Da Blob

[BigApplePi]

Yes. ^^
Agreed, a discussion was due, given this situation/member.
And I actually like this thread too, for the insights that have been shared.

Auburn. I'm glad you said, "insights" and not "incites."

 

[loveofreason]

I'm grateful for the initiative and genuine discussion shown here by members, and for all the perspectives, but especially to Jennywocky for so gracefully explaining both an admin's perspective and a personal one similar to mine, of forum dynamics like these. It saved me alot effort I didn't have the energy for.

Even admins were human once

A little history: Da Blob has indeed been around a long time. I imagine his first round of controversy took place before many folk here joined, so he does indeed seem like an institution. Nevertheless, he has been tempbanned and warned in the past, and I have had pm conversations with him about the impact of his behaviour, in the hope of there being change. A long period of tolerance and patience followed. I have been on hiatus for a year, after three solid years of modding and admin duties. Hearing reports and complaints of Da Blob's behaviour being unchanged, I was not inclined to waste my energy on another round of labourious warnings and discussions.

I understand Da Blob's behaviour generated no perception of malice - there doesn't have to be. There doesn't have to be malice for there to be harm. Not everyone has to personally be harmed for the community overall to be suffering, and not every aspect of a poster's contributions have to be deleterious. I see similarities between Da Blob and the pod'lair bannings. Adymus actually contributed alot of positives to the forum, and many people found his contributions thought provoking. They were. So were many of Da Blob's... but in the end an independent forum for discussion and exchange of ideas is the wrong place for unrelenting proselytising, regardless of the view being proselytised.

INTPforum isn't the only place on the net. Personal platforms such as Facebook or a blog are entirely appropriate. Da Blob has other avenues for disseminating his worldview, and considering the level of goodwill he enjoys I hope he uses them.

 

[SpaceYeti]

he was far too reminiscent of a world that I spent much of my life fighting to escape.

So what? A lot of my past sucked, but I don't hold people who merely remind me of it responsible. I'm of the not-at-all humble opinion that he was banned unjustly. He broke no rules. So he stunk up the place a bit here or there. He didn't actually do anything wrong. Like I said, I tend to ignore him in general, and at one point operated that way as a rule, but I still don't think he should have been banned. Censorship is a last resort, used for trolls, spam-bots, and such, and banning is a form of it. I suspect a banning based on mod-bias, and I have lost respect for the mod team because of it. Will I get banned if they start disliking me? It doesn't create an aura of trust.

 

[BigApplePi]

Hi Space Yeti. Can you edit that 3rd sentence beginning with, "I'm of the not ..."? I may be misreading it or somethin'.

 

[Jennywocky]

So what? A lot of my past sucked, but I don't hold people who merely remind me of it responsible. I'm of the not at all humble opinion that he was banned unjustly. He broke no rules. So he stunk up the place a bit here or there. He didn't actually do anything wrong. Like I said, I tend to ignore him in general, and at one point operated that way as a rule, but I still don't think he should have been banned. Censorship is a last resort, used for trolls, spam-bots, and such, and banning is a form of it. I suspect a banning based on mod-bias, and I have lost respect for the mod team because of it. Will I get banned if they start disliking me? It doesn't create an aura of trust.

Jesus, I'm just explaining why *I* had personal issues with him because BAP asked me about it, and I was being kind enough to share -- I wasn't explaining why a ban was justified.

Go back to my original posts if you want the objective reasons why I support the ban, the reasoning which seemed to be confirmed by Auburn and others (including LOR, apparently, I see now), before you veered off on this tangent based on me just sharing my personal feelings rather than an argument for banning.

And no, I sincerely doubt you would ever be banned based on your posting history. Whether or not people "like" you, at least you're accessible to rational discussion rather than what amounts to soapboxing... which means you'd be fine. I'm kind of curious as to why you need to reduce to this whether someone was "liked," when the rational explanations have already been given. Liking someone had nothing to do with it.

@LoveofReason: Funny you bring up Pod'Lair. I wasn't here anymore when that ban occurred, but it was in the front of my mind as I was posting this thread as a similar example, and I suspected the reasoning was similar.

 

[BigApplePi]

Guys. Personal reasons are important but

(1) They are important and best expressed in a safe and supportive atmosphere. Maybe that's why I'm so cautious myself, lol.
(2) General issues are the subject of this thread I believe and personal feelings help illustrate what can be going on though don't prove. The reason is one personal issue can conflict with another. One can even be at war with oneself.

Lots of divergent views have been expressed so far and I'm thinking them over hoping to come up with some general view. Meanwhile Tyria may come up with something less wordy.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Jesus, I'm just explaining why *I* had personal issues with him because BAP asked me about it, and I was being kind enough to share -- I wasn't explaining why a ban was justified.

Go back to my original posts if you want the objective reasons why I support the ban, the reasoning which seemed to be confirmed by Auburn and others (including LOR, apparently, I see now), before you veered off on this tangent based on me just sharing my personal feelings rather than an argument for banning.

And no, I sincerely doubt you would ever be banned based on your posting history. Whether or not people "like" you, at least you're accessible to rational discussion rather than what amounts to soapboxing... which means you'd be fine. I'm kind of curious as to why you need to reduce to this whether someone was "liked," when the rational explanations have already been given. Liking someone had nothing to do with it.

What you said was merely the instigator to my tangent. The whole thing was not targeted at you, and I should have been more specific. However, I disagree with your original reasons either way. Da Blob broke no rules. It's that simple. What's the point in the rules if they aren't the basis for deciding who stays and who gets banned? I know freedom of speech doesn't technically apply here, but I was under the impression the spirit of it was present here. You know, the concept that you should allow people to say what they desire to say even if you don't like it, because no matter how reasonable you think you may be, and no matter how irrational the opposition, you may just be wrong, and it can only be discovered with open discussion. Those irrational posts are made by people whom are under the impression you're the irrational one, and censorship is not a valid argument against either side. "Greater Good of the forum" or not, his banning was simply not earned according to the rules of the forum. If you ban people without regard to the forum rules, but by some other set of rules, how do us mere members know when we're breaking this other, un-posted set of rules?

Oh, wait, the rules do say not to post anything annoying... which is not even remotely subjective or something great minds of the past did to their government. Not even a little.

Either way, a huge chunk of the charm of this forum, to me, was that people didn't get spontaneously banned. Open discussion was prominent. No matter what crack-pot BS someone was talking about, so long as they weren't a spam-bot or a troll, they remained. I saw no hint of a downward spiral of abrasive jerk-wads.

 

[Melllvar]

Well, LoR's second explanation cleared a lot of it up for me, primarily the stuff about extended PM conversations about perceived problematic behavior and such. That seems considerably more reasonable, the way it's stated. I think I mainly worry about the fairness of such things, and genuine attempts at trying to "work things out" or whatever makes a big difference there. Not that I necessarily agree with the overall decision and such.

General comment: In the end some questions are simply unfalsifiable, and religious belief doesn't necessarily derive itself from cognitive thought, so forcing a debate on those areas to adhere to the demands of a strict rationalist isn't much different from putting up your own brick wall. "Rational" atheists can really be just as close-minded and intolerant as most religious people - in fact I'd dare say most are no different. You get a lot of people who realized they were being lied to by parents/friends/family/teachers/church/community/etc., develop serious resentment towards all that, and proceed to stubbornly promote their new belief system without any regard for that of others. They'll argue against religion using "rationalism" even in areas where rationalism doesn't hold, or adamantly promote "scientific" explanations without any kind of evidence or understanding for the theory behind those explanations, or not even consider the idea that there might be "knowable truths" that aren't accessible strictly through rationalism. That's kind of extreme for this case, but as far as arguing/debating with people like him goes, it's important to make sure you're not becoming the thing you claim to hate.

Anyways my main point in posting was that I couldn't keep my mouth shut about some of the following...

Da Blob broke no rules. It's that simple. What's the point in the rules if they aren't the basis for deciding who stays and who gets banned? .... "Greater Good of the forum" or not, his banning was simply not earned according to the rules of the forum. If you ban people without regard to the forum rules, but by some other set of rules, how do us mere members know when we're breaking this other, un-posted set of rules?

FYI, it's been publicly and explicitly stated by Claverhouse that the rules are just guidelines, and the admins can really do whatever they want (not that they would/do). I can't find the exact post anymore. I imagine the goal is to provide flexibility; if you have strict set-in-stone rules things tend towards a mindless bureaucracy (also the other comments people had made, e.g. abusers gaming the system, etc.). So in the end it's more a system of judgment calls, which works fine as long as you generally agree with the judgment of the people making those calls, and think they're sufficiently unbiased, but if you don't then you have a lot to complain about.

I saw no hint of a downward spiral of abrasive jerk-wads.

It's funny that people see Da Blob as detracting from the forum, when honestly the main thing that ever really bothers me in that way is the elitism and clique-ishness that occasionally rears it's ugly head around here. I can honestly say that (some of) the beloved older members and mods have bothered me more than he ever has; e.g. the general attitude of how the forum sucks now, the new members suck, the threads and comments are terrible, like every word we say is a drain on the exquisite genius that once was. Ban some of those people, they're the ones who have actually made me take breaks or consider leaving (which has happened a few times).

Ever consider that maybe you joined when the forum was small, made some friends when you were lonely, now you have enough and there's no internal impetus to make new acquaintances, so you're free to continue down the standard sociological path of building group solidarity by alienating outsiders, amplified by the fact that you've created a little self-reinforcing "in group" who have developed consistent behavioral standards that unfamiliar strangers can be judged against? Human nature = gross.

I mean I've been watching this same shit from the same hoard of people most of the time I've been active here, and it's retarded. How do I know it's retarded? Some of the same people you see come in, make a few half-assed and not-very-extraordinary posts, then drift off to elsewhere are actually pretty cool if you get to talk to them. And by "actually pretty cool" I mean can hold their own intellectually and in entertainment value compared to just about anyone else here. But of course the detractors would never figure that out since they're too busy indulging a different sort of closed-mindedness.

My point isn't that they should be banned too, like Da Blob, just that there is always going to be someone here who pisses off a group of people, and banning either Da Blob or them just seems like catering to whiners who can't put up with someone they don't like. Then you see a guy being banned at least partially because of the effect he was having on other, more well-ingratiated, member's experiences, and you start to see where my comments about "if you don't fit in well you risk getting the axe" start coming from.

^This just to give my perspective on it. Somewhat off-topic, but it seems relevant to this.



Anyways, I really don't envy the position of a moderator on pretty much any forum. Good decision or bad, you're in something of an authority position and hence people who are prone to disagreement with that will always be skeptical, then you're expected to keep doing your job with a smile on your face while people sling mud at you for every questionable decision, regardless of the intentions.

 

[Auburn]

Anyways, I really don't envy the position of a moderator on pretty much any forum.

Mmm...

The position of moderator is very difficult, because it entails balancing perspectives precisely like the one you posted with other contradicting perspectives of other members -- while all the while not letting one's own interfere with the equation.

It's far too easy for every member to indulge in ranting about their own perspective (old/new members, etc) but it is much harder to be the one to consolidate all those into one direction and proper course of action that yields the best outcome to most.

This is why I respect administrators who show even a partial ability to do this properly. Managing a forum efficiently is essentially managing and understanding the whole of humanity - something I don't think any one of us can do perfectly.

Furthermore, even if they did come to understand humanity by some miracle, that doesn't guarantee all members will see what they see - and so they'll still have members who dislike their decisions. There is no one thing all humans agree on.. c.c

This is not a fault with them, or their judgment, as much as the community they are trying to manage - which cannot agree with itself and make few efforts to understand one another. One can't realistically place that burden on them. The community is *you* and *them* and at some level it falls on the members to establish communal resonance.

 

[BigApplePi]

I was under the impression the spirit of it [freedom of speech] was present here. You know, the concept that you should allow people to say what they desire to say even if you don't like it, because no matter how reasonable you think you may be, and no matter how irrational the opposition, you may just be wrong, and it can only be discovered with open discussion. Those irrational posts are made by people whom are under the impression you're the irrational one, and censorship is not a valid argument against either side. "Greater Good of the forum" or not, his banning was simply not earned according to the rules of the forum.

Oh, wait, the rules do say not to post anything annoying... which is not even remotely subjective or something great minds of the past did to their government. Not even a little.

I was going to post a new (I didn't check) thread called, "What is Freedom?", but I'll hold off. The subject would have been, "What are the liimits to freedom?"

Do you think if an INTP wanted to sell chairs (almost everyone likes a nice chair), (s)he should be allowed to advertise them here? Just about all bulletin boards except Ebay seem to disallow such a thing. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. I'm just asking the question.

BTW Space Yeti, did you know Adymus is banned? I just discovered that only yesterday.

Either way, a huge chunk of the charm of this forum, to me, was that people didn't get spontaneously banned. Open discussion was prominent. No matter what crack-pot BS someone was talking about, so long as they weren't a spam-bot or a troll, they remained. I saw no hint of a downward spiral of abrasive jerk-wads.

It wasn't spontaneous behind the scenes. My understanding is there was a good deal of angst over this but it was behind any scenery within my vision.

 

[SpaceYeti]

The activity resulting in someone's getting banned should not be behind the scenes. If someone was banned, I would like an explanation of why they were banned, from the mod who did the banning, in detail. Perhaps I'm being overly demanding, but what are we lowly members supposed to do when people seemingly get banned for no reason? How do we react? Is this a cleaning of the house? Is it necessary or otherwise useful? How do we determine who's next? Is it going to be us? Should we bother sticking around long enough to find out the hard way?

Who was Adymus, and why was s/he banned? Who else was banned, and what did they do to merit it?

I've been posting on forums since I got access to the internet, and it's always been my experience that forums are on their way down when people start getting banned like this. Long time members who didn't seem to actually do anything wrong, getting banned because the mod team simply doesn't like them. Perhaps there were very good reasons here, but I haven't yet seen one. Did nobody appreciate Da Blob to the point the forum would be better without him? I doubt it. I never liked the guy even a little, but he at least served as a foil here or there. I never made any official declarations against his being a member. I don't know if anyone else did. All I know is that no matter how much he was or wasn't appreciated, his idiotic comments didn't deserve to be simply censored away. If you don't like what he says, ignore it. Talk around him.

I request that the mod who actually did the banning please explain exactly why it was done.

 

[BigApplePi]

The activity resulting in someone's getting banned should not be behind the scenes. If someone was banned, I would like an explanation of why they were banned, from the mod who did the banning, in detail. Perhaps I'm being overly demanding, but what are we lowly members supposed to do when people seemingly get banned for no reason? How do we react? Is this a cleaning of the house? Is it necessary or otherwise useful? How do we determine who's next? Is it going to be us? Should we bother sticking around long enough to find out the hard way?

Who was Adymus, and why was s/he banned? Who else was banned, and what did they do to merit it?

I've been posting on forums since I got access to the internet, and it's always been my experience that forums are on their way down when people start getting banned like this. Long time members who didn't seem to actually do anything wrong, getting banned because the mod team simply doesn't like them. Perhaps there were very good reasons here, but I haven't yet seen one. Did nobody appreciate Da Blob to the point the forum would be better without him? I doubt it. I never liked the guy even a little, but he at least served as a foil here or there. I never made any official declarations against his being a member. I don't know if anyone else did. All I know is that no matter how much he was or wasn't appreciated, his idiotic comments didn't deserve to be simply censored away. If you don't like what he says, ignore it. Talk around him.

I request that the mod who actually did the banning please explain exactly why it was done.

Space Yeti. Read this entire thread. There have been explanations in each case. That doesn't mean I don't find those explanations debatable. Now I half way don't expect you to read the entire thread, but if you don't how will you get your questions answered?

Adymus was one of a few primary explainers of personality types on this Forum and had a big following here and more. The reason why he was banned is because he and his accompanists began to push Pod'Lair (I forget where I heard that) which is an alternative personality typer. I recall NO debate about banning Pod'Liar and its proponents itself though trying to sell it is against the rules. Anyone correct me if I've got this wrong.

 

[BigApplePi]

Da Blob: Trial metaphor

To the management. Nothing is more important to the Forum than the owners and management. It is they who created this Forum, keep things going and prospering. Nevertheless if one wants to be responsible for delivering wine to people, the people (Forum) won't prosper if enough of the users find the wine bland. Removing too many varieties of wine may result in harmony and compatibility, but will there be prosperity? Goodness isn't everything. Absence of variety means dullness. It is variety that brings greatness.

(Why do I get this feeling I've blended too many metaphors?)

What would you say if in each future case when members wanted it, there be a public hearing (discussion/debate) trial just like in real life? Almost like this thread except the member has been pre-judged. Let the party defend themselves. Now in real life if the defendant misbehaves, they are bound and gagged right there in the trial room. That is unfortunate but okay. The rest will have a say.

Then the final say is up to management who are the judges anyway.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I haven't read, but I have skimmed the entire thread, and it seems to me very like he was canned for no better reason than the mods wanted him gone. They can justify it, they can rationalize, but it seems to me that they simply disliked him. Fuck you, mods. I don't like you. I wonder what would happen if I had a button I could push to make you go away.

honestly, I wouldn't push it.

You would.

 

[Auburn]

@SpaceYeti - How can you expect to have your questions met, if you're not willing to listen to the answers when given? And is it fair to expect members to come and reiterate everything for you because you're too lazy to go back and read? Srsly dude... v.v

If someone was banned, I would like an explanation of why they were banned, from the mod who did the banning, in detail.

Why, if it doesn't pertain to you?
If you're involved then surely you'll get an explanation, but otherwise your knowing doesn't itself do anything to merit the community. It is simply for personal indulgence - the compulsive desire to have an opinion on something and know that everything that is happening in the modbox has your personal approval. The mods are under no obligation to cater to such egos..

I'll repeat, making a public spectacle of everything does not do anything to help the community. It's merely a token effort to satiate member's urges. Not to mention it can also be quite cruel to have a member "on trial" that way. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone wants to express it. Everyone has different judgment, but it is simply unrealistic/impossible for several hundred different judgments to continually be in accord.

Making things public would just invite controversy, distrust and more drama. The mods in particular would receive a lot of hate. And this is not specific to these specific/current mods. If these mods were removed and others elected, then those others would recieve a lot of hate as well. Again this is because there will always be disagreement between members

The mods need to decide what action to take, yes - factoring in member opinion into their lens, but ultimately deciding on their own. This is not some arbitrary arrangement where some tyrant has decided to rule with an iron fist. It is simply unrealistic to have hundreds of opinions consolidated into one action. A thread can go on for weeks before a forum comes to a consensus, if ever. A forum needs admins whose judgment can be trusted and who can make quick/efficient choices.

Fuck you, mods. I don't like you. I wonder what would happen if I had a button I could push to make you go away.

honestly, I wouldn't push it.

You would.

This is a perfect, and classic example of "trolling".

For those who are unfamiliar with tactics such as these, it's important to recognize them.

SpaceYeti has effectively directly cussed out the mods, but simultaneously made himself immune to reprimand. If a mod decided to take any corrective action they would fall into this trap and prove his point -- this is why trolls are so effective at causing trouble among forums while going unchecked. The most effective trolls are those who cause harm to (and do as they will with) a community without breaking any specific rules -- slipping right past any objection a staff could have but cannot justify, essentially allowing them to have their way with the community.

One famous tactic of trolls is to gain the the moral upper hand and appears victimized - gaining the support of other members. If he's lucky the mod will withhold action due to the member fan-base the troll has formed, and the troll comes out victorious and with more freedom to do as he wishes.

The troll doesn't really have the good of the community in mind, even when they present cases of what would be "justice". They simply want to go unchecked and do as they please, not caring how their actions negatively affect discussions.

 

[SpaceYeti]

@SpaceYeti - How can you expect to have your questions met, if you're not willing to listen to the answers when given? And is it fair to expect members to come and reiterate everything for you because you're too lazy to go back and read? Srsly dude... v.v

I did listen to those answers, and I found them lacking any substance. Is it fair? No, can't say it is. However, I would still like it. I mentioned that in my post. Either I don't know why he was banned and I grow suspicious of the mods, or I do know and disagree with or agree with the mods. Applied to this situation, I disagree with the mods, and no longer trust them to be unbiased.

Why, if it doesn't pertain to you?

Until he got booted, Blob was a member of my community. Not my community, of course, but you know what I mean. Then he was suddenly kicked out. It pertains to me because he was my virtual neighbor, in my virtual community, and I like to know how my community operates, because I'm a part of it.

If you're involved then surely you'll get an explanation, but otherwise your knowing doesn't itself do anything to merit the community. It is simply for personal indulgence - the compulsive desire to have an opinion on something and know that everything that is happening in the modbox has your personal approval. The mods are under no obligation to cater to such egos..

No obligation I agree, but withholding information isn't a good way to garner trust. If someone asks a question, why not simply answer it? The mods are essentially our landlords. Would it make for a good landlord/tenant relationship if you asked why your neighbor got kicked out of his apartment and the answer was "None of your business!"? Sure, it may be none of my business, but why would he be against sharing information? I'm concerned about my former neighbor being treated unfairly, I'm concerned about whether or not I can trust my landlord.

I'll repeat, making a public spectacle of everything does not do anything to help the community. It's merely a token effort to satiate member's urges. Not to mention it can also be quite cruel to have a member "on trial" that way. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone wants to express it. Everyone has different judgment, but it is simply unrealistic/impossible for several hundred different judgments to continually be in accord.

So? The spectacle is being made right here, after the fact.

Making things public would just invite controversy, distrust and more drama. The mods in particular would receive a lot of hate. And this is not specific to these specific/current mods. If these mods were removed and others elected, then those others would recieve a lot of hate as well. Again this is because there will always be disagreement between members

Like the same thing what happened did, or differently? There will always be disagreement, such as my disagreement with what happened here. I'm not asking or demanding any form of trial, I simply like to know why people get banned. In this case, I think a particular person was banned for a bad reason.

The mods need to decide what action to take, yes - factoring in member opinion into their lens, but ultimately deciding on their own. This is not some arbitrary arrangement where some tyrant has decided to rule with an iron fist. It is simply unrealistic to have hundreds of opinions consolidated into one action. A thread can go on for weeks before a forum comes to a consensus, if ever. A forum needs admins whose judgment can be trusted and who can make quick/efficient choices.

"whose judgment can be trusted"

This is a perfect, and classic example of "trolling".

For those who are unfamiliar with tactics such as these, it's important to recognize them.

Tactic? I was not consciously aware of any tactic, I was simply informing the mod team, unabashedly, that I disagree with their decision. Strongly.

SpaceYeti effectively directly insulted the mods, but simultaneously made himself immune to reprimand. If a mod decided to take any corrective action they would fall into this trap and prove his point -- this is why trolls are so effective at causing trouble among forums while going unchecked. The most effective trolls are those who cause harm to (and do as they will with) a community without breaking any specific rules -- slipping right past any objection a staff could have but cannot justify, essentially allowing them to have their way with the community.

Effectively? Good, that was my intent. You, on the other hand, are calling me a troll. I don't know how well people know me here, but I don't think I've ever trolled before this. My intent is not to troll, my intent is to inform the mod team of my new opinion of them. Perhaps I'm a trouble causing rebel, perhaps the mods are power-hungry tyrants, probably something in-between, but my intent is honest, forthright information sharing.

One famous tactic of trolls is to gain the the moral upper hand and appears victimized - gaining the support of other members. If he's lucky the mod will withhold action due to the member fan-base the troll has formed, and the troll comes out victorious and with more freedom to do as he wishes.

One tactic of mods who care more about their clique than the community of their forum is to boot out people they dislike and call the people who defend those people trolls. Or maybe I am really a troll. I'll start a poll and see what others think.

 

[BigApplePi]

Da Blob: Poss Flow

Comments

@SpaceYeti - How can you expect to have your questions met, if you're not willing to listen to the answers when given? And is it fair to expect members to come and reiterate everything for you because you're too lazy to go back and read? Srsly dude... SpaceYeti effectively directly insulted the mods

SpaceYeti apparently came to the party late and failed to read the full discussion and got angry. (Fe can be a weak point for INTPs which is no excuse.) "Troll" is a name not in my vocabulary, but that is another thread.

Edit. I read Yeti's follow-on reply and he seemed to answer rationally.

Making things public would just invite controversy, distrust and more drama. The mods in particular would receive a lot of hate. ... there will always be disagreement between members

Could happen but did it in this thread? Has this thread not been a good one showing both sides up till now?

The mods need to decide what action to take, yes - factoring in member opinion into their lens, but ultimately deciding on their own. This is not some arbitrary arrangement where some tyrant has decided to rule with an iron fist. It is simply unrealistic to have hundreds of opinions consolidated into one action. A thread can go on for weeks before a forum comes to a consensus, if ever. A forum needs admins whose judgment can be trusted and who can make quick/efficient choices.

I like this point. Action is different from evaluation. It's on the mods shoulders to take action. What is going to fall on the mods shoulders? Hopefully minimum pain, but some because banning is generally not a pleasant thing.

What about this flow?

1. There is an objection reported.
2. Mod gets it and decides do nothing or warning or temp ban.
3. If no one notices, nothing is said. It is self-correcting.
4. If someone notices, they inquire.
5. After feedback they decide if they wish to start a discussion thread. (This happened right here.)
6. Mod observes discussion and now they have more input for further decision making.
7. If anything happens objectionable in the thread, go to step 1 as in any other thread.
8. The discussion can go on if further values wish to be explored but meanwhile mods have firmed an enhanced decision.
9. Freedom to observe steps 3 & 4.
10. End.

One problem I have with this flow is step 3. A ban could go on for some time. Then it is the obligation of the membership to take notice. That, perhaps, is why a ban could be treated as temporary or perhaps "indefinite" pending new input.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Couldn't the same reasons for banning da blog be leveled against people in this forum such as myself? o_O

 

[BigApplePi]

Proxy. I was thinking the same thing about you and even myself as well. Anyone who takes a firm position can have themselves be complained about to the powers that be. I could say almost all firm positions are objectionable in some sense. Someone somewhere could complain and the powers have no choice but to listen to the squeaky wheel.

My attitude is to challenge differences, analyze myself and the other position, and puzzle about the impasse. If I suffer from getting nowhere, I will retire and hope to get a fresh perspective after a vacation time.

That could be merely an intellectual attitude. If I run into an emotional issue for myself, I retire or else run into trouble. It's my problem and I want to learn how I can change my own feelings. I feel it's kinda foolish to change others by force and not by reason. I'm no good at it. Let the ExxJ's use force on other people. They know how.

 

[Decaf]

Its not about taking a firm position or even being intractable. It has to do with whether or not you're willing to debate honestly. That is, if you're going to respond to another person's stated position you must take a moment to understand what that position is first.

They say if you open you mind too much your brain will fall out. We don't need people to be eminently convincible, just willing to listen when they expect to be heard. If that isn't the case, then you don't have a place here.

 

[Puffy]

Couldn't the same reasons for banning da blog be leveled against people in this forum such as myself? o_O

Lol Proxy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Lol Proxy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4

hahaha, How on earth did you find that clip? It is gold. ^_^

 

[Puffy]

^ Through years of collecting terrible films for film nights and things ^^

I only just realised she gets eaten by trolls - I'm just unconsciously brilliant.

 

[BigApplePi]

hahaha, How on earth did you find that clip? It is gold. ^_^

It takes a while whole team to come up with these things:

Self Indulgence

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

^ Through years of collecting terrible films for film nights and things ^^

I only just realised she gets eaten by trolls - I'm just unconsciously brilliant.

Indeed you are. Where can I buy one of you?

It takes a while team to come up with these things:

Self Indulgence

I thought I did an epic troll in the Bird thread but I was caught out too easily...

I am glad to see the hive mind (INTPf) is interested in troll threads. Much amusement. Keep up the good work guys.

 

[Puffy]

^ That was a bit of a quick shoot down, Melllvar should have at least let you confuse people for a day, it looked like you put a lot of time into that card.

 

[Fukyo]

Just fyi gentlemen, there is no witch hunting going on. It's come to my attention that the initiative for banning Blob has been around since 2009. For any who need a first hand explanation, you are referred to the posts of loveofreason in this thread.

 

[Jennywocky]

I am glad to see the hive mind (INTPf) is interested in troll threads. Much amusement. Keep up the good work guys.

It's amusing, INTPc is the same way -- the forum could have been dead for weeks, then a troll thread would start and it would collect post counts like Lindsey Lohan collects misdemeanors.

@Melllvar: Thanks for your longer post a few days back, I appreciated hearing your perspective on things. (I'd say more but I'm burned out on this thread and crunched at work, and you don't have a Wall so I couldn't just leave a little thanks there.)

 

[BigApplePi]

Da Blob speaks

I made contact with Da Blob and asked him a few questions How strange it is to have a thread about him and have no words of his own. He gave me permission to quote this. I give them here as I thought they seemed the real Da Blob.

"I just was trying to explain my POV, I am not a "Mere Christian" (whatever that means) as Jenny proposes and I seriously doubt that she has run into 'my type" a number of times. However, I really do not know know much about her, except she and felan have always impressed me as being rather xxxxous individuals, a characteristic I do see in my own self on occasions.

I have hopes of this just being a temporary ban, but i am comfortable with the thought that it is not. I seem to have run out of 'new' things to say (?) and I do get tired of repeating myself (I probably would have gone nuts as a teacher saying the same thing every year). Without comments that contain sincere questions, in response to what I have stated, it does seem to me that I am just talking to a wall and if that is not a monologue, it is, at best, a soliloquy


Yeah, go ahead and share that poem, it is rather tongue and cheek, but it allows me to entertain the illusion that I got the last word in and it may be appropriate for being the very last of my posts as an INTPian. Hmmm, Although I did threaten to write an 'Epistle to the INTPians' once...


I am ill, but perhaps not on my deathbed. Still and all, I am haunted by the possibility that i do not have much time left on this Earth, every year flies by quicker than the last. I do not want to waste the time I have left, no matter how many days, weeks, years that may be. Jenny implied that I had wasted thousands and thousands of hours on the INTP forum. I really hope she is wrong, but in all honesty, she could be correct - nor can I totally discount her stated rationale for my banishment - so I will just move on - a stranger in a strange land. lol... I was completely computer-illiterate when I joined the forum and never explored the internet, finding the forum was a lucky accident or so it seems. I will miss it tremendously and there is currently a hole in my life, but as you know there comes a stage where loss and grief are expected to a certain degree...


I do not see a high IQ as a blessing alone, but a curse as well, for not only do I lack Fe, I lack just plain common sense as well"

If you have any questions about this or him you'd like to ask, I can forward them to him.

 

[Melkor]

"Amen!" said Melkor, as he unclasped his hands and tucked into a hearty meal with his fellow forumers.

For as we all know, obligations are always second to indulgences, regardless of the order they come in.

 

[Jennywocky]

@BAP: I see my name mentioned a few times in Blob's responses, and I honestly have no idea what he is referring to. *bewildered* I assume he is using shorthand for things I posted at some point, but I don't recognize the wording he has used.

....Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time I've been confused.

 

[BigApplePi]

@BAP: I see my name mentioned a few times in Blob's responses, and I honestly have no idea what he is referring to. *bewildered* I assume he is using shorthand for things I posted at some point, but I don't recognize the wording he has used.

....Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time I've been confused.

@Jenny. Nah. Not to be confused. I'm sure it refers to his impression of past experiences ... not something to analyze. Think of it like you would an impressionistic painting. Da Blob didn't ask me to post that. I asked him hoping it showed his human side.

I can't believe I did those "x's" as I don't believe in censorship. It was I who put them in. I will tell you only if you ask me, lol ... unless you want to guess.

 

[Jennywocky]

I can't believe I did those "x's" as I don't believe in censorship. It was I who put them in. I will tell you only if you ask me, lol ... unless you want to guess.

I'm sure it was "melodious" or "beauteous" or "virtuous" or something similar.

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm sure it was "melodious" or "beauteous" or "virtuous" or something similar.

Excellent guesses Jenny. Very high quality. You are to be complimented. No cigar though.

 

[Jennywocky]

Excellent guesses Jenny. Very high quality. You are to be complimented. No cigar though.

Sorry, Felan, I tried to redeem you, but it looks like I just dragged you down with me....

 

[BigApplePi]

Auburn I was scanning this thread for rules of behavior and found yours difficult to quote among a lengthy list. So I will formulate what you said instead.

@SpaceYeti - How can you expect to have your questions met, if you're not willing to listen to the answers when given? And is it fair to expect members to come and reiterate everything for you because you're too lazy to go back and read? Srsly dude... v.v

Rule 1. Listen
Rule 2. Laziness not allowed.

Why, if it doesn't pertain to you?
If you're involved then surely you'll get an explanation, but otherwise your knowing doesn't itself do anything to merit the community. It is simply for personal indulgence - the compulsive desire to have an opinion on something and know that everything that is happening in the modbox has your personal approval. The mods are under no obligation to cater to such egos..

Rule 3. If it ain't you, don't ask for explanations.
Rule 4. Do not indulge yourself.

I'll repeat, making a public spectacle of everything does not do anything to help the community. It's merely a token effort to satiate member's urges. Not to mention it can also be quite cruel to have a member "on trial" that way. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone wants to express it. Everyone has different judgment, but it is simply unrealistic/impossible for several hundred different judgments to continually be in accord.

Rule 5. No public spectacles.
Rule 6. No finger pointing. It is cruel.

Making things public would just invite controversy, distrust and more drama. The mods in particular would receive a lot of hate. And this is not specific to these specific/current mods. If these mods were removed and others elected, then those others would recieve a lot of hate as well. Again this is because there will always be disagreement between members

Rule 7. No public controversies.

The mods need to decide what action to take, yes - factoring in member opinion into their lens, but ultimately deciding on their own. This is not some arbitrary arrangement where some tyrant has decided to rule with an iron fist. It is simply unrealistic to have hundreds of opinions consolidated into one action. A thread can go on for weeks before a forum comes to a consensus, if ever. A forum needs admins whose judgment can be trusted and who can make quick/efficient choices.

Rule 8. Deliberation is unnecessary as decisions can be made quickly.

This is a perfect, and classic example of "trolling".

For those who are unfamiliar with tactics such as these, it's important to recognize them.

Rule 9. No trolling.

SpaceYeti has effectively directly cussed out the mods

Rule 10. No cussing of mods.

but simultaneously made himself immune to reprimand. If a mod decided to take any corrective action they would fall into this trap and prove his point -- this is why trolls are so effective at causing trouble among forums while going unchecked. The most effective trolls are those who cause harm to (and do as they will with) a community without breaking any specific rules -- slipping right past any objection a staff could have but cannot justify, essentially allowing them to have their way with the community.

One famous tactic of trolls is to gain the the moral upper hand and appears victimized - gaining the support of other members. If he's lucky the mod will withhold action due to the member fan-base the troll has formed, and the troll comes out victorious and with more freedom to do as he wishes.

The troll doesn't really have the good of the community in mind, even when they present cases of what would be "justice". They simply want to go unchecked and do as they please, not caring how their actions negatively affect discussions.

Rule 11. If you should happen to be a troll, no sneaky maneuvers to outwit your opponents.

Auburn if I have in any way misquoted or taken you out of context , I have no defense. Of course I have to take responsibility for what I have said.

 

[BigApplePi]

After the server being down a few days, I realized how disappointed I've been Adymus has been banned. Not just Da Blob, with whom my mind was not so involved, but with Adymus with whom I falsely assumed would always be there. Pod'Lair aside, he had some awfully good insights into the Myer-Briggs way of looking. Did Adymus abandon MB? MB has always been fuzzy to me. Adymus has favored the nature view and I've wanted to press him on the nurture aspect, but thought it could wait. I was wrong.

Where is a better place to post this message? I hate to start a new thread on banned posters as this one has served quite well.

 

[Puffy]

I think Adymus's case is a little different to Blob's. I was also sad to see Adymus go, and conversely the PL threads, because I felt he offered great insight into typing. That kind of presence feels really necessary here. As, really, MBTI as a subject is fairly dead-ed-ed here at the moment.

I don't think it was a bad call though. The more I learn about PL the more I don't like. There idea of "positive development" for one thing was quite unhealthy and could potentially have negative impact on individuals recruited. The ideas are cool, and need further expansion, but their approach was really abrasive, and potentially upsetting (you're dealing with people's self-identity here, you can't just steam-roll over it without expecting resistance.)

Plus, as I think Anthile said in one of their threads, they were using the forum for recruitment/ advertising. In general, it felt they were becoming less and less willing to be involved with the community, as opposed to just using it for their purposes. Adymus originally posted in lots of areas of the forum, in the end he only popped up to narrow on that one debate, meh, don't know what I'm trying to say. People could argue it either way, I think Blob's case is more ambiguous/ borderline than their's though.

 

[Cavallier]

^Very true Puffs. While Adymas was at times a good member of this forum he had turned into a Recruiting Officer. He was warned several times and then finally banned for his actions.

It's too bad because I enjoyed his insights in the beginning but as time went on his insights became less helpful and his attitude towards the forum in generall increasingly predatory.

Even good forumers go bad sometimes.

I believe this is also the case for Da Blob. There were times when his insights were interesting and added a different flavor to the melting pot of INTPf but over the course of the last year his actions were becoming increasingly damning. He was driving away a lot of members (as this thread demonstrates). It was time for him to go despite all the effort he put in on this forum.

 

[BigApplePi]

Puffy & Cav. If I hear you guys you both would say having them go was the right thing. I have been completely blind to this position. Let me say something of where I was & am at just to show you how I differ. In a vote, I would lose out.

I thought both parties Adymus & Da Blob were great contributors. If and when they started to go bad in the way you say, I unconsciously and automatically felt that and turned away. I just don't respond to recruitment of "J" type or directive ideas or actions unless they are intellectually stimulating. I may take an interest, but I can't be seduced. Show me an extreme position and I will fiercely oppose that but keep it totally to myself unless and until I can or wish to counter it.

To contradict what I just said, a salesperson can seduce me and I will go along with them always keeping in mind that I want to know about holes in their position.

I never even noticed these guys had been warned because I wasn't reading "extreme" not quite "thinking" positions. I'm too am not saying this well. Half of me doesn't know what I mean, lol.

 

[BigApplePi]

I had this post in my window b4 the server when down and then wasn't going to post it because I thought the thread was dead. I see some are still interested, so ...

======================
After the server being down a few days, I realized how disappointed I've been Adymus has been banned. Not just Da Blob, with whom my mind was not so involved, but with Adymus with whom I falsely assumed would always be there. Pod'Lair aside, he had some awfully good insights into the Myer-Briggs way of understanding. MB has always been fuzzy to me. Adymus has favored the nature view and I've wanted to press him on the nurture aspect, but thought it could wait. I was wrong.
======================

I thought I would scan the thread for rules since they are so important. I lack any software scanning program for that so I had to use the eyeball method.

We know how we must follow all rules irregardless and woe unto you if you don't. (Actually I'm joking, but I am so self-ignorant I don't know if I'm joking or not.)

One rule is the rule of social decorum. It's a rule INTP's don't excel in. They are unwritten but they come up more in those who post a lot.

Rules are important because we don't have to do our own thinking. We don't have to agonize over "should I do this; should I do that" and have to make a decision regardless of who we are. The answers are all laid out for us.

A little history: Da Blob has indeed been around a long time. I imagine his first round of controversy took place before many folk here joined, so he does indeed seem like an institution. Nevertheless, he has been tempbanned and warned in the past, and I have had pm conversations with him about the impact of his behaviour, in the hope of there being change. A long period of tolerance and patience followed. I have been on hiatus for a year, after three solid years of modding and admin duties. Hearing reports and complaints of Da Blob's behaviour being unchanged, I was not inclined to waste my energy on another round of labourious warnings and discussions.

I understand Da Blob's behaviour generated no perception of malice - there doesn't have to be. There doesn't have to be malice for there to be harm. Not everyone has to personally be harmed for the community overall to be suffering, and not every aspect of a poster's contributions have to be deleterious. I see similarities between Da Blob and the pod'lair bannings. Adymus actually contributed alot of positives to the forum, and many people found his contributions thought provoking. They were. So were many of Da Blob's... but in the end an independent forum for discussion and exchange of ideas is the wrong place for unrelenting proselytising, regardless of the view being proselytised.

INTPforum isn't the only place on the net. Personal platforms such as Facebook or a blog are entirely appropriate. Da Blob has other avenues for disseminating his worldview, and considering the level of goodwill he enjoys I hope he uses them.

FYI, it's been publicly and explicitly stated by Claverhouse that the rules are just guidelines

I recall NO debate about banning Pod'Liar and its proponents itself though trying to sell it is against the rules.

Its not about taking a firm position or even being intractable. It has to do with whether or not you're willing to debate honestly. That is, if you're going to respond to another person's stated position you must take a moment to understand what that position is first.

I'll repeat, making a public spectacle of everything does not do anything to help the community.

There doesn't have to be malice for there to be harm. Not everyone has to personally be harmed for the community overall to be suffering, and not every aspect of a poster's contributions have to be deleterious. ... an independent forum for discussion and exchange of ideas is the wrong place for unrelenting proselytising, regardless of the view being proselytised.

Having a vote would only create a system that would create more drama

Forcefully stating that your belief system is the only truth is annoying

administrators act on a sense of the whole community's well-being. ... it doesn't have to take half (50%) of the forum to be bothered by a member before they're booted. In all honesty, I'd say that if there's a member whose causing upset to even 40% of member, that's enough of a disturbance to say the forum is better off without that member.

If you feel your rule was omitted or quoted out of context and you wish to speakup ... well why don't you speak up?

 

[Jennywocky]

Like I said in another thread, I think the pony is dead.

 

[BigApplePi]

Like I said in another thread, I think the pony is dead.

Normally beating a dead horse for a couple weeks will find it in a mortified state a fortnight later. But if one beats it hard enough it should revive. It's a matter of sticktoitiveness.

BTW Jenny, you and snafu ... I didn't know. You are to be envied.

 

[SpaceYeti]

They are? What for? Are they rich or something?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Normally beating a dead horse for a couple weeks will find it in a mortified state a fortnight later. But if one beats it hard enough it should revive. It's a matter of sticktoitiveness.

Hmm..good one.


p.s. Free Smeagle

 

[BigApplePi]

p.s. Free Smeagle

Free? How do I get one? I don't want to be greedy, but how about two?

 

[Jennywocky]

Free? How do I get one? I don't want to be greedy, but how about two?

You can call the other one Deagol.

 

[scorpiomover]

I can understand how Blob might have been seen as 'tiresome'.

On the forums on the internet, I've seen an incredible amount of people slagging off Xianity, Abrahamic religions, and "religion", to the hilt, saying things that people would say that saying such things about Hitler and the Nazis, would be going too far.

Whenever such posts would be made on a thread, I'd see Da Blob right in there, defending his view, by using reason. In most such posts, on other forums, when reason was applied, their posts were shown to be irrational.

So that would have put off a lot of people wanting to post such things, and would have made those people sick of always seeing Da Blob on such threads, because they'd never be able to say such things, and feel like their views were accepted.

So in that way, he was disrupting the forums, because he was stopping the the majority to have their say and feel that their views were vindicated.

He might have had very good arguments. But after a while, you tire of reason, and you just want to be able to complain about things, in the way that you want to express yourself, without having someone else tell you that you are being unreasonably extreme.

I'd imagine that I'd have the same problem, if I went around defending the value of maths, on an ESFJ forum.

Of course, this might be nothing to do with it, and the Mods might have had an entirely different reason to ban him.

 

[Oblivious]

The passive aggressive thread is over there.