Banning

Started by ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ, January 05, 2004, 05:43:32 PM

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions

Sleuth

#60
January 06, 2004, 07:20:27 PM
1) Cow got out of hand

2) I didn't see Cow anymore

3) I laughed and laughed

4) Walrus makes this thread
I like to hug dogs

Pubrick

#61
January 06, 2004, 07:39:38 PM
5) i vomited
under the paving stones.

Sleuth

#62
January 06, 2004, 07:46:14 PM
is this the "we can all agree on this" thread
I like to hug dogs

ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ

#63
January 06, 2004, 08:10:36 PM
Well, there's almost as much discrepancy here as there is there.
"As a matter of fact I only work with the feeling of something magical, something seemingly significant. And to keep it magical I don't want to know the story involved, I just want the hypnotic effect of it somehow seeming significant without knowing why." - Len Lye

Reinhold

#64
January 06, 2004, 09:43:14 PM
fucking a. does anybody come here to relax?

how many people post here on a regular basis? it's probably in the area of the 20 or so that i see. everybody brings something different to the board, unless, of course, they're jumping on a bandwagon tossing shit one side  or the other of an argument.  when somebody goes away permanently, so do the good things that they bring. the admins obviously believe that the bad outweighs the good, but it still sucks to see somebody go when you look forward to their posts. even if this was a democracy, admins still have the power. i guess that means that we deal with their way or we leave. however, as members of the community, it's not out of bounds to be pissed or to voice concerns-- even if others are tired of hearing them. nobody's making you read this.
Quote from: Pas Rap on April 23, 2010, 07:29:06 AM
Obviously what you are doing right now is called (in my upcoming book of psychology at least) validation. I think it's a normal thing to do. People will reply, say anything, and then you're gonna do what you were subconsciently thinking of doing all along.

NEON MERCURY

#65
January 06, 2004, 10:12:00 PM
banned in the USA ...i was Baned in the USA....banned in the USA....


-2 live crew.....


:sleeping: .......

Jeremy Blackman

#66
January 07, 2004, 12:33:51 AM
Quote from: Reinhold Messnereven if this was a democracy, admins still have the power. i guess that means that we deal with their way or we leave. however, as members of the community, it's not out of bounds to be pissed or to voice concerns-- even if others are tired of hearing them. nobody's making you read this.

I agree.

Just understand that we're not saying "you shall not offend the administration! you have now been blacklisted!" We're just saying "Come on, haven't we gone over this?" Defensive? Yes. Annoyed? Yes. Tired? Very much.

GodDamnImDaMan

#67
January 07, 2004, 01:19:35 AM
I miss that fuck JJ....
Aclockworkjj:  I have like broncitious or something
Aclockworkjj:  sucks, when i cough, if feels like i am dying
Aclockworkjj:  i can barely smoke

http://www.shitzu.biz

Sleuth

#68
January 07, 2004, 01:41:01 AM
Well, I miss Cow, so fuck you.
I like to hug dogs

godardian

#69
January 07, 2004, 01:55:33 AM
I guess if someone is being warned about getting banned in PMs, it's up to them whether they want to make it public. I have complete trust that these admins are not banning people for no good reason; they're not banning people for bullshitting around or being stupid, otherwise we'd all be banned some days. And they're not banning people unilaterally and out of the blue, as they said. So... if you're a person who's warned about getting banned (and the reasons why, and what you can do to avoid it) time after time, and you decide you're not going to change your behavior and you're going to get banned, then you can choose to share that with everyone or not. It shouldn't be up to the admins to be the bad guy in a case where there giving someone chances they won't take. When it comes to banning issues, we're all playing by the same rules, here. I mean, I think as long as you have a little common sense and civility, you won't get banned.

Maybe rather than "announcing" each banning as some kind of event and looking like triumphalists over a negative occurrence, the admins could post a general guideline over what will get a member banned, though it seems pretty obvious to me. That way, it would be clear when a member was doing something bannable, and it wouldn't be a surprise, and no need for a special announcement. Nobody has ever been banned over their beliefs or sense of humor; they've been banned for their antagonistic, fight-picking ways of expressing their beliefs, or more often not just starting shit for the sake of starting shit under the pretense of expressing a belief or feeling, or protesting "humor" after the fact over posts that are destructive to the overall goodwill and peace of the discourse here.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

(kelvin)

#70
January 07, 2004, 07:03:37 AM
Quote from: godardianI have complete trust that these admins are not banning people for no good reason; they're not banning people for bullshitting around or being stupid, otherwise we'd all be banned some days. And they're not banning people unilaterally and out of the blue, as they said.


I think the main issue is sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? And, overall, the lack of transparency. Therefore, I support Walrus' initiative (without wanting to express any mistrust towards the admins).

godardian

#71
January 07, 2004, 07:59:02 AM
Quote from: kelvin
Quote from: godardianI have complete trust that these admins are not banning people for no good reason; they're not banning people for bullshitting around or being stupid, otherwise we'd all be banned some days. And they're not banning people unilaterally and out of the blue, as they said.


I think the main issue is sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? And, overall, the lack of transparency. Therefore, I support Walrus' initiative (without wanting to express any mistrust towards the admins).

I actually think some of the admins do, too... I was just saying that if we're going to get into the dangerous territory of "here's who's banned and why," on an individual-announcement basis, then it would be just as reasonable to have a guideline that applied to everybody out front, so that nobody will be surprised when someone is banned for breaking it. That's the odd thing- everyone is so surprised by some of these bannings, when obviously they had been a long time coming, and if you look at how the people that were banned behaved differently from all the rest of us who weren't, surprise isn't a very understandable reaction.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

(kelvin)

#72
January 07, 2004, 09:31:54 AM
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: kelvin
Quote from: godardianI have complete trust that these admins are not banning people for no good reason; they're not banning people for bullshitting around or being stupid, otherwise we'd all be banned some days. And they're not banning people unilaterally and out of the blue, as they said.


I think the main issue is sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? And, overall, the lack of transparency. Therefore, I support Walrus' initiative (without wanting to express any mistrust towards the admins).

I actually think some of the admins do, too... I was just saying that if we're going to get into the dangerous territory of "here's who's banned and why," on an individual-announcement basis, then it would be just as reasonable to have a guideline that applied to everybody out front, so that nobody will be surprised when someone is banned for breaking it. That's the odd thing- everyone is so surprised by some of these bannings, when obviously they had been a long time coming, and if you look at how the people that were banned behaved differently from all the rest of us who weren't, surprise isn't a very understandable reaction.

It 's understandable in a way that xixax, and this has ben said before, unites only a few dozen members. If there were a thousand (active) members, nobody would care about those issues.
But, the fact is, this is a small messsage board which needs better communicational links between members and admins.
I also had an idea about a thread announcing similar problems, but thought more of an "official statements thread" with widespread topics than of a " who's banned" thread. It would be a thread where only admins can post and therefore it won't be "polluted" with arguments like this.
Without a few -if I may say so- institutionalized structures, this debate will come up every single time the board faces tensions. And we know, this is only a matter of time.

Pwaybloe

#73
January 07, 2004, 02:01:01 PM
You'll never see me post in this thread.  No sir.

cron

#74
January 07, 2004, 02:03:28 PM
hey Pawbloe, your avatar is sweeeeet, where did you get it?
context, context, context.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions