Bans

[nanook]

1) you get a warning
2) you get a naked pic from jenny
3) you win a smart watch

 

[Jennywocky]

Well, okay, but... whose naked picture should I send?

 

[nanook]

benedict cumbertatch, if you are really angry

 

[TheManBeyond]

dat was nasty, da real deal

 

[Minuend]

No, I was suggesting that if we could find a solution as a community in a forum, then it would applicable to the prison system.

Well, forum power is not enough for putting people down, out of their and our misery )=

 

[QuickTwist]

N****** in the east want to unite, not me. If you ain't saying no'in' offensive you ain't com' at me right. Na'mean?

Bans are over rated. Unless someone subconsciously wants to get banned they won't get banned. Na'mean?

 

[Grayman]

Bans are over rated. Unless someone subconsciously wants to get banned they won't get banned. Na'mean?

Im only telling you your comment is dumb as shit because you subconsciously want me to tell you that.

 

[QuickTwist]

Im only telling you your comment is dumb as shit because you subconsciously want me to tell you that.

You're proly the only one who thinks that.

 

[Grayman]

You're proly the only one who thinks that.

Thats because im the only one who thinks.

 

[Jennywocky]

Im only telling you your comment is dumb as shit because you subconsciously want me to tell you that.

That's a beautiful line -- the "I hate you because you actually want me to" reason.

I have to find a place to use that.

 

[Reluctantly]

...
5. for the really virulent/persistent trolls who come back with socks through proxies athwart bans, we have a special forum where nobody can see them, they can't see anybody (or any other forum) -- except, the staff AND a special volunteer-army of "counter trolls". This has worked well, on the theory that you take away a troll's audience and the troll loses interest.
...

Jesus. That sounds like a lot of work. Amazing dedication.

 

[Melkor]

There is a text I read some months ago I find is very pertinent to the anti authoritarian, anti banning attitudes that some members have and that flare up like a bad eczema whenever a ban happens.


Geek social fallacies

This is actually really fascinating and requires greater study. I've always thought it'll be a wonderful time when (in twenty or thirty years time) all the prominent young websters are college professors and the particulars of the online psyche can be given the academic credence it deserves. People are monsters, but monsters can be tamed.

Spoiler

Also it's nice to know that even though none of you admin folk are remotely qualified to do your job you are still doing your homework.

 

[The Introvert]

Agree. that link by Fukyo is interesting.

I will say that at first I thought it was titled "Five GREEK Social Fallacies" and began wondering what an Ancient Greek "aromatic" citizen would smell like...

 

[TBerg]

Ostracization just compounds the problems of social disintegration. Essentially the only way it works is by social eugenics and genocide, and so one must embrace the impulse to discard certain members of our society. It increases resentment and plays by the culture of the dominant without really asking whether our biases are more important than our fairness, if the ostracized member merely has feelings that differ from ours. It feels very hypocritical for me to subject someone to the same embarrassment and humiliation that I experienced growing up. Sometimes I feel like if no one respects my feeling on certain matters, then I don't have to respect their social feelings either.

 

[Jennywocky]

That's what the Geek social factors article discussed (if you're responding to that).

What I took out of it, and it seems to be true (and fits with what you've said) is that people who feel ostracized hate ostracizing anyone and basically go to the other extreme of not being able to draw boundaries / remove people from the group who might happen to be destructive.

Needless ostracization + refusal to draw any boundaries are both extremes of group dynamics. I think a healthy group does its best to accept as much diversity as it can, while also remaining capable of recognizing problem members who have an erosive effect (long or short-term) on a group.

It's the same problem that people have in their individual relationships, based on what examples they've experienced growing up either with their own parents or in their own life. It's all about boundaries. If you watch one of your parents drive away the other by being overly critical, if you don't end up emulating that parent yourself, there's also a tendency to go the other way and be too accepting of a partner who might be abusive towards you when you need to be critical and push them away. And the reverse is true as well. Basically in all these cases you have to take the "middlish" road, to maximize the possibility of relationship and overall contentment -- discernment in which things you should flex to and which things are ultimately destructive and cannot be tolerated.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Bans are controversial because no one owns the dynamics of a social group, yes some entity may own the meeting place and has the right to decide who is free to come in, but this is separate from a natural right to associate.

Of course instead of going off and fostering a new social group, ostracized people may feel resentful. Not surprising because the former group usually makes a judgement of quality against their character when such a thing is relative and could be applied in reverse as well.


There is no guilt in coming to the conclusion that a member is harmful to other members, or that a member is detrimental to stated goals & aesthetics. This is objective, as opposed to not liking someone and wishing your life to be rid of them (that's what the ignore function is for ).

 

[The Introvert]

So... what do you think would happen if we allowed some of the former members that were banned full access again? For example, I'm assuming that people like Da Blob and BAP are still trying to infiltrate the system with dupe accounts.

On the one hand, they may troll us like before. On the other hand, they may actually lead to some heated discussion, which I think at this point in time the forum may need. At least to my eye, there's been a lack of serious questioning of beliefs and ideology here, and even if the aforementioned are still so astute in their beliefs, the least we can do is throw more rocks at them and re-ban them.

On another note:

Spoiler

I seriously doubt the capacity of most previously banned members to do significant harm in a short amount of time, assuming they are monitored correctly. If anything it'd give mods something more interesting to do than continually scan new accounts for IP addresses and ban evasions.

To be clear, I'm not on either side of the argument here, I'm just throwing this out for suggestion. Hell, some of the previously banned members may have even changed their ways...

 

[Jennywocky]

I think it would be the same shit that got them banned to start with, and the same dynamics.

Why not try to drum up some people who are intelligent, have some interesting ideas, and yet mature enough to know how to engage in a productive way rather than obsessively spamming the forums and/or not knowing when to let something go? Like, a modicum of social skills so that these dialogues can work? Doesn't that seem more productive?

 

[Pyropyro]

Why can't they just make their own forum with blackjack and hookers?

Anyways, I agree with Jenny's ideas and suggestions.

Banning immaturely acting members is a balancing act but I think our mods here are doing a good job (although I think they're a bit soft sometimes). I don't think we have the qualifications to "fix" people here anyways (if someone here does then I suggest that member get off the forum and make money IRL ).

I think giving banned members limited access is a bit cruel IMO. It's like forcing a starving person watch other people eating at a buffet. The banned member, although active, will always be reminded that no matter what they do they'll always be that excluded person. I believe they're better off forgetting their stint at INTP and instead focus on other activities.

 

[The Introvert]

Why not try to drum up some people who are intelligent, have some interesting ideas, and yet mature enough to know how to engage in a productive way rather than obsessively spamming the forums and/or not knowing when to let something go? Like, a modicum of social skills so that these dialogues can work? Doesn't that seem more productive?

Because that would take work.

But in all seriousness, I think in part that some of the banned members were either actually a large portion of the population here that could engage semi-productively (when prompted correctly) or were at least catalysts for intelligent discussion - whether or not they would in turn respond to the discussion intelligently is another question...

I for one advocate for what you've proposed. But it seems, even despite the support these types of pre-solutions have garnered ITT and others, that nobody is really willing to take the next step and engage people in some type of active discussion. In other words, we have the forum, and we have people willing and in fact desiring something similar to what you have said. But we have no way to ignite this fuel - my suggestion was to consider some sort of ignition; whether it would be ultimately destructive or not would have to be monitored.

 

[eagor]

5. for the really virulent/persistent trolls who come back with socks through proxies athwart bans, we have a special forum where nobody can see them, they can't see anybody (or any other forum) -- except, the staff AND a special volunteer-army of "counter trolls". This has worked well, on the theory that you take away a troll's audience and the troll loses interest.

on the off chance this is implemented i'd like to volunteer, it would give me something to do other than lurk and ramble

 

[Jennywocky]

Because that would take work.

But in all seriousness, I think in part that some of the banned members were either actually a large portion of the population here that could engage semi-productively (when prompted correctly) or were at least catalysts for intelligent discussion - whether or not they would in turn respond to the discussion intelligently is another question...

The only one I can recall that I found useful was Base Groove. The others were far more disruptive than helpful, from my perspective. *shrug* That's just my personal opinion.

I for one advocate for what you've proposed. But it seems, even despite the support these types of pre-solutions have garnered ITT and others, that nobody is really willing to take the next step and engage people in some type of active discussion. In other words, we have the forum, and we have people willing and in fact desiring something similar to what you have said. But we have no way to ignite this fuel - my suggestion was to consider some sort of ignition; whether it would be ultimately destructive or not would have to be monitored.

I think one issue is that people come to forums for different reasons, and/or invest their time in varied ways. So it's not really a uniform type of posting process.

For example, during part of my life when I had the time and was looking for a particular type of connection, I invested far more in my posting. Nowadays, I don't feel the need for long dialogue or expanding certain types of understanding for myself because my needs changed. I enjoy reading some threads (for self-education), but my posting is more casual than it has been... I look more enjoyment versus an intense investment. And I provide advice if it looks like something I could offer would be helpful to someone.

Likewise each individual has separate needs and these needs could change over time. So one person's vision for the forum can differ from another's; and even the same person's vision could change over time.

Anyway, styles of interaction that discourage others from participation I think are unhealthy. I'm not talking about one's level of background in the topic -- you can always read and learn, or ask questions -- but if you're going to interact in ways that either make the conversation habitually tedious or abusive of other participants... not good. Those types of members, I'm not sorry to see go.

I don't think many people here are social enough to know people to invite who would fit. we kind of each just wander in and stay. In fact, this is where some of us do the "meeting" of others.

 

[Grayman]

The only one I can recall that I found useful was Base Groove. The others were far more disruptive than helpful, from my perspective. *shrug* That's just my personal opinion.

Except when was trying to type you. I think he typed everyone as everything at least once.