Moved: Conversation with wonkavision

[redbaron]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

In all honesty I don't really care if people are preachy in their own threads. The only thing that I find irritating is when they become so prominent and start doing it in threads unrelated to their chosen issue.

Even though I'm the first to jump down the throats of people like Janus, Gargamelo, Wonka. I don't really see them as disruptive so long as they're contained to their own threads. Having them banned does seem like a knee-jerk reaction - which even though I understand and ultimately doesn't me, I do agree with crippli in that it feels like more of a long-term loss to have them banned.

I actually find it much more tiring to deal with people who turn multiple threads into part of their personal problem with another user, as it deters me from wanting to contribute to that thread anymore.

I've been reluctant to bring this up because so many people here have ragingly reactive anti-authority boners, and seem to be frothing at the lips just to take a stab at the moderators, but I do think there's something to be said for this rule:

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)

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

I'm sorry you have enough knowledge of that to field questions. Lol. I think I'm scarred for life, myself.

yuppers. It's like a rabid tar baby.

I only bothered coming back in today to get an "inb4 close" post.

INB4 CLOSE!

I know what is being said here or if I don't know for sure I'll bet I'm close. SOME religious people can be cruel. In a family situation to tear apart the family and say one is being disowned and can never partake in the family again simply because one is a non- believer while the rest of the family believes, is a terrible thing. It's a tragedy.

Is it no wonder that such pain can bring one to hate all believers who try to duplicate this disowning process? Is it any wonder one can come to be immune or hardened to the feelings of those who would even think of being sympathetic to such believers?

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Even though I'm the first to jump down the throats of people like Janus, Gargamelo, Wonka. I don't really see them as disruptive so long as they're contained to their own threads. Having them banned does seem like a knee-jerk reaction - which even though I understand and ultimately doesn't me, I do agree with crippli in that it feels like more of a long-term loss to have them banned.

Well, the others maybe... but I think wonka had stopped participating altogether in forum discussion EXCEPT to start preaching. He was just using this forum as his "prophet in the wilderness" perch, he wasn't freely participating in the exchange of ideas or engaging under the same tacit agreement we all make when we join a discussion forum.

He used to actually be a decent, fun guy; I knew him a few years ago on other forums, and he was "normal" and would contribute to a variety of conversations. I liked him. I'm not sure what happened to him to result in this kind of one-dimensional behavior. I'm also sure if he had more variance in his posting style, he wouldn't have been banned.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

I'm not sure what happened to him to result in this kind of one-dimensional behavior.

So if he changed, did he say why? Given he was a different person a time ago, what brought about this change? Did he meet someone who warned him? Preached to him? Have a private revelation? Did his brain change?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Well, the others maybe... but I think wonka had stopped participating altogether in forum discussion EXCEPT to start preaching. He was just using this forum as his "prophet in the wilderness" perch, he wasn't freely participating in the exchange of ideas or engaging under the same tacit agreement we all make when we join a discussion forum.

He used to actually be a decent, fun guy; I knew him a few years ago on other forums, and he was "normal" and would contribute to a variety of conversations. I liked him. I'm not sure what happened to him to result in this kind of one-dimensional behavior. I'm also sure if he had more variance in his posting style, he wouldn't have been banned.

Gave me troll vibes before then, but the transformation into a preacher just made it indefensible.

I am not sure whether this affected his behavior, or was his intention all along, but if I recall right, he adopted and promoted pod'lair soon after he signed up here.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

I had a girlfriend once. She adopted one belief after another. I just humored her. Every once in a while I got laid.

Could it be people are like that?

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

There was nothing wrong with his preaching.

He had his view and some people didn't like it, but rather than leave it at that, they attempted to debunk his reasonings fruitlessly, irritating themselves further in the process.

In effect, they were trolling themselves.

 

[The Void]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

So if he changed, did he say why? Given he was a different person a time ago, what brought about this change? Did he meet someone who warned him? Preached to him? Have a private revelation? Did his brain change?

He mentioned something about having something near about divine revelation.

Spoiler

PS: I was born a hindu. I had a special spiritual thirst. I worshipped pictures. I believed I was praying to some one God. But the hinduism (the mundane version followed by public) is poletheistic, but some instinct in me believed in monotheism. And then one morning, when I was about to go to Karate class, I opened the TV, and I was introduced to christianity. That changed my life. I still worshipped pictures thinking I was worshipping the one christian God. But strangely enough I found a friend who was also christian (and also a martial artist like me) (it is pretty rare to find a christian like that in my place). Well that friend is pretty intelligent. Christian faith is indeed more logical that the hinduism followed by the public (not talking about deep philosophies of hinduism which are unknown to most hindus LoL). But that point is, it was all too weird co-incidental...as if a real God was directing me, a supernatural force, answering my thirst for knowledge of the beyond, beyond death, life. But the same force (if it even exists) leaded me to pure uncertainty through infinite belief systems.

May be something like that happened to him too.

Spoiler

It is high chance, that the world is mental. And omnipotence (approx) is possible. I had experienced some things.

Spoiler

But in the end it doesn't really matters

There was nothing wrong with his preaching.

He had his view and some people didn't like it, but rather than leave it at that, they attempted to debunk his reasonings fruitlessly, irritating themselves further in the process.

In effect, they were trolling themselves.

I love trolling myself. Making alternate accounts and then troll myself. Those were some good days.

 

[Reluctantly]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

There was nothing wrong with his preaching.

He had his view and some people didn't like it, but rather than leave it at that, they attempted to debunk his reasonings fruitlessly, irritating themselves further in the process.

In effect, they were trolling themselves.

When someone ignores the reasoning of others and then uses only their own reasoning to judge them, there's a problem. His views could have been easy to accept had he not decided it meant everyone else's were wrong. It befuddles me then that you suggest the problem was that everyone else couldn't accept his view(s) when that's not what seemed to happen at all.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

When someone ignores the reasoning of others and then uses only their own reasoning to judge them, there's a problem. His views could have been easy to accept had he not decided it meant everyone else's were wrong. It befuddles me then that you suggest the problem was that everyone else couldn't accept his view(s) when that's not what seemed to happen at all.

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts.

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Well, the others maybe... but I think wonka had stopped participating altogether in forum discussion EXCEPT to start preaching. He was just using this forum as his "prophet in the wilderness" perch, he wasn't freely participating in the exchange of ideas or engaging under the same tacit agreement we all make when we join a discussion forum.

He used to actually be a decent, fun guy; I knew him a few years ago on other forums, and he was "normal" and would contribute to a variety of conversations. I liked him. I'm not sure what happened to him to result in this kind of one-dimensional behavior. I'm also sure if he had more variance in his posting style, he wouldn't have been banned.

It sucks that in real life we cannot just ban annoying people from our sights with the mere click of a button. I didn't agree to anything tacitly nor untacitly. I clicked through the "agree to forum rules" same as I do for the software license agreement "check here" boxes. I reference this because I'm assuming nobody really reads the rules until one is accused of breaking one. Thus, there does not really exist a contract between any two persons-- until you try to justify the reasons for getting rid of the person.

I remember my time in the fraternity. Bids (offers for membership) were first voted on per rushee, via majority rule-- rushees who received over 50% yays were given a bid. There was a way to "save" a rushee who didn't get a bid. If an active member really wanted this kid and would vouch for him, the active could claim the rushee as his little bro and assume the liability.

I liked this system, because even if 99% of the fraternity thought someone was a tool, but one member was willing to take a stand up for him, he could still get a bid. It was sort of a protection against mob mentality.

 

[Reluctantly]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

No need to get butt-hurt now.

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

When someone ignores the reasoning of others and then uses only their own reasoning to judge them, there's a problem. His views could have been easy to accept had he not decided it meant everyone else's were wrong. It befuddles me then that you suggest the problem was that everyone else couldn't accept his view(s) when that's not what seemed to happen at all.

If the mere presence of someone's opinion on the internet can cause you that much anxiety, maybe you should explore the psychiatrist's office, rather than waste your time debating the justification for the removal of his/her presence.

 

[Reluctantly]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

That post was referring to how Hawkeye deduced that the irritation was not primarily caused by Wonka, but those arguing with him. I however, never found him irritating, but understood why others would.

Anyway, this is a forum for discussion and I didn't understand Hawkeye's position at all. I kind of hoped he/she would have justified it in some manner. Other than that, I don't actually care much about this as a whole.

 

[BigApplePi]

My solution U don't hav 2 take it

If the mere presence of someone's opinion on the internet can cause you that much anxiety, maybe you should explore the psychiatrist's office, rather than waste your time debating the justification for the removal of his/her presence.

I told my psychiatrist someone had an opinion on the internet and that was causing me much anxiety. Could he help me? He said, "Wait I'll see." He did. He went to the internet and found people's opinions gave him much anxiety. Now he has to see his own psychiatrist. He offered to return my money saying he couldn't help me. I refused and told him to stay off the internet and charged him his fee for the advice. Now that I've found others are like me I've given up my anxiety and become a psychiatrist myself.

My office hours are 3am to 4am daily except Sunday where I take off for prayer and worship.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

It sucks that in real life we cannot just ban annoying people from our sights with the mere click of a button. I didn't agree to anything tacitly nor untacitly. I clicked through the "agree to forum rules" same as I do for the software license agreement "check here" boxes. I reference this because I'm assuming nobody really reads the rules until one is accused of breaking one. Thus, there does not really exist a contract between any two persons-- until you try to justify the reasons for getting rid of the person.

Maybe a review of group dynamics would help? In any relationship, whether loose or tightly bound, there are certain tacit assumptions about the kind of discourse that people will accept. you're free to act however you want, but if your behavior is not tolerable, then people will stop talking to you... and if your behavior creates enough problems, whoever has authority to police the group can also intervene. (of course, "trolls" are one exception to that rule, because people don't want to talk to trolls, but trolls know how to push their buttons to create worthless conversation and derail energy from what could be constructive... so the natural "everyone ignores you" form of selection here ends up being broken and the troll can run free.)

I had Wonka on Ignore for a long time, so it's not a huge deal aside from the fact that I'm really sick of going into a thread that could have been productive and instead is full of blank "Ignore" messages + people quoting Wonka + conversation that could have been a mature discourse revolving around why we are all going to hell and why people thought Wonka was wrong. This is a case where productive discourse is being derailed regardless of who has someone on Ignore, and where you can't escape it anyway. It's also a case where it's obvious the guy didn't give a shit about people on the forum or approach them as people, he just approached them as targets for his religious conversion. Why invest so much energy on someone who was obviously here to take rather than contribute? Why not fight for a better member who might have been banned, if you feel like taking this route? Honestly, even Blob was a little more constructive than Wonka.

I liked this system, because even if 99% of the fraternity thought someone was a tool, but one member was willing to take a stand up for him, he could still get a bid. It was sort of a protection against mob mentality.

I can see a smidgen of value in that, as a failsafe; on the other hand, who wants to be part of a fraternity where 99% of the membership did not want them in the group? And why do you assume that the 1% / one member's opinion is correct regarding the potential pledge, whereas the 99% are likely to just reflect a "mob mentality"? I can actually see a lot more of the opposite kind of abuse: That one person can end up derailing what the majority actually agrees on, rather how filibusters are abused in government, and the large group will just be a bunch of little fiefdoms where people don't talk because lots of people are members who others don't identify with.

You seem to just assume that if something bothers a number of people, they must be the ones at fault. Is that an accurate understanding of your attitude towards groups in general?

Anyway, getting back to the matter at hand: Again, if Wonka had actually entered a dialogue with people, he would have been engaged and no one would have been upset, but the guy didn't actually want to learn and grow and exchange ideas (which I think is a tacit rule of most groups, especially an INTP group), he just wanted to tell people they were going to hell and convert them. It seems naive to try to frame him any other way. Because of his preaching style, you couldn't even LEARN anything from him, he never really properly justified his arguments so that people could learn something and understand his perspective.

 

[Reluctantly]

Re: My solution U don't hav 2 take it

Now that I've found others are like me I've given up my anxiety and become a psychiatrist myself.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Anyway, getting back to the matter at hand: Again, if Wonka had actually entered a dialogue with people, he would have been engaged and no one would have been upset, but the guy didn't actually want to learn and grow and exchange ideas (which I think is a tacit rule of most groups, especially an INTP group), he just wanted to tell people they were going to hell and convert them. It seems naive to try to frame him any other way. Because of his preaching style, you couldn't even LEARN anything from him, he never really properly justified his arguments so that people could learn something and understand his perspective.

It's quite possible you are right and wonka didn't want to engage because of the way people talked to him. I had a brief talk with him via PM and it looked like he was willing to talk ... at least to me before he cut everyone off. (I haven't rechecked). I've talked to many true believers irl and on another forum and they like to talk to me because I listen and don't argue. Of course if 99 percent don't care to see that chance, then there won't be that chance and I will have to accept defeat.

One thing I find interesting, very interesting, is wonka may not be the only one who resists engagement. <-- I don't know how to put that and not offend anyone.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

@The Void. You are quoting wonkavision??? Sounds like a revelation or close to it. I would listen to such a person. Get him to relive his experience. This is not about reason or logic. It's an emotional experience at the very least. My guess is they believe they have found something and want to impart it to others. I would say there are two acceptable reactions: (1) listen and (2) ignore. Putting down the other person because their belief is ridiculous or something along those lines is as rude* as they appear to us.

I know I'm not expressing this as I would like to ... I do feel I'm missing your reactions to this post but part of the answer must lie within how you deal with it and not what I say or recommend. If you don't like what I have just said, free free to ignore it or question it.

*Not to forget their intention is not rudeness. It just appears that way because people hate what they see is irrational belief.

 

[The Void]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

@The Void. You are quoting wonkavision??? Sounds like a revelation or close to it. I would listen to such a person. Get him to relive his experience. This is not about reason or logic. It's an emotional experience at the very least. My guess is they believe they have found something and want to impart it to others. I would say there are two acceptable reactions: (1) listen and (2) ignore. Putting down the other person because their belief is ridiculous or something along those lines is as rude* as they appear to us.

I know I'm not expressing this as I would like to ... I do feel I'm missing your reactions to this post but part of the answer must lie within how you deal with it and not what I say or recommend. If you don't like what I have just said, free free to ignore it or question it.

*Not to forget their intention is not rudeness. It just appears that way because people hate what they see is irrational belief.

The spoiler was about myself. (My past).
Like wonka I was once doing kinda same type of things irl actually once upon a time.
Now a days I just try to question them those who think they know.
I try to rise their uncertainty, but also I am open to some answer, that may enlighten me or invert my perceptions.

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Maybe a review of group dynamics would help? In any relationship, whether loose or tightly bound, there are certain tacit assumptions about the kind of discourse that people will accept. you're free to act however you want, but if your behavior is not tolerable, then people will stop talking to you... and if your behavior creates enough problems, whoever has authority to police the group can also intervene. (of course, "trolls" are one exception to that rule, because people don't want to talk to trolls, but trolls know how to push their buttons to create worthless conversation and derail energy from what could be constructive... so the natural "everyone ignores you" form of selection here ends up being broken and the troll can run free.)

I had Wonka on Ignore for a long time, so it's not a huge deal aside from the fact that I'm really sick of going into a thread that could have been productive and instead is full of blank "Ignore" messages + people quoting Wonka + conversation that could have been a mature discourse revolving around why we are all going to hell and why people thought Wonka was wrong. This is a case where productive discourse is being derailed regardless of who has someone on Ignore, and where you can't escape it anyway. It's also a case where it's obvious the guy didn't give a shit about people on the forum or approach them as people, he just approached them as targets for his religious conversion. Why invest so much energy on someone who was obviously here to take rather than contribute? Why not fight for a better member who might have been banned, if you feel like taking this route? Honestly, even Blob was a little more constructive than Wonka.



I can see a smidgen of value in that, as a failsafe; on the other hand, who wants to be part of a fraternity where 99% of the membership did not want them in the group? And why do you assume that the 1% / one member's opinion is correct regarding the potential pledge, whereas the 99% are likely to just reflect a "mob mentality"? I can actually see a lot more of the opposite kind of abuse: That one person can end up derailing what the majority actually agrees on, rather how filibusters are abused in government, and the large group will just be a bunch of little fiefdoms where people don't talk because lots of people are members who others don't identify with.

You seem to just assume that if something bothers a number of people, they must be the ones at fault. Is that an accurate understanding of your attitude towards groups in general?

Anyway, getting back to the matter at hand: Again, if Wonka had actually entered a dialogue with people, he would have been engaged and no one would have been upset, but the guy didn't actually want to learn and grow and exchange ideas (which I think is a tacit rule of most groups, especially an INTP group), he just wanted to tell people they were going to hell and convert them. It seems naive to try to frame him any other way. Because of his preaching style, you couldn't even LEARN anything from him, he never really properly justified his arguments so that people could learn something and understand his perspective.

That seems accurate (in this case) only because I feel I am representing the minority view, which is equally valid as the majority view, but I felt that it deserved attention because so few other than BAP and redbarron chose to speak up.

It's not that I believe it is 100% "people's" fault, but the term "don't feed the trolls" comes to mind. If you poke a dog until he bites you, then use that as an excuse to put him down, I don't think that is very fair... Especially because you know exactly what will happen if you poke a dog repeatedly.

It is sometimes just sad, disheartening, and a bit disgusting to see a group of people who I thought might be a bit more sympathetic to outcasts, treat those very outcasts with the same bully behavior that caused a bunch of us to seek solace on the Internet in the first place.

I know I exhibit very anti-authoritarian behavior; however in this case, I feel more like I'm reacting to bully behavior. As a matter of principle, I am standing up for someone who I didn't even know and probably never would have even liked given his beliefs (wonka). It even felt like good riddance to see that person banned, since I never would have agreed with anything he said... As I'm sure some/many might feel about me. My time could be up any minute too... But I can't be bothered too much with these things.

I just hope that we all actually did wonka a favor by freeing him from the enabling bonds of the internet so that he may go heal himself in the real world.

I'm not even criticizing the mods negatively; I'm sure they're doing what they think is best. They're not perfect, but everyone can always improve. Maybe this was for the best. Whatever helps you (people) sleep at night.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

the problem of this case would relate to the general problem of:

-defining-ascertaining whether the content is troll/random or genuine and intentional and what intentions are possible

-controlling the context and dialogue, so that it stays close to interpersonal and reciprocal instead of proclaiming and imposing

on the internet and with the partially anonymous community

 

[Base groove]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

It is sometimes just sad, disheartening, and a bit disgusting to see a group of people who I thought might be a bit more sympathetic to outcasts, treat those very outcasts with the same bully behavior that caused a bunch of us to seek solace on the Internet in the first place.

Can you go back a step for the benefit of those just tuning in?

How is this a case of bullying?

People have already explained he had history here and didn't always act that way, apparently he wasn't sensitive to the penal code and had to be bit, probably for poking the dog too many times.

And what's with the guilt trip? Can you explain what sort of reaction you expect from that? I'm curious.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

That post was referring to how Hawkeye deduced that the irritation was not primarily caused by Wonka, but those arguing with him. I however, never found him irritating, but understood why others would.

Anyway, this is a forum for discussion and I didn't understand Hawkeye's position at all. I kind of hoped he/she would have justified it in some manner. Other than that, I don't actually care much about this as a whole.

The primary cause is not down to a single member; responding on this forum is not compulsory.

I could create a controversial thread that pushes people's buttons, but the effect only really works if people reply.

Those that engage in threads are also responsible for what happens next.

the problem of this case would relate to the general problem of:

-defining-ascertaining whether the content is troll/random or genuine and intentional and what intentions are possible

-controlling the context and dialogue, so that it stays close to interpersonal and reciprocal instead of proclaiming and imposing

on the internet and with the partially anonymous community

One simple solution: people could learn to take what they read on the chin and man-the-fuck-up. ^^

 

[BigApplePi]

A summary update

That seems accurate (in this case) only because I feel I am representing the minority view, which is equally valid as the majority view, but I felt that it deserved attention because so few other than BAP and redbarron chose to speak up.

It's not that I believe it is 100% "people's" fault, but the term "don't feed the trolls" comes to mind. If you poke a dog until he bites you, then use that as an excuse to put him down, I don't think that is very fair... Especially because you know exactly what will happen if you poke a dog repeatedly.

It is sometimes just sad, disheartening, and a bit disgusting to see a group of people who I thought might be a bit more sympathetic to outcasts, treat those very outcasts with the same bully behavior that caused a bunch of us to seek solace on the Internet in the first place.

I know I exhibit very anti-authoritarian behavior; however in this case, I feel more like I'm reacting to bully behavior. As a matter of principle, I am standing up for someone who I didn't even know and probably never would have even liked given his beliefs (wonka). It even felt like good riddance to see that person banned, since I never would have agreed with anything he said... As I'm sure some/many might feel about me. My time could be up any minute too... But I can't be bothered too much with these things.

I just hope that we all actually did wonka a favor by freeing him from the enabling bonds of the internet so that he may go heal himself in the real world.

I'm not even criticizing the mods negatively; I'm sure they're doing what they think is best. They're not perfect, but everyone can always improve. Maybe this was for the best. Whatever helps you (people) sleep at night.

Goku this has been a complex thread. If I may generalize, there have been pleasantries and unpleasantries. People have been on both sides of this issue.

Just as in real life if there is a controversial or unpleasant situation we may choose to ignore it, fight to remove it, or try to fix it. Just as in real life, I think any of those three solutions is legitimate. We have to decide for ourselves what we want to do.

Authority figures? Just as in real outside life they try to exercise enough control so things don't get out of order (become unmanageable) and wars start or people get hurt. I think authority figures and the moderators here represent the general public. But they have to play a duel role: representation and being themselves. So they are no different from us: they want to take one side or the other. In their representative capacity, they have to put self-interest aside. That means looking at both sides or many different viewpoints so that order and peace may be maintained.

To look at these different viewpoints, they lay back so the viewpoints are exposed and everyone gets a piece of the action. But then they have to step in as soon as peace looks like it is being threatened and say something.

I for one am glad this thread has been kept open up to now. I hope it will be kept open as long as people have more to say. But if the mods step in and decide to close it, it will be because of what I said above.

 

[Reluctantly]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

The primary cause is not down to a single member; responding on this forum is not compulsory.

I could create a controversial thread that pushes people's buttons, but the effect only really works if people reply.

Those that engage in threads are also responsible for what happens next.

Right, but there's a bigger picture here. It isn't a problem that someone creates a controversial topic or that they have an opinion or belief that the majority doesn't share. It isn't a problem that it might bother people. And it isn't a problem that they are deliberately pushing people's buttons.

But it is a problem when he goes to a group of people and demands that they believe what he believes. And it's a problem when he tells people that they are ignorant and going to Hell because they won't believe what he wants them believe.

Though I'm not saying I agree with banning people, as that means there is no longer a way to work things out because it's so final. But to pretend Wonka doesn't take any of the blame for this because other people should have ignored him is equivalent to letting someone come into your personal space, demand you think what they want you to, and believe the solution is just to ignore the guy/gal. They aren't just irritating someone where the solution is just to ignore them, they are attacking them. And there's an obvious reaction.

Though obviously for you, you didn't seem to have that reaction and neither did I, since this is just a forum and he probably won't ever be able to hurt me with his beliefs, but other people felt attacked and telling them that they shouldn't feel that way because they should just ignore him, isn't any different than Wonka telling people what they should believe.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Right, but there's a bigger picture here. It isn't a problem that someone creates a controversial topic or that they have an opinion or belief that the majority doesn't share. It isn't a problem that it might bother people. And it isn't a problem that they are deliberately pushing people's buttons.

But it is a problem when he goes to a group of people and demands that they believe what he believes. And it's a problem when he tells people that they are ignorant and going to Hell because they won't believe what he wants them believe.

Though I'm not saying I agree with banning people, as that means there is no longer a way to work things out because it's so final. But to pretend Wonka doesn't take any of the blame for this because other people should have ignored him is equivalent to letting someone come into your personal space, demand you think what they want you to, and believe the solution is just to ignore the guy/gal. They aren't just irritating someone where the solution is just to ignore them, they are attacking them. And there's an obvious reaction.

Though obviously for you, you didn't seem to have that reaction and neither did I, since this is just a forum and he probably won't ever be able to hurt me with his beliefs, but other people felt attacked and telling them that they shouldn't feel that way because they should just ignore him, isn't any different than Wonka telling people what they should believe.

I don't think it's fair to compare a forum post to an invasion of personal space because that's like comparing passive to active, i.e., you can ignore one more easily than the other.

I'm not saying that Wonka is blameless, rather I'm saying that others are not so innocent. If someone tells me I'm going to burn in hell for not believing in it, why should I be bothered? By the way, I don't see this as an attack per say, but rather as a direct consequence of not believing which doesn't seem so illogical when you think about it.

I think people were more interested in trying to make him see sense which (irrespective of methods used: faith vs reason) was no different to what he was doing.

 

[Minuend]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

I don't really get that irritated, neither do I feel compelled to reply in threads like mentioned. I do think something similar to "what a fucktard", but then I move on.

But I see it as probable that if such individuals weren't banned, they would attract a different kind of people than those attracted to a more constructive forum. And it would kinda build upon itself like a pile of ratshit. I also think that if these trolls didn't get answers to their own threads, they would just migrate to anything remotely similar in others'.

One could still overlook them, of course, but why keep them just for keeping them if we ignore them anyway? (Of course not a main reason to ban someone, just a secondary thought). And when people do reply to their simpletons, it can derail into more simpliting, uninteresting debate that dominates what was originally an interesting idea. (Whether we have a constructive and non-simpliting forum and whatnot is a different topic).

I don't think we should be so quick to assume a strong emotional reason for bans. I don't think mods are all angry and irritated at everything. They don't ban all people they think are morons.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

I felt that it deserved attention because so few other than BAP and redbarron chose to speak up.

Let's not get any ideas twisted here. I'm not, 'speaking up' at all.

To be honest my viewpoint is that if you don't like the way the forum is moderated, then fuck off. The forum isn't a democracy - democracy is terribly inefficient and expecting people in an unpaid role to treat a group of adults like toddlers is really quite bizarre to me.

Just to clarify, I actually don't care about those people who were banned. They were all either uncaring or ignorant of either the forum rules or moderator instructions in one form or another. Plus, they all received temp bans initially and warnings from moderators.

Which brings me back to a point made several times over the course of several threads like this: all this complaining and still no one has provided a single useful or practical suggestion that the moderators could conceivably use

Useless.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Which brings me back to a point made several times over the course of several threads like this: all this complaining and still no one has provided a single useful or practical suggestion that the moderators could conceivably use

Have you read this?

 

[The Void]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Let's not get any ideas twisted here. I'm not, 'speaking up' at all.

To be honest my viewpoint is that if you don't like the way the forum is moderated, then fuck off. The forum isn't a democracy - democracy is terribly inefficient and expecting people in an unpaid role to treat a group of adults like toddlers is really quite bizarre to me.

Just to clarify, I actually don't care about those people who were banned. They were all either uncaring or ignorant of either the forum rules or moderator instructions in one form or another. Plus, they all received temp bans initially and warnings from moderators.

Which brings me back to a point made several times over the course of several threads like this: all this complaining and still no one has provided a single useful or practical suggestion that the moderators could conceivably use

Useless.

Not all.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Which brings me back to a point made several times over the course of several threads like this: all this complaining and still no one has provided a single useful or practical suggestion that the moderators could conceivably use

Useless.

Everything can be arguably both useful and useless.

From the mods perspective it could have been useless.

From a different perspective it could have opened and helped ingest information.

There are also some solutions to be formed from what we have already decided is detrimental.

One of the simplest is to make it clear that as a majority opinionated and authority led forum this is what you should expect and be prepared for. Which in fact, is what some people may have learned reading this thread, to them, this thread can be a behaviour and reaction optimising solution in itself, hopefully there are people that learned something new and had a valuable experience.

 

[Reluctantly]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

I don't think it's fair to compare a forum post to an invasion of personal space because that's like comparing passive to active, i.e., you can ignore one more easily than the other.

I'm not saying that Wonka is blameless, rather I'm saying that others are not so innocent. If someone tells me I'm going to burn in hell for not believing in it, why should I be bothered? By the way, I don't see this as an attack per say, but rather as a direct consequence of not believing which doesn't seem so illogical when you think about it.

I think people were more interested in trying to make him see sense which (irrespective of methods used: faith vs reason) was no different to what he was doing.

I see what you mean. But do you think that if people ignored him, that he would have stopped? Minuend does seem to have a point. I've been on other forums where people don't get banned for forcing their opinions/beliefs on everyone and they never quit no matter how many do people ignore them. The only thing that seems to work is a periodic temp-ban when things get bad, otherwise it ends up destroying the social exchange of the forum. A temp-ban will at least let someone know to cool it a bit, rather than a strict ban that says we don't want you here.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

So much...waste.

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Can you go back a step for the benefit of those just tuning in?

How is this a case of bullying?

People have already explained he had history here and didn't always act that way, apparently he wasn't sensitive to the penal code and had to be bit, probably for poking the dog too many times.

And what's with the guilt trip? Can you explain what sort of reaction you expect from that? I'm curious.

Guilt trip... Might help people differentiate between one who is trying to destroy the forum vs one who is genuinely trying to connect with others in this world... For next time. I can't change anyone's opinions overnight but I can at least give you something to mull over. Imagine an INTP who finally found out he wasn't weird, by finding this site, then maybe he goes through a period of emotional turmoil which makes his behavior erratic.

I respect the opinion that it's not our job to "rehabilitate," though I also believe it is not that hard.

Some view these discussion threads as some sort of Encyclopedia Brittanica, the essence of the content of which must be meticulously cured and protected for all future generations to read, because the knowledge we produce here is so original and thought provoking. This is similar to how each high IQ society produces their own edited journals. (Lol don't get me started about INTJforum... Peeps here are laid back so I'm really just complaining for the sake of idealism)

However I don't respect the discussions that take place here as much as some of the resident librarians do. Respect is not the right word. I just dont treat the content here with as high a regard as some. There are some gems of wisdom here, for sure, but the wall is mostly graffiti. Threads here carry the same weight as conversations had with a strager at Starbucks. Discussion threads are cool because i can have multiple pen pals from all over the world, and i can jump in and out of convos like Marty McFly jumps in and out of time.

To identify this, the preservation of some sacred texts, as a reason for banning a member, because he disrupted the natural conversation, seems very facetious to me every time I hear it.

I imagine a group of retarded 5th graders protecting their coloring book, because they don't want the adults to mess up their creation. Crass example, I know, but that captures my feeling exactly when I view the behavior here.

Additionally, I concur with JennyWocky's previous assertion that one should probably not want to be in a group where one is disliked by everyone. I would voluntarily leave such a group if I realized this fact on my own. But, if a small group of sinister members plotted to use passive-aggressive techniques to get me to "hang" myself by breaking the group's rules, resentment ensues.

Just free writing, I am no longer making any points here

 

[Cavallier]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Just as an FYI: Wonka did actually admit to one of us that he gets banned from other forums for preaching and that he's been taking advantage of our generosity/leniency on the subject.

He was planning on being banned from the beginning.

I have a number of people in my life and on this forum who are Christian. I respect them and their right to practice their faith. They can have intelligent converstions about it. In fact, the truely lovely part about them is that they can do it without using caps lock, constantly repeating the exact same phrases, and while also being able to have an amicable discourse on the topic.

That is what I want to foster here. Amicable discourse on every topic imaginable. Doing so requires respect. Spewing Bible verses instead of delving into them and telling people they are idiots for not following a certain philosphy is not respectful and not helpful. It's not even respectful to other Christians. They look like loonies when grouped with that kind of person.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Additionally, I concur with JennyWocky's previous assertion that one should probably not want to be in a group where one is disliked by everyone. I would voluntarily leave such a group if I realized this fact on my own. But, if a small group of sinister members plotted to use passive-aggressive techniques to get me to "hang" myself by breaking the group's rules, resentment ensues.

Interesting point here. I grew up in a different era. Nazi Germany had taken over Europe and as many Jews who could left the area. Jews were disliked so they left. But what of those who were left behind? What of those who stuck with their beliefs, cultures, family? Jews were bullied by Nazis, to say the least, and who spoke up?

