's this...
If you present an effective challenge to some viewpoint in "harshest possible criticism" mode you are giving the target an escape hatch. When the challenge becomes too much for the target to bear they can change the subject to you, derail the thread with all kinds of emotionalisms, get you banned and so on. If present your challenge in a scrupulously polite manner, this avenue of escape is closed off.
So if you want to be kind, act like a jerk. :-)
Even his comedic value was very limited.
Apart from the Irish jokes, which had me in stitches. Ok, no...
If you have the power to ban and repeatedly provoke and call people names there is something seriously wrong with how this forum is moderated. Is the irony lost on you?
The guy is non-stop political. Probably 90% if not more. Which is fine. Not quite a philosophical contributor. Could at least've backed up his views with deep analysis and reasoning imo. There are many aspects of conservatism that are attractive to me however when anyone of either party are reduced to vocalizing simple wants while vaguely grasping at defining concepts coupled with insults it shows neither understanding nor appeal in regards to said ideology.
At the same time the level of understanding and knowledge many people have here make me and maybe even you seem "low quality" in comparison. I'm here to learn. Perhaps he was too. Perhaps not. We don't know why he signed up. Guess we never will..
Regardless you enter someone else's lair you should familiarize yourself with their understandings and views and learn to live with them while you're there. Or at least be thought provoking or interesting enough when you don't I suppose.
Curious as to what exactly was said but I'm sure it had something to do with recent events.
He [Chester] said this:
"Suck my dick you puffed up little turd. And you are a fucking racist cunt too...everything you write is actually about your ego, how you're gonna string people up in the revolution to save the poor ,weak , oppressed, little black people ...you utter prick, you couldn't fight your way out of a wet paper bag.
Most black people would probably think you're a prize cunt too....they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire....oh, and if you are black, you're a fake one in the same way that you're a fake freedom fighter.Fucking nonce."
StreetlightX doesn’t appear to have the temperament to judge who should or shouldn’t be banned. I’m saying this based on current events. I’m saying this based on numerous instances of name calling and provocation when someone disagree with them.
Complaining about 23 pages of people talking about violent behavior after they pretty much said they wanted everything to burn to the ground? Seriously? Was such a clearly hyperbolic and provocative statement put across to direct the discussion in a sensible manner or merely to showcase their need for volatile verbal conflict in order to provoke statements from other that would allow them to ban them.
Then there is the cloaked threats and hints beforehand. Someone apparently suggesting Frank was ‘trolling’? Insanity.
We watch the watchmen. If they’re not up to the task we’ll go someone else. Get it?
Clear case of one rule for mods and another for others - who’ve, as you noticed, been purposefully aggravated by the person who banned them (that is trolling).
Note: The irony is the thread is about provocation and people in positions of power violating that power. The person so emotional vocal about the situation - including comments relating to burning everything down - is so egotistical they cannot see how vile what they say and how they act on this forum is in relation to the problems faced in US culture.
Anyway, if that is how things are here I’m going to leave as I have before. I don’t believe in people banning others on personal whims, but if that is how things are here (the second occasion this has happened and the reason I went away last time) I’ll just talk with my feet.
Hello reddit :)
I'm sure @StreetlightX can speak for himself, but just to point out how clear it is to an outsider, Chester was banned for
Quoting StreetlightX
...not just for using insulting or derogatory terms. His posts were consistently nothing but unsourced speculation which told us nothing more than what he would like to be the case.
What matters is not the language we use to express our arguments, but the quality of them. Are they well-sourced? Are they thought through? Do they defer to experts or previous commentators with similar ideas?
To suggest that Streetlight's posts and Chester's are in any way the same just because they both have something of a brash turn of phrase is to completely miss the point.
As I think I might have mentioned before, I'd ban another score of posters for the same reason if I were a mod. Its a private discussion forum, not parliament.
His expletive laden post was a response to that warning, and was effectively - as Un noted - suicide by mod. That'd probably be an auto-ban regardless of posting history. And as for the comparison of my posts with Cester's - it's a point beneath engagement. Sushi has had it out for me for a while now, and that's his problem to deal with.
It is. This is how they want to do it though. Vote with your feet.
Quoting I like sushi
:up:
:up: :up:
I'll second that. One can put up with a degree of rudeness if the philosophy is worth reading.
Personally, however, I would prefer a forum that was more strict about flames and rudeness, and that would require some moderation on the part of some moderators. But the mods are rude, and they don't ban just for rudeness. But when you get pulled up about low quality posts, and you respond with defiance, that has to get you banned whatever the language policy.
It would be a shame to lose good posters over this, but it doesn't look like hypocrisy to me at all. But even if it is not, it is worth considering that rudeness and aggression are off-putting and even intimidating to some people, and apart from those here who object, there may be others who lurk a while and retire without contributing because they find the atmosphere uncongenial. It wouldn't harm the philosophy to leave out the insults.
CONTENT: If the mods determine that a member is a consistently low quality contributor, the member can be limited to a section at the bottom of the forum called something like Purgatory. If the member raises their game, perhaps they can be given another chance. Every so often Purgatory can be purged of all posts and members.
I'd call this romanticizing rudeness. As soon as expletives and insults make an appearance reasonable discussion has ended and a reasonable party would abandon the conversation.
Low quality posts mean that you have no substance of relevance in the discussion at hand. If you call someone stupid or fuck wits while still providing a relevant argument and maybe even examples of why they are fuck wits, you have no real reason to be banned. Some people are really deserving of being called idiots and fuck wits, especially if they write propaganda and stuff that have no philosophical relevance whatsoever. Pushing ideological agendas for example, with no interest in a deep dive of those ideologies means that the only approach anyone can take against them is to call them fuck wits and idiots, since there's no room for discussion with such people.
So, there are no different rules for mods compared to others.
Unless we then investigate 1) why we are slinging insults, and 2) why we are offended by them.
Reasonable parties might use the occasion to change the topic to such issues, which are typically more useful areas of inquiry than whatever fancy philosophy we might have been previously discussing.
The gesture would seem much nobler if the high principled would at least wait for someone a bit better than Chester to be banned. Shouldn't have to wait long.
No. Reminding people, even mods and admins, of the present rules usually works.
This is a philosophy forum so people are indeed logical when following the rules.
It isn't about Chester, it's about the modding. He was baited. The warning for excessive use of labels was ridiculously out of place considering all the labels that had already been thrown around, including and especially by the mods. It was an obvious abuse of power. Chester knew it... and flipped. Yes that's poor impulse controle on his part and he should be banned for that... but that's not the point. The point is that it's probably not a good idea to have mods baiting people into suicide by mod.
Not sure about logic, but the secret to getting us to do what you want is just to complain about us publically. We hate that and will probably give in to make you stop.
A case for that can't be made, assuming the baiting posts involved were in the systematic racism topic. What am I missing?
Honestly, @Chester didn't need baiting. He was politically, ethnically, and personally insulting anyone who disagreed with him from day one. And all that got him was a warning for low quality until he jumped the shark. Hardly unfair.
Quoting Chester
And not just for being factually wrong about my risk factors. I had just called him a tosser, mind, so I didn't complain at the time.
Baden, probably true... it just seemed like the warning was out of place in a thread where everything seemed to be allowed. Now, I don't know what you actually already moderated out it of it, or what your history is with Chester, so maybe I don't have the full picture.
Quoting praxis
I think the warning pushed his buttons... not that he needed a lot of pushing probably, but still it seemed out of place to me in a thread that was not moderated at all it seems.
Yeah, I agree, and insult can come in the form of more than just foul language.
I tend to draw a distinction though, between philosophy and rhetoric. It's not always clear, in the more political threads, whether the imperative is to be collaborative or persuasive or just declarative and all three have their place from time-to-time. I find it bizarre (aside from just offensive) to find people using insulting language when we're talking about, say, constructivist or non-constructivist views of infinity, but I find it neither offensive nor strange to encounter strong language when we're supposed to be talking about a man who's just been murdered by his own community's police, and people want to discuss some broken windows. To everything there is a season...
Unless posts were deleted or are located somewhere else I don't see the baiting.
This is a public gesture, Frank. You don't say anything about taking a break for reasons not directly related. Lie to yourself all you want. I don't like being lied to.
Geez
If it were I wouldn’t have mentioned it.
The logic is that there are the site guidelines and people have to follow them. And I do presume when the admin bans someone he or she will look if these guidelines have been breached or not.
The simple fact is that a site left without moderation will sink very quickly to a very low level. Sounds bad, but that's the truth.
Of course, it goes without saying that not only do we consider the guidelines, we consult each other in most cases. Even with @Chester, I made a suggestion in the mod forum after he ignored my warning that someone else look at whether he merited keeping on. He didn't. But I didn't want to take a unilateral decision to ban him. Thing is, we know bans need to be justified, so we're not going to stick our necks out on them unless we're either super sure or we get a second and, in some cases, third opinion.
I'd also point out that we typically act with unanimity, coming up with a solution that everyone is agreeable with, so it's not like we divide up into groups with one faction wanting one thing and another objecting. A single objector would typically sideline a banning for at least a while, and I really can't recall an instance where someone with a passionate position not to ban has been over-ruled. I say this just to let everyone know that by the time a banning has been decided, we've run out of other ideas.
Exactly, very little, if anything of philosophical value there.
Almost nothing put forward by the mods holds weight in their reason for the banning. Maybe not everyone here has read through the pages and compared and contrasted what was said, the manner it was put across in and what constitutes ‘poor quality’ posts.
Chester’s posts - agreement with what he says is irrelevant - were of no more ‘poor quality’ than some off-hand quips and insults thrown around by others with far less to say.
Quoting I like sushi
If al your posts are like that then it's a problem. Quips and the occasional insult aren't an issue in and of themselves.
Anyone who continuously posts low quality like @Chester will be banned. Take him as a brilliant example of what not to do on the site. If you still can't work out why, that's fine. But we're not going to spend days and days explaining one of the most obvious banning decisions we ever made to someone who has decided they just won't accept it.
What do you think the reason is for that kamikaze “hurrah” we see too often on this forum? There have been a few now who clearly decide they are going to act out and get banned.
People not getting what they want and not being able to handle it. A self-destructive streak maybe? I'm not going to psychologize it more than that. Powers of self-restraint vary.
Ya, It seems to be something about how they are received. That Terrapin guy always turned when people either didnt accept his framing or they didnt understand his framing and he did suicide by mod when too many of his discussion went that way. That Nuke guy seemed to be upset that his taunts/rants didnt get enough support or reaction once the discussion degenerated into mud slinging so he suicided by mod in his attempt to escalate it.
Fragile ego’s and/or narrow interest of engagement would be my guess.
I dont wanna say trolling..but there is something trollish to it. Its a very focused, self serving sort of engagement like trolling is...I mean there aren’t that many good philosophy sites so there is some cost to it if they are interested in that kinda thing.
I dont know why it fascinates me but it does.
Human nature. :scream:
A topical analogy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop
All in all I think the mods do a pretty good job in managing this forum.
A bit of “Oooltra violence”.
Reasons for decision: comments containing phrases like "black coon" (joke or racist double en tendre?), "SUPREME BLACK RACE", while all individually have extenuating circumstances, when taken in total it seems necessary to ban them.
The current revolution brings them out...
Not that I particularly want him banned, just seems odd.
Can you provide the link where he appears not to be banned?
Zombie prolly.
An inevitable side affect from doing philosophy!
:wink:
Seemed fairly well educated and knowledgable, from what little I read from him. The weirdness of his comments on race surprised me though! I suppose had they not been a surprise, it would not have seemed so weird!
:wink:
Quoting creativesoul
Well, he was talking about his rough neighborhood and things what he saw. I don't think he made it up.
:sad:
I thought so too at first, but now I suspect he did. In any case, it was his racism that led to the ban. Even if it were true that he'd become racist owing to his bad experiences, it's not an excuse. He was not only "talking about his rough neighborhood and things he saw".
He surely had a fatalist negative view, that's for sure. And I remember discussing some other issue and he was quite gloomy or bitter then too.
Well, I hope we still can discuss difficult topics. Because if this forum will have problems for an open dialogue, just think how bad it will be out there in the real World.
I agree. I want to keep it open to a wide spectrum of views.
It's only a problem for people who have biased perspectives and ignore all attempts at examining even their own convictions in an honest way. If this is a philosophy forum, then there has to be some form of demand to keep difficult discussions from ignoring philosophical standards of debate.
How would that work? What “form of demand” do you have in mind?
That difficult topics should have the same amount of demand for high-quality posts as everything else.
In what way are those standards not being applied to difficult issues? People get banned and warned for the same behaviour regardless of the topic difficulty, as far as I can see.
I agree too and I don't think it's too hard to discuss difficult topics like race without using phrases like "black coon" or repeating a bunch of racially-loaded personal anecdotes of dubious veracity. We're not setting the bar very high with that, I think.
I read through quite a few of his posts (here and Facebook) to get a better sense of him, because I questioned honesty. I believe he’s sincere. And yeah, educated and intelligent, though emotionally... off, perhaps somewhere on the spectrum.
I didn't find him particularly sincere, but that became an aside once the racism reared its head. It's not bannable to create a fake persona and to provide all sorts of incredible personal claims, but it's not terribly endearing either. We do deal with people with all sorts of personal issues, and we try to be understanding, but we can have but one set of rules that have to be applied consistently. Whether he had some personal limitations, I really don't know, and my guess is that I'd be wrong if I speculated.
Extremely high functioning?
I wholeheartedly support ending the self-perpetuated hatred of an entire group of people based upon nothing other than a few true beliefs followed by irrational reasoning, or a few false beliefs following the so-called rules of correct inference.
Anyone who uses the term "black coon" is repeating a historically well-known racial slur. It is always a case of nurturing the derogatory belief, the irrational hatred of olden days.
Though very unlikely, I suppose that one could use the name to pick out an individual black person, and not know it's history. One who is first learning by virtue of knowing what's acceptable to say about black people, not only can be, but certainly will be completely unaware of the historical destructive nature of the real life circumstances surrounding the use of that slur. Men were hung to death for being accused of interacting with a white female. Those same men were called "black coon" during these hatred filled ritualistic activities. These hangmen bragged about it at the time while using that name. There is no way a first time user knows this.
Those are extenuating circumstances though, and as such are exceptions to the rule, so to speak. We all know of the plight that is exclusive to black Americans. What's in the best interest of all Americans is also in the best interest of black Americans. It is only when and if it is the case that black lives matter, that it could possibly also be the case that all lives matter. There are unique circumstances which apply to the descendants of slaves as a result of the hate filled belief that still pervades American society. Those beliefs have a well documented history.
"Black coon" is prima facie evidence that those beliefs remain influential to this day.
Should this language user's attention be directed towards the well documented history of hate and violence surrounding such language use, and they do not voluntarily choose to join the team of killing the racist belief, anyone who does not agree to stop such hate cultivation and nurturing of racist belief, anyone who still yet refuses... well then they have proven themselves a harborer and/or nurturer of racist belief themselves - at best.
Good riddance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7R-X1CXiI8
He's not an isolated case but perhaps suffers from a particularly virulent strain.
He was identified as a maths kook to me.
Its no one else's fault but there own if they bring dogma instead of discourse. Its picking on them the way its picking on a speeding driver to give him a ticket.
Just wanted to make sure. :up:
I certainly am. :rofl:
:up:
Well, not pantheists (every theist, get it? I'm shameless).
Did he receive a warning? A chance to change his behaviour?
Nope.
Isnt that supposed to be the process?
*Attempting to play that one out in my head*.... :brow:
Lol, I know he most likely wouldnt have changed but I do think rules should be applied to everyone, especially when the rules are whats being enforced with the banning in the first place.
A long post history of low quality is good evidence that a warning is not useful.
How so? What is it about low quality posts that makes a warning ineffective? You are calling that “good evidence”?
I can give you an even better one that Im surprised wasnt obvious to you:
The best evidence that a warning isnt useful is when a warning is given and is ignored or otherwise ineffective.
Im under the impression a warning is supposed to be given? Isnt that part of the guidlines? They are pretty specific about what things are grounds for no warning bans...but maybe Im not remembering the guidelines correctly.
Dude, don't be so hard on the mods. 'specially when you're not a subscriber :wink: .
Its being hard on the mods to expect consistent application of the rules? To simply ask questions about a specific banning in the bannings thread? I cant agree, I dint think im being “hard” on them at all.
Everyone low quality posts sometimes.
Some people low quality post all the time.
Gnostic's post history, from what I've read of it, is almost all low quality revelation based pseudo arguments with occasional bible quotes, occasionally insulting other theists, and he outputs thread after thread of it.
It's less about that he posted low quality sometimes, it's that it was his whole posting style.
I understand, i read his stuff too. I mentioned him as someone who should be banned for preaching rather than discussing a long time ago. Im not making a point about his post quality nor that he was banned. Im under the impression that forum guidelines say a warning will be given except in certain circumstances like white supremacy etc, i dont remember Low post quality being one if those.
Quoting Wheatley
Oh. Well it wasnt intended that way, but rather intended to simply raise a concern and gather information. Fdrake, apologies if I came across as rude.
It didn't, it's nice to have to explain decisions. If we fuck something up really bad you lot will probably notice.
Right, that is the exact spirit with which it was meant. To that end, I did notice you didnt respond to my last post where i tried to clarify the point I was making. :wink:
I promise im not trying to be a shit here but what you do and what you should do are different things. Shouldnt par for the course be upholding the guidlines? Unless Gnostic is being defined as a troll, I dont see any support for a no warning ban.
"Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied."
I don't see anything inconsistent with the rules here.
We are upholding the guidelines. If you are a consistently low quality poster, we consider that you are "obviously unsuited to the forum" and a summary ban is likely to be applied. And even if you're not, we only specify in the guidelines you'll "probably" receive a warning.
I disagree lol
I think what you did was a good, for the same reason that me bringing this up is good (imo). I want to be held accountable, and sometimes I am rude on purpose or by accident and I want to be held accountable in both those circumstances.
Im a disagreeable contrarian I suppose but at least im consistent.
Well I guess there's no winning for me, lol.
Let me guess, you disagree with that too. :lol:
Ok, I take your points. It isnt as obvious to me he wasnt suited to the forum, and it seems like the loose and very subjective “Unsuited to the forum” is being applied unfairly here...there was no chance for him to change his behaviour or to even be aware his behaviour was going to be considered good evidence that he was unsuited to this forum.
Anyway, I understand the reasoning and see the value of having a mechanism to get rid of jerkoffs without the hassle of treating them like they arent jerkoffs.
Lol, i do! :lol:
I get that given a long low quality history a warning probably isn’t going to affect much change, but I think for the sake of other posters remaining, knowing that they would be warned ahead of time could give them more peace of mind.
I think it's better explained by most of the staff eye rolling at god discussions, they're extremely tedious to moderate for the same reasons as they're a vital gateway drug. A poster that probably should've been banned long ago but who posts almost exclusively about vague religious topics can go unnoticed.
I said that. Yes, it's good evidence but not a guarantee. Anyway, we rarely ban for low quality and unless you're in the bottom 5% of active posters, you've nothing to worry about.
Btw: Banned @MathematicalPhysicist for low quality.
Don't know what it is about today.
Meh, the guy had what, 25 posts in two years? Granted, they weren't any good, but there was no pressing need to get rid of him.
Good call about the other three (if my count is right).
And yet you'd be the first to complain about low quality if we let him post his OPs. So... what? We should run around deleting low-quality posters' stuff to keep you happy while not doing the obvious and banning them? Eh, no.
Quoting SophistiCat
You're welcome.
I would be complaining if he was posting 25 stupid OPs a month (as some do). One OP in two years? Meh. Not worth hurting his feelings.
But worth doing to maintain quality on the forum. Also, hurt feelings are not, or shouldn't be, a deciding factor in the decision to ban. They really ought not be considered at all really, as its about rules enforcement rather than preservation of anyones feelings. By the same token, we shouldnt ban anyone for hurting anyones feelings either. Ive always found “feelings” to be a somewhat lacking metric.
Also, personally I'm shameless, but it does seem unusual to name the people responsible for reporting abusive posts that led to a ban. That's not something I've seen on similar sites, but then as far as I know I've never gotten anyone banned before. I understand the idea is that it ought to be anonymous so that people feel safe to do it.
The first of these points would give me pause to report an abusive post on here, which, if others felt the same, could lead to unchecked bullying. The second would not, but might deter others.
Yes, unless there are extenuating circumstances (someone is complaining about being extremely depressed or suicidal etc and we're worried our actions could have an unusually strong effect) we just ban on the basis of the required standard.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I'm sorry, I didn't think about it in that way. You didn't get them banned, it was their post history. Enough of us agreed to ban and no one registered disagreement or hesitation.
Reporting a post only means bringing something to our attention. We are responsible for all mod decisions and no-one else.
[Cross posted]
I understand, and feel no guilt, and yet... it still effects the outcome.
Furthermore, is there some hidden category I have unchecked where there's this vast influx of activity we can't seem to see. It's a great forum but I wouldn't say in a position to start throwing folks overboard because they don't dot their I's and cross their T's.
Which brings us back to the suggestion of limited or restricted accounts. At sign up, by age of account, by peer review, etc.
If you want idiocy, it's not in short supply on the internet. Happy hunting!
We don't have "fun" in Ireland. We get drunk in bogs and forget where we live. That's my plan for tomorrow.
You have a New Category that is automatically applied to certain posters: new accounts or those rated as such and either a button just like "Start New Discussion" which is the hugest and most interaction-seeking option on the entire page... or a link under 'Most Viewed' either or that says "Show/Hide Novice Posts". Then the problem is over! Done! Finito! No need to thank me PF, just doing my job.
Wish I saw this 5 minutes ago.
:lol:
Just had a look. Case and point lol
I have a two birds with one stone solution: post all the banned (fir low quality) users stuff to a sub-forum called “youll have to do better than this” and here will be the place Newbs will be regulated to until such a time they get “reverse banned” into the main forum. Like a promotion, once they post something in the “youll have to do better than this“ sub forum that doesnt belong there cuz its not garbage.
Fell under that heading. Sufficient grounds.
My guess is that this would still require some moderation, and so add to workload.
"The old forum had a dedicated place for actually terrible threads - I think it was called the black hole or something - and it was an absolute clusterfuck, like, it made me nauseous even skim reading it." @StreetlightX
Quoting DingoJones
I am gonna go ahead and Godwin the thread.
Accidentally hit the reply button to your post. Meant the one below yours.
Right, makes sense. A practical consideration for moderation that should trump the inconvenience of the slight post pollution that gets in the main forum. I didnt really think of that.
Unfortunately you went right over my head there. What do you mean by Godwin the thread (i googled the law/man but still don’t get it) and how do the two quoted portions relate?
Most of us were mods at old PF.
Which I think is pretty reasonable considering the mods do this for free. (Right?).
I think he's calling you a damn Nazi.
Which makes no sense so im assuming an actual criticism or joke has gone over my thick but handsome skull.
Me, more like. :monkey: Bedtime for Goebbels anyhow. Gute Nacht.
Ok? There's a trash can in the place I dwell, somewhere. I think. I don't shove my head into it and jam my arms into it and be like "oh this is gross let me complain about it to other people." I mean really.
Like Heidegger, you mean? (The response which should be made whenever one is accused of being a Nazi in a philosophy forum--copyright Ciceronianus the White, 2020).
That thread was erased? Ok.
Yes. The guy keeps using sockpuppets to copy paste verbatim from his blog. The blog content is far right (we're talking creative euphemisms for a Jewish conspiracy far right), as if sockpuppeting and advertising weren't enough. He's also posted some of that far right content before.
Frank Apisa and 3017amen seem like trolls who not only contribute nothing but also derail/flood/pollute discussion. I dont use the term troll lightly here, its clear they are here to wind people up and entertain themselves at the expense of others.
Are they on mod radar at all?
This thread is exclusively for discussing executed bans not potential bans. It's fine to officially complain about whoever you want, but please do it by PM or on a separate feedback thread if you really think that's necessary.
I don't expect much from a site that has streetlightx as a forum mod but banning Asif for "low quality" is quite amusing. I wonder what he said that got him banned?
I think, but could be wrong, that that's part of what counts as "low quality". Street is at least capable.
By the way, everyone is free to examine the posting history of banned members.
This is definitely a thing. But personally speaking I can appreciate quality posts that I don't agree with. For example, I think you're a good contributor despite being full of shit.
There is a procedure for complaining about forum moderators but Asif gets banned because of "low quality" without any breach of rules being cited or anything? Obviously, each of us might ban different users for "low quality". I can name posters I think are "low quality" and look up their history to confirm my feelings but I am asking specifically what rule was broken or why he was banned.
If we want to look at his latest post history, I am of the view that the wrongdoers in most of those conversations actually aren't Asif.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/comments/7265/asif
Personal attacks, repetition, poor grammar, weird obsession with descriptions, and no philosophical content.
On second thought, I have reconsidered my position on this, I apologise for giving you grief.
Quoting jamalrob
Denying the antecedent, or at the very least a non sequitur.
In fact, I was warning against that fallacy. If I admit to sometimes judging posts or posters that I agree with as good, simply because I agree with them (which was implied), then it's reasonable for me to make it explicit that if I don't agree with them, I might still think they're good. Humour demanded a level of subtlety that it appears you, Michael, cannot reach. :wink:
I think it has to do with the rate of low quality vs good quality. SLX might be close to the bannable rate but hasn't yet crossed it.
Quoting BenkeiFunny how people talk about other people without realizing that they are a person too. Mods are people too. Isn't that a conflict of interest for a mod?
That was my conclusion too and what made me change my mind, if that's the logic then I suppose all the inconsistencies I saw are explained.
I'm sorry to hear you experience disassociation so often that you think other people have problems with it too.
Why the heck was my thread shut down.
It was a reasonable subject for a philosophy forum...and while I set it up in an aggressive manner, the point was to stimulate lots of discussion.
We were all getting along just fine. Nobody was going over-the-top...and it was interesting.
I know the answer is going to be the fall-back, catch-all "low quality"...but holy moly...you folk are getting awfully picky about what is "low quality."
C'mon. We can keep the quality up in the forum without undue censorship.
"As I have already stated above all truths are descriptions. And some descriptions are false.
The key is that all truths are descriptions,not that all descriptions are true."
Also in his debates with Tim Wood, my sympathies are entirely with Asif, as Tim would post some absurd non-sequitors that were little short of ad hominems.
I don't know but this comment is in the wrong place. You can start a feedback thread or wait for a PM.
Thanks, Badden.
Of course.
Quoting Baden
Another example of a confusion that could be cleared up by the mod posting why a thread was moved/deleted.
Perhaps a similar thread to this one could be set up but geared towards moving/deletion of threads.
Its fine the way it is, stop bitching about it and concentrate on making better threads/OP’s.
Quoting Judaka
There will always be some element of subjectivity in what is and isn't low quality, but, as a professor explained to me once in response to the complaint that essay exams are overly subject to subjective grading, the same students have an amazing knack of failing all their essay exams regardless of who the grader is.
??
You're the one bitching with your snide little comment. The opacity of mods actions regarding threads needs to be done away with.
P.s. I too bow down to the Unenlightened one.
You're free to ask us when something is deleted.
Quoting jamalrob
I agree, well said.
Let's see your better threads please. Thanks.
Im not out there bitching about my threads getting moved you fucking dipshit. If I was you would have a point, but im not so you dont.
I cant remember a single douchebag with these painfully stupid threads that get deleted or moved actually make a good one. Its always starts with this muddled, dogmatic talking point that they preach over and over again whether its pertinent or not. Then when they dont get the recognition of brilliance they think it deserves they make an equally unimpressive thread demanding peoples attention to their ill conceived pet philosophy/talking point.
Its just a bunch of arrogant, ignorant, Dunning-Krueger dummies who are aggressively wrong and right only by accident. And yes, this includes you, so take your brainless commentary about what I said to somebody else, shine it up, put a nice little bow on it and shove it up your ass.
He had over 2k posts in less than a year; it is not surprising that they were of low quality.
Every once in a while there is a banning that makes us all up our game a little. :wink:
The innuendo escapes me. I understand that the bar is extremely low. Low enough where even I don't need to worry about hitting it.
I was trying to talk him out of repeating the same thing over and over again
Now that he is free from the prison (zoo) that is the PF, he can work on changing the world for the better, by using his magic horn rhetoric to fix human misery by activating philosophers to move. The masses should rise up and take to the streets on the backs of courageous beasts like Jerzey, who are more than just internet writers.
From one cell to the next, pry the locks open with force and let the animals free to scare their masters.
The Golfers Warehouse?
The Great Whatever... a poster from here and the old forum who was banned.
Ah, he was Great in spirit, I think would be hard to deny.
Politically speaking, I agreed with both by and in large... although I reject the Capitalism/Socialism dichotomy. Both seemed to be fairly smart fairly well educated people. Shame that the emotional self regulation wasn't up to the task. However, I can certainly relate and empathize.
(1) Advertising.
(2) Posting something that endorsed an anti-semitic conspiracy theory.
@SophistiCat @Hippyhead.
Oh so he was. I wonder why they keep coming back.
Obviously, this is a location of the highest quality, making it extremely desirable. And, they love you fdrake, desiring more and more of your authoritarian ways.
What can I say, my bar is high. No anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Truly a huge expectation for any enlightened mind.
And, please note, the real topic of this thread is talking about departed members behind their backs once they no longer have the opportunity to reply. How courageous!
I don't think we really need to know who was banned, or have a public discussion of their supposed personal shortcomings. But knowing why a person was banned could be helpful in assisting the rest of us in avoiding such behaviors. So, this chatty gossip thread might be replaced with a neutral information only listing like this:
---------------
Date: xx/xx/xxxx
Mod: some_mod
Notice: A member was banned today for the following reasons:
Reasons: X, Y and Z
---------------
It makes far more sense to keep doing what we're doing in my view. You're not under any obligation to view the thread though, so feel free to ignore it.
Less than a day.
I thought of pointing out to him that this is not a social media platform and that responding with a meme is not a good idea here, but even longtime regulars do it now and then. I suppose we just let that slide if it's part of an otherwise substantial posting history, or so long as it doesn't seem to be dragging down the site so that a lot of people do it a lot of the time. Is that the feeling among the admins and mods? I have a little puritan reaction to it even when I find myself about to do it. I guess it's all context, just like all philosophy, damn it.
It wasn't really the memes but moreso that there was little rational substance to his political screeds.
Didn't expect you'd be crying into your billycan over this one.
What's sad is that my devastatingly succinct reply, the one that elicited the meme, is lost to history.
Tragic.
As a semi self-identifying Jew, I would just like to voice my, perhaps short sited suggestion, to consider not banning anti-semitic conspiracy theory posters outright. I don't know exactly what your criteria is for what constitutes antisemitic, but I like to hear people's concerns about "my people", as empathy can help to dismantle people's hate, and they may open their mind to reason. I think a philosophy forum is a good place for sensitive topics to be discussed with objectivity. If they have bad reason's for their beliefs, then this is a good place for those bad reasons to be exposed for all to see.
You bring up a good point. Sort of. The reason why conspiracies against groups of people, especially smaller groups who by comparison have less defense due to numbers is so dangerous, is fairly obvious. Paranoia or even suspicion is hardwired into the human brain through years of early survival. You're in the woods and you hear a twig break or something else that just makes you feel off occurs, you pay attention and respond to it, you may just save your life. That fact is what I hold my belief of where paranoid-class complexes or ailments come from. You're in a group of a few hundred people who everyone more or less knows each other and you happen to have over a few dozen new people over- and something odd occurs. As someone in the larger group who everyone you know or someone you know knows, and if this smaller group likes to maintain their own traditions which naturally involves some level of privacy, or as some would cast secrecy, your mind will naturally assume it to be the unknown vs. the known A sort of failed attempt at "when you eliminate the impossible whatever remains must be the culprit" per folly of human psyche. In a strange way we can be as trusting as we are suspicious. Your brain is uncomfortable if it can't find a solution to something and so will conform to what has worked in the past or makes sense based on belief or upbringing, hence optical illusions, cognitive dissonance, pareidolia, suspicions, witch hunts, etc. Long story short that can lead to innocent people getting hurt.
On the other hand though the general term 'conspiracy theory' where it doesn't have to do with people (ie. aliens or government coverups) can be used, rather the facts from the first paragraph can be used, as they are very real and understandable, to hide other things. Which is worth noting.
Whats wrong with any of that as long as it follows the rules of discourse? Just because some of those folks, or most, are unhinged and incapable of discussion doesnt mean all if them are. How are people with these erroneous beliefs (or any erroneous beliefs) supposed to know better if A) they arent allowed to talk, B) are not allowed to listen and C) we arent allowed to talk them, and D) we arent allowed to listen to them?
Is not the purpose of discourse to expose bad ideas? If we ban people based on what they believe (rather than how they express it according to certain rules of discourse) then that becomes impossible, and discourse has failed.
Isnt discourse more important than whether or not we agree with the person?
:100:
Well said.
Open a book?
Stops the rabid rabbiting.
Good advice perhaps, if the person is around to hear it. (Banned people are not).
Further, those ideas have books as well. My comment applies just as well to your response. How would these people you describe know which books to read? You cannot tell them, and they no longer have the option to ask.
I stand by what I said, banning people based on their ideas is the enemy of discourse. Fortunately, the mod team doesnt share your view (mostly) and bannings seem to mostly be about the guideline breaches (specifically refusing moderation Ive observed) rather than strictly the idea itself.
Yes, agreed. To me, it's the expression that matters, not the belief. If a member is consistently incoherent, lazy, sloppy, and otherwise disrespectful of the reader's time then ok, probably time to go. On the other hand, if they can express outrageous views in an intelligent articulate manner, let's hear it.
I would agree that those who hold outrageous views often do so because their minds are naturally incoherent, lazy, sloppy etc. So lame beliefs and lame expression do often go together.
Thank you Gus. First post in a while and look at that warm reception.
Well, I cant disagree with any if that. :up:
WTF? Isn't agreeing against the rules??? Ban him, ban him!!! :-)
Banned people can still read the forum, including the bannings thread.
As the only person who's ever been un-banned, I can testify to that first-hand.
Sure, but the point is about discourse, about erroneous beliefs being corrected. It isnt about people self correcting through silent observation...how would such a person get banned in the first place?
Lol
Holocaust deniers, Neo-Nazis, Racists, Misogynists, etc. don't want to engage in discourse. They want to pontificate. They want to spread ideas to other people, often young people or easily persuadable or naïve people. We are now facing repercussions of major social website such as Facebook or Twitter or YouTube ranging from attempted kidnapping, rallies that end in murder, conspiracy cults, to outright genocide, because they failed to ban such people, and moderate the content on their website.
Others, like Flat-Earthers, 9/11 Truthers etc. are just stupid. No different then someone advocating miasma theory over germ theory.
In both cases, it's perfectly acceptable for the moderators of the website - or whatever platform - to control and maintain the quality of the website. If this site was overrun by racist users and subject matter would you stay? I wouldn't.
Racism was once the consensus opinion.
Snowdon revealed what would have been considered a conspiracy theory. Iraq war two was started by a conspiracy. (and yes, that one 'came out', but if we want to argue that any true conspiracy theory will come out, we are arguing something that is not falsifiable and also making a good case to reason around the issue)
Minority opinion holders or pernicious opinion holders should not be banned, (if they banned here with that as the jusfitication),regardless of how minor and how pernicious their beliefs seem.
People who post terribly, trollers, people who can only preach, etc.
Someone will likely say that the two usually or always go together. Well, then you have form criteria ready at hand to eliminate them. If they are not both present, then let reasoning rule and keep them present.
In your case I believe that pharmaceutical technology would be most efficacious.
Love pharmaceutical technology!
In your case I believe that less pharmaceutical technology would be most beneficial.
Lol. You know me too well!
Might I add, more might be beneficial for you.
Sometimes I wonder where the Great philosophers got their pharmaceutical tech from. How else did they think up that shit?
How did you figure that out?
When he joined, he was suspected of being Jake due to posting style and post content. He wasn't banned immediately because there wasn't sufficient evidence that he was Jake. Now, he's claimed to be a returning banned member in a PM.
Suicide by mod kinda thing.
Quoting Hippyhead
Quoting Hippyhead
Maybe if it was 'Putin is a gangster', then 'Putin is a gangsta', it would have gone unnoticed by the mod bots.
I guess you need context for this not to make you laugh out loud. :lol:
I mean, to be fair there's not many views to hold and styles to express them.. but if you know you know I guess.
Yes, if you would have had a discussion with him, you'd think it was pretty evident... Knowledge is bad, nuclear missiles are very bad!
I am a shambles.
Quoting praxis
It felt kinda shitty to out him like this but I couldn’t resist the temptation to see how he’d handle it. I bet he wouldn’t have been banned if he just ignored it. Anyway, ultimately his ‘Suggestions’ topic proved to be successful in improving the quality of the forum so he can put a feather in his cap for that.
And yes, Jake, I realize that banning me would improve the quality of the forum also.
I built an AI that analyses everyone's posts and determines the probability that two posters are the same person based on subject matter and writing style. Took me most of a Sunday evening.
I was about to say @Michael does it all and the rest of us kind of just watch in awe. But he saved me the trouble.
Why the...? What the...? I mean... Why?!?
All kinds of people burnout or whatever and essentially ban themselves. Just indicates some lack of self-control, I guess.
Maybe he had a major problem with the forum and his wife at the same time. Still... Bizarre!
[hide="Reveal"]
...are you sure? Certainly seems like it sometimes, seen the Trump thread at all?
Gotta be at least a handful of 10 year olds here.
Anyway, taking bets on the next person banned. My money is on counterpunch. Place by your bets!
And that @jamalrob is putin.
Banned @Brett for using racial slurs against another poster. Considering the rest of the post's content, it looks like another suicide by mod.
Quoting The Opposite
They don't read the same to me, Chester was quippy, counterpunch is an essay writer.
Ah. Yeah, I got that impression too. I don't think he meant the racial slur literally, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the convo, just seemed like a "Ban me already". Even without the politics his posts were the worst. 50% seemed to be "What do you mean by 'cat'?" "What do you mean by 'people'?" "What do you mean by 'the'?" Pain in the aeiou.
I don't think the intent should matter when calling another poster a racial slur.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
It did.
Oh, I agree, definitely banworthy.
I still think bannings ought to happen when the site guidelines are explicitly breached.
See above. Don't have the exact quote. But that's pretty close.
So then you are not denying that @jamalrob is putin? I knew it!
Probably because I kept singing:
Seditioooooooon, sedition !
Baaaarp de de parp parp barp
SEDITION!
Seditiooooooooooooon etc.
Never read a post from him that wasn't a complaint.
In a way all counter-arguments are complaints. In a way.
In fact, if anyone says anything, they want to make a point; which point is different how they think others see the situation; which is a criticism of the status quo; which means all utterances are complaints.
Thus: "I like ice cream" is a complant against those, who may believe, with or without evidence, that I don't like ice cream.
ETC.
Twitter also banned 70,000 QAnon accounts. They're full of anger and spite. They say the same ridiculous things over and over.
Nothing unique about that.
This forum isn't conducive to a hive mind like Twitter or Facebook. Here it's possible to pin your interlocutor to a wall in a way that just can't be done elsewhere.
I'm sure there are other reasons.
I'm being facetious, of course; but it is not unreasonable to expect some new members over these interesting times.
Yep.
That isn't the first time I've seen this suggested (though the other times may have been you as well), but I haven't seen anything to suggest it. Point me at suggestive evidence?
Just rambling. It's probably my inability to intuit large numbers... 70,000 and more folk looking fo a new home; some might be expected to drop past our residence. But while a few score thousands is a lot of folk to me, it's small in the grand scheme of the interweb.
Ah. Wondered about that. Something about a style that was too flamboyant.
Nice pick up.
Or they realize they actually have a real life to attend to. ;)
Although now with the lockdowns, it's becoming hard to tell.
Well, one could of course quote Olavo De Carvalho. I guess that wouldn't be a reason to be banned. (If it would, I'm really starting to worry about this site).
And we might get an heated debate about current Brazilian politics! That might be educative.
(Here's the site of Olavo de Carvalho , from which I assume Raffaella copied at least one message of her.)
As the site guidelines say:
I am taking it as an obvious standard rule that we can quote others, because that applies to all writing, including academic writing. I would be The only one particular unsolved puzzle of all times is whether Shakespeare was the real author of all his works.
Same for me, just checking out of curiosity.
No wonder the ops looked like a bunch of random sentences copied from various different places and tossed together into a salad.
I hear there's plagiarism bots which University professors use. Having been around for some time now, I imagine they're quite sophisticated, and have access to God knows what, using who knows what comparison techniques. As a flock, the less we know, the better. I'm sure Michael's got that all worked out though.
Yes, obviously you can quote. But you cannot plagiarise numerous OPs in their entirety from (as we've discovered now) more than one author, as Rafaella did. The distinction should be very clear.
(Another theory we have now is that she was one of those other authors and "Rafaella" was the fake identity. If so, hoist by his/her own petard. You cannot copypasta, even your own stuff, if it's already posted elsewhere. But for that, if we were aware, you would just get a warning.)
I used to teach at university and, yes, we have our means. :naughty:
Perhaps one sentence about this in the Guidelines would perhaps be good, if it leads to banning. There can be those that don't know as many of us do from the university, that copying text directly without quoting is serious cheating. Or at least in the How to write an OP, if the actual guidelines are kept short (which also is good).
OK. Adjusted to:
Quoting Baden
Don't remember that guy. Was that the username?
It was @Scott the Woz
Ah yeah, I remember him now. Could be. Although email and IP are different.
The guy - Paulo Kogos - is not a dumb one, but he appears more to be a conspiracy theorist than a philosopher. I think that if he was invested in the forum, he probably would create a different e-mail and maybe hide his IP (?).
Well, if it was him or not, both are banned, so yeah. It's a win to me.
:up:
On various occasions I have done searches for various phrases of at least several words, and it is surprising how often a particular phrase is--not totally but remarkably--unique. Take for example, "a particular phrase is--not totally but remarkably--unique" has not appeared in this or (probably) the previous PF. In all the world, it may not have appeared more than a few times.
So students who plagiarize experts in very well-plowed fields really don't stand a chance, sometimes even without bots.
Infinite monkey theory is the best defense against an accusation of plagiarism. I'm just a monkey typing random stuff, so what if it happened to be the same as someone else. Seat a bunch of monkeys at type writers, and eventually they'll find your phrase. I think it's a form of the principle of plenitude.
Randall Munroe, the author of the xkcd webcomic did a calculation on how many unique english language tweets there are. According to the calculation the answer is "more than you could possibly imagine".
:cry:
Gonna ban me too?
No, I'm busy taking a crap. Get someone else to do it. :up:
Quoting Baden
I see, you're gonna go de-platform?
Sorry, can't hear you over flushing noises. Try again tomorrow.
Here's the body of my original post for that thread in its entirety. I offer it for consideration to the executive body of the forum... that is, for the moderators to decide if this proposal should be used or not, in the way I wrote it or in some other forms with parameters changed.
-----------------------------------
There is no hard-and-fast rules for ousting members. Some guidelines are presented.
I suggest that a number be established within a time frame. The number be X, and the time frame, a period Y.
In this scheme, if any user can be shown clearly without a shadow of doubt that the user uttered greater than X number of logical fallacies within a time period of Y, then the moderators can be asked by users to exclude the offender from membership. Temporarily at first offence, for a longer period temporarily for the second offence, then permanently at the third offence.
I suggest, X to be 10, and Y to be a week (seven days duration). There would be a time period Z, the passing of which past the last day of Y would declare amnesty for the offender. That is, if no one brings a complaint against the offender by the end of Z, then a statute of limitations will apply after Z period, which could be a month (Z=30 days).
I really wish this to be made effective. It is a philosophy forum. Here the only "judge" should be reason and lack of ill or faulty reason. If someone keeps using faulty reasons, by way of using fallacies and other errors in arguments, then it must be punished, for they insult the judge itself.
Maybe someone switched the "closed" toggle to off? I don't know how this site is programmed. I am just a philosopher.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/30/feature-requests
Jeez who'd be left if you uniformly enforced that?
We should probably have caught him earlier if anything.
I am sure that you had your reasons for banning him, but he had a certain unique style. It may just be that his writings fit somewhere else rather than in the context of a philosophy forum. He used to write comments on my threads, and I did write some replies, but it was hard at times, because he did not use much philosophy argument. I think that he is more of a poet really.
I didn't agree with everything he wrote. And his style was a little too samey. But the man had some tremendous original insights. Didn't just quote or cut and paste,or appeal to authority, or use abstract logic...
Insufferable posting style? Wow! The irony!
Most philosophers write like shit. Ditto many posters here.
This thread is like orwells two minutes of hate!!!
I do agree with you that many philosophers write badly. Perhaps it is about going too far in the direction of logos. I do think that there is a danger that if a new Nietzsche or Kafka appeared in our midst they might be outlawed for being so different.
The best philosophers have a poetic style and are mavericks and unapologetic.
Anand is that!
I just hope that he is able to see this online and not give up. I think that it would be possible for someone to feel so demoralised for banning, but this probably comes down to a person's sense of self esteem. When someone is excluded or banned from some sphere it is easy to feel a 'failure', but hopefully this will not be the path for Anand. I am sure that failure and success transcend being able to post on this site and, I will try to remember this if I ever get banned.
The banning won't hurt him.
One of the purposes of me writing this is so he can read and know he has supporters and people who appreciate his work.
Never feel a failure because small minded bigots ban people.
You are OK. Your style is not provocative or super poetic.
Success is determined by attitude not "bannings" or opposition.
Life is so much bigger than a forum!
It is just that it does appear to me that this is so unusual for a person to be banned on the basis of how they wrote, or style.
Low quality meaning they don't like confident yet true assertions or a post which doesn't reference academia or a clichéd template of dialectic reasoning. Just elitism really.
It's ironic because nietzsche would have been banned.
And plato,kant,aristotle,hegel and many many others would have been banned by the woke crowd because of racism,misogyny,being right wing ,etc,etc.
He was banned because he didn't use proper punctuation and grammar. This style of writing just isn't acceptable here:
Many posters on here are vague and full of jargon. Very unclear.
You do realise Shakespeare and nietzsche really fucked a lot with punctuation and style!?
They don't tell you this!
Nor plato...
Oh,the veneration and romanticising of authority!
The pinko philistines would ban Jesus fer’sher.
Well, some say Nietzsche had syphilis, but if that was so, it doesn't necessarily mean he fucked a lot. Chances are he didn't fuck much at all, poor fellow. Not that he was probably a virgin like that even poorer fellow, Kant. I like to think Shakespeare fucked often.
As for punctuation, Nietzsche certain loved his exclamation points, but I don't think either he or Shakespeare wrote...in such a manner...perhaps way, as in path...through the desolation of existence...so studied and contrived...to evoke so pointedly...the pretence of uniqueness.
monologues! Class!