I have reduced gendanken's ban to 2 days as of now. My reason for the ban is not that she's an "insufferable bitch", but that she insulted another member of the forum.
Random thoughts and comments on others' posts in the current thread follow.
Is it appropriate for a moderator to ban someone while exhibiting worse behavior than the person being banned to begin with?
The only "behaviour" of the moderator, apart from issuing the ban, is posting the reason as gendanken being an "insufferable bitch". I don't see exactly how that's "worse behaviour" than gendanken's five or six posts of insulting, unrequested character analysis of another member of the forum. That in no way means I condone it, by the way.
I would hope that some self-respecting administrator would do something about this, yes?
And, by something, I mean something more than simply erasing evidence.
Some evidence has been erased, but not by me. And moderators/admins can still see the post history.
For the record, BenTheMan received an official warning for those posts.
Gendanken's style is insulting, yes; but isn't this her style?
Yes, it's her style and trademark. I advised her, following her recent return to the forum, to adjust her style or consider moving on.
Ah, so here we are again. Old member trying to save what's left of the pre-sam sci.
I don't think you can lay the blame at S.A.M.'s feet.
So we have the actors of today, Ben the Man: Arrogant for sure w/ out a PHD. Unreachable with.
Poor defenseless Iceaura: Diluted, self righteous and egocentric but almost never uttering a foul word about a fellow member. Perhaps the founder of PC.
And.......the lovely and brilliant Gendanken, who begs to be banned with every keystroke. She, who without the insults would be less than one tenth the member, or rather non-existent.
She who keeps thousands clicking to read the latest lashing. God love her.
In other words, a hangover from the "good old days" where about half of what passed for discussion here consisted of flame wars between members.
I've seen a number of posters here in my time whose trademark has been that they are apparently unable to conduct a conversation without insults. That is, their entire persona on the forum (and probably whenever they interact anonymously on the internet) is based on their belief that their ability to flame others makes them superior. These posters are invariably self-obsessed; every topic is about them, in the end. Many are also immature. A few have been diagnosably sociopathic and/or have had other psychological and/or life "issues".
Not saying that gendy fits this particular mould, of course.
As an addendum to my last post, I'd like to bring up a couple of points:
1.) Once upon a time, James used to allow threads to continue that had some insulting behavior as long as all parties were equally involved (I'm not speaking of equal effectiveness here.)
That's still my personal policy, especially where nobody has reported any of the posts. When I do receive reports, I look to see whether the person reporting is equally at fault. And that has an effect on whether and what penalty is applied.
I cannot speak for other moderators. These things are often a judgment call, and different people have different opinions.
She's intelligent. And, moreover, witty.
Unfortunately, intelligence and wit only go so far to compensate for foul language, sex obsession and character assassination. gendy walks the line, and I'm sure she is well aware of when she is stepping over it - mostly.
Live by the sword die by the sword? Treat others how you would be treated? She was warned, banned, had her posts deleted, and returned to her normal pattern of insults and abuse. Why should I apologize to her for being insulting, when that's the only way I've ever seen her act?
Why? Because you're a moderator.
But fair points on the warnings etc. I mean, if gendy's so darn intelligent, she's more than capable of seeing the inevitable end point of how she acts on the forum.
And yes, yes, gendanken. I know you say you don't care.
gendanken is no doubt very intelligent, and very witty. But it's hard to argue that she isn't abrasive, profane, and generally insulting to everyone she talks to. I don't know a better definition of ``insufferable'' and ``bitch''. Do you?
Fair call again, although "insufferable" is surely in the eye of the beholder, which is the main problem I had with the original ban.
superstring said:
Profanity for profanity's sake is just lame, and not a single word of her prickly attitude is done in vain. Every bit of it has a point, and significantly more profound points are made by her in five letters or less than entire diatribes posted by longtime members of this forum.
The point is mostly shock value. She thinks it boosts her reputation for being daring and unconventional and individual. And for some members, it works.
The problem with being moderately intelligent is that after a while you start to assume that you're always the smartest person in the room. But mostly that's just because you don't meet or interact with people who are smarter than you are. Ego is a dangerous thing to have as the primary basis of your self-worth.
Sad really. Spend a few minutes reading what she writes, ponder it for real, and you might all actually learn something, 'secially about yourselves. Vishnu knows, I certainly did.
Yeah. I have to admit I often enjoy gendy's social commentaries.
She's abrasive, profane, and generally insulting to those who act like idiots, don't use their brains, take leave of common sense, pretend to be better than someone else, make baseless assumptions and feign innocence.
I sympathise, but we can't have one rule for idiots and a different rule for the rest when it comes to matters of basic courtesy in interactions on the forum. There's no rule against being stupid. Maybe we should have one...
Unfortunately nobody enjoy being humiliated and nobody should. Humiliation in public will never work...
It works for those doing the humiliating. Occasionally (rarely) it works for the humiliated. But most humiliation is not educational. It's mostly a power game.
That this forum is a "functional community" is an illusion, created by the sheer form of the forum and the fact that many people come here conversing in English.
We are most certainly not joined by our common values, common needs, interests and concerns. The people here are just too different. At most, there are smaller groups of people with the same interests.
It is these differences that create the characteristic dynamic that makes a forum interesting.
If we'd all be the same, we'd have nothing to talk about.
The question is: does the forum function better or worse as a result of moderation? My own view, of course, is that it is better. Consider the alternative.
Getting rid of those who are "different" means that the powers that be are slowly killing what drives a discussion forum - namely difference of values, difference of needs, interests, and concerns.
"Different" from whom? What do you imagine is the "ideal" member we have in mind? (Just interested)
-----
I extend to gendanken, of course, a right of reply to any of this post - uncensored and certainly unsanctioned. Tell me what you really think, if you want to.
