Banning - An Idiotic Activity

Article43

Zaph wrote: »

Referring to people as plebs, even if you're including yourself in that, is not really a vote winner. Had you said "normal posters" it wouldn't have had the same air of superiority that that comment has.



It's hard to bite your tongue if you're being spoken to as if you were a rather dim-witted child.



Fair enough, but you know what the outcome is. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean it will change.



See above re. being condescending towards people. It might explain why they have such difficulties.

All I am doing is defending myself from the usual suspects -they are common on all of these so called modern day meeting places - what a joke that is, meeting someone without actually seeing them, a sign of the twisted world we live in.

Thx

Gordon

Gordon wrote: »

Hmm, so you got banned for calling someone an idiot because you believe that they made idiotic posts. Is this because they professed to be experienced and you can show them that they are wrong?

CORRECT

Hmm, I see.

I understand how you feel that some people you think are idiots. It's not really sharing experiences for the good of others though is it? Boards.ie exists as a community for the good of others, and that's great that you have seen this and given your own advice for the good of others as you say. But what good is calling someone an idiot? Why not teach, that's good for others.

I have tried - but idiots interfere with idiotic statements - so they must be shown for what they really are - idiots.

I don't agree with this. You don't show someone that they are giving idiotic statements by calling them an idiot. You show where the person is wrong and prove to them that the way they understand things could be understood in a different way, a way that is more efficient, more profitable, whatever. You don't just tell them they are an idiot.

However, that's a moral that I like to live by. The fact is that if you call a person an idiot then it's more than likely that you will get banned from the forum. You have to really check the charter of the forum you are posting in to get an idea of the rules and guidelines. Although most fora are very similar in their ethos'.

What will be will be.

So, do you understand the name calling policy now? I don't know where you are on this, you accept the policy?

How long is your ban for, have you been told? I know how you feel, it's annoying to get banned, but it's also annoying to have people calling each other idiots. It gives the place such a negative vibe, it makes people hate each other and then they don't feel like being in a community and helping each other out. For the good of others.

I only called those people who posted idiotic posts idiots - I am not calling you an idiot, am I - can you not see the logic in this way of thiking?

Yes, I see your logic. It's not something I adhere to but that's not the point. The point is that boards doesn't work that way, sorry dude.

Article43 wrote:

All I am doing is defending myself from the usual suspects -they are common on all of these so called modern day meeting places - what a joke that is, meeting someone without actually seeing them, a sign of the twisted world we live in.

Sounds like stocks and shares deals to me! Dealing in items that never get seen.

Incidentally Article43, it's difficult to reply to you when you input your text directly into another persons quote. For clarity can you reply outside of the quote please? It makes it easier to see that You are talking as opposed to the person you are quoting.

Pherekydes

Article43 wrote: »

I did not change my sig - and if you did then I will be contacting the owner of this site.

You can ban me or stalk me all you like - but if you interfere with my personal details then you will need to be punished - so I am now giving you a chance to change it back, and it better be exactly as it was - do you understand this clearly enough.

Article43 wrote: »

No one is keeping you here - or anyone else for that matter.

Two idiotic posts in a row. By your logic that makes you an idiot.

You should try living up to your Socratic ideals. Be humble.

It seems way beyond you. You are the most conceited poster I've yet seen on boards.

Article43

Dudess wrote: »

What other usernames did this psycho have?

I think you misspelled the "e" for an "a"

Article43

Gordon wrote: »

Hmm, I see.

I don't agree with this. You don't show someone that they are giving idiotic statements by calling them an idiot. You show where the person is wrong and prove to them that the way they understand things could be understood in a different way, a way that is more efficient, more profitable, whatever. You don't just tell them they are an idiot.


So, do you understand the name calling policy now? I don't know where you are on this, you accept the policy?


Yes, I see your logic. It's not something I adhere to but that's not the point. The point is that boards doesn't work that way, sorry dude.

Just because someone makes a set of rules does in no way imply that they are right - far from it actually, censorship rules serve no good to anyone, and this has been proven over the centuries, has it not?

Article43

Slow coach wrote: »

Two idiotic posts in a row. By your logic that makes you an idiot.

You should try living up to your Socratic ideals. Be humble.

It seems way beyond you. You are the most conceited poster I've yet seen on boards.

Your colours have been well nailed to the mast - I doubt if anyone thinks much of what you have to say :rolleyes:

Gordon

Article43 wrote: »

Just because someone makes a set of rules does in no way imply that they are right - far from it actually, censorship rules serve no good to anyone, and this has been proven over the centuries, has it not?

Not sure if it has been proven tbh! I never was interested in history. Correct, just because someone makes a set of rules doesn't mean that they are right, I agree with you there.

Boards doesn't allow personal insults on the majority of its forums, that's how it is.

It wasn't me!

Article43 wrote: »

Your colours have been well nailed to the mast - I doubt if anyone thinks much of what you have to say :rolleyes:

The irony, it is delicious.

Zaph

Article43 wrote: »

Just because someone makes a set of rules does in no way imply that they are right

Maybe not, but they are the rules and we all have to abide by them, whether you agree with them or not.

Article43 wrote: »

censorship rules serve no good to anyone, and this has been proven over the centuries, has it not?

Where is the censorship? Your posts weren't edited to the best of my knowledge, and you weren't denied the right to have your say, you're doing that right now. What you were prevented from doing is posting for a week (I believe) in a forum where you broke one of the cardinal rules. That's not censorship, it's a punishment, which is an entirely different thing altogether.

randylonghorn

Article43 wrote: »

I did not change my sig - and if you did then I will be contacting the owner of this site.

You can ban me or stalk me all you like - but if you interfere with my personal details then you will need to be punished - so I am now giving you a chance to change it back, and it better be exactly as it was - do you understand this clearly enough.

Dear
sweet
suffering
jebus!

:eek:

Has to be a troll ... no-one could have a spine flexible enough to actually enable him to stick his head this far up his own ass! >.<

It wasn't me!

randylonghorn wrote: »

Dear
sweet
suffering
jebus!

:eek:

Has to be a troll ... no-one could have a spine flexible enough to actually enable him to stick his head this far up his own ass! >.<

Can't wait to see what Freud Jr. here reads into your username. :pac:

Guy:Incognito

Somebody post a link to thread that this craziness is spawned from.

Talliesin

Stark wrote: »

This thread is like having a game of "I know you are but what am I?" with a five year old. Cute for about 5 minutes until it's time to send it back to its parents.

Yes, but he won't play back.

He fails to even have poor arguments. If he had arguments we could engage in intelligent arguments against them, or (lets face it, far more likely) mock them.

But he doesn't have any arguments at all. He asks for posts he has posted in threads others have posted in (essentially therefore a shared conversation to which others have as much a claim to ownership as him) to be deleted, but offers no explanation as to why.

His manner is to insist upon conventions of his own invention to be followed, which not only makes no sense (given the presence of both formal rules of conduct and informal conventions of the community he is coming into, which any reasonably socialised adult would acquaint themselves with) but which are not explained so they cannot be followed even if we chose to.

Instead all we get is a mixture of toddler-like demands ("do what I want, because I want it") and non-sequiturs which it would appear he is mentally processing as counter-arguments, even as thorough rebuttals, when they don't even address the points made.

Ruling out, for the sake of argument, that he is a troll, there seems to be a strong disconnect between what is being said by other people and what is being mentally addressed. Like Walter Mitty mowing down enemy soldiers in his head rather than deal with the mess of his own ineffectualness.

Looking at the threads in I&M, his approach is not just more appropriate for a blog than a forum, but more appropriate for a blog written by someone who has established credentials in a given field (e.g. more along the lines of a blog by an already famous person than the average blogger). The didactic style allows him a pedestal to put himself on, but eventually the reaction of others failed to match the self-serving illusion too much for him to keep it up.

Note in particular the imaginary majority opinion (references to "we" and other phrasings that suggest his loan opinion has popular support and the posts of every other person don't, along with disingenuously reading posts attacking his as supporting them). It's the False Consensus Effect taken to delusional extremes.

Geared up for a fight (note the tone of the thread's title) this could be an attempt for a swansong (think of Mitty's final daydream of bravely facing a firing-squad), but his inability to communicate with people is sabotaging even that.

So, the only fun we can get out of him is mere "I know you are", as he lacks the mental capacity to supply us with fodder for anything more.

Zaph wrote: »

Where is the censorship?

Funnily enough, he seems to think he has a right to make demands about what gets publish on this website, which would of course be censorship. It's a lack of censorship that forms the basis of his complaint.

Saibh

did you think there was a separate rule for you when you joined boards saying i can call people here idiots whenever i like and get away with it.

rules are there for a reason. do you go around calling people you work with idiots...

Dudess

This thread is making me die a little inside.

Come back Peter Collins - all is forgiven!

randylonghorn

Stekelly wrote: »

Somebody post a link to thread that this craziness is spawned from.

I can't be bothered searching, tbh, but no doubt you will have noticed that this is Thread No. 2 in Feedback to-day, both firmly rooted in Groundhog Day Through The Looking Glass ...

Dudess wrote: »

This thread is making me die a little inside.

Le petit mort?!

keystone

Ok, I've seen some and been involved in some spiteful feedback threads but this is madness.........

Whether the points are relevant or not on either side, some of the insulting here is disgraceful.

It's not often that I agree with Moderators coming into feedback and negatively posting but in this instance, I can see no other alternative for at all.

Its possible I'll be insulted in a few posts however hopefully some sense will prevail and this thread will be left to die a death before hitting 100 posts! It's not worth it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Dudess

LOL

randylonghorn wrote: »

Le petit mort?!

LOL #2

keystone wrote: »

It's not often that I agree with Moderators coming into feedback and negatively posting but in this instance, I can see no other alternative for at all.

+1. I don't like the way some users/mods gleefully use Feedback to pounce on people - just because it's Feedback - but in this instance... pounce away!

Talliesin

randylonghorn wrote: »

Le petit mort?!

Hmm. If we've managed to do that to dudess, there might have some value to this thread.

keystone wrote: »

Its possible I'll be insulted in a few posts

From the modus operandi, you'll more likely be thanked by the OP.

keystone wrote: »

however hopefully some sense will prevail and this thread will be left to die a death before hitting 100 posts! It's not worth it.

Ah. Don't be downhearted! We might turn it into something amusing yet.

Let's see if we can do so without the use of cats!

aidan_walsh

Anyone else getting a distinctly Rozie vibe from all this?

Talliesin

I think this guys more nuts than that.

It'll all have a shorter life for that same reason. Enjoy it while you can.

randylonghorn

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Anyone else getting a distinctly Rozie vibe from all this?

Don't think so. Same ball-park, different player ... imo anyway.

aidan_walsh

randylonghorn wrote: »

Don't think so. Same ball-park, different player ... imo anyway.

Sorry, didn't mean they were the same person. Should have said Rozie-esque, what with the whole "I'm right, you're all wrong, I'm right, you're all wrong, I'm right, you're all wrong, I'm right, you're all wrong, I'm right, you're all wrong, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't hear you, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la" stuff.

randylonghorn

Ah ... in that case:

+111

keystone

Ahhh feck it.....considering the word idiot results in a ban....

Lets see how long this takes

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55573827#post55573827

Time Magazine

Article43, as I said on the other thread, you were not banned for calling two separate users idiots. I only warned you for that. And for those that asked, the relevant link is here.

It was your response to the warning that got you banned.

weeder

Talliesin

keystone wrote: »

Ahhh feck it.....considering the word idiot results in a ban....

Lets see how long this takes

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55573827#post55573827

Well, even if that forum also has the same rule against personal abuse (most do), the fact that someone is asking for advice in how to break the law may lead the mod to turn a blind eye.

5starpool

Are you Noel O'Gara with your riciculous notions and fondness for article 43?