Neckbeards temporary ban

[Seteleechete]

Spoiler

Not insulting you or anything, but...

Why use a self-portrait for your avatar? I know it's common for women to do things like that, but it just strikes me as a bit narcissistic.

Never intended or even crossed my mind as it being narcissistic but I see your point. Unlike your clever and friendly-to-a-wide-audience avatar, I myself am not as skilled at selecting the perfect avatar clearly..too many to choose from.. But I get it, its obviously pick on the new chick day around here. Guess I should work on changing my username, avatar, and growing a thicker skin.

Hey I didn't mean it that way!

m8 get out

I'm sorry my honesty offends you.

Neckbeard, if were being completely honest here, you seem like the type of person I would purposely go out of my way to avoid in a real life social situation. Are you sure you're not an ISTP? ISTJ? I know some real abrasive IST's. I'd look into that possibility.

Honestly, if me calmly telling you that your choice of avatar might give off the wrong impression offends you, then you have issues. Seriously.

When did I ever imply that I was offended? So you're allowed witty, sarcasm loaded comments, but as soon as I make them, I "have issues. Seriously"...alright

Wait, so that was sarcasm?

I have entertained the possibility that I am ISTP, I tend to act like one I admit, but I think INTP is what I am underneath.

So if you're an INTP underneath it all, try not sounding so intolerant. I come on here to put myself out there and first thing you do is take a shot. Look's real IST to me.

I didn't say it with that intention, I must have read what that guy said about the 92 and got the idea from that. But still, you could certainly toughen up a bit.

Once again, another shot at me. Is it actually at all humanly possible for you to not have the last word (insult in your case)? I'd explore the possibility of some ISTP, ISTJ forums, you'd likely fit in well with your crowd.

I think you might be a bit more F than T.

It's not about "taking a shot", it's about me being honest about the reasons why we are having this discussion, and attempting to fix the problem in a typical ISTP fashion.

yeah...alright buddy, you keep thinking that.

Well, I apologize that my avatar is so offensive to you and so exasperates your need to make side-bar comments regarding the narcissistic penchant I wasn't previously aware I had.

It doesn't offend me at all.

Don't put words into my mouth, girl.

The Gopher, it's fair that you speculate whether I could be an INFP. However, I think you would actually have to know me personally to know that I am absolutely not an F in the slightest. You do have to realize I've been pretty ganged up on so far throughout this thread and frankly, having a bunch of men (I'd assume the majority of you are men) take a stance that I am just bottom line overreacting/irrational isn't exactly a fun nor comfortable spot to be in. So am I going to go to an inferior place pretty damn quickly? you bet. Reverse the situation and attempt to empathize.. as difficult as I know that can be for a bunch of INTP's.

Victim complex much?

Wow.. it simply does not end with you does it..

Not until you stop making false accusations about me and my intentions.

You are right. She doesn't need to because they are obvious.

Grow a brain and stop assuming things.

I am not the assuming that a person could be narcissist just because she used her own image as an avatar.

I didn't. I brought it to her attention because it is a LITTLE BIT narcissistic, and may give off the wrong impression.

Jesus you are a piece of work. holy. Pretty convinced you are an 13 year old with absolutely nothing better to do but troll the shit out of everyone here.

You started it.

I think it just gives you that impression. I am honestly curious as to why.

Because you might want everyone to look at you?

Or the more likely, you simply don't care if everyone looks at you /=

Or the reality, where in this case you want everyone to be comfortable with you, revealing a low self-esteem.

ITT:

I'm done here, keep fishing for white knights OP.

I always manage to put my foot in it one way or another.

I didn't mean to upset the apple cart so much, I could have just not responded I guess. It upsets me intellectually when people misunderstand what I say.

So it goes then Latte.. I've had my "fun" on here.. if you can call it that. I'll leave you guys to do what you do. I've taken accountability for my actions, several times and have even personally and privately apologized to neckbeard.. Quite frankly, about had it up to here with this shit. Have at er'. Plenty out for the kill today.

Privately apologised? Bullshit.

More like privately insulted, Jesus Christ.

Neckbeard, I am curious if you felt a little uncertain about this before you posted it. Kind of like a little feeling of warning in the back of your mind that you just ignored. I do that sometimes. Actually I pissed someone off in another forum not that long ago.

Anyways everyone who goes on the offensive here on out is responsible their own actions regardless of who initiated it. I never really agreed with the 'well he started it' idea but it can be understandable during momentary blip of emotional upset.

I'm getting all my ducks in a row before the court ruling. I am thinking almost everyone here can plead temporary insanity. Except Latte because coffee is often to too reasonable in the morning.

Not really. I just believed it to be an accurate observation on my part.

What a mess...

1) Neckbeard has been temp banned for a two days for bashing a noob on her intro thread. This is absolutely unacceptable behaviour.

I protest Neckbeards temp ban, it seems highly unjustified. He might have been insensitive but his posts were mild(in comparison to the rest of the posts here) and his intentions inquisitive rather than malignant. I can also not see how he should have backed down, we questioned his opinion and he simply responded with what he thought.

He was being purposefully abrasive and aggressive towards someone for no just reason. A reasonable and mature person simply does not care if someone uses a real picture or whatever else. It is a good idea to not have this forum dictated by the lowest common denominator.

He was not being abrasive and aggressive for no reason, he was defending his question and his views. It was originally intended as a fairly light hearted question, though it was not taken as one and there was reasonable logic (though in my view faulty) behind asking the question.

One definitely defend their views without going full retard. He may have been virtuous and particularly naive in his questioning, though he still went full retard.

How did he go full retard? I read his replies again and I don't see it. Insensitivity is common here and though I see some of that in his questioning I don't really see how he attacks Kara. (Thinking her a feeler or narcissistic is not presented as particularly negative, it was very much observative or defensive)

I stated his behavior was abrasive and aggressive.

Hardly, it was defensive in response to critique, it was also extremely mild in comparison to the critique.

Intent is a very hard thing to judge over text, specially someone that is new. Sometimes the line between genuine curious inquiry and baiting/veiled insults is very thin, which makes things hard for moderators. The fact is that regardless of his intention, the conversation escalated to the point that he accused the OP of narcissism, low self-esteem and victimization, when OP was clearly upset about it, which qualifies as pointlessly abrasive and hostile. And he's just out for 2 days, it's not the end of the world.

I agree Kara's reaction to his comments was less than ideal, but it does take two to tango, and "they started it" is no defence to escalation. Like Proxy said, he didn't have to go full retard to defend his views. Let's assume for a moment that the accusations were true. Does telling a narcissist he's narcissist will really change him? Does telling a low-self esteem person they've got low-self esteem actually improve their self-esteem? No... you're just throwing stones at people, and people don't like that and are likely to react negatively, whether they deserve them or not. This is a place were people are presumably interested in psychology, yet somehow seem oblivious to pretty basic psychology...

And this is Kara's intro thread, I'm sure many would have felt equally justified in replying defensively if they were being inquired with seemingly loaded questions and mob-analyzed when you're introducing yourself. For the moment, she has the benefit of the doubt.


Yes please, let's give her some breathing room. Further temp-banning commentary will be split to its own thread in Crime and Punishment or in PM for those interested.

I do not see anything that warrants a temporary ban for Neckbeard, his initial statement was not necessarily offensive and his follow up statements though showing some offence(far from enough to warrant a temp ban in my opinion) were under-proportional compared to the responses. It is wrong to assume that he would be able to pick on the underlying signals like most did, especially on this forum. Neither does obliviousness warrant a ban. Furthermore defending your opinion should be allowed. The only thing that could potentially warrant a ban would be the victim post and I believe that warrants a warning at most.

Also I am posting about the principal of the matter(he should not be punished at all), I agree that 2 days ban is not a lot.

 

[Jennywocky]

It wasn't just that thread, and two days is, like, the shortest ban ever on any forum I've seen.

 

[Helvete]

Didn't see all the drama but maybe I'll grab some popcorn for it later. It seems though what's shown in this thread that Neckbeard's responses are excessive, unnecessarily offensive and doesn't offer much of a healthy first impression to a new user.
After such a negative response to the initial question - whatever the intentions, and the subsequent explanations, the subject should have been dropped, agreeing to your differences. But instead this escalated and carried on far too long. This continued after responses clearly crying out for you to stop. After failing to re explain yourself several times to your audience you tried different lines of attack.

A mod should have been present earlier to de escalate the situation and dish out a warning or whatever before a temp ban was necessary. But this is only an ideal situation as by no fault of the mods they are not omniscient.
My only problem here is that, especially for new users it isn't always clear who the mods are and when situations like this occur and help isn't readily offered from other users, it's unclear whether to turn for help or even where you could find help.
I know there is the mods page but apart from that the only reason you would know is from the experience of being here long enough.

So yeah, I agree with the ban. He was badly behaved but the cane should of done some disciplining first.

Please excuse me while I catch up on some reading.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Don't you think he would continue his defense which by the way of defending also made Kara react in kind? (One of them had to stop kind of situation)

It's only two days, I'm sure when he comes out of jail he will be the sweetest and most friendly person one could imagine.

I guess you feel personally involved and I'd say it's neither healthy nor safe to feel such involvement in the personal problems of two strangers. The arbitrary decisions on this forum are separate from your opinions and whether anyone survives depends mostly on their own desire to adapt to the whole, unless you'd like to argue otherwise.

 

[Lot]

Not another SJW. The forum is not a democracy. Get over it.

Can't you people go just a little while without ban drama?
People get banned. That's happens when people ignore the mod's warnings.

People with neckbeard's personality don't last long here anyways.

 

[StevenM]

It's the online version of "Big Brother". It doesn't have to make sense, it's all just meant for entertainment and amusement.

Cat-fight anyone?

 

[Cognisant]

What does and does not warrant a ban is ENTIRELY at the discretion of the moderators.

They have no responsibility to warn people.

As a member of this community if you see someone misbehaving you may take it upon yourself to warn them.

 

[Helvete]

What does and does not warrant a ban is ENTIRELY at the discretion of the moderators.

They have no responsibility to warn people.

As a member of this community if you see someone misbehaving you may take it upon yourself to warn them.

This surely depends on the aims of the mods.if this place got a reputation of people disappearing in the night with no warning or no reason why, then it would do nothing but discourage new and current users away from the forum. I don't believe this is in the mods interest.
If it is the case that the mods are here to uphold rules and push the ban button if people break them and have no other moderating interaction then all new users should already be explicitly aware of the rules and know the lay if the forum before they get started. Maybe forcing new users to read the rules section and accept during the registration process (I can't remember if this is a thing or not).
I suspect new people join st the moment and discover this is quite an open and relaxed forum and test the waters, often finding the boundaries where sometimes they'll cross and get burnt or sometimes see the limit and step back, all because this want clear from the beginning.

I agree that users should take it upon themselves to warn and help other users out.

 

[The Gopher]

This surely depends on the aims of the mods.if this place got a reputation of people disappearing in the night with no warning or no reason why, then it would do nothing but discourage new and would be a horrible misuse of power. I mean with the right moves people wouldn't realize people were disappearing.

Although I completely disagree, if it had that reputation people would sign up out of curiosity.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

This surely depends on the aims of the mods.if this place got a reputation of people disappearing in the night with no warning or no reason why, then it would do nothing but discourage new and would be a horrible misuse of power. I mean with the right moves people wouldn't realize people were disappearing.

Although I completely disagree, if it had that reputation people would sign up out of curiosity.

How would we know if people were disappearing?

 

[The Gopher]

We wouldn't! That's the point. The current team is doing an awful job of taking over the accounts of people they want to ban and then fading out of existence. Horrible misuse of power, not doing a proper job of manipulation. Tut tut they really need training.

