|
1294. Indiana Jones - 9/28/2000 3:33:05 PM I don't know of any Mote folks who actively seek to harm the forum. Why should we tolerate someone who is openly trying to do so?
This is indeed the entire point. Forget all the stuff about free speech and fairness. In fact, it doesn't even matter whether the person is actively trying to harm the forum. If a motier tries to force the community in a direction that the vast majority of the polis doesn't like--particularly those members who work the hardest to build the Mote and have a stake in it--then of course the community has the most fundamental right of all (self-defense) to expel that person.
The expeled poster doesn't lose anything but the ability to associate with others who don't want to associate with him. Dissenting motiers are of course still able to communicate via email with the banished--or, let the dissatisfied lot do the work necessary to create their own forum and govern it as they see fit. Cyberspace has plenty of room for homesteading. Moreover, should the community continually err by "skimming its cream," then it will eventually receive its own just reward: conversation exactly as its participants deserve.
To govern otherwise is to ensure that any scofflaw can run roughshod over such a community of would-be pacifists and Quakers. Proto-Nazis have the right to make their revisionist speeches...but not in Jewish living rooms.
In short, I think it was an excellent move. 1295. Indiana Jones - 9/28/2000 3:33:21 PM Just to clarify: I don't think dissent should become grounds for banishment, but when the dissenter asserts himself to the degree that he begins to turn the Mote into what he desires rather than what most of its participants and community builders desire, then that is another matter.
Also, Nostradamus had no effect whatsoever on my decision to curtail my online activities both here and elsewhere. I'm just too busy for the time being (which is one reason why I'm posting this at 2 a.m.) 1296. PelleNilsson - 9/28/2000 6:11:39 PM I wish it to be on record that I completely supported, and still support, wabbit's decision in the Nostradamus case. 1297. PsychProf - 9/28/2000 8:41:03 PM I guess I am alone on this one, but I honestly felt that Nos was going to contribute new vitality to our cyberhome. I am very uncomfortable with all this backslapping. 1298. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 9:10:40 PM bubbaette, I don't really recall why Nos was banned the first time, but it certainly had nothing to do with me. That you even imply so is unfair and entirely misleading by you.
As for his posts concerning Diva, all I could find was some odd reference about a "Mr. Hankey" or some such thing. I suppose the comment was akin to saying something like, "I hope your baby doesn't look like the mailman." That is innocuous at best, unless of course you are saying it to a super-sensitive person or in the presence of super-sensitive people. Now then, given Diva's recounting and her non-response, she doesn't appear super-sensitive, but given the response of others here with what is basically a harmless statement, they must be super-sensitive.
However, again, CalGal pointed out various other matters that I was unaware of.
If Nos was banned for what he said to Diva, it is just plainly silly, because far, far worse has been said here in the Mote by people that are considered some of its best posters.
But practically speaking, it is a done deal nonetheless. 1299. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 9:14:06 PM "Kuligan is well aware of that past action for which Nos was initially banned because, as I recall, he was part of it and acting as Nos' advisor. In view of that, I think he's being a bit disinguenuous now."
bubbaette, you do say "as I recall," which is the out you need on this one. Because you recall incorrectly.
Or maybe I do. I don't honestly remember why he was banned the first time, but I can't imagine I had anything to do with it. In fact, had I, I suppose I would remember it well!
And I also never acted as "his advisor," which just shows that you really don't know what you are talking about on this one bubbaette. However, if you would please provide substantiation for your claim above (no need for exact posts, just the general gist of what you mean), I would be more than happy to address the matter. Otherwise, please apologize for incrimmating me in something that I had no part in. Thank you. 1300. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 9:21:50 PM I should also point out that if what CalGal said was true, that all we had was a poster that was going from thread to thread "shitting" on the place and not providing any substantive content, then we should ban such a person. I mean, really, why put up with such nonsense?
However, I didn't think that was what Nos was doing. Was he questioning some of the Motie "norms"? Sure he was. Was he attacking some of the Moties that others wouldn't dare attack? Definitely. And I thought it was limited to just that. And thus my comments about lynch mobs and the mob mentality here and a certain level of hypocrisy concerning the matter (and not by all people by any means, but definitely by some).
Personally, I think if you come here and do not expect to be attacked at least occasionally, or find it entirely offensive to ever be attacked, then you should leave. Because such forums as these are not the place for such people.
However, I do agree in principle that a person that contributes nothing positive and only "shits" on the place shouldn't be tolerated. 1301. rubberducky - 9/28/2000 9:53:07 PM Re: Message # 1297, PsychProf.
I guess I am alone on this one...
no ... i wasn't really for banning either. i liked his non-personal topical posts and tried to get him to post more of those. he chose to be as ass. oh well.
anyway, while i certainly don't miss him and think theMote will get along fine without him, i wasn't for the banning, but then, i am 99% never for them to begin with. that being said, i have no problem with Cal's Message # 1288 and find myself agreeing with it despite my objections. 1302. quivver - 9/28/2000 10:00:38 PM Nos will most likely be back in like a week. I'm refraining from comment about his banning, since I don't feel a pressing need to add to the list of comments. But no-one should look surprised if some smart alecky, slightly over-the-top-with-egomania kid comes barrelling back in real soon now. Of course, I'm probably stating the blindingly obvious there, but it may only be supposition. Time for bed.
aem. 1303. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 10:16:24 PM Kuligan
To go in detail into Nos' first banning would almost be to repeat the offense that justified his banning. Suffice it to say that there are enough of us who remember Nos's past behaviour that lead to his banning and your part in it so that your professed bewilderment now rings false.
As I said before, Nox's behaviour in his first banning far outstripped anything that he accused Indiana Jones of doing. So egregious were those actions that I don't see why his ID was re-instated in the first place. Nox in attacking IJ repeated that pattern by dragged a dispute from another venue into the Mote and refusing to let it go when advised that it was inappropriate. He followed his past pattern of attempting to trash people in the Mote over disputes that happened outside the Mote. I think that no one was buying this time because of his past track record.
If, by questioning Mote norms, you mean attacking non-combattants and lashing out at Diva in the most hurtful way he could come up with for no reason at all, then I question the value of that type of "participation". Overall, his behavior over the past week, coupled with the fact that he'd been previously banned for particularly egregious behavior justifies reinstating the ban. 1304. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 10:22:11 PM Ducky
I'm not a fan of banning either. I'd much prefer to ignore the fool til he goes away. And though I didn't call for Nox's banning in the first instance, I think it was justified and question the reason (if there was one) for reinstating him. 1305. rubberducky - 9/28/2000 11:07:37 PM well, i've always been one for 2nd chances. i don't really think past behavior for which penance was served (the day banning) should be taken into account wrt current behavior.
but, was it "justified"? well, i dunno. most anything can be justified in the proper context. that being said, this is probably reached the point of diminishing returns in terms of discussing it. 1306. CalGal - 9/29/2000 1:16:52 AM A few clarifications:
Nos was never banned. When he showed up as God, he committed a rather horrific privacy violation. He wasn't banned for that, either. (although many thought he should be.) He then continued to try and violate privacy, and I believe that he was then banned (as God). At that point someone logged in with a number of ids and began spamming the place. It was very ugly; tons and tons of posts. We actually shut the place down from new logins for a bit, it was so bad. God/Nos/JF denied that this was him, and we had no real proof--but it was the same night, and I've always believed it was him.
That same night, Nostradamus showed up, and started posting in the Spiritual Issues thread. I would say most of us knew within a week that it was the same guy--same interests. But no one acknowledged it, and he was a generally pleasant part of the community for a few months and hosted the Religion thread--until he acknowledged that he was God. He was never banned as Nos; the incident with thread hosting caused his suspension and removal of as thread host, I believe. 1307. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2000 1:36:03 AM bubbaette, you are continuing it seems then to perpetuate an out and out lie about me and my "involvement" with the first banning of Nos. That isn't anything new coming from you, of course, since you have majored in falsities about me in the past, over and over again. So this is nothing new, but I feel the need to just point out at least to those people here that may be easily duped by your lies that I had nothing to do with his first banning. Again, I can't even remember why he was banned (although CalGal's recent post sheds some light).
So really, the thing you need to do is either 1) substantiate your current claims with facts, or 2) retract your lies (or let me be a little more forgiving and say your "inability to recall things accurately.") But in either case, it is clearly evident that you don't know what you are talking about in this particular matter.
Also, just for clarification, many people are saying that what Nos said to Diva was horrible and disgusting and whatever. Again, all I saw was one post to the effect that "I hope the baby doesn't look like the mailman" type of comment. Nothing horrific about that. In fact, we have seen far, far worse here - even by the likes of bubbaette, for example - that has been quickly excused. If Nos was banned for "shitting on the threads" and contributing not substance, then fine, ban him. But puhlease, ban him for that one comment to Diva?
So far most people that have been for his banning have cited his comment to Diva. Perhaps I missed some other comments to her from Nos? [the comment I am referring to involved pelle in the discussion with Nos] 1308. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2000 1:40:03 AM So, you have made a false claim about me bubbaette, and so again, I ask you to either retract it, or substantiate it and at least give me the chance to specifically address your errant claim. That certainly isn't asking too much.
And silence on this point will have to be taken by you to mean that you still prefer to perpetuate the lie (or error) than to correct it, since your claim sits openly on the table now. Unless you retract it, there it sits. And unless you substantiate it, the lie will continue to be a lie.
But I am even willing to allow it to rest with this, if you so desire: perhaps you simply recall incorrectly the facts surrounding his previous banning? If you at least allow for error on your part in this recent claim by you against me, then I will be happy that you at least allow for error on your part, and then we need not go into any details concerning the matter (although I prefer the details, since clearly there you will be shown your error).
It is your choice. 1309. KuligintheHooligan - 10/2/2000 11:40:11 PM Your silence is golden bubbaette. 1310. Dusty - 10/13/2000 1:31:37 AM Did we decide that thread hosts have absolute authority? I thought we had a minor blowup over an issue where a thread host thought this was the case, but was wrong.
Of course, thread hosts should have broad discretion. But the suggestion that a post containing commentary on the Presidential debates in a thread on Presidential debates can be considered abusive, seems like an odd interpretation of abusive. 1311. CalGal - 10/17/2000 1:37:01 PM ?????
I said that were Jack to repost an entire article instead of linking it in Movies, I would delete it. I was only semi-kidding. But were I to delete it, I would also relink the article in.
I certainly think it is within any thread host's purview to say that they don't want five posts dedicated to an article that could be linked in. I would warn several times first. 1312. wabbit - 4/2/2001 1:22:03 AM Is it time to revisit the RoE? 1313. ChristinO - 4/2/2001 1:41:42 AM They look good to me Wabbit. I'm in complete agreement.
|
