I'm back, slutes.

[Cavallier]

Isn't that reason enough? Don't we ban trolls because the majority of people don't like them? Because they sew discord? This isn't about fairness and equality after all. I don't know specifically why he was banned but I can recognize a train-wreck in the making. I'm trying to remember a thread he posited an opinion in that he didn't immediately get combative over when somebody contradicted him. Plus the "drugs made me do it but I have ripped abs so it's okay" attitude was a little tiring.

I was prepared to deal with the jackass for as long as was necessary. Happily that wasn't very long. Though the forum had been rather quiet lately and it was nice to shake things up a bit.

 

[Dimensional Transition]

Why was EyeSeeCold banned?
That just really doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Kuu]

Cavallier is one smart cookie, as always. More people should follow her example.

And dip her in milk.

Why was EyeSeeCold banned?
That just really doesn't make sense at all.

He's not. He just put his usertitle to that. You've been had.

Don't worry, you will learn one day, little one.

 

[Cavallier]

 

[Cavallier]

Wait. Does this mean I'm a *shudder* Role Model?

Damnit! Now I'll have to go kick over some garbage cans or something.

I hate you all.

 

[Melllvar]

The funny part is I actually hold my breath a little now when I click on people's posts/threads if a) they aren't a well ingratiated member (particularly new people) or b) they posted something "not very good," while I wait for the page to load and see if they've been banned. I'd thought it was a little silly, but as an involuntary thing I couldn't really help myself. Then CoryJ gets banned and it's like, "Heh, maybe not so silly after all."

 

[RobertJ]

Why was EyeSeeCold banned?
That just really doesn't make sense at all.

But such a thing would hardly be surprising in light of some of the more recent moderator actions.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

But such a thing would hardly be surprising in light of some of the more recent moderator actions.

What are you referring to?

 

[RobertJ]

What are you referring to?

Your perceived and hypothetical banning.

Meaning - there is no apparent reason that you should be banned. But that doesn't mean such a thing wouldn't happen.

 

[Kuu]

That actually made me smile. I guess that makes us even.

Back to the regular animosity then.


*scribbles the name Cavallier in his hitlist, right under Mellvar*

 

[Bird]

Oh I likuh this.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

He's not. He just put his usertitle to that. You've been had.

Kuu!! *shakes fist*

*plans your downfall meticulously*

Your perceived and hypothetical banning.

Meaning - there is no apparent reason that you should be banned. But that doesn't mean such a thing wouldn't happen.

Yea but what about the "recent moderator actions" you refer to?

 

[Lobstrich]

Why the ban?

(A little suggestion! Add a feature which gives the reason as to why people are banned, just below the banned 'title' There's always someone asking why, so why not make it easier?)

 

[shoeless]

i, personally, think the ban was unnecessary.
just a bit too authoritarian to me. he didn't even do anything besides have a personality that happened to conflict with some people here. i didn't mind him at all, myself.

 

[cheese]

Yeah, he just seemed a bit clueless/socially inept. Or perhaps didn't know how to joke/was too stiff. He did contribute pretty good stuff sometimes and was never a major nuisance, just a bit 'wtf'-inducing at times.

 

[The Gopher]

The only thing I find disturbing is the seeming lack of warning in bannings. I guess if you warn a real troll and they don't care they will just go on a spam fest but still.

 

[Lobstrich]

@ Shoeless - Exactly
@ Cheese - Totally agree
@ The Gopher - Aaand, I agree here as well.


(Because it's so much easier to quote than to write something yourself.)

 

[kantor1003]

I don't understand it either.
Could it have been something that occurred over pm's?
Well well, too late now anyways



CoryJames

04.xx.2010 - 04.01.2011

May he rest in peace. He will be sorely missed (subject for debate?).

 

[Cavallier]

Don't tell me you guys actually give a shit? Okay, I could see shoeless caring since she's the sort to actually do so. She's nice like that. But the rest of you? Is it the injustice of it all? I don't understand.

 

[kantor1003]

If someone gets banned without any obvious reason one shouldn't find it too odd for it to cause some questioning regardless of wether they give a damn about the member in question or not.

 

[Minuend]

Don't tell me you guys actually give a shit? Okay, I could see shoeless caring since she's the sort to actually do so. She's nice like that. But the rest of you? Is it the injustice of it all? I don't understand.

Don't worry, Cava, at least I don't care

 

[Yet]

don't know what he did exactly to deserve a ban but I trust there must have been a reason

 

[Melllvar]

Maybe it just reminds us of times we've been excluded or treated poorly for having been different, in one way or another, from the standards and preferences of the community we were honestly trying to be part of. (also it reminds me way too much of high school. "you aren't cool enough for us, gtfo.")

I've already given my opinion at length in other threads, so I'd rather not be a huge nuisance here (not to mention the possible lack of information on my part). I'm about 80% "meh, it's how the place works, nothing you can do," but 10% "the mods know what they're doing, you should trust them, if people followed your advice you might lead them all into horrible chaos" and 10% "you must speak out, a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

 

[Lobstrich]

Don't tell me you guys actually give a shit? Okay, I could see shoeless caring since she's the sort to actually do so. She's nice like that. But the rest of you? Is it the injustice of it all? I don't understand.

I couldn't care less who it was that got banned. The thing I'm 'worried' about. Is that I see people getting banned all the time. And for not apparent reason.
The reason I'm asking why he got banned is because I want to know why, I want to know if I think it's a justified ban.

Oh and hey! Way to be objective about it! Just because you don't like him doesn't mean everyone doesn't like him. I myself, neither liked nor disliked him, I didn't really know him.

 

[Cavallier]

Thank you Min. You have re-established my assumptions about INTPs.

*punches Min for the lulz*

@Kantor and Lob: But I thought there was an obvious reason clearly stated in this thread. He was irritating and rather discordant to the forum as a whole. Is this reason not good enough? We could detail every little infraction that will get you a warning followed by a banning after the appropriate pms have been sent and correct protocol followed. Actually, I think there is a thread about this stuff some place. Probably in the About Us section. Bleh, what a pain in the ass. We aren't the INTJ forum after all. That's the price of having a forum that's relatively relaxed about who joins and what they do. If you are too irritating you get booted. Otherwise do whatever. Or is that not enough structure for you? There are long time members here who are generally hated by a lot of the populace and yet haven't gotten banned because they aren't quite irritating enough or because most of the time they offer something intelligent or at least humorous to the discussions.

Also, individually our opinion doesn't actually matter. You can decide if the banning was justified or not but it doesn't make a difference.

Edit: I'm in the Mellvar camp myself. Though, mostly I don't think it really matters because this place doesn't involve justice or equality (is there an echo in here?) since it's not really a democracy. On this forum you are taking part in an oligarchy. You have to decide if you agree with or at least can put up with the ruling class (who really don't do a lot of power play or real "ruling" in comparison to almost all other forums I'm seen) or you decide you can't and you leave.

 

[Lobstrich]

Thank you Min. You have re-established my assumptions about INTPs.

*punches Min for the lulz*

@Kantor: But I thought there was an obvious reason clearly stated in this thread. Is this reason not good enough? We could detail every little infraction that will get you a warning followed by a banning after the appropriate pms have been sent and correct protocol followed. Actually, I think there is a thread about this stuff some place. Probably in the About Us section. Bleh, what a pain in the ass. We aren't the INTJ forum after all. That's the price of having a forum that's relatively relaxed about who joins and what they do. If you are too irritating you get booted. Otherwise do whatever. Or is that not enough structure for you? There are long time members here who are generally hated by a lot of the populace and yet haven't gotten banned because they aren't quite irritating enough or because most of the time they offer something intelligent or at least humorous to the discussions.

I don't think "if you're to irritating" is a justified ban. Way to subjective. There needs to be some rules. "Hey buddy, you are irritating" *murder* "Well, he was so irritating" - "Yeah, he was. Fair enough, no worries"

Is that the kind of 'objevtivity' INTPs are known for? I hope not.

Also, individually our opinion doesn't actually matter. You can decide if the banning was justified or not but it doesn't make a difference.

True.. So?

 

[Cavallier]

*sigh*

Bored now...

*wanders off to find a discussion that hasn't been hashed out a thousand times on every forum ever created*

 

[kantor1003]

Did he receive a warning?
If not it could perhaps lead to some paranoia among members as to wether they are in the danger zone or not.

