Moved: Conversation with wonkavision

[Base groove]

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 :/

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.

~ Example

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.

~ Example

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.

~ Example.


It is clear that you are faulting the autocracy (with emotional appeals) for making their decisions with rational black and white criteria instead of shared group values.

The message your posts get across is that this banning was a result of the forum being unable to properly respond to Wonka, due to lack of skill and emotional intelligence, and that his behavior wasn't objectively "across the line" or worse than any other, (day to day), and that Wonka is a victim of mob mentality.

Furthermore, you are fighting his defense, not because you have rationalized that his behavior was correct or that the banning was unwarranted, but on the principles of sheer morality. You're using this powerful drive to attempt to apply post hoc rationalization to validate Wonka's activity and therefore invalidate the forum's response.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

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

Yes, you're indeed quite good at arguing with points that no one actually makes.

Projective identification is only realistically relatable in regards to close relationships, and in real-time discussion. Such detached and delayed discussion in a written forum setting is of no contextual relevance to the concept.

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

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.

Not projection

I specifically said, and meant, "projective identification"

Projective identification is much more complicated to use purposefully and effectively. Simple projection is like elementary school. Projective identification is like grad school.

 

[Base groove]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

OK now reply to my serious post. You replied to my joke post.

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

~ Example



~ Example



~ Example.


It is clear that you are faulting the autocracy (with emotional appeals) for making their decisions with rational black and white criteria instead of shared group values.

The message your posts get across is that this banning was a result of the forum being unable to properly respond to Wonka, due to lack of skill and emotional intelligence, and that his behavior wasn't objectively "across the line" or worse than any other, (day to day), and that Wonka is a victim of mob mentality.

Furthermore, you are fighting his defense, not because you have rationalized that his behavior was correct or that the banning was unwarranted, but on the principles of sheer morality. You're using this powerful drive to attempt to apply post hoc rationalization to validate Wonka's activity and therefore invalidate the forum's response.

The forum's response? You mean, a single individual's response. I personally did not take part in a poll. Did you?

Edit #2: but yes, if the whole forum voted to ban, I'd still hold my moral position, consider it the constitutional bill of forum rights, or something.

Edit
[i think your summary looks accurate, which is why I didn't address any other points]

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Yes, you're indeed quite good at arguing with points that no one actually makes.

Projective identification is only realistically relatable in regards to close relationships, and in real-time discussion. Such detached and delayed discussion in a written forum setting is of no contextual relevance to the concept.

You actually have 10% idea of what I'm talking about.

 

[Base groove]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

The forum's response? You mean, a single individual's response.

Foolish to think there was no collaboration. Have you heard of a thing called "modbox"? Of course you have. Basically I equate the decisions of the governing body (autocracy) with the decisions of the forum they govern and represent.

To imply that voting (democracy) is necessary for the governing body to be able to accurately represent the needs of the populace is idealistic and neglectful of the current/extant needs of the system.

Other members have posted that they don't personally support the ban of Wonka. Do you suppose the autocracy is lacking in auto-regulation as well? Some posters have made logical claims as to why the ban was incorrect. Their arguments hold weight, because they use logic. You are trying to appeal the ban in a different way, one that probably doesn't hold as much weight due to its weakness in logical persuasion, instead attempting the orthogonal technique of emotional persuasion.

So if you agree with my assessment of your behavior, do you disagree that your perspective has done you no favors in understanding the dilemma as a whole picture?

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Foolish to think there was no collaboration. Have you heard of a thing called "modbox"? Of course you have. Basically I equate the decisions of the governing body (autocracy) with the decisions of the forum they govern and represent.

To imply that voting (democracy) is necessary for the governing body to be able to accurately represent the needs of the populace is idealistic and neglectful of the current/extant needs of the system.

Other members have posted that they don't personally support the ban of Wonka. Do you suppose the autocracy is lacking in auto-regulation as well? Some posters have made logical claims as to why the ban was incorrect. Their arguments hold weight, because they use logic. You are trying to appeal the ban in a different way, one that probably doesn't hold as much weight due to its weakness in logical persuasion, instead attempting the orthogonal technique of emotional persuasion.

So if you agree with my assessment of your behavior, do you disagree that your perspective has done you no favors in understanding the dilemma as a whole picture?

Ok, I get your point now.

Here's the thing, I believe I see the picture more clearly than most. Lets say you're trying to dilute an acid back to neutral, you don't add water, u have to add a base, to counter the acid. So understanding the dilemma isn't the issue. It's other people pretending (subconsciously) to hide behind logic when in reality, all their motives actually arise from feelings...

And the thing about helping people realize repressed emotions that they never saw in themselves, they'll either fight it aggressively head on, or they'll hate you for it. Telling people how it is, and showing people the mirror never end to well.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Here's the thing, I believe I see the picture more clearly than most.

There's a word for this. It's called, "bias".

And the thing about helping people realize repressed emotions that they never saw in themselves, they'll either fight it aggressively head on, or they'll hate you for it. Telling people how it is, and showing people the mirror never end to well.

Ah, if I had a dollar for every time I'd seen this thinking pattern.

It's a wonderful little piece of circular logic you've created for yourself here. The notion that you understand better than other people, and that the reason they respond to you is because they hate you. Not because they disagree with the logical premise of your arguments or ideas - no, that's not it. They're angry or full of hatred.

An unfortunate part about thinking in this way in a discussion is that it prevents you from ever moving forward because of two unfounded assumptions.

- that you are able to see with more clarity than other people (bias)
- that the reason people disagree with you is because they're angry or hate you

Yet even more unfortunate still, is the fact that because of the way you view yourself and others, you probably don't even see just how limiting and narrow-minded adopting such a viewpoint really is.

That said, it is understandable that so many people often adopt this viewpoint - because it prevents them from ever having to deal with the fact that their ideas are wrong, and they may continue to think very highly of their intelligence. By automatically presupposing their own intellectual superiority over others, it becomes very easy for someone to deflect detached criticism of their ideas as being based in a flaw in the other person's character and not in their own ideas.

I mean, what else could it be? If you're seeing the issue with more clarity and all you're doing is telling the truth, people who disagree must just be angry or hate you for it, right?

 

[Hawkeye]

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.

Are they the same though, or do they just appear similar on the surface? Do we abort (ban) the child, or disown (ignore) it?

By banning, there is the assumption that a member has 0% to offer the forum and that their behaviour is homogeneous across all threads; however, this is not always the case.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

By banning, there is the assumption that a member has 0% to offer the forum and that their behaviour is homogeneous across all threads.

No, there is the assumption that what the member has to offer the forum is outweighed by the detriment they may cause to the forum.

You're assigning a false dichotomy to the issue where there is not one. In fact, moderators themselves have even pointed out that wonkavision has made positive contributions to the forum and that while it's unfortunate in that way for him to be banned - they decided it was the best decision in the end.

Whether or not it is for the best is always going to be subjective. Some will agree, some will disagree. If he's not banned people get upset (at wonkavision), and if he is banned people get upset (at the moderators). Can't please everyone, no point in trying.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

I can't wait to unveil my alternative account. ^^

 

[Puffy]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Tbh, I think wonka's ban was pretty clear and simple.

Go back over his post history and you'll find from about October he was near enough 100% dedicated to proselytising. If he'd even have balanced this with more contributions in other threads, or some sign of interest in engaging and listening to the community, then he'd probably still be here. It became a one-way comm with him, with no sign of engagement on his part in the many discussions he'd come into. He was given months of chances, but ultimately he decided he'd rather appear a martyr for his beliefs than actually engage with people and contribute here. Which is an adequate summary of why he was banned really.

I do basically agree with redbaron, in the sense that I'm seeing a lot of anti-authority airbrushed themed critique with little in the way of pragmatic suggestions. Wonka himself said he'd been banned from other places for similar reasons (see his intro thread) and that he was surprised he'd lasted this long here...

 

[redbaron]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

I can't wait to unveil my alternative account. ^^

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

I don't believe they did. Go home llama, you're jumping to conclusions.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Removing your avatar and changing user title, so dramatic!

I'm updating my avatar and my title has been like that for nearly 2 weeks.

So yeah... er, dramatic (I guess).

 

[redbaron]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Why are you responding to comments I never made? That's a rather sneaky way of stirring up drama...

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Good job you don't troll often redbaron; you suck at it. ^^

Anyway, it turns out that updating my avatar via my phone is too much effort, so im gonna do it later (not that anyone cares...)

 

[BigApplePi]

Told U So

LLama or Lyra? Wasn't it redbaron himself who said he was afraid of becoming the next one? Are we there yet?

Spoiler

What's sad is that the same patterns are now forming in this thread and it looks like I'm the next Lyra

 

[redbaron]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Good job you don't troll often redbaron; you suck at it. ^^

It's funny that you always talk about how other people are too reactive, and then you go ahead and be one of the most reactive to things anyway...

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Go back over his post history and you'll find from about October he was near enough 100% dedicated to proselytising. If he'd even have balanced this with more contributions in other threads, or some sign of interest in engaging and listening to the community, then he'd probably still be here. It became a one-way comm with him, with no sign of engagement on his part in the many discussions he'd come into. He was given months of chances, but ultimately he decided he'd rather appear a martyr for his beliefs than actually engage with people and contribute here. Which is an adequate summary of why he was banned really.

Yes, i think he martyred himself on purpose for his faith: It was planned suicide by mod. And I remember him saying all that stuff you mentioned. He knew, and like Walter White, he "wanted this."

 

[Base groove]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

He knew, and like Walter White ...

Good god no.

punish yourself please.

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Yes, i think he martyred himself on purpose for his faith: It was planned suicide by mod. And I remember him saying all that stuff you mentioned. He knew, and like Walter White, he "wanted this."

So, in the way of constructive criticism, aren't cops supposed to talk the man off the ledge, rather than egg him on to jump? And, why does everyone seem so satisfied? When people die in real life, regardless of who they are (unless its some rapist-murderer), I get sad. When this kid Francisco committed suicide in high school, I was sad even though I didn't know him that well.

People seem to think I am twisting words and such... But I also see the same people use words like "attack" and "invaded my personal space..." I'm so "lol" to these comments, but if those are valid subjective interpretations of behavior, "attack" for example, then so is comparing this (suicide by mod) forum ban to a real life suicide. We will never hear from wonk again, his presence was snuffed out and a lot of us had no say in the matter, nor time to talk to wonk b4 he was banned.

Yes, I had summoned the llama a while ago and I was wondering when he'd finally show up.

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

It's funny that you always talk about how other people are too reactive, and then you go ahead and be one of the most reactive to things anyway...

Actually, I've never said this; however, I have said something along the lines of this place seems to be full of over-sensitive softies.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Actually, I've never said this; however, I have said something along the lines of this place seems to be full of over-sensitive softies.

Which you're apparently the king of

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Actually, I've never said this; however, I have said something along the lines of this place seems to be full of over-sensitive softies.

Some people only poke the wounded animals. I do not discriminate.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

So, in the way of constructive criticism, aren't cops supposed to talk the man off the ledge, rather than egg him on to jump? And, why does everyone seem so satisfied? When people die in real life, regardless of who they are (unless its some rapist-murderer), I get sad. When this kid Francisco committed suicide in high school, I was sad even though I didn't know him that well.

Well put.

 

[Base groove]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Goku what evidence do you have to believe that your feelings are persuasive enough to press on? Are you through with this charade?

He banned. He be all dead to us and shit. (quote TSR)

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

He banned. He be all dead to us and shit. (quote TSR)

Daid but not 4fogotten. May he rest in peace and fly with the angels even if the rest of us are all headed toward hell.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

So, in the way of constructive criticism, aren't cops supposed to talk the man off the ledge, rather than egg him on to jump? And, why does everyone seem so satisfied? When people die in real life, regardless of who they are (unless its some rapist-murderer), I get sad. When this kid Francisco committed suicide in high school, I was sad even though I didn't know him that well. [yada yada yada and more glops of provocative yada]

OMFG. I'm just sitting here laughing and laughing. You're such a riot.

It's a fucking web site, and the guy was just a religious zealot who had nothing constructive to add. He knew it and didn't give a shit. There is nothing of Wonka that you missed but "more of the same." And if he hadn't been such a cultish tool and had actually offered some thoughtfulness, he would have been welcome here.

Get over it instead of making this into some kind of ongoing drama; and if you miss the Bible being rammed down your throat without any kind of intelligent exegesis, there are tons of web sites out there where you can guzzle it down to your heart's content. Srsly. You have other options for that besides the INTPf website. You haven't been deprived of anything.

yeesh. Why am I such a bitch on this forum? You guys bring out the "If I had a hammer" side of me.

 

[Puffy]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

This is such a false analogy, Goku.

It's not like anyone set up this ban except wonka himself. I had PM convos with him (starting from October), I know that several other mods did, all trying to "reason him off the ledge." He even made a public thread, trying to reconcile his attitudes with the wider community (which clearly didn't make a difference) so you actually did have the opportunity to speak with him too if you wanted to.

He wasn't going to hear it Goku, and if you read his post history you'll see that that was plain. He didn't listen to anyone.

I just read Jenny's post and she's got it covered to be honest. Being banned isn't exile to the tundras, a billion rooms of opportunities are still open to him on the internet alone...

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

OMFG. I'm just sitting here laughing and laughing. You're such a riot.

It's a fucking web site, and the guy was just a religious zealot who had nothing constructive to add. He knew it and didn't give a shit. There is nothing of Wonka that you missed but "more of the same." And if he hadn't been such a cultish tool and had actually offered some thoughtfulness, he would have been welcome here.

Get over it instead of making this into some kind of ongoing drama; and if you miss the Bible being rammed down your throat without any kind of intelligent exegesis, there are tons of web sites out there where you can guzzle it down to your heart's content. Srsly. You have other options for that besides the INTPf website. You haven't been deprived of anything.

yeesh. Why am I such a bitch on this forum? You guys bring out the "If I had a hammer" side of me.

OMFG Goku. I just want to put in my lowly opinion since I'm unable to talk to Jenny***. I created this thread just to talk to wonka whose death is now becoming apparent. I never expected wonka to add much to this website although saving me from bad times in a hellish situation would be a minor plus. He might not even have been able to save me anyway the way things were looking. I was just curious about the guy and wanted to quiz him myself. I feel so sorry he had to look so unfavorably upon my fellow INTP Forum web-posters I was hoping I could get him to feel more sympathetic to us. Sad. I will miss a fellow I never took the trouble to know. So sad.

I know Jenny doesn't feel the way I do and that is understandable. Why the heck did wonka do what he did? He should have known there are people here who are offended by his unsurprising and repeated efforts to try to tell us about our selves. It's almost as if (to exaggerate) he were picking us up and throwing us against a wall: we are going to hell. If only I could have calmed him down.

Oh if only Jenny and I could "agree to disagree." I know there are religious websites where one can learn about religious views. It's just that wonka's a real person visiting us even if he is only a poster on a "fucking" website.

It's not like anyone set up this ban except wonka himself. I had PM convos with him (starting from October), I know that several other mods did, all trying to "reason him off the ledge." He even made a public thread, trying to reconcile his attitudes with the wider community (which clearly didn't make a difference) so you actually did have the opportunity to speak with him too if you wanted to.

I guess Puffy underlines this. Wonka was a goner.** Boo hoo. I'm only crying* because as Aburdity said, I didn't do my part. Now that I see it there are others who feel the way I do.

**
*A little whine with that.
***I'm sure she's mad at me.

 

[Base groove]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

^ OMFG Bap.

If you say

"if only"

one more time.

I will label you a feeler.

You're warned.

*** Why are you so certain she's mad at you? Do you think that maybe INTPs don't like being mad and she would rather just coexist peacefully?

 

[Hawkeye]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Which you're apparently the king of

No I'm not...

Spoiler

I'm the Queen of drama. ^^

 

[Absurdity]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

I'm only crying* because as Aburdity said, I didn't do my part.

Wow that is not what I said. The very idea that you think you have to defend or redeem people who are banned is precisely the issue.

The reason I pointed out the fact that you only became interested in Wonka after he was banned is because it doesn't seem to matter to you who it is. It's the process not the person that upsets you. All this nonsense about dialoging with fundamentalists is just a post hoc rationalization, which explains why these threads become rambling trainwrecks of drama that cause stress for the mods.

We take seriously all criticism of our actions, but when opportunities such as this thread are presented to voice opinions on our actions it seems to become more about criticizing the idea of moderators and authority more generally rather than any specific criticism or feedback that would help us do our jobs more effectively and make this forum a better place.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

If you say

"if only"

one more time.

I will label you a feeler.

If only I were a feeler. Last time I felt like feeling a woman up she slapped my face.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...5RM&ei=vfgAU9T8GqqtsASG5YCABA&ved=0CBEQsCUoBQ

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHCdS7O248g

Toe to toe, dancing very close
Barely breathing, almost comatose
Wall to wall, people hypnotized
And they're stepping lightly
Hang each night in rapture
Back to back, sacroiliac
Spineless movement and a wild attack
Face to face, sadly solitude
And it's finger popping
Twenty-four hour shopping in rapture
Fab Five Freddie told me everybody's fly
DJ's spinnin' are savin' my mind
Flash is fast, flash is cool
Francois sais pas, flashe' no do
And you don't stop, sure shot
Go out to the parking lot
And you get in your car and drive real far
And you drive all night and then you see a light
And it comes right down and lands on the ground
And out comes a man from Mars
And you try to run but he's got a gun
And he shoots you dead and he eats your head
And then you're in the man from Mars
You go out at night eatin' cars
You eat Cadillacs, Lincolns too
Mercurys and Subarus
And you don't stop, you keep on eatin' cars
Then when there's no more cars
You go out at night and eat up bars
Where the people meet
Face to face, dance cheek to cheek
One to one, man to man
Dance toe to toe, don't move too slow
'Cause the man from Mars is through with cars
He's eatin' bars, yeah, wall to wall
Door to door, hall to hall
He's gonna eat 'em all
Rapture, be pure
Take a tour through the sewer
Don't strain your brain, paint a train
You'll be singin' in the rain
I said, "Don't stop, do punk rock"
Man to man, body muscular
Seismic decibel by the jugular
Wall to wall, tea time technology
And a digital ladder, no sign of bad luck in rapture
Well, now you see what you wanna be
Just have your party on TV
'Cause the man from Mars won't eat up bars
Where the TV's on
Now he's gone back up to space
Where he won't have a hassle with the human race
And you hip-hop and you don't stop
Just blast off, sure shot
'Cause the man from Mars
Stopped eatin' cars and eatin' bars
And now he only eats guitars
Get up!


Songwriters
STEIN

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Wow that is not what I said.

Wow Absurdity, what would it take to get you to laugh? I'm serious.
Conversation with wonka

Also: Do you think this thread is just about wonka or simple processes? It isn't. BTW I started to read your book recommendation but got hung up on a download failure.

 

[Base groove]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Gaiz I'm gonna order a pizza does everybody like mushrooms?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

if you cant eat mushrooms you're the worst and deserve starvation anyway

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

One can always pick out the mushrooms. I like mine with all the toppings ... except anchovies ... too salty. Pepper, onions, olives, pepperoni. Order enuf slices to go all around. Have the bill moderated.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Let me give you a more serious reply because I believe you.

Wow that is not what I said. The very idea that you think you have to defend or redeem people who are banned is precisely the issue.

Sorry if I didn't reflect properly your words.

The reason I pointed out the fact that you only became interested in Wonka after he was banned is because it doesn't seem to matter to you who it is. It's the process not the person that upsets you.

I know what my motives are. It is both. For me I am working on the process and trying to see your POV. I've spoken to both wonka and gargamel(sp?) and feel them as people, though more with the latter. I feel about you too ever since you created that thread which was about you though I've refrained on comment. It is the person as well.

All this nonsense about dialoging with fundamentalists is just a post hoc rationalization, which explains why these threads become rambling trainwrecks of drama that cause stress* for the mods.

I don't agree with that at all ... as long as this thread doesn't degenerate into name calling. That is your call. I see this as a catalyst for personal growth for all concerned. Sorry if that sounds like a cliché.

We take seriously all criticism of our actions, but when opportunities such as this thread are presented to voice opinions on our actions it seems to become more about criticizing the idea of moderators and authority more generally rather than any specific criticism or feedback that would help us do our jobs more effectively and make this forum a better place.

I wanted to and still want to have this thread not be about how moderators are doing their jobs. They are doing just fine as far as I'm concerned. That may seem contradictory since wonka is a person who was acted upon for the benefit of the forum. What I wanted to do was to bring out and air all sides which seems to have been successful to a large extent though not everyone agrees. I wouldn't call this thread a "train wreck" but rather a train passage. *I am sorry if any of this causes distress, but that's the way I see it at present. If I'm told I'm wrong I'll listen to that too.

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Goku what evidence do you have to believe that your feelings are persuasive enough to press on? Are you through with this charade?

He banned. He be all dead to us and shit. (quote TSR)

What makes you think I care about how persuasive I am? Maybe I am just a standard narcissist who likes to read the things he writes and admires them as artful masterpieces. There could be so many other reasons for behavior that I am a little perplexed that you haven't thought of the other myriad possibilities.

 

[Base groove]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

What makes you think I care about how persuasive I am? Maybe I am just a standard narcissist who likes to read the things he writes and admires them as artful masterpieces. There could be so many other reasons for behavior that I am a little perplexed that you haven't thought of the other myriad possibilities.

So I will interpret this as a proclamation that you are not to be taken seriously.

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

OMFG. I'm just sitting here laughing and laughing. You're such a riot.

It's a fucking web site, and the guy was just a religious zealot who had nothing constructive to add. He knew it and didn't give a shit. There is nothing of Wonka that you missed but "more of the same." And if he hadn't been such a cultish tool and had actually offered some thoughtfulness, he would have been welcome here.

Get over it instead of making this into some kind of ongoing drama; and if you miss the Bible being rammed down your throat without any kind of intelligent exegesis, there are tons of web sites out there where you can guzzle it down to your heart's content. Srsly. You have other options for that besides the INTPf website. You haven't been deprived of anything.

yeesh. Why am I such a bitch on this forum? You guys bring out the "If I had a hammer" side of me.

you're the one tuning in every day, I am just one of the many executive producers of this show. You obviously have some opinions on this matter which are not exactly diametrically opposed to mine, but enough that both sides feel the need to keep responding. There is some synthesis occurring even though it may not feel like it.

Maybe my problem is that I see irony and humor everywhere, whereas others see threats and irritants.

See, another humorous analogy that pops into mind, is that you guys invited a Jehova's witness into your house, then got surprised when he started doing what they do, then you booted him in the ass and said "get the fuck out" when you knew exactly what was going to happen when he joined. My opinion is that you are the idiots who let him in, in the first place... okay well I can be more fair to the analogy. It's more like some crazy jehova's witness running around in a public park, chasing the adults around and telling everyone they're going to hell. So somebody calls the cops on him. But, he asserts his right to free speech, but the cops go Rodney King on him anyways.

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

So I will interpret this as a proclamation that you are not to be taken seriously.

You could shove your thumb up your ass for all I care (meaning, I don't really care what you will or won't do). Just note that your behavior is illogical, and reeks of ad hominem. I expected more of you, that you could possibly inspect an idea for the idea itself, and not necessarily allow the person who produced the idea to affect your objective analysis of it.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

I expected more of you, that you could possibly inspect an idea for the idea itself, and not necessarily allow the person who produced the idea to affect your objective analysis of it.

That's some delightfully sneaky irony. Hawkeye has some competition for most dedicated forum troll. Well, either that or he has a split personality.

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

This is such a false analogy, Goku.

It's not like anyone set up this ban except wonka himself. I had PM convos with him (starting from October), I know that several other mods did, all trying to "reason him off the ledge." He even made a public thread, trying to reconcile his attitudes with the wider community (which clearly didn't make a difference) so you actually did have the opportunity to speak with him too if you wanted to.

He wasn't going to hear it Goku, and if you read his post history you'll see that that was plain. He didn't listen to anyone.

I just read Jenny's post and she's got it covered to be honest. Being banned isn't exile to the tundras, a billion rooms of opportunities are still open to him on the internet alone...

ok... that's fair. But unless we can subpoena your "reason him off the ledge" PM's, I can't really gauge whether you were effectively helping him or poking him. Your (mods') word for it is not enough, because the bias is there. Public posts have the privilege of transparency, where the text you reference does not.

You don't have to tell me you're being honest with me, because that is already assumed. Once you say that, I start questioning... (I'm just poking at you)

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

Wow that is not what I said. The very idea that you think you have to defend or redeem people who are banned is precisely the issue.

The reason I pointed out the fact that you only became interested in Wonka after he was banned is because it doesn't seem to matter to you who it is. It's the process not the person that upsets you. All this nonsense about dialoging with fundamentalists is just a post hoc rationalization, which explains why these threads become rambling trainwrecks of drama that cause stress for the mods.

We take seriously all criticism of our actions, but when opportunities such as this thread are presented to voice opinions on our actions it seems to become more about criticizing the idea of moderators and authority more generally rather than any specific criticism or feedback that would help us do our jobs more effectively and make this forum a better place.

how bout you make your modbox transparent.

 

[redbaron]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

ok... that's fair. But unless we can subpoena your "reason him off the ledge" PM's, I can't really gauge whether you were effectively helping him or poking him. Your (mods') word for it is not enough.

It's not relevant whether or not you can gauge it - the mods don't need your blessing every time someone is banned.

The forum is not a real world legal system or a democracy. If you don't like it...then fuck off

 

[Goku]

Re: Conversation with wonkavision

That's some delightfully sneaky irony. Hawkeye has some competition for most dedicated forum troll. Well, either that or he has a split personality.

If you are insinuating that my post is ironic because I choose to take up anti-authority perspectives, while ignoring all others, I can agree with that. However, I don't do ad hominem, at least I don't think I do, and make an effort not to, when I am making logical appeals. If you can find some posts where I have done ad hominem, let me know, because I really try not to do that.