My cousins left Czechoslovakia in the 1930's. They got out. My dad left. One of his brothers moved to France; another to Australia. Their descendants live on. But one aunt and uncle did not. Their names are engraved in a memorial among thousands on a wall in Czechoslovakia. I looked at their names, never having met them and realized I had half their blood.

Well there are all sorts of beliefs on this board. Some will dislike those who have deviant beliefs similar to Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals*. What if they for what ever reason weren't ready to leave? Find who is not one of those deviants yet who will speak up for them when they are "bullied." If someone believes I will go to hell for my different belief, do I have to mock him, curse him or otherwise put him down for his belief ... as if I really was intimidated by what he said?

That is what I want to foster here. Amicable discourse on every topic imaginable. Doing so requires respect. Spewing Bible verses instead of delving into them and telling people they are idiots for not following a certain philosphy is not respectful and not helpful. It's not even respectful to other Christians. They look like loonies when grouped with that kind of person.

That is a good point. It would be good if everyone showed everyone else respect. But those "deviants" who don't are people too. I would want to bring up the issue of disrespect ... and drop the specifics of the religious issue.

*I left out Socrates and Jesus who chose not to leave and stuck with their beliefs on principle.

 

[Minuend]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Some view these discussion threads as some sort of Encyclopedia Brittanica, the essence of the content of which must be meticulously cured and protected for all future generations to read, because the knowledge we produce here is so original and thought provoking.

Who thinks that, exactly?

To identify this, the preservation of some sacred texts, as a reason for banning a member, because he disrupted the natural conversation, seems very facetious to me every time I hear it.

If that's your conclusion, I think you ought to reread posts.

 

[Base groove]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

If that's your conclusion, I think you ought to reread posts.

It's just that he keeps twisting things and putting spin each time he proceeds to reduce the situation down to its fundamental cause-effect relationship.

Probably a formal fallacy of some sort. Sure does make me cringe when I read it :/

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Who thinks that, exactly?



If that's your conclusion, I think you ought to reread posts.

I agree that example does not apply 100% to this case.

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

It's just that he keeps twisting things and putting spin each time he proceeds to reduce the situation down to its fundamental cause-effect relationship.

Probably a formal fallacy of some sort. Sure does make me cringe when I read it :/

Are you familiar with projective identification? I kind of consider myself a master of that form of communication.

Also, I don't see how boiling things down to the e=mc^2 can be a fallacy. It is required in this forum because INTPs go off on so many tangents that they forget about what was being discussed in the first place.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

What is the difference between banning and ignoring a poster? Action vs inaction...the result is the same (equilibrium within a group). I think we're all culpable.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

What is the difference between banning and ignoring a poster? Action vs inaction...the result is the same (equilibrium within a group). I think we're all culpable.

What if one sees an elephant in their living room? Do we ban, ignore or question their eyesight?

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

What if one sees an elephant in their living room? Do we ban, ignore or question their eyesight?

This analogy might fit if the forum was a close family unit, which it's not. If I see an elephant in my forum living room, I acknowledge seeing it then I assess if the elephant is bothering me. If not, I leave it alone.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

This analogy might fit if the forum was a close family unit, which it's not. If I see an elephant in my forum living room, I acknowledge seeing it then I assess if the elephant is bothering me. If not, I leave it alone.

Since the forum is diverse, not close knit, and those whom it will bother will speak up, some proposing shooting it as opposed to taking it off to a quiet pen, those who are quiet animal lovers will now want to speak up.

 

[crippli]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

What if one sees an elephant in their living room? Do we ban, ignore or question their eyesight?

Neither.

One marvel at the sight. Who have got to experience that? And if one can keep the composure, one take a picture. Cause no one will believe it otherwise.

 

[crippli]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Generally though, Freud comes to mind. Just not sure who it is valid for.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

One marvel at the sight.

Marvelous indeed! It would do the elephant right proud.

 

[crippli]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Marvelous indeed! It would do the elephant right proud.

Indeed. Fear bread fear. Marvel bread marvel. The power of choice.

 

[Base groove]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Are you familiar with projective identification? I kind of consider myself a master of that form of communication.

Also, I don't see how boiling things down to the e=mc^2 can be a fallacy. It is required in this forum because INTPs go off on so many tangents that they forget about what was being discussed in the first place.

Ho boy - here we go with projection again.

Ah, projection. The "iwin" defensive tactic in online discussion.

person A: "blah blah blah"
person B: "uh I don't think that's logical and here's where I see faults in your reasoning"
person A: "PROJECTION!" You take everything you hate about yourself and project it onto me *makes cross with fingers and hisses*


You consider yourself a master of that form of communication? Just as you consider yourself a forum guru? OK, pal.