Seattle
Valued Senior Member
What do you have against capital letters at the beginning of a sentence?
Splinter: Stranger Things Than Nazi Tears
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
While I largely agree, perhaps the best option is to simply ignore such authors? Let them have their blog (with footnotes) if it makes them happy.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
And ban everyone else, right?
Mod Hat — (sigh)
To reiterate: You recently received a warning for similar behavior. Was the last warning insufficient to make the point?
If you actually have something useful to contribute, do so. Meanwhile, all you've done is the same sort of off-topic posting you were recently given an infraction for, so why would anyone notice your insistent disruption? Look, nobody really thinks you're actually that stupid, so don't bother pretending.
Meanwhile, what it looks like is that you're upset by something you're not able to understand, so all you do is complain about people's writing↑ and make believe↑. We get it: Piqued by a discussion and just not up to the task of challenging it, you can at least manage some aspect of flailing disruption, and maybe people won't discuss it because you've made it too troublesome.
And that is what it is, but it's why you shouldn't complain about low forum traffic, or the rest of this disruptive cohort pretend to "value" Sciforums or "wish to see it thrive". Nothing about your conduct or theirs will contribute to a thriving discussion community. Or, as has already been explained↗, "Forums do not fail because posts are too wordy."
Really: Discussion is not what causes a discussion forum to fail.
You should be able to figure that part out for yourself.
And what's happening, here, with these disruptions, isn't really any mystery.
____________________
Notes:
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Anti-Semite and Jew. 1944. New York: Schocken Books, 1995.
To reiterate: You recently received a warning for similar behavior. Was the last warning insufficient to make the point?
If you actually have something useful to contribute, do so. Meanwhile, all you've done is the same sort of off-topic posting you were recently given an infraction for, so why would anyone notice your insistent disruption? Look, nobody really thinks you're actually that stupid, so don't bother pretending.
Meanwhile, what it looks like is that you're upset by something you're not able to understand, so all you do is complain about people's writing↑ and make believe↑. We get it: Piqued by a discussion and just not up to the task of challenging it, you can at least manage some aspect of flailing disruption, and maybe people won't discuss it because you've made it too troublesome.
The [supremacist] has chosen hate because hate is a faith. At the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result .... They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The supremacists have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to indimidate and disconcert.
(Sartre)
(Sartre)
And that is what it is, but it's why you shouldn't complain about low forum traffic, or the rest of this disruptive cohort pretend to "value" Sciforums or "wish to see it thrive". Nothing about your conduct or theirs will contribute to a thriving discussion community. Or, as has already been explained↗, "Forums do not fail because posts are too wordy."
Really: Discussion is not what causes a discussion forum to fail.
You should be able to figure that part out for yourself.
And what's happening, here, with these disruptions, isn't really any mystery.
____________________
Notes:
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Anti-Semite and Jew. 1944. New York: Schocken Books, 1995.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Sure, that's the problem. You and Bells are too "deep". We just can't "understand". We white, racist, right wing nutjobs. Nevermind that we aren't racist, aren't right wing, aren't cognitively impaired. You just don't agree with some viewpoints and therefore banning and name calling is all you've got.
No one is unable to understand you or Bells. Our "contribution" isn't valued. Where is Bell's body of work that is so valuable? You do have quite a body of work in the form of a blog. That's actually against the rules as I recall as well but no one on the moderator side seems to care about that.
I don't actually have a problem with the name calling on your part nor of that from Bells. The members can decide whether they apply or not. Some will agree, some will not. Threats, name calling, banning, that's not really the behavior most people expect from moderators however.
No one is unable to understand you or Bells. Our "contribution" isn't valued. Where is Bell's body of work that is so valuable? You do have quite a body of work in the form of a blog. That's actually against the rules as I recall as well but no one on the moderator side seems to care about that.
I don't actually have a problem with the name calling on your part nor of that from Bells. The members can decide whether they apply or not. Some will agree, some will not. Threats, name calling, banning, that's not really the behavior most people expect from moderators however.
Bells
Staff member
You were warned in July of this year by admin for your racist trolling..
I mean, are we actually meant to take you seriously? Is this the valuable contribution we are meant to be thankful for?
You were asked, repeatedly, to stick to the subject matter of the thread.
It's actually not that hard to understand, is it?
If you think a thread is too wordy, too bloggy, read another thread instead of flaming and trolling.
Again, it's not a hard ask.
No one, I repeat, absolutely no one is demanding that you respond to Tiassa's threads or posts if they are too long. You have made your displeasure known. Repeatedly. You were warned for trolling and flaming about it.
So I have to ask, why do you keep exhibiting the same behaviour, despite repeated requests that you stop? And then you whine that you are threatened with more moderation?
Something something could be said for the subjects in which you object to his posts.. But I think it's actually quite obvious.
Cut it out. I'm not buying your BS. No one is forcing you to read his posts, nor are you being forced to respond to them. The only requirement we have, that you are failing at, is that you post on topic and not flame or troll.
It's really not that hard.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
You've got a deal. You and Tiassa don't flame me and I'll return the favor and I'll attempt to ignore his blogs.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
The obvious answer.
E13 ''Sciforums is not your personal blog'' E14 is pretty good too.
Blog away folks, Tiassa's cleared the path for you little bloggers.
Last edited:
?? No. In fact that's sort of the opposite of what I said. What are you on about?
Well except for the fact you use racist tropes and rightwing tropes, as for the third your inability to even be the slightest aware of how you come across when you claim shit that the poor are just lazy take what you will for 3, at some point a duck gotta be a duck.
probably the same thing you have for being a decent human being. and you are not helping your case here with that response but then again your entire belief is we should coddle you rather than you having to give any effort at all.
Mod Hat — Foul, and other notes
Improper citation of rules↗, deliberate misrepresentation:
There is a backstory to this rule, but it is intended to disrupt unsupported crackpottery: "Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues." Part of what you're complaining about is the inclusion of evidence and sources, so, no, the complaint doesn't fit the rule. "Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions." Unless you have specific difficulty comprehending complete sentences, the sentence isn't really so confusing. To the other, no, not taking this site seriously↗ does not qualify as an appropriate excuse.
And when it comes to diversity of opinion and interpretation, the argument from illiteracy is generally unsuitable.
Furthermore, if between the guy who isn't a supremacist but can't stop acting like one, and the guy who doesn't take this site too seriously, there isn't even a half a narrative to sustain on its own affirmative merit, neither are we surprised. He's been at it for years, and you've been at it since you arrived fourteen months ago.
Additionally, see section G of the rules:
Between off-topic posting, deliberate misrepresntation of the rules, and trolling a thread in violation of section G, that's thirty points you're not accruing today. And while moderators have, traditionally, at least tried to avoid appearance of self-interest, to the point that I don't actually like using green ink, right now, there are a couple aspects to note about that: First, that's why you're spared the points; second, this digression can be carved out as its own discussion in order to ensure its due consideration. So when you get around to messaging the Administration about E13 and the horror of evidence and sources, make sure to thank them for the myriad favors shown supremacists and supremacism, over the years. And as I've reminded↗ James R, for instance, these outcomes are what he cultivated, and what we traded out rational discourse for. On that last, it's a long story. Still, in the same context↗ that this can't really be about being too hard on Nazis—
—neither can this really be about objecting to evidence and sources. Except, those are the priorities people are showing. The one is probably, hopefully, an accident of circumstance, but even setting aside the question of priorities of disruption, and attending particularly the complaint verging toward objection to evidence and sources as "blogging", I've actually encountered explicit disdain toward consideration of evidence, before. This isn't new. Still, inasmuch as this is what it comes to, neither is it surprising. The lack of any affirmative argument, and reliance on identification against, is something I've discussed before, too. The coincidence of anti-identification with disdain toward the role of evidence and sources in rational discourse is not at all unfamiliar.
What remains unclear is what you actually want; blatantly observable misinterpretation is not a good example of any affirmative merit.
Improper citation of rules↗, deliberate misrepresentation:
E13. Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions.
There is a backstory to this rule, but it is intended to disrupt unsupported crackpottery: "Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues." Part of what you're complaining about is the inclusion of evidence and sources, so, no, the complaint doesn't fit the rule. "Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions." Unless you have specific difficulty comprehending complete sentences, the sentence isn't really so confusing. To the other, no, not taking this site seriously↗ does not qualify as an appropriate excuse.
And when it comes to diversity of opinion and interpretation, the argument from illiteracy is generally unsuitable.
Furthermore, if between the guy who isn't a supremacist but can't stop acting like one, and the guy who doesn't take this site too seriously, there isn't even a half a narrative to sustain on its own affirmative merit, neither are we surprised. He's been at it for years, and you've been at it since you arrived fourteen months ago.
Additionally, see section G of the rules:
G. Feedback and Complaints
G1. Members are encouraged to post general feedback regarding sciforums in the Site Feedback subforum. Matters of general interest regarding site policies and moderation (but not about individual moderators) should be posted to the Open Government subforum.
G2. Specific complaints concerning the moderation of individual posts should in the first instance be directed by Personal Messaging to the moderator of the subforum in question. If that does not resolve the issue, send a personal message to a supermoderator or administrator.
G3. Complaints about individual moderators should be directed to the administrators by Personal Messaging.
G1. Members are encouraged to post general feedback regarding sciforums in the Site Feedback subforum. Matters of general interest regarding site policies and moderation (but not about individual moderators) should be posted to the Open Government subforum.
G2. Specific complaints concerning the moderation of individual posts should in the first instance be directed by Personal Messaging to the moderator of the subforum in question. If that does not resolve the issue, send a personal message to a supermoderator or administrator.
G3. Complaints about individual moderators should be directed to the administrators by Personal Messaging.
Between off-topic posting, deliberate misrepresntation of the rules, and trolling a thread in violation of section G, that's thirty points you're not accruing today. And while moderators have, traditionally, at least tried to avoid appearance of self-interest, to the point that I don't actually like using green ink, right now, there are a couple aspects to note about that: First, that's why you're spared the points; second, this digression can be carved out as its own discussion in order to ensure its due consideration. So when you get around to messaging the Administration about E13 and the horror of evidence and sources, make sure to thank them for the myriad favors shown supremacists and supremacism, over the years. And as I've reminded↗ James R, for instance, these outcomes are what he cultivated, and what we traded out rational discourse for. On that last, it's a long story. Still, in the same context↗ that this can't really be about being too hard on Nazis—
—neither can this really be about objecting to evidence and sources. Except, those are the priorities people are showing. The one is probably, hopefully, an accident of circumstance, but even setting aside the question of priorities of disruption, and attending particularly the complaint verging toward objection to evidence and sources as "blogging", I've actually encountered explicit disdain toward consideration of evidence, before. This isn't new. Still, inasmuch as this is what it comes to, neither is it surprising. The lack of any affirmative argument, and reliance on identification against, is something I've discussed before, too. The coincidence of anti-identification with disdain toward the role of evidence and sources in rational discourse is not at all unfamiliar.
What remains unclear is what you actually want; blatantly observable misinterpretation is not a good example of any affirmative merit.
I've wanted to put Tiassa on ignore for years, but the system won't let me.
Mod Hat — Splinter note
This complaining digression is splintered from "Nazi Tears and Stranger Things"↗, posts #4-35 [now #3-34]. Per prior note, this digression can be carved out as its own discussion in order to ensure its due consideration, and so it is.
As a general note, off-topic digressions are not an appropriate response to posts and threads you do not like. Such stunts end up with unfortunate appearances, such as the possibility that the real problem is that criticism of Nazis somehow hurts someone's feelings: As noted↑, there is the advice that posts should be unbiased, and be more accommodating to potential opposition, because posts that do not do this somehow discourage discussion, and applied in its moment, we still might wonder if the problem is that one criticizes Nazis too harshly, and thus hurts Nazi-sympathizing feelings.
Additionally, we should probably also reflect on arguments about forum value: The website that used to describe itself as "Intelligent Community" has now thrown so many bones in pandering to supremacism that people complain about posts being too long, having opinions, and being too hard on Nazis.
If this outburst was, as one advocate expresses, a "genuinely felt grievance", the question still remains whether the problem was someone being too hard on Nazis.
This complaining digression is splintered from "Nazi Tears and Stranger Things"↗, posts #4-35 [now #3-34]. Per prior note, this digression can be carved out as its own discussion in order to ensure its due consideration, and so it is.
As a general note, off-topic digressions are not an appropriate response to posts and threads you do not like. Such stunts end up with unfortunate appearances, such as the possibility that the real problem is that criticism of Nazis somehow hurts someone's feelings: As noted↑, there is the advice that posts should be unbiased, and be more accommodating to potential opposition, because posts that do not do this somehow discourage discussion, and applied in its moment, we still might wonder if the problem is that one criticizes Nazis too harshly, and thus hurts Nazi-sympathizing feelings.
Additionally, we should probably also reflect on arguments about forum value: The website that used to describe itself as "Intelligent Community" has now thrown so many bones in pandering to supremacism that people complain about posts being too long, having opinions, and being too hard on Nazis.
If this outburst was, as one advocate expresses, a "genuinely felt grievance", the question still remains whether the problem was someone being too hard on Nazis.