|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
On January 14 2012 04:21 SeaSwift wrote:
Wow, respect for Liquid'Drone gone up. He put some serious thought into that ban, and it shows.
Lol, not often you see a Liquid'Drone ban....
+ Show Spoiler +I actually might have a problem with this ban. I'll admit it does look like the guy got a little hot headed and was being abrasive, but I don't know that I would agree his argument wasn't "based in reality". There is some support for some of the argument he was making, and he did at least back up some of what he was saying with sources. The sources could have been more academic in nature, but then I didn't see anyone else in that debate provided any sources at all to back up their arguments.
As far as multicultural far leftist social welfare systems furthering racial divides in our society is actually an opinion held by quite a few prominent American conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Malkin, Elder, etc. etc. all of whom have very large followings (Rush Limbaugh's show is the #1 syndicated radio talk show in the US) so it's not like he's coming in here with crazy radical fringe beliefs. (by that I mean political beliefs that few if any people would agree with) As far as Europeans trying to "appease" Islamist there is some evidence to support this, such as Spain pulling out of the international mission in Afgahnistan after the March 11th terrorist attacks there. Granted he didn't cite any of these incidents, and he really did not form his argument well at all; but it's crazy to say his ideas are not grounded "in reality".
Basically, if he was banned for being abrasive and emotional antagonistic I'm perfectly okay with that and I agree, but the ban reason almost made it sound like he was banned for exposing beliefs that the mods feel are "radical". And I'm not sure that's really the case here.
-edit
|
yagsllab was just banned by Liquid`Jinro.
That account was created on 2011-09-08 05:20:46 and had 33 posts.
Reason: Eat a dick
Wow never expcted that from jinro >.> the world is going wild :O
|
two hours and 20 minuets until the SCI 4 now we wait for the balance whine and the talk about people hating on TB for his voice/casting style/lack of knowledge of SC2... I wish I had my report button.
But on a more serious note most of the SCI's have been rather light on the bans despite Socke winning... 2? in a row now.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50121 Posts
On January 14 2012 11:23 LightningStrike wrote:Show nested quote +yagsllab was just banned by Liquid`Jinro.
That account was created on 2011-09-08 05:20:46 and had 33 posts.
Reason: Eat a dick Wow never expcted that from jinro >.> the world is going wild :O
read his post he deserved it.
|
Read his name backwards for a hint.
|
On January 14 2012 03:25 marttorn wrote:
That jinro ban reminded me of a certain Manifesto7 warning/ban (can't remember which) where he ended with "eat a huge bowl of dicks". That, or it was "eat a bowl of huge dicks", I can't quite remember. I suppose if they were huge dicks you wouldn't really be able to fit them in a normal size bowl, but again I could be wrong.
I'm sure the banned user in question could bring some light to this issue.
edit: Goliath Online~
Philosoliath Online
Bowl and penis phiolosophy, now I've seen everything
|
On January 14 2012 05:26 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 04:21 SeaSwift wrote:
Wow, respect for Liquid'Drone gone up. He put some serious thought into that ban, and it shows. Lol, not often you see a Liquid'Drone ban.... + Show Spoiler +I actually might have a problem with this ban. I'll admit it does look like the guy got a little hot headed and was being abrasive, but I don't know that I would agree his argument wasn't "based in reality". There is some support for some of the argument he was making, and he did at least back up some of what he was saying with sources. The sources could have been more academic in nature, but then I didn't see anyone else in that debate provided any sources at all to back up their arguments.
As far as multicultural far leftist social welfare systems furthering racial divides in our society is actually an opinion held by quite a few prominent American conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Malkin, Elder, etc. etc. all of whom have very large followings (Rush Limbaugh's show is the #1 syndicated radio talk show in the US) so it's not like he's coming in here with crazy radical fringe beliefs. (by that I mean political beliefs that few if any people would agree with) As far as Europeans trying to "appease" Islamist there is some evidence to support this, such as Spain pulling out of the international mission in Afgahnistan after the March 11th terrorist attacks there. Granted he didn't cite any of these incidents, and he really did not form his argument well at all; but it's crazy to say his ideas are not grounded "in reality".
Basically, if he was banned for being abrasive and emotional antagonistic I'm perfectly okay with that and I agree, but the ban reason almost made it sound like he was banned for exposing beliefs that the mods feel are "radical". And I'm not sure that's really the case here. -edit
I think he was banned because some of his claims were unsupported an factually untrue. Let's say I make a post that "early American space flight was based on the work of German engineers, the US wouldn't have made it into space without the help of the Nazis and they never landed on the moon anyway." It doesn't matter if I provide sources for the first statement, since the last one is just blatantly false. The beligerent attitude doesn't help either, but ultimately the main problem is that I claimed something that's just not true.
You can't just throw out statments randomly and then claim that most of them are true, or at least not obviously false.
On a different note, a lot of the stuff that goes on in these talk shows or even opinion pieces in newspapers would be ban-worthy here and with good reason.
|
This is a bit late but words don't describe how satisfying it is to see Fruscainte get banned lol
|
Baltimore, USA22254 Posts
On January 14 2012 05:26 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 04:21 SeaSwift wrote:
Wow, respect for Liquid'Drone gone up. He put some serious thought into that ban, and it shows. Lol, not often you see a Liquid'Drone ban.... + Show Spoiler +I actually might have a problem with this ban. I'll admit it does look like the guy got a little hot headed and was being abrasive, but I don't know that I would agree his argument wasn't "based in reality". There is some support for some of the argument he was making, and he did at least back up some of what he was saying with sources. The sources could have been more academic in nature, but then I didn't see anyone else in that debate provided any sources at all to back up their arguments.
As far as multicultural far leftist social welfare systems furthering racial divides in our society is actually an opinion held by quite a few prominent American conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Malkin, Elder, etc. etc. all of whom have very large followings (Rush Limbaugh's show is the #1 syndicated radio talk show in the US) so it's not like he's coming in here with crazy radical fringe beliefs. (by that I mean political beliefs that few if any people would agree with) As far as Europeans trying to "appease" Islamist there is some evidence to support this, such as Spain pulling out of the international mission in Afgahnistan after the March 11th terrorist attacks there. Granted he didn't cite any of these incidents, and he really did not form his argument well at all; but it's crazy to say his ideas are not grounded "in reality".
Basically, if he was banned for being abrasive and emotional antagonistic I'm perfectly okay with that and I agree, but the ban reason almost made it sound like he was banned for exposing beliefs that the mods feel are "radical". And I'm not sure that's really the case here. -edit
I'm not Drone, but I can speak to similar scenarios where I've banned people before for simple spewing nonsense and flat-out being wrong. The reason isn't to prevent the spread of radical ideas, etc., it's because quite frankly it's detrimental to a discussion. It's very possible to present unpopular ideas in a well thought out, factually supported manner, and another to simply throw out ideas/accusations with no basis in reality. With the former, you can have a conversation, attempt to change other people's points of view, or at least have them consider it a possibility. With the latter, it's simply a cancer for the thread.
|
On January 14 2012 05:26 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 04:21 SeaSwift wrote:
Wow, respect for Liquid'Drone gone up. He put some serious thought into that ban, and it shows. Lol, not often you see a Liquid'Drone ban.... + Show Spoiler +I actually might have a problem with this ban. I'll admit it does look like the guy got a little hot headed and was being abrasive, but I don't know that I would agree his argument wasn't "based in reality". There is some support for some of the argument he was making, and he did at least back up some of what he was saying with sources. The sources could have been more academic in nature, but then I didn't see anyone else in that debate provided any sources at all to back up their arguments.
As far as multicultural far leftist social welfare systems furthering racial divides in our society is actually an opinion held by quite a few prominent American conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Malkin, Elder, etc. etc. all of whom have very large followings (Rush Limbaugh's show is the #1 syndicated radio talk show in the US) so it's not like he's coming in here with crazy radical fringe beliefs. (by that I mean political beliefs that few if any people would agree with) As far as Europeans trying to "appease" Islamist there is some evidence to support this, such as Spain pulling out of the international mission in Afgahnistan after the March 11th terrorist attacks there. Granted he didn't cite any of these incidents, and he really did not form his argument well at all; but it's crazy to say his ideas are not grounded "in reality".
Basically, if he was banned for being abrasive and emotional antagonistic I'm perfectly okay with that and I agree, but the ban reason almost made it sound like he was banned for exposing beliefs that the mods feel are "radical". And I'm not sure that's really the case here. -edit
as someone who actually lives in one of these european countries he accuses of helping islam or whatever he was trying to say, i can safely say he has no idea what hes talking about
|
Yes. But the point TheToast is trying to make is that having no idea what one is talking about is in itself not banworthy. If it was, you'd need moderation staff in the triple digits.
Personally I think DrTyrant is just a troll. The post count is so low and his persona seems specifically engineered to get people riled up by representing the typical ignorant (redneck) american everyone loves to hate.
|
ye but like ett says, when someone is managing to be offensive, stupid and wrong all at the same time, its just so toxic for the rest of the people there. its not a case of being wrong, its that hes so wrong hes making the place worse for other people
|
On January 15 2012 02:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 05:26 TheToast wrote:On January 14 2012 04:21 SeaSwift wrote:
Wow, respect for Liquid'Drone gone up. He put some serious thought into that ban, and it shows. Lol, not often you see a Liquid'Drone ban.... + Show Spoiler +I actually might have a problem with this ban. I'll admit it does look like the guy got a little hot headed and was being abrasive, but I don't know that I would agree his argument wasn't "based in reality". There is some support for some of the argument he was making, and he did at least back up some of what he was saying with sources. The sources could have been more academic in nature, but then I didn't see anyone else in that debate provided any sources at all to back up their arguments.
As far as multicultural far leftist social welfare systems furthering racial divides in our society is actually an opinion held by quite a few prominent American conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Malkin, Elder, etc. etc. all of whom have very large followings (Rush Limbaugh's show is the #1 syndicated radio talk show in the US) so it's not like he's coming in here with crazy radical fringe beliefs. (by that I mean political beliefs that few if any people would agree with) As far as Europeans trying to "appease" Islamist there is some evidence to support this, such as Spain pulling out of the international mission in Afgahnistan after the March 11th terrorist attacks there. Granted he didn't cite any of these incidents, and he really did not form his argument well at all; but it's crazy to say his ideas are not grounded "in reality".
Basically, if he was banned for being abrasive and emotional antagonistic I'm perfectly okay with that and I agree, but the ban reason almost made it sound like he was banned for exposing beliefs that the mods feel are "radical". And I'm not sure that's really the case here. -edit I'm not Drone, but I can speak to similar scenarios where I've banned people before for simple spewing nonsense and flat-out being wrong. The reason isn't to prevent the spread of radical ideas, etc., it's because quite frankly it's detrimental to a discussion. It's very possible to present unpopular ideas in a well thought out, factually supported manner, and another to simply throw out ideas/accusations with no basis in reality. With the former, you can have a conversation, attempt to change other people's points of view, or at least have them consider it a possibility. With the latter, it's simply a cancer for the thread.
See there's that phrase again. If I may quote a cliche: reality is subjective. There's a difference between a science or engineering discussion--where solid verifiable laboratory experiments can discount crazy theories of tesla coils, dimension bending magnets, and all other forms of craziness--and a discussion about politics and morality; which is in some ways where the focus of that thread had moved. I studied the social sciences, it's what I have my degree in; so I understand that while you can't prove theories in the laboratory you still need a coherent argument backed up with real world data.
But that only works for addressing academic style questions like "How does nationalism affect tribal relations along border regions in Africa" or "how has US Cold War nationalism served to mold policy in the modern Republican party?". Those are questions I can address with a logical argument and back up with real world data. That OP in that thread was, in contrast, completely abstract it's not really possible to answer it in a strictly logical and academic way. It's like asking "Is X morally acceptable"; there's no frame of reference for that question, there's no right or wrong answer.
Finally, just because someone's political beliefs do not hold up to logic and reasoning, does not mean they aren't legitimate beliefs. That may sound strange if one hasn't spent much time studying politics, but the truth is most political philosophies are built at least in part on baseless ideology. Some would even go further, there's an interesting book called The Political Spectacle by a prominent political scientist named Murray Edelman. He argues (quite convincingly) that most people do not react rationally in politics, and can twist "facts" to fit their own political constructions. Essentially "facts" are not facts, but a subjective measure that can be made to fit a number of beliefs. Even someone who holds to mainstream political ideologies has built a political construction based on subjective interpretations of facts and their individual world experiences. I'm highly paraphrasing his argument here (you can obviously read the book if you want), but to avoid delving too deeply into political theory I'll just leave it by simply saying personal political constructions are subjective and resist analysis by objective facts.
As an example, let's take a look at this guys post that started the whole Islam part of this debate:
On January 13 2012 12:51 DrTyrant wrote:
Nothing wrong with patriotism. Unfortunately many Europeans have been brainwashed into thinking that all forms of pride, whether in one's country or in something else, is evil and that they should all unite under the European Union, multiculturalism, and Shariah Law.
The usage of "many Europeans" is vague and lends this post almost impossible to fact check. But this guy clearly isn't alone in his beliefs, some quick googling shows dozens of groups and political organizations exist who believe Europe is being taken over by Sharia. And his claims aren't without some basis in reality: Daily Mail: EU Judges Want Sharia Law Applied-British Courts. Now if you read the article carefully, it simply states that the EU wants judges to consider the laws of an individuals country of origin in certain cases. It's true that Sharia is not the only consideration here (unlike the sensationalist headline would seem to conclude) but it's also true that this move could see elements of Sharia applied in the EU. And that's just the point I'm trying to make here (as well as Professor Edelman), one's political affiliation colors their interpretation of "facts" like this. Both interpretations of this news story are correct, and I'm sure if I looked I could find countless more items just like this that could be used to support this type of political position. So I again return to my original cliche, reality is subjective. It's also worth pointing out that just because you interpret "facts" in a way that makes you disagree with this guy's beliefs doesn't mean you are right. There was a time when ideas of social welfare and market socialism were disregarded as crazy and with not basis in reality.
