Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Should Jeff and TheMods be asked to re-consider their permanent ban on Canadian_Watcher?

1 No The permanent ban should stay
22
44%
2 Yes The permanent ban should be lifted
28
56%
 
Total votes : 50

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Searcher08 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:49 am

brainpanhandler » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:20 am wrote:
LilyPatToo » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:48 pm wrote:Has it occurred to anyone else that CW may not WANT to return?

LilyPat


Yes. And I'd surprised to learn that anyone thinking about this at all has not already considered that very real possibility. But we can;t really ask her so that is a moot point at the moment.

My guess is that she would not be able to resist returning to at least pretend to have been terribly aggrieved, put on a show of innocence and then at some point go into melt down mode and start slashing and burning, not to mention continue the whisper campaign and quietly insert the poison into the forum.


Mr Constructive speakz... you left out the bit about lasers firing from her eyes as she and Her Evil Cohort of Syncophantz lay waste sub-forum after sub-forum... :mrgreen:
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:04 am

HI searcher! :hug1:

Nice job with the poll construction. :cheerleader:


This calls for: :grouphug:

If only I had use of these emoticons irl. :lol2:
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5009
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Searcher08 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:39 am

Ignore requests for assistance then lots of snarky rebuke when the result isnt what you want - Winning Formula - you always get to be right AND look good! FTW!
If you want to take it to PM, I'm good with that - at my end, communicating feels like being at the receiving end of laser concentrated 1-up hostile snark. I declare a communiocation breakdown.
We communicated well (even though we have pretty diffeent styles / models etc) in the past and would like to shift this.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:53 am

:partydance: communication breakdown drives us all insane :partydance:

I want to tell you I love you so :lovehearts: :lovehearts:

User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby barracuda » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:31 pm

Mmmm, nice solo by Jimmy on that Telee.

And the poll was nice too, Searcher. Your intentions were good, and the discussions had value, I think. We need to have these types of conversations.

User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12887
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:14 pm

She would come back if invited. I know because I asked.

Just to clear up any misconceptions.

YOPJ
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:31 pm

By the way, in keeping with the "he who smelt it dealt it" doctrine, I wish to register my suspicion that the five all of a sudden additions to the antiCW votes are, in fact, antiCW sock-puppets. Maybe even Baracuda's sock puppets!

Perhaps another case of psychological projection?

YOPJ
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby barracuda » Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:35 pm

In which case, my old pal, my original contention that the poll itself is ultimately illegitimate is roundly vindicated. I stand in humble gratitude and confirmed.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12887
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby brekin » Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:23 pm

Allow me to come out of self imposed seclusion to give my take on the matter.

I don't want to speak too specifically about CW because it can't be fun to have your name bandied about when you are not able to reply but I do think it is important to address some things that I believe shouldn't be tolerated from members in general.

1. Accusing board members of the "T" word (terrorist) specifically and alerting security agencies of that fact "even in jest" is conduct that I believe is unsupportable and unconscionably. If this board has such a bright line regarding accusing other members of being disinformation agents shouldn't be less indulgent with labels that are much, much more flammable? I would like everyone to stop and consider that a kid was in jail in Texas for at least 6 months or more for making some unwise remarks that someone else thought should be elevated and there was that Marine state side who got heat for some of his private facebook comments and got hauled in, etc. Would anyone in this day and age want someone accusing them as a T and addressing the NSA in regards to their online username? It doesn't take much in the media to paint someone as unstable or a threat and I would think those that frequent this board would not be actively creating complications for other board members online and offline lives. You also don't have to be Hugh-like to imagine algorithms looking for certain words and combinations being flagged for further review, then you get on a list, and so it goes. I am rather surprised at the lackadaisical attitude in regards to this. When I read innocent people getting railroaded, sometimes just by bureaucratic carelessness or falling into a category by being maligned, I take it seriously and don't think it is joking material. This isn't 1995 anymore, the internet destroys people now.

2. Repeat offenders don't learn. A member being banned numerous times (5-6) means that they are a personality that needs to be minded by others. I've never been a mod but I assume that is a burden that one adult wouldn't want to continually have to shoulder for another adult. There is a difference between being a moderator and a parole officer. If the member was say to get banned once a year and has been here for 8 years and is contributing high quality material than that is something to take into account. But if the member is relatively new, and the conflicts are more about personality than content and are happening repeatedly in numerous threads then this forum is probably not for them. That may not be a knock against them or this forum, but just a reality. To use a bar analogy since they seem to be popular lately. If you are continually getting thrown out of your favorite bar on your ass, it may be time to find a new favorite bar. And no one respects a place that doesn't uphold its own rules.

3. Perma-ban is not death, and it may not even be forever. People don't die when they are perma banned from forums. They don't cease to exist, they just cease being able to contribute to a forum they have proven repeatedly to clash with numerous others. If you want to keep on having a online relationship with a member who has been banned, you can. You could even create your own forum. And I'm sure in a few years a member could appeal to the mods to come back. We all may be gone then, this place may even be a forum about anime for all we know. But if you don't make people who are continually disruptive go away, then the forum is a continually disruptive place. I found Hugh to be a very impassioned, mostly polite continual distraction but him being perma-banned was a good call I think for him and the board overall. But Hugh has many supporters to this day who I'm sure would love to have him back. Q. Should we have a poll about Hugh Man Atee next? A. No.

4. Some people just go there, right away, all the time. For whatever reason some people get personal right away and escalate the discourse regardless of the topic. Threads become more about them and their "enemies" and how they are being mistreated and why they are justified in mistreating others because of the slights they have endured. These people care less about CONTENT and are more concerned with DRAMA. I don't think there is anything wrong with staking out a position, defending it with passion and challenging others on their views. But, if you are insulting others two pages in, then that member (sometimes just for that thread and sometimes just overall) can't handle the level of discourse and it probably isn't beneficial for them to contribute if this is a continuing problem. People use to carry out life and death duels against each other with a high degree of civility and mutual respect. If a poster continually goes off topic and turns threads into a street fight of Scarface magnitude then the content continually suffers while the drama gets richer and richer and spills over into other threads and a soap opera effect starts to get ingrained in the discourse. Don't get me wrong. I like some drama, contrarian personalities and diversity of opinion. But in this matter I'm seeing more school yard intrigue and manners. I came to RI for information and discussion not whether someone called someone a naughty name or not.

In short, I think the mods acted correctly in banning CW, and even in perma-banning her. But ultimately they need to make the final decision whether to stay the course or not and not the people. Because if we choose to open that door, then this forum will become nothing but a voting poll on every little issue and not about content. But if she can come back, then I think it sends the message that you can get away with some pretty atrocious behavior over an extended time without any serious consequences. I think all of the great and well mannered philosophers and poets who have been condemned to exile (a fate worse than death) over their content. Why should she get special treatment? Let this be her epitaph:

CW wrote:
I get no special treatment. I've been suspended 5.. maybe 6 times. Holla!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=36579&p=512686&hilit=I%27ve+been+banned#p512686
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3197
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Searcher08 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:15 pm

[quote="brekin » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:23 am"]Allow me to come out of self imposed seclusion to give my take on the matter.

1. Accusing board members of the "T" word (terrorist) specifically and alerting security agencies of that fact "even in jest" is conduct that I believe is unsupportable and unconscionably.

I wanted to say 'Thank You' for posting and that I totally agree with you on that.
I dont think that this has ever happened on R.I. before.


If this board has such a bright line regarding accusing other members of being disinformation agents shouldn't be less indulgent with labels that are much, much more flammable?

** Again I agree. My suggestion is that this is written into the rules as a total No-No - i.e. from now on an Instant permaban, regardless of how bloody long standing or brilliant the contributor has been.Why? Because the case that there is a possibility of physical negative real world consequences for the persons involved and for the board and for Jeff is not trivial. That possibility may not even get realised for years, as my understanding is that data analysis is way way behind data hoovering and storage. The people at RI are just one degree or two degrees of separation away from the Greenwalds and Karla Turner's of the world.

I would like everyone to stop and consider that a kid was in jail in Texas for at least 6 months or more for making some unwise remarks that someone else thought should be elevated and there was that Marine state side who got heat for some of his private facebook comments and got hauled in, etc.

** Absolutely true. Young children having ppolice called on them at school and being subjected to multi-hour interrogations for bringing a Swiss Army knife to Show and Tell...

Would anyone in this day and age want someone accusing them as a T and addressing the NSA in regards to their online username? It doesn't take much in the media to paint someone as unstable or a threat and I would think those that frequent this board would not be actively creating complications for other board members online and offline lives.

** Agree completely. If there was a magic "Instantly Lockdown R.I." big red button on my keyboard, I would have punched it.

You also don't have to be Hugh-like to imagine algorithms looking for certain words and combinations being flagged for further review, then you get on a list, and so it goes. I am rather surprised at the lackadaisical attitude in regards to this.

** You are really polite about it. I'm not. I think the attitude is utterly fucking dumb.


When I read innocent people getting railroaded, sometimes just by bureaucratic carelessness or falling into a category by being maligned, I take it seriously and don't think it is joking material. This isn't 1995 anymore, the internet destroys people now.

** On this occasion, I think it is a wake-up call here at R.I.
Internet communication isnt a vacuum, one's intention may not be malicious in the least, however that is seeing only the starting point of the communication, ignoring the end point - how it is received by an 'AUDIENCE' WHO *REALLY* DO NOT APPRECIATE THE HUMOUR - is very important.

Thank you, Brekin for posting. FWIW I sincerely hope you come back. Ironically, from the point of view of ensuring sound 'online reputation management', I think you would be better off doing that - which I appreciate may sound a bit surreal :)
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby rollingstone » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:52 pm

[url=/board2/viewtopic.php?p=514492#p514492]Wombaticus Rex » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:00 am[/url] wrote: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.
rollingstone
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:59 pm

Please tell me you're kidding, Brekin. Even YOU can't be that big of a freaking sissy-pants.

YOPJ
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:11 pm

Wow. There is significant after the fact, late in the game "red shift" going on with this vote. It was 11/24 for the longest time.

Then it started creeping ... 12/24... 13/24... 14/24... 15/24...

Then another vote for C_W... 15/25...

And now, 17/25. All WELL after the basic thrust of the vote had already been decided.

When will this vote be done and action be taken? Once the mods get a result they want?

YOPJ
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby brekin » Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:11 pm

rollingstone wrote:
[url=/board2/viewtopic.php?p=514492#p514492]Wombaticus Rex » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:00 am[/url] wrote: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.


rollingstone I'm assuming you are acknowledging the difference between a pundit who is paid to drum up hysteria regarding terrorists and someone on the street cashing in on that hysteria by calling someone not in the media a terrorist? Joe McCarthy could scream about communists all day but saying your neighbor was one in a public forum (even just joshing) were different matters. When you have an industry that advertises for something there usually is another arm that procures or provides it. And if the NatSec is not monitoring for such words because Hannity uses the word in a OpEd piece, well then I guess we should be more worried about collateral damage from their intelligence stupidity than their intelligence superiority.

To be even plainer, terrorism and terrorist are fine words to use except when you are accusing other members of them.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3197
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Rory » Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:12 pm

I rarely post - I like reading more than writing. But this farce is a step to far. I feel like I have insight into the characters and motivations of some of the regular forum users but this is a clusterfuck of narcissism masquerading as concern for others.

Mods ban people then choose to unban and the net positive result, longterm will be exactly as before.

C-W will be banned again - it is in her nature to take aggressive umbrage and flame her perceived foes. I think inviting her back is perverse - you will all get to revisit this same hand-wringing and meta analysis down the road.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Ask Admin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest