BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


What exactly does get you banned on Barbelith?

 
  

Page: 1 ... 2627282930(31)3233343536... 42

 
 
ophion
07:10 / 17.08.06
gawd bless you 33! although i've not been following the threads in which you seem to have upset people, and although i now think you should be banned before you de-rail any discussion you wanted to contribute to, i do think that posting the above in a thread called 'what exactly does get you banned etc' is funny as fuck. oh well.
 
 
33
07:42 / 17.08.06
gawd bless you 33! although i've not been following the threads in which you seem to have upset people, and although i now think you should be banned before you de-rail any discussion you wanted to contribute to, i do think that posting the above in a thread called 'what exactly does get you banned etc' is funny as fuck. oh well.
It would be the first time the English have banned the Scots from doing something and still i.e. using their own singature notes while allowing be allowed to use theirs here..

you take the funny drop the u, add an a where it feels true
 
 
33
07:47 / 17.08.06
i'm not anti english by the way , I'm just pro scot and for a country that has oil capabilties but is not rich ( the only one in the worlds history ) you aint gots ter looks to fars...

There can only be one !
 
 
33
07:49 / 17.08.06
C'mon toksik you traitor , wheres yer feckin bows n arrows now ?

har

har
 
 
ophion
07:58 / 17.08.06
i'm sorry everybody. i fed the troll. bad judgement on my part for the sake of irony.
(exits stage left, embarrassed).
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
08:12 / 17.08.06
33,

For the record, I really don't want to ban you; I'd much rather you take a step back and think about how/why your comments are offending people, whether this gives you pleasure, where your comments are actually coming from, and if they're actually logical. Indeed, I'd absolutely love it if you took a break for a while and then came back and read all those threads with fresh eyes.

Also, and here's my piece of cod phsychology, my instinct tells me that you've been through a lot of shit in your life, maybe suffered a lot of taunts and nastiness, and built a defence mechanism that uses anger to justify reasoning which doesn't fit yours. I reckon in real life you would probably try to give people's voices a chance, although you might not understand many of the issues different people have to facy dailly and that your words/actions/beliefs aren't actually helping. I imagine that online you don't realise that you need to be even more understanding and considerate of both your own assumptions, and the ideas/ thoughts/ beliefs / feelings of others. Just remember, there's nothing wrong with being wrong about something. Learn from it and move on, eh?

I'd hazard a guess that pretty much all the people on this board have had similar experiences to the one I've completely imagined for you: being picked on, looking stupid, feeling that one has to fight to exist. I imagine many (if not all) of the other members here hate to make others feel shit (even those who's opinions and actions they cannot stomach), and are actually big lovely softies if they're allowed to be open and honest and listened to. But there comes a point when someone who's all shouty-shouty stops being listened to, by everyone.

Seriously, have a break, and maybe even try pretending you'e someone else reading those threads for the first time (be as imaginative as you like, but make sure it's someone totally unlike the person you know you are). And I DON"T mean that in a "you're a crap person, be someone else way"; I mean this as a simple, cool exercise to try to see the world (and maybe one's mistakes) in a different light.

I also appreciate the complement, but you must realise that just the same as you get angry, we ALL get angry and you're hardly giving anything to Barbelith other than spikey-spikey at the mo'. i.e. not even any facts to back up your arguments. Like any group/society/etc, one has to listen, give, and show reasoning to be appreciated and listened to in return. Of course, nobody should suck arse for the sake of "belonging to a group", but nobody is asking you to do this, and I bet nobody here wants to do that either (me included); we just want you to think about what you're saying and find us proof for your theories.

Honestly, I'm only trying to help, and I pray you read what I've just typed and try to take on board what others have said to you also.

And the best of luck with your health problems (sincerely),
 
 
miss wonderstarr
08:48 / 17.08.06
Nothing personal against 33, but I don't think he really gets what he did wrong, if he thinks an apology for sexist behaviour means telling the person she probably has amazing breasts.

As I've suggested on the "offbeat" thread, the point for me is that he's just going to keep doing this kind of thing to someone else, and then someone else, and that this kind of behaviour left unchecked on Barbelith makes it seem acceptable not just to 33, but in a broader way to anyone who reads his comments.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
08:54 / 17.08.06
Good point. Something has to give and so far, 33, it doesn't seem like you've realised it's probably you.

By the way, I haven't slept all night, so that was probably my second and last wind. Sorry if my breath smells a funny colour. I'm getting fuzzier by the second and that dodgy section of my head is starting to suspect foul play, which is ALWAYS a bad sign. So I'll probably take a break till later this evening and maybe return with my triumphant "take" on Time Trumpet...("Ta daah!") " Or maybe not...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:19 / 17.08.06
if he thinks an apology for sexist behaviour means telling the person she probably has amazing breasts.

"Knockers", surely? Welcome to 1978.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:48 / 17.08.06
So now you're what, Braveheart? Yeeesh.

Seriously, 33, you need to either accept that the way you've been posting is out of line for this community and think about ways to deal with that, or you need to go and find a place where they let you talk about knockers. Given the nature of the internet that should take you all of five seconds.
 
 
Quantum
10:08 / 17.08.06
Do we hate Scots here? Well blow me down. Who knew?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
10:14 / 17.08.06
I've been rereading this thread and I can't for the life of me figure out where the Scottish thing fits in at all.
 
 
Jack Fear
10:42 / 17.08.06
Jesus Christ. After that little pity party, I'm ready to pull the switch myself. Nice going, 33. Come back when you're a grown-up, okay?
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:52 / 17.08.06
Not wanting to be seen as a 33 apologist here, but vis writing's normally a little more coherant than the posts above (but only a little). Not that being on the sauce is any excuse for acting like a stroppy 5 year old.

33, if you are posting drunk then it might be an idea to (as PW rightly suggests) take a step back and come back to Policy once you are in a better frame of mind to deal with it.

It's important that you engage with us over your current level of behaviour in a clear mind. Currently you aren't doing yourself any favours, and will probably end up saying something which will result with you being penalised (ie banned as there is no other way of penalising bad behaviour of a certain level).

If you don't care one way or another well then the airlock beckons. If you genuinely think you can't play nice here (for whatever reason) then it might behoove you to walk out now rather than doing the metaphorical equivelent of flinging shit everywhere before you get banned.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
10:54 / 17.08.06
Evil Scientist may be evil, but he doesn't half talk some sense.
 
 
Blake Head
12:19 / 17.08.06
Putting Evil Scientist's clarity to one side (for a moment) I'm similarly confused by the Scottish thing. Not quite understanding, or indeed appreciating, Barbelith's oppression of its rebellious Scots, I'd be more concerned that 33 was seen to represent Scottish views on gender, or indeed was typical of our general command of the English language.

More seriously, his offensive and incoherent contributions to the board are not just tiresome but actively making Barbelith a much less interesting and much less pleasant place to visit, which I think would be at least two good reasons (perhaps not the most acute ones) arguing that he doesn't play any further part in the community. I could only suggest to him that he follows the excellent advice above and reflects on the manner and content of what he contributes to Barbelith before posting any further.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:28 / 17.08.06
OK, this is probably going to be a waste of time but anyway.

33. We need to talk. About you.

Firstly, grow up.

Secondly, you think this is bad? On the old days, if you brought up the homosexual clothing conspiracy on the old Warren Ellis Forum you'd be ejected so fast your head would spin. We're nicer and fluffier than they were. This is why you're still here, for now.

When you talk about how the homosexuals ruining your clothes, when you talk about blacks ruining your music, when you talk about women on this board spoiling things by objecting to how you refer to them, YOU ARE PRODUCING HATE SPEECH. If this seems unfair to you, then yes, leave now. Reset your password to a random selection of keys so you can't log in again and go away. As if you need to be told, HATE SPEECH IS BAD. We don't like it. If that's unreasonable to you, there's lots of other boards who would welcome you to express your views.

Maybe you meant it all as a joke. It doesn't matter. You're a newbie here and, I'm sorry to say, a newbie doesn't get as much slack as someone who's been on here longer. If someone of longstanding makes a crack about gays and clothes, they'll probably get away with it, or be more mildly questioned, because they've built up enough karma in the bank of everyone's expectations. You as a newbie don't get that because you'ev yet to make a deposit. Because people will be unable to tell the difference between your joke and the other newbies genuine hate. And we've had most shades of everything through here once already, and we're more than willing to chuck out a half-decent person if it means getting rid of the genuine creeps. That's tough, but that's the way it is.

You seem determined not to play nice, and then get upset when people treat you in kind. Take that music thread about how everything was crap. I was upset when, after making you a genuine offer to send you a CD of music, you accused me of treating you like a beggar. Why should I hold out my hand to you again when you spit in it? Why should any of us show you any respect if you don't show us any? And yet some of us still are, we can be such hippies sometimes.

Personally, I don't much care what you do any more. I'm in the 'kick him' camp and I'm not interested in any mental or physical issues that are responsible for your behaviour. But if you want to persist in casting yourself in the role of the voctim of the nasty moderators, go right ahead. It's what most of the people who have been removed from Barbelith in the past (and some who have stayed) have done and it helped them precisely zero.
 
 
Quantum
12:54 / 17.08.06
I've been thinking of banning as exile or execution something, like a value judgement on the moral worth of the bannee, but now I'm thinking it isn't like that. Just because someone's posting style isn't appropriate to Barbelith doesn't mean they're stupid or bad or wrong, just that this isn't the place for them. Like when someone is at a party and is acting inappropriately, politely asking them to leave, then if they get aggressive escorting them out. There are other parties to go to, in this case about seven million only a click away.
So my point, it's nothing personal but I'd support a ban in 33's case and am hawkish about several other posters, because their behaviour means the polite and entertaining posters leave the board quietly. It's like tolerating Ann Coulter at dinner at the cost of Oscar Wilde getting up and leaving.
Not to be coy about it, I'm engaging a lot less here largely due to a few posters who get my goat (Dragon for example) and while I'm not comparing myself to Oscar Wilde I hope you can see what I mean.

So, what exactly gets you banned on Barbelith? Is it intolerable behaviour like breaking the law, or intolerable behaviour like insulting the host and peeing in the soup?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:19 / 17.08.06
I've been thinking of banning as exile or execution something, like a value judgement on the moral worth of the bannee, but now I'm thinking it isn't like that.

Isn't it? Would that be a bad thing? I think it is in this case, and that's a good thing.

Just because someone's posting style isn't appropriate to Barbelith doesn't mean they're stupid or bad or wrong, just that this isn't the place for them.

In this case, it means all those things, but moreover, you don't throw people out of parties just because, say, they don't share your taste in music, and so we shouldn't ban people just because they might not quite fit in with Barbelith: we should ban them when they consistently and unapologetically keep babbling nasty, bigotted hate speech. Let's ban 33, and please, let's do it quickly, without too much equivocation, or reassurances that we think he's a beautiful snowflake in his own way really (he's not), or second, third, fourth, fifth chances.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:42 / 17.08.06
I don't think it's unreasonable to wait and see if he fancies trying to justify the posts above. But if he doesn't bother in the next, say, 24 hours(?) or just comes back with a Hawksmoorian defence similar to the one above then I support bannage.

Even if he does try to engage properly though I think he's going to have a tough time dodging the bullet.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:54 / 17.08.06
Even if he does try to engage properly though I think he's going to have a tough time dodging the bullet.

Often the way it is when you stand in front of the guy with the gun saying "go on then".
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:55 / 17.08.06
So you want to wait and see if he justifies the posts in which the justifies the sexist posts by saying that we can't handle him and we're oppressing him because he's Scottish? Do you honestly expect him to have a total personality transplant before his next go?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
13:56 / 17.08.06
you don't throw people out of parties just because, say, they don't share your taste in music

Flyboy: I find this statement difficult to believe of you.
 
 
Quantum
13:58 / 17.08.06
Fly- yes let's ban 33 for the hatespeech, I was musing on the thread title really. My mental benchmark is now what I imagine Oscar Wilde would do. If he were alive. And had internet access. And was on Barbelith. You know what I mean...
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:03 / 17.08.06
I think it has all been said already, but I agree with banning 33. I usually stand up for people if I think there is a smallest chance of them contributing positively to the board, and in this case I really don't see it. Lets ban quickly.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:03 / 17.08.06
[Hopelessly off-topic, but it's true, Gypsy! They just go and sit in the kitchen as is traditional in these circumstances.]
 
 
Evil Scientist
14:11 / 17.08.06
Yes.

As I say above Flyboy those posts look like someone writing under the influence of a lot of alcohol (to me anyway). His behaviour is unacceptable, I agree, and his conduct on the other threads has been reprehensible. Even if he does decide to come back and act like an adult he's probably for the high jump.

I've sent him a PM suggesting that he should return here and engage properly (futile? Yeah probably). As I say, if he doesn't respond in a satisfactory manner in the next 24 hours then I'll happily add my voice to a call for banning, and I won't be rending my clothes if he gets booted this instant (but let's face if it's unlikely that anything's going to happen before then anyway).

Has anyone contacted Tom Coates yet regarding this situation?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:13 / 17.08.06
I've asked Tom about whether he's happy to go along with what's been said in the last few pages here or whether he would prefer a 'Trial of Shadowsax' style seperate thread. But I've literally only just sent the PM.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:23 / 17.08.06
As I say above Flyboy those posts look like someone writing under the influence of a lot of alcohol (to me anyway).

But you've read his previous posts, yes? All the same deal. Either he's sober or he's not going to sober up. Makes no difference either way.

Has anyone contacted Tom Coates yet regarding this situation?

Yes: see last page of this thread.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
16:27 / 17.08.06
I know this is slightly off-topic and that I’m probably not the first to mention it, but do we have a policy (either in the wiki or otherwise) of sending new recruits through something similar to the “We don’t care if you’re joking” thread? I don’t think sending them directly through the thread itself is a great idea, as it kind of dovetailed from its original purpose, but somehow stating to people from the beginning that “It was a joke!!!” won’t get you anywhere might help avoid some of these excuses.

33 has used the typical attempt at a cop out more than once (‘I didn’t mean to offend you or your hooters, really!’), and we always have to say the same thing: We. Don’t. Care. And maybe if we could somehow say that from the beginning, hell, maybe even in the application process, we could avoid explaining things a bazillion times. Theoretically, let’s say we put a clause in somewhere that basically says, “Hate speech of any kind will not be tolerated and is considered grounds for being banned from this board.” Then, when someone like 33 says something amazing inane regarding the intelligence of the inhabitants of Venezuela, someone can say, “This is an example of hate speech. Please recant and apologize, or disciplinarian action will be taken. If you have questions, please feel free to PM me or see the wiki.”

I realize that this isn’t particularly different from what we already have in place, and it’s quite possible we have something exactly like this already (it’s been a long time since I went through the application process). But I think any way we can make the board’s policies on hate speech as clear as possible from the getgo worth consideration, as hopefully it will lead to fewer discussions exactly like this one.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
19:40 / 17.08.06
Our Lady- I don't know how Tom will feel about it, and it's his call, but I'd prefer not to have a 'Trial of 33'. Firstly, it seems to be a foregone conclusion that 33 isn't right for this board and this board isn't right for 33. Secondly, the defense and prosecution aren't evenly weighed- it's 33 defending 33 and the rest of the board advocating his removal, so unless we actually want to form a Barbelith 'Let's play courtroom!' fun-set (I call bailiff!) such a thread is going to be fundamentally unfair. I believe the term 'dogpile' was used more than once in regards to the Shadowsax thread.

As for cutting him slack for posting drunk: drinking makes people more likely to say the stupid things they already believe, not start believing stupid things.

Re: Spyder's post: A link to a wiki explaining posting etiquette comes up every time somebody posts something, and it contains all the info needed to understand whether their post/thread is appropriate or not, and basically avoid 33-style behaviour. The thing is, I've been here going on maybe five years now, and today is the first time I've read the wiki (I credit my staying power on this board to awesomeness). Maybe every new inductee should be sent a link with their 'welcome to Barbelith' e-mail telling them that they absolutely should read the posting etiquette. It reminds me of a company I used to work for not being able to fire an employee who called a customer a c*nt because he never signed a contract saying he shouldn't. Same principle: if members know what is expected of them but choose to do otherwise then they're bastards and we can ban them immediately without five pages of hubbub in this thread.

Overall, if it counts towards anything, ban this arsewit immediately. I can see no reason to have the kid hanging around: even ignoring the horrible things he's said to pretty much every group of people who aren't white, male, Scottish, straight and into Smashing Pumpkins the threads he's started have been inane and his replies incoherent. He's getting worse, or more drunk, as time goes on and shows no indication that he'll get better.
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
19:52 / 17.08.06
Given that there's a protracted and much ballyhooed "invitation/application" process to wander in, how does this happen anyway?

I know that it must be a beast to manage the system, and probably overwhelming at times, but if people are at least in theory being "vetted" and their other/prior writings/contributions being looked at, how do wandering bundles of aggression and ignorance get past the doorman in the first place?

If it's an invited friend of a friend thing, has anyone had a quiet word with the inviter? If it was a vetted application thing, what... well, what convinced the vetters that this was somebody who'd contribute postively to the community?

I'm just curious. As somebody pointed out on the last page, every time somebody gets the boot, somebody else seems to fill the void immediately. It's weird.

I really don't want to sound accusatory or anything -- I'm not -- I'm just wondering if there's a structural flaw that can be patched up somewhere.
 
 
grant
20:34 / 17.08.06
Vetting doesn't happen on grounds of content -- it's only a way of confirming identity.
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
20:50 / 17.08.06
Ah! I didn't understand that. Never mind, then.
 
 
*
22:32 / 17.08.06
While 33 may not be drunk, unless he always posts drunk, intoxication is not the only possible cause of incomprehensible and disjointed posting style. There are other causes more permanent and less under the poster's control. However, I don't think either drunkenness or, for instance, some form of mental illness, is any more reason to tolerate abusive behavior than is "I'm just an asshole; it's my way of making funny jokes!" If we had some assurance that this was a temporary issue, and that the poster under better circumstances contributed to the boards or at least did not seriously take away from other posters' ability to enjoy the boards, that would be a different matter, IMO. (For example, if I recall correctly, not long ago an established, usually fairly quiet poster started posting in an annoying fashion in what may have been a manic episode, but the issue passed— and it wasn't abusive towards others, just irritating.) But as it is, in 33's case, it's abusive and it looks to be more or less permanent based on the evidence we have so far.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 2627282930(31)3233343536... 42

 
  
Add Your Reply