With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

[brainpanhandler]

Definitely - I was about to propose a poll thread. I was serious about the "not a Junta" part. Would you be willing to start that? Seems appropriate, you're usually a great source of actual moderation and communication.

Thank you - I think it would be a great demonstration of R.I. responsiveness.

It would be nice to have something kind, something straight arrow, something nutty on the poll...
... do need an option for the hilarity of a "blow it out your ass, I aint coming back" swishy flounce?
I'll put up something later on Sunday, if that is ok?

Make it clear, simple and neutral.

No extra verbiage. If this is what we are going to do then it should be businesslike.

Hopefully one of the moderators will approve it before you post it. Leave it up a minimum period of time. A week or so.

And on edit maybe we can have some sort of guidelines beforehand on what sort of threshold has to be reached for actionable results.

[coffin_dodger]

MODS: P L E A S E would you delete that C_W post with the 'T' word in it ???

What is it with the " T " word and the stupifying fear that it strikes into people's hearts at it's very mention?

I have to say, the current system that we endeavour to expose here at RI is still working just perfectly in at least one key area.

The " T " word is well on it's way to being a taboo subject that no one can even mention!

So now we know that everything is collected from everywhere and run through software looking for keywords (miss ya, hugh). One of those keywords, we have been informed, by the authorities themselves no less, is the " T " word. Justified by - supposedly - protecting us from all the crazy " T(ists) " involved in the open-ended War on Terror (- itself a false premise to justify increasingly uncomfortable but continued Imperialism by Western powers).

OK, so " T " is a flag-up word. But who exactly is going to use that word?

The fear (engendered since 911 that conveniently can point it's finger at anyone) of the very mention of this word is so great, that I am somewhat ridiculously going to have to substitute the " T " word with "Sausage" and the plural " T(ists) " with the plural of sausage - Sausages. No, can't be bothered - too bloody confusing. I'll stick with " T " and " T(ists) " That I'm even having to couch my language with code is fucking ridiculous. (Right here is some real ridicule, Joao - and the joke is on us.)

Are the T(ists) really going to be using the word " T " in any of their comms? Really? I mean, really??

maybe all these " T(ists) are as unsophisticated and regressive as we are told they are -

Hiya Jamal,
hope you're well -
will be meeting Mr X at the airport on Sunday to join the local " T " group -
love,
Iqbal x

- but I doubt it.

So what exactly is that word being 'monitored' for? And why did they tell us this fact?

The fact is that it's a warning aimed at YOU. You should not ask questions about THAT. DO NOT QUESTION on paper or in thought. DO NOT DISCUSS. This word is FORBIDDEN. We are forbidden to speak the name of, and thus even discuss, those people on whom we wage an unjust war.

Mission accomplished. Sometimes we make it too easy for them.

I believe that's a point C_W was trying to make, amongst others. Where is all the bravery now?

[compared2what?]

I believe that's a point C_W was trying to make, amongst others. Where is all the bravery now?

It kind of takes the luster off the "brave" when it's someone else's username. Not to rain on the parade or anything. But come on.

[barracuda]

I believe that's a point C_W was trying to make, amongst others. Where is all the bravery now?

Holy hell. Canadian_watcher was taunting brekin with the conspiracy forum equivalent of "nyah, nyah, you've got a little curly piggie tail". Childish, playground level stuff with a mean streak. I'm glad you were able to somehow transform that into a valuable lesson filled with trenchant social commentary, but you can't seriously expect that anyone else would. Especially the target, and especially on that thread.

[8bitagent]

Please don't take this personally(re: all y'all), but I'm on and have been on an unbelievable amount of forums since 1996, spanning hundreds of thousands of posts and countless passions and discussions. Many of which
are predominantly of the 17-35 year old age range. Yet, for a forum where the average age is what, 50 here? I've never in my life encountered a forum that had more immature, first grader level back and forth...like ever. Of course,
I've also never been on a forum more open minded, well rounded, and insanely intelligent as this one. So mad love y'all, just surreal how immature this forum is given the on average 38-65 year old age demographic.

[compared2what?]

I believe that's a point C_W was trying to make, amongst others. Where is all the bravery now?

Holy hell. Canadian_watcher was taunting brekin with the conspiracy forum equivalent of "nyah, nyah, you've got a little curly piggie tail". Childish, playground level stuff with a mean streak. I'm glad you were able to somehow transform that into a valuable lesson filled with trenchant social commentary, but you can't seriously expect that anyone else would. Especially the target, and especially on that thread.

It's too bad we can't have a bake sale for brekin, too.

Please come back, brekin.

[stevie ray]

There is some confusion. Allow me to help clear it up with the results of the looking for myself I did per the suggestions of a number of people here. Hat tip to them for this.

BTW, since the original post in the original thread has been deleted but Wombaticus specifically stated that he didn't delete any copies of the others I went and found one such copy posted by brekin himself. (which allows me to feel secure in reposting it now) Of course, I'm editing out the offending word and replacing it with T-ist.

Hey WR, or other alive Mod,

I hate to break in here with a emergency non-sequitor but I've sent a PM to all the mods and its stuck in the outbox.
Basically CW is posting the following and needs to be banned a.s.a.p.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 06#p512806

CW wrote:
ATTENTION NSA, THE POSTER WITH THE USERNAME BREKIN ON THE RIGOROUS INTUITION DISCUSSION FORUM IS A T-ist..

&

yeah, it's so scary what I did. Watch:

ATTENTION NSA, THE POSTER WITH THE USERNAME Canadian_watcher ON THE RIGOROUS INTUITION DISCUSSION FORUM IS A T-ist.
ATTENTION NSA, THE POSTER WITH THE USERNAME Canadian_watcher ON THE RIGOROUS INTUITION DISCUSSION FORUM IS A T-ist.
ATTENTION NSA, THE POSTER WITH THE USERNAME Canadian_watcher ON THE RIGOROUS INTUITION DISCUSSION FORUM IS A T-ist.
ATTENTION NSA, THE POSTER WITH THE USERNAME Canadian_watcher ON THE RIGOROUS INTUITION DISCUSSION FORUM IS A T-ist.
ATTENTION NSA, THE POSTER WITH THE USERNAME Canadian_watcher ON THE RIGOROUS INTUITION DISCUSSION FORUM IS A T-ist.
ATTENTION NSA, THE POSTER WITH THE USERNAME Canadian_watcher ON THE RIGOROUS INTUITION DISCUSSION FORUM IS A T-ist.

here is the url for the page it is on: posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=512812

[compared2what?]

There is some confusion. Allow me to help clear it up with the results of the looking for myself I did per the suggestions of a number of people here. Hat tip to them for this.

BTW, since the original post in the original thread has been deleted but Wombaticus specifically stated that he didn't delete any copies of the others I went and found one such copy posted by brekin himself. (which allows me to feel secure in reposting it now) Of course, I'm editing out the offending word and replacing it with T-ist.

I don't think the problem with that post was that it used an offending word, which "terrorist" isn't, afaik.

It was that it was a shout-out to a government agency that monitors the internet, which called unwelcome attention to the username of another longtime poster who's contributed a lot to this board, causing him to leave.

And Searcher was just being delicate when he initialized it because he was speaking of a sensitive issue generally.

At least that's how I understood it.

[American Dream]

If we're all going to vote on the mods' decision re: CW, shouldn't we all have clear access to information regarding the 6 previous suspensions?

I'm thinking that relevant threads- and/or any material that shows the rationale for the previous suspensions- all should be shared if we're going to be able to make truly informed decisions. I for one did not follow this stuff closely enough to be aware of all the water under the bridge...

[Searcher08]

There is some confusion. Allow me to help clear it up with the results of the looking for myself I did per the suggestions of a number of people here. Hat tip to them for this.

BTW, since the original post in the original thread has been deleted but Wombaticus specifically stated that he didn't delete any copies of the others I went and found one such copy posted by brekin himself. (which allows me to feel secure in reposting it now) Of course, I'm editing out the offending word and replacing it with T-ist.

I don't think the problem with that post was that it used an offending word, which "terrorist" isn't, afaik.

It was that it was a shout-out to a government agency that monitors the internet, which called unwelcome attention to the username of another longtime poster who's contributed a lot to this board, causing him to leave.

And Searcher was just being delicate when he initialized it because he was speaking of a sensitive issue generally.

At least that's how I understood it.

Thank you, that was precisely correct. - it was a concern for Brekin, for C_W herself and for R.I.


Suggestions for Poll
Notwithstanding my desire to make "Jeff receives custard pie" as an option, I'll go the bph clear and simple route

********************************
Poll: Options for Canadian_Watcher

1 C_W and Brekin invited back stat, end of.

2 We set a higher standard for ourselves(*) - and invite not just C_W and Brekin back, but
favourite non-banned former posters too via PM - e.g Sunny, Chiggerbit etc

3 C_W should be suspended for a week(**) and asked to apologise to Brekin
and for assurances about her understanding of govt agencies not sharing
her sense of humour regardless of her intention

4 C_Ws permaban should stick

********************************

(*) Based on 8bit's comments upthread
(**) generic time period


Blimey, that was actually REALLY difficult

I was trying to get
1 A draw a line under at once option
2 A make a constructive change to RI option
3 A purely clearly followed procedure option
4 A decision already taken , stick to it option


Please pile on with the feedback

I have just read AD's post above this - I will still incorporate any feedback into the poll options, but will wait posting until the Jeff / The Mods have given some feedback re the issue just raised. I hope that addresses everyone's concerns...

[seemslikeadream]

threads that contribute to the situation CW and others found themselves involved in should not be allowed to continue to the point that the Icke thread did.....letting CW come back without addressing the core reason that led up to it should not be an option

some results from that thread

brekin gone

SLaD threatens to leave for the first time in 9 years

CW banned

bhp gone

Lots and lots of ill will all around

major distraction

new member shows up just to promote his web site (linked in OP) and really could care less about RI at all...contributing to the hostility in that thread

Does anyone want to tell me any positive effects of that thread?

Does anyone want to tell me any thing they learned of any value from that 74 page thread that other threads involving the same topic had already discussed several times here before?

Was it worth letting that thread go on so long?

Should CW bare all the responsibility for what happen in that thread?

Does the author of a thread bare any responsibility for a thread he/she starts?

Why do we even have a fire pit?

[barracuda]

Suggestions for Poll
Notwithstanding my desire to make "Jeff receives custard pie" as an option, I'll go the bph clear and simple route

********************************
Poll: Options for Canadian_Watcher

1 C_W and Brekin invited back stat, end of.

2 We set a higher standard for ourselves(*) - and invite not just C_W and Brekin back, but
favourite non-banned former posters too via PM - e.g Sunny, Chiggerbit etc

3 C_W should be suspended for a week(**) and asked to apologise to Brekin
and for assurances about her understanding of govt agencies not sharing
her sense of humour regardless of her intention

4 C_Ws permaban should stick

********************************

1. This popularity poll has nothing to do with brekin. He left of his own accord, has already been invited back by several posters here, and may return anytime he wishes by dropping Jeff a note. I don't see any reason to make this a two-for-one dealio.

This issue is about Canadian_watcher, stat, end of.

2. Great. Let's bring back Doodad and Dreamsend, too, and don't forget vigilant. Just kidding - again, Sunny and Chiggerbit can come back any time they want. Send them a pm if you miss them so sorely, but don't tie this poll to other posters, especially those who left because they wanted to, and especially Chiggerbit, for god's sake. I miss her too, but she left for a reason, and support of David Icke was emphatically not it. Don't drag her into this.

This issue is about Canadian_watcher.

3. She should what? Apologize to the poster she drove off the site? Oh, kay, that's harsh. That'll change her behavior.

Look, here's the deal. Quit using your NLP techniques to influence your personal preference as to the outcome of the poll. You have three options up there in which Canadian_watcher returns. The easiest one to pick is first in line and most clearly reflects your own wishes. The package deals play on the sympathy of other uninvolved posters as well as brekin. Et and cetera.

Everyone wants brekin to return - he never violated the forum rules. He was essentially banned by a non-moderator.

The poll should be black and white: does she return or not? Let the admins' discretion determine the length of her suspension if she is to come back.

Even this binary mode is extraordinarily preferential to Canadian_watcher. It undermines the forum and weakens the guidelines. But if that's what you want, so badly, have at it.

Also - what American Dream said. Let's review her shit fairly, if we must.

Should CW bare all the responsibility for what happen in that thread?

No. I agree that the thread was allowed to go on too long without proper moderation. But she should bear responsibility for purposefully driving brekin from the forum within the context of her other suspensions as well as her contributions.

[seemslikeadream]

I know what it feels like to be ganged up on by 3 or 4 posters here and the emotional toll can be overwhelming at times ...

if I were a better had any writing skills at all I'd probably be banned by now also

[Wombaticus Rex]

Uh, re: Terrorist being a "T-Word" = that's absurd.

Not gonna happen.

There is no logical reason to assume that's anything the NatSec complex actually monitors for, especially when they sponsor an entire industry of pundits saying "Terrorist, Terrorist, Terrorist" all day, every day.

Further, we'd have no way of discussing, you know, Terrorism without recourse to the word.

[Hunter]

Suggestions for Poll
Notwithstanding my desire to make "Jeff receives custard pie" as an option, I'll go the bph clear and simple route

********************************
Poll: Options for Canadian_Watcher

1 C_W and Brekin invited back stat, end of.

2 We set a higher standard for ourselves(*) - and invite not just C_W and Brekin back, but
favourite non-banned former posters too via PM - e.g Sunny, Chiggerbit etc

3 C_W should be suspended for a week(**) and asked to apologise to Brekin
and for assurances about her understanding of govt agencies not sharing
her sense of humour regardless of her intention

4 C_Ws permaban should stick

********************************

1. This popularity poll has nothing to do with brekin. He left of his own accord, has already been invited back by several posters here, and may return anytime he wishes by dropping Jeff a note. I don't see any reason to make this a two-for-one dealio.

This issue is about Canadian_watcher, stat, end of.

2. Great. Let's bring back Doodad and Dreamsend, too, and don't forget vigilant. Just kidding - again, Sunny and Chiggerbit can come back any time they want. Send them a pm if you miss them so sorely, but don't tie this poll to other posters, especially those who left because they wanted to, and especially Chiggerbit, for god's sake. I miss her too, but she left for a reason, and support of David Icke was emphatically not it. Don't drag her into this.

This issue is about Canadian_watcher.

3. She should what? Apologize to the poster she drove off the site? Oh, kay, that's harsh. That'll change her behavior.

Look, here's the deal. Quit using your NLP techniques to influence your personal preference as to the outcome of the poll. You have three options up there in which Canadian_watcher returns. The easiest one to pick is first in line and most clearly reflects your own wishes. The package deals play on the sympathy of other uninvolved posters as well as brekin. Et and cetera.

Everyone wants brekin to return - he never violated the forum rules. He was essentially banned by a non-moderator.

The poll should be black and white: does she return or not? Let the admins' discretion determine the length of her suspension if she is to come back.

Even this binary mode is extraordinarily preferential to Canadian_watcher. It undermines the forum and weakens the guidelines. But if that's what you want, so badly, have at it.

Also - what American Dream said. Let's review her shit fairly, if we must.

Should CW bare all the responsibility for what happen in that thread?

No. I agree that the thread was allowed to go on too long without proper moderation. But she should bear responsibility for purposefully driving brekin from the forum within the context of her other suspensions as well as her contributions.

Very good post, Fish, I agree it is about CW and CW alone, no reason for all these other side shows and distractions.

I belong to another forum, been there a long time, its ten times the size of this one, MODS and ADMIN ban no one, here is what we do. Any member at any time can start a BAN POLL to ban any other member, it must be up 72 hours and in order for a ban to take place 68% must vote in favor of ban.

SURPRISINGLY there are not a lot of ban polls, youd think people would go crazy with it but we maybe get one ban poll every six months and most of the time those polls fail. I like it and so do the other members, its a good way to handle these things, at least it works for that forum.

Just my 2 cents for some ideas:

Straight up BAN OR NO BAN options no need for anything else.

Leave up for 72 hours.

68% "BAN" votes required for Ban to take place.

Try it, it may work out well. The important thing is, keep it simple. You add too many other options you water the vote down, especially here there arent that many voting members, we need a straight up question BAN OR NO BAN and that is IT, you want her back or you dont, period.

FWIW I have no problem with CW and would like to see her back and will vote in favor of no ban.