Which pretty much rules out any discussion of any banning except among those who agree that it was unjustified.
Suppose I get banned. Someone starts a thread saying, “that asshole Shodan has been banned, finally. Hooray!” Immediate lockdown - I can’t defend myself.
Someone else starts a thread saying, “Why was Shodan banned? He may have been an asshole, but at least he could spell.” Second post to the thread is "“I agree - he was a jerk, but no worse than a lot of other people here.” Third post is “Good riddance - he was a jerk”. Immediate lockdown.
Which means that anyone who wants to can shut down discussion of a banning. Even if the thread discussing my hypothetical banning has balanced posts about how I could, on rare occasions, be less than completely assholish, it only takes a bit of Shodan-bashing to close off the discussion.
Desmolytus and Muffin, the best way to keep this from being another “Liberal” thread is to stop bashing him and actually try to address his points in a reasonable fashion. If you are just coming in here only to start shit with him, please leave.
Harborwolf , I freaking hate Sibbie- whoops, I mean Liberal, for reasons already noted, though I believe it is possible to hold an intelligent conversation with him. Also, this is the pit, after all. Thus, personally, I don’t see why people should not bash him here.
Cheers Harborwolf, you said it before I could.
On a total side note, it’s odd that you joined in '99 and have fewer posts than mr plaid who joined in feb of ‘05. Dunno… just odd.
[/tangent] Shodan does raise an intersting point and to be honest I’m not quite sure how to look at the whole issue anymore. It does seem unfair to bash a former poster when he/she can’t respond, elaborate, or defend themself. If you’ve already said something to a poster’s face, I don’t really see the need to bring it up again once they can’t respond. You were right, they were banned, and there’s really no ignorance to be fought at that point. But, on the other hand, how can you really have a discussion about whether or not a banning was justified without talking about the level of jerkishness? And if you do that, how do you avoid bring up other posters as examples? It’s a messy kettle o’ fish… seems that the more transparent the mods make the process, the more problems there are, and that the less transparent the process is, the more problems there are. I hope the mods are at least getting comped some decent single malt for their troubles
[further tangent]Shodan, you didn’t take your user name from the System Shock games, did ya?[/FT]
I honestly don’t think it matters whether it is unique or universal. For this purpose, it’s no different to me whether it’s MilroyJ who’s banned or Polycarp. It’s not a matter of who it is or what their history of how many people hate him — it’s a matter of his inability to defend himself due to being prevented from doing so by the administration. And before anyone picks out a strawman, I’m not saying the administration did anything wrong about the banning. I haven’t even expressed an opinion about the banning. But I’m not nitpicking anymore than you are. I could say that you’re nitpicking by narrowly defining how people are just saying what they always said. “You’re nitpicking” is too easy, and is beneath you. You and I are not best of friends, but we are capable of addressing each other’s points. If you attach such phrases as “nitpicking” or “hijacking” or so forth to what I’m saying, then you are just perpetuating the myths about me that have nothing to do with this matter. I know you’re better than that. We don’t often agree, but I think we can both agree that you’re a pretty classy guy. Bash those who can respond, and leave the dead to die.
(By the way, thanks for the admonition that you gave on my behalf. To honor you and your effort, I will not respond to any personal bashing in this thread.)
It’s not as if we weren’t saying the same (or worse) to his face. To wit:
As for dragging his name through the mud in that thread, much of it came after his defenders came in and started making comparisons between him and another poster. I called one of them out to find a comparison as vile as what milroyj had said, but they couldn’t do so.
In other words, if you don’t want a banned poster to be insulted, don’t glorify them or compare them to a present poster. Doing so invites comparisons from other people, and the comparisons might not be pretty.
But when you said those things before, he could respond to you. Why do you not see that there is a difference between swinging at a man who can hit you back, and swinging at a man who is tied to a chair? If those things have been said already, why do you feel the need to say them again? Or to invent new ones?
Let me try another tack, since the matter seems blindsided by whether his alleged lack of character justifies indefensible bashing…
Suppose an admin locked your account for whatever reason so that you could not respond to this post. How appropriate would it be for me to dance a victory jig and say how weak your argument was as I gloat over your demise? I am free to list all sorts of reasons why you’re an idiot without any concern over what you might wish to say or correct.
Suppose I say that you took all those quotes out of context. And then suppose I make a list of reasons why you’re an asshole and an intellectual derelict. And all you can do is look on and say nothing in your own defense. In my opinion, if you would find that to be acceptable, then you have self-esteem issues.
You are correct, but not for the reasons stated. It is not possible for you and Liberal to have a reasoned discussion. But that’s not because he is a nut bag.
You, again, are probably right.
I agree that it would be much better if the crazy assholes who follow other posters from thread to thread attempting to hijack everything into a series of personal attacks would be banned.
"Shodan’ means something equivalent to “first step” in Japanese. It is the term for a first-degree black belt in judo.
I never heard of the games before I joined the Dope.
I post from work, can’t seem to give up an arguement, allways have to respond and can’t let anything go, and have a lot of energy. Oh, and it’s Plaid, not plaid. You know, like a last name.
Shodan Veddy veddy intereztink. So instead of being a gaming geek who’s a fan of one of the best FPS RPG’s ever, you could probably tear my head off and stuff it down my neck. Good to know.
No disrespect meant, but… um… no it’s not.
I’m looking at your user name right now, and the second word is not started with a capital letter. If you meant it to be, maybe you should email a mod/admin to have it changed?
Well, Polycarp got it right in the past, so I assumed other people would also assume it was a kinda’ firstname-last name thing, as it is, but e-mail the mods? Will do.
Scott_Plaid, I have no problem with bashing Liberal provided that it is justified and in the proper place: it’s own pit thread. I know that this is the pit and all, but can we please froth at the mouth on topic.
FinnAgain, I joined and lurked for a long time. Once the board went pay to post, I figured I should get my moneys worth.
Desmolytus, the only person talking solely about Liberal at this point is you. If you have problems and want to start another thread, that’s fine. This thread is about pit threads and banned posters. If Liberal becomes the center of a discussion, that’s well within board decorum.
Liberal, knock it off dude. You’re gonna make me blush. Apologies for the nitpicking remark, but pointing out a difference in phrase but not intent is sniggling small details and ignoring the main point. I do agree with you to an extent. The board does not need an eight page thread of insults lobbed at the newly banned. That said I see nothing wrong with people wanting to vent a bit.
I know that the words used tend to be mild personal attacks, but not everyone is going to want to take the time to compose a few paragraphs mildly listing the problems that they have had with the poster. Usually the banning has some critics and the posters have defenders. I can’t think of any threads where the person that was banned has been entirely without defenders. Maybe Roland Deschain, but that’s about it.
It may be my lack of fancy wordification, but I can’t think of another way to say it. Liberal, I think you are simply misunderstanding the intent of the posts.
A different analogy: we’re talking about the difference between swinging at a man who can hit you back, and swinging at a man who is no longer in the room.
milroy’s gone, but not forgotten. He ain’t here. He ain’t part of the messageboard. Talking shit about him is no longer done in an effort to wound his emotions, because his emotions aren’t around to be wounded. It’s done for the purpose of venting–which is, in my opinion, a perfectly noble and reasonable motive for talking shit.
I’d say it’s more compassionate to talk shit about people who aren’t here than to talk shit about people who are here, given that those who are absent aren’t going to be hurt by it.
There is a possibility that milroy is still reading the boards even though he can’t post to them. To stretch the analogy, if he’s pressing his face up against the screen window of the bar from which he’s been ejected, for the sole purpose of letting people punch him, well, he’s got a masochistic tendency that he’s gotta deal with on his own.
To recap: there’s no physical violence being done to milroy. He’s perfectly capable of avoiding any emotional violence–mere inertia will help him avoid emotional violence. The insults people are dealing to his memory are for their sakes, not for his. There’s nothing immoral about such venting.
In this case you would be correct. A thread centered around such behavior would be unacceptable in many ways. I’d like to think that most dopers wouldn’t let someone claim victory in an argument due to a banning default.
This sort of occurance would be rare though. Noone is banned due to poor debating skills. Also, most dopers prefer to use insults of varying cleverness rather than going back to old threads to rehash old arguments on a post by post basis.
No, I don’t think it’s fair to pick on people in general, even worthless pieces of shit like milroyj. However, I can’t see what we were doing as picking on him-there was some question as to the propriety of the banning and he had people coming to his defense-people were then coming out to defend the banning and why even if there was flimsy reasoning behind it, there was more than enough ammunition to uphold the decision to ban based on prior bad acts.
On the contrary–I wouldn’t find it acceptable or unacceptable, because I wouldn’t linger. If you would find it unacceptable–if you’d hang around to see what people said, and then would care–then in my opinion YOU have self-esteem issues.
Apologies for the nitpicking remark, but pointing out a difference in phrase but not intent is sniggling small details and ignoring the main point. I do agree with you to an extent. The board does not need an eight page thread of insults lobbed at the newly banned. That said I see nothing wrong with people wanting to vent a bit.