Concerning MR's ban

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps. That's up to him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Magical Realist is responsible for his own behavior, true. It's just a shame that his detractors aren't held accountable for theirs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

He's behaved this way pretty much the whole time; it's become unavoidable.

To not make me regret lifting the thread ban. And then he went out of his way to post a self-aggrandizing deception that simply didn't help the situation.

No, it's more like we have to decide whether certain unconventional actions undertaken―e.g., a particular pre-emptive thread ban―have any proper justification. Reinforcing the prescience of that maneuver actually fouls up that discussion some. As a function of question this is pretty straightforward.

This critique, coming from someone who lies like you do, isn't exactly reliable.

For an internet junkie who works so hard to present a miserably wretched human character to this community, you really ought to be mindful that neither your delusional fantasies nor arguments spun from absolute ignorance help anyone.

At this point, it's a question of whether and why he wishes to continue playing his game.

You'd be amazed at now many volunteers we get. And we're no longer amazed at how many suckers are willing to fall in and give for their cause.

We've been through pretty much all of this before, and we'll most likely go through it again. It takes different forms each time, but we go through this cycle.

And you'd be amazed at how many offenses we let pass because a moderator feels exposed to the appearance of vested interest. Indeed, it's part of the reason why you have so few warnings. MR as well, though in large part that's because the first time he landed on our radar it was for a stupid offense we notice but have long let pass―"drive-by" topic posts―for the simple fact of numbers; enough members had gotten into the habit that it would have been incongruous to slap this one down.

But we let more serious offenses pass, as well. There is a lot of history going into any given conflict such as the one we have before us; those who have no need to consider that history also have no need for real answers.

The thread ban issue, for instance, is something that can be worked out as a policy matter. The question of targeting in that thread really is problematic insofar as there is a way to target a member without targeting a member, and this episode, by dint of having required an invocation of targeting, will put that entire standard in question, thereby chilling discussion diversity if it becomes impermissible to take, say, a talking point within someone's delusional, bigoted rant about women and their politics and start a separate thread examining the history of that talking point.

More to the point, we have a staff dispute to resolve; perhaps that seems counterintuitive to one who thinks their imaginings suitable surrogates for reality, but in the end I can think of a point I've had to remind someone else of late: You're still here.

If we were all your delusion needs us to be, you wouldn't be here. Neither would that other member. Neither would Magical Realist. There would be a number of people not gone right now, and a number of people who eventually left on their own who would evenutally have been kicked out if we were all that.

And this is actually problematic. Other people see us cutting awful, disruptive members such as yourself all manner of breaks, and think they, too, can get away with it. And, yeah, they've got a point, but some years ago when the Administration said they wanted diversity, we figured the arrival of phrenology was just an accidental coincidence. We've been bending over backwards for years, trying to accommodate particularly identifiable blocs, and the result is predictable.

One of those protected blocs is what Americans would describe as political conservatism. And the difference 'twixt then and now was being able to tell a self-proclaimed "alpha male" who wants to kill all the Muslims except for the women that are hot enough to rape to have another banana and calm down. These days, we have to pretend that nonsensical bits like that are just one side of the argument. This has been a long process that included throwing flags against "the other side" just so the one can feel we're being "fair", ignoring our rules against societal denigration in order to not take action against inflammatory tinfoils, though that had its roots in a political dispute in which action was forestalled for a pretense of bargaining; if we took action against Member A who happened to be conservative, and who is observed to be in violation of this, that, and these few other rules here, we were offered that it was acceptable only if we traded out for a hit against Member B because Moderator X didn't like him and objected to his taking part in the usual back and forth. It was a curious time; the staff came to open blows about this general manner of strangeness at the end of 2009, owing to a specific case.

Perhaps it helps you feel better to rant about liberals and foregone conclusions, but compared to your vitriol you really are clueless about what makes you seethe.

As a matter of priorities, we'll resolve the procedural issues when we get to them; meanwhile, the staff dispute over these issues is, in fact, rather quite heated; so please understand that other demands prevail, and this point includes the amount of time and effort this staff is willing to waste pretending potsherd provocateurism is anything else.

 

MR is haphazardly amusing and I wouldn't want to see him permanently banned.

 

Some of the things Magical Realist has posted should be quite good for an engaging discussion on hypothetical possibilities. It's because he tries to push these ideas as scientific facts, is why so many of us have a problem with him.

How cool would it be *IF* ghosts, alien visitors, bigfoot, or the Cottingley fairies were real? Just don't try to demand that we must accept them as facts of reality - just because some people really want us to believe they are real, and throw tantrums when we refuse to.

 

I'd rather read random nonsense about Bigfoot then look at a forum filled with loosers so concerned with appearing intellectual than anything else.

(I also have a habit of telling moderators F*#%! You)

 

Bw/S two major strengths are nonsense and getting banned.

 

Do you like, live in an old age home and are just dying for a new soap opera on TV?

 

Who needs soap opera with you around?
Of course, you're not around as much as you were.

 

Damn, you make me feel sexy.

Thanks.

 

They are, and several have been banned for their behavior as well. MR plays the victim much more effectively, though.

 

I'm going to assume that you actually meant that MR has behaved in a poor fashion, rather than with 'grace and decorum', which is what one would of thought you said without any context. After taking a look through MR's posting history, I can't see any particularly objectionable behavior on his behalf. He's definitely an eccentric with a unusual interest for conspiracy theories and supernatural entities, but I'd hardly call that a smoking gun. He's taken a lot of ridicule and harassment from both senior members and moderators quite well.

I'm not exactly what he done that you are labeling as 'self-aggrandizing deception', but I could hardly blame him for being ticked off that a number of threads had been started with the sole purpose of singling him out, and he was then banned from those threads when he protested. I guess some moderators would consider it regrettable that he continued to 'cause a scene' after having posting privileges returned, when it would be much better if he just disappeared quietly.

Perhaps that's a question better directed at his detractors. While nobody forces MR to post on this forum, it is also true that nobody is obligated to respond to him, particularly in a belittling manner.

I do agree with you, up to a point. However, as the old saying goes, "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something." If certain members and moderators take a dislike to a particular individual, and target that individual for harassment, should it be incumbent on the victim to leave? OK, OK, ultimately the forum belongs to the administrator, but is that the sort of environment you want to be responsible for creating? Do you want to create an echo chamber where people with minority viewpoints are bullied into silence, except for the occasional village idiot whose chain you yank? Is it wise to alienate prolific content producers?

Unlike some people, I don't dwell within an echo chamber, but enjoy exposing myself to a variety of views. However, I'll remember the 'If you don't like it, leave' spiel, and quote it to you the next time you have a tantrum about an errant poster (a common event on this forum, it seems).

 

Unless those views are from Liberals, right tali?

 

If I couldn't tolerate left-wing points of view, I wouldn't continue posting in a forum dominated by them, although admittedly I had no idea Sciforums was so politically biased when I first signed up. I could post on a predominately right-wing forum, but where is the fun in preaching to the choir?

 

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

 

because you like trying to piss people with inane bullshit?

 

are you ?

 

I was wondering how long it would take you to say that I always suspected that at some point you would say something along the lines of this...

In the end we are all sinking on the same ship...

 

Her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.

(Usually because it's made with hops and barley.)