 

[Brontosaurie]

lol at you people going "this is not a democracy", "you're free to leave, it's a privately owned site" et cetera. i think you misunderstand the whole thing. is it futile and irrational to submit feedback on policies and practices designed to create a better forum environment? no it's not you smartass fux. it's not about "rights". it's about efficiency and logistics in the management of a populace.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

We wouldn't! That's the point. The current team is doing an awful job of taking over the accounts of people they want to ban and then fading out of existence. Horrible misuse of power, not doing a proper job of manipulation. Tut tut they really need training.

Is there a future avenue where you could be leveraging your services in a training environment?

 

[The Gopher]

Well it is possible the mods will get tired of being portrayed as dystopian leaders and will allow me to be a mod to show people what it's really like. However I doubt that will happen somehow. Partly because I would do it so well that it would seem like a utopia.

 

[Seteleechete]

I didn't even notice that gopher, I actually like the mods here. I was just to pumped up yesterday and already lost interest in this topic /=(admittedly I still feel the ban was unjustified but meh w/e)

 

[Cognisant]

This surely depends on the aims of the mods.if this place got a reputation of people disappearing in the night with no warning or no reason why, then it would do nothing but discourage new and current users away from the forum. I don't believe this is in the mods interest.

Exactly, which is why they don't do that.

Bans are publicly declared, warnings are given multiple times, which is why I find any notion that the mods are misusing their power laughable.

Yet time and again the hysterical people speak up.

Anyone that thinks the mods are abusing their power has no idea what an abuse of power really is.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Exactly, which is why they don't do that.

Bans are publicly declared, warnings are given multiple times, which is why I find any notion that the mods are misusing their power laughable.

Yet time and again the hysterical people speak up.

Anyone that thinks the mods are abusing their power has no idea what an abuse of power really is.

the sanctions can be unwarranted and pointless even if warnings are dealt and procedure is transparent.

and no it's no biggie. it's not genocide. but it affects the way things happen on this forum we all like. the priorities and decisions can be improved. if you've got better stuff to care about, power to you.

 

[redbaron]

First sentence in the INTPforum General Rules

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

Works better that way.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I think it goes beyond reading mere faq's.

Call injustice and forget about what you said tomorrow.

 

[Brontosaurie]

First sentence in the INTPforum General Rules



Works better that way.

"members views are sought and welcomed"

do you read?

 

[Cognisant]

We hear you Bronto, but we mostly don't care or disagree.

If you take "welcomed" as entitlement to a sycophantic audience you're reading too much into it.

 

[Brontosaurie]

have this psycho-phant

aren't you mod-appeasers the actual sycophants here?

nah nevermind, you don't have to make sense because you "don't care". so you won't. and yet here you are, caring.

 

[Cognisant]

Oh no I care.

About the forum, not you.

 

[Kuu]

I actually like the mods here.

[bimgx=300]http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/270/623/337.gif[/bimgx]

the sanctions can be unwarranted and pointless even if warnings are dealt and procedure is transparent.

Our power is limited to a small toolset. What would you have us do?


Cog, Bronto... keep it civilized.

 

[Grayman]

I thought were going to debate on Neckbeard's ethics and behavior not on the power hungry administration. Not that I don't love a little conspiracy myself once in a while.

 

[Latte]

With the "thou shalt not wreck the feelings of a newcomer" rule in mind.

I personally think neckbeard had enough of a scare through the OP painting him as basically Sauron and several people backing that (though most of those quickly realized the situation wasn't quite as they first judged).

@(hi)Cherry Cola knew he stepped out of line before hitting the submit button on the first post and was basically asking for a tempban.

Often, even if one is sure about the nature of a person, it can be very unwise to be direct and overtly aggressive about it, especially when it is not a consensus view in a community, however romantic it might feel to "bravely speak one's mind".

Considering I find the likelihood of future events spinning out of control from similarly mild pokes in the future, and the "counter-aggression" far outweighed the "initial aggression" in magnitude (as far as neckbeard is concerned), it does leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, I must admit.

That said, 2 days is relatively trivial. I was more diplomatic in my language, but if I had recieved a tempban too, I would have understood. It has more to do with molding the behavior of the general forum populace through emphasizing the importance of the norm of how to treat newcomers by being strict in events of deviancy from that norm, rather than prioritizing the specific circumstances of the event.

Neckbeard being percieved as a troublemaker of sorts probably added to it. Personally I've interpreted the majority of his pokes and such in previous instances as rather mild, restrained, and primarily to be attempts at humor, though I haven't really read all his posts, and I can understand if the ones I have read are seen as unsettling if one interprets his personality and feelings to be in certain ways. Still kind of sad about it though. Meh, c'est la vie.

 

[redbaron]

"members views are sought and welcomed"

do you read?

I guess you missed the point. I'll be more specific.

is it futile and irrational to submit feedback on policies and practices designed to create a better forum environment?

It's futile and irrational to belabor the point because whilst members' views are sought and welcomed, they do not decide the administration of the forum.

it's about efficiency and logistics in the management of a populace.

Of which member's views about do not decide the administration of the forum.

the priorities and decisions can be improved.

Not by arguing over people's views. As an example of why this is the case and why it should stay the case, we'll just use this thread as a case study.

> Seteleechete thinks Neckbeard shouldn't have been banned at all, on the principle that he hasn't really done that much wrong based on his interpretation on how a forum should operate.
> I personally think he should have just been permabanned, on the principle that he's a real nuisance based on my interpretation of how a forum should operate.

We could argue ad nauseam about the subject but we'd never really come to a clear conclusion. In the end he's still going to think his way is the better way for the forum and I'll think my way is the better way for the forum.

There's nothing wrong with having the debate for the sake of having a debate, but it's totally pointless to have a debate of conflicting views to try and improve moderator decisions because this is not a democracy. Member's views do not decide the administration of the forum.

So if your goal is to try and improve policy, decision-making and forum environment, it's futile and irrational to go about it by arguing over opinions.

 

[Brontosaurie]

wow that's gross.

i'm not spending my calories no further.

 

[redbaron]

:'(

 

[TBerg]

Cherry works with preexisting material. He actually had the good sense to take a break from the posting by requesting the ban.

 

[Grayman]

With the "thou shalt not wreck the feelings of a newcomer" rule in mind.

I personally think neckbeard had enough of a scare through the OP painting him as basically Sauron and several people backing that (though most of those quickly realized the situation wasn't quite as they first judged).

@(hi)Cherry Cola knew he stepped out of line before hitting the submit button on the first post and was basically asking for a tempban.

Often, even if one is sure about the nature of a person, it can be very unwise to be direct and overtly aggressive about it, especially when it is not a consensus view in a community, however romantic it might feel to "bravely speak one's mind".

Considering I find the likelihood of future events spinning out of control from similarly mild pokes in the future, and the "counter-aggression" far outweighed the "initial aggression" in magnitude (as far as neckbeard is concerned), it does leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, I must admit.

That said, 2 days is relatively trivial. I was more diplomatic in my language, but if I had recieved a tempban too, I would have understood. It has more to do with molding the behavior of the general forum populace through emphasizing the importance of the norm of how to treat newcomers by being strict in events of deviancy from that norm, rather than prioritizing the specific circumstances of the event.

Neckbeard being percieved as a troublemaker of sorts probably added to it. Personally I've interpreted the majority of his pokes and such in previous instances as rather mild, restrained, and primarily to be attempts at humor, though I haven't really read all his posts, and I can understand if the ones I have read are seen as unsettling if one interprets his personality and feelings to be in certain ways. Still kind of sad about it though. Meh, c'est la vie.

I agree. Honestly if it wasn't an intro thread and she wasn't new I think his and her situation would have come out differently. I think newcomers deserve a little caution so that we might be able treat them appropriately.

As far as Neckbeard goes. Associating someone even indirectly with a title that is generally considered distasteful is unwise. It is more acceptable on this forum and we are used to such comments here but if this were done on the street to random stranger 9 times out of 10 the reaction would have been the same.

What was really distasteful was that he exhibited signs of sexism toward women and also based on appearance.

His mind went to narcissist in association to her avatar which was a picture of her, and the fact that he never specifically said she was a narcissist is irrelevant to that point. Further it is doubtful that had a man or a less attractive person posted their picture he would have gone there. Now this is speculation at first but he goes as far to accuse her of white knighting setting into stone his point of view.

I would say he warned her of possible judgments that would occur do her avatar because he saw those potential judgments within himself and when things got rough he couldn't contain them.

Sadly I don't think she did herself a service by her reactions. But I hope things go better in the future and I hope people are a little more careful in their approach. Then again, approach for many here isn't something that comes easy.

It is a mess no matter what is done but at least we can agree to clean up most of the dirt when we spill. I would say that she didn't make it any easier for Neckbeard to clean up the mess and kept dumping more on. The MBTI Typing only made things worse. Could I held together emotionally in Neckbeards situation and gotten things calmed down? Maybe not. I reserve judgement toward Neckbeard as an individual and have lost no respect for him. I do, however, think he needed to be set apart from the issue so that things could settle down and a 2 day ban was probably just that. I also think he needs to reconsider his position on people using selfies as avatars. I don't think most people would come think it hints 'narcissist'.

 

[Pyropyro]

I'm fine with the banning.
Ideally people should simply back off and get a breather. However, Neckbeard seems to be not keen to de-escalate things. I think we shouldn't put up with that kind of behavior.

Honestly, this seems to be a case of negging.

 

[Pizzabeak]

So whatsherface was able to just delete her account?

 

[punchinelli]

I recently joined and saw all of the Neckbeard drama and the first thing I thought of is, "that guy is an absolute asshole." His posts were the absolute definition of "trolling." Ban him for life - INTPs are better than that.

 

[Brontosaurie]

he was harmless. as Latte observed, his posts mainly consisted of restrained comical cynicism that didn't infringe on anyone, as it was mostly kept to himself. he wasn't a mean presence, and it takes a lot of willpower to skew the picture that way. he was just clumsy, once. even then, he didn't continue to push his view and was clearly as apologizing as one can be without surrendering the point made. and you can't demand that one retract ones position. he would have been wise to shut up, sure, but if superficial tact was to decide consistently, this forum would dwindle fast.

no one cares if we have two days without that dude, but this ban illustrates a habitual bias among the moderators in favor of the whining and histrionic, as well as a reluctance to read between the lines and size up a situation. a moderator might ask,"what were we supposed to do then?" and the answer of course is "nothing".

there are a lot of nastier characters around, myself included. OrLevitate was a warranted ban, for example. that was a person with malicious intent. neckbeard ban is just a scapegoat, a sacrifice on the altar of fuzzy feely bland politeness.

 

[TBerg]

Are you projecting virtue upon Neckbeard, Bronto?

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

@bronto
i think grayman's post nicely sums up the situation. kara's reaction blew things out of proportion, she got unnecessarily worked up when accused of being a feeler and the way she flung the word sensor at neckbeard seemed to imply negative connotation
but
had neckbeard not made his unnecessarily negative comment in the first place, none of this would have happened(obviously).
-we all know he probably wouldn't have made that post had the the OP been a male or unattractive.
-he should have been able to see that his remark was not appreciated by the OP and backed down. instead, he chose to continue the pointless exchange.

"without surrendering the point one made"?
let us not forget that that entire episode was personal in nature and therefore it is only normal to expect that he backs down when his remarks are not received well.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Are you projecting virtue upon Neckbeard, Bronto?

wouldn't say virtue but he didn't do anything particularly wrong. seemed like a relaxed guy to me. the reason i care isn't neckbeard himself or even the ban but the standard defense by appeal to authority which was here brought up by Lot, Cognisant and redbaron. i mean what's even the use for that? except sycophantic appeasing. gets even more fucked up when Cognisant somehow manages to accuse the opposition of sycophantism. this bothers me a lot. people who go and be smartasses by being dumb and boring.

@zerkalo: i agree he didn't conduct himself optimally. people rarely do. debates and remarks often escalate. since when do we ban people for things other than spam, continuous wickedness or obnoxious stupidity?

 

[Seteleechete]

There's nothing wrong with having the debate for the sake of having a debate, but it's totally pointless to have a debate of conflicting views to try and improve moderator decisions because this is not a democracy. Member's views do not decide the administration of the forum.

So if your goal is to try and improve policy, decision-making and forum environment, it's futile and irrational to go about it by arguing over opinions.

what? even if you decide to not change anything there seems nothing wrong with debating the decision or giving my view on the situation. If you change something because of the debate - cool. If not - it becomes a debate for the sake of having a debate. Yes it is clear that the final decision is in your hands not mine, but I am still going to express my view on the situation and try to influence that decision/view behind the decision. In return people on the other side of the debate try to influence my view by giving counter arguments.

 

[Brontosaurie]

but it's an opinion only!

ask redbaron nicely and he'll be glad to supply you with some relevant _facts_, certified opinion-free!

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

since when do we ban people for things other than spam, continuous wickedness or obnoxious stupidity?

you are right, people have gotten away with worse before.
what sets this case apart is that the OP is a newbie, and also...i guess the mods would have been more reluctant to ban neckbeard if his posting history contained more substantial contribution to the forum(which isnt the case from what ive seen)

 

[Pyropyro]

you are right, people have gotten away with worse before.
what sets this case apart is that the OP is a newbie, and also...i guess the mods would have been more reluctant to ban neckbeard if his posting history contained more substantial contribution to the forum(which isnt the case from what ive seen)

I've searched some of his posts on other threads aside from the Introit one. Let's just say his view on women is quite negative and leave it at that.

 

[Jennywocky]

^^ I'm still trying to determine whether "neckbeard" is a literal representation of his views or some sardonic parody meant to mock neckbeards. I'm not sure. But hooray, in another few hours we'll get to find out!

 

[Seteleechete]

I've searched some of his posts on other threads aside from the Introit one. Let's just say his view on women is quite negative and leave it at that.

Huh, I find this a far more acceptable reason.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

I've searched some of his posts on other threads aside from the Introit one. Let's just say his view on women is quite negative and leave it at that.

yeah
i havent been active on here much this past week, but i did notice a couple of posts by him before the kara episode and sort of identified him as a negative presence

 

[Brontosaurie]

^^ I'm still trying to determine whether "neckbeard" is a literal representation of his views or some sardonic parody meant to mock neckbeards. I'm not sure. But hooray, in another few hours we'll get to find out!

bet it's both

 

[Rook]

It's always so entertaining when someone gets banned or conflict arises.
Suddenly, the forum is awash with activity and semi-intellectual discussions.

Ban us all one by one at random, I say.
The forum shall prosper, until it blazes out in a bright bang, a brilliant supernova which reverberates throughout the whole internet.

Then we get someone to set up the forum split, start anew, wait a few years, and repeat the process.

 

[TBerg]

A renaissance would require a pseudo-intellectual punching festival prior to its advent.

 

[redbaron]

what? even if you decide to not change anything there seems nothing wrong with debating the decision or giving my view on the situation.

I never said there was.

Just that if you're making this thread to try and change how things are done, you may as well save yourself the frustration.

the standard defense by appeal to authority

Not an appeal to authority since we're not even arguing about whether or not the ban is justified. Just pointing out the reality that if you're doing it because you want to improve policy, just save yourself the trouble because it's already a lost battle.

Also I find it curious that you're saying your goal here is to improve policy, but then you're getting angry about people who're discussing forum policies?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Even worse/better than that. This recurrent discussion proves the ineffectiveness of democracy or external opinions to govern this little system.