Gustav Temp Banned For Foul Words?

O.K. dictator rolls of business . The boss tells you what to do plain and simple . There are no exceptions . Well one , You can get a pink slip and we will see you later . That is how my corporation I just shut down worked .

Now my take on motive as it does seem to lack consistency:

I think Fraggle is a closet Christian and all those God Damns got to him on a level he don't understand yet. Course I been filling his mind with all kina crazy shit to haunt his dreams , so you can't blame him . It would never work except for his musicianship is craving satisfaction . Oh to be a frustrated Musician is something only another musician can fully understand

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Me-Ki-Gal

He's an atheist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know . He says it all the time . Let Me ask you this . How hard is it to believe there is no god ? You want to know a secret ? Next to no body real believes full heartedly there is a god . Spidey is right about this . For if they did and they were Christian then they would give all they have to the poor and take up the Jesus cross. Now if you ask Me the Atheist would do the exact opposite if they fully believed , but no they can't . Why ? They have been infected with religious values. Emnos might be free of religion for she stands ready to wipe out everybody except a select 500,000 people from the face of the earth . That is what I call Gurl Power

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Tiassa

Well?

 

I don't know ? I am severely dyslexic and some reading makes my neck and the base of my head hurt when I read some peoples writings . I have read some of the stuff Tiassa has written but for the life of me it don't seem to stick . Could be my own denial or it could be my subconscious telling Me there is no value for my personal rhetoric I spin

 

No one was talking to you Me-Ki-Gal that is directed towards Tiassa!!!! Whom I must say doesn't really want to address the post. Ha!

 

Oh K

 

@Randwolf:

I think I stated very much in the beginning of this thread what my position was on Gustav's post.

As well as my position on Fraggle's actions

At some point I also stated my expectations of a moderator on this forum:

IOW, I judge Hercules actions by his stated stance and Fraggle by his stated stance

Its my opinion that these are not reductionist arguments which can be devolved to two or three word answers. These are issues of moderation by people not computers


“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.” Abraham Lincoln

 

One of the upshots to sexual liberation, is that you are free to have sex in whichever positions and lightings you might prefer - including patently vanilla ones - without such reflecting on your politics or progressivity or modernity or whatever.

Which is to say that you'll find lots of very modern, liberated people of any nationality who happen to be rather boring and conservative in bed. Preference for lots of sex positions in full lighting doesn't ultimately define modernity any more than preference for one type of breakfast cereal or another does. Liberation is just about being able to choose for one's self, and not about which option you end up choosing. This is particularly true when it comes to bedroom doings - the way you put people in a position to choose for themselves is by removing the political implications of the choice, and so reducing it into a simple matter of preference without any larger implications.

 

@Bells

I know why she was banned but the reason is stated as: "Sandy sockpuppet political Rhetoric isn't what Sci-forums is about."

Presumably Sandy was banned for the same reason. Even though its listed as her disobeying forum rules 2,3,4 and 5 how can anyone know if she wasn't banned because she was a bible-thumping, Bush lovin' conservative?

Now let's look at what those rules are shall we. Class open your books up to the 'forum rules':

2. Personal comments
3. stereotyping and name-calling
4. goading, flaming and trolling
4. gratuitous comments and images

Now based on that 85% of us should not be here and that would include a few of the mods. But of course someone will say how she was the hostess with the mostest evil. Anyway I was only using her as an illustration. If she were more popular her byebye would have had a boo-hoo-hoo thread.

 

Daily life, and other controversial suggestions

I can only apologize, humbly, for my tardiness, as I failed to appropriately note the bated breath about your inquiry. I can only plead ignorance as I went about other things involved with my day.

I suppose I should mention that in addition to the allegation of sock puppetry—which is rarely proven without some definitive tip-off from the allegedly offending member—and concerns about her rhetoric, Diane was also a non-commercial spammer. She was a template poster who offered up similar threads at various discussion websites. In that sense, she lasted longer than perhaps she should have. Of course, I recognize that doesn't answer every question.

Specifically, no. But if you would grant me a moment, I'll come back to this.

Oh, I'm certain it's still around, somewhere. We just need to hose everything off and figure out what all is where. Maybe it got kicked under the sofa, or we'll find it when we clean the garage; perhaps it got shoved away in some dark corner of the attic.

To wit, we might even go so far as to suggest that our need for diversity led to some of the problems we now have. Such as:

I think on some level, you recognize the difference:

And, in truth, I don't think there is. Perhaps we might fault Stryder for his choice of words, but given the poor choices of words we're expected to understand on other people's behalves in order to not be priggish or hair-splitting I'm not especially unsettled. Maybe "propaganda" would have been more appropriate, since that's more what it was. Or, as I advised my colleagues over a week ago, any time they wanted they could have tacked Diane to the shed for non-commercial spam.

But I don't think we can suspect the problem is really a matter of left and right wings; after all, we've put up with Buffalo Roam from the conservative side, and the Joepistole response from the left, for a long time.

In the end, it's kind of a "stupid trap", and perhaps symptomatic of long history at Sciforums.

Speaking in raw numbers, there are more who coincide with one general political label in our community than there are who coincide with another. In order to maintain numbers to the other, we've sort of coddled them. Quite obviously, I'm speaking of liberals and conservatives. But over the years, we've entertained phrenologists, even, in order to polish our diversity credentials. We have applied different standards of justice and thresholds of extremism for left and right. As a result, we have long tolerated certain conservative members who contribute only stupidity or hostility, and, of course, that can hurt the reputation of conservatives. In truth, I sincerely doubt our conservative members would appreciate being grouped similarly with Diane. In some cases, they do not wish to be identified according to their own conduct, so what are they going to think when people allow the phrenologists, male supremacists, theocrats, jingos, and other assorted lunatics to define conservatism?

Take one of my colleagues, Madanthonywayne. I would, on some days, assert that he doesn't even want to be represented according to his own rhetoric. He, of course, disdains that suggestion. Either way, I can't imagine he wants to be grouped in with people like Diane, Sandy, or others of conservative infamy at Sciforums.

Thus, in the end, I would suggest that Diane wasn't so much banned for being conservative as she was for being a complete fucking moron. But that's only my take.

As far as the question of "political rhetoric" is concerned, I would ask that you grant my colleague a little bit of interpretational leeway on that one. No, it's not necessarily the best expression of the issue, but think of it as exclusively political rhetoric—as in facts need not apply.

That's the nearest I can give you. It was her stupidity that seems to have been held in contempt.

 

@Tiassa

No its not in the attic, it hiding under the morning paper. Personally I am not bothered by Sandy/diane's fate, I am just pointing out that since we really don't know what motivates a banning it can easily be misconstrued, I didn't make up the political rhetoric reason that's just what was written next to her name, and like I said I doubt Stryder had any evil motives behind the ban. But for example look at Sam, she's convinced that there is some mod conspiracy against her (originally posted by sam: Care to post the latest thread about me on the mod forum here? I bet some of those comments would be really enlightening to the general membership).

I'm sure if she were banned there would be talk of the vendetta and the getting rid of the political opposition, silencing the muslims and god only knows what else.

What I was suggesting is that there are motives behind these 'why was so and so banned' that are also not objective nor unbiased. Its the members way of trying to impress power in the direction where it wants it to lead. Fair enough. Members like mod's are only 'human too'. It seems to me that what people are really asking for, whether they realize it or not, is an extreme. They either want a complete hand-off approach or a completely controlled environment where every brow raising comment comes with an infraction or ban. If it were simply a balance they were looking for then this is as balanced as it gets in terms of moderation. And as for consistency…well there is no consistency. The only thing funny about complaints over consistency is how inconsistently members complain about it when its someone other than one of their friends on the chopping block.

 

Because there are other bible-thumping, Bush lovin' conservatives that don't get similarly banned. Not sure exactly what pretext was used to ban her, but she was clearly a troll and so needed to go. Same for diane - supposing she was anything more than a sock-puppet (doubtful).

And, yes, it is typical that most trolls at a given website will represent a perspective that is in conflict with the consensus position of that website. It should be obvious how that situation will arise, without any impropriety on the part of the website. It should also be obvious why trolls will attempt to hide behind accusations of thought policing when confronted.

 

@Quad

I was not trying to send the thread on a Sandy chase, I was just using her as an example of how a ban can come with a reason, say 'political rhetoric', which will hold the mod's intentions as suspect. Or similarly how Randwolf was using Skaught as an illustration of Sam's bias when it comes to mod action.

 

I know. I just don't think sandy/diane is a terribly good example of that. I mean, yeah, they could have been clearer - should have been, given how clear-cut the situation was - but there is surely at least one more pertinent example to be found, in this very thread.

 

Somebody Screw That Pooch!

Damn, did the neighbor's dog steal it off the porch?

Oh, I don't disagree, per se. I would just ask you to have a little mercy, and grant our man Stryder a glimmer of good faith. I know that in "official" issues, accuracy and concision help greatly, but ... er ... yeah.

Oh, well, in that case she has good reason.

Well, when you have one authority figure making shit up in order to suspend a member, and another who has disqualified himself from any suggestion of credibility in such matters by his conduct, I would suggest the member has a good reason to suspect a conspiracy. Indeed, if we reject the idea of a conspiracy, it's because a conspiracy is supposed to be secret, and there's really no secret about this one.

I've seen logic inverted, rules and standards invented, and reputations sacrificed at the altar of the Temple of Get S.A.M.

I don't disagree.

For the most part, I don't disagree. That is, I'm sure I could find some bone to pick, or hair to split, if I really tried, but in truth I'm not up for trying.

In that sense, I would say that I'd very much like it if we all rebooted our integrity, but that demands something of an idyllic context. We're human beings, which means our functional integrity is sometimes going to be inconsistent. I suppose the difference might come down to accepting that fact versus exploiting it.

I just don't have any brilliant answers that will satisfy anyone.

 

I'll by pass the Sam thing since I'm not privy to your back-room discussions, but I do know there are many who would think action against her just...which brings me to the next point.

I agree there are no brilliant answers nor solutions. I would say if we all remember why we're here and focused on our interests within the forums and focused our discussions on the topics at hand, dealt with disagreement with maturity, clarity and respect these little glitches wouldn't be such a problem. But that would only be my delusional version of Shangri-La because I know I'm always a heart beat away of becoming either exasperated or enraged at some silly comment, ad hom or god knows what and so are many others here. So...

What did Mr. Natural say? Keep on truckin

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

@Quad:

Well if it were self-evident why these bans occurred there wouldn't always be some wrenching drawn out thread combing through and explaining the whole thing.

 

Oh come on. Rubbish. There's are all sorts of rhetoric around here given that by rhetoric you mean:

'language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content '

Its all over the boards if you care to look.