BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Policy & Help >

Banning thread: Netaungrot

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Blake Head
21:58 / 08.03.07
I don’t know about it being a watershed, but it could be. Whenever this discussion has come up recently, a recurring question of “if we take action because of this, why were X, Y and Z not banned” has arisen (and it’s good to aim at consistency), and that if we’re going to ban for certain actions that we haven’t done so for before then we should have a discussion and a formal change of policy or address the ways in which we are not enforcing current policy (a discussion, which if it is indirectly ongoing, hasn’t concluded yet).

I’m firmly in the camp of not comprehending why there isn’t a much stronger and quicker approach taken with suits which have joined and not in any sense met or suggested that in the future they will meet the responsibilities and standards being a member should mean. It seems to me sufficiently clear that in this case Netaungrot has contributed minimally to the threads that ze is involved in, has done so (with past history) while being abrasive, rude, ignorant and combative, and has expressed little capacity for self-reflection or desire to contribute anything of worth to the board. And that’s it. I don’t understand the need that people feel, with respect to their feelings, but still, for the degree of trolling to worsen into aggression/incomprehension or spill over into other threads, before moderators take action, when they’re actively doing harm now. By the looks of it, suits like this one actively contribute to people not enjoying the board, they de-rail otherwise excellent threads, and they waste the time and energy of everyone involved. This doesn’t seem to me as though it’s contentious that the moderators should be unceremoniously taking action, deleting off-topic posts and removing the suit if repeated and/or no explanation or apology is forthcoming, which is a different case from, as happens often, someone making an incautious remark and reconsidering/discussing their terms or method of approach. This, by contrast, seems quite clear.

My minimal interaction with other boards with much lower standards of discussion nevertheless doesn’t result in this problem much. Off-topic threads/posts are summarily locked/deleted, persistent offenders are warned then banned. There isn’t any fuss about it, and the stress that is associated with it is personally one of the aspects of Barbe-culture that I like least. Which, I think, is different to not being thoughtful about cases that are more contested. Relative assessment of what value is aside, it should be possible to identify the difference between those who are rooted at the bottom of any scale of how they contribute to the board compared to those who contribute to a varying degree, and to do something about it.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
22:11 / 08.03.07
Where did I say that you, Netaungrot, have a pop at some specific person regularly?
 
 
· N · E · T ·
22:39 / 08.03.07
If you pop up every few years and have a pop at someone, you start to look a bit less like a guy who had a bad day and more like an asshat.
 
 
· N · E · T ·
22:44 / 08.03.07
I had a pop at strictly magical intrepretations of Discordia, not a person. You were leading the charge in taking pops at me, on the other hand.

But since I'm only a fake discordian troll and you're a mod who can do no wrong it's sheer justice.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
22:50 / 08.03.07
Also, this: You guys get to rip into my Discordian beliefs and me as a person all you want is clearly untrue. Go back and read it over. You came in and posted the following:

Doing a ritual that doesn't mock "popular paganisms of the day" or superstition in general, at least in some capacity, somehow doesn't seem appropriate to Discordia, which does look rather like a pop at the topic starter, since the ritual ze'd outlined involved banishing the inner greyface rather than sending up popular paganism or superstition. (I also liked "Has anyone here even read the Principia?", implying that no-one--including the avowedly Discordain OP--had. Deft.) You have also, in one fell swoop, lumped paganism in with superstition. You are quite free to do this. You are also free to make such a statement in the Temple. However, if you're going to tell all the many and varied pagans who post to the Temple that their beliefs are mere "superstition" you are, to coin a phrase, going to need a bigger boat.

In fact, you didn't even try. You have been so inept at getting your point across that I don't even really know what you mean by "magic," except that I don't think it's what I mean. Incidentally, the comedy spellings of "magic"? We already do that. Have been for years. It's toksik's fault, he started it.

Now, according to the "Netaungrot is a reasonable chap driven to extremes by unreasonable pressure from unreasonable people" model, you would then go on to flesh out this perspective (the OP is doing Discordia wrong; paganism = superstition; possibly hnmadjjjykx = superstition, but you're rather unclear on that point) in a reasoned if forceful and non-punch-pulling way. Sure, you're being challenged fairly strongly by one (1) poster at this point, but being of such strong convictions you will of course be rising above that and giving us your take on things.

Except not. In fact, we get a detour into Offtopica via allegations of magical groupthink and unwarrented abuse of Netties. You'd been getting a slightly rougher ride from one (1) particular poster than one might usually expect, but I suspect that is down more to your past form than teh evol grouphivemind reacting like a tentacular seabeast to the presence of an anti-supersition interloper.

Nobody's torn into your beliefs because you haven't written the first thing that would actually outline what your beliefs are. Apparently we trod on a bit of your beliefs; we're very sorry, but we didn't see you standing there. If you'd said "Now hang on a minute, I happen to passionately believe in X, Y and Z, and you've offended me by attacking Y" people would have backpedaled and tried to sort it out. You didn't do that. You just blundered on, spewing out increasingly stroppy and decreasingly comprehensible text until everyone got sick of you.

The Temple accomodates, quite happily, a variety of mindsets, including a few hardcore skeptics. Hel, one of the Temple moderators is an atheist skeptic who believes that all religion is essentially bunk, magic likewise. (I'd count myself a hardcore skeptic too, I'm just a hardcore skeptic that got mugged by a delinquent pantheon... although that's another story.) The reason you're not being greeted with a hug and a party favour is not that you're touting an unpopular belief system, it's that you, Nettie, kitten, are being a complete git.

You can still turn this around, dude. Entirely up to you.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
22:55 / 08.03.07
Sorry, X-post.

f you pop up every few years and have a pop at someone, you start to look a bit less like a guy who had a bad day and more like an asshat.

Yes, that is what I posted. Congratulations on mastering the arcane skill of pressing Control and C at the same time. For extra credit, please point out to me where I say that you regularly have a pop at someone, or that you have a pop at the same someone on every occasion. Or even that the post refers specifically to you rather than being a generalisation, though I think we can make allowances for that particular misunderstanding.

In fact, if you would try to respond to what people are actually writing as opposed to the version you've created inside your own head, we can wrap this up before bedtime.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
23:34 / 08.03.07
I’m firmly in the camp of not comprehending why there isn’t a much stronger and quicker approach taken with suits which have joined and not in any sense met or suggested that in the future they will meet the responsibilities and standards being a member should mean.

Well, I'm not. For a start of, how would you, personally, define what the 'responsiblities and standards of being a member' should mean'? There's the wiki, I guess, with regard to what's not going to be tolerated, but beyond that, the standards seem to be constantly shifting. And is this really a poltical party, of sorts, in terms of a line we're all supposed to be following?

As a member of teh board, I sort of highly resent the implication that it is, in terms of how 'we' should approach dissenting (yes, even fnnording, 11!23! even those) voices, however pointlessly aggressive they might turn out to be.

I mean you could always just ignore him; it seems as if, on past form, he would be quite happy to go away for a couple of years, if you did.
 
 
Blake Head
00:51 / 09.03.07
Well AG, you are of course entitled to your position, and I don’t see where I suggested you were not. I would hope that there is a basic consensus on posting respectfully, coherently, and reflexively – at an absolute minimum. Posts which are so wilfully ignorant, offensive or unclear as to render them more distraction than contribution should, in my opinion, be questioned/moderated, posters who continue in this manner should be asked to explain themselves, as has happened in this case and in others, if they signal no inclination to modify their posting habits they are not meeting the basic standards for dialogue on the board and should have their membership revoked. I don’t feel that vaguely saying that standards are constantly shifting under our feet is particularly helpful in this case, and I have no idea what the alternative would be to taking action when things are clearly not proceeding healthily.

I don’t understand your comment about following the partly line apart from that you’re reading my expression of opinion, which I felt generally matched that of others who have previously commented on not being satisfied with the moderation system, as an imperative that I’d received and was passing on. It’s not, and accordingly, that you “sort of highly resent the implication” of what I’ve suggested is your own affair; it was simply a suggestion on board policy (that must in some sense function as a “we”) with which others will agree, disagree, modify or ignore.

As a sidepoint: I don’t think there’s anything dramatically wrong with this banning thread or the actions of the moderators thus far: Netaungrot has been asked to explain hirself, and will do so or not – my point was mainly that in terms of the general mental elf of all those concerned if it becomes clear that Netaungrot has no inclination to change their posting style they should be banned before anyone wastes anymore more time on the issue and also before they disappear into the woodwork, nothing happens and they turn up at some point in the future and there’s the same problem. I haven’t really had much need to ignore Netaugrot, but as a general principle I don’t want to share the board with people that on past form haven’t demonstrated any capacity to engage with it productively, and, in fact, do the reverse. I don’t have any issue with dissenting opinion, but if that dissent takes the form of incoherent aggression then it’s superfluous to the needs of the board, and to remove it from the abstract I really don’t want to have it ruin threads that I’m reading or contributing too.

So I’m sorry, maybe they’ll go away if we stick our head in the sand doesn’t work for me, a thread that many people seemed to be enjoying reading (including me) has been sent spinning, probably irretrievably, off topic, and that’s really annoying and unnecessary, and in my humble opinion we should actively try to avert that happening again.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
02:59 / 09.03.07
Whenever a banning thread pops up I fell the need to research it completely before I even bother to comment if I ever do.

I am not an influential force on the boards, the Temple in particular. I lurk the fuck out of it, but my posting usually goes into TV, Comics or Convo.

That being said, the reason I spend a LOT of time reading old threads when banning is raised as an issue is because I have had some run ins with the board as a whole, and while they may have seemed like minor speed bumps to the Big Names, they meant a lot to me. I am really happy that none of my errors ever led to a banning thread, if they had I think I would have just left anyway, because I really do enjoy being here, and I enjoy the fact that if I make an ass out of myself during an overly defensive post I can learn from that, apologize and move on as a better person.

That being said I have read the posts that have been linked here, and Netaungrot doesn't seem to like it here, even a little. They post in response to a thread about the faith they claim to follow but don't contribute anything but one liners which, through a twisted dark glass, might not ALWAYS look mean spirited. Through my own many readings of the Principia, Illuminatus! and various web sources it would seem that Discordianism would be more open then other practices to a variety of styles of worship.

So, what does that leave us with? We have someone who, when they do post, posts single line replies that don't directly relate to what they are replying to, and who handles challenges to their beliefs in a poor manner. Should this lead to a banning? I personally would not miss this person if they were gone because they do not contribute anything that I find of any value. That does not, however, mean that I don't think they may contribute something of worth in the future.

Part of me wants to suggest a cooling down period, however the 2 years between initial conflict and current conflict suggest that it might not help.

I feel really out of place posting on this, but something about this thread made me realize that I actually care about Barbelith as a community and not just a place to talk about comic books. I don't know if banning someone for having an abrasive personality will make this a better place.

EDIT:

Much of the above might be disregarded by the following. During my initial reading I was pressed for time and did not realize the Discordian thread went on to a second page.

Based on the second page my thoughts are the following:

Nets comment that we are trapped in out own reality tunnel/unable to grok the meaning of grammatically incorrect phrases like Eris would fucking anybody pisses me off.

This:
I'm referring to the deep froof. The idea that symbolic exercises dependent on the certitude of belief cause non-local changes. That doubt in the exercise which otherwise may spur someone to creative yet non-magical solutions is squelched in the name of a biological predisposition towards illusion.
took a few tries to get any meaning out of it, and while I may like the concept on some level when it is run through a thesaurus it becomes unreadable.

The following two bits fall under the category of "Made Elijah Chuckle But Don't Help The Situation In The Slightest"

Mordant:
You're mean. Why can't you be more like my Lj friends list?

Haus:
Living with your mum?

My reason for my feelings on these two entries is a bit long winded. I think these are very funny jabs used during the course of an internet argument. Where I think they become problematic is that they are not, in fact, challenging someones ideas or comments, they are JUST jabs at someone during an internet argument. While I (and many of us) have a feeling for Mordant and Haus as posters, people who don't spend all of their 'work' time on the boards will likely not. From an outsiders perspective (oh fuck, reality tunnel) seeing two folks in mod hats making snarky comments at you could seem like the opening volley of a flame war.

Taking all that into account, I think that, while the situation could have been handled better on the 'Lith end of things in thread, based on the comments by Net in the Discordian thread a discussion of their contribution to the board is valid. I feel this way especially because of the parting shot of
Well that settles it. I'm staying. Bite it.

You're a hilarious little animal.

followed by the BS post about being deleted by the mods enough to make me especially mad.

This has become much longer then I wanted and has taken up enough of my time, but damn, who knew I liked this place so much. I will be checking back to respond to any replies, but my opinion is that Net seems unable to communicate like a grown up and has told us that s/he is going to stick around to fuck with the boards (or at least some of the posters).

Space em.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
03:59 / 09.03.07
Jack Denfeld here. I don't really see anything ban worthy in those threads. I understand he might not be getting on with some of the other members, but I didn't see any kind of personal attacks, and no hatespeech behavior. Just annoying people sometimes would mean we'd have to ban some of our regulars also. If he just annoys you two times a year, could you just hit ignore?
 
 
Alex's Grandma
04:31 / 09.03.07
Posts which are so wilfully ignorant, offensive or unclear as to render them more distraction than contribution should, in my opinion, be questioned/moderated, posters who continue in this manner should be asked to explain themselves, as has happened in this case and in others, if they signal no inclination to modify their posting habits they are not meeting the basic standards for dialogue on the board and should have their membership revoked.

My worry, BH, and I'm really not trying to have a go here, is that this sort of thinking leads to ByrneRobotics, ultimately. At the moment, one is liable to be banned from Barbelith for a very specific set of objectionable behaviour patterns; hard-eged racism, sexism, homophobia or personal abuse. I'd be very reluctant to to extend the banning remit beyond that, personally.

But I mean I could be wrong, that said.
 
 
illmatic
04:42 / 09.03.07
To respond to Olulabelle, Jack. Elijah and Alex's Grandma: I'm firmly with Blakehead. I feel that banning quickly, and rapidly, when a poster is abusive and unwilling to engage otherwise when challenged, would be a good thing for the board as a whole, and it's a great shame we don't have a mechanism that allows us to do this quickly other than the Hand of Tom. Having this ability would simply bring us up to speed with the rest of the internet. On every other board I frequent, moderators have the ability to ban quickly, and these spaces function better as a result.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
07:53 / 09.03.07
I don't really see anything ban worthy in those threads.--Jack Denfeld

Possibly because we deleted the worst of it? You do realise that in a last-ditch attempt to keep the thread on topic about 4 or 5 posts got wiped, right?

I mean you could always just ignore him; it seems as if, on past form, he would be quite happy to go away for a couple of years, if you did.--AG

Well, yes. He might. Or he might hang around making increasingly rude and offensive statements ("magic/paganism = supersition," while not a forbidden opinion as Nettie's tried to paint it, is hardy an uncontentious statment in a forum full of pagans and magicians, and needs to be handled with tact) and creating an increasingly icky atmos in the forum. He might disappear for six months, a year, two years, and then come back and do exactly the same thing again because having been left unchallenged he feels it's okay to carry on. Then there's the broken window effect; having posts around to the effect that "magic/paganism = supersition, LOLOLOL groupthink" helps to create a more inviting environment for people who like to make posts along the lines that "magic/paganism = superstition, LOLOLOL groupthink."

If I went into the Headshop and started posting "identity politics = supersition, LOL," I would find myself facing stiff challenges from people invested in identity politics. Why should the Temple be different? Why should we have to "just ignore" abusive posters?
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:30 / 09.03.07
Possibly because we deleted the worst of it? You do realise that in a last-ditch attempt to keep the thread on topic about 4 or 5 posts got wiped, right?

Is there any way of seeing those deleted posts?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:48 / 09.03.07
I saved some of them but they're on the other computer--I believe Quants has a copy. I've only got the most recent one. Will PM you.
 
 
Princess
09:35 / 09.03.07
If your PMing a copy would it be ok for me to get one too? OR could we have it in thread. My memory isn't particularly good around these things.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
09:50 / 09.03.07
Why don't you just post it in the thread? Is it top secret?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:57 / 09.03.07
No, it's no Top Seekrit, just that if you're wiping something for being inflammatory it's not necessarily such a great idea to repost it. Still, in this case there's nothing terribly offensive in the posts, they were just wiped for being threadrotty, so I guess there's no harm in reposting.

"Nobody made you the centerpiece of anything except you."

I made you write that entire post that hinges around me, right? With magic?



"This is a messageboard. People read what you write and are allowed to tell you if they don't like it. Wear a hat."


Except me. I'm not allowed to respond to the rain of shit. But, I am afforded a hat. Facinating.


Like I say, fairly inoffensive. I *think* he was a bit ruder in the others but no slurs or anything, just meen-mod ranting. It's just that when you have four or more posts, rather longer than this one and full of similar stuff, it gets to be kind of a drag on the thread. Quants, you want to post your bits?
 
 
Princess
10:58 / 09.03.07
If I recall right there was one saying that he was going to stay just to annoy us or something. I'd like to see if I'm right because if I am then I don't really think theres an argument for keeping him.

If, however, I made it up then it's a bit more complex I suppose.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:07 / 09.03.07
Well. If we are banning somebody for being a dick twice in two years, I do have a list, and this would be a definite precedent - it's not something remarkable on most other message boards, but it would be on Barbelith, where you are generally not banned just for being a dick. However, I don't think we are, quite. Netaungrot says elsewhere:

I see the entire thing as a useful experience and relevant to Discordian Ritual. Part of the question being asked is how we interpret Discordia. My interpretation often appears to be trolling to the outside eye and yes, sometimes that's all it amounts to. Ad aspera per aspera.

Now, one of the things we do ban people for is trolling. If Netaungrot is saying that the way he interacts with people is going at times to be intentional trolling, and at other times it will be so close to trolling as to appear to be trolling to the naked eye, then, honestly, there's not a lot of point in keeping him around. He's a trickster, he's a jester, he is shaking up our comfortable reality tunnels, and so on. Cheerio, really.

So, if he is saying that he will continue to behave the way he has so far - if that is his manifesto promise - then there really is no argument for keeping him, except that it will be easier to get him banned when he has done it a few more times. Right now he is less about considering why he engenders this reaction, and more about how people are being mean to him. That is not a useful road to follow, and it is part of the path down to Paranoidwriter's banning terminus - which, incidentally, Alex's grandma and Jack Denfeld appear to have forgotten about.

If he is unable to interact with a board without permission to troll, then we should thank him for the warning now and either ban him now or be ready to start this conversation again next time, pointing to this thread when it happens. However, right now buggering up one or two threads is not really bannable, or rather if it is then there are a number of people we also ought to be banning. Banning is not applied with universal consistency, which is unfortunate, but to ban on those grounds _would_ be precedent-setting, I think - depending on whether you think Shadowsax was banned for consistent misogyny or consistent douchetoolery, really.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
13:49 / 09.03.07
Can you really set precedent backwards like that Haus? SS was removed from the community for being a rather large douchetool whose modus operandi was misogyny. Should we allow someone else to be an equally large douchetool as long as they avoid the Barbelith 'hot topics'?

I would like to say, however, that the deletion of posts in the Discordian thread doesn't help the case to ban at all, now. I was pretty pissed at what I perceived to be Net's defensive posting about content being deleted. If in fact something WAS deleted I can say I am not nearly as mad.

I don't feel as strongly this morning as I did before bed when I posted above, perhaps the nights sleep helped. I still feel that when someone hops on board telling people they are hear to FUCK SHIT UP and shake us loose of the chains that bind us to our black iron reality tunnel we shouldn't immediately slap them down. However, in the case where someone is told that our reality tunnels aren't all that black or iron, and they really don't need to be shattered, thanks, and the response is defensiveness and maniacal laughter followed by a promise to return another day, well, this run on sentence ends with me saying they don't need to be here anymore.

I do find it odd that Net brought up the subject of banning before the discussion seemed to have gotten that heated. That was strange. Perhaps they wanted to help us realize that our moderation structure is inherently flawed and help us evolve into a better group of forum dwellers by shaking the foundations of Barbelith. Of course just typing that made me throw up a little in my mouth.
 
 
grant
13:51 / 09.03.07
Reading back over the thread, do people think the deletion of off-topic posts (the ones partially reposted in this thread) worked well in keeping things readable & on-topic?

If so, then that might be the way forward rather than banning.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
13:56 / 09.03.07
I think that it made THIS discussion, as well as the Temple Moderation thread, more confusing to be honest.

I think if there was a way to copy and paste all deleted items into a jumbo "Deleted Posts" policy thread, so should they need to be referenced they can be, that would be the best way to handle it.

Many forums have Deleted area where garbage is sent so it can still be seen, but is less intrusive to the discussion as a whole.
 
 
Blake Head
14:09 / 09.03.07
He's making a list, he's checkin' it twice,
He's gonna find out whose naughty or nice…

AG: No worries. I haven’t had any real experience of ByrneRobotics so I wouldn’t know (even if I can guess) but it wasn’t one of the sites I was referring to above, and it’s my feeling that what I was proposing was really relatively standard. I was channelling the grouch a bit last night also, because as people have said there’s nothing so red eyes of rage inducing as we’ve had previously. I think there’s definitely an element of frustration in that when someone has signalled that they see abusive, mocking posting styles as a valid way to engage with the board we feel that we need to wait until that escalates into more hard-edged offences or disrupting entire forums rather than one or two threads, when for me, disrupting one or two threads combined with an inability or unwillingness to understand why that isn't going to fly is sufficient to feeling that I personally don’t want to engage with such a person, I don’t want them disrupting threads I’m invested in, and from there I don’t want to see them on the board. [That’s different, I think, to having a response to people where it doesn’t quite work or you disagree or you don’t get on, but you still recognise the validity of what and how they contribute to the board.]

This is another digression, but on the Hand of Tom thing… Am I right in thinking that essentially the time and effort involved with Tom interceding is a matter of informing the already busy Tom of the situation, he reads the supporting evidence and makes a decision? That is, the principal effort isn’t actually at the level of locking the suit, it’s that Tom has previously always reserved the right to engage with the issue? I think that’s generally a thoughtful thing for Tom to do, and obviously we’re at an impasse in terms of who has access to the physical banning powers and currently Tom will always be able to make a last-minute intervention, but in a situation where we’re agreed that swift action needs to be taken couldn’t we press Tom not to act as arbiter but simply as (unfortunately phrased) executioner? That would seem to relieve pressure on the not highly engaged with the board Tom, and a working solution within the limits of who has access to banning capabilities. Or is this an inaccurate model / pretty much what we have already?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:29 / 09.03.07
Netaungrot, this may sound rude so I apologise in advance, but unfortunately I can't think of a better way to phrase it right now: Is English your first language and/or is your style of writing while on this board tied up to your belief system? A simple answer please.
 
 
Quantum
14:47 / 09.03.07
Good luck getting one that doesn't involve the word 'froof' dude.

I don't have the deleted posts as I considered them worthless chaff, I sent a copy of the content to Netaungrot out of courtesy so if you want to read them ask him to post them here (again, good fnording luck). The board unfortunately doesn't save 'sent' PMs AFAIK.

I'd just like to say my disagreement with Net is not his Discordian beliefs (I like Discordians as a rule) but his behaviour. If the argument was 'magic=superstition yes/no' that would be fine, but in fact it is 'trolling is cutting edge discordian behaviour yes/no'. If he reserves the right to act like a troll, I reserve the right to act like a moderator and try and ban him.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:04 / 09.03.07
grant, that works for exactly as long as nobody responds to the posts being deleted and the poster whose posts are being deleted does not decide to go for volume - that is, not very long at all.

Can you really set precedent backwards like that Haus? SS was removed from the community for being a rather large douchetool whose modus operandi was misogyny. Should we allow someone else to be an equally large douchetool as long as they avoid the Barbelith 'hot topics'?

Paranoidwriter avoided the Barbelith "hot topics" and was banned, which is where Alex's Grandma and Jack Donfold are missing a step on the things that get you banned. So, douchetoolery - or, to be more objective, disruptive bahviour - to the point where it is damaging Barbelith gets you banned. Netaungrot, right now, is not doing that, though.

Looking back over the ShadowSax thread, incidentally, I;m not sure it was ever established whether he was banned for having a generally deleterious effect on the board, or whether that was _aggravated_ by his attitude to women. However.

BH - yes, basically. Locking a user out is pretty easy - you just change their password and clear the email address field so they cannot request the new one. Deleting a user is much harder, but that almost never happens.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
16:21 / 09.03.07
Thank you for that Haus, I missed the PW thing I think, during one of my black out periods.

AS you said, Netaungrot has not yet reached critical mass. I do wonder, however, if we should take action in situations where someone tells us they are going to keep up the behavior that we find unacceptable. Obviously if race/gender/holocaust denial are issues a poster has and they tell us flat out that their opinions will never change and they will keep on posting we would kick them out quickly. In this case, as you put it, the poster has said that they are not going to change their posting style, so it can be assumed that the disruptive behavior will continue. This leads me to believe that Net will keep posting as s/he has which will lead to a critical mass situation and we will be back to this thread.

That is enough, in my mind, to kick someone out of the club house. I think these banning threads can create a polarization on the 'Lith and can be damaging to the morale of the board.
 
 
· N · E · T ·
23:37 / 09.03.07
Netaungrot, this may sound rude so I apologise in advance, but unfortunately I can't think of a better way to phrase it right now: Is English your first language and/or is your style of writing while on this board tied up to your belief system? A simple answer please.

Yes, English is my first language. I'm insulted that you think I ought to answer something as complex as the relationship of writing to belief in simple terms. Even the nature of language or belief considered separately elude researcher's understanding. You will have to be much more clear and specific if you want a simple answer.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
00:31 / 10.03.07
But you haven't been asked to provide an explanation as to "something as complex as the relationship of writing to belief" You were asked: is your style of writing while on this board tied up to your belief system?

Either your style of writing is connected to your belief system, or it isn't. Yes or no.

Another simple question, to which I'd appreciate an honest answer: Are these many misreadings of yours genuine, or an elaborate ruse to garner as many responses as you possibly can?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:36 / 10.03.07
Well, it's working, isn't it?

As has already been said, if Netaungrot feels that it is a compulsory religious or spiritual duty to troll message boards, then a) being a Discordian beats the crap out of one of those religions where you have to work in soup kitchens or help with disaster relief and b) we already have the information we need about how he intends to interact with Barbelith in the future. This is the only convincing argument, as far as I can see, for banning on the current evidence.
 
 
· N · E · T ·
00:49 / 10.03.07
I don't have the deleted posts as I considered them worthless chaff, I sent a copy of the content to Netaungrot out of courtesy so if you want to read them ask him to post them here (again, good fnording luck). The board unfortunately doesn't save 'sent' PMs AFAIK.

To quote Mordant, "Congratulations on mastering the arcane skill of pressing Control and C at the same time."

If someone wants me to post it, do say so specifically and I will.



I'd just like to say my disagreement with Net is not his Discordian beliefs (I like Discordians as a rule) but his behaviour. If the argument was 'magic=superstition yes/no' that would be fine, but in fact it is 'trolling is cutting edge discordian behaviour yes/no'. If he reserves the right to act like a troll, I reserve the right to act like a moderator and try and ban him.

Framing my comments as a yes/no is insulting, especially as that is not remotely what I said. Yes, trolling has a place in Discordia, no that is not what I've done here. You people did not engage my argument for what is easily dismissed as trolling, instead, you shifted the conversation to another thread and conveniently ignored it. However, if I fail to address one of your comments or use language you're not familiar with I'm failing to engage usefully.

Several people have baited me by flaming my person, but I've only attacked your behavior. Some troll.



Care to show the class where you have engaged with said viewpoints anywhere on the board in any meaningful way, let alone "openly and honestly?" You know one thing people do when they engage "openly and honestly"? They ask questions. They try to understand what beliefs are being held and then go on to engage with those beliefs. You haven't bothered to do that, you've just Tarzanned into the forum on your vine with a yodel of "LOLOLOLOLOLOL!"

I was asking questions even after people started taking shots at me. As for engaging viewpoints:

"Doing a ritual that doesn't mock "popular paganisms of the day" or superstition in general, at least in some capacity, somehow doesn't seem appropriate to Discordia...

...Has anyone here even read the Principia?

Was chaos mahadgjeeeks ever about snapping out of dogmatic bullshit?"

***

"Clearly I'm a fake discordian...

Way to frame the conversation towards ad hominems, real useful chap."

***

"What's your take on the rule of fives, netaungrot?

It's the simple and easily forgotten idea that we see connections where we want to.


Psychology's confirmation bias, if you will."

***

"Okay, so you're misunderstood. Perhaps you'd like show us where we have judged your posts in error and how we might understand what you truly meant by "traditional ritual BS"?

I'm referring to the deep froof. The idea that symbolic exercises dependent on the certitude of belief cause non-local changes. That doubt in the exercise which otherwise may spur someone to creative yet non-magical solutions is squelched in the name of a biological predisposition towards illusion.

I don't doubt that working this part of our human experience doesn't confer a greater sense of purpose, depth and quality to the practitioner. But is it possible that this habit of minimizing doubt costs people's critical faculty on the whole? In a period of world and local affairs that people need every last neuron of analysis they can muster?"

***

"Mind you, I was confused by Eris would fucking anybody. as well.

Would you care to explain a bit more about this view of yours.

She's a hideous bitch that started a war?

The deep froof? Symbolic exercises dependent on the certitude of belief? You're going to have to be a little bit clearer I'm afraid, there are a lot of assumptions implicit in your post that not everyone will agree with.
Like certitude for example ('Sureness of occurrence or result; inevitability'). I don't think magic relies on inevitability, and in fact I'd say anyone who's 100% certain their ritual will work is in for disappointment a lot of the time.

Yes. The deep froof. Not the more reasonable manifestations of superstitous experience. The particular supernatural explanations that are magic's toughest sell to the scientifically inclined.

If y'all didn't have any modicum of reason in your approach I wouldn't be here discussing ideas with you, I'd solely be making savage jokes at your expense. I'd laugh, you'd ban me, and we'd go our merry ways.

I hope to continue this at a later time, perhaps over at HIMEOBS platform PD where threadjacks (intentional AND otherwise) are not such an inconvenience..."

***
"The best in Discordian ritual that I've done (I haven't been to anyone else's, just the ones I've done) seems to be somewhat light on actual magic(k) since so many Discordians aren't heavy occultists, but still personally transformative. I like using kind of silly methods to belie serious purpose, a sort of slipping in of intent behind the conscious objecting mind.

Part of the reason I abandoned the occultist, and neopagan angle to Discordianism is due to that bolded idea. You don't need superstition or explicitly magical paradigms to do that. Do you?"
 
 
· N · E · T ·
00:54 / 10.03.07
But you haven't been asked to provide an explanation as to "something as complex as the relationship of writing to belief" You were asked: is your style of writing while on this board tied up to your belief system?

Either your style of writing is connected to your belief system, or it isn't. Yes or no.

Another simple question, to which I'd appreciate an honest answer: Are these many misreadings of yours genuine, or an elaborate ruse to garner as many responses as you possibly can?

If you're asking whether I believe what I write here, no, it's only a rough approximation of where I'm at and should be taken as such.

Are your misreadings of my statements genuine, or an elaborate ruse to ban me from Barbelith?
 
 
· N · E · T ·
01:01 / 10.03.07
As has already been said, if Netaungrot feels that it is a compulsory religious or spiritual duty to troll message boards, then a) being a Discordian beats the crap out of one of those religions where you have to work in soup kitchens or help with disaster relief and b) we already have the information we need about how he intends to interact with Barbelith in the future. This is the only convincing argument, as far as I can see, for banning on the current evidence.

No. You misunderstand, intentionally it seems.

Mockery does not = trolling. If it does, then why do we refer to comedians as comedians instead of trolls.

You don't know shit about my volunteer work or my relationship to my community or what objections I have to religion. Your smear campaign will make you look stupid in the long run.

Your intention is to ban me before all the evidence can be examined.
 
 
The Falcon
01:10 / 10.03.07
It really isn't, though. Haus has said there is only one conceivable good reason to ban you as things stand, as opposed to - I'd imagine - an infinitude of reasons not to. I think you have misread. Please don't slip so comfortably into self-fulfilling prophecy, inevitable victim mode, Netaungrot, because at this juncture I don't really want to see you banned.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply