Lissner banned?

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

I’m not defending his behavior in CS, just pointing out the causes.

Causes, my foot. You’re saying he was provoked, and I’m saying that’s either irrelevant or it’s bullshit.

Let me be real clear on this. Moderators do not have the time to play the role of investigating detective, prosecuting attorney, judge and jury. A favorite quote of mine about parents can apply to Moderators as well: “Parents aren’t interested in justice, parents are interested in quiet.”

Thus, when we get someone reporting a post because they were insulted, we do not have time or energy to spend sifting through the 80 prior posts (in this case), looking to see who provoked whom and who started what when. We act on the reported post. Provocation is irrelevant. “He hit me first” is no excuse.

Is that just? Perhaps not in some absolute philosophical sense… but it’s fair.

And the moral of the story: if someone insults you in an manner that’s inappropriate, DON’T INSULT THEM BACK. Instead, use the REPORT THIS POST button (the exclamation point in the upper right corner of each post) to call it to the attention of the Moderators.

I can practically guarantee that in a long thread, the Moderators will NOT have time to go back and try to figure out which one started the insults, where the first provocation came from, who hit whom back, or anything that detailed. The post that gets reported is where we’ll take action. So, if you think you’re in the right and you’ve been insulted in a forum where it’s not acceptable, report the damn post. If you hit back, then you’re the one who’s likely to get in trouble.

And, as I said before, in this particular situation, we’re not talking about a small number of incidents.

@Miller

I do seem to recall a mod saying that they were no longer giving out second chances, though.

I don’t know that we’ve established that as a firm policy. I think you’d be wise to assume that it IS the policy. But the reality is that some Mods are more willing to give a second chance than others, and that it also depends on the extent of the misbehaviors (and on a few other factors).

Our past experience: when we re-admit someone who has been banned after half a dozen warnings, they almost always get themselves banned again in a matter of days. Hence, some of us don’t like the idea of a “second chance” because the results have almost always been disappointing.

[Gamaliel]

@Ilsa_Lund

Who was agitating there? Who pulled the pretension and snobbery card? Who accused the other party as viewing people who disliked Verhoeven as mindless sheep? Until the snobbery-elitism-pretension cards were pulled, everything was fairly friendly, as it almost always is in threads about Verhoeven. Such accusations are personal attacks and accusations of dishonesty against the poster, not against the film.

Sorry, I don’t consider accusing me of deriving my opinions from “the safety of the pack” to be a statement which is “fairly friendly”. When you say something like that, don’t expect a cordial response.

For what it’s worth, I have no particular opinion of the banning as I’m not familiar with his previous conduct on the board. I haven’t managed to match user names and personalities yet beyond a few people. Apparently the subject of Verhoeven is one that has been done to death on this board, which is something I didn’t realize at the time. Had I known it was a hot button issue for **lissener **, I might have avoided the subject entirely, but that hardly justifies his behavior.

Since this is a board devoted to stamping out ignorance, we’ve already driven out all the creationists and Holocaust deniers, so we have to find stupid shit to argue about. But who would have thought someone’s hot button issue was Paul fucking Verhoeven?

[furt]

@PhalPhoto

The result of this verbal abuse is that every student would examine his or her response quite carefully before speaking. The result of that is that the quality of the discourse to be found in his classes was exceptionally high.

He also had good students. I make very heavy use of socratic questioning, but most of the time, most students do not take this as a challenge and step up with their game (as I intend, and as was the result in your class). Most of them just settle into sullen silence.

[chula]

@Larry Mudd

People who don’t like Lucas or Tarantino are just too stupid to ignore the frame message and enjoy the inner message. There are two whole levels of semiosis you’re overlooking, you pea-brained, non-film-nerd peasants. Just push some more popcorn in your slack-jawed face and shut the fuck up, you know-nothing boobs.

The “inner message” of a Tarantino film? The only message I get is that the guy has spent too much time watching movies and not enough time living life. I seems to be a hero to you film geeks who feel superior because you get all the references, but clever dialogue plus gratuitous violence does not add up to a great movie. And, just cuz we’re in the Pit: :wally

[Miller]

@chula

I seems to be a hero to you film geeks who feel superior because you get all the references, but clever dialogue plus gratuitous violence does not add up to a great movie.

You’re absolutely correct. You need to show some tits in there somewhere, too.

[Larry_Borgia]

Thanks for the responses. I just wanted to find out what the story was, but I guess the subject was bound to start a lengthy thread. Anyway since my questions were answered the mods can do what they like with this.

Onwe suggestion though. Perhaps if a long time more or less respected poster gets banned a mod or admin could open a thread or post a locked sticky explaining why. I really just started this out of curiousity, and I think its only human to be curious when something like this happens.

[silenus]

@Miller

You’re absolutely correct. You need to show some tits in there somewhere, too.

And some car chases would be nice!

[Blonde]

@silenus

And some car chases would be nice!

Oh, and machine guns! Lots of loud machine guns, preceded by torture scenes, of course.

