The banning of BAP

[Grayman]

The issues he raised weren't really that difficult to understand and they were all explained to him multiple times in multiple different ways by multiple users. Maybe you're right and he really was as oblivious as you're saying. If that's the case then he's just irreconcilably stupid.

I don't know which one BAP would find a bigger insult. Being called manipulative or moronic.

If manipulation was his goal he was very very bad at it. The results speak for this. Either way, using your form of speech, he would be a stupid manipulator.

Personally, I am not calling him moronic or stupid as these are just catch all words and are insulting while disregarding the real issue he is facing. He is not stupid or moronic. He has good posts and says things I agree with and thoughts that require a good measure of intelligence. I am saying he lacks a certain understanding of social dynamics. Not everyone is capable of understanding the complexity of various individuals in all aspects.

Certain aspects of social rules and consequences elude me too. My understanding of why shock images are bad and what a shock image is and how it affects others is beyond my ability to grasp. I cannot even identify what a shock image is. I have committed an offense against this forum because of this inefficiency. I have attempted to question and pursue an understanding to fully grasp this concept but I am left blind and with the fear of committing the same act again. I have seen BAP suffer this line of thought and go through the same search for understanding on other social aspects. I have seen him question and question and question hoping to define these social concepts so that he may not commit the same offenses. I have gone through it and so I recognize it.
From the perception of others, at first, I was simply making excuses and was unable to let go of being reprimanded and wanting to debate it for those reasons. In truth I had a hole in my understanding that could not be filled and it was an irritation and provided me with a fear of falling prey to the same inadequacies and the same ignorance of social rules and concepts. It may seem obvious to others what a shock image is and it may be easy to make claim that I am stupid because I do not understand but that is oversimplification. I know I am not stupid. I simply have limits in certain areas.

It would be best if those limits were accepted and understood but that is not within the limits of everyone else to do so. In the end I simply avoid posting images.

The solution for BAP is equally obvious if he is willing to accept it.

 

[The Gopher]

That is not accurate. You give BAP too much credit to being so capable of manipulation and malicious intent.

No I disagree I think he was hopeless at manipulation I was making a joke at the general emotional incompetance of the forum. Unfortunately I didn't make it clear enough which is mildly ironic considering I should have been able to make it clear if I was competent myself.

 

[doncarlzone]

This forum is much like The Sopranos, you can always rest assured that the annoying characters get whacked eventually.

The mods are just maintaining the forum as any decent forum should be.

 

[Minuend]

BAP wasn't manipulating, he was acting from butthurtness. He could never let go certain things, but since he got warnings from the mods, he had to talk indirectly about the issues and people he had problems with. He might have thought it would have flown under the radar, that the mods couldn't pin him with any offense because he wasn't being direct.

I didn't really learn anything from reading BAP's and Variform's posts. They might be above average in intelligence, but there was no new thought or insight I could gain anything from. And I know some people who I do think has the ability to contribute in that way, who would shy away from threads. And like someone said earlier. Having 8 variforms on a forum is okay for those who want endless discussions of those kinds, but that will set a very different tone for a community. One which will attract some and repel others. (As a side note; one could ask oneself if Variform would have been as tempted to stay if he encountered 7 others upon arrival who would as meticulously attack him as he did others).

Giving everyone a free pass, having high tolerance, low tolerance. These are all set a standard for what people will leave and who will stay. You will lose some whatever you choose.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I think he grasped it perfectly fine and you just don't have the composition to stand behiind your bullshit.

Play nice, kitten. Seems you misunderstood too. I likened Bap Jr's behavior to Bap Sr's because, as I see it, it's near on identical. It was an encouragement and a warning. Keep the free thinking going, but don't be a dick about.

You remember when Da Blob was banned, yes? Then you would have noticed the beginnings of the end, as it were. When Bap Sr changed.

 

[Cherry Cola]

He also Wall of texted a lot. Not that I mind long posts if they need to be long.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Who are these hookers? You can't recruit them on my turf, or you have to pay a fee.

Sure, sure. But there's more profit in a partnership. Think it over.

 

[Grayman]

BAP wasn't manipulating, he was acting from butthurtness. He could never let go certain things, but since he got warnings from the mods, he had to talk indirectly about the issues and people he had problems with. He might have thought it would have flown under the radar, that the mods couldn't pin him with any offense because he wasn't being direct.

I didn't really learn anything from reading BAP's and Variform's posts. They might be above average in intelligence, but there was no new thought or insight I could gain anything from. And I know some people who I do think has the ability to contribute in that way, who would shy away from threads. And like someone said earlier. Having 8 variforms on a forum is okay for those who want endless discussions of those kinds, but that will set a very different tone for a community. One which will attract some and repel others. (As a side note; one could ask oneself if Variform would have been as tempted to stay if he encountered 7 others upon arrival who would as meticulously attack him as he did others).

Giving everyone a free pass, having high tolerance, low tolerance. These are all set a standard for what people will leave and who will stay. You will lose some whatever you choose.

I don't think BAP is relatable to varifrom in turning people away. He mostly caused irritation toward certain individuals but not on a whole. There are certain people we just don't get along with because we don't really understand eachother and we see things so differently and we misunderstand what is going on in the head of the other person. This is inevitable with anyone. BAP was not very good at avoiding pushing the buttons of those individuals.

As for contributing... He made 39 threads this year and I'd say an average response was 25 posts including the ones that dead aand the ones that spanned over 200. His removal will the loss of future threads and opportunities for others to reply.

In researching, lookingfor threads created by him, I saw one suggestion to the moderators about thread closings, an attempt at understanding how to appropriately talk about members on this forum, and an apology to the moderators. I have spent a lot of time on this and have found no threads indicating an attack on the mods, not even sneakily. At this point it seems as if the mods were just too sore from the past to be able to handle anything BAP said about them or the operation of this forum.

Talking about other people is an issue I've wondered about for some time ... specifically people on this Forum. People freely talk about themselves. Not a problem, in fact encouraged. But what about other people? It's done frequently (I don't have ready examples at the moment) and without asking permission. I'm wondering what are the conditions for which we can talk about our fellow forum members* without asking permission? I'm not talking about going too far where a moderator has to step in. I'm talking limits, both complimentary and critical. Sometimes a poster can say or do things not in his or her self-interest or interest of the Forum ... things for which we feel relatively neutral or just want to be of service. What do we do in this case?

*Contrast this with someone who is not a member or is absent or is a famous person who may no longer be alive.

I didn't particularly want to post anything while I was in Siberia. The reason would be lack of freedom if one thing led to another. I do have to ask myself why I was sent here. I can try to answer but wonder how much I will fall short.

Being a "nuisance" might be true but doesn't help unless I know how. My best conclusion at present is I was guilty of invading other's personal space. That fits. Assuming that covers the reason, I would still have to ask myself what would motivate me to do it?

Spoiler

Know thyself.

Possibilities for doing that could be (1) hostility toward others, (2) complaining about being a victim, (3) extroversion or (4) anything else people suggested. (1) and (2) don't fit. If I was complaining about something it would be lack of freedom. Invading others space would be a destructive freedom I wasn't aware of.

My current explanation which fits is: underneath I wanted to solve problems ... why things went wrong ... and to help make this a better place by fixing things. In other words, my intentions were good, my methods sucked. (I wonder if everyone doesn't have that motive to some degree.) Why I might unconsciously be motivated to do this is clued by giving some of my personal history growing up. I will do that at some point.

One thing is I went about this in the wrong way ... or it turned out after the fact it was wrong. I had the wrong idea to go about improving and fixing things by thinking from specific to general instead of starting general and letting people draw their own conclusions. By starting with specifics I stepped on people toes. I left out my Ni general vision.

 

[redbaron]

None of this has to do with why BAP was banned (which has been explained multiple times), so what's your point?

 

[Hawkeye]

None of this has to do with why BAP was banned (which has been explained multiple times), so what's your point?

Actually it does. It directly relates to the reason he was banned as shown in the Bans thread. What reason do you think he was banned for (regardless of how many times it's been mentioned)?

 

[Cherry Cola]

He was banned because he was obstinate as fuck which Greymans post didn't mention.

 

[Cavallier]

BAP was cool.

And now there are 8 pages of irrelevant things on a thread dedicated to him.

Let him die in peace.

Yes. Agreed. I think it's time we all moved on now. Take a breather. Let it go.

 

[Hawkeye]

Until the next time.

Spoiler

Unless it's me. ^^

 

[The Gopher]

LET IT GOOOO! THE COLD NEVER BOTHERED ME ANYWAAAAAAAAAAAY!

 

[Hawkeye]

LET IT GOOOO! THE COLD NEVER BOTHERED ME ANYWAAAAAAAAAAAY!

My respect for you has been wounded deeply because of this. Shame on you!

 

[Jennywocky]

In b4 "Let it goooo...."
Wait. What??? *doh*

 

[Grayman]

He was banned because he was obstinate as fuck which Greymans post didn't mention.

That is because my argument is that he has not been obstinate after his formal apology as I have quoted for you below. He was making attempts to work things out with Cav but failed for whatever reason and he was attacked by a mod in the "threadclosings" thread while BAP remained kind and gentle all the while. The issue was not that BAP did not change but that no one could accept or notice he had changed. He lacked the ability to resolve it and climb out of the quicksand.

 

[Cavallier]

This is devolving. I see one guy making an argument and the crowd is lining up to throw tomatoes.

I'm closing the thread now. Nothing left to see here folks. Move along.