It really does seem like a case of five against all, here.
Something stinks, and it ain't last week's lobster.
Whaddidja expect from me, quiet sobbing and a flowered wreath? I wish she hadn't been banned, but I wish more she hadn't forced their hand.
Jerky wrote:Why not a month of having her posts be approved before they appear?
I hereby volunteer to approve/disapprove her postings for postworthiness.
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:25 pm
by Laodicean
Ban hammers destroy websites. I've seen it.
She was nice to me and I her. Simple.
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:47 pm
by Searcher08
I would like to respectfully ask for Jeff and The Mods to reconsider their decision for permanently banning Canadian_Watcher to something which takes account of the needs, feelings, ideas etc of the R.I. community as shown in this thread, information not available when the original decision was taken.
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:58 pm
by Wombaticus Rex
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.
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
stevie ray » Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:29 pm wrote:I thought this was the thread for saying a respectful goodbye. the other thread is where you get to trash her in spite of her not being able to defend herself.
Bah. I never shied from confronting her bolognatiousness when she was posting - why would I change that now? Because she can't return fire?
And no, toasts aren't required to be respectful. I usually find the best ones to be bawdy, insulting, or deliciously inappropriate.
Spoken like a real asshole and yet the very catalyst for her come back, if she wants to that is. Fish on!
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:30 pm
by barracuda
She will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:39 pm
by wintler2
Poll:
a. What a ridiculous soap opera.
b. Children & others unable to moderate themselves respond better to firm boundaries than to vaccilation.
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:40 pm
by Searcher08
Wombaticus Rex » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:58 pm wrote: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?
Re:
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:43 pm
by Laodicean
wintler2 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:39 am wrote:Poll:
a. What a ridiculous soap opera.
b. Children & others unable to moderate themselves respond better to firm boundaries than to vaccilation.
Goddamn it man, we're talking about the entire human race here. Take responsibility for Christ's sake.
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:09 pm
by Laodicean
And cause it's a Wombaticus thread...
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:29 pm
by Plutonia
Meta-context courtesy of Rene Girard:
In-group tensions are instinctively (wrong word but can't think of one better atm) resolved through the sacrifice of an in-groupee - in this case it seems, the banishment of an apparent (the appearance matters more than the reality) transgressor.
But that only works if the in-group collectively agrees to the guilt of the transgressor: if the sacrificial victim is seen to be guilty, that translates into social stability (death-row inmates); conversely, if the sacrificial victim is seen to be innocent, that translates into social unrest (Trayvon Martin); if the in-group cannot collectively agree to one or the other, internal tensions escalate.
Alternatively, in-group cohesion can be achieved by the collective projection onto an out-group, the more apparently threatening, the better - say that Booz Hamilton's CEO threatened to sue Jeff for millions of dollars, things would straighten out here pretty damn quick.
In any case, the very real problem of in-group tension is that it tends towards escalating _contagious!_ violence. And that sacrificial victims are pretty much guaranteed.
wintler2 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:39 am wrote:Poll:
a. What a ridiculous soap opera.
b. Children & others unable to moderate themselves respond better to firm boundaries than to vaccilation.
Goddamn it man, we're talking about the entire human race here. Take responsibility for Christ's sake.
Oh, i didn't realise this is an absurdist humour thread, cool! I hereby take responsibility for the entire human race: punishments begin at dawn.
Plutonia wrote:..In any case, the very real problem of in-group tension is that it tends towards escalating _contagious!_ violence. And that sacrificial victims are pretty much guaranteed.
..
If however the group and its 'violence' is virtual/imaginary, important lessons about the triviality of virtual relations may be learnt.
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:37 pm
by Jerky
Regardless of my strong words and sentiments here, I would like to thank the moderators for their service, which 99% of the time is exemplary.
Nobody, not even the best and brightest among us, can get it right 100 percent of the time.
