Banned without notice

[Magical Realist]

Again, you were not "banned without warning" - you were issued (yet another) infraction with points, and the accumulated points triggered the forum software response, as outlined by JamesR here↗. The reason for this was that you attempted to wield the report button as a personal sledgehammer to be used against your detractors.

You have been advised, repeatedly, how to proceed with complaints about disciplinary actions on this forum, and yet you continue to persist in airing your dirty laundry for all to see... and then you wonder why folks are short with you.

Who did I report, and what was the report about? Support your claim..

 

[Kittamaru]

So again, who did I report, and why were they reported? And also, why is this infraction for a whole year? I've never heard of year long infractions. That seems made up to me. Like a mod had a hissy fit and had to get back at me for having to do their job again. Also, who issued this infraction? Bells? Tiassa? You?

Are you requesting to have your latest few reports posted in public, then? If so, that will have to be approved by JamesR...

Who did I report, and what was the report about? Support your claim..

1) You are in no position to make demands of anyone... least of all under the pretense of "following the rules". 2) I am under no obligation to "support my claim", as I made no claim at all. You are the one claiming you are being "unfairly targeted" by, at this point, the ENTIRE moderation staff of this site. 3) Refer to number one, and remember that this very thread is a violation of forum rules and policy...

 

[Magical Realist]

Are you requesting to have your latest few reports posted in public, then? If so, that will have to be approved by JamesR...


1) You are in no position to make demands of anyone... least of all under the pretense of "following the rules". 2) I am under no obligation to "support my claim", as I made no claim at all. You are the one claiming you are being "unfairly targeted" by, at this point, the ENTIRE moderation staff of this site. 3) Refer to number one, and remember that this very thread is a violation of forum rules and policy...

So you can't support your claim at all. I'm going to take this as evidence that I reported noone at all and that this new year long infraction was made up as a way to start building infraction points to get me permabanned. Oh, and I should mention Tiassa is in on this too. In a scathing PM to me, he said my time is up, which I take to mean my days are numbered here. You're simply confirming everything I already suspected. At least the other members can now see this for what it is.

 

[Kittamaru]

So you can't support your claim at all. I'm going to take this as evidence that I reported noone at all and that this new year long infraction was made up as a way to start building infraction points to get me permabanned. Oh, and I should mention Tiassa is in on this too. In a scathing PM to me, he said my time is up, which I take to mean my days are numbered here. You're simply confirming everything I already suspected. At least the other members can now see this for what it is.

Actually, the majority of the other members have been able to see this for what it is for some time now... someone who flaunts the rules at will then demands special protections from them. Guess what - those special protections are no more.

EDIT - I have tried to (none too) subtly hint that, instead of ranting in the public forums like a paranoid lunatic, you should take this up with the administration via PM... given that it appears such hints have gone apparently unnoticed and unheeded.. perhaps this one will get the point across.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat ― Aside (policy note)

You know, post in good faith. Again, this isn't an unreasonable request or requirement. Nor is it a hard one.

I would second, and remind members: For all the parsing and two-bit arguing people do, we see through this one very apparent aspect.

Do you understand? I mean, sure, we see other issues going on, but a lack of good faith is something people pretty much universally disdain. And many people pretend to not comprehend the basic difference: If two people find themselves amid a similar unfortunate result, the one who screwed up an earnest attempt to do something else generally gets something of a break from others compared to the one who sets out to deliberately arrive in such an unfortunate condition.

Consider, please, the fundamental difference 'twixt acknowledging human frailty and exploiting it.

There are, for instance, some genuinely undereducated people in our society.

That this is true does not mean someone who knows better should pretend otherwise.

More crudely and colloquially: The fact that stupid people do exist in the world does not license another's choice to pretend such stupidity. Consider, please, finding oneself in a circumstance in which your only redemption is to actually consciously and willfully plead stupidity; and no, few are actually willing to do so explicitly.

But, look, it's kind of obvious.

Performance art posters need to remember to come up for air once in a while. It occasionally happens that some will claim to be making a certain point, but generally speaking it turns out that the artist never really comes up for air. That is to say, every once in a while, it helps to step out of character and actually make your point.

And, you know, it's kind of funny: The one who pretends to lampoon scientific snobbery and the one who posts the most breathtaking stupidity in order to promote supremacism would both claim to be about skewering elitism.

Good faith is important. The character you present at Sciforums is the character people interpret; the human you behind that virtual character is the human you, and if you want people to acknowledge that person, they do need to actually encounter that human you in some way. If all we have to go on is the façade, there comes a point where that is what people accept you are.

So maybe it offends and hurts the feelings of [Person] to see their [Username] denounced, but if [Username] is all we ever see? Whatever your point, are you actually telling people, or just presenting a pretense for the sake of satisfaction? And don't just go by what you want to say you're doing; actually look at your behavior.

We're happy to leave people to throw down in good faith; indeed, that's part of what makes argumentative discussion as a pastime some manner of fun. But that's the thing; there really is no way around certain aspects of reality. To wit, supremacists can't hide supremacism, and fallacists can't hide fallacies.

In truth, the reality is simpler than the words it takes to explain.

Good faith is really, really important. It's tempting to say that people shouldn't have to be reminded because, abstractly speaking, it's true. Practically speaking, however, there is an awful lot of bad faith in modern societies. Consider that deception is not simply acceptable but, to a certain degree expected and, practically speaking, very much rewarded in business (e.g., sales), juristics, and politics. That is to say, deception is pretty much ubiquitous. One can argue―and reasonably, I might think―that much of our anti-institutional sentiment, part of the perceived existential insult compelling some to seek identity in skewering whatever they perceive as elitism, is in some significant manner or dimension derived from not only our perception of deception, but our perception that others would celebrate deception. It's what we don't like in the politicians, or the lawyers, or the salesmen; we get that their job is to persuade, but when the marketplace predictably cuts corners to increase surface value by reducing overhead (actual monetary overhead, time and effort, quality standards) enough, people notice.

It's one thing to make the sale by pointing to how the car performs, and the fuel economy, and the crash safety, while also trying to not mention anything about the poor reviews on the brakes; it's another to lie about a competitor and attribute your brand's problems to them. The political analog ought to be obvious. And what can I tell you about juristics except that some people are actually presumed to lie in good faith? That is, sure, many people denounce "ambulance chasers" and defense attorneys, but why should we pretend prosecutors are any better when we can follow the problems in the public record?

On the internet, some of these aspects have been around pretty much probably the whole time; it has certainly been present since I showed up, and seems to increase over time, which is puzzling in a particular way, because either these people somehow think they're clever, or else they don't care and simply reinforce the point behaving that way despite knowing the problem. It's one of those times when the only difference between sinister and stupid is that not all stupidity is sinister.

Many people can discern the basic difference of good faith; more, it would seem, than many self-presumed geniuses would recognize. We aren't any manner of particular specialists in this sense; these are pretty mundanely obvious distinctions.

Basic decency, including good faith, just isn't so difficult.

 

[Magical Realist]

EDIT - I have tried to (none too) subtly hint that, instead of ranting in the public forums like a paranoid lunatic, you should take this up with the administration via PM... given that it appears such hints have gone apparently unnoticed and unheeded.. perhaps this one will get the point across.

Two reasons I'm not PMing this:

1) Mod pm's tend to amount to horrible flame bombs and overpersonalized indictments of character and intelligence because they know full well their pm is not seen by any other posters here. They can get away with murder there, and they enjoy it.

2)PMing a mod can always be construed as an undue burden on mod time and resources and end up getting you banned. I have the right to make public a problem I'm having for the good all the members here. It is legitimate site feedback.

 

[Kittamaru]

Two reasons I'm not PMing this:

1) Mod pm's tend to amount to horrible flame bombs and overpersonalized indictments because they know their pm is not seen by any other posters here. They get away with murder there, and they enjoy it.

2)PMing a mod can always be construed as an undue burden on mod time and resources and end up getting you banned. I have the right to make public a problem I'm having for the good all the members here. It is legitimate site feedback.

So instead of following established protocol and taking it to the Administration (if you feel the mods are unable/unwilling to handle it), you are, once again, writing your own rules by airing it in public.

I particularly like your "for the good of all members" claim... how heroic sounding

 

[Magical Realist]

So instead of following established protocol and taking it to the Administration (if you feel the mods are unable/unwilling to handle it), you are, once again, writing your own rules by airing it in public.

I particularly like your "for the good of all members" claim... how heroic sounding

Since the problem is with two mods themselves, it makes no sense to pm them. James R otoh isn't around enough to address the issue promptly. By the time he reads his PM, I could be banned again for no reason. Besides, I have posted mod problems in the Site Feedback section before and James R has had no problem with it. Why would he now?

 

[Magical Realist]

Mod Hat ― Aside (policy note)



I would second, and remind members: For all the parsing and two-bit arguing people do, we see through this one very apparent aspect.

Do you understand? I mean, sure, we see other issues going on, but a lack of good faith is something people pretty much universally disdain. And many people pretend to not comprehend the basic difference: If two people find themselves amid a similar unfortunate result, the one who screwed up an earnest attempt to do something else generally gets something of a break from others compared to the one who sets out to deliberately arrive in such an unfortunate condition.

Consider, please, the fundamental difference 'twixt acknowledging human frailty and exploiting it.

There are, for instance, some genuinely undereducated people in our society.

That this is true does not mean someone who knows better should pretend otherwise.

More crudely and colloquially: The fact that stupid people do exist in the world does not license another's choice to pretend such stupidity. Consider, please, finding oneself in a circumstance in which your only redemption is to actually consciously and willfully plead stupidity; and no, few are actually willing to do so explicitly.

But, look, it's kind of obvious.

Performance art posters need to remember to come up for air once in a while. It occasionally happens that some will claim to be making a certain point, but generally speaking it turns out that the artist never really comes up for air. That is to say, every once in a while, it helps to step out of character and actually make your point.

And, you know, it's kind of funny: The one who pretends to lampoon scientific snobbery and the one who posts the most breathtaking stupidity in order to promote supremacism would both claim to be about skewering elitism.

Good faith is important. The character you present at Sciforums is the character people interpret; the human you behind that virtual character is the human you, and if you want people to acknowledge that person, they do need to actually encounter that human you in some way. If all we have to go on is the façade, there comes a point where that is what people accept you are.

So maybe it offends and hurts the feelings of [Person] to see their [Username] denounced, but if [Username] is all we ever see? Whatever your point, are you actually telling people, or just presenting a pretense for the sake of satisfaction? And don't just go by what you want to say you're doing; actually look at your behavior.

We're happy to leave people to throw down in good faith; indeed, that's part of what makes argumentative discussion as a pastime some manner of fun. But that's the thing; there really is no way around certain aspects of reality. To wit, supremacists can't hide supremacism, and fallacists can't hide fallacies.

In truth, the reality is simpler than the words it takes to explain.

Good faith is really, really important. It's tempting to say that people shouldn't have to be reminded because, abstractly speaking, it's true. Practically speaking, however, there is an awful lot of bad faith in modern societies. Consider that deception is not simply acceptable but, to a certain degree expected and, practically speaking, very much rewarded in business (e.g., sales), juristics, and politics. That is to say, deception is pretty much ubiquitous. One can argue―and reasonably, I might think―that much of our anti-institutional sentiment, part of the perceived existential insult compelling some to seek identity in skewering whatever they perceive as elitism, is in some significant manner or dimension derived from not only our perception of deception, but our perception that others would celebrate deception. It's what we don't like in the politicians, or the lawyers, or the salesmen; we get that their job is to persuade, but when the marketplace predictably cuts corners to increase surface value by reducing overhead (actual monetary overhead, time and effort, quality standards) enough, people notice.

It's one thing to make the sale by pointing to how the car performs, and the fuel economy, and the crash safety, while also trying to not mention anything about the poor reviews on the brakes; it's another to lie about a competitor and attribute your brand's problems to them. The political analog ought to be obvious. And what can I tell you about juristics except that some people are actually presumed to lie in good faith? That is, sure, many people denounce "ambulance chasers" and defense attorneys, but why should we pretend prosecutors are any better when we can follow the problems in the public record?

On the internet, some of these aspects have been around pretty much probably the whole time; it has certainly been present since I showed up, and seems to increase over time, which is puzzling in a particular way, because either these people somehow think they're clever, or else they don't care and simply reinforce the point behaving that way despite knowing the problem. It's one of those times when the only difference between sinister and stupid is that not all stupidity is sinister.

Many people can discern the basic difference of good faith; more, it would seem, than many self-presumed geniuses would recognize. We aren't any manner of particular specialists in this sense; these are pretty mundanely obvious distinctions.

Basic decency, including good faith, just isn't so difficult.

Bad faith is not something I worry much about since we all do it at one time or another. It's like worrying about earwax. It just happens, and when we realize it's going on, we strive to correct it then and there. According to Sartre, it is the nature of consciousness itself:

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

Don't lie. It doesn't help your case at all. You did tell me you were going to recommend that I be permabanned, which is deliberate targeting and abuse of mod power.

We give recommendations about whether to permaban or not all the time. It is something we discuss in the back-room. We usually all give our recommendations and our input. That is how it is done. How do you think this is an abuse of "mod power"?

When problems arise, we discuss it. What? Did you think that I snap my fingers and the rest do my bidding and vice versa?

Why do you think I gave you the advice that I did and advised you about how you posted if I wished to abuse my "mod power" and simply ban you outright? I mean, is this something that makes sense to you? Because if I wanted to abuse my "mod powers", whatever they may be, I'd have not bothered. None of us would have bothered trying to discuss this issue with you. And that still would not have been an abuse of our "mod power". Because telling a problematic poster that unless they altered how they posted on this website, they would face a permanent ban because the infractions they were receiving was headed towards a permanent ban, is not an abuse of our mod powers, MR. That is actually our job.

What isn't our job is to be abused and sworn at by you.

You always get frustrated whenever you bring up how much you once defended me in the past and I don't suddenly kiss your ass and gush how wonderful a person you are. You are not. You have flamed me relentlessly in the past, lied about things I have never done, infracted me based on broad catch-all rules that could apply anywhere, and even now conspire to get me banned based on something I haven't even done yet.

Have I demanded anything from you aside from an expectation that you adhere to this site's rules? No, I have not.

That is all we want.

And frankly, I'd rather you didn't "kiss my ass". No one is asking anything from you except that you abide by this site's rules and stop misrepresenting studies, stop posting debunked stories and articles as fact, and to simply post in good faith. Again, this isn't a hard task. That you consistently refuse to adhere to this is not our fault. It's all on you. As I told you in the conversation you were having with the staff, if you continue with the same problematic behaviour, you will end up permanently banned. Not because I wish it. But because the system will automatically ban you permanently when you reach 100 points. And when we get to that crucial stage where we know the next infraction will result in a permanent ban and we have discussions as to how to proceed and give our recommendations, I will not be fighting tooth and nail with my colleagues to force them to go against the system to allow you to remain on this site. Why? Because you are incapable of actually posting in good faith and you are a drain on staff time. Such as you are being right now. When staff try to help you, you become condescending and insulting.

Now, I get it. You wish to push a conspiracy theory that we're all out to get you, etc. The fact that you are still here and banging on about this again, kind of goes against what you keep trying to claim.

So again, what we ask and what this site requires, is that you not post debunked and fake stories and claim they are fact and that you simply post in good faith.

Can you do this? Yes or no? If the answer to that question is yes, then we have no problem. If the answer is no, then you will very well run the risk of a permanent ban as you accrue more points for breaching this site's rules. And this time, you won't have staff demanding that the rules be applied differently to you or treat you differently. You'll be treated like everyone else in a similar position.

It isn't conspiring. We aren't sitting there planning your demise. I'm just telling you, again, that if you fail to alter how you post, then you will be moderated and that will, if you keep doing it, lead to a permanent ban. So again, it's on you, not us. If you do not wish to be banned, post in good faith. It's no skin off my nose.

Now, just tell me what infraction was issued to me 3 days ago to get me banned.

No idea. I wasn't here. A look at your profile shows that the infraction was issued because of your behaviour - ie, being a drain on staff time. When you file report after report, as you did on the 13th of October (3 in one day, from one conversation, literally one after the other), for example, for frankly petty reasons and misrepresent those reasons, it's a drain on staff time. So our job, is to deal with those reports and act accordingly and sometimes, that will result in an infraction for wasting staff time when those reports are just petty actions of one-up-manship, for example, or just to be more insulting, etc. I mean, we get people filing reports for all sorts of things and when they waste staff time, they receive an infraction. Which is what happened with you.

To be blunt, we have been very open about the report function and what it is actually for. Your reporting staff for disagreeing with you on the bigfoot study or to simply whine about other people, is a waste of our time.

There is no record of it anywhere, suggesting that as Tiassa did to me once, someone finegled with the points I've already accrued just to get me banned for a longer period.

There is a record of it in the back room, as there usually is for bans and warnings.

If you did not receive the PM advising you of the infraction, then perhaps you should check your profile to make sure you can receive PM's. The system always generates a PM with an infraction. Perhaps you should check your list of conversations as those PM's come up through conversation. For example, on the 3rd of October, I issued you with an infraction for your inappropriate behaviour. I know you received it because your name then appeared in the conversation list for that particular infraction/PM. So check your conversations and look at each one from staff.

But there is a record of it on your profile under the warnings tab, and there is also a record of it in the moderator's forum.

Do I sound paranoid? You bet your ass.

Naw MR, you? Sound paranoid..?

Seriously dude, all we ask is that you post in good faith and stop posting lies and misrepresentations and debunked stories and articles as fact. If you must post them, declare the issues with what you are posting, say you just wish to discuss the topic and not declare it as factual. That's it.. good faith posting. It's not that hard.

I've been slandered here, lied about, trolled, banned wrongly and then let back in, had threads started about me, flamed with vicious PM's, had my threads cesspooled and closed for content, and now have to demand you mods do your job AGAIN and tell me why I was infracted. Why was I infracted?

You have been told multiple times in this thread, MR.

Perhaps you should start paying attention?

How many times do you need us to repeat it? Remember that part about drain of staff time? When we explain it to you, you insult and refuse to believe what you are being told. I mean, rpenner explained it to you and you dismissed him because he apparently wasn't senior enough for your liking? Seriously? We are doing our job. You were given an explanation as to how you were banned. Demanding repeats of said explanation while demanding we do our jobs is just you, once again, being a drain on staff time.

And why is there no notification in either my gmail or my mailbox here about it at all? If that is a burdensome drain on you mod's time and energy, then resign from being a mod. It's the minimum expectation we have of all of you---that you address problems like this and resolve them to the best of your ability and that you do your job without prejudice against any member here.

That would be your profile and how you set it up. I can see it, so can the rest of the staff. Check your conversation list. The system generates it automatically. If you aren't receiving it, you may have blocked it on some way, or even blocked the site from your email. I have no idea to be honest.

We have been through this before. You have been told multiple times. And yes, into the 2nd page now of repeating the same thing to you.

And as part of "doing my job", since your questions have been answered multiple times by different members of staff, there is absolutely no reason for this thread to remain open any longer. If you wish to report a member of staff, then you need to PM an admin after attempting to speak to that staff member about your issue and if the issue is not able to be resolved.

Have a nice day, MR.

 

[Tiassa]

Bad faith is not something I worry much about since we all do it at one time or another. It's like worrying about earwax. It just happens, and when we realize it's going on, we strive to correct it then and there. According to Sartre, it is the nature of consciousness itself

It is, I confess, an innovative application of mauvaise foi with breathtaking recursive potential.

Thank you for raising this aspect.

Edit: Oh, right, I got so caught up in that fascinating existentialist proposition that I forgot to mention: The problem comes when people decide to rely on it. (21 Oct 2016 11.34 PDT)