red. TDI deleted a bunch of accounts the other day (or it was me drunk), including some of my own. I assume he did the same with yours.
This thread is about Satyr I am talking about him/her, how is that trolling? Are you on Sam's payroll or something?:shrug:
moving on from Sam's distracting images...to the real topic at issue here. As I was saying Silenus was a puppet of the banned member Satyr. He was banned again because administrators do not appreciate sockpuppets of banned user or not banned users. So Inzomnia, as sad as it is, until and unless Satyr is unbanned we will see of him/her no more. Also it seems that a member of this respectful community by name of S.A.M seems to be posting inadequate to the issue relevance pictures. I hope community realizes the harm that this trolling has on society at large.
inzomnia: As you will see looking at the ban list, Silenus was banned because he was a sock puppet of Satyr, a recently-banned member. A permanent ban is a permanent ban, not a pretend ban which posters can skirt around by creating one or more sock puppets. Sometimes, it can take a little while for moderators to notice sock puppets, but when they are noticed they are usually banned - particular when they engage in the same behaviour that resulted in the ban of the original identity in the first place. Probably, you did not read all of Silenus's posts. A number of them contained the same kinds of insults that originally got Satyr banned - the same belittling of other members, the same egotism, the same dull and repetitive assertion of sexist attitudes and the like, dressed up as if such thoughts were original. And the usual crowd were sucked in by the same showmanship. I note that the loudest complainers in this thread (not yourself - your query is quite reasonable) are those who have also defended other banned trolls, and who have recently suffered sanctions for their own behaviour.
willful ignorance. refer to the quoted text that has nothing to do with satyr do not play me for a fool i get upset and start crying surely you are not that cruel eh?
And it's showmanship that the forum needs, James. Satyr may have nothing new to say but he says it so well, when he can rein in his tendency to ramble. His worldview provides an interesting and challenging counterpoint to the views of most here. So many other misanthropists trawl these forums - dull creatures all, with not an ounce of Satyr's style or intelligence. I'm pleased to see someone like inzomnia start this thread precisely because she isn't part of the 'usual crowd'. What's more, all but two of this thread's respondents have indicated that they welcome Satyr's contributions (yourself and schimenschyo are the exceptions) - and probably less than half of those could be described as part of the 'usual crowd'. A good proportion are relatively new members who recognise that Satyr makes a unique contribution to the forum's life. Further to this point about the wide audience that Satyr draws: his most spectacular bust-ups in recent memory have been with Bells. A long-standing member but, again, not part of the 'usual crowd'. I share your distaste for Satyr's worldview but feel that it would be wrong to let my personal reservations about that cloud my appreciation for his unique style and the entertainment value he provides. The good of the forum, I feel, is paramount. And Satyr is very, very good for the forum. Personally speaking I've defended one other banned 'troll' - Dr. Lou - for the exact same reasons I've just given. I share your distaste for many of his views too - but don't feel that personal distaste is sufficient grounds for jettisoning yet another brilliant, unique and original poster. As for the sanctions recently imposed against me: do I even need to add that those have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on anything I've just said? I write with the health of the forum in mind and nothing else. I feel that the ethos and atmosphere of this forum has been shaped for far too long now by one person's strong sense of personal morality: yours, James, in fact - but I don't want to personalise this. The point is that this forum is far, far bigger than any of its individual members and it is utterly and catastrophically wrong to let one or two people shape its future in this way. The whole ethos of the forum has to be opened up and liberalised so that anyone can express any wayward viewpoint they wish to as long as they're doing it in an intelligent, entertaining and original way. Needless to say, the stupid and the boringly repetitive, the whiners and the agenda merchants, should be given appropriately short shrift. The forum must become what it once was: a clashing of brilliant minds in which no viewpoint is censored or forbidden by a tiny minority, but met head-on by the people who give the forum its lifeblood: the members. Slacken up on the controls, James, and concentrate on doing what bought you here in the first place: debating. Dismantle the nanny state and leave the members free to engage each other too, openly and honestly, without fear of censorship. The future health of the forum depends on it.
