We’ve just lost yet another charter member to the paranormal.
No, Snakespirit has not been whisked away to the Beyond, where his firearm collection might precipitate an Evil Dead 3-like adventure. Like lekatt before him (and very nearly Aeschines as well had he not stepped back in a commendable show of restraint) his views on this subject led to such acrimonious invective from so many here (was it him against eleven or so by the end?), of such a personal nature (even involving the horrific injury he sustained in the line of duty), that the red mist descended and the moderator’s warnings fell on deaf ears.
Now, I am not here to defend his approach: he perceived me as an enemy also and treated me as such. But can we please try and avoid these martyrdoms in future? This guy clearly held very strong beliefs based on extremely convincing personal experiences: let me tell you that I’ve had a few myself, and they can be incredibly difficult to accept as simple neuropsychological phenomena, especially if you are unfamiliar with recent research. If such a person had a short temper, which he clearly did, it would seem inevitable that an eleven-to-one pile on would cause BANNED to appear under his name eventually. (And I realise that the final camel-incapacitating straw was breaking simple forum rules.)
It can be very difficult to explore alternative explanations for phenomena you consider to be strong evidence for your position: any skeptic who has not had one of these experiences would do well to come back here after they’ve had one. The next time someone with such beliefs appears here, let us, “the eleven”, explore and explain the things which cause them to believe in the paranormal, patiently, reasonably and respectfully, even if “the one” is not. Snake admitted that he could be an asshole sometimes, but what followed looked like a beating in which one skeptic would rain in punches until he got tired, allowing the next to take over ad infinitum.
I now leave you all to crow how much he deserved it.
Yes - he left voluntarily when, as I said, he thought that he was being unfairly ganged up on and criticised by a Moderator, whose warnings he had ignored.
Yes SnakeSpirit’s been booted but unless I’ve taken leave of my senses, which is possible, SentientMeat isn’t attacking him and the final line in the OP isn’t really an invite for others to do so. I think the OP is bemoaning the pile-on that led to his banning and trying to indicate that perhaps it’s not the best course of action.
I tend to agree. Although the true believers do tend to come across as a bit quick to man the baricades it’s hardly surprising given the response of many of the skeptics on the board. Sure, Snake took it to extremes with his multiple pittings and I can’t defend how he did it but I can understand his view of the attitude of the skeptics.
Rather than try to fight ignorance, educate the belivers and – just maybe – discover a paranormal experience worthy of further investigation many posters resort to snorts of derision and dismisive name calling (woo-woos, creduliods).
Clearly this isn’t everyone but it’s a noticable group. It’s not all the fault of those on the skeptic side but, as SentientMeat says, skeptics are the majority here and we need to be a bit calmer. A bit of civility and open-mindedness all round might do wonders to avoid the some of the shouting matches I’ve seen recently.
The final straw. Of course I cannot condone his actions or even consider his ban unfair. But you will note that even that final straw thread concerns the paranormal, and that previous threads on that subject had brought to bear upon him so much pressure that he was bound to blow somewhere.
Good call SentientMeat. It’s for reasons like this I’ve always admired your posts (and great user name).
I’m a confirmed sceptic and IRL am usually the first to enter a debate or argument on the paranormal. I would never have dreamed of doing that in most of the threads here, though. Far too scary and irrational (on both sides often).
The religious debates on the Dope seem, in the main, to be much more civil. If we can manage that with one heart-felt issue, why can’t we do it with this one. I know there was a lot of provocation, but the ganging-up and name-calling are counter-productive in the fight against ignorance.
If we want to improve the situation at SDMB, we first need to recognize that the dynamic we’ve just seen in the SnakeSpirit situation is not unique to this board. Rather, it comes from the dark side of human nature, an ugly region of primate psychology.
I’ve participated on lit boards (and supposedly “good” ones) where the autos de fe are even uglier that what SDMB has to offer. Poster A posts her poem or story; it’s “bad.” One is supposed to give firm, candid, but respectful criticism, but of course there are those who are truly skilled at getting in a sly dig that goes under the mod radar but has the predictable effect of driving Poster A wild with indignation. She reacts “badly.” Then the fun begins! Because we all know that those who take criticism badly deserve utter humiliation. Everyone joins in, and…
A chain reaction is produced. Because the more the poetaster protests and flails, the more she deserves the beating she’s getting. I’m using “she” here because one young woman at a highly negative board that shall remain nameless wrote this great poem—a lot better than the would-be elite of the board usually produced, and one I’ll never forget (I wish I had copied it when I had the chance), and got the treatment described above. She left immediately and permanently, a humiliated emotional wreck. But that was “good,” you see, because, as many posters expressed in the equivalent of the Pit afterward, if you can’t take it, too bad! Separate the strong wheat from the wimpy chaff! This incident taught me a lot about message board psychology.
SnakeSpirit is a person with a lot of interesting experiences as well as a lot to offer on various topics, not just the paranormal. Just hearing his stories about his life has been interesting and edifying. He’s also a decent person who has been kind to others on this board. The flip side, of course, is that he has behaved extremely erratically in response to the recent stresses he’s experienced here. I had managed to diffuse the Ad Glee thread, and it and Ad Ekers were sinking down the page. But the poor guy just came back for more. Let’s make it clear: That was really stupid. Let’s be even clearer: He deserved to get banned.
It’s called, in my own parlance, a frenzied flameout, and it’s not, as I have noted above, a phenomenon unique to SDMB. But even though the bannee deserves it, is himself a cause of it, the flameout is also caused by the willful activities of other posters and helped along by board atmosphere and policies.
Those who have participated in this bear baiting should take a look in the mirror and repeat the following: “I am not a mature adult. I need work.” Because SentientMeat is precisely right in the OP: no matter how frenzied or freaked out or otherwise deserving of mockery someone has become here, it’s still your choice whether to feed that fire or not. And many of you did, and many of you enjoyed yourselves. Which of you, in response to an off-target comment said the following? “Dude, I disagree with you, but this is just getting too hot. Let’s call it a day and return as friends tomorrow.” That’s what a mature adult would post. You know this.
The problem is also one of board tone and policies. SDMB is not as bad as it could be; the mods are not horrible. And no board is perfect. But in my experience negative boards (and SDMB definitely falls on the wrong side of the positive-negative divider, getting perhaps a 6 out of 10) are that way because the owners or mods feel that that level of negativity is appropriate. On the lit board I described above, the owner thought the pit bull critics and frenzied flameouts were a positive aspect of his little world.
Banning is celebrated at SDMB; it is a kind of ritual and serves a social purpose. On the one hand I realize that mods do hard work for free and they do it well almost all the time. I am not talking about bad mods. Rather, it is the little things that add up and create the overall tone. For instance, is it necessary to have BANNED in big ol’ caps under the name of the disgraced? Why not “Ex-member”? Or just a blank?
Many times people have suggested a “cooling off” period. As the frenzied flameout commences, the mod could simply shut off the hothead and tell him or her to come back in a week or a month. My guess is that this would result in the person coming back and enjoying a period of calm, constructive participation. Then, if a person started up again, they could be given a second cooling-off period and then banned if that didn’t work. But protecting people from themselves is not the only point of such a policy. It would also serve to eliminate the bear baiting behavior of other posters by simply making it impossible. Those who feed on such negativity would thereby be encouraged to look elsewhere, and, in any case, the overall tone of the board would be raised.
To the contrary, however, we have instances in which the mods themselves participate in the bear baiting, delivering verbal barbs that get yucks from the other participants. Czarcasm, did your quip, “Don’t sell yourself short, dude-you’re halfway there already.” represent the kind of handling of such situations we expect from a moderator? At SDMB, it is, so it’s not a Czarcasm-specific problem.
Even though SnakeSpirit requested that his Ad Glee thread be closed, the moderator TVeblen refused:
The key word here is “backfired.” Because the poster is hoist with his own petard, he now deserves whatever he gets. Also, the use of the term “discussions” is interesting in this context.
Again, TVeblen didn’t make an unusual decision here, so it’s not a TVeblen-specific probem either. Rather, the decision was in perfect keeping with the tone and policies of the board. Frenzied flameouts are a part of SDMB that people are not going to want to give up. Goodbye lissener, goodbye SnakeSpirit–your demises added to the enjoyment of the many.
If only people had enough shame to hide their enjoyment, that would be an improvement. Every time someone leaves (“I’m not paying after my 30 free days,” etc.), there is always a gleeful sendoff party—yippee!–don’t let the screen door hit your ass, etc. Very cathartic.
Despite these dysfunctions and board neuroses, I enjoy the place; that is why I have decided to bow out of the paranormal “debates” (term used feather-light). Now that SnakeSpirit and I are no longer participants, the question is whether devilsknew or Greywolf will step up to be victims. I’d assign either event a very low probability of occurring. So rejoice, You-Know-Who-You-Are: the hermetic sealing of your echo chamber is now complete.
Note: I have never gotten a formal warning from a moderator here, and, IIRC, nothing more than a mild on-board warning to the effect that I should not post political comments in GQ—completely fair. Those who have said, “I can’t wait until you are banned,” or “I wish that you were banned,” or “I can’t believe you haven’t been banned yet,” to me have manifested an astounding level of pettiness, negativity, and immaturity. I am genuinely surprised that the mods do not crack down on that kind of talk, as it amounts to campaigning for someone to be banned, and, to say the least, is the best evidence possible for the negative atmosphere of the board.
Another board just made me a moderator, and there, we have this discussion all the time. For some reason, people think moderators have to act above reproach at all times, whether they’re acting as moderators or not. This viewpoint is completely beyond me. Moderators are humans, and when they’re not wearing the Moderator Hat, they can do precisely whatever they want to within the rules. If Czarcasm treated someone unfairly as a moderator, then that’s bad. But I haven’t seen him do so, despite your and lekatt’s attempts to portray it that way.
I agree that Czarcasm isn’t a bad mod overall. The SDMB mods are all pretty good. As I said, it’s not a “bad mod” issue.
But we disagree on the rest. I think that mods should be above the fray and set the kind of tone that the owners and mods think should be present (one would hope the posters would also have a say). If the kind of acrimony and negativity that are present here on SDMB are viewed as valuable by the leaders, then they should stay the path. If, however, they think that fewer bannnings and frenzied flameouts are the way to go, then they should give countermeasures a try. Obviously, if Czarcasm is participating in bear baiting behavior, then one can only think that he does not wish to try to prevent such behavior.
I’m afraid I simply cannot agree with you. For example, I would never have agreed to be a moderator of that other board if I had been told that I couldn’t participate normally in discussions. I don’t see why moderators should let that unpaid task control their personal behaviour.
Snake was bound to make enemies from the beginning. One reason he built up such resentment was his attitude. Anytime someone tried to make a suggestion about his posting style, the way the board worked, or anything else, he would react with the utmost hostility and arrogance. He literally couldn’t take a fucking hint, much less a helpful suggestion. And there were some, at the beginning. He had a lot of other habits that were infuriating, but the attitude and the thin skin were the cause of the problems he had here in my opinion. I’m not saying he consciously chose to be a martyr, but I have no idea how things could have gone differently.
I’ve had some and I’m as much of a skeptic as anyone here. If you’re in a discussion here, you’re expected to have some tolerance for other people and some intellectual curiosity. Or in other words, don’t be a jerk. This guy went around complaining loudly about his intolerant enemies, which included moderators. How can you not be a jerk to someone after you’ve declared they’re your enemy and you have their names on a list?
I didn’t post to either of his Pit threads, but I have to say I laughed my ass off. I’m sure he included me among his enemies, and I’m not going to pretend I’m sorry.
You notice how people only make these complaints when a Mod disagrees with them? Especially the “hey, he baited me and then criticized me for it, the bastard!” stuff. I’m not sure why it’s inconceivable that a Moderator can participate in a discussion, disagree with people and still apply the rules fairly.
I agree that a mod should be able to participate almost “normally”; I think they should be above the fray and set a good example for others. If others behave well then normalcy should be not problem whatsoever.
I’m also saying that Czarcasm’s participation has been normal for the SDMB.
But what is “normal” at SDMB ought to change, IMO.
You are correct, Aeschines, I won’t be stepping up to the plate to be the next victim. I bowed out of the paranormal threads a few days ago and I don’t think I will go there again. Like you, I enjoy the SD enough not to engage in the paranormal debates and ruin the whole SD experience for myself. Plus, I know that you, or I or anyone else who believes in the paranormal can debate until we are blue in the face but will always be scoffed at and belittled here by a select few. So what’s the point? I have other places to go where I can discuss my experiences and beliefs in a calm and rational manner with calm and rational like-minded people.
I can see why Snakespirit was finally banned but I just think it’s unfortunate how it came about.
SnakeSpirit and lekatt weren’t belittled by a select few. It was a very large chunk of the people who came into regular contact with them.
For some reason, this reads as “I’m tired of arguments, so I’ll just talk to people who agree with me.” Seems rather contrary to the point of this board.
Belittled by the many? That’s something of an admission, isn’t it? But my guess is that you really didn’t mean it that way. Belittled by a good number, though–that’s the reality of it.
The skeptics have an echo-chamber for their position here. It’s not a bad gig, as they get to evangelize the guests and what few fence-sitters there are here. But I wonder how many mock-'em-hard skeptics here would have the huevos to go to a ufo, New Age, or paranormal board and fight in the same style they do here. The New Agers will probably be patient and nice (in accordance with their principals), but at most boards they’d get a serious taste of their own medicine. I doubt they’d fare well.
I don’t think that the point of the board is to argue. At least, it’s not the point of all of it. And spare me the fighting ignorance business. If we were fighting ignorance, we would not demand empirical evidence for metaphysical claims.
No, it’s not an admission. I was echoing the word greywolf73 used.
Boy, do I love hearing this dull crap over and over again. “The skeptics/liberals/whoevers run the board and they’re so closed-minded and they’re persecuting me…”
Yeah, I’m sure at a New Age board we’d just be deluged with credible evidence in support of Near-Death Experiences and ESP and PSI and all sorts of things.