Banning of Balerion

General Advice

My advice to members, in general, is that if you want to complain about policy or enforcement, it helps to actually have an argument pertaining to policy or enforcement. That is, actually try to make a point; don't just write three sentences comprising a setup and two insult lines.

I've never understood why is so hard for people to figure out.

(Plenty of people get away with cussing us out to our virtual faces; they just have the courtesy of offering a reasonable notion of an actual argument that happens to be peppered with heated sentiments. We're a lot more understanding about that sort of thing, which, being observable in practice on a regular basis, is another one of those things about which people's confusion seems mysterious.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A couple of quotes seem appropriate here.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
—Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, p. 284

“Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.”
—Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, p. 13

"A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else."
John Burroughs

Something more for you to contemplate…but again we both know contemplation is not your thing. You are not the first who has traveled this road and unfortunately you won't be the last.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was wondering how one accrues these points. Is it based on reported posts? I ask because I have reported certain people repeatedly in the past and I never know if that does any good or not.
Also is there a list somewhere of all the moderators. Seems like I learn of a new one every week or so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess that a good definition of 'power' might be 'they can do things to you that you can't do to them'.

I've been subjected to angry insults by a moderator here on several occasions. I'm aware that if I ever respond in kind and insult the moderator back, either publicly or privately, I'd likely be banned. That's just how Sciforums operates.

So it's better to remain placid and refuse to be drawn into it. Just continue posting as thoughtfully and persuasively as possible. Insults are kind of the other person's admission of defeat anyway, most common when they don't really have anything better to say but still want to avoid losing face. It might be best in those situations to back off and let the other person's insult be the last word. You've won and there's no need to rub it in.

 

and how do you know this private info?

 

I try to abide by that strategy. But oft times the same poster will keep insulting you no matter what you post. Surely that's what the report button is for. I'd like to think it at least incentive for people not to flame or troll here to their heart's content. Nothing shuts down dialogue quicker that personal ad homs, which as you rightfully observe is simply the last resort of the defeated debater.

 

Old is new again

Sigh. I enter into this discussion again at great hesitation; not because I am wrong, but because it doesn't matter that I'm right.

Foul language aside, Bells has made similar physical put-downs of me numerous times, so I don't think I have to apologize for her outrage, above. Maybe her comments were just 'kidding', and maybe not. Whatever. I think at one time I was accused of having a good laugh at a personal issue she was experiencing on PM or on the forums, which was shocking.

I note he didn't issue a public one to you for misrepresenting me several times on my rationale for hesitancy about getting militarily involved in Syria, or when you misrepresented me about my comments on pictures of the Boston bombing, or when you misrepresented me on my question about the political stance of the neighbourhoods attacked at Ghouta (which actually might have been irrelevant politico-militarily, now that I think about it, since if you're trying to hit rebel-captured areas, you wouldn't worry too much about the proclivities of the civilians nearby). I think at least twice on each issue you carved it off to a bite and employed it as a kind of character assassination, without anyone taking up the gauntlet against you. Unless you got a warning Tiassa didn't post on the board? Sorry if you did. Moderation can sometimes be harsh, you know.

Your apology was... well, not really an apology:

It's not much of an apology, because it's not so. I'm not trying to pin this on the rebels, but - as I've said many, many times - that I think it is possible that they might have done it, while the bulk of my suspicion on Ghouta rests on Assad, much as various leaders of different countries have done. My position is, like those people, that it wasn't a "slam dunk", and that perhaps we should be very cautious, because this kind of thing has happened before. And the thing that Bells is apologizing for wasn't even the issue that I objected to. (Before that comment gets run off the rails: I don't support Assad.) Whereas I posted this:

Which I posted not because of a threat, but because it was true.

That being said, Tiassa informed me via PM - which I can produce entirely if anyone likes and he grants permission - that "a political twist of the knife" was acceptable on SF. Accusing me of not wanting to help the Syrians because they were (actually not entirely) Muslims is not a political twist, it is utter misrepresentation. And unfortunately, she actually made clear her express position that that was my actual position later on, so it wasn't a "political twist of the knife". I don't accept such a misrepresentation as something to be laughed off; it is, again, a fairly savage accusation, and little different in moral content to my own post. If someone would care to discuss this, I'm available. And if this is the standard for SF - and I do not accept that it is - then it is reprehensible. Do the other posters think this a reasonable standard? I'm curious to know.

That is, to use a word illegitimately, a fascinating accusation. Where did I say this? I'm perfectly willing to wait; no rush. On the flip side: why is it okay for you to do this to me, but not for me to respond in kind after so many accusations against me? Let's answer that question. I think it would be important.

You're right in part - I have not thanked you for my not being banned permanently. So: thanks for that. On the rest, if you have objections to the above, I would be reluctantly happy to discuss them, since the whole banning thing is still floating around with the implied threat about defending myself too vigorously or too well. But I have to counterbalance that against the fact of doing the right thing and not allowing myself to just be slandered away at. You see my point, I'm sure.

 

I agree on principle but on balance what you have is constant low-level character assassination, digression and aversion. I don't think SF is supposed to work this way at all. How can you post here, in such an instance? Sure, there are woo-woos, and there are dangerous people, and so forth. But if it happens as much as it seems to be happening, does this not indicate that rational, decent members of the forum are being targeted, even aside from the principle about how SF is indeed a private forum? Surely that would be a benchmark for failure.

 

Yazata, I must wholeheartedly agree...but occasionally, a little sprinkling of..."whats good for the Goose is good for the Gander"...

Anyways, it is apparently an indication of "OCD" if certain Posters are asked to keep a count in any way...

 

There are many here for whom that would be very attractive.

 

I have been on this site a couple of years I guess and I can say that in my experience the people that have been banned have all deserved it. I would go as far as to say there are many that should have had bans and did not receive them, me included.

If you get banned from this forum you have all but begged for it.

Stop whinning, posting on this site is not a right fercryoutloud - it is a privilege.

 

Since they look like hairless cats not a bad idea!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'd say it relates (or admittedly should relate) sharply more to the nature of the offense, the conflict and the facts, but as you will.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What look like hairless cats?

 

balls. you said it yourself, hairless balls set on fire...

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Quinnsong. Your partner needs to see a doctor.

 

No I am not rude, I actually traced what was this reference to to beginning of the thread, and it was Bells who started the ball thing.

 

I was replying to "balls". a joke.
Then you added a sentence.

 

ah it was a joke...hmmm hard to tell emotions here. sorry =3

 

Now look what you have done my mascara is ruined!