 

[Lobstrich]

*sigh*

Bored now...

*wanders off to find a discussion that hasn't been hashed out a thousand times on every forum ever created*

Hmm, why the hit 'n' run? You come and yell about Cory and his abs. And when we don't agree, you just run?

 

[Lobstrich]

Did he receive a warning?
If not it could perhaps lead to some paranoia among members as to wether they are in the danger zone or not.

Yeah, I don't really care about paranoia. I'm just curious why he got banned. As I want to know if I'm alright with the justification of the ban. I want to be able to make a choice.

 

[Melllvar]

One good reason for not explaining all bannings to everyone (aside from freeing the mods from endless debate with any random member) is that it may involve some private information between the the involved parties. Rights of the accused/convicted and all that.

I think of this is being like a party at someone's house. They can kick people out if they don't want them there. But of course everyone else at the party can be like, "Man, that dude's a complete asshole to anyone he doesn't like. What a fuck." And of course just because you may not like every single thing about the place doesn't mean you won't still show up to see a few people you do get along with. (basically I'm just defending the right to question bannings, even if it is a nuisance to the admins)

I'm not sure if that analogy makes sense. Maybe the party example wasn't the best one to pick for an INTP forum.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Free Smeagle.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I'm concerned that censorship was used.

 

[DirtyBit]

GENERAL RULES


INTP Forum General Rules of Conduct

This is not a democracy. Whilst members' views are sought and welcomed, they do not decide the administration of the forum.

01/ Don't be a nuisance.

02/ No Trolls. No Flaming. No attacks on personalities or groups. No Spam. No Porn links.

03/ There is no censorship of ideas, no matter how distasteful, apart from the obvious: this includes, but is not limited to porn, offensive images, spamming/trolling, illegal software links, advertising, and links that don't follow the conversation at hand. These posts may be edited or deleted by a mod, and in all cases the mod will always mark this in the post or thread itself and sign off. However no-one will ever alter another's posts, except in these instances ( or to correct annoying titles ).

04/ Offensive user-names, user-titles, avatars and signatures shall all be changed at discretion, especially in the case of harassment of another member. Repeated offences will incur withdrawal of any of relevent item. Other than that any user-title may be chosen (or changed by the user using the request feature ).

05/ Offenders may be given warnings; these do not incur an automatic penalty. The moderation team may ban any repeated offender after discussion; but a gross offender may be banned instantly by any mod or admin. The admin team will always back up any decision made. Requests to be banned will not be entertained.

06/ Both being annoying, and/or posting fluff ( including trivia, harrassment of individuals, and overexcitement ) will restrict the member concerned to post in Siberia for a time decided by the mod concerned.

07/ Threads are moved at the mods discretion, but this, as with all actions by mods, may be clearly indicated at the time by the mod concerned if not obvious.

08/ Mods and admins will not read any other member's Private Messages; posters will not quote Private Messages from others in the forum without the permission of the sender, this includes PM's from mods and admins.

09/ Edit/Deletes: Mass editing/deleting of posts is not allowed. If you choose to leave the forum your posts will stay behind. Exceptions can be made for personal blog threads.

10/ Attacks on mods are against the member's best interest; but should one be attacked, that individual shall not adjudicate their own case.

11/ Basic: Remember to tick the 'Remember Me' box when logging in to the forum. There are no ranking or rating systems used here to grade members.

***
​

These take precedence over any additional rules promulgated.
_____________



Thought these might be of assistance to the discussion.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Just because rules exist, it doesn't mean they're good.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Just because rules exist, it doesn't mean they're good.

It's funny how much rules don't matter. The final word lies in the hands of the one with volitional power(in this case, the mods).

 

[Lobstrich]

GENERAL RULES


INTP Forum General Rules of Conduct

This is not a democracy. Whilst members' views are sought and welcomed, they do not decide the administration of the forum.

Did anyone of us ever claim this to be a 'democracy'? Personally, I said very clearly that I wanted to know why, because I wanted to decide if I was okay with the justification of it.

 

[Minuend]

I don't think anyone care whether you are okay with the reasons.

 

[DirtyBit]

It would appear, from this thread at least, that the most likely reasoning used by the mods in this case was that the member was trolling the forums. However, what constitutes as trolling is not readily defined. Also, it would seem that it is unclear if this member received any warnings, as he should have unless he committed a gross offense. From the few threads I have read thus far, I would not think that this was a gross offense, as I have seen many other members making replies that are insulting or sarcastic that could also be considered trolling.

It seems odd that this has not been cleared up yet. I would think that the mod who banned this guy would just explain it and there would not be a need to argue about it.

 

[cheese]

Don't tell me you guys actually give a shit? Okay, I could see shoeless caring since she's the sort to actually do so. She's nice like that. But the rest of you? Is it the injustice of it all? I don't understand.

Haven't you heard of plain old curiosity? That's pretty standard INTP, right there, if you're trying to keep us in our boxes.

But I do think it's kinda sad that someone who thinks they've found some sort of fun place to hang out where they semi-belong would get booted for no good reason. And now he's rejected, out in the cold, no one to hold hands with, no way to defend himself in public without it being considered a sin and more reason to keep him out (double accounts, anyone?). I imagine it's one of those things that can be infuriatingly frustrating... damned if you do, damned if you don't. :'( I mean, he really was full of shit sometimes, but he wasn't the worst. Or at least wasn't the only one.

Plus there seems to have been a lot more trigger-happy mod activity recently, which is concerning. Like I said, you find a nice piece of land, you settle down, then people start blowing shit up. That sucks.

But I'm not saying there's no good reason. There's a lot of stuff we don't see, I think. I'm curious to know what. And we're *not* in charge - but INTPs don't generally like authority either, right? Why is it surprising at all that we're questioning it? If you like the profiles, anyway.

 

[Abraxas]

Spoiler

/THREAD ?

 

[Lobstrich]

I don't think anyone care whether you are okay with the reasons.

I can only say the same thing. Did I ever say that I wanted everybody to abide by what I think is okay? I did not. So why are you saying what you're saying? It makes no sense to attack me when I'm still in my chair and haven't made a single sign of wanting to fight.

The reason I want to be able to choose if I'm okay with it, is because I want to be able to choose if I'm okay with it. From there, I'll decide what I'll do about it (if I'm not okay with it, that is) Worst case scenario (probably not this one) I would leave the forum if I did not agree with the jusfication. It's called having principles.

 

[Lobstrich]

It seems odd that this has not been cleared up yet. I would think that the mod who banned this guy would just explain it and there would not be a need to argue about it.

Pretty much. One could choose to argue about it after the mod explained why, hehe.

 

[Bird]

I don't think anyone care whether you are okay with the reasons.

+1

 

[Lobstrich]

+1

Ouch, hostility? Hmm.

 

[Yet]

nâh looks more like a statement to me Lobstrich

I mean ... I don't care either whether you are ok with the reasons ... but I do not feel a shred of hostility towards ya
It just seems irrelevant that's all

 

[shoeless]

i understand where lobstrich is coming from. it's nice, when you're part of a community, to understand the government of said community. then you can make an educated decision on whether or not you want to remain a part of that community. what's wrong with that?

personally i don't really care because this forum is hardly a major part of my life, but still, curiosity is curiosity and i fail to see why this hasn't been cleared up already.

i mostly just keep checking back out of idle amusement.

 

[Gather_Wanderer]

It'd be nice to know what happened. If he's gone primarily because he was too annoying or something along those lines, then by God shouldn't I be worried as well?

..Well in all honesty I have no idea how I'm perceived but back to my point: I didn't expect the forum inquisition.

 

[Lobstrich]

i understand where lobstrich is coming from. it's nice, when you're part of a community, to understand the government of said community. then you can make an educated decision on whether or not you want to remain a part of that community. what's wrong with that?

Exactly. This is exactly why I want to know.

 

[Lobstrich]

nâh looks more like a statement to me Lobstrich

I mean ... I don't care either whether you are ok with the reasons ... but I do not feel a shred of hostility towards ya
It just seems irrelevant that's all

I can only say what I said to Minuend.

The "Hostility?" at Bird was more of a joke because I sense that there's something about me, that she doesn't exactly.. Like.