Changes To the Word Event & Politics Subfora

[Gustav]

Now, looking back to the thread in question, I would point to the posts you didn't include in the image. Not that I fault the omission; they're split up and numerous.

and you provide two quotes that merely parrots my offering? what new light do you think has been shed here? perhaps you imagine context is lacking?


yours..........

We all know his middle name, Galt. Constantly digging it out proves absolutely nothing except that you're a racist.

~String

mine....

You, constantly hammering his middle name while leaving out the first is used to highlight his "oddness"
~String

yours.........

I'm sorry come again. Please explain how mentioning someone's middle name is racist?....

mine

B...Because I have done nothing wrong, ......

it is hardly a stretch to infer yours from mine. the sentiments expressed in the earlier quotes are implicit in mine and providing them is somewhat redundant. besides, who the fuck do you think you are talking to? some greenhorn that cannot provide references?

once again, here is the explicit instruction....

You've been instructed to stop. Continue at the risk of being banned.

~String

again, why was he banned? did he refer to the prez as hussien? or did he and string start wagging their dicks at each other?

 

[Gustav]

Look. I really try to understand the context of the post..........

~String

that was a wonderful exposition. however, i would urge you to penalize on actual instances of malfeasance. this is sci, a place for reasoned arguments and rational discourse and not some schoolyard

would you like to extrapolate your course of action out into the real world by way of some analogies? imagine a citizen having a dialogue with the law. imagine requests for punishment. how do you see those situations unfold? contrast that with .......

And then to put a cherry on top, he dared me to ban him. Instead of PM'ing me trying to show me the logic of using his middle name. Instead of using (GASP!) the scientific method to show how important it was to use his middle name, he got stupid and told me to suspend him. So I did.

...that

sci should be a representation of the larger society out there with the same degrees of freedom and restraint.


edit:

I made a statement like, "Um, okay pal, we know his middle name, we get it. Thanks for the reminder." Then that didn't work, so I had to make it a bit more blunt.

my point of contention would be rendered moot if you can provide an instance of a warning prior to the ones already provided. i will also offer up an apology if you indeed do so

 

[Gustav]

i really feel like i am bashing my head against a brick wall as i recall bring up the same points with tiassa and getting nowhere
i also feel i have a clarity of thought in this matter. sci does however beg to differ so perhaps i am missing something

/frustrated

 

[superstring01]

that was a wonderful exposition. however, i would urge you to penalize on actual instances of malfeasance. this is sci, a place for reasoned arguments and rational discourse and not some schoolyard

He was penalized on actual malfeasance, which malfeasance was already spelled out. Your attempts to inject yourself into a debate that didn't involve you, a debate which was answered clear as day, is, well, it's your waste of time. Galt's actions were racist and annoying. I'm not required to act on the same principles that guide an elected official or a police commissioner. Yes, I do certainly care about perception and I do care about being fair. And in my and Tiassa's judgment and--SHIT!--the judgment of every other person I've talked to, the decision was the right one. The rules were broken. Judgment was rendered. That you don't see it or accept what happened is not a necessity for me. While it would be nice that you understand what and why it happened, at the end of the day, I answer to the community as a whole and to Plazma.

i really feel like i am bashing my head against a brick wall as i recall bring up the same points with tiassa and getting nowhere
i also feel i have a clarity of thought in this matter. sci does however beg to differ so perhaps i am missing something

/frustrated

Then you should stop. An explanation has already been offered. It is has been supported by the mod and admin team. To paraphrase myself earlier: While it is important that you understand and buy-into this issue on your own, it is not actually necessary. Failing that, in this case, those in charge have decided (Oh, and we offered an explanation which you rejected out of hand). Nothing else is necessary.

~String

 

[Gustav]

He was penalized on actual malfeasance, which malfeasance was already spelled out.

you lie
look at the historical record
you banned because he asked you to

are you being deliberately obtuse? intentionally disingenuous?

why dont you provide an instance of galt using "hussein" after your warning

(Oh, and we offered an explanation which you rejected out of hand).

no i have not
show me this alleged rejection

 

[Tiassa]

Take a breath, and ....

Physician, calm thyself.

and you provide two quotes that merely parrots my offering? what new light do you think has been shed here? perhaps you imagine context is lacking?

This was not an arbitrary, on-the-spot suspension. It was a developing situation.

it is hardly a stretch to infer yours from mine. the sentiments expressed in the earlier quotes are implicit in mine and providing them is somewhat redundant. besides, who the fuck do you think you are talking to? some greenhorn that cannot provide references?

No, I'm talking to someone who gives a damn about the situation, has an activist streak and a libertarian persuasion, and on this occasion is leaping to the appearance of insurgency or anti-authoritarianism with the result of advocating the very kind of behavior that demands the kind of policing you object to.

Perhaps you remember the days when the top of your browser read "Sciforums.com — Intelligent Community". The disappearance of that motto is merely coincidental; there was no specific intention to advocate the kind of decline in community standards we've seen over the last couple of years. Why should you advocate idiocy, if not so that you can continue to object to it? In the real world, we sarcastically refer to that as "job security". Around here, I call it tilting windmills, making sure you always have a dragon to fight, or a demon to slay.

again, why was he banned? did he refer to the prez as hussien? or did he and string start wagging their dicks at each other?

Why do you minimize the behavior, Gustav? "Did he refer to the prez as hussein?" That's not very honest. Did he "mention someone's middle name"?

How about this:

However, the point of calling President Obama by his middle name is specifically xenophobic. It ties back to the secret Muslim rumors, highlights his African heritage, and is used to depict him as something other than American. Look at how this whole thing is going. People are forging birth certificates thinking they can prove he can't be president.

The whole "Hussein" or "B. Hussein" thing is specifically bigoted for both religion and ethnicity. And there is a rule against that kind of bigotry as well, but the end result is that such petty bullshit is inflammatory, especially when combined with someone posting spam for a topic starter and refusing to support the assertions of his own post.​

Start with that, and tell me what you find specifically objectionable. And please, sir, don't give me some analysis that strives to account for context and history. Human events do not occur in a vacuum.

I'm happy to consider your analysis and even respond to it, but at some point this digression will likely be splintered; this thread is about changes coming to the WE & P subfora at least, not the martyrdom of John T. Galt.

Reiterating the point about your original proposition, in order to tie this back to the specific question at hand in this thread:

i assume the banning was in concordance with system outlined in the tp
walk me thru it
thanks

And reiterating the answer:

Mr. Galt's three-day suspension was in line with our current rules. Under the standards we are preparing, he wouldn't have lasted long enough to even get to that point.​

 

[Gustav]

This was not an arbitrary, on-the-spot suspension. It was a developing situation.

for chrissakes, tiassa, do you think i do not know?
i despise these fuckers but yet........

Start with that, and tell me what you find specifically objectionable.

why do you think i find it objectionable? what the hell do you think i am contending here?
go back and read my posts again

Why do you minimize the behavior, Gustav? "Did he refer to the prez as hussein?" That's not very honest.

lemme reword for clarity

"Did he continue to refer to the prez as hussein after the warning?"

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

why do you think i find it objectionable?

Actually, I don't know. My first guess, anti-authoritarianism, simply doesn't run deep enough.

what the hell do you think i am contending here?

It's rather hard to tell. You made what could be a neutral inquiry for clarification comparing a current incident to the new form. The bump—excuse me, nudge—nine minutes later lent a suggestion of activism you are known to show somewhere between on occasion and regularly.

But you seem to have become frustrated at the overview.

So it's hard to tell what you're after.

lemme reword for clarity

"Did he continue to refer to the prez as hussein after the warning?"

I don't know. Did he?

 

[superstring01]

Mod Note: All threads in the WE&P fora are now closed. Feel free to start new ones if you like. Just play by the rules.

 

[hypewaders]

"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine..."

Well, not exactly.

Gustav's objections do concern me, because in spite of supporting the present recalibration something related does worry me. What incites me to WEAP at Sciforums is most often the contest of ideas.

I know it will sound arrogant, but the general "side" I find myself on (liberal, libertarian) is (in general) a more intellectual, educated, and worldly demographic. If this is true, then tightening up the standards of discourse with too much torque will most likely result in political discussions here that will be considerably more if not completely one-sided.

I do enjoy the "job security" (as Tiassa put it) of sparring with people with whom I don't agree. Among the many things I like to believe that I am learning here is a keener expression of what I find important in the Big Picture, and how to express, promote, and defend what I value.

If we effectively eliminate the most churlish and unscrupulous of debaters, I am concerned that we will be eliminating them in much greater numbers on the "sides" I most often find myself opposed to. If that does happen, then I'm going to miss these days of sharpening what I like to imagine as a truer blade of expression on the vulgar stones of present opponents.

I don't want to debate people whose views are closer to my own- not just because it is much harder work, but because it is less important. There is a war of ideas raging, and in my understanding, the wars of flesh and weapons follow. I don't want to debate the finer nuances of difference between myself and my friends while my ideological enemies are seriously fucking up my world.

I'm not getting completely cold feet about this WE&P calibration- but I don't want to see the trolls entirely banished. We have trolls in real life too, but we can't banish them from catastrophically influencing real-life events just because they're stupid. I consider the practice I get here as a warm-up for the real fight out there. I also believe that little ripples from our quaint little backwater here can travel far down stream, and even to the wider ocean of evolving human consciousness. I'm only here to change the world (with a little help from my friends).

So Mr/sitty, plicemen sitting, pleas protect- but (if I'm not alone in what I get out of this place) also serve.

 

[hypewaders]

[There've been too many overlapping threads. So now, if you want to continue a discussion or post anything at all... you must start a new thread.]

I'm stymied. I think I'll go hang out in FreakThoughts until inspiration strikes. Out.

 

[Meursalt]

My sincere thanks to the WE&P mod squad, for taking on so much work to elevate our discourse. This is truly a "careful what you wish for" moment for me.

*snort*
Here's what you wrote earlier...

Blowing Afghanistan to hell, we also blow our own world standing to hell; become the rogue of the planet, isolated, spiraling into a steep and bitter decline. There are natural laws of international behavior, and prominent among them is that overkill (generally perceived as bare naked aggression) catches hell. We've already far overshadowed al-Qaeda atrocities in reckless response, and there will be serious consequences to our selfish disregard.

"In an unlimited war, they would have every chance of winning. Simple as that."

No, Dr. Strangelove, unlimited overkill changes the USA into the most prominent and vulnerable world pariah, compromising the foundation of our security and success.

In other words, My Hypewaders here has managed to avoid a direct answer on whether or not an unlimited war could be won in Afghanistan, and instead chosen to argue that the potential consequences are a refutation in themselves.
Aye. That's a lawyer, right there. Or a politician, choose your poison.

This, folks, is his version of honesty, and a prime example of exactly who is going to benefit from these... proposed changes. Hypewaders, SAM, all those who have managed to get away with this kind of dishonest crab crawling for years. That is who you will have left.
Politicians and lawyers who can lie and evade as they please... as long as they don't directly insult anyone. Which is, of course, an insult in itself.

Don't forget your frilly knickers, boys.

Out.

 

[hypewaders]

"Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed." - Mao Zedong"

"War is the exercise of force for the attainment of a political object, unrestrained by any law save that of expediency.." -Carl von Clausewitz

I answered your appeal for victory through total war, Meursalt, with a simple reference to replicable cause and effect. The consequences of annihilating people in the modern world are a valid consideration, and we have ample tragic precedents to examine. Escalating limited threats and insults into total war does meet with considerable and growing opposition in political evolution.

This is a fitting example of the challenge before us as we enter the brave new world of discourses in political science. Like other behavioral science, we can employ reductionism and empiricism, but rarely can answers to such a question be distilled into principles and equations as if we're discussing engineering. There's no specific magnitude of overkill that we can quantify and declare will always result in blowback exceeding the threat used to justify a dramatic escalation of force. Reasons (even emotional ones) are causes leading to effects in political science. But rarely can we formulate laws of political/behavioral science from them. Still, the principle that extreme overkill is self-defeating is evident in human responses on many scales and in many contexts. If we examine this more carefully here, maybe we will distill it down to clearer expression, if not a scientific law.

In its most ruthless extreme (total war) politics is all about profound insult (inhumanity and megadeath) and it is reasonable to expect that proponents and opponents of such extremism will involve emotions (unbound or repressed) entering the discussion. In our political discussions and debates here, I don't feel like we're on to or refining our mettle unless sparks are flying. Emotions are very much part of the causes and effects of political phenomena. There will be frilly knickers, buff uniforms, testosterone, blood, flesh, and tears strewn on this borderless battlefield. Still, it's worthwhile to survey these scenes in an orderly and disciplined way, if we come to learn.

 

[superstring01]

"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine..."

Well, not exactly.

Gustav's objections do concern me, because in spite of supporting the present recalibration something related does worry me. What incites me to WEAP at Sciforums is most often the contest of ideas.

And your concerns are valid.

The essential point about Galt is that he had been previously warned about a number of issues. While calling Obama by his middle name was a new one, it came close to being the straw that broke the camel's back. But once the taunting started, it pushed his case beyond the limits of tolerance. Gustav brought up the point that if, in the real world this were to happen (i.e. If I were asked to be imprisoned), it would not become a reason for arrest and imprisonment. I, therefore, refer you to two points:

• We are not in the real world. We are on a website. People tend--quite erroneously--drag their "civil liberties" mentality into places where they just don't exist. You don't have a "bill of rights" here, for example. We can, legally, ban you for whatever reason an Administrator wishes. We don't, but we can. You should think of this place more like you think of a place of employment. The rules there are usually stricter and more rigid. In the real world you have the right to confront your accuser, in most work places an anonymous accuser can get you fired. If an employee annoys me and then says, "Fine... fire me!", I actually am well within my purview as an HR manager to term him or her for just that. So when an annoying poster says, "Fine, ban me!" I'm not bound by some odd rule that prohibits it under state law, I can ban at my discretion. While abuse of the ban feature might get me removed, the fact is, there is precedent for suspending and banning a person for taunting a mod (especially if that taunt comes with the explicit request to be banned).
• But what if this were in the real world as Gustav said? "imagine a citizen having a dialogue with the law. imagine requests for punishment," was his quote. Fact is, this wasn't a "request for punishment" in front of--say--a judge. He didn't just walk into a court room and asked to be punnished. He was caught in the middle of an act that he was warned about. He continued to argue about it and then began taunting the mod involved. A more correct analogy would be getting caught (for example) downtown Cleveland in Public Square (when you were 18 years old) after having just dumped two boxes of Tide laundry detergent into the city fountain. While the officer, quite amusingly just decided to write a ticket for the affair, you and your butch lesbian friend (and, as we all know you don't piss off lesbians) became belligerent and started taunting the officer who was just going to let you off with a ticket. (Alcohol may have been involved) so the officer decides that a simple citation isn't enough, especially considering the rude comments, so he drags you and your loud mouthed friend off to the city jail to spend the night.
  
  

If this is true, then tightening up the standards of discourse with too much torque will most likely result in political discussions here that will be considerably more if not completely one-sided.

A valid concern. I can't make promises about the future. I can't tell you that this process isn't going to come with some pain; some give and take. But it will. Hopefully our new mod will help in this process. But something has to give because we have too many trolls and too many repeat threads on the same topic.

If we effectively eliminate the most churlish and unscrupulous of debaters, I am concerned that we will be eliminating them in much greater numbers on the "sides" I most often find myself opposed to.

I doubt that the people your are concerned about are going anywhere. I just think they are going to have to learn to play more by the rules.

I'm only here to change the world

You too!

So Mr/sitty, plicemen sitting, pleas protect- but (if I'm not alone in what I get out of this place) also serve.

Well, we certainly hope this is going to protect it.

~String

 

[Gustav]

Mod Note: All threads in the WE&P fora are now closed. .............

congrats, sci...
...for what is probably the most boneheaded and unconscionable act i have ever witnessed in sci
...for the disdain and contempt shown towards the community
...for shitting on the 1000s of man-hours invested by the community in the world fori

thanks for nothing

/shocked and horrified

 

[Gustav]

Mod Note: All threads in the WE&P fora are now closed. Feel free to start new ones if you like. Just play by the rules.

hahaha

3 odd pages in world and 5 in politics hardly constitutes "all threads" now does it, string?
what is this, a work in progress? idiocy and incompetence?

now....

Coup in Honduras

i wish to contribute a post in there. why has it been locked? what violations of the tos necessitated the closure?

why, string?

string:"there were no violations. i had a itch up my ass and thought it would be neat to lock it""

so ahh, unlock?

string: "no. create a duplicate thread"

but are there not conventions against that sorta thing?

string: "fuck the conventions."

but......

string: "move along, bitch, before i throw your ass in jail"

/flees

 

[Gustav]

i mean.....the....the..... the "good faith" commandment, handed down from the heavens by the lord god almighty could surely be applied to all future posts in existent threads, could it not?

did you say something, string?

string: "yes,my child, i did. satan and his hordes of demons have spurted their seed all over those threads. they now reside in hell. thou will be slimed by pure evil if thouest were to enter. it is thine soul i seek to preserve"

 

[superstring01]

congrats, sci...
...for what is probably the most boneheaded and unconscionable act i have ever witnessed in sci
...for the disdain and contempt shown towards the community
...for shitting on the 1000s of man-hours invested by the community in the world fori

thanks for nothing

/shocked and horrified

Because your opinion on the matter is all we care about!

i wish to contribute a post in there. why has it been locked? what violations of the tos necessitated the closure?

why, string?

Start a new thread. Problem solved.

string:"there were no violations. i had a itch up my ass and thought it would be neat to lock it""

so ahh, unlock?

No. Start a new thread.

string: "no. create a duplicate thread"

but are there not conventions against that sorta thing?

Are you really this upset by it? Are you really that insecure that you need to run around simpering about a closed thread. I hereby authorize you to create any thread you want, so long as it follows the aforementioned rules. It'll be okay.

string: "move along, bitch, before i throw your ass in jail"

/flees

Why would I do that? You aren't posting in my fubfora and you aren't breaking any rules. So, what are you scared of?

~String

 

[ElectricFetus]

superstring01,

good luck at this, your going to need it.

 

[Gustav]

i despise these fuckers but yet........

the unvoiced objection...

Gustav's objections do concern me, because in spite of supporting the present recalibration something related does worry me. What incites me to WEAP at Sciforums is most often the contest of ideas........

i guess the objection was so glaringly obvious and logical that it did not need to be voiced

whatever
this bores me now even tho there is plenty of red meat left on the table to shred. i guess string and the rest of the mods mean well in their own peculiar ways so......

i would however like all "bad faith" bannings to be hashed out in the sfog.
the mods will establish patterns of behavior that conflict with the aspirations of sci. the poster given a last shot at redemption