I could go on (sorry I have a tendency to prattle when political theory is brought up), but I hope you at least now understand the gist of where I am coming from. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to second guess the mods here; this guy was being abrasive and sort of a jerk; but rather I'm just expressing my concern for what I perceive to be the mods' attitude toward non-standard political beliefs. After all, if you analyzed most political ideologies you would find all sorts of nonsensical attitudes not based in reality, but such is politics.
|
Baltimore, USA22254 Posts
If it helps, my statement was directed at statements in general, not necessarily those of a political nature. In truth, I didn't even read the thread or what ideas the guy was presenting at all - just putting it out there from a moderator's point of view. I took your position to read as something like "Was the guy banned for having an unpopular idea?", not necessarily a certain political view.
Although I still maintain (and again I'm not Drone so I can't speak for him with certainty) that if someone is going to present something radical, and they fail to do so without rationalizing their claims, answering criticisms, being open minded to others, and staying away from personal attacks, it's hard to have honest discourse. 
|
Toast youve been trying to backseat moderate for awhile, give it up mate. The big lads know what they are doing and are careful about it. I think we all know that but especially you.
A rest please.
|
What DrTyrant says is not different than what Anders Breivik wrote in his manifesto. In fact they use the precise same words. I don't get this "all opinions are valuable" or whatever shit. If someone starts to say on this forum that Hitler rocked and that we concentration camps were a fantastic idea, he would get banned, freedom of speech or not.
Anyway, good call Drone :-)
|
On January 15 2012 18:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don't get this "all opinions are valuable" or whatever shit. If someone starts to say on this forum that Hitler rocked and that we concentration camps were a fantastic idea, he would get banned, freedom of speech or not.
It's because people think they have the right to freedom of speech.
You don't have the right to anything.Just like in the real world,on TL,you have privileges and your privileges can be taken away whenever someone capable of doing so sees fit.
It doesn't matter if its right or wrong to do so.It's how things work and if you don't like it,I suggest you find yourself some other planet to live on.
|
On January 15 2012 14:09 EvilTeletubby wrote:If it helps, my statement was directed at statements in general, not necessarily those of a political nature. In truth, I didn't even read the thread or what ideas the guy was presenting at all - just putting it out there from a moderator's point of view. I took your position to read as something like "Was the guy banned for having an unpopular idea?", not necessarily a certain political view. Although I still maintain (and again I'm not Drone so I can't speak for him with certainty) that if someone is going to present something radical, and they fail to do so without rationalizing their claims, answering criticisms, being open minded to others, and staying away from personal attacks, it's hard to have honest discourse.
I think we are on the same page; what you are describing here is what I would refer to as someone being an abrasive jerk. And I don't disagree that is what Dr. Tyrant was doing, you can't go around e-yelling at people who disagree with you. It was just the way Drone phrased the ban reason that made me a bit uncomfortable; but if this was indeed what he was thinking then that makes perfect sense to me.
On January 16 2012 00:04 TheKefka wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 18:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don't get this "all opinions are valuable" or whatever shit. If someone starts to say on this forum that Hitler rocked and that we concentration camps were a fantastic idea, he would get banned, freedom of speech or not. It's because people think they have the right to freedom of speech. You don't have the right to anything.Just like in the real world,on TL,you have privileges and your privileges can be taken away whenever someone capable of doing so sees fit. It doesn't matter if its right or wrong to do so.It's how things work and if you don't like it,I suggest you find yourself some other planet to live on.
I'm not arguing for freedom of speech here. This is Nazgul's site, he can set the server on fire and burn it all down if he wanted to. I just don't want to see a community where people with certain political attitudes are banned just for that. (not saying that is what happened here). I'm a member of TL because I feel that is certainly not the case here.
And Biff, I never said "all opinions are valuable". In fact most opinions are completely valueless. I said it's not possible to judge the validity of personal political constructions. That's not to say you cannot make it mandatory to abide by a certain decorum and punish those who refuse to do so.
Anyway ETT's response makes sense to me, so I think I understand what Drone was saying now.
|
I know this one is a little old but stay with me
ILoveAustralia was just temp banned for 2 days by Pholon.
That account was created on 2011-10-19 14:42:54 and had 91 posts.
Reason: HEY. STOP POSTING BAD.
The name piqued my interest because there was a poster Ih8australia who pissed me off (seriously who hates Australia ). I checked his history and low and behold the last mention of the hater was in the Change My Name Thread. Seems his allegiance had changed, he now apparently loves Aus.
Of course his posting still sucks.
So I propose a toast, "To mods with a sense of humour" 
|
seriously who hates Australia
Not me, It's where I think i'm going to take my honeymoon when I get married If I get to drunk I'll probably fight a kangaroo if someone challenges me to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