Well, I may not always have agreed with lissener, but will miss his posts. As I expect most of us do, I always look to see how long the poster has been around, and it’s always disturbing to see a ban of those who have been on this board a long time, and contributed educated and insightful posts before they were banned.

[Tuckerfan]

@Jenny Haniver

Hey, if they’re taking requests, I’m hoping they ban any more discussions of Showgirls and Starship Troopers. Ever.

No matter how good or bad anyone thinks these movies are, they do NOT deserve the amount of discussion they get in Cafe Society. I’m sick and tired of every friggin conversation on directors winding up as a referendum on whether Elizabeth Berkeley was doing the floppy splashy dolphin sex scene ironically.

Unfortunately, I think it’ll take several deciduous forests worth of wooden stakes to put a stop to those threads. Would be nice, though.

Gotta admit that it’s a really stupid reason to get banned.

[Larry_Mudd]

@chula

The “inner message” of a Tarantino film? The only message I get is that the guy has spent too much time watching movies and not enough time living life. I seems to be a hero to you film geeks who feel superior because you get all the references, but clever dialogue plus gratuitous violence does not add up to a great movie. And, just cuz we’re in the Pit: :wally

Ah, but you overlooked my reference to Douglas Hofstadter’s three-level semiotics model postulated in Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

While the surface of my message decodes as “Neener neener, I’m smarter than you!” it was intended mainly as irony. Layered under that is a more subtle message, which is, uh… “Neener neener, I’m smarter than you!”

There’s a third, much deeper meaning under both of those that’s not nearly so condescending, but I doubt that you’ll be able to work it out.

[Snooooopy]

@C K Dexter Haven

Today’s offenses were merely the last straws that overflowed the camel’s cup.

Camel’s cup? I wonder what that looks like.

[Aeschines]

Starship Troopers sucked.

[lel]

@NoClueBoy

Let’s not forget the blanket labling of 98% of the Dope as homophobes because they didn’t jump up and down immediately to praise his own ideas and ideals. Suck my dick, indeed!

Damn, a mere few weeks shy of a year of sucking Lissener’s dick.

[Random]

@Bryan Ekers

Like, don’t you people GET it? Lissener wasn’t a jerk, he was the perfect satire of a jerk. YOU’RE JUST TOO STOOPID TO UNDERSTAND!

That was wonderful.

Actually, it’s not lissener’s fault, really. All his positive traits have been bred out of him by unscrupulous pedigreed dogs.

[Ephemera]

I can’t help but think of Tool’s Eulogy as I read this thread and the one that caused him to be banned. He may’ve been intelligent and felt strongly on a lot of issues but, in the end, he was nothing more than a raving lunatic, ranting and pointing his finger but everything at his heart.

[Skywatcher]

@Larry Borgia

Onwe suggestion though. Perhaps if a long time more or less respected poster gets banned a mod or admin could open a thread or post a locked sticky explaining why. I really just started this out of curiousity, and I think its only human to be curious when something like this happens.

They did that for december, although long after the train had wrecked. In that instance, the sticky was because the staff suspected many people would have been away from their computers for three days and come back wondering what happened.

[gum]

Originally Posted by Liberal

It is unseemly to attack a man who is incapable of defending himself.*

Agreed. Thank you, Liberal.

lissener, If you’re reading this: I’m sorry.

[Zoe]

I don’t question the mods’ decision. But I will miss lissener. I learned from him. He sparked my interest in things. I can overlook a lot of emotional chaos for that.

I would feel hurt if I were banned. But I just couldn’t stand myself if NoClueBoy said something bad about me.

Starving Artist, you give me hope for folks of your “persuasion.”

[DrDeth]

Lissener? I’ll miss him… a little. He was entertaining at times, erudite, and sometimes made me think. Sure, he was an asshole. (shrugs)

How many times was he warned and over how long a period? My point is that some posters have contributed a lot, and deserve more than one subtle warning, and then a banning. Whether or not you agree with Lissener, he did contribute a lot to this board (even if it was just to get dudes excited over issues). Please give him one more chance.

I agree that one cheap trick is saying that if you don’t like something it is because you don’t understand it. The dude that does “Boondocks” tries that cheap cop-out. Sure- I’d guess that many don’t understand “Starship Troopers”, but I am also sure that some that hate the film that grok it entirely. I am not attributing this to Lissener especially mind you, just pointing out that it is a fallacy.

I also generally disagree with Liberal, but in this case he is correct- don’t slam those that can’t slam back. It’s kinda cowardly. Gum, that was a nice apology.

[Dan_Norder]

The banning was long overdue in my mind.

And if you think it’s a cheap shot to make a comment about some guy who isn’t here to defend himself:

1. This is the Pit, home of cheap shots.
2. It’s his own damn fault he’s not here to defend himself, not mine.
3. Hi, Opal! (For the institutionalized cheapshot closing to the list.)

Of course if it were possible for him to apologize and come back and he chose to act responsibly, then, fine, let him back, all would be good. But this was a long, long, long time coming for someone who obviously simply didn’t want to act within the guidelines the board set up, let alone common decency.