Bronto's ban

[redbaron]

My point is more that Bronto's comment wasn't even hostility.

If the argument is that you want to deter behaviours that destroy communication, why are we not banning people for being stupid, stubborn and dogmatic?

Literally every justification you've made for it is wildly inconsistent with how the forum moderating actually occurs. Which is why I said earlier I'd given up on expecting any kind of coherent or rational moderation. The mods often justify a ban because 'we want to discourage behaviour X' or 'it hurts people's ability to Y' - while simultaneously allowing all sorts of other things that result in X or Y.

Which is why it's obvious that what matters more is whether or not a particular mod had a bad day or some other shit and so wield their power on a forum as an outlet (whether knowingly or not).

 

[Grayman]

If the argument is that you want to deter behaviours that destroy communication, why are we not banning people for being stupid, stubborn and dogmatic?

Require and IQ Test...
and well stubborn that is definitely you RB.

 

[bvanevery]

Perhaps it's not your first language and genuinely you just misunderstand the meaning, but that doesn't change what the intended meaning is.

My English is great actually. You just don't make any effort to be clear about whether you wish or do not wish to offend someone. Basically, you don't care.

Nobody's required to treat you like a child either. If you're bothered by other people voicing their opinion (which you've repeatedly expressed that you are) and you complain about it, then you're either an idiot who can't think of how to solve this problem with the tools available to you or a crybully who's seeking to use their own outrage to exert control over others.

Are you familiar with the practice of avoiding the use of the word "you", so that no confusion exists between "you in general" and "you bvanevery specifically" ? I figure, either you aren't, or you are and don't care. I strongly suspect the latter, as to wit:

No, simply that I'm going to say whatever the fuck I want and not concern myself with whether or not I get banned.

I think that implies you value your own speech, much more than its impact on any person or community.

 

[bvanevery]

My point is more that Bronto's comment wasn't even hostility.

It was though. You may think well of Bronto's motives for choosing to say what he did, but nobody else is required to see it that way, or read Bronto's mind for "the good meaning" behind it all.

Gosh this is reminding me of some ancient Usenet concept of the "tact filter", with geeks all having theirs running in reverse from the rest of society. As in, you're imagining it's the listener's responsibility to filter out whatever nasty thing Bronto says, as not being all that serious or important. Whereas most people think Bronto is supposed to filter what he says and not be rude.

Now, I am neither; I understand both points of view. That's very "P" of me. Which is why I personally will give someone a lot of leeway, until I decide hmm, I've been patient enough with this person, trying to persuade them to be more polite. Time to let the mods handle it.

If the argument is that you want to deter behaviours that destroy communication, why are we not banning people for being stupid, stubborn and dogmatic?

An interesting line of reasoning but fortunately not my concern. I want to deter behaviors that destroy civility. People can be civil and say absolutely nothing of substance to each other.

 

[bvanevery]

But you kind of also have to ask how much consistency there is in enforcing those rules.

Like, what is this for example:
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=24886

You would certainly never see Bronto do stuff like that.

That poster made 3 weird posts that mean nearly nothing, some kind of Dada, and affect no one. Why are we supposed to care, or see it as some kind of moral equivalent to Bronto's case? The posts got moved to the Oubliette to reduce forum clutter, and that's about as consequential a verdict as one might have on such things.

Just because someone made a rule about something at some time, does not mean that all rules are equally cared about as a community standard. And mods who get on their high horse that RULES must be enforced, for their own sake, to have absolute consistency of RULES, is VERY VERY ANNOYING behavior. It's also very "J" behavior and this is INTPforum. So you would do well to expect mods to exercise judgment, not just RULES. There's a mod on WetCanvas.com that's VERY VERY ANNOYING about how he tyrannizes people's posts with his interpretation of the rules. It's part of why I spend hardly any time there anymore. The other would be piles of S vs. N conflicts, but that's another story.

 

[bvanevery]

For some reason I read all bvanery's posts in the voice of the 'wabbit' hunter in them there looney tunes.

Pwobabwy wremebewring something about being powite or wude.

 

[bvanevery]

if you're interested in reading more about transactional analysis and the likes:
http://www.kenwilber.com/editor/TAGT.pdf

Transactional Analysis is good stuff. Had a younger atheist friend of mine who went pretty deep into that learning curve, due to ongoing conflict with his religious parents. I even encountered it in a children's book I had as a kid, about "warm fuzzies" and "cold pricklies".

 

[bvanevery]

If you dont want someone who is brutally honest without concern of the consequences around

I like people who are honest just fine. Especially self-honest. How does brutally honest become a pass for people's behavior, in some people's minds?

Yeah I was pretty close to brutally honest about somebody's artwork on WetCanvas once. Once. His work was really bad, didn't show much effort or thought put into trying to do something with that canvas in front of him. My post was actually an edited version of what I really thought about it. So my post had some remnants of brutality in it. Well, a mod shut me down so fast my head practically spun. There wouldn't be any more of that kind of thought from me on WetCanvas.com. Everyone will play nice, real kid gloves "almost positive only" type place.

Unless you're a popular forum user with a big dose of "S". He had quite a mouth on him at my expense. Had to report a number of his posts to get him to back off. I think he still did everything in his power to make me feel unwelcome as much as he could. Like, he rules the roost here and I was messing up his show, with all that pesky "N" babble and stuff.

I really haven't seen a lot of "brutally honest" behavior out of people online, that isn't simply people enjoying being brutal. I have, however, seen a case where people can't actually speak their minds about stuff, for fear of mods shutting them down.

Lots of people take Art personally. Quite often it embodies their values. And when values collide, fireworks ensue. WetCanvas mostly isn't the place for me, not intellectual enough. I was pretty surprised at the number of artists who didn't feel they needed to make any account of their rationales or thought processes at all. Who were even inarticulate about what they were doing in Art, that they simply didn't feel they had the capacity to explain what they were doing.

I suppose brutality is to some extent contextual.

 

[redbaron]

It was though. You may think well of Bronto's motives for choosing to say what he did, but nobody else is required to see it that way, or read Bronto's mind for "the good meaning" behind it all.

You're making assumptions about what I think, they're wrong. "Shut up clueless fool" didn't even make me bat an eyelid when I read that thread. It didn't even register that someone had "insulted" someone. That particular exchange really shouldn't be threatening or distressing to someone unless they're just completely maladjusted to...life - and if that's the case then the problem there isn't really Bronto.

But because someone's "feelings" were hurt the mods got involved, Bronto called a spade a spade and it turned out the mods really did have no actual point to make. So they banned him because that's what people in power will always seek to do in these situations - maintain status and power.

That maintenance of status is more important than the coherency and rationality of decisions made, because to not ban Bronto is to accept that a mistake was made and that the one in power faltered. It's a very common thing that happens all the time in almost any example where one person possesses a medium of control over others. When their power is made redundant in one medium, they exercise it in whatever other way they can.

It's why the majority of people in positions of responsibility do stupid and illogical things that only make sense from the perspective of power maintenance. It's actually a misnomer to even bother dissecting Bronto's behaviour, because he wasn't banned for his actual behaviour - he was banned for robbing a person in a position of power of their power over him.

That's a very obvious fact and if you think I'm 'upset' over the ban, you'd be wrong. I'm calling a spade a spade. It's what happened. It's what's always happened on the forum and that's why decisions aren't coherent with previous ones made and why they often don't align with the stated intentions of the moderators - because they aren't making decisions to be coherent or to actually achieve anything,

The moderators simply aim to control any people displaying behaviours that they personally dislike, and if they fail to control them then they remove them.

All of the talk about "encouraging behaviour X" or "discouraging behaviour Y" amounts to little more than cognitive dissonance so that they mods can pretend like they aren't making decisions based on personal investment and maintenance of their own power. It's just hot air because if it wasn't, we'd see certain other users unbanned and certain others banned.

This isn't me lobbying for anyone's removal or return to the forum, it's just simple observation and understanding of the continued trend on the forum. Feeble justifications of behaviour don't change the reality of the situation and overall I don't care much because like I said, it's what happens in almost every power structure that exists.

 

[bvanevery]

You're making assumptions about what I think, they're wrong. "Shut up clueless fool" didn't even make me bat an eyelid when I read that thread. It didn't even register that someone had "insulted" someone. That particular exchange really shouldn't be threatening or distressing to someone unless they're just completely maladjusted to...life - and if that's the case then the problem there isn't really Bronto.

The 'problem' here is this is your personal filter. It doesn't match many other people's filters. Hopefully you have or will develop some "P" capacity to see this from other people's perspectives. As opposed to putting a "T" ordering on how everyone else is going to act, the way you see it.

Common sense says insult was given. I've noticed INTPs often lack common sense.

The severity of the insult depends on the dynamics between the giver and the receiver. It seems there were some.

But because someone's "feelings" were hurt the mods got involved, Bronto called a spade a spade and it turned out the mods really did have no actual point to make. So they banned him because that's what people in power will always seek to do in these situations - maintain status and power.

As others have tried to state several times now, and I will do so again, Bronto got banned because he's done this sort of thing over and over and over again. Do you have the "P" capacity to see the situation from this perspective?

That maintenance of status is more important than the coherency and rationality of decisions made, because to not ban Bronto is to accept that a mistake was made and that the one in power faltered.

The reason you don't see coherence is you are wedded to your particular "T" view of the situation and are not admitting other evidence.

 

[redbaron]

1. It's nor a matter of not being able to see other people's perspectives. It's a matter of whether people's perspectives are realistic. I can understand the perspective of a fanatical white supremacist, but understanding them doesn't make them any less deranged.

Common sense says that "clueless fool" isn't and never has been so heinously insulting that it warrants a permanent ban.

2. Bronto hasn't done it "over and over again" to a degree that multiple other's haven't. Hence the point that moderating here obviously doesn't revolve around encouraging or discouraging certain behaviours - it's just whoever a mod or mods personally find most frustrating.

3. I'm not wedded to any idea. That's a red herring. It's a fact that the moderator-given reasons for bans, of "discouraging X, encouraging Y" are demonstrably false. Moderator actions and ban choice is entirely inconsistent and doesn't align with stated intentions and reasons.

That's because moderator's actually just ban the people who personally annoy them or people who ,render their ability to control impotent. It's just a normal human thing.

It's why people suck up to superiors - it works. People are motivated to do things for reasons that aren't consistent or rational, so emotional manipulation always happens.

Whether you want to be realistic or unthinkingly regurgitate feelgood platitudes doesn't concern me.

The only difference between others and Bronto is that when Bronto is told not to do something, he says no and continues to do it. Others say OK, but still continue to do it.

Bronto hurts the moderator's feelings because they don't get the emotional validation of having "controlled" the situation because he doesn't explicitly agree. Others manipulate the moderators by giving them the validation they seek, while making no actual attempt to alter behaviour.

Mods let themselves be manipulated because they don't actually care about behaviour. If someone complains, they have to deal with it. It's tiresome. If someone gives them the validation they seek - the validation that they have in fact, "done their job" they drop the issue and the person is considered "reset".

Usually this is justified like, "well we talked to them and they were amicable, let's give them a chance."

Behaviour afterwards isn't noted until the next complaint, at which point the mod once again sets out to receive some more validation for having "done their job" - except this time the person says "no."

That "no" is a psychological blow and overrides the severity of the actual behaviour. Whether or not the behaviours are considered bad enough to warrant a ban becomes irrelevant. All that really matters is that this person is denying them the validation they seek.

This pattern plays out over and over and over again in all kinds of situations. It happens with almost anyone in a position of authority. It happens with parents, teachers, bosses, police - name anyone who wields any kind of systematic authority over others and they've probably experienced this exact situation at some point or another.

Parents with problem children have "talks" with their kids and if the kid agrees, suddenly they act like the problem is solved. It doesn't matter if the kid has real issues - so long as they remain within the controllable norm, they're acceptable. If they're unruly or rebellious, suddenly the problem is a big deal even if the actual behaviours and outcomes don't suggest that.

It's a blindspot for nearly everyone, you can accept that or continue to live in fantasyland. Either one is fine with me.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

Hey guys we're in kindergarten now.

adults should be capable of resolving their own disputes; ban the people who report things...problem solved

*flicks pudding at redbaron*

 

[Tannhauser]

That poster made 3 weird posts that mean nearly nothing, some kind of Dada, and affect no one. Why are we supposed to care, or see it as some kind of moral equivalent to Bronto's case? The posts got moved to the Oubliette to reduce forum clutter, and that's about as consequential a verdict as one might have on such things.

Just because someone made a rule about something at some time, does not mean that all rules are equally cared about as a community standard. And mods who get on their high horse that RULES must be enforced, for their own sake, to have absolute consistency of RULES, is VERY VERY ANNOYING behavior. It's also very "J" behavior and this is INTPforum. So you would do well to expect mods to exercise judgment, not just RULES. There's a mod on WetCanvas.com that's VERY VERY ANNOYING about how he tyrannizes people's posts with his interpretation of the rules. It's part of why I spend hardly any time there anymore. The other would be piles of S vs. N conflicts, but that's another story.

I would find it strange if all bans were to be based on a moral judgment of someone's actions. I don't think that is the case. Someone mentioned how it affects new members, for example. Perhaps I am speaking for myself, but if I would come to a forum and see a couple of insults here and there but in general interesting discussions, I wouldn't even notice the insults. It's the Internet, after all. If I would see completely junk threads being made though, that would give me a certain impression of how serious the forum is, and I would simply leave.

 

[nanook]

attachment to role and outcome. predictions or threads were made, ideas like honor or integrity come into play, etc .. people will be staying true to narratives on a case by case basis, not true to wisdom from an engineers perspective, not handling situations flexibly ...

narrative / selective attention is what happens when people try to control other people, when they get entangled in roles. shootouts between armies of parents and kids.

best to avoid any kind of relationship with anyone.

moderators should be strictly informational when they approach individuals.

"in our view your behavior has been violating forum rules x & y"

being able to predict your judgment (interpretation) is not scary, it's giving me some security. it gives me control over whether i choose to enter conflict with your interests (rules) or not. i factor it into my other priorities.

mods should not be like: "change your behavior, never do x or y again, or else we will ..."

"warning" people is not okay.

words like you and we (indicating majority) are already creating toxic psychology. and commandments are the straight path to hell. only a phoney decides his actions ahead of time. a phoney child is only of deceptive value. the relationship is broken because it's benefits are lost. the child is not protected by the care of the parent, the parent's concern (the destiny of the child) is not taken care off. no loyalty can be possible.

nobody enters this sort of fear based relationship with me! you can insult me all you want, but when you're about to scare me, you disappear out of my life. i have the control because i can just go away. i have no other option of control over how the relationship goes down, so i will never lock myself into a message board or relationship by any means. you be the proud king of your empty house.


>ban the people who report things...problem solved

yeah, well reporting does seem awfully close to the psychology of "warning" ....
but is technically distinct.

>practice [] avoiding the use of the word "you", so that no confusion exists between "you in general" and "you specifically"

this is actually beyond my english skills, so sorry for that.

this post was all about "you" and "me" in the general rhetorical sense.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I read the forum rules now, and they are actually quite reasonable. Given the rules, I'm sure it is a completely fair ban. But you kind of also have to ask how much consistency there is in enforcing those rules.

Like, what is this for example:
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=24886

You would certainly never see Bronto do stuff like that.

ok so I have a fairly small idea of who Bronto even is but in my opinion it should be a tempban not a permaban, because anyone deserving of a permaban is probably going to sneak back on anyhow

but ok, since that was one of my threads, and i figured it would be

a) i posted it to quality control, who cares

b) the thread was pro-INTPforum, not anti-INTPforum

It was directed at a certain... ehh, group of people who are anti-INTPforum

If I myself am damaging this forum by thinking I belong here, when in fact I do not belong here, since this is INTP forum and I am not INTP, then go ahead and tell me

and I don't mean that as some, get the fuck back I own the joint

I just mean, I see myself as a valuable member of this forum, and I believe that I influence this forum in a positive manner.

If I do not, then something has to take place which I will look into if it is relevant.

 

[TheManBeyond]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l_SoSARk7A

this thread already smells like mandanga

 

[Tannhauser]

ok so I have a fairly small idea of who Bronto even is but in my opinion it should be a tempban not a permaban, because anyone deserving of a permaban is probably going to sneak back on anyhow

but ok, since that was one of my threads, and i figured it would be

a) i posted it to quality control, who cares

b) the thread was pro-INTPforum, not anti-INTPforum

It was directed at a certain... ehh, group of people who are anti-INTPforum

If I myself am damaging this forum by thinking I belong here, when in fact I do not belong here, since this is INTP forum and I am not INTP, then go ahead and tell me

and I don't mean that as some, get the fuck back I own the joint

I just mean, I see myself as a valuable member of this forum, and I believe that I influence this forum in a positive manner.

If I do not, then something has to take place which I will look into if it is relevant.

Yeah, to clarify: I have no opinion on whether that thread per se should result in a ban or not. I used it as an example for my consistency argument.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

See, I'm actually just an ESFP who everyone thinks is some brilliant mathematician, because

a) I'm an extrovert, and so when I know stuff about something I let everyone know

b) most of the evidence for me knowing how to do maths are from academic tests, and I see such tests as a crisis situation and Se types are the best in crisis situations, so I overperform in these cases compared to actual mathematicians who take more time to do the same thing, and it was actually all basic shit.

So, there is I guess nothing NT about me, cos I'm ESFP or something. So actually I am making this forum some kind of weird alien party zone, and INTPs prefer things like computer games to parties, everyone knows this I am a fool everyoneknows this.

 

[Sinny91]

People actually use the report button?

That's gay.

Spoiler

 

[Grayman]

People actually use the report button?

That's gay.

Spoiler

Yeah, I've reported myself a few times.

 

[Grayman]

#RedBaron Important Read

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=8

This is a forum for INTP/INTJs interest, but others are welcome to join. Talk of what you will, and try and make this a pleasant place to be. It is not meant to compete with other popular MBTI or INTP specific forums such as INTPCENTRAL or INTP Underworld, but may be somewhere for hardcore INTP/INTJs to feel at home.

Also, http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=7




I don't know why you continue to repeat this shit over and over and over. Practice what you preach, be realistic.

You have a skewed view of the kind of communication they are trying to endorse here.

 

[Cherry Cola]

So, hows the forum gonna work out now what we kick out the people who are sometimes annoying and often smart and always straightforward and keep the people who are mostly annoying always dumb and sometimes smarmy?

Maybe it should be called The kindergarten of tertio and inferio; come here and abide or begone, on the basis of what you wouldn't except- intellectual discussion, its magic its like friendship.

a requiem for the bygone days of kiddie show ethics going on in a digital microcosm unfortunately not held yet

it is time to unschackle the dissidents and let the dying die, that we may transcend, only this time blood must flow both ways

 

[Grayman]

Excuse my INTP question but what is dumb? I ask this because most people just use it to identify anyone who doesn't think like them. Since you have many opinions that are so different than my own and since there is only one true answer, the one I reached, the only explanation is that you are to ignorant or too stupid to come tk the same and truthful conclusions that I have.

 

[TheManBeyond]

boredom, i present u my latest creation:

[BIMG]http://i.imgur.com/G9Ph5Vb.jpg[/BIMG]

 

[Kuu]

I'm truly speechless.

You're making assumptions about what I think, they're wrong.

All there is to say.

 

[Tannhauser]

Kuu, I am slightly confused as to which kind of language you guys are encouraging. Is this good, for example?:

Do you ever take your head out of your asshole?

from http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=24328

 

[Architect]

The problem is you guys are applying analysis to a heuristic. From the reports the mods had a history with Bronto, warning him to back off multiple times and not seeing it happen. So at some point they decided to to nuke Russia. Without having been one of them I don't see how anybody can adequately second guess their decision process, pro or con.

 

[EditorOne]

" "Shut up clueless fool" didn't even make me bat an eyelid when I read that thread. It didn't even register that someone had "insulted" someone. "

Red baron, you have got to be putting us on. That is a gratuitously rude comment on its face. I'm as laid back as it gets, but if someone said that to my face without a huge smile, I'd really have to hold back to keep from putting them on the ground. And given Bronto's past history of seriously rude and boorish comments overloaded with vitriol, how can anyone assume a smile?

I was astonished to see this thread has kept growing.

 

[EditorOne]

Additionally, I fail to see what's so bad about civil discourse. All that aggressive stuff just makes me think the poster isn't sure of his footing and is pumping up the impact of his weak idea with deliberate bluster and rudeness.

 

[Reluctantly]

Really, if someone can't understand the importance of being somewhat civil, that's the problem to begin with. Haters gonna hate, no matter what reasons there are.

 

[TBerg]

I don't recall an online conflagration sparked by his comment, but I could be wrong.

 

[TheManBeyond]

U CAN KILL THE MESSENGER BUT NEVER THE MESSAGE!

 

[TheManBeyond]

SOLDIERS!

 

[Tannhauser]

The problem is you guys are applying analysis to a heuristic. From the reports the mods had a history with Bronto, warning him to back off multiple times and not seeing it happen. So at some point they decided to to nuke Russia. Without having been one of them I don't see how anybody can adequately second guess their decision process, pro or con.

If one would apply heuristics to that scenario, i would say its a completely nonsensical ban. It is far better justified by referring to rules.

And yes, i understand there was a history. But the guy had like 5000 posts. With increasing no. of posts, the probability of doing stupid shit converges to 1.

 

[Sinny91]

I agree with Baron.

It was a real shitty immature and unhelpful thing for Bronto to have said, but it was coming from Bronto so I expected no less... I didn't bat an eyelid either.

But his handling of the situation following was so poor, his performance deserved a ban.

The self entitled so n so.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Fools! The chalice lies empthy, it didnt hold power, but it was sacred ornamemtation, a vessel of hope. Your greedy caressess.

Let it all go for gods sake, you are becoming someone you wouldnt want to be and and that one will want for far more for worse. There is always repentance, if not in flesh nor communion than in the memories of the meek. Make it real.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

It would be funny if Bronto is ENFJ and now everyone is arguing as to the social appropriateness of his behaviour however I have only half read one of his posts but I think acid is cool.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I know this ban has affected many of you deeply. That your souls cry out for justice; for a reason to the madness of his demise. 'How could this happen?!' you shout to the heavens. I know that you're wounded and grieving, but it's time to move on. These things happen. I'm sorry, but Bronto is not coming back. You have to accept that and dry your tears. You can hold bronto's unpleasant memory close to your bosom, but it was simply bronto's time. Mods work in mysterious ways.

It's time now, to heal. Even bronto, may he rest in peace, wouldn't want to see you all like this.

...
Oh who am I kidding. He was a sucker for overlong dramatic nonsense, never ever letting things go, and failing to perceive the obvious. I guess you guys are making him proud? This thread is a fitting tribute to his memory after all. Carry on.



He's still dead though. That means he lost.

 

[Tannhauser]

Is letting things go a virtue now?

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Is letting things go a virtue now?

only if tantruming is a vice.


Somebody has to dance on the graves; lest the throes of our communal depression consume us. Gopher can't do it alone.

 

[redbaron]

" "Shut up clueless fool" didn't even make me bat an eyelid when I read that thread. It didn't even register that someone had "insulted" someone. "

Red baron, you have got to be putting us on. That is a gratuitously rude comment on its face. I'm as laid back as it gets, but if someone said that to my face without a huge smile, I'd really have to hold back to keep from putting them on the ground. And given Bronto's past history of seriously rude and boorish comments overloaded with vitriol, how can anyone assume a smile?

I was astonished to see this thread has kept growing.

I'm not having you on sir, hear me out.

I'd agree if someone I didn't know just randomly came up to me and interjected in a discussion and said it, I'd respond that way. But this is a public discussion forum where people discuss different topics and it's expected that there's going to be a difference in opinion.

Civility at all costs is, I think, a worthless ideal. It doesn't mean you can't be civil, but I think your point here demonstrates something that I'm trying to get across. If someone were not civil toward you, you'd put them on the ground, right? Putting someone on the ground isn't exactly an act of civility, yet no one would really disapprove of you doing it in the situation you've described. Some might object on principle, but not many would object all that strongly on ethical grounds, I think that's a safe assumption.

That's because context is important. If someone comes into an arena to discuss a topic and makes an argument from ignorance, then being called a clueless fool in response is warranted, yes? We can sit here all day and pretend like we all have halos around our heads, but I'm fairly sure that every single person on this forum has at one point or another called someone an idiot or told someone to shutup. Or maybe they express their anger with passive-aggression instead - which I don't think is something to be applauded either.

The point is though, that Bronto wasn't banned for his comment - he was banned for rendering the moderator's attempts at control impotent. He denied them the validation they sought of having done their job. I don't actually care that he's banned, I'm just pointing out a thing. Mostly for the benefit of people wondering why he was "suddenly" banned for a comment that was much less aggressive than what others or even he has made in the past - because it's important to understand that his comment isn't what got him banned.

The thing that got him banned was the fact that he denied Fukyo the validation she sought when she told him to stop behaving that way. If he'd said, "OK" and continued his behaviour anyway, he wouldn't have been banned, but because he said, "No" he got banned.

It's a common thing that occurs in interactions in real life and online, and I think at worst what I'm saying here is an interesting thing to note. Whether other people are upset or don't find it interesting doesn't concern me.

 

[cheese]

Can't it just have been that the mods had him on one last chance, no matter how small the infraction? That would explain just as well as your 'power trip theory' why a more minor insult got him banned, following a final attempt to get through to him. It'd be more about the overall pattern of rudeness rather than one specific instance, with the final instance being confirmation of the pattern continuing, regardless of its individual severity.

I don't think any of the mods are really claiming that he was banned for this specific comment anyway. Looking at it that way and then assuming a bunch of power-play theatrics are behind it is unreasonable.

 

[nanook]

If someone were not civil toward you, you'd put them on the ground, right? Putting someone on the ground isn't exactly an act of civility, yet no one would really disapprove of you doing it in the situation you've described. Some might object on principle, but not many would object all that strongly on ethical grounds, I think that's a safe assumption.

i would think "what an american brick, he puts people on the ground for talking shit in real life, no wonder he is happy to get bronto banned online and he thinks he is being "civil" for it ... yeah right. "civil" like a war veteran with PTSD." this ideal of law is obviously all about power and control over what other people get to suggest, not about empathy and respect for everyone's subjective perspective and expression. conformist values vs pluralist values.

If someone comes into an arena to discuss a topic and makes an argument from ignorance, then being called a clueless fool in response is warranted, yes?

can't tell if your ideal of an arena is impulsive (pre conformist) or rational (right between conformism and pluralism) but it suits you well and yet it won't get the vote of the majority.

i like to be inclusive of it though. a message board can be more than an arena and be an arena.

Some might object on principle, but not many would object all that strongly on ethical grounds, I think that's a safe assumption.

too bad but nothing about ethics is safe. we impose our ideas of morals on others: the war is on.


if i were younger, i could easily fall for the impression that my participation in this thread has anything to do with "me" "caring" about what is happing here, about the outcome of a situation or who is in and out.

but i have realized for the longest time that all the human brain ever does is evolve.

it picks up subjects that are a challenge to the intelligence and get's hooked by it.

all discussions are attempts of brains that are learning to understand reality and to deal with it.

it's very unfortunate when we project the subjectivity of this process, as if our judgments were seriously a need to shape reality. this get's very ugly real fast.

we should have only one objective need. being left alone. there should be fruit trees everywhere, it should be warm enough for nights without shelter, all year round.

for my introverted feeling brain, this sort of a subject is just rather irresistible.

if i still were to "care" about anything at all, in the objective sense, it would be waking y'all up to the fact that you are dreaming. but it's not important to me, to succeed with that, because i know that i can't really do it. for the most part your brain is just doing whatever it does. and in reality, my brain is just struggling to stay awake, in the face of hooks being thrown out by drama. intelligence wants to get involved without getting lost.

 

[redbaron]

Can't it just have been that the mods had him on one last chance, no matter how small the infraction? That would explain just as well as your 'power trip theory' why a more minor insult got him banned, following a final attempt to get through to him. It'd be more about the overall pattern of rudeness rather than one specific instance, with the final instance being confirmation of the pattern continuing, regardless of its individual severity.

I don't think any of the mods are really claiming that he was banned for this specific comment anyway. Looking at it that way and then assuming a bunch of power-play theatrics are behind it is unreasonable.

What you call power-play theatrics are actually real things that have a large impact on majority of people in the world. There's nothing unreasonable about mentioning their existence or the part the play in nearly all matters that could be loosely regarded as, "justice".

The ability to control a subject is of high importance to almost anyone in a position of systemic authority. A killer who shows no remorse or intention to improve is given a larger sentence than a killer who shows remorse. It's an easily manipulated aspect that almost all humans in a position of authority can be manipulated by. As long as a subject is "controllable", certain behaviours are deemed acceptable, where the same behaviour by someone "unruly" is deemed unnacceptable.

The point being that it wasn't Bronto's behaviour that got him banned - because if it was, we'd see plenty of other bans for the same kind of behaviours. He was banned for denying a systematic authority the control over him that all systematic authority seeks to impose.

People can deny reality and pretend that these paradigms exist and happen regularly in day to day life, but they exist and do happen. There's nothing offensive in pointing that out.

 

[Grayman]

Cynic or realist?

 

[cheese]

I know it's a real thing. I'm familiar with the general theory and not denying the dynamic exists. I was saying what we see here is explainable by other means.

Also, power here is worth almost nothing - certainly no money, and little social reward - so I'm not sure why those 'in power' would be so motivated to keep it. The paradigm may not apply as easily here.

I agree modding is inconsistent but I suspect that's largely because they're unpaid and unmotivated, with some bias towards favoured members thrown in.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Can't we all just come together and agree that Architect is a clueless fool, already?


All of this bickering is upsetting the children. Let's make up.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Hold up guys one sec, why the fuck would you ever whatever it is you're doing - which is also clearly retarded judging by the way i responded to your considering of it, meaning yes you guys are at least partially retarded or at best gravely disinformed such that it does not merit excuse, when it comes to this topic, of which btw my own knowledge can be described as at best dubious, such if and only if by the most seldom of whims of some author surely in celebration of somethingnon related such that its joyous nature influenced his minds judgement, temporarily hampering its functionality.

Inever tried it ladies and gents But AM Highly succesful INTP, you can trust me when i say that you dumb youngsters dunno what yer're letting get into your brains with them psychedelic drugs, asid and cactuc and what the shit. Its FUCKING NEUROTOXIC ALRIGHT jesus dumbasses, hush... and let me tell you something.. I have a high fucking IQ and I have family and I have a salary which more than does justice to all of them, and I ain't bout to let neurotoxin run loose on my corta cex jus for a bit ah fun trippin', jesus kids get this: Priorities. They matter. Where are you in life and where do you want to be. What helps you get there and which keeps you away. Drugs will never fucking help you achieve anything, at best you will end a disenchanted nihilist doomed to scorn the rest of mankind for their ignorance regarding the true nature of things. Even if you just smoke a bit of weed you will be dumber lazier and more at peace with the state of things. Isn't it really rather obvious why the latter is so succesfull in robbing its users of their productivity despite its relative lack of lethal effects?

You don't need that shit kiddos, what you need is someone to love, someone who is fit to love you, dedication and a job that stimulates you without draining you, a job in which you are essential, with a monthly salary that ensures you really are just as essential at home as you are at work, if you get what comes with that? Anyway all of you could get that to.

You just need to get the right type and understanding of yourself and others and pick the proper education and job and spouse for that type in accordance with your understanding, and you must assume a proper stance to drugs, which is: fuck all drugs ever, exept in posthumanic future where certain compounds may come to fill a role, their surprise administration meant to easen the unsuspecting subjects into singularity as part of an ontological ritual wich capitalizes on the fact that subjects are unable to maintain discrete senses of self following their interaction with the compound.

Anyway you need to fucking find out who you are and what the world and everyone around you is and get your shit together. Then you need to work hard. If you do all that hard stuff it aint hard i tell you. You can have it all. Or you can do LSD and smoke fucking weed and meth, benzos, undiluted synthethic crap, fucking snowball pcp with substituted fentanyls for all I care, cus then you've given up anyway. Dick.

 

[redbaron]

i would think "what an american brick, he puts people on the ground for talking shit in real life, no wonder he is happy to get bronto banned online and he thinks he is being "civil" for it ... yeah right. "civil" like a war veteran with PTSD." this ideal of law is obviously all about power and control over what other people get to suggest, not about empathy and respect for everyone's subjective perspective and expression. conformist values vs pluralist values.

Oh nanook <3

can't tell if your ideal of an arena is impulsive (pre conformist) or rational (right between conformism and pluralism) but it suits you well and yet it won't get the vote of the majority.

i like to be inclusive of it though. a message board can be more than an arena and be an arena.

I like to think it's a little of both.

too bad but nothing about ethics is safe. we impose our ideas of morals on others: the war is on.

I agree but I don't see a better alternative either. What would you have instead?

if i were younger, i could easily fall for the impression that my participation in this thread has anything to do with "me" "caring" about what is happing here, about the outcome of a situation or who is in and out.

but i have realized for the longest time that all the human brain ever does is evolve.

it picks up subjects that are a challenge to the intelligence and get's hooked by it.

all discussions are attempts of brains that are learning to understand reality and to deal with it.

it's very unfortunate when we project the subjectivity of this process, as if our judgments were seriously a need to shape reality. this get's very ugly real fast.

we should have only one objective need. being left alone. there should be fruit trees everywhere, it should be warm enough for nights without shelter, all year round.

for my introverted feeling brain, this sort of a subject is just rather irresistible.

if i still were to "care" about anything at all, in the objective sense, it would be waking y'all up to the fact that you are dreaming. but it's not important to me, to succeed with that, because i know that i can't really do it. for the most part your brain is just doing whatever it does. and in reality, my brain is just struggling to stay awake, in the face of hooks being thrown out by drama. intelligence wants to get involved without getting lost.

I want to talk about this but I'll come back to it another time.

 

[Auburn]

Is it just me, or is Bronto posting here via Cherry Cola's account?