:bawl: awe then just dont log on anymore...how can people not get that?
Please delete my username
- Thread starter mountainhare
- Start date
- Status
:bawl: awe then just dont log on anymore...how can people not get that?
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Wait. It's like Euthanasia. We have to debate it for years before doing anything.
Verbal warning to draqon
Reason: Hate speech
Reason: Hate speech
Thoughts on a debacle
It goes beyond that. See, the moderators and administration are often accused of being fascists and the like. And for some, our refusal to cancel a membership, or to permanently ban someone on request is an act of fascism. For many people, the act of cancellation—"Cancel my membership"—is an important act of control. To be banned, on the other hand, would affirm their sense of martyrdom. Walking away feels like surrender.
To the other, there are certain things anyone can do to earn a permanent ban. Most people don't want to go out that way, though. It would undermine their sense of contempt toward the site and its administration. It's a matter of how one explains the outcome to themselves in the morning.
Consider, for instance, Plazma's advice: "If you find leaving too difficult, then admin can change your password and disable you from accessing your account .... The last option, which I don't like, is permaban."
And Mountainhare's response: "You might as well permaban me. No doubt the mod squad has been fantasizing about doing so for some time. Who am I to deny them?"
So ... what's wrong with having Plazma change the password, effectively locking the account? Is Mountainhare afraid he'll come back?
Or is this whole thing just part of a tantrum against the administration and moderators? Contrary to his bitter speculation, we don't fantasize about permabanning anyone. We would much rather they learn how to take part constructively in the community. Especially when, like Mountainhare, we're entirely aware that someone isn't a moron. There are, and have been, plenty of stupid people in Sciforums' history. Functionally, at least, he seems pretty smart. Beyond that, it gets into sticky theories about how philosophies and perspectives affect behavior, and, well, I've done enough theorizing for now.
I mean, I'm aware of why he's pissed at us. At least, I think I have a pretty good idea.
The current approach seems more like a cry for attention than anything else. And that's unfortunate, but in the end it's up to him.
Shichimenshyo said:
Phlogistician said:
It goes beyond that. See, the moderators and administration are often accused of being fascists and the like. And for some, our refusal to cancel a membership, or to permanently ban someone on request is an act of fascism. For many people, the act of cancellation—"Cancel my membership"—is an important act of control. To be banned, on the other hand, would affirm their sense of martyrdom. Walking away feels like surrender.
To the other, there are certain things anyone can do to earn a permanent ban. Most people don't want to go out that way, though. It would undermine their sense of contempt toward the site and its administration. It's a matter of how one explains the outcome to themselves in the morning.
Consider, for instance, Plazma's advice: "If you find leaving too difficult, then admin can change your password and disable you from accessing your account .... The last option, which I don't like, is permaban."
And Mountainhare's response: "You might as well permaban me. No doubt the mod squad has been fantasizing about doing so for some time. Who am I to deny them?"
So ... what's wrong with having Plazma change the password, effectively locking the account? Is Mountainhare afraid he'll come back?
Or is this whole thing just part of a tantrum against the administration and moderators? Contrary to his bitter speculation, we don't fantasize about permabanning anyone. We would much rather they learn how to take part constructively in the community. Especially when, like Mountainhare, we're entirely aware that someone isn't a moron. There are, and have been, plenty of stupid people in Sciforums' history. Functionally, at least, he seems pretty smart. Beyond that, it gets into sticky theories about how philosophies and perspectives affect behavior, and, well, I've done enough theorizing for now.
I mean, I'm aware of why he's pissed at us. At least, I think I have a pretty good idea.
The current approach seems more like a cry for attention than anything else. And that's unfortunate, but in the end it's up to him.
It seems Mountaihare is in a position where he is angry, disappointed or irritated with Sciforums, and he seems to think those feelings are justified. And it seems he wants that Sciforums acknowledges these feelings.
Mountainhare, if Sciforums (as a whole, moderators + members) would say something like
Sciforums sucks big time, we're bad and worthless, and Mountainhare is good and right
- would this be a consolation to you?
Would that make it easier for you to leave, even without your being permabanned or account deleted?
Mountainhare, if Sciforums (as a whole, moderators + members) would say something like
Sciforums sucks big time, we're bad and worthless, and Mountainhare is good and right
- would this be a consolation to you?
Would that make it easier for you to leave, even without your being permabanned or account deleted?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Do we have to mean it.. ?
Even if we meant it, I wonder whether Mountainhare would believe it.
Thing is, Mountainhare, even if other people acknowledge your feelings or agree with you, there is no way you can ensure that other people would feel the way you do.
If you feel hurt and you want revenge or some compensation - there is no way you could make other people feel as hurt as you feel, at least there is no way to test how they truly feel.
While I emphatize with Mountainhare and can relate to his desire to have closure in the form of Sciforums doing something: it probably isn't going to happen, and if it does happen, it most likely won't have the effect he hopes it would have.
I understand that leaving silently can feel like defeat.
But is one leaving a place one respects and appreciates; or is one leaving a place one despises?
If Mountainhare despises Sciforums but wants some action on the part of Sciforums in order to feel justified or vindicated, then he'll never feel any satisfaction or consolation, no matter what Sciforums would do.
OverTheStars
Registered Senior Member
Aw, you never know if you will want to come back in the future. I rarely come here, but when I do the responses from the members here are very valuable and useful to me. No matter how much of an ass I make myself to seem to everyone else. Sciforums has helped me grow a lot, even though I mostly lurk around.
You've written a good analysis. I personally don't think the mod team should be required to be psychiatrists. If someone requests a ban, then just change their password.
Me too
I'll dignify Greenberg with a response.
You seem correctly.
I'm not interested in an admission, because I know I'll never get one.
You see, here's the problem. I've posted on sciforums for roughly 4+ years (give or take), and such behaviour has developed into a habit, which I feel is no longer warranted due to the poor standard of moderation, and inanity rife on sciforums. During retirement I've read a couple of stupid comments on sciforums which had me itching to hit the 'reply' button, hence returning to the pointless habit of arguing and debating. But clearly I resisted the urge, otherwise I'd be permabanned for some absurd breach of the code of conduct.
You could claim that I 'lack the willpower' to walk away without a permaban, although I'd disagree. Nevertheless, you don't leave alcohol lying around the house of an alcoholic to tempt them. Arguing with idiots has sucked up a minor, but still significant, portion of my life, and has become almost ingrained in my psyche. Being banned from sciforums has a sense of finality, like smashing those bottles of booze. I also want to just say farewell to people who I've known online for years: I'm a sucker for closure.
I do admit that another part of the reason I want a permaban is a sign of protest. I feel that as a long term member of sciforums, who has given a significant proportion of their time to posting, I am at least entitled to resign in protest of the horrendous moderation. I don't see why the moderators and appeasing members expect disgruntled members to slink away into the shadows without a peep when they have found the standards of a service to be lacking.
Why are members fair game for intensive scrunity and criticism, whereas moderators and admins are beyond reproach? To criticise a moderator is quickly denounced as whining, whereas members and moderators alike often assemble in a circle jerk to belittle vanilla members. I mean, just witness the responses to my original post. All I did was very politely ask for a permaban, and in response have been hit by a barrage of condescending remarks and attempts to analyze my pysche.
Only one person, Bells, wished me farewell without being a cunt, despite us not seeing eye to eye on many issues. That says volumes about the general attitude of the posters on sciforums, many of whom I've never quarreled with, doesn't it? Kick em while they are down... I saw similar behaviour directed at perplexity, Metakron, Reiku, and Darksidzz. Actively victimising posters who clearly aren't exactly in top form, while calling for a loving environment based on respect. Fuck that for a joke.
To be frank, the 'attention whoring' isn't really THAT important. I'm not going to lie: I love attention as much as the next person, and making a statement is always satisfying. But if I hadn't felt that horrid compulsion to start posting on sciforums again in response to inane bullshit, I would have been quite happy to walk away without making a statement. After all, I can always bitch on spuriousforums, if I ever felt the urge.
My question is why the administration on sciforums is so hesistant to permaban a willing member? Could it be because they fear it will be viewed as an admission of failure? It's one thing to ban a member who continually breaches the code of conduct, but when a long term member 'calls it quits' and asks to be banned, that reflects awfully on the administration. What causes a veteran poster to turn like that?
If they were just out to cause trouble, why haven't they yet been banned by the incredibly biased and restrictive moderation? Wait, I know! We'll just claim that they are attention whores, so we don't have to analyze where we went wrong. Whew, almost came close to analyzing our own shitty behaviour.
Or perhaps it's just because the thought of relinquishing any form of 'control' is contradictory to their overbearing nature?
Or perhaps it's because they are in some way jealous that particular posters are moving on with their lives?
Whatever you feel my motives are, the fact remains: It's my account, and if I want it closed, that should be up to me. What's truly ironic here is that I'm criticised for making a scene, yet it is the members and moderators themselves who are stringing this out with criticism and hack analyses of my psyche. If you don't want a scene, then the solution is very simple: Ban my account, and lock this thread to prevent further discussion. Nip it at the bud, cut your losses, etc etc.
I repeat:
IF YOU DON'T WANT A SCENE, THEN BAN MY ACCOUNT.
You seem correctly.
I'm not interested in an admission, because I know I'll never get one.
You see, here's the problem. I've posted on sciforums for roughly 4+ years (give or take), and such behaviour has developed into a habit, which I feel is no longer warranted due to the poor standard of moderation, and inanity rife on sciforums. During retirement I've read a couple of stupid comments on sciforums which had me itching to hit the 'reply' button, hence returning to the pointless habit of arguing and debating. But clearly I resisted the urge, otherwise I'd be permabanned for some absurd breach of the code of conduct.
You could claim that I 'lack the willpower' to walk away without a permaban, although I'd disagree. Nevertheless, you don't leave alcohol lying around the house of an alcoholic to tempt them. Arguing with idiots has sucked up a minor, but still significant, portion of my life, and has become almost ingrained in my psyche. Being banned from sciforums has a sense of finality, like smashing those bottles of booze. I also want to just say farewell to people who I've known online for years: I'm a sucker for closure.
I do admit that another part of the reason I want a permaban is a sign of protest. I feel that as a long term member of sciforums, who has given a significant proportion of their time to posting, I am at least entitled to resign in protest of the horrendous moderation. I don't see why the moderators and appeasing members expect disgruntled members to slink away into the shadows without a peep when they have found the standards of a service to be lacking.
Why are members fair game for intensive scrunity and criticism, whereas moderators and admins are beyond reproach? To criticise a moderator is quickly denounced as whining, whereas members and moderators alike often assemble in a circle jerk to belittle vanilla members. I mean, just witness the responses to my original post. All I did was very politely ask for a permaban, and in response have been hit by a barrage of condescending remarks and attempts to analyze my pysche.
Only one person, Bells, wished me farewell without being a cunt, despite us not seeing eye to eye on many issues. That says volumes about the general attitude of the posters on sciforums, many of whom I've never quarreled with, doesn't it? Kick em while they are down... I saw similar behaviour directed at perplexity, Metakron, Reiku, and Darksidzz. Actively victimising posters who clearly aren't exactly in top form, while calling for a loving environment based on respect. Fuck that for a joke.
To be frank, the 'attention whoring' isn't really THAT important. I'm not going to lie: I love attention as much as the next person, and making a statement is always satisfying. But if I hadn't felt that horrid compulsion to start posting on sciforums again in response to inane bullshit, I would have been quite happy to walk away without making a statement. After all, I can always bitch on spuriousforums, if I ever felt the urge.
My question is why the administration on sciforums is so hesistant to permaban a willing member? Could it be because they fear it will be viewed as an admission of failure? It's one thing to ban a member who continually breaches the code of conduct, but when a long term member 'calls it quits' and asks to be banned, that reflects awfully on the administration. What causes a veteran poster to turn like that?
If they were just out to cause trouble, why haven't they yet been banned by the incredibly biased and restrictive moderation? Wait, I know! We'll just claim that they are attention whores, so we don't have to analyze where we went wrong. Whew, almost came close to analyzing our own shitty behaviour.
Or perhaps it's just because the thought of relinquishing any form of 'control' is contradictory to their overbearing nature?
Or perhaps it's because they are in some way jealous that particular posters are moving on with their lives?
Whatever you feel my motives are, the fact remains: It's my account, and if I want it closed, that should be up to me. What's truly ironic here is that I'm criticised for making a scene, yet it is the members and moderators themselves who are stringing this out with criticism and hack analyses of my psyche. If you don't want a scene, then the solution is very simple: Ban my account, and lock this thread to prevent further discussion. Nip it at the bud, cut your losses, etc etc.
I repeat:
IF YOU DON'T WANT A SCENE, THEN BAN MY ACCOUNT.
mountainhare:
I think you want to leave not because of moderator bias against you, but because you don't like having your worldview challenged. You seem to have developed into somebody whose identity is largely defined by a wish for victim status. You are retreating from normal society into an enclave of racists and other disaffected groups who believe that the world somehow owes them a living just for being who they are.
Some people never grow up. I hope you will.
If a member has not breached any of the posting guidelines, there is no justification for a ban. Members are adults. They can come and go as they please. To permaban yourself all you need to do is to leave and never come back. Simple.
We leave you the option of returning should you change your mind some time in the future.
So, you're planning to be unoriginal and join all the other idiots who have left believing they made their mark with their final insults/porn posting or other petulant antics? If that's what you want, it's up to you of course.
I think you want to leave not because of moderator bias against you, but because you don't like having your worldview challenged. You seem to have developed into somebody whose identity is largely defined by a wish for victim status. You are retreating from normal society into an enclave of racists and other disaffected groups who believe that the world somehow owes them a living just for being who they are.
Some people never grow up. I hope you will.
If a member has not breached any of the posting guidelines, there is no justification for a ban. Members are adults. They can come and go as they please. To permaban yourself all you need to do is to leave and never come back. Simple.
We leave you the option of returning should you change your mind some time in the future.
So, you're planning to be unoriginal and join all the other idiots who have left believing they made their mark with their final insults/porn posting or other petulant antics? If that's what you want, it's up to you of course.
Ben:
Nice try.
You've just demonstrated that several mods on here (you, James and Tiassa) do indeed want a scene. Why on earth would you and James R suggest (and in fact encourage) me to break the rules and get banned? Could it be because you want me to conform to the troll stereotype? Then you could ban me and claim it was my fault, instead of yours. A valid request would turn into a serious breach of the sciforums code of conduct, and hence allow you to portray me as the villian.
No Ben, I'm way ahead of your petty games.
* By the way, I don't fault TheoryofRelativity for deleting her posts, given that they were, well, HER posts. It may be against the code of conduct, but the fact that so many people (including the moderators) bitched over such an absurdity is merely further evidence how many moderators go looking for trouble and conflict.
James:
So now you're implying that I'm a liar. Don't worry, I'm used to being called 'dishonest' by vindictive mods who feel they need to have the last word before banning me for trumped up charges and locking the thread I was posting in. I'm also used to being pursued from thread to thread by moderators with a grudge, who feel that they need to label me a 'racist' or 'sexist'.
Don't worry, James. If I didn't want my worldview challenged, I'd ask to be a moderator of sciforums.
See what I mean, folks?
I ask very politely to be permabanned, and several moderators troll my thread. Either they patronize me, or they feel the burning urge to perform a scathing psychoanalysis.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of moderators on sciforums thrive on conflict, and gain some form of satisification from trolling members that they do not like. They bitch that I'm 'causing a scene', while gleefully belittling me with condescending shrink like behaviour. Instead of simply politely saying 'Goodbye' and acceding to my request for a permaban, they feel the need to make a scene.
Nice try.
You've just demonstrated that several mods on here (you, James and Tiassa) do indeed want a scene. Why on earth would you and James R suggest (and in fact encourage) me to break the rules and get banned? Could it be because you want me to conform to the troll stereotype? Then you could ban me and claim it was my fault, instead of yours. A valid request would turn into a serious breach of the sciforums code of conduct, and hence allow you to portray me as the villian.
No Ben, I'm way ahead of your petty games.
* By the way, I don't fault TheoryofRelativity for deleting her posts, given that they were, well, HER posts. It may be against the code of conduct, but the fact that so many people (including the moderators) bitched over such an absurdity is merely further evidence how many moderators go looking for trouble and conflict.
James:
So now you're implying that I'm a liar. Don't worry, I'm used to being called 'dishonest' by vindictive mods who feel they need to have the last word before banning me for trumped up charges and locking the thread I was posting in. I'm also used to being pursued from thread to thread by moderators with a grudge, who feel that they need to label me a 'racist' or 'sexist'.
Don't worry, James. If I didn't want my worldview challenged, I'd ask to be a moderator of sciforums.
See what I mean, folks?
I ask very politely to be permabanned, and several moderators troll my thread. Either they patronize me, or they feel the burning urge to perform a scathing psychoanalysis.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of moderators on sciforums thrive on conflict, and gain some form of satisification from trolling members that they do not like. They bitch that I'm 'causing a scene', while gleefully belittling me with condescending shrink like behaviour. Instead of simply politely saying 'Goodbye' and acceding to my request for a permaban, they feel the need to make a scene.
- Status