EPTSo why was GH banned?
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
ABL post, for context, was: GreenHorizons was just banned by Seeker. That account was created on 2011-04-16 10:56:04 and had 15287 posts. Reason: GH, I am very sorry that things have come to this. However, after a long and lengthy discussion, the mod team has come to the conclusion that it is time for you and TL to part ways. Since you've been a member of TL for almost 8 years, this was definitely not an easy decision. However, our most recent conversation, and the string of events that have occurred over the past couple of months has proven to us that you will never change how you carry yourself on this site. Your attitude and disrespect toward the TL moderation team and our rules/guidelines is something that we can no longer tolerate. Your behavior toward other TL members that you dislike has become far too much of a nuisance. We have tried many times to reason with you and to help you out, but you keep going back to your old ways. We are sick and tired of this endless cycle and we feel that you have used up all your chances with us. Therefore, we bid you farewell. Good luck elsewhere. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 07 2019 23:13 Acrofales wrote: Idle speculation: mods closed the blog due to the change in policy, GH sent some not-nice messages to mods, and he got banned. Made me look at the timestamps. Seems like both events happened in tandem. The ban and the blog rule seems like it was a package deal. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I would still like to hear more from the mods if there's more to be shared. If not, I understand, but it would be appreciated. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15466 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway7998 Posts
On February 07 2019 23:18 travis wrote: Hmmm Surprisingly I think I will just give the mods the benefit of the doubt and let this go without being annoying about it. The website has become a little more "PC" over time but when I think about it I don't have many examples of mods being abusive of their powers. It is too bad, though also where is that ban list hidden at??? There's no point in linking to the thread, as it changes title (and therefore link) every time someone new gets banned. But if you search for "Automated ban list" in the search field, it will be the top result | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
not trying to mock him because I like him but there can't even be that many black posters on TL | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On February 08 2019 01:15 travis wrote: ha ha when did he do that, LOL not trying to mock him because I like him but there can't even be that many black posters on TL https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/tl-community/275302-ask-tl-staff-anything?page=632#12630 (just start reading from there) i guess he wasn't really complaining, but clearly felt he would prefer to talk to a black mod | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15466 Posts
On February 08 2019 01:32 ahswtini wrote: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/tl-community/275302-ask-tl-staff-anything?page=632#12630 (just start reading from there) i guess he wasn't really complaining, but clearly felt he would prefer to talk to a black mod That is amazing LOL | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
come on, it's fucking funny we exchanged some PMs a while ago but he seemed to be fishing for something(attaching definitions/characterizations to ... things so i stopped replying, but this ... woah, just whoaaa. mods felt abused and then he was outed ... the fucked up thing on TL is that one ca never be 'forgiven' for transgressions; one can get a pass sometimes, but what one does, will always count towards the/a final outcome. i find that seriously messed up; like a students' debt and bankruptcy - unless you can prove that a handicap of sorts exists(to trigger that righteous rainbow in them liberals), you're done for. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7998 Posts
On February 08 2019 02:24 xM(Z wrote: aaaaaannd the white man wins again+ Show Spoiler + come on, it's fucking funny we exchanged some PMs a while ago but he seemed to be fishing for something(attaching definitions/characterizations to ... things so i stopped replying, but this ... woah, just whoaaa. mods felt abused and then he was outed ... the fucked up thing on TL is that one ca never be 'forgiven' for transgressions; one can get a pass sometimes, but what one does, will always count towards the/a final outcome. i find that seriously messed up; like a students' debt and bankruptcy - unless you can prove that a handicap of sorts exists(to trigger that righteous rainbow in them liberals), you're done for. Just like in real life. If you keep acting like an ass, people will start shunning you. Just because I keep stealing my friend's money they suddenly don't want to invite me over any more. It's just so messed up! Btw, people who have been here for a long time usually get a lot more leniency than newer people. GH ban was very abnormal, and the mods recognised that fact themselves in the message. So it's actually the opposite of what you just said. (That said, if a mod could give me back the report button that I lost since my first ban that would be swell, thanks!) | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
KadaverBB
Germany25656 Posts
On February 08 2019 02:37 Excludos wrote: Just like in real life. If you keep acting like an ass, people will start shunning you. Just because I keep stealing my friend's money they suddenly don't want to invite me over any more. It's just so messed up! Btw, people who have been here for a long time usually get a lot more leniency than newer people. GH ban was very abnormal, and the mods recognised that fact themselves in the message. So it's actually the opposite of what you just said. (That said, if a mod could give me back the report button that I lost since my first ban that would be swell, thanks!) Done, feel free to report all the things. (Within reason) | ||
|
respect_my_authorita
1 Post
User was banned for this post. PBU | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
At least we don't have to guess who the PBU is  Excludos missed out on the easy report stats padding with his shiny new button tho! | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7998 Posts
On February 08 2019 03:08 Acrofales wrote: At least we don't have to guess who the PBU is Excludos missed out on the easy report stats padding with his shiny new button tho!Damnit! The mods work quick! Only 5 minutes late too | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6210 Posts
On February 08 2019 00:42 Excludos wrote: There's no point in linking to the thread, as it changes title (and therefore link) every time someone new gets banned. But if you search for "Automated ban list" in the search field, it will be the top result You can actually use this: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/closed-threads/32696-a?page=2135 As long as the character+number is enough to uniquely identify the thread, it works I think I know I've racked up a few warnings over the years, but I don't think I've ever seen a moderation decision that I seriously disagree with. There was one case where ban(s) happened and reverted after some discussion it was rolled back since it was a bit too heavy handed. I'm don't care too much either way on the decision, I've always felt that the regular cast of politics posters are heavily entrenched into their respective viewpoints. There's a fair number of "neutral" posters from outside the USA but the vast majority of us lean left when looking at the US. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
| ||
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
On February 08 2019 02:38 ShoCkeyy wrote: you're assuming intent here, positive intent; they show some leniency to see if you can uphold <rules> because they're good guys and care but, if i were you, i'd see it like this: 'hmm, that's not really a ban-worthy offense but no worries, i'll give him time, he'll get there for sure. it's malicious entrapment.xM(z ehhhh, I mean, I think they're considerate of what you've done in the past vs the present. I can attest to that with my long history here. I think it really just depends on how you've handled yourself through out those years. you can see this in comments of <users+ Show Spoiler + snitches besides, the dude actually changed from when he first started his political debates. @Excludos: you have there a circular logic - he steals so he's an asshole and he's an asshole because he steals. in this case it's obvious GH wasn't always stealing so if you could insert somewhere in there 'stealing to give to the poor'(for ex.) case ... just to see where it'll lead your logic. fuck the fact that he was a veteran, he did change/evolved in some manner/sense/direction and that should matter. what one says to excuse an action should have no bearing on anything because it's intent is unknowledgeable so its value is unquantifiable. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway7998 Posts
On February 08 2019 03:57 xM(Z wrote: you're assuming intent here, positive intent; they show some leniency to see if you can uphold <rules> because they're good guys and care but, if i were you, i'd see it like this: 'hmm, that's not really a ban-worthy offense but no worries, i'll give him time, he'll get there for sure. it's malicious entrapment. you can see this in comments of <users+ Show Spoiler + snitches besides, the dude actually changed from when he first started his political debates. @Excludos: you have there a circular logic - he steals so he's an asshole and he's an asshole because he steals. in this case it's obvious GH wasn't always stealing so if you could insert somewhere in there 'stealing to give to the poor'(for ex.) case ... just to see where it'll lead your logic. fuck the fact that he was a veteran, he did change/evolved in some manner/sense/direction and that should matter. what one says to excuse an action should have no bearing on anything because it's intent is unknowledgeable so its value is unquantifiable. That's not circular logic, not even remotely. You changing the order of the words doesn't make it circular, watch: "I drowned so I died" and "I died because I drowned" are not two opposites. If you steal, you're an asshole, which is the exact same as saying someone is an asshole because he steals. Back to GH: He changed..? To and from what? This perm ban isn't out of the blue, but follows two temp bans within a week, including necroing an 8 year old thread with a shitpost. If he's changed, then this is not in a good direction. My earliest memory of interacting with the guy was him sending me private messages of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and later harassing me for not replying to him in the main thread fast enough (I say harass, might be a bit strong. It only took him 4 messages to give up..). This was exactly a year ago. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
the rest goes into how much sensible/offend-able are you; he was a pusher for sure but i always saw it(at its worst) as being loudmouthed. @Plansix: define stealing. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 08 2019 03:25 ChristianS wrote: I think this is the least okay I’ve ever been with a ban. I might try to type up my feelings later, but for reference, remember that time Kwark perm’d LL? That felt more fair than this. Only ban I got from him was a week. Maybe you’re thinking of someone else? My guess is Seeker perming P6? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
On February 08 2019 05:03 xM(Z wrote: @Plansix: define stealing. Damn, we're on this level already? | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I’m the master of getting to the rhetorical question phase of poorly thought out internet arguments. | ||
|
aye_I_am_a_cop
1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On February 08 2019 05:53 LegalLord wrote: Only ban I got from him was a week. Maybe you’re thinking of someone else? My guess is Seeker perming P6? Damn, I coulda sworn that was a perm that got reversed. Nvm then, bad example | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12043 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On February 08 2019 04:06 Plansix wrote: How many times do I need to let someone steal from me before I can assume they are an asshole? depends on if you want to sleep with them or not | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
It wasn't like that in the past and the shift was slow and thus never really perceived, until it just brought about a slow genocide of veterans who signed up years ago for a completely different forum. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9132 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On February 09 2019 00:46 Sent. wrote: You can't be sure because you don't have access to the pms he sent to mods and users who share his trait of being unable to walk away from fruitless arguments. yes I do because he sent them to me and anyone who wants to know GH's side of things then i guess you could just PM him yourself if he's still around (he probably is). edit: he tells me that banned users can only pm staff, so I guess that technically, you can't. | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
On February 09 2019 02:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Can talking to people randomly on teh interwebz be consider productive? I don't know, I'm not you or GH. Perhaps GH consider that productive. I guess you don't. All I know is that my PMs with GH was greatly amusing to me. It was a productive use of that short period of time. Mostly it showed to me how GH perceives himself. He genuinely thinks he is a lot smarter and wiser than he really is. Holy condescending batman | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
He would also become obsessed with specific posters and having them admit they were wrong. I dealt with that as well. But even if they did admit a mistake, it was not enough. You had to not only admit you were wrong, but you allowed yourself to be deceived by your neoliberal bias. And even then he would assume you were not sincere. I get that folks don’t think a forum vet should be banned over a PM disagreement. But some people don’t respect boundaries or can’t read the room. They fight and engage until they get what they want, even if the person on the other side specifically asks to be left alone. GH was one of those people. And that is one of the many reasons he wanted to be able to moderate his own politics blog. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On February 09 2019 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You haven't seen how condescending and aloof he conducts himself in his PM. He truly has no idea. In his PMs, he thinks he is cleverly manipulating you whilst being condescending towards you. A very strange debating technique, or his attempt to reach out to me, who can say. Lets just say he didn't exactly well endear himself towards me, when it was himself that decided to PM me. *shrugs* Whilst I can joke and say I am a shitposter. Hey if he ever comes back he will forever hound me. Such is life. wanna post such a PM chain then? Right now what I am being presented with is people making claims about him (not just the people in this thread), and then him defending himself by sending me the actual PM chains, which generally seem to make him look like the more reasonable person, at least in my opinion. He messaged me after your post with a PM chain between him and you, and between the two of you, he looked much more civil. Since it's private, I am not posting it. But if you say it's cool, I'll post it and then other users can decide for themselves who's tone and behavior is more inappropriate. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I can understand wanting to have a better understanding. But demanding recipients is essentially saying you don’t believe us. Or you suspect our feelings about the exchanges were not justified | ||
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
On February 09 2019 06:53 travis wrote: wanna post such a PM chain then? Right now what I am being presented with is people making claims about him (not just the people in this thread), and then him defending himself by sending me the actual PM chains, which generally seem to make him look like the more reasonable person, at least in my opinion. He messaged me after your post with a PM chain between him and you, and between the two of you, he looked much more civil. Since it's private, I am not posting it. But if you say it's cool, I'll post it and then other users can decide for themselves who's tone and behavior is more inappropriate. So you're saying that a guy who was recently permanently banned is messaging you, the poster who has shown the most initiative in questioning his ban, evidence that casts him in a positive light? Color me surprised. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
I'm aware some fraction of the people defending him satisfy these criteria. Just putting it out there. Back when I was a lurker I thought GreenHorizons was an ok bloke too. I don't know or really care what the immediate circumstances leading to the ban were. They could well appear unfair or not even worth a modaction at all. It isn't really relevant, since he's deserved a perm ban for years - this is just the mods finally pulling the trigger. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On February 09 2019 07:43 Jealous wrote: So you're saying that a guy who was recently permanently banned is messaging you, the poster who has shown the most initiative in questioning his ban, evidence that casts him in a positive light? Color me surprised. Wtf is this? Im willing to provide actual evidence for my claims, and extending an offer to anyone to provide counterevidence. I am saying "please, please enlighten me by showing me ACTUAL EVIDENCE" as opposed to just a personal opinion which could be based on literally anything. I am not saying I *know everything* about his behavior, or that he did or did not do this or that. I am saying, he is the only person who has shown me PMs, and in them so far every accuser is the one acting shittier between the two of them. You know why I am bothering to do this? Because I think his treatment was morally wrong, and I care about that. And, apparently, he actually can't PM anyone other than me because by technicality I am staff according to the website(which is something I like, so please don't take it away admins. I think meat or someone made it that way because im in TL). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
You’re staff. Go ask the mod team. I’m sure they will tell you. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
Whether or not you care if it's morally wrong is not my concern, I don't decide what other people care about. I can make a recommendation if you want but I had no intention to do that. Whether or not you put effort into anything you do is also up to you, but I think it says a lot if you openly state that you aren't putting effort into forming your opinions or presenting your arguments. Again, whether or not you want to change your mind is up to you. I am not sure what you are getting at because it seems like your only possible intention in posting these questions is to stifle dissent. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13815 Posts
If I ever had to describe him to someone it would be that to any problem he saw he would want to make it ten thousand times worse. Nothing he ever proposed or described would make anything better and yet he would refuse to see this. Being morally correct is perfectly acceptable until it becomes the only thing you are willing to consider. He would constantly attack anyone who questioned him until they either lost interest or entire days worth of conversations would be devoted to his battles where nothing good happened. Hes the type of person who knows he can't have a reasonable argument and yet doesn't see this as an issue in the slightest. Your idea of p6 being beligerent is laughable knowing how GH defined that for everyone in the thread. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I also feel my opinion on if GH is banned or not is shared by many people in this thread. I doubt folks care a whole lot either way, but they understand why it happened. No one is invested in building a case for the ban, because in the end it doesn’t matter. And you are right, it’s an open discussion. So when someone asks for receipts to justify my personal opinion to them, I’m all set. That isn’t a debate I’m intrested in engaging with. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 09 2019 09:38 travis wrote:... but I think it says a lot if you openly state that you aren't putting effort into forming your opinions or presenting your arguments. . What Plansix actually said was he didn't feel the need to put effort into justifying his opinion to you. I'll take belligerent over dishonest here. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
What <+ Show Spoiler + Plansi | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
On February 09 2019 18:38 xM(Z wrote: yes he is and no it's not imo. you can't plead the 5th in civil cases. This isn't a court case... | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 09 2019 17:26 xM(Z wrote: but that's also something that weighted on mods decision when they made the call to ban GH, no effort opinions like those; the straws that broke the camel back. I don't even think I agree with the premise that these are "no-effort opinions": + Show Spoiler + On February 07 2019 23:12 Plansix wrote: I know that he and the mod team had a lot of discussions via PM. But he has always responded poorly any sort of moderation. He necroed a blog from 2009 about racism and got 2 day ban. After than ban ended, he did the exact same thing to another thread that got locked. And then came to feedback asking why it got locked. It just seemed like he was very invested in picking fights if he we ever told he couldn’t do exactly what he wanted. On February 09 2019 06:40 Plansix wrote: I can confirm that GH was insufferable in his PMs. To the point where I told him to stop PMing me. He failed that simple request a few times too. He would also become obsessed with specific posters and having them admit they were wrong. I dealt with that as well. But even if they did admit a mistake, it was not enough. You had to not only admit you were wrong, but you allowed yourself to be deceived by your neoliberal bias. And even then he would assume you were not sincere. I get that folks don’t think a forum vet should be banned over a PM disagreement. But some people don’t respect boundaries or can’t read the room. They fight and engage until they get what they want, even if the person on the other side specifically asks to be left alone. GH was one of those people. And that is one of the many reasons he wanted to be able to moderate his own politics blog. Plansix was referring to the effort of actually going and finding links and citations from umpteen years of thread and PMs. Which nobody else in this thread has done either. No, getting GreenHorizons to send you stuff from his carefully curated library of grievances doesn't count as effort of that kind. To say that Plansix didn't put effort into forming his opinions when he's been conversing with GreenHorizons fairly regularly for over five years is pretty insulting. | ||
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
On February 09 2019 17:26 xM(Z wrote: but that's also something that weighted on mods decision when they made the call to ban GH, no effort opinions like those; the straws that broke the camel back. It always fascinates me when an online debate leads to the awakening of someone's inner power of telepathy. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9484 Posts
Its up to the mods how much of a pain in the arse someone is allowed to be i suppose. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10115 Posts
On February 08 2019 01:32 ahswtini wrote: https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/tl-community/275302-ask-tl-staff-anything?page=632#12630 (just start reading from there) i guess he wasn't really complaining, but clearly felt he would prefer to talk to a black mod I guess we read completely different things if that was your conclussion. He gave the reasons why, and they didn't sound unreasonable. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On February 09 2019 06:53 travis wrote: wanna post such a PM chain then? Right now what I am being presented with is people making claims about him (not just the people in this thread), and then him defending himself by sending me the actual PM chains, which generally seem to make him look like the more reasonable person, at least in my opinion. He messaged me after your post with a PM chain between him and you, and between the two of you, he looked much more civil. Since it's private, I am not posting it. But if you say it's cool, I'll post it and then other users can decide for themselves who's tone and behavior is more inappropriate. Hey, if you want to post the PM's that's up to you. GH can if he wants to, if banned posters can post in the website feeback forum. Hey, maybe I could be considered to be the uncivil one, but then again, you got to wonder; if I was sending "fuck off" to GH who initiated the PMs, and everytime he PM me and he keeps PM me back, who's behaviour is more inappropriate? Actually now that I think about it, GH was probably fishing for something to try to get me banned when he sent those PMs, which was why he was so weirdly persistent. It all makes sense now. I just thought he was trying to preserve his own hurt feelings to losing to an internet argument to someone who doesn't care. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
this here is about white knighting and taking sides and going up on snitches lists and condescending holier than thou posts and ... etcetcetc Edit: i mean look @Aquanim post; you can't reply to it. it's known, or it should've be known to him since he commented, that p6 was banned a few times for being an asshole to other posters; and that's on a liberal forum whilst being a liberal ... he became more diplomatic in his approaches as of lately, but he hasn't changed. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
On February 10 2019 05:54 xM(Z wrote: correct; the trial/hearing was done in absentia and the sentence passed. GG this here is about white knighting and taking sides and going up on snitches lists and condescending holier than thou posts and ... etcetcetc Edit: i mean look @Aquanim post; you can't reply to it. it's known, or it should've be known to him since he commented, that p6 was banned a few times for being an asshole to other posters; and that's on a liberal forum whilst being a liberal ... he became more diplomatic in his approaches as of lately, but he hasn't changed. I don't really know what any of that has to do with it. But arguing with you almost always takes us down the rabbit hole of non sequiturs and whataboutisms, so I'll just stay out of this. I don't know enough to say his ban wasn't justified. With what I know about GH, I am not surprised he was, eventually, after deliberation, perm banned. I think everybody who argued with him admired him, but also found it a right pain in the ass to disagree with him on anything. Having to constantly moderate those discussions must be exhausting. Am I sad he eventually got permed? Yeah. Do I feel it's unjust? No clue. I'll give the mods the benefit of the doubt. They don't often get this kinda call wrong. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 10 2019 05:54 xM(Z wrote: correct; the trial/hearing was done in absentia and the sentence passed. GG this here is about white knighting and taking sides and going up on snitches lists and condescending holier than thou posts and ... etcetcetc Edit: i mean look @Aquanim post; you can't reply to it. it's known, or it should've be known to him since he commented, that p6 was banned a few times for being an asshole to other posters; and that's on a liberal forum whilst being a liberal ... he became more diplomatic in his approaches as of lately, but he hasn't changed. Yeah. I’m honest about it too. When I’m an asshole, I do it on purpose. I just choose not to be an asshole of late. And I don’t know what the rest of that nonsense is your are rambling about is. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On February 10 2019 06:18 Acrofales wrote:I think everybody who argued with him admired him, Hah, no. | ||
|
Eteoneus
20 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9484 Posts
On February 10 2019 23:23 Eteoneus wrote: There are a lot more veterans with 10k+ posts that trash around in US Pol that deserve a ban way more than GH. In the end what decides if you are banned or not is not your posts. For example, LegalLord, xDaunt, and Danglers all deserve a ban more. All three are self-admitted trolls that just post to get enjoyment out of baiting regular or new posters in becoming annoyed by them. And then they prostrate themselves in front of the mods, and the mods take their side. The more drama is going on, the more they enjoy it. And when they succeed, they are all over the The Automated Ban List thread to brag about their 'achievements'. I think I argued with GH. But to me he was just a one-issue Trump apologist that other people thought was 'black' because he thought there was racism in the US. He was boring. All of this is wrong. | ||
|
Eteoneus
20 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway7998 Posts
On February 10 2019 23:33 Eteoneus wrote: BTW, if GH sent you PMs that make GH look bad, yes you are not allowed to post PMs. But the mods actually want those out, but they can't do it themselves, obviously. So If you want to make him look like an idiot, just post them and the mods will be happy, but they will give you are 2 day ban just because they have to. Yeah no, lets not go down this road. I can promise you mods won't be secretly happy. This is not TsundereLiquid. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13815 Posts
| ||
|
Eteoneus
20 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway7998 Posts
On February 10 2019 23:53 Eteoneus wrote: We are talking about people like Seeker, BBKadaver, BigFan and tofucake. Not about more mature people like Jibba or StealthBlue, WaxAngel or Liquid'Drone (he is actually my biggest fan). Your biggest fan..? And you are which PBU..? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Eh, to be fair xdaunt should be banned. Remember when he threatened to not shoot all the TL staff members? And since GH seems to be able to PM, if he want me to post the PM's he can just PM me to agree to post them if he wants to. That is, if he can PM without being a condescending person. I don't mind. I don't have any vested interest in appearing to be a pleasant person. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9132 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On February 11 2019 01:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Eh, to be fair xdaunt should be banned. Remember when he threatened to not shoot all the TL staff members? And since GH seems to be able to PM, if he want me to post the PM's he can just PM me to agree to post them if he wants to. That is, if he can PM without being a condescending person. I don't mind. I don't have any vested interest in appearing to be a pleasant person. Apparently he can only PM staff. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9484 Posts
On February 11 2019 01:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Eh, to be fair xdaunt should be banned. Remember when he threatened to not shoot all the TL staff members? Haha shit yeah I do remember that. I'm not saying danglars, xdaunt etc. aren't insane and ridiculous, but GH has openly admitted trying to antagonize the mods on more than one occasion so its fair to say its not surprising that this happened. If you break the 'don't be a douchebag' rule too many times then yeah, it might look like an unfair ban, but it probably isn't. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
Being less deserving of a ban isn't necessarily the same thing as undeserving. But which if any of them that applies to isn't really a topic for this thread. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
aka tribalism if it had been aimed at the political opinions they have and the people advocating them, i think their opinion of his banning would be quite different note i said SOME ok not ALL whether you enjoyed it or not it very clearly went right up to the line TL has instituted and not uncommonly went over it | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 11 2019 09:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Actually I beleive Danglars and xdaunt were both unbanned from the uspol thread recently. It wasn't out of their own volition. I remember checking a month ago and they were both still tempbanned then. xdaunt did stay away for a few months after the US Pol new rules, but couldn't resist and got promptly tempbanned. Pretty much everything you post is false or insipid. You are the poster child for why the US Politics thread is a waste of time. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 11 2019 09:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Actually I beleive Danglars and xdaunt were both unbanned from the uspol thread recently. It wasn't out of their own volition. I remember checking a month ago and they were both still tempbanned then. xdaunt did stay away for a few months after the US Pol new rules, but couldn't resist and got promptly tempbanned. I didn't say Danglars had stayed out of his own volition. I'm not totally clear on xDaunt but I do believe there were at least periods of time where he was unbanned from both the site and the thread and stayed out anyway. (Perhaps just because he got bored or whatever, but still.) The point that neither of them spill out into the rest of the forum in the same way as GreenHorizons stands. GH demonstrated that a mere politics-thread ban was insufficient containment. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 11 2019 09:05 DeepElemBlues wrote: what i've gathered from this thread is that some of the people who don't like GH being bant don't like it because they enjoyed his aggressive-aggressive ranting because it targeted opinions and people they disagree with aka tribalism if it had been aimed at the political opinions they have and the people advocating them, i think their opinion of his banning would be quite different note i said SOME ok not ALL whether you enjoyed it or not it very clearly went right up to the line TL has instituted and not uncommonly went over it This is deeply stupid. GH and I agreed on far more than we disagreed on political. He was unapologetic asshole who treated people like shit. Its not complicated. The guy was a condescending jerk more often than not. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 11 2019 10:39 Plansix wrote: GH and I agreed on far more than we disagreed on political. He was unapologetic asshole who treated people like shit. Its not complicated. The guy was a condescending jerk more often than not. I don't think anything you've said here contradicts what DeepElemBlues wrote. It seemed to me like a judgement on some people arguing against the GH ban, not a judgement on all or some people on GH's side of politics. (Possibly you weren't trying to contradict DeepElemBlues and I've just mis-interpreted the target of the first sentence.) | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On February 11 2019 10:39 Plansix wrote: This is deeply stupid. GH and I agreed on far more than we disagreed on political. He was unapologetic asshole who treated people like shit. Its not complicated. The guy was a condescending jerk more often than not. i didn't even refer to people who do not disagree with the ban like yourself your post exemplifies the sisyphean effort the staff undertakes here. you lead off with calling what i said deeply stupid based on a misunderstanding of what i said. you later say "it's not complicated" which is an implied insult to my intelligence, more subtly implied than "this is deeply stupid" at least. it's all silly head-butting with no productive purpose i sympathize with that effort because of its sisyphean nature, even though i largely agree with opisska's take. some of the things some of the staff say in response to criticism, the tone and the language used would result in a warning or a ban if directed at them by a regular member, or directed by a regular member at other regular members. the baiting, the implied (or direct) threats, the condescension. i don't think that's necessary or appropriate, i think it's a bad look, and it's the main reason i rarely post here and have rarely posted here for years. who knows what might set off some seeker shitpost directed at you that you cant object to because that just gets you marked i don't want to root about in the rabbit holes i just jumped down though so that's it for my opinions of your post and of the way some of the staff talks sometimes | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 11 2019 10:39 Plansix wrote: This is deeply stupid. GH and I agreed on far more than we disagreed on political. He was unapologetic asshole who treated people like shit. Its not complicated. The guy was a condescending jerk more often than not. i think DEB might be referring to the conservatives who used to say "GH gets it" when he was bashing the neolibs, which was some of the most transparent baiting ever. i suppose i'll miss having someone unironically talk about the coming proleteriat revolution. i think fondly of the time he argued that driverless cars meant i hated the poor. i'll pour one out for GH. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
or one of MY posts what is bant ? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
...some of the people who don't like GH being bant... In this context I think it's probably "banned". | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
On February 11 2019 23:50 Aquanim wrote: In this context I think it's probably "banned". How very Romanian of you... | ||
|
oBlade
United States5407 Posts
On February 08 2019 20:56 opisska wrote: The ban reason states quite clearly what the priorities of TL moderation is and it is the same reason why I am basically one step from hell here as well: more then anything, they are now about being respected. I fully expect someone to jump here and say it is not true and that it is just "explaining their motivations to them" or something along those lines, but there is now a mountain of evidence that "being respected" is the key priority of at least some members of the TL mod team. It wasn't like that in the past and the shift was slow and thus never really perceived, until it just brought about a slow genocide of veterans who signed up years ago for a completely different forum. I agree with these sentiments. Coming into TL there was a reputation to take pride in. Because of the exclusive and unforgiving nature of the esports community and TL's place in it. As the site keeps getting older and the users get older you'd expect everything to get better, and although moderation's generally not bad, it's like there is a certain segment of mod culture here which has unfortunately rooted itself in this childish internet tough guy culture which went out of style a long time ago. Kind of going in the opposite direction of maturity as what you expect with the rest of the site. Pride becoming arrogance maybe. The counterargument I see is sure, the core veteran userbase is such and such, but there will also always be an influx of new people who need some negative reinforcement to understand the ropes and assimilate into the community. That's fair enough. But if you look at the people the politics thread has claimed, zlefin, oneofthem, GH, Testie, and others. Not new people. I wonder when did our users get so moderateable? Or is there something else going on. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
The general leeway given to vets also leads to a lot of new posters getting banned when responding similarily to them, or see how vets post and adjust to their level as they assume that the behaviour exhibited of vets are permissable. In anycase, there is definately an element of immature mods, but there too is an element of immature vets. It's not really a fair comparison as one side has all the power and in any case it presumes that any of the mods or posters are of a mature age anyways. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 12 2019 02:35 oBlade wrote: I agree with these sentiments. Coming into TL there was a reputation to take pride in. Because of the exclusive and unforgiving nature of the esports community and TL's place in it. As the site keeps getting older and the users get older you'd expect everything to get better, and although moderation's generally not bad, it's like there is a certain segment of mod culture here which has unfortunately rooted itself in this childish internet tough guy culture which went out of style a long time ago. Kind of going in the opposite direction of maturity as what you expect with the rest of the site. Pride becoming arrogance maybe. The counterargument I see is sure, the core veteran userbase is such and such, but there will also always be an influx of new people who need some negative reinforcement to understand the ropes and assimilate into the community. That's fair enough. But if you look at the people the politics thread has claimed, zlefin, oneofthem, GH, Testie, and others. Not new people. I wonder when did our users get so moderateable? Or is there something else going on. zlefin - similar to GH, wouldn't give up on being an ass. oneofthem - committed sudoku by mod. GH - discussed at length. Testie - called people monkeys, defended the 14 words and #justotherwhitenationalistthings. still around, too. then others like samzdat (who i think got much less leniency than the others mentioned) and a whole slew of other people that have faded from memory. it may be more that the mods/ TL grew up, but users didn't. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
On February 12 2019 02:35 oBlade wrote: I agree with these sentiments. Coming into TL there was a reputation to take pride in. Because of the exclusive and unforgiving nature of the esports community and TL's place in it. As the site keeps getting older and the users get older you'd expect everything to get better, and although moderation's generally not bad, it's like there is a certain segment of mod culture here which has unfortunately rooted itself in this childish internet tough guy culture which went out of style a long time ago. Kind of going in the opposite direction of maturity as what you expect with the rest of the site. Pride becoming arrogance maybe. The counterargument I see is sure, the core veteran userbase is such and such, but there will also always be an influx of new people who need some negative reinforcement to understand the ropes and assimilate into the community. That's fair enough. But if you look at the people the politics thread has claimed, zlefin, oneofthem, GH, Testie, and others. Not new people. I wonder when did our users get so moderateable? Or is there something else going on. I think you have a bit of a fallacy here. Just because the USPol thread tends to claim veterans (not even sure that is true), doesn't mean the mods are prone to ban veterans more than newbies. It's just that people who come to a Starcraft site for the first time, don't tend to beeline for the USPol thread (except for PBUs), and thus people who get banned for their posting in the USPol thread are generally veterans of the site... just because non-veterans don't really find their way to the USPol thread in the first place. The USPol thread also has somewhat different rules from the rest of the site. If people behaved as absurdly assholy to one another anywhere outside USPol (or TL Mafia, may it rest in peace), they would've gotten banned ages ago. It just so happens that if there is one topic that inflames people with more argumentative ardor than "how OP protoss is", it is politics. So people who are perfectly civil and nice on the rest of TL turn into raging monsters on the USPol thread. xDaunt is a prime example: he was a writer, and put out many thoughtful, high quality HotS articles, but has gotten into trouble more than once for his posting on USPol. Moreover, out of the list you mention, I don't think a single one was banned directly due to their posting in USPol. In fact, most otherwise fine posters just get hit with a thread ban, rather than a site ban. zlefin got banned for continuously harrassing people by PM. oneofthem I don't remember, but I believe he just went on a flaming rampage of suicide for no clear reason. Testie isn't permed. I'm not even sure he's still threadbanned, as I see his posts from time to time. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On February 12 2019 02:58 ticklishmusic wrote: zlefin - similar to GH, wouldn't give up on being an ass. oneofthem - committed sudoku by mod. GH - discussed at length. Testie - called people monkeys, defended the 14 words and #justotherwhitenationalistthings. still around, too. then others like samzdat (who i think got much less leniency than the others mentioned) and a whole slew of other people that have faded from memory. it may be more that the mods/ TL grew up, but users didn't. I can't speak about oneofthem since I wasn't moderating the thread as much then. Testie is also still around as well like you mentioned. Lots of discussions can take place when moderating single Pol posts since trying to keep consistency among mods can be rough, and even more so when a poster is going to get permed such as GH. Having said that, in this case, the decision was quite unanimous among the most active mods. The site and more specifically the US Pol threads have rules. They are in place to make sure discussions happen and people don't go hostile or off on tangents or various other reasons. Have people already forgotten just how bad US Pol was at one point when that rape convo happened for instance? We've even been lenient at times considering some US Pol posters have 2 pages of mod notes and are still around. Suffice to say, not everyone will agree with the rules of US Pol and there will be some that think mods are power-tripping or w/e. Best to disagree in that case since actions speak louder than words. It's also funny to see the age thing come up. In the old TL days, there was less consistency in the sense that you could get banned if a mod didn't like you or if you guys had an argument. Nowadays, and especially since SCII's release, there's been a lot more consistency in moderation, and the rules are more laid out overall. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Here's the thing. Many of the frequented threads on TL are "discussion" threads. There's the occasional "math" thread etc - but in general, the most frequented threads are indeed political discussions. Now you gotta ask yourself, how much can a smart-alecky self righteous conspiracy theorist riding in on a self-perceived moral high horse actually add to a discussion-thread without stirring shit. It's like talking to a flat-earther. People arguing that it adds an interesting viewpoint to the discussion, but i absolutely disagree. He derailed technically decent discussions by just flamebaiting via throwing the race card in, he engages in arguments while having zero idea what he's even talking about (EU Pol, teargas) - and of course doesn't back down once proven wrong. There's a few posters like this on TL, most of which do not participate in the Pol threads anymore for one reason or another (btw, that includes right and leftwing posters) - and i'm not arguing for a ban or something here, i'm trying to make clear that these people are able to conduct themselves in a manner (for the most part) that enables at least superficial conversation. They don't necro, they don't challenge (much) the moderation. I'm of course not a moderator, but i'm pretty sure that if the moderation had an inclination that GHs conduct was temporarily, he wouldn't have gotten permabanned. Usually permas aren't given out like haribos - and i've yet to see one that came out of the blue for no apparent reason. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12043 Posts
On February 13 2019 15:06 m4ini wrote: Now you gotta ask yourself, how much can a smart-alecky self righteous conspiracy theorist riding in on a self-perceived moral high horse actually add to a discussion-thread without stirring shit. It's like talking to a flat-earther. It's not, though. That's an unfair characterization, normally people wait a few years before they post something like that so that other people have forgotten the specifics but in this case I'm sure it'll go fine... I share a lot of agreement with GH, but I'm not overly confrontational (or when I am, I am even more confrontational toward conservatives and that's something that we have less of a problem with as a forum, clearly). And yet I don't have much of a mod history, and I don't get called a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. The logical conclusion from my point of view is that the problem is not with ideas but with decorum. When GH thinks something is true, he requires you to also ask yourself the question of whether it's true. And that's not really convenient; if you can continue living your life without asking yourself some of those questions (even if you wouldn't necessarily reach the same conclusions he did), it's certainly easier. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 13 2019 20:54 Nebuchad wrote:... And yet I don't have much of a mod history, and I don't get called a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. The logical conclusion from my point of view is that the problem is not with ideas but with decorum. ... Are you familiar with GreenHorizons' posts on the subject of 9/11? EDIT: For instance the conversation starting here. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12043 Posts
On February 13 2019 22:53 Aquanim wrote: Are you familiar with GreenHorizons' posts on the subject of 9/11? EDIT: For instance the conversation starting here. Not really, no. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
What's even stupider is that "conspiracy theorist" is used disparagingly. You'd have to be a goddamned idiot to believe there are no conspiracies in the world, it's not even an opinion it is a fact. Some of them were huge, that's also a fact. edit: I guess aquanim didn't necessarily imply a negative connotation to conspiracy theorist, unlike the other guy (but I would guess that is how he feels by his post) | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12043 Posts
What I find funny (somewhat, it's not hilarious) is that in the example brought up here, GH is talking about 9/11 because while they were discussing the way the US does foreign intervention, Wolf got annoyed talking to GH, and decided that it would be easier to dismiss him, so he brought up the 9/11 conspiracy theory clearly in an attempt to say "therefore we don't have to listen to what you're saying", and then the conversation moves to 9/11 because GH can't let go of stuff, ever =) Long story short, I could use the same example provided by Aquanim against my point as an argument for my point. And what Aquanim did here is basically the same thing Wolf did there. It's meta, I love it | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 13 2019 20:54 Nebuchad wrote: It's not, though. That's an unfair characterization, normally people wait a few years before they post something like that so that other people have forgotten the specifics but in this case I'm sure it'll go fine... I share a lot of agreement with GH, but I'm not overly confrontational (or when I am, I am even more confrontational toward conservatives and that's something that we have less of a problem with as a forum, clearly). And yet I don't have much of a mod history, and I don't get called a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. The logical conclusion from my point of view is that the problem is not with ideas but with decorum. When GH thinks something is true, he requires you to also ask yourself the question of whether it's true. And that's not really convenient; if you can continue living your life without asking yourself some of those questions (even if you wouldn't necessarily reach the same conclusions he did), it's certainly easier. If you took away: 1. the shitty attitude 2. insulting PM's 3. conspiracy theories GH would be kind of where you are. And he also wouldn't be banned, I think. Beyond that, there is a element of both-sides-ism. I still have frankly have no idea what GH does for a living. While I don't want to make a claim of elitism or let-the-adults-talk because this is a forum for everyone to share their opinions and thoughts, GH debating how taxes worked (clearly had no idea what was going on) with KwarK (who is an accountant and tax cheapskate) or something was pretty much modern art. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 14 2019 00:03 travis wrote: Ah, so now people are more bannable if they have a stance that someone (I guess aquanim or m4ini) defines as a "conspiracy theory". That is a very stupid stance. What's even stupider is that "conspiracy theorist" is used disparagingly. You'd have to be a goddamned idiot to believe there are no conspiracies in the world, it's not even an opinion it is a fact. Some of them were huge, that's also a fact. edit: I guess aquanim didn't necessarily imply a negative connotation to conspiracy theorist, unlike the other guy (but I would guess that is how he feels by his post) Travis is correct. This is a very stupid stance that demonstrates a considerable lack of self-awareness. Just to illustrate, consider all of the left-wing posters (including mods) who swallowed the Trump/Russia collusion narrative hook, line, and sinker and peddled post after post accusing the Trump campaign of Russia-related treason. What are we going to do now that the whole, stupid narrative has collapsed? Ban all of those people? Of course not. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 14 2019 00:25 ticklishmusic wrote: If you took away: 1. the shitty attitude 2. insulting PM's 3. conspiracy theories GH would be kind of where you are. And he also wouldn't be banned, I think. Beyond that, there is a element of both-sides-ism. I still have frankly have no idea what GH does for a living. While I don't want to make a claim of elitism or let-the-adults-talk because this is a forum for everyone to share their opinions and thoughts, GH debating how taxes worked (clearly had no idea what was going on) with KwarK (who is an accountant and tax cheapskate) or something was pretty much modern art. You noticed now GH never revealed facts about himself or his life experiences. Or his education. Or anything beyond being black. He always seemed to keep that locked down for some reason. It wouldn’t be that bad if he wasn’t so aggressive ignorant on so many subjects. I remember when he tried to argue that the US cause the Korean War as some sort of imperial expansion. But when questioned on the subject he always gave half answers and clearly had no idea what he was talking about. Be he was very confident in his lack of understanding. And let’s not even get into the discussion of Lenin. Edit: the knock against conspiracy theoriest isn’t what they believe, but how they argue. They effectively require someone to prove a negative. It is up to me to prove the moon landing was not faked. And proving a the absence of something, or that something doesn’t exist is impossible. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On February 14 2019 00:44 xDaunt wrote: Travis is correct. This is a very stupid stance that demonstrates a considerable lack of self-awareness. Just to illustrate, consider all of the left-wing posters (including mods) who swallowed the Trump/Russia collusion narrative hook, line, and sinker and peddled post after post accusing the Trump campaign of Russia-related treason. What are we going to do now that the whole, stupid narrative has collapsed? Ban all of those people? Of course not. So here you just called people stupid and conspiracy theorists, you just equated trump's dirty business with russia which had now seen how many people close to him arrested or jailed, and all in a thread that isn't meant for it. I am quite impressed, oh and all meanwhile talking about other people's lack of self-awareness. You did do all that as a joke, right? | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On February 14 2019 01:28 Plansix wrote: You noticed now GH never revealed facts about himself or his life experiences. Or his education. Or anything beyond being black. Why would he post anything about himself while posting solely in controversial threads and making many enemies? Any personal info you give is just asking for people to use it against you or try and push your buttons. I see zero upside to doing it unless you had some sort of admired credentials. It's interesting the psychological differences between people. Personally I can only dip into politics threads for awhile before all the antagonism gets to me. People who live in these threads must have a very different psychological make up than me. GH was certainly a unique character. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5407 Posts
On February 12 2019 03:10 Acrofales wrote: I think you have a bit of a fallacy here. Just because the USPol thread tends to claim veterans (not even sure that is true), doesn't mean the mods are prone to ban veterans more than newbies. It's just that people who come to a Starcraft site for the first time, don't tend to beeline for the USPol thread (except for PBUs), and thus people who get banned for their posting in the USPol thread are generally veterans of the site... just because non-veterans don't really find their way to the USPol thread in the first place. The USPol thread also has somewhat different rules from the rest of the site. If people behaved as absurdly assholy to one another anywhere outside USPol (or TL Mafia, may it rest in peace), they would've gotten banned ages ago. It just so happens that if there is one topic that inflames people with more argumentative ardor than "how OP protoss is", it is politics. So people who are perfectly civil and nice on the rest of TL turn into raging monsters on the USPol thread. xDaunt is a prime example: he was a writer, and put out many thoughtful, high quality HotS articles, but has gotten into trouble more than once for his posting on USPol. That wasn't the point I was trying to make so I'm sorry it came across that way. I remember (if not specifically) lots of people who came in and got banned within a few hundred posts. And who weren't really connected to the site otherwise. I see this trope about "x pages of mod notes" a lot, which also strikes me as weird. If you're talking about like a 5-10 year old account with 10k or 15k posts, that metric doesn't contain any kind of rate. If you repeatedly participate in those threads inevitably you'll get moderated and for people like zlefin or GH, and I haven't been paying enough attention to have the right examples, but it seems like it snowballs for those people. The same way a new poster is moderated more harshly, repeat offender is targeted even though maybe he's just doing his same old thing over years and thousands of posts. And meanwhile other people slip through the cracks, either as a result of political bias lensing moderation or mods not being able to keep up with the volume or whatever. And that makes moderation appear capricious. Like some of the people who have left us, if they had posted less, they'd still be here. Even if they didn't post better, just less often. Does this make sense? I don't have an exact point it just strikes me as weird. Like there is a limit, to tell someone even though you came here for the e-sports community, you can only be yourself in the politics megathread for x amount of time before your infractions will have accumulated to have overstayed your welcome. Like well, your posting had some issues for these 4 years but it was still redeemable. But 5 years of posting like this? You've crossed the line now, buster. Meanwhile some among us might be chugging along to an arrival in banville in time for the next election. Just seems like a waste. If someone is posting really so badly get them to improve at the time so as not to subject the rest of us to their posting. Or if they're headed on the way out in a year just leave them be instead so all the time they put in won't end up having been wasted after they're banned. There were some people posting really badly 1-2 years ago but who got over it. Like it was just a really drawn out phase. I don't know. Certain antagonistic behaviors from mods in these cases, like with inventing the concept of blog ban abuse specifically for GH, they aren't conducive to actually improving threads or individual posting I think, some wrong approaches taken. If those were the goals, anyway. Maybe the goal is just to lead things to mod's preconceived outcome. I used to think fairly applied, strict moderation on the level of like what you'd expect from an old single-issue thread, like the gun thread now even, was the right idea. But despite apparent mod effort the thread hasn't always shown improvement. Honestly GH's blog was easier to read than the main thread. I don't know why. Self-segregation? Slower threads seem more fruitful and less heated. Ones focused on a finite issue. The gun thread, the NASA thread. Maybe a megathread was the mistake to begin with. Wouldn't everyone feel great to post in threads about things again? Or a temporally limited thread, like February in US politics, with an actual OP and subjects, about current events and not just "muh liberals" and "muh conservatives." Just so much potential wasted in these bans and that thread. Anyway my point is old users aren't new users, they want to post well, everyone wants to contribute, give them a reason to post well instead of trying to give them a reason not to post badly. | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On February 14 2019 03:40 Starlightsun wrote: Why would he post anything about himself while posting solely in controversial threads and making many enemies? Any personal info you give is just asking for people to use it against you or try and push your buttons. I see zero upside to doing it unless you had some sort of admired credentials. It's interesting the psychological differences between people. Personally I can only dip into politics threads for awhile before all the antagonism gets to me. People who live in these threads must have a very different psychological make up than me. GH was certainly a unique character. My guess is that by revealing more information, he would better back up his points much like the mention of taxes and Kwark being an accountant so you know that he'll likely know more than the average person. Of course, this is the internet and you should only reveal what you want. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
But it speaks to a larger issues with GH and some other folks who argued like him: an unwillingness to articulate their views, opinions and how those were formed. It was very hard to pin GH down to any specific viewpoint or desired outcome. And people became suspicious of that since many of the people in the thread are more than willing to articulate their views. For myself, I saw his refusal to articulate basic information indicative of someone who valued keeping people in the defensive over communicating with them. If he started to explain his views, he could be attacked for them or wouldn’t keep the person he was arguing with answering questions. He is not the only one who was fond of this style of argument to be fair. But everyone in the politics thread got real tired of it about 2 years ago. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12043 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
As an easily accessible example: in the linked exchange GH is obtuse for no reason other than to hold information over others. People request information or imply that they are not sure what he is talking about. But rather than answer, he just eaclates by with further questions. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread?page=210 This is every discussion with GH and people got real tired of it. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7998 Posts
On February 14 2019 04:01 BigFan wrote: My guess is that by revealing more information, he would better back up his points much like the mention of taxes and Kwark being an accountant so you know that he'll likely know more than the average person. Of course, this is the internet and you should only reveal what you want. And with that I would like to reveal that I did, in fact, graduate top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I have been involved in numerous raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills... People can and do claim absolutely anything on the internet. I have little faith in absolutely anything anyone claims about themselves to help prove their case, even if I've done that myself a couple of times. And more importantly, people are frequently wrong about things in their own field. Even Kwark could completely misunderstand the economical consequences of a situation or event. If someone's argument doesn't hold up without an explanation of who they are, then it's probably a very bad argument (Exceptions apply). | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 14 2019 06:01 Excludos wrote: And with that I would like to reveal that I did, in fact, graduate top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I have been involved in numerous raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills... People can and do claim absolutely anything on the internet. I have little faith in absolutely anything anyone claims about themselves to help prove their case, even if I've done that myself a couple of times. And more importantly, people are frequently wrong about things in their own field. Even Kwark could completely misunderstand the economical consequences of a situation or event. If someone's argument doesn't hold up without an explanation of who they are, then it's probably a very bad argument (Exceptions apply). Your argument seems to be "we can't know for sure who's right". GH comes in with criticisms or opinions built on a very shaky, or nonexistent, foundation of facts. There are folks who have built up some credibility on certain topics based on a combination of their posting history and their (purported) real-life jobs/ academic training. These folks may call GH out on his bullshit. A third-party poster is obviously able to verify who is actually right. Healthy debate and driving introspection/ critical examination of one's own positions is great, but that was rarely what was happening here. It was more like going through the very basics of a topic to get to a common base of facts from which to build cases for/against or whatever. And then GH would frequently call people shills or whatever and say we weren't thinking big enough, and hang the facts. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12043 Posts
On February 14 2019 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Abolish the police. Abolish the police. Abolish the police. I don't think anyone can claim that GH was willing to articulate his views. In this case I would say that his view was probably that we should abolish the police. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7998 Posts
On February 14 2019 07:14 ticklishmusic wrote: Your argument seems to be "we can't know for sure who's right". GH comes in with criticisms or opinions built on a very shaky, or nonexistent, foundation of facts. There are folks who have built up some credibility on certain topics based on a combination of their posting history and their (purported) real-life jobs/ academic training. These folks may call GH out on his bullshit. A third-party poster is obviously able to verify who is actually right. Healthy debate and driving introspection/ critical examination of one's own positions is great, but that was rarely what was happening here. It was more like going through the very basics of a topic to get to a common base of facts from which to build cases for/against or whatever. And then GH would frequently call people shills or whatever and say we weren't thinking big enough, and hang the facts. You misunderstood my argument. My argument was that a post needs to have value for what is in it, not for who wrote it. If Kwark wrote a post about the economic consequences of DACA, you should look into the evidence and arguments that he provided, and not accept it because he's an accountant. So in that case knowing that he's an accountant in the first place is pointless (for the most part. Like I said, exceptions apply. I'm not above the appeal to authority fallacy). So if GH wrote shit posts, they don't become less shit because he's of any specific color or from any specific place. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On February 14 2019 07:16 Nebuchad wrote: In this case I would say that his view was probably that we should abolish the police. But when pressed he would go "no I don't mean abolish the police, I mean abolish the police, are you dumb?!" | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On February 14 2019 07:16 Nebuchad wrote: In this case I would say that his view was probably that we should abolish the police. When pressed sometimes he would say that he literally means it, and sometimes he would say he doesn't literally mean it. Sometimes he would say he wants to change it, sometimes he he wants it literally be abolished and sometimes he would say that what we call the police is not the police. It depends on which angle you are talking at him from. His position is just some nebulous concept where he can say "that wasn't my position". I remember in particular that he mocked other posters for believing that he literally wanted to abolish the police, only a few posts later just saying that this is why the police must be abolished and got banned again. To this day, nobody knows what he means by "abolish the police", no matter how many times had written it. It's probably the best example of this obtuse debating tactic. It's not even particularly clever. At least Danglars implies his position, and Igne rather pretends to be politically educated, GH is just clumsy. In the end though he got banned because he rather play a stupid game of "dare to ban me", not because he is clumsy, but it's hard to argue that he has definite position on abolish the police. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12043 Posts
| ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On February 14 2019 07:55 Nebuchad wrote: But it is also a perfect example of a question that GH forces you to ask yourself when it's more comfortable not to; do you support the police? umm I don't see how that's a hard question tbh. There's nothing hard about saying yes I do but I'd also prefer if they were more careful with avoiding profiling and such etc... Granted, I'm looking at it from a Canadian perspective, not a US one. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 14 2019 07:55 Nebuchad wrote: But it is also a perfect example of a question that GH forces you to ask yourself when it's more comfortable not to; do you support the police? Not, not really. Most people just questioned why the discussion happened and why it was so painful. Talking to a smug, self satisfied version of internet Socrates fucking sucks. Especially one that is clearly enjoying the frustration he is causing. As many people have said, he was bad at convincing people of the merits of his views. He was far more likely to frustrate them so much they wouldn’t want to engage with the topic ever. And this is from a guy that mostly agreed with GH on a bunch of topics. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 14 2019 00:03 travis wrote: Ah, so now people are more bannable if they have a stance that someone (I guess aquanim or m4ini) defines as a "conspiracy theory". That is a very stupid stance. Oh, no. You have to have a stance that the moderators define as a (particularly objectionable?) conspiracy theory. My opinion's got nothing to do with it. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12043 Posts
On February 14 2019 08:55 Plansix wrote: Not, not really. Most people just questioned why the discussion happened and why it was so painful. Talking to a smug, self satisfied version of internet Socrates fucking sucks. Especially one that is clearly enjoying the frustration he is causing. As many people have said, he was bad at convincing people of the merits of his views. He was far more likely to frustrate them so much they wouldn’t want to engage with the topic ever. And this is from a guy that mostly agreed with GH on a bunch of topics. What else would the reaction be? Obviously we're not going to consciously go "I don't like that I have to think about this because of you, so I'm going to react negatively instead!" We're way more likely to question why the discussion happens, why it's painful... Probably it's because of him. While we're experiencing pain, allow me to bring y'all back in time. Probably don't open those tabs. + Show Spoiler + Specifically to march 15, 2018, where GreenHorizons react to some story that was posted with: Abolish the police (#201271, old thread)Falling is the first to take the bait, with the question: "Abolish the police? What do you propose to replace it? Or have you gone hardcore anarcho-capitalist recently?" GH immediately answers with an article about what type of things we can replace the police with, this article here. Slaughter enters with the idea that police can't easily be replaced, we're going to need gradualism: + Show Spoiler + "I think for this to really be a replacement for Police in the current US there would need to be drastic change in other cultural areas first. Definitely could boost these programs and gradually reduce the need for as large and armed police forces as we have now." GH counters with the idea that the police isn't nearly as effective as Slaughter thinks in the area where he thinks they're necessary: + Show Spoiler + "I think people greatly overestimate the effectiveness and functionality of police regarding addressing the preponderance of the issues people think they address/should address. Obviously something like this doesn't happen overnight, but the point is we should be looking to abolish the police, not fix them." This discussion continues for a while with Wegandi. Falling then asks some practical questions of GH, about how the system described in the article would work: + Show Spoiler + "Then who is paying these community patrols? And how integrated are these community patrols with each other when one criminal bounces to the next city? Also what stops a community patrol from simply being the criminal syndicate, rather than a defence against it?" GH's answer is that while he has some ideas on how those questions should be answered, the larger point is about abolishing the police vs fixing it, not necessarily how we go about abolishing it, because there are a number of ways we can go about doing that if we accept the premise that it should be done. + Show Spoiler + I'm happy to keep answering questions, but it should be noted that my larger point isn't to lay out a comprehensive alternative plan to policing as we know it from budgeting out line items for investigations to implementing it legislatively, but that instead of accepting that what we have (or probably whatever wegandi is imagining we replace it with) a failing system and tinkering around the edges, we need to be talking about how we do a full tear-down and new construction. Knowing that my ideas aren't the only ideas, I can tell you what I think. But we should pay attention to the fact that of the suggestions outlined by the Rolling Stone article, the community patrols was the one I expressed skepticism about for the reasons mentioned in the piece and you mention there. Ryzel comes in and demands that GH has to be able to precisely map out what will replace police in order to make the statement that police should be abolished. He also asks him to clarify what he means by police, whether the FBI is involved, stuff like that. + Show Spoiler + Right, but one can't do a full tear-down and reconstruction without precise blueprints of what's going up in its place, which is what the comprehensive questions are trying to flesh out. GH correctly answers that he's not supposed to build the replacement of police by himself. He has two very good quotes in this post: "I would seriously hope folks wouldn't expect that here or from myself. That's something we build as a society, but we have to want to build it." "(The other posters) were after undermining the idea that of the two paths we should choose abolishing the police by trying to say that since we/I don't have it all figured out we/I shouldn't be working toward it rather than preserving police." So far GH has expressed a coherent position, and so far I've found what I thought I'd find: people aren't engaging with the idea of whether the police should be preserved or abolished, instead we're focusing on the consequences of abolishing the police. Dare I say, that's a way more comfortable question to ask oneself. Will there be consequences to abolishing the police? Yeah. Will some of those consequences be negative, or better yet, dangerous? Probably, yeah. If we can find enough negative consequences, can we avoid asking ourselves whether the police should be abolished? Absolutely. Falling comes back with the same ideas about how everything should be mapped out, and comes out in favor of reformation vs revolution: + Show Spoiler + "Well does actually matter what you are replacing it with. If you just pull down a corrupt system, with no good plan to replace, there's no guarantee that what you replace it will be anything other than chaos." "This is why reformation generally works better than revolution because you don't have to throw out what was working." GH reframes the argument in this fashion. Again, his position is coherent so far: + Show Spoiler + "I'm not thinking you're quite understanding what I'm talking about by your objections. You presumably want to reform the police, I want to abolish the police. Your camp (on this argument) has been 'working on this' for ~200 years and they suck. The choice isn't suck, or anarchy. The choice is keep trying to reform police, or work towards abolishing them instead. It's not as if I'm suggesting we just disband the police tomorrow with no idea what to do the day after. Acting as if it is makes it a lot easier to argue against, but it doesn't really provide any value or insight. " hunts then comes in to see if he gets it right (Narrator: he doesn't): + Show Spoiler + So let me see if I'm getting it right. GH wants to abolish the police, and in place have a group of volunteers to go around and uphold the law, who won't be the police? (Narrator: no, he didn't say that) Volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts and not for a paycheck want to go around arresting criminals, investigating crimes, and will do a better job than the police and be less corrupt, for free? If not, then please explain exactly what you're proposing GH. (Narrator: he already did) Conversation devolves from there as people start misrepresenting GH's position, and he reacts angrily. And when the conversation will be remembered, people will go like this: On April 09 2018 05:02 Excludos wrote: Let's not go through this again, please. Yes, the cops in the US is shit(ly trained). No, no amount of "Abolish with nothing to put in their place" is a good idea. Reform would work, because it has proven to work in literally the entire rest of the first world. Please let's not have 30 more pages of this shit. or like was done here: On February 14 2019 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Instead when asked to clarify, he rather just chant his slogan, constantly say that the other person has the wrong view on what his position was, without ever clarifying what his postion was. This is, quite simply, not what happened. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12043 Posts
On February 14 2019 09:16 JimmiC wrote: I think you question your beliefs when some one asks you pointed well thought out questions and has well thought out responses to yours. Even more so if you respect that person. If some one just gets on the treadmill, repeats and insults you your views become cemented and you are less willing to deal with others, who might actually have real well intentioned questions or concerns with your position. This was in the context of the argument I was making there: On February 13 2019 20:54 Nebuchad wrote: The logical conclusion from my point of view is that the problem is not with ideas but with decorum. When GH thinks something is true, he requires you to also ask yourself the question of whether it's true. And that's not really convenient; if you can continue living your life without asking yourself some of those questions (even if you wouldn't necessarily reach the same conclusions he did), it's certainly easier. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 14 2019 09:56 Nebuchad wrote: What else would the reaction be? Obviously we're not going to consciously go "I don't like that I have to think about this because of you, so I'm going to react negatively instead!" We're way more likely to question why the discussion happens, why it's painful... Probably it's because of him. While we're experiencing pain, allow me to bring y'all back in time. Probably don't open those tabs. + Show Spoiler + Specifically to march 15, 2018, where GreenHorizons react to some story that was posted with: Abolish the police (#201271, old thread)Falling is the first to take the bait, with the question: "Abolish the police? What do you propose to replace it? Or have you gone hardcore anarcho-capitalist recently?" GH immediately answers with an article about what type of things we can replace the police with, this article here. Slaughter enters with the idea that police can't easily be replaced, we're going to need gradualism: + Show Spoiler + "I think for this to really be a replacement for Police in the current US there would need to be drastic change in other cultural areas first. Definitely could boost these programs and gradually reduce the need for as large and armed police forces as we have now." GH counters with the idea that the police isn't nearly as effective as Slaughter thinks in the area where he thinks they're necessary: + Show Spoiler + "I think people greatly overestimate the effectiveness and functionality of police regarding addressing the preponderance of the issues people think they address/should address. Obviously something like this doesn't happen overnight, but the point is we should be looking to abolish the police, not fix them." This discussion continues for a while with Wegandi. Falling then asks some practical questions of GH, about how the system described in the article would work: + Show Spoiler + "Then who is paying these community patrols? And how integrated are these community patrols with each other when one criminal bounces to the next city? Also what stops a community patrol from simply being the criminal syndicate, rather than a defence against it?" GH's answer is that while he has some ideas on how those questions should be answered, the larger point is about abolishing the police vs fixing it, not necessarily how we go about abolishing it, because there are a number of ways we can go about doing that if we accept the premise that it should be done. + Show Spoiler + I'm happy to keep answering questions, but it should be noted that my larger point isn't to lay out a comprehensive alternative plan to policing as we know it from budgeting out line items for investigations to implementing it legislatively, but that instead of accepting that what we have (or probably whatever wegandi is imagining we replace it with) a failing system and tinkering around the edges, we need to be talking about how we do a full tear-down and new construction. Knowing that my ideas aren't the only ideas, I can tell you what I think. But we should pay attention to the fact that of the suggestions outlined by the Rolling Stone article, the community patrols was the one I expressed skepticism about for the reasons mentioned in the piece and you mention there. Ryzel comes in and demands that GH has to be able to precisely map out what will replace police in order to make the statement that police should be abolished. He also asks him to clarify what he means by police, whether the FBI is involved, stuff like that. + Show Spoiler + Right, but one can't do a full tear-down and reconstruction without precise blueprints of what's going up in its place, which is what the comprehensive questions are trying to flesh out. GH correctly answers that he's not supposed to build the replacement of police by himself. He has two very good quotes in this post: "I would seriously hope folks wouldn't expect that here or from myself. That's something we build as a society, but we have to want to build it." "(The other posters) were after undermining the idea that of the two paths we should choose abolishing the police by trying to say that since we/I don't have it all figured out we/I shouldn't be working toward it rather than preserving police." So far GH has expressed a coherent position, and so far I've found what I thought I'd find: people aren't engaging with the idea of whether the police should be preserved or abolished, instead we're focusing on the consequences of abolishing the police. Dare I say, that's a way more comfortable question to ask oneself. Will there be consequences to abolishing the police? Yeah. Will some of those consequences be negative, or better yet, dangerous? Probably, yeah. If we can find enough negative consequences, can we avoid asking ourselves whether the police should be abolished? Absolutely. Falling comes back with the same ideas about how everything should be mapped out, and comes out in favor of reformation vs revolution: + Show Spoiler + "Well does actually matter what you are replacing it with. If you just pull down a corrupt system, with no good plan to replace, there's no guarantee that what you replace it will be anything other than chaos." "This is why reformation generally works better than revolution because you don't have to throw out what was working." GH reframes the argument in this fashion. Again, his position is coherent so far: + Show Spoiler + "I'm not thinking you're quite understanding what I'm talking about by your objections. You presumably want to reform the police, I want to abolish the police. Your camp (on this argument) has been 'working on this' for ~200 years and they suck. The choice isn't suck, or anarchy. The choice is keep trying to reform police, or work towards abolishing them instead. It's not as if I'm suggesting we just disband the police tomorrow with no idea what to do the day after. Acting as if it is makes it a lot easier to argue against, but it doesn't really provide any value or insight. " hunts then comes in to see if he gets it right (Narrator: he doesn't): + Show Spoiler + So let me see if I'm getting it right. GH wants to abolish the police, and in place have a group of volunteers to go around and uphold the law, who won't be the police? (Narrator: no, he didn't say that) Volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts and not for a paycheck want to go around arresting criminals, investigating crimes, and will do a better job than the police and be less corrupt, for free? If not, then please explain exactly what you're proposing GH. (Narrator: he already did) Conversation devolves from there as people start misrepresenting GH's position, and he reacts angrily. And when the conversation will be remembered, people will go like this: On April 09 2018 05:02 Excludos wrote: Let's not go through this again, please. Yes, the cops in the US is shit(ly trained). No, no amount of "Abolish with nothing to put in their place" is a good idea. Reform would work, because it has proven to work in literally the entire rest of the first world. Please let's not have 30 more pages of this shit. or like was done here: On February 14 2019 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Instead when asked to clarify, he rather just chant his slogan, constantly say that the other person has the wrong view on what his position was, without ever clarifying what his postion was. This is, quite simply, not what happened. This seems like the classic GH "we should burn it all down" post (other examples include the healthcare and financial sytems). People react with "hey man, that's not a good idea, what's your replacement plan?". And his response is "well, a little bit of this and a little bit of that and boom, reform!" And then people kind of end up tripping over each other to tell him why his half-baked still-raw-in-the-center idea is no bueno - sometimes more coherently than others. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12043 Posts
On February 14 2019 10:46 ticklishmusic wrote: This seems like the classic GH "we should burn it all down" post (other examples include the healthcare and financial sytems). People react with "hey man, that's not a good idea, what's your replacement plan?". And his response is "well, a little bit of this and a little bit of that and boom, reform!" And then people kind of end up tripping over each other to tell him why his half-baked still-raw-in-the-center idea is no bueno - sometimes more coherently than others. His answer is: I don't want to be the one creating the replacement plan by myself. There are ideas, in that article for example, and I have some myself, but that's not the point I want to bring up. If we can agree that a replacement plan is needed, we can work together as a society and create the replacement plan. That's an answer I sympathize with a lot. I have the same answer when it comes to my anticapitalism. I'm not exactly sure what we should replace capitalism with, I haven't figured out everything. I have some ideas, but I don't want to feed them to you. What we can come up with together if we accept the basis that capitalism is garbage is going to be better than the solutions I would have come up with alone. Regardless of whether or not you are satisfied with the answer, it's a coherent answer, and it's not accurately represented by the sentence: "well, a little bit of this and a little bit of that and boom, reform!" | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And this all leaves aside his obsessive behavior, aggressive PMs, and constantly trying to rekindle old arguments. Like, you know, harassing me for an entire month about spreading propaganda because I remembered an article wrong. And me repeatedly telling him that I made a mistake and him not giving a shit to the point where the moderators had to tell him to drop it. So I understand that you liked GH's contribution to the site and his style of discussion. But I don't think you got to experience his true contribution to the site as some of us did. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13815 Posts
Tens if not hundreds of millions dead and the entire economy burned was an okay sacrifice to GH supposed solutions. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 14 2019 00:24 Nebuchad wrote: Aquanim is countering the notion that I brought up, that GH gets shit because he is forcing us to ask ourselves questions that we may not want to ask ourselves and he is forceful about it. He is attacking my argument that I don't get called a conspiracy theorist by saying that I'm not one and GH is, as examplified by his stance on 9/11. What I find funny (somewhat, it's not hilarious) is that in the example brought up here, GH is talking about 9/11 because while they were discussing the way the US does foreign intervention, Wolf got annoyed talking to GH, and decided that it would be easier to dismiss him, so he brought up the 9/11 conspiracy theory clearly in an attempt to say "therefore we don't have to listen to what you're saying", and then the conversation moves to 9/11 because GH can't let go of stuff, ever =) Long story short, I could use the same example provided by Aquanim against my point as an argument for my point. And what Aquanim did here is basically the same thing Wolf did there. It's meta, I love it I don't disagree with you that part of the reason GreenHorizons was disliked was that "he is forcing us to ask ourselves questions that we may not want to ask ourselves and he is forceful about it", and that a large part of what got him banned was "decorum" or some other similar concept. On February 13 2019 20:54 Nebuchad wrote: It's not, though. That's an unfair characterization, normally people wait a few years before they post something like that so that other people have forgotten the specifics but in this case I'm sure it'll go fine... The only part of m4ini's characterization that wasn't more or less to do with "decorum" is the "conspiracy theorist" part, and as we established that wasn't just m4ini being annoyed at GreenHorizons' attitude; it was at the very least a defensible point. As such, from my point of view you perhaps owe m4ini an apology, depending on how badly you disagree with "smart-alecky", "self righteous" and "self-percieved moral high horse". + Show Spoiler + I'm not truly interested in arguing the toss on those - just calling m4ini's characterization unfair based on the conspiracy theorist point as you seemed to be doing did not sit well with me. ---//--- On February 14 2019 09:56 Nebuchad wrote: So far GH has expressed a coherent position, and so far I've found what I thought I'd find: people aren't engaging with the idea of whether the police should be preserved or abolished, instead we're focusing on the consequences of abolishing the police. Dare I say, that's a way more comfortable question to ask oneself. Will there be consequences to abolishing the police? Yeah. Will some of those consequences be negative, or better yet, dangerous? Probably, yeah. If we can find enough negative consequences, can we avoid asking ourselves whether the police should be abolished? Absolutely.] A point you are neglecting is that this cuts both ways. GreenHorizons wasn't comfortable focusing on the question of "what happens when you actually abolish the police" either. By your logic doesn't that mean everybody else should be given credit for "forcing [him] to ask [himself] those questions"? edit: In other words, everybody has questions they don't want to ask themselves, and many people in the forum (not just GreenHorizons) push others into re-examining those questions. GreenHorizons is distinct in two ways: (a) the kind of questions he pushed people into, which happen to be similar to yours making them easier for you to identify, and (b) his manner when he did the pushing. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
Of course, GH might have expected that response when he opened with such a bombastic tone. A slogan like “abolish the police” is inflammatory, somewhat intentionally so, whether or not that was GH’s intention in this specific instance. Of course it made people recoil in shock, then fumble around for the nearest blunt object to hit it with. That happened a lot when GH opined. Then, at least sometimes, he would mock the feebler attacks of the offended masses, the masses would get even more offended, and the discussion would go to shit. GH wasn’t the only one with this pattern; anyone opinionated with a viewpoint sufficiently far from the center-left consensus of the thread would tend toward a similar pattern, sometimes intentionally, but usually not. Here’s the thing. I’ve thought quite a bit about this, and I think I disagree with GH’s “abolish the police” position. But I’ve never discussed it with him. I was kinda scared to, to be honest. Because I wasn’t prepared for the bombastic, adversarial type of discussion like the one Nebuchad quoted. I wasn’t confident I had researched the facts well enough, or interpreted them well enough, to be certain I was right. “You know what, GH? You’re wrong, and I’m gonna tell you why...” wasn’t a discussion I felt capable of, and it seemed like the only one I would get if I brought it up. That would probably be my biggest criticism of his posting, really - that the default mode was combative, and acrimony was always within arm’s reach. I wish people would be a bit more careful to avoid lazy caricatures of him now that he can’t defend himself. I had my issues with his “abolish the police” crusade, both the position itself and how he argued it, but it was definitely not just an empty slogan, repeated ad nauseum without any details or clarification. You could maybe say that for LL’s “electability” crusade, but I don’t remember a single position GH took that fit that bill. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 14 2019 13:16 ChristianS wrote: I wish people would be a bit more careful to avoid lazy caricatures of him now that he can’t defend himself. I had my issues with his “abolish the police” crusade, both the position itself and how he argued it, but it was definitely not just an empty slogan, repeated ad nauseum without any details or clarification. You could maybe say that for LL’s “electability” crusade, but I don’t remember a single position GH took that fit that bill. I do agree with you that GreenHorizons' initial discussion of the 'abolish the police' concept isn't quite as vacuous as some people have implied, although I do think "what are the consequences of 'abolishing' the police?" is a fundamental part of that discussion which GH did not do enough to engage with to earn my intellectual respect. That being said, I do think GreenHorizons did use the slogan or similar words as smug throw-away lines at later points in the thread... + Show Spoiler + ... so in my opinion, if the "abolish the police" slogan has been cheapened and made vacuous of detail and clarification in people's minds, GH bears some responsibility for that himself. edit: Also, to be fair to the people involved in the original conversation, when somebody lays out their initial opinion in a three-word trolly reply, "starting from the position that it is bullshit" isn't wholly unreasonable (even if they elaborate later). | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On February 14 2019 09:56 Nebuchad wrote: What else would the reaction be? Obviously we're not going to consciously go "I don't like that I have to think about this because of you, so I'm going to react negatively instead!" We're way more likely to question why the discussion happens, why it's painful... Probably it's because of him. While we're experiencing pain, allow me to bring y'all back in time. Probably don't open those tabs. + Show Spoiler + Specifically to march 15, 2018, where GreenHorizons react to some story that was posted with: Abolish the police (#201271, old thread)Falling is the first to take the bait, with the question: "Abolish the police? What do you propose to replace it? Or have you gone hardcore anarcho-capitalist recently?" GH immediately answers with an article about what type of things we can replace the police with, this article here. Slaughter enters with the idea that police can't easily be replaced, we're going to need gradualism: + Show Spoiler + "I think for this to really be a replacement for Police in the current US there would need to be drastic change in other cultural areas first. Definitely could boost these programs and gradually reduce the need for as large and armed police forces as we have now." GH counters with the idea that the police isn't nearly as effective as Slaughter thinks in the area where he thinks they're necessary: + Show Spoiler + "I think people greatly overestimate the effectiveness and functionality of police regarding addressing the preponderance of the issues people think they address/should address. Obviously something like this doesn't happen overnight, but the point is we should be looking to abolish the police, not fix them." This discussion continues for a while with Wegandi. Falling then asks some practical questions of GH, about how the system described in the article would work: + Show Spoiler + "Then who is paying these community patrols? And how integrated are these community patrols with each other when one criminal bounces to the next city? Also what stops a community patrol from simply being the criminal syndicate, rather than a defence against it?" GH's answer is that while he has some ideas on how those questions should be answered, the larger point is about abolishing the police vs fixing it, not necessarily how we go about abolishing it, because there are a number of ways we can go about doing that if we accept the premise that it should be done. + Show Spoiler + I'm happy to keep answering questions, but it should be noted that my larger point isn't to lay out a comprehensive alternative plan to policing as we know it from budgeting out line items for investigations to implementing it legislatively, but that instead of accepting that what we have (or probably whatever wegandi is imagining we replace it with) a failing system and tinkering around the edges, we need to be talking about how we do a full tear-down and new construction. Knowing that my ideas aren't the only ideas, I can tell you what I think. But we should pay attention to the fact that of the suggestions outlined by the Rolling Stone article, the community patrols was the one I expressed skepticism about for the reasons mentioned in the piece and you mention there. Ryzel comes in and demands that GH has to be able to precisely map out what will replace police in order to make the statement that police should be abolished. He also asks him to clarify what he means by police, whether the FBI is involved, stuff like that. + Show Spoiler + Right, but one can't do a full tear-down and reconstruction without precise blueprints of what's going up in its place, which is what the comprehensive questions are trying to flesh out. GH correctly answers that he's not supposed to build the replacement of police by himself. He has two very good quotes in this post: "I would seriously hope folks wouldn't expect that here or from myself. That's something we build as a society, but we have to want to build it." "(The other posters) were after undermining the idea that of the two paths we should choose abolishing the police by trying to say that since we/I don't have it all figured out we/I shouldn't be working toward it rather than preserving police." So far GH has expressed a coherent position, and so far I've found what I thought I'd find: people aren't engaging with the idea of whether the police should be preserved or abolished, instead we're focusing on the consequences of abolishing the police. Dare I say, that's a way more comfortable question to ask oneself. Will there be consequences to abolishing the police? Yeah. Will some of those consequences be negative, or better yet, dangerous? Probably, yeah. If we can find enough negative consequences, can we avoid asking ourselves whether the police should be abolished? Absolutely. Falling comes back with the same ideas about how everything should be mapped out, and comes out in favor of reformation vs revolution: + Show Spoiler + "Well does actually matter what you are replacing it with. If you just pull down a corrupt system, with no good plan to replace, there's no guarantee that what you replace it will be anything other than chaos." "This is why reformation generally works better than revolution because you don't have to throw out what was working." GH reframes the argument in this fashion. Again, his position is coherent so far: + Show Spoiler + "I'm not thinking you're quite understanding what I'm talking about by your objections. You presumably want to reform the police, I want to abolish the police. Your camp (on this argument) has been 'working on this' for ~200 years and they suck. The choice isn't suck, or anarchy. The choice is keep trying to reform police, or work towards abolishing them instead. It's not as if I'm suggesting we just disband the police tomorrow with no idea what to do the day after. Acting as if it is makes it a lot easier to argue against, but it doesn't really provide any value or insight. " hunts then comes in to see if he gets it right (Narrator: he doesn't): + Show Spoiler + So let me see if I'm getting it right. GH wants to abolish the police, and in place have a group of volunteers to go around and uphold the law, who won't be the police? (Narrator: no, he didn't say that) Volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts and not for a paycheck want to go around arresting criminals, investigating crimes, and will do a better job than the police and be less corrupt, for free? If not, then please explain exactly what you're proposing GH. (Narrator: he already did) Conversation devolves from there as people start misrepresenting GH's position, and he reacts angrily. And when the conversation will be remembered, people will go like this: On April 09 2018 05:02 Excludos wrote: Let's not go through this again, please. Yes, the cops in the US is shit(ly trained). No, no amount of "Abolish with nothing to put in their place" is a good idea. Reform would work, because it has proven to work in literally the entire rest of the first world. Please let's not have 30 more pages of this shit. or like was done here: On February 14 2019 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Instead when asked to clarify, he rather just chant his slogan, constantly say that the other person has the wrong view on what his position was, without ever clarifying what his postion was. This is, quite simply, not what happened. I'd recommend continuing on to page 10069 (and I suppose 10068), which is about the only time GH ever committed to any concrete discussion on the topic. And unsurprisingly, he says "Realistically you could call what I'm advocating police reform too" and "You can call it reform (and technically it pretty much is)". And I'm not just cherry-picking a couple sentences, those are the ones he emphasized himself after getting pissy that people weren't reading him properly. So yeah, really he was just really, really bad at communicating his point. There were plenty of topics I would've liked to discuss properly with him, such as his claims that: - South Korea is a US vassal state - North Korea is better than the US (or less worse, what have you) - Lenin was better than Hillary and Trump But that's about as far as he ever got on any topic he liked to bring up, and political memes aren't really thought provoking. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9484 Posts
The discussion has gone well past the question of whether or not he should have been banned at this point surely. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12043 Posts
On February 14 2019 11:54 Aquanim wrote: I don't disagree with you that part of the reason GreenHorizons was disliked was that "he is forcing us to ask ourselves questions that we may not want to ask ourselves and he is forceful about it", and that a large part of what got him banned was "decorum" or some other similar concept. The only part of m4ini's characterization that wasn't more or less to do with "decorum" is the "conspiracy theorist" part, and as we established that wasn't just m4ini being annoyed at GreenHorizons' attitude; it was at the very least a defensible point. As such, from my point of view you perhaps owe m4ini an apology, depending on how badly you disagree with "smart-alecky", "self righteous" and "self-percieved moral high horse". + Show Spoiler + I'm not truly interested in arguing the toss on those - just calling m4ini's characterization unfair based on the conspiracy theorist point as you seemed to be doing did not sit well with me. You must know some pretty special flat earthers if it's at the same time correct that GH is forcing us to ask ourselves questions that we don't want to ask and fair to characterize him as one. ---//--- On February 14 2019 11:54 Aquanim wrote: A point you are neglecting is that this cuts both ways. GreenHorizons wasn't comfortable focusing on the question of "what happens when you actually abolish the police" either. By your logic doesn't that mean everybody else should be given credit for "forcing [him] to ask [himself] those questions"? edit: In other words, everybody has questions they don't want to ask themselves, and many people in the forum (not just GreenHorizons) push others into re-examining those questions. GreenHorizons is distinct in two ways: (a) the kind of questions he pushed people into, which happen to be similar to yours making them easier for you to identify, and (b) his manner when he did the pushing. The reason why GH isn't focusing on the question of the consequences isn't because he isn't comfortable doing that (unless you're arguing it is and he lied about why he didn't want to do that, in which case, I'm not sure how you know that). As such they aren't quite equivalent. I'm not even in a logic or credit or not so far, I don't know how you would calculate who gets credit or not. You can account for P6's vision of GH and he gets less credit, you can account for Christian's vision and he gets more. It's not really something I know how to parse. On February 14 2019 22:23 Dangermousecatdog wrote: "Abolish the police" is the best example due to sheer frequency. As can be seen from examples, he never actually had a position on what this meant other than that it's not him that defines what this means. In which case it is meaningless. And so he can go shit on people how xyz isn't his position. Well shit, GH, why don't you tell us? And then he'll go back to literally writing "abolish the police" slogannering starting the whole cycle again. See this is an example of an objectively terrible post that will never cause people to reconsider Dmcd in the same way a terrible (or perceived terrible) post by GH will be remembered. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
On February 14 2019 22:58 Plansix wrote: I think it is safe to say we all had different experiences with GH, each of which is equally valid and true. How ridiculously postmodernist of you. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The dreaded postmodernists that are destroying culture. Though how you ever obtain any understanding of another culture without accepting the subjectivity and value of different human experiences is beyond me. But then again, much of the internet Discourse around postmodernism is uninformed bullshit. I value people’s experiences, even if they don’t mirror my own. They don’t diminish my experiences, but I can respect that people hold different views of someone than I do. But that is unlikely to change my feeling in how that person treated me over the years. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36957 Posts
On February 14 2019 09:18 Aquanim wrote: Oh, no. You have to have a stance that the moderators define as a (particularly objectionable?) conspiracy theory. My opinion's got nothing to do with it. Holy shit... I wrote that post over a year ago... How the hell did you find it? Oo;; | ||
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
On February 15 2019 08:13 Seeker wrote: Holy shit... I wrote that post over a year ago... How the hell did you find it? Oo;; These people take this shit very seriously. The USPOL community on TL is like a community within a community. Kind of like a psych ward in the outskirts of a suburban city. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 15 2019 08:42 Jealous wrote: These people take this shit very seriously. The USPOL community on TL is like a community within a community. Kind of like a psych ward in the outskirts of a suburban city. Was this really called for? I did a site search earlier for GreenHorizons posts containing keywords likely to have come up in the relevant conversation, so that I could provide a link to it as a courtesy. Seeker's post happened to be the end of that conversation. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 15 2019 08:53 Aquanim wrote: Was this really called for? I did a site search earlier for GreenHorizons posts containing keywords likely to have come up in the relevant conversation, so that I could provide a link to it as a courtesy. Seeker's post happened to be the end of that conversation. the thread is sort of the crazy quarantine though. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
On February 15 2019 09:37 ticklishmusic wrote: the thread is sort of the crazy quarantine though. I object to that! Oooh look, butterflies! | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
compare the past with the present and if there's a change, you don't pull out the 'but, but ... the original sin!' mantra and how he needs to burn for it. i know that some of you arguing it, were in favor of rehabilitating fucking Breivik and that dude screwed up a whole country, for good; so yea, petty, mean and vindictive. the other thing is that GH figured out(albeit unconsciously imo) how to argue/talk to an illiberal, he figured out how to extract meaning out of them. step 1, trigger them; step 2, observe what triggered in them then trigger them some more. that is how you get meaning out of an illiberal else you get shit like + Show Spoiler +which is a whole lot of nothing about nothing and just wastes lives. about the: 'but i felt on the defensive the whole time and it made me uncomfortable and was unwarrantedly offending etcetcetc. come the fuck on, first off that's not a GH special but it's common with most/all 'conservative' posters and secondly, it's not personal; it can't be personal because it's about the argument. when two liberals argue, their goal is to walk off as friends, to be friendly afterwards(now i know you, you know me, lets live and let live, fuck the argument and its solutions). when two conservatives argue, their goal is to find a solution for the argument in question and that goes up to and includes hurting each others(physically or psychologically) to see who'll win. (note: i used liberal and conservative as placeholder for opposite states of being, biologically driven) | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: the creating of “illiberal” as a word is illuminating in so many unintended ways. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9132 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway7998 Posts
On February 16 2019 02:18 Sent. wrote: He didn't create the term, it's already popular in the context of European politics. First time I've heard of it | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
So what does "illiberal" mean in this case, as it certainly isn't a usage I am familiar with... ...a bit like calling everything you disagree with as "neolib", or "the left" or if you are the Kremlin, "fascist". The word exists, the usage does not. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7998 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9132 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Perhaps xM(Z turned himself an object of his own parody, a biologically driven argument; that he triggered himself into extracting meaning, revealing that he is a whole lot of nothing about nothing and just wastes lives. Truly a living performance artist. He lives his own art. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
EDit: I just noticed the line “opposite states, biologically driven” and now I’m thinking our boy functions on a frequency than the rest of us. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
Synonyms & Antonyms for illiberal Synonyms insular, Lilliputian, little, narrow, narrow-minded, parochial, petty, picayune, provincial, sectarian, small, small-minded Antonyms broad-minded, catholic, cosmopolitan, liberal, open, open-minded, receptive, tolerant liberal is something you do not something you call yourself. the rest is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the recording of data via the use of scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity. Observations can be qualitative, that is, only the absence or presence of a property is noted, or quantitative if a numerical value is attached to the observed phenomenon by counting or measuring. observe how people argue(stylistic) then realize it's not something one is taught. one can be taught to restrain it or to refrain from it but the belligerent drive is always there. it's true, honest, raw, unadulterated by culture. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10115 Posts
On February 16 2019 23:04 Plansix wrote: Well, the important thing is you found a way to feel good about yourself. Glad you got there. To be honest, that sounds like you are talking to yourself. But never stop being a dick. Happy birthday. | ||
|
CrymeaTerran
149 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On February 18 2019 19:44 Godwrath wrote: To be honest, that sounds like you are talking to yourself. But never stop being a dick. Happy birthday. Plansix is right to disparage xm)z who writes incomprehensibly garbled nonsense. It's time he learns running sentences through a thesaurus and pickung randon antonyms and synonyms isn't a good way to communicate, unless he really does want to call Plansix a "opposite of Catholic". | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10115 Posts
On February 18 2019 20:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Because it is Plansix writing garbled nonsense that makes no sense not xm(z? You have a weird sense of what constitutes being a dick. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 18 2019 21:15 Godwrath wrote: You have a weird sense of what constitutes being a dick. I don’t really waste my time on people who post in a dickish and dismissive manner. Especially one as incoherent as Xm(z. Im done playing “guess what this super passive aggressive poster is trying to say.” And thank you. I intend to have a happy birthday, even if I have to work today. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 15 2019 23:12 xM(Z wrote: dudes trying to justify GHs' ban based on passed deeds look mean, petty and vindictive. Aren't you supposed to judge a event/ ban based on past posting behavior? Or do mods look into the crystal ball and say, yeah, this guy is gonna make a bad post in the future we better ban him now? compare the past with the present and if there's a change, you don't pull out the 'but, but ... the original sin!' mantra and how he needs to burn for it. i know that some of you arguing it, were in favor of rehabilitating fucking Breivik and that dude screwed up a whole country, for good; so yea, petty, mean and vindictive. That's lumping a lot of people who have a beef with GH together. And frankly I have no idea who the hell you're referring to defending Breivik. I would hope no one is defending a mass murderer. the other thing is that GH figured out(albeit unconsciously imo) how to argue/talk to an illiberal, he figured out how to extract meaning out of them. step 1, trigger them; step 2, observe what triggered in them then trigger them some more. that is how you get meaning out of an illiberal else you get shit like + Show Spoiler + So I understand that you liked GH's contribution to the site and his style of discussion. But I don't think you got to experience his true contribution to the site as some of us did. about the: 'but i felt on the defensive the whole time and it made me uncomfortable and was unwarrantedly offending etcetcetc. come the fuck on, first off that's not a GH special but it's common with most/all 'conservative' posters and secondly, it's not personal; it can't be personal because it's about the argument. I don't think triggering and harassing people is really "figuring out how to argue/ talk" with people. It's called being an asshole. Maybe communicating in a very loose sense. And when someone's being an ass, they really shouldn't be pulