Gustav Temp Banned For Foul Words?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Anarcho Union, May 12, 2011.

?

Should foul word use be grounds for a ban?

  1. Yes, it should.

    9 vote(s)
    31.0%
  2. No, it should not.

    12 vote(s)
    41.4%
  3. Other. (Please explain)

    8 vote(s)
    27.6%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    I just wanted to bring this to attention, I am in no way attacking the mod who banned him but I am however questioning it. As far as I have always been concerned, foul language has never been an offense carrying the possiblity of being banned on Sciforums and in my opinion, it shouldnt. I myself have used words such as goddamn and fucking many times in posts and have personally seen members and mods alike shoot off at the mouth. Never before have I seen a member banned for it. I do wish to raise this as a concern and voice my opinion that members should not be banned for the use of language unless it is violating another rule such as threating/attacking a member, trolling, ect. I do believe that Gustav should have his ban lifted ASAP and I hope other members will suport me in the poll. I would of sent a message to the mod but I thought this issue should be brought to public eye and possibly debated/discussed if other members see differently than I do.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Also; Ban is 14 days long. 5 days remaining. Fraggle Rocker is mod who banned.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    But you don't make the rules here.

    It depends on where and how they're used.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    I'm not asking to make the rules here, Dyw, but thank you for pointing out the obvious. No, I do not. But as a member of sciforums I believe I have the right to voice my opinion and if foul language is a bannable offense here I may decide to no longer be a member of Sciforums.
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I witnessed the posts that lead to the ban.

    They were a mixture of foul language and a criticism of Fraggle's specific political agenda about linguistics.
    I suspect the latter has played a part in Fraggle deciding for a ban, perhaps the major part.


    I myself and several others have had struggles with Fraggle over his specific political agenda about linguistics.
     
  9. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    I think the issue is does one use it occasionally or all the time?
     
  10. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Yeah, let Gustav come back prematurely, I can wash his pretty little mouth with soap.
     
  11. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Fraggle didn't just randomly ban Gustav. Gustav has long spent any capital he has on this website. He's alienated himself from almost the entire senior management team. He's abused the rules over and over again. What he did at the end, and the ban he received, was part of an escalating pattern that will--inexorably--see him gone from this website for good.

    ~String
     
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,824
    Straws are weighty things when a single one can break a camel's back.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Which rules?

    What exactly is objectionable about this post?

    Captain Kremmen [an Englishman] said:

    But according to Fraggle:

    Which is based on what scholarly consensus?

    From what I could locate on the topic:
    To which Gustav replied:
    And he is right. I have word lists from my American PIs telling me how to "correctly" pronounce the words so they could understand it.

    What do you think that was? A class system being created or scholars scholaring? If the intention is to declare that opinion should be politely disseminated, I will bet that a five minute search of sci will reveal moderators and admins denoting members as bigots, morons, idiots, sociopaths and what not. So, glass houses et al. Unless religious sentiments have been hurt by the use of the Lords name in vain?

    According to Fraggle:

    Or does this only apply to what Fraggle disdains? No one is allowed to disdain him, is that correct?

    But yeah, when dissent is categorised as profanity, what we are doing is pandering to little egos, not rational debate.

    And it seems, sci is chock full of little egos these days.

    One advantage of this to the administration is that expectations of rationality from the admin have reached all time lows, so the bar is set at a level appropriate to their emotional investments in their own superciliousness
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2011
  14. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,462
    Patrick McGoohan English. Those familiar with McGoohan solely through his work on The Prisoner are apt not to get this; I recommend a thorough review of his entire ouvre, but most especially Danger Man aka Secret Agent Man.

    Fraggle's contentions remind me of some comments Penny Rimbaud (Crass) once made, though I can't seem to locate them--youtube isn't terribly well set up for proper research.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And I certainly agree that it's hardly reflective of scholarly consensus and more a product of some sort of Foucaultian speculation--an assessment of which I have zero doubt that Fraggle won't balk at.

    But isn't that kinda the "essence" of this place? I mean seriously: we have those who constantly proffer the "scientific method" as though it were somehow authoritative and finalizing, when in fact there is no such thing, but rather simply a set of disparate (and oft inconsistent) methodologies which are neither more nor less prone to be influenced by, well, political opportunism, the dictates of capital, and sometimes just plain irrational bias and/or bigotry, than anything else.

    "Disinterested," my ass.
     
  15. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    The one's he was banned for. Repeatedly. As to his most recent suspension, you can refer to Fraggle for the details.

    ~String
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Indeed I have long felt that peer review at sciforums especially in matters of contention could be appropriately labelled as "pass the buck" alongwith "no comment" or "what me cite proof of my speculations?"
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Foul words? Is this a new rule?

    Seems to me the rule which he has broken is

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Which is not a rule at all but misuse of moderator powers for petty vindictiveness. Bowing and scraping went out with slavery
     
  18. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    You've been here long enough to know this is not a a democracy. This thread, pleas and outcry isn't going to get anyone anywhere. The culture here changes as its members change and the expectations change, there are always complaints but complaining doesn't change anything.

    Just ask WeiWei
     
  19. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    And it seems that the point Dwyddyr was making was exactly that SciForums is not a democracy, but rather an authoritarian dictatorship. In the sense that the powers that be aren't interested in your input, and aren't interested in being subjected to any sort of democratic restraints on their behavior.

    Which goes a long way towards explaining many fo the disfunctions here. It's this community that supposedly believes in liberal ideals and so on, but rejects outright the prospect of democratic legitimacy for itself, instead pursuing a closed political clique with unchecked power.
     
  20. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Fraggle is both petty and vindicative towards disagreement with his pet positions. He should not have the power to ban anybody here.

    And I suspect that this is an expression of the way in which the antidemocratic system here both infantilizes regular posters, and turns moderators into petty tyrants. Doesn't seem like his underlying personality, but here we are.
     
  21. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Given the illegitimate nature of the management here, alienating one's self from it is exactly an expression of capital. I've said before that Gustav is the very best poster SciForums has, and I will repeat that now. You would do well to recognize and value that - this inability to deal with Gustav is shaping up to be the death knell of any pretension of serious good-faith governance here.

    "Abused" in what sense?

    I've never seen Gustav violate any rules here in anything other than a principled way. Political activism is not trolling or abuse or whatever - and emphatically should not be treated as such.

    As far as I can determine, Gustav's various punishments have been for nothing more than challenging the legitimacy of the powers that be here. It doesn't make you look secure and righteous to respond to that with a crack-down - rather the opposite. You're living down to his Colonel Qadaffi comparisons.

    What you need to understand is that such an end will be an indictment of this website, and not of Gustav.
     
  22. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    QFT

    I've been banned for it repeatedly, starting about 6 months back (IIRC). Typically it's when I've included profanity in an insult - actually called someone something foul - as opposed to simply popped off a profane expression. But I can't say I've ever had any confidence that those bannings were not politicized, with the profanity/insult thing simply a pretext. How can anyone have any confidence that actions aren't politicized, given the state of things?
     
  23. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    I curse, I just generally don't flame.
    Gustav curses and flames, he gets banned.

    So it's not so much cursing, it's the cursing and flaming...also egregrious cursing...the occasional use of cursing as emphasis is tolerated.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page