I'm back, slutes.

[^_\\]

I assume there is an ignore function so banning someone "irritating" should be wholly unneccessarry.


If this was the reason, WTF YO?

edit: I mean it's unneccessarry because there is an ignore function (I assume) not because I assume it.

 

[Minuend]

I can only say what I said to Minuend.

WHAT!!? AM I NOT YOUR ONLY GLITTER-SPARKLY DIAMOND TREASURE!??!

 

[Lobstrich]

WHAT!!? AM I NOT YOUR ONLY GLITTER-SPARKLY DIAMOND TREASURE!??!

Uhh..

 

[Lobstrich]

I assume there is an ignore function so banning someone "irritating" should be wholly unneccessarry.

I'm not sure if there is such a button. But I agree.

 

[preilemus]

it's in User CP.
(look for "Edit Ignore List" within the left-hand column of buttons)

 

[Lobstrich]

Cool, I'm still curious why he got banned though. And I'm even more curious why we haven't been told yet. the other bans there hasn't been a problem with telling us the reason =o

 

[Bird]

Cool, I'm still curious why he got banned though. And I'm even more curious why we haven't been told yet. the other bans there hasn't been a problem with telling us the reason =o

Because he was annoying as fuck and this
is not a democracy. (how crass, I am sorry
if this offends.)

 

[Cavallier]

^This. So much this.

I think the reason for this guy's banning has been outlined by three separate people and then vouched for by a mod (Kuu).

People keep asking why which is fine and probably healthy for an INTP. (I'm looking at you Cheese ). However, I think the reason for this guys banning has been outlined by at least two separate people and then vouched for by the mod who probably did the banning (Kuu). What's with the broken record?

Some of you sound like my 3 year old nephew guys! ("BUUUUUUUTTTTTT WHYYYYYYYYYYYY?!?!?!?!?!) Like it or don't but please for the love of all things reasonable stop acting like you haven't been told why.

Also, I suspect people think there is way more drama behind this than there is. The mods thought he was irritating and causing problems so they banned him. (We'll just count this as repetition #3 shall we?) We are a relatively drama free zone here at INTPf after all.

 

[Fukyo]

^This. So much this.

I think the reason for this guy's banning has been outlined by three separate people and then vouched for by a mod (Kuu).

People keep asking why which is fine and probably healthy for an INTP. (I'm looking at you Cheese ). However, I think the reason for this guys banning has been outlined by at least two separate people and then vouched for by the mod who probably did the banning (Kuu). What's with the broken record?

Some of you sound like my 3 year old nephew guys! ("BUUUUUUUTTTTTT WHYYYYYYYYYYYY?!?!?!?!?!) Like it or don't but please for the love of all things reasonable stop acting like you haven't been told why.

Also, I suspect people think there is way more drama behind this than there is. The mods thought he was irritating and causing problems so they banned him. (We'll just count this as repetition #3 shall we?) We are a relatively drama free zone here at INTPf after all.

I'm going to make a wild guess here and say they keep asking why because they find the given reason invalid.

 

[Mello]

Yeah, but not everyone found him annoying. So, why ban him?

 

[Cavallier]

^You're doing this just to damage my already blackened soul aren't you?

Agreed Fukyo. I was sort of hoping in a Socratic sort of way that they might realize this without me pointing it out.

 

[Melllvar]

Yeah, but not everyone found him annoying. So, why ban him?

Obviously one of the admins did find him annoying. Goes back to the "not a democracy" thing.

Personally I wish I could ban people who want to ban others just for being annoying, because they're so annoying. Yes, it's a bit paradoxical, but that just makes the idea of it as a rule even more poetic.

 

[The Gopher]

Obviously one of the admins did find him annoying. Goes back to the "not a democracy" thing.

Personally I wish I could ban people who want to ban others just for being annoying, because they're so annoying. Yes, it's a bit paradoxical, but that just makes the idea of it as a rule even more poetic.

Melllvar is banned by Melllvar but, did he warn himself that he could be banned?

 

[Melllvar]

Ok now I just noticed that DirtyBit's banned as well... so was he/she/it CoryJames or what? Now I really am just curious, not even arguing this time, just can't imagine why a random new member with 12 completely coherent posts would be banned.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Free Smeagle.

 

[The Gopher]

Free Smeagle.

+1

 

[Melkor]

How amusingly redundant.

 

[Minuend]

Personally I wish I could ban people who want to ban others just for being annoying, because they're so annoying. Yes, it's a bit paradoxical, but that just makes the idea of it as a rule even more poetic.

But not everyone find them annoying, so why ban them?

 

[Lobstrich]

I'm going to make a wild guess here and say they keep asking why because they find the given reason invalid.

Indeed.

 

[Lobstrich]

Free Smeagle.

Hehe.


@ topic - I think banning a person just because said person is annoying, even though "this is not a democracy" isn't a valid reason. As a person already pointed out. Use the ignore list provided.

@ Bird/Cava - So if we all just went around and banned people, instead of just as easily ignoring them (While touting freedom of speech and open-mindedness, which is done in the rules of the forum)
I don't think there would be anyone left on the forum. I know a couple of people that I wouldn't mind banning, because they are annoying.

 

[kantor1003]

Careful now lobstrich, I think the amount of people potentially finding you annoying/irritating increases proportionally with every post you make in this thread
Funny that this thread is still active

 

[Lobstrich]

Careful now lobstrich, I think the amount of people potentially finding you annoying/irritating increases proportionally with every post you make in this thread

Oh, I think that the people who find me annoying, already do so. Luckily not every member has the power to ban people =)'

EDIT: A little quote that came to mind after I replied to you. "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr. It's beautiful.

 

[Melllvar]

But not everyone find them annoying, so why ban them?

 

[Minuend]

Hehe.


@ topic - I think banning a person just because said person is annoying, even though "this is not a democracy" isn't a valid reason. As a person already pointed out. Use the ignore list provided.

How would they do the modding if they couldn't see what was going on?

@ Bird/Cava - So if we all just went around and banned people, instead of just as easily ignoring them (While touting freedom of speech and open-mindedness, which is done in the rules of the forum)
I don't think there would be anyone left on the forum.

But we don't, the moddies do. And I'm okay with being 10 people if that increases quality. And Cava. To hell with freedom of speech. More like "freedom of leech".

 

[Lobstrich]

How would they do the modding if they couldn't see what was going on?

Good point, but I was obviously pointing this option at us, the users. In my opinion moderators shouldn't go around getting annoyed and then banning people. Moderators should act like the police, (in most cases) acts. Without personal interference.

But we don't, the moddies do. And I'm okay with being 10 people if that increases quality.

Yes, the mods do, which I think they shouldn't, as you can see above. And I never said quantity beats quality.

 

[onthewindowstand]

I love how ironic the title of this thread is now. This must have been what he was planning all along...

 

[Lobstrich]

I love how ironic the title of this thread is now. This must have been what he was planning all along...

Maybe he was Smeagle!? Just with really good acting.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Is it just me or is anyone compelled to keep people off ignore? I can't bring myself to do it. I'm too curious of unseen phenomena.

I love how ironic the title of this thread is now. This must have been what he was planning all along...

He's exerting his will from beyond the grave.

I don't think it was intentional, but it just shows how much power he had(rather, how arbitrary and bold he was) and how obsessed we are to still discuss the matter.

 

[Kuu]

Ok now I just noticed that DirtyBit's banned as well... so was he/she/it CoryJames or what?

Yes.


You'd be surprised how many people make duplicate accounts.

Just today somebody registered 6 new accounts under the same IP... Can't spell troll more clearly than that.

Funny that this thread is still active

What would be the point of closing it? Then someone would make a new thread and keep discussing the same thing, with added (misplaced) accusations of censorship...

And I do believe it is good that people discuss these issues, whether they agree or disagree with what moderators do. Input is appreciated, but as the ones responsible, we do reserve the right to make the final judgments.

Moderators should act like the police, (in most cases) acts. Without personal interference.

If personal dislike or disagreement were the basis of bannings, there would be a lot more.

Is the judgment that one member's actions are hampering the forum as a whole subjective? Yes. If you think there is a way of having an objective system that somehow does not destroy this forum's freedom with absurd rules, or a way to stop democratic systems from turning into mob rule and popularity contests or bogged down in eternal debate, then I'd be interested in knowing about your fantastic solutions to the issues of human communities.

Sometimes necessary decisions are unpopular—which is one of the problems of democracy—and they are not taken as lightly as you might think.

And if people must know—though it is hardly relevant to the discussion at hand—it was not me who banned him, but I agree fully with the decision to do so.

 

[Bird]

Kuu, I am so proud of the tact in your previous post.

 

[nexion]

So, was it ever decided what exactly a "slute" is? I think CoryJames explained it back on page 1, but I don't trust his definition.

 

[Lobstrich]

Is it just me or is anyone compelled to keep people off ignore? I can't bring myself to do it. I'm too curious of unseen phenomena.

Yes, I'm the same.

He's exerting his will from beyond the grave.

I don't think it was intentional, but it just shows how much power he had(rather, how arbitrary and bold he was) and how obsessed we are to still discuss the matter.

I'm not really obsessed with him, I don't really care about him, I never really noticed him unless I was reading a reply directed at me. But I have already stated the reason why I'm still in this thread.

 

[Lobstrich]

Is the judgment that one member's actions are hampering the forum as a whole subjective? Yes. If you think there is a way of having an objective system that somehow does not destroy this forum's freedom with absurd rules, or a way to stop democratic systems from turning into mob rule and popularity contests or bogged down in eternal debate, then I'd be interested in knowing about your fantastic solutions to the issues of human communities.

No, I believe 100% objectivity is impossible as well. But with X amount of very clear-cut rules. There is not really a need for objevtivity. Because the rules state what the rule state.

 

[Mello]

But not everyone find them annoying, so why ban them?

I love you too.

 

[onthewindowstand]

Seeing as how Cory James made this thread to welcome himself back into the forum, I think that it is best for us to now turn it into a place to talk about our memories of him. A forum memorial if you will.

 

[Lobstrich]

Seeing as how Cory James made this thread to welcome himself back into the forum, I think that it is best for us to now turn it into a place to talk about our memories of him. A forum memorial if you will.

Introduction/welcome threads are annoying

 

[onthewindowstand]

Be creative lobstrich!!

 

[Lobstrich]

Be creative lobstrich!!

Creative? I've never heard of such a word. Where did you find it?

 

[Yet]

Funny that this thread is still active

yep ... post mortem tribute

 

[nexion]

No, I believe 100% objectivity is impossible as well. But with X amount of very clear-cut rules. There is not really a need for objevtivity. Because the rules state what the rule state.

Contradiction for the win?

 

[Melllvar]

I hate to keep this thread going, but I did want to say that I for one appreciate the responses, Kuu (specifically DirtyBit and Animekitty). Thanks.

I love you too.

In case it wasn't obvious, the joke there was that the game warden was getting outsmarted by the raptors, not that I want to point shotguns at Minuend. Not sure if everyone has seen Jurassic Park as many times as I have.

 

[Lobstrich]

Contradiction for the win?

Not at all. When I said "100% Objetivity" I meant that a person is unable to not have subjective 'inteference'

But if the rules says "Do not punch people" Then it's very simple. Just don't hit people, there's no bending the rule, therere's no relativity. You are not allowed to hit people, period. Hence I said "The rules state what they state"

 

[Cavallier]

@ topic - I think banning a person just because said person is annoying, even though "this is not a democracy" isn't a valid reason. As a person already pointed out. Use the ignore list provided.

@ Bird/Cava - So if we all just went around and banned people, instead of just as easily ignoring them (While touting freedom of speech and open-mindedness, which is done in the rules of the forum)
I don't think there would be anyone left on the forum. I know a couple of people that I wouldn't mind banning, because they are annoying.

Ah, finally we are getting somewhere. You've finally developed an argument and you are progressing that argument. That's all I really wanted at this point. You've got the right to be upset about the actions taken toward Cory. Indeed continue with your discussion. The repetitive questions that had already been answered were giving me a head ache and I had hoped you were more intelligent.

Though I wonder that everybody has glomped onto the idea that he was banned just because he was irritating. Sure, he was very irritating but he also was causing/had caused some discord in multiple threads both recently and in the past. Perhaps we could consider the idea that since we are a community some level of peace and respect must be maintained. Perhaps it's not freedom of speech and open-mindedness that was being punished. Have we considered the idea that it was the way in which he presented his ideas that was causing problems? You could openly tell us you don't think child molestation isn't a crime and not get banned. We do have a thread about that which hasn't been closed or censored. How can anybody postulate that freedom of speech is being hampered when we have that thread? No. The format of speech is controlled. What your view points are is not controlled. How you express them is subject to decorum and being overtly rude isn't always tolerated.
Carry on.

 

[Lobstrich]

Ah, finally we are getting somewhere. You've finally developed an argument and you are progressing that argument. That's all I really wanted at this point. You've got the right to be upset about the actions taken toward Cory. Indeed continue with your discussion. The repetitive questions that had already been answered were giving me a head ache and I had hoped you were more intelligent.

Don't insult me please. Don't put the fact that you just couldn't be bothered to read what I said, onto me. I already gave arguements as to why I wanted to know. I even repeated them.

So as I said; Just because you don't read (or understand) what I said doesn't mean that I didn't bring any arguements to the table. It means that you didn't read (or understand) what I said.
And yes, I'm sligthly annoyed. I don't like being patronized.


EDIT: @ the rest of your post - I don't think you can claim freedom of speech just because it's okay to discuss child molestation. Then Burma can claim freedom of speech, because well. They are all allowed to talk about ice cream. 'freedom of speech' does not have a limit. It lies in the phrase itself 'freedom' It's not relative. If that was the case then every country in the world has freedom of speech since they are all allowed to talk about something.

Maybe he had delivered his opinions in a way which caused 'conflict' (I actually believe conflict is good) and was banned for that reason. But it's still a subjective thing. A rule saying "Don't cause conflict" Should not be a rule. Because who is to decide what is conflict and what is not? Which is why I'm saying that I think there should be some very clear-cut rules where there's not really an option to act subjective about it. Because the rule very clearly says "Do not punch people" If you punch people, it's out.

 

[Cavallier]

Why should I respect your desire to not be insulted? You insult members of this forum all the time.

I'm not entirely certain how I went from "why the hell do you guys care" to defending the banning. My very first post referring to why he was banned was mere postulation. After that I suppose I wanted to stand up for Kuu as Kuu has worked to maintain order around here.

I could see that this thread was devolving into the same old arguments over freedom of speech that they always turn into. That's why I tried to get out before this point. This thread has become emotional and pointless. I apologize for taking part in it.

Edit: I guess that's my way of backing out. I'm gonna go and stop caring now. I don't know why I climbed out of my usual emotionless state. Perhaps this is why I shouldn't.

 

[Lobstrich]

Why should I respect your desire to not be insulted? You insult members of this forum all the time.

Who have I insulted? In what ways have I insulted people? And lastly, could you give me some examples where I have insulted people?

 

[Kuu]

Perhaps it would be best to continue that line of conversation privately if you two so desire... it doesn't seem to be going in any good direction... and I'd rather not have to close this thread.

Hmkay?

 

[Lobstrich]

Perhaps it would be best to continue that line of conversation privately if you two so desire... it doesn't seem to be going in any good direction... and I'd rather not have to close this thread.

Hmkay?

I don't care if it's 'public' or private. So unless it's because you're telling us to continue it in private, I don't mind it either way.