Gustav Temp Banned For Foul Words?

You’re being deliberately obtuse. Continued use of profanities can, and should, be penalised under any number of the forum rules.

1. General
H. Be Polite and Respectful

2. Personal Attacks or Abusive Ad Hominems

3. Stereotyping, Insulting and name-calling

4. Goading, flaming and trolling

13. Repeat offenders

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Funny. Before I read this post I was thinking that, for the most part, I have very few complaints about the moderators here. But of the few that I do have, first and foremost amongst them is a certain petty vindictiveness I occasionally encounter from certain mods. Whether such is elicited by a perceived defamation of character or a challenge to one's "pet position" is irrelevant, it's simply not an appropriate way to react--especially for one whose position is to moderate.

My other complaint is related, and likewise relates to the matter of infantilizing posters: specifically, a habit certain moderators have of assuming their knowledge, expertise, and experiences far surpass that of all the lowly regular members--sometimes by virtue of their station in life, and sometimes simply by virtue of their status as a moderator. Not to single out Fraggle here, but simply to illustrate with an example: one cannot reasonably claim to possess vastly greater experience in the world of music simply by virtue of age! Over the past fifteen years I've recorded (and released on a number of labels) nearly twenty albums, and I've performed in well over twenty countries on three continents. I wouldn't say that my experience trumps anyone else in this regard--it may very well, or it may not--but my point is: how could I, or anyone, possibly even know such a thing?


@ chimpkin:

Gustav may very well "curse and flame," but I would argue that he seldom does so solely for the sake of flaming; in fact, I would argue that he does so in order to address an existing problem which is unlikely to be addressed or acknowledged otherwise.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So seriously, is goddamn a foul word? On this site, where Abrahamic religions are EVIL and theists are MORONS?

Seriously? This person is offended by the word goddamn?

 

Gustav bit my head off when I was a n00b here, flamed me when I wasn't trying to be obnoxious and he could have just politely said he disagreed.

He's been on my ignore list ever since.

So I really dunno what it is that he does to tick off the mods.

 

I've never had any problems with Gustav.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanks, I needed that. Awesome vids

Neither have I. He's one of the few people here who doesn't say one thing and do another.

If you think Gustav is offensive, you should have been here in the glory days

The question you should ask is, was he right?

As Gussie himself quoted not too far back in the past:

Criticism, even well-intended criticism, can be understood as a direct assault on our ego. When (however unconsciously) we've come to associate our very selves with our ego or point of view, then whenever our perspective is questioned, disbelieved, or disputed, we cannot but experience ourselves in jeopardy--our mental and emotional poise at once thrown into disequilibrium. When this occurs, the right way of hitting our "reset button" is to remind ourselves that, regardless of whether we've said or done something wrong, we're still fundamentally ok. The situation doesn't really require us to defend ourselves because our self-acceptance doesn't hinge on the other's approval. And, finally, it is this essentially positive self-regard that can inoculate us against any and all negative appraisal.

However, the kind of unconditional self-acceptance that alone can enable such a response frequently eludes us, so that what we typically do when criticized is attempt to regain our psychological balance (and the upper relational hand) by focusing all our attention on invalidating the person who just judged us. Such a reaction is hardly the way toward personal evolution or growth, but may yet be irresistible in situations where our ego feels in peril. (Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D.)

 

About the idea in question? yeah. But he attacked ME, not the idea. I know the difference.

All he had to do was even bluntly say "I think that's a dumb idea," which..meh, okay, it was...instead he insulted me, pretty much called me a Nazi, said I was undisciplined, and told me I ought to "Go on, git!!"

He could have said my idea sucked. That's fair. He said I sucked instead, in so many words.

I don't come online to be textually abused, so I said to hell with him and put him on ignore.

And he hasn't lightened up from that, so why should I listen? I got beat up enough earlier in life, thanks.

I have problems convincing myself I'm fundamentally okay without anybody yelling at me, which is why I don't let anybody yell at me unless I've really earned it.

But don't worry, I'm going to be seeing how many more n00b charity therapists I can make burn out and quit their jobs

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They do internships on us charity cases. I actually want to see if I can get one to throw up, pass out, or leave session. Pure win.

 

And thats fine. The ignore function is there for a reason. Gussie is old school at sciforums, the one where you would NEVER have seen people advocating members being banned for saying goddamn [Just saw the poll results, unbelievable - who are all these people? Are they old enough to access the net without having their hand held? ]. A lot of thin skinned individuals who want to be protected and who feel better knowing that others are being censored. My personal philosophy is La pluie de vos injures n'atteint pas le parapluie de mon indifférence. We have too few people taking responsibility these days. Everyone wants a babysitter.

 

I find it really difficult to communicate with such people, I don't know how to cater to a wounded ego - or why.

 

There's plenty of things I'd like to see inserted in this place but real life ain't one of 'em!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This could be a test of qualification for membership to sciforums

Admin: Are you offended by frequent and rude usage of the word goddamn

Possible sciforums member : No.

Admin: Sorry you have been rejected by the administrators of sciforums

Rejected sciforums member on second try: Er, okay, yes. Deeply deeply offended. Advocate bans and possible permabans at frequent and rude usage of word goddam

Admin: Welcome to THE TWILIGHT ZONE sciforums. Please remember that we are a science forum and irrationality is not tolerated here.

 

You're being deliberately obtuse by suggested that the rules, as written, represent any kind of useful, consistent guide to policy here. They emphatically do not, and this has been apparent for a long time.

 

That's why I pointed such out very explicitly, at the very start of my comment on such.

Do try to keep up, eh?

Meanwhile, it's worth pointing out, of course, that multiple of said bans were issued by one JamesR. And that he exhibits a long-standing personal vendetta towards me - one of the factors that calls the impartiality of said bans into question. So, hardly an unbiased commentator.

Moreover, I wonder at the relevance of this "unbiased commentator" status, here. How can anyone in a political interaction be "unbiased?" Is that even desirable? Wouldn't it necessarily imply being disinterested, and thereby beg the question of what they have to add? Is there anyone in this thread that can be said to be "unbiased" on the question of how the forum should be administered and moderated? Seems a stilted standard to invoke, in this context - and so, difficult to read as anything other than a politicized attack.

Which, again, gets to the earlier point: surely JamesR, given his position and experience, has something more relevant and valuable to add to this thread, than a cheap attempt to silence myself?

And another thing: whatever said bannings may say about my "bias," they unequivocably go to my experience as a commentator on the subject. That being why I made a point of bringing them up at the outset, on my own initiative.

 

Gutav is a fat stinking little fly that shows up wherever there is any argument between members or the moderators. He would do well to contribute to discussions and not just stir up shit.

 

I find Gustav to be extremely entertaining and creative in the way he goes about criticizing and/or when he decides that his special brand of activism is called for.

Being new to this forum I know not about personal vendettas but the posts presented as reason for ban seemed well, kind of petty. I tend to follow Fraggle and Tiassa a lot because I learn an awful lot from both, but having said that, I find that at times both can be condescending in their general commentary or in their dealings w/ members. I still enjoy both immensely, as I do Gustav, and I find even when he is being offensive he has a point to make!

I have to agree w/ SAM, Bells and quadra on this one! FREE GUSTAV!

 

@ Spidergoat:

I would prefer that you refrain from using such foul language as this: