Volunteer Bans

seems like there aint no shortage of self styled and appointed shrinks tho...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Haw! You get, gus, that I had to respond to Bells and Sam, who took turns bashing me? Plus the minor trolls, some of whom I think are right on this thread, even.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

bashing you?
seems like they were crying
as i am doing
right on this thread
right?
right?

/snicker

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Psychologists and psychiatrists help people with their emotional issues via therappy and medication. Anyone can make observations and share them. Nice try at a non seq though.

 

dumbfucksci: saquist is in a happy place now!

gussie: how did he get there?

dumbfucksci: he was involved in a trollfest. he was officially warned
then permabanned. all avenues for a resolution/closure have been sealed off

gussie: those are the circumstances of his departure?

dumbfucksci: yesh! (belch)

dumbfuckgussie: saquist is in a happy place now!

 

So give them a hankie, gus.

/sneeeer

 

ignoring the intended sarcasm?
honestly geoff
you deflect like a little girl

ja
lil miss fragility

 

If only your stature were higher, you could see that I was laughing at you. Take stock a moment, gustav: when exactly have I dealt with you seriously?

Ever?

/distain

 

mmm
a positively freudian protest

/snort

GeoffP's Ode To Litigation​

My basic goal would be my exculpation,
But also, for myself, my adversary's subjugation.
So word would spread that nothing but complete humiliation
Awaits the fool who dares to take me on in litigation​

 

Gustav, are you a pit bull?

 

poodle

/madly wags tail

 

Personally I would love to hear Katsungs' take on this whole volunteer ban issue!

 

Yep, you are quite the smart fella!

/gives the dog a bone

 

Get a room, you two.

 

Room for me but the pit bull disguised as a poodle gets the kennel!:blbl:

 

Something like that

re: Crunchy Cat @ #19

As a general note, I should probably disclaim that I'm puzzled by some of our neighbors' response to Saquist's departure. I didn't splinter this thread for the purpose of piling on James, as some have done.

Indeed, though, you are generally correct. In truth, I haven't performed such an examination of causes as you have listed, but they all sound about right.

The reality is that the Sciforums staff actually debated among themselves, a couple years back, regarding whether or not to grant self-ban requests. The issues considered were generally simplistic:

• Why should we have to ban someone on request? Is it not enough that they stop logging in? (See "Addicted").

• Is there some "middle ground" to achieve? For instance, might one simply change their password, offering some random string of characters one won't naturally remember without writing it down? (See "Addicted".)

• If we grant one request for what seems a good reason—e.g., the member's main alternative is to behave in an aggressive manner that might force us execute a ban—what do we say to the next one?​

And so on. While I think "wounded" and "scarred" are important aspects to consider, in the end, I believe "addicted" is the key. Some people can't walk away if they feel they have unfinished business. To the other, staying long enough to finish "Business A" does not preclude the opening of "Business B", which degrades into the proverbial vicious cycle. (See "Addicted".)

As one who has, of late, found many reasons to criticize James R, I honestly can't understand what our neighbors' underlying objection is, or how it would work. From the first time we discussed, in the back rooms, a self-requested ban, the practice has become more popular. Obviously, that's a scalable perception; if we saw a 400% increase in self-requested bans last year over the year before, it actually means we've banned about five people because they asked us to terminate their user ID. But once we granted the first one, which did give us pause for consideration, it seemed reasonable to grant subsequent requests. There is nothing stopping these users from rejoining the community with a comparatively clean slate under a different name.

I recall vaguely one self-requested ban that stemmed from a disagreement with the moderators, but in truth I can't recall who it was, when, or why. In other words, I might be conflating two or more episodes. Still, though, I can say that moderator resignations according to conscience have had infinitesimal effect on administrative outlook, and practically insignificant effect on moderator outlook. A member demanding their own banning for egotistical demonstration in protest of authority is about as futile a gesture as we might find in this community, but, still, I don't wish to discount the "wounded" issue even while suggesting it mostly comes back to addiction, dependency, or some other necessity overriding one's personal will.

I put on my green hat to prevent a thread that I haven't any real enthusiasm or affection for from being distracted by this side issue. Unfortunately ... er ... um, well that's a long list of little things, so I'll skip it for everyone's sake.

Thank ye, CC, for offering the question some genuine thought. I don't know how to say, "It should be apparent to anyone who isn't brain dead," without sounding like I'm insulting you for giving the question some thought. Er ... damn. That still sounds awful, doesn't it?

But, yes, thank you for ... um ... er ... right. I'll just be in the corner, getting high.

:m:

 

i suppose this is where one attempts to apply these generalities to the particulars of saquist's case. ja, this is where sci can paint him as a nutjob

if only they were just that

the obvious implication is that you do
so come on crunchy
give me the lowdown on saquist

 

Eleven years ago or so I might have agreed with you. My experience on sciforums has led me to understand that what we might think *should* be obvious generally isn't. It's almost as if a good segment of the general public lacks the ability to make a simple observation. At first you think its a form of satire or "playing stupid", but then it hits you like a prismatic spray of buffalo vomit... it's real. So while we're all staring at a circle, there is a segment of the population whom are going to interpret it as a gaggle of blue geese. The most humane thing to do is point out the obvious... "hey dude, that's a circle", and then hope the experience helps them fill whatever cognative gap exists.

Now in the case of Gustav, GeoffP, and James R, that conflict is obvious; however, I'll spell it out because I don't particularly care for buffalo vomit. James R makes decisions that are strongly influenced by his own personal biases and pre-conceptions. One of those decisions was to ban EmptyForceOfChi for calling GeoffP a word that GeoffP considered derogatory. It is what it is. Now enter Gustav... he is wounded, scarred, addicted, and has a personal vendetta against James R. That means his self worth online is tied towards making life on SciForums as painful as possible for James R and any supporting bystandards. A bulk of the content in this thread is a demonstration of this notion.

So what do you do about it? Does anything need to be done about it? Do we tell GeoffP to grow some Cajones? Do we tell Gustav to clear the sand out of his vagina? Do we tell James R to drop the which-famous-dicator-am-I contest? I don't know. I don't know if it's the member's job, moderator's job, or the flying spaghetti monster's job to address it or even care about it. Blah... now I'm jealous because you're getting high and I'm only semi-drunk. Fk this thread... I'm getting a bowl. Have a good St. Patty's day!

 

i was banned for a week for using the word kafir

my general attitude =

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

my post count...

* Total Posts: 10,121
* Posts Per Day: 4.26

you make a shitty shrink

insult? where? the analogy? the parody? the political cartoons?

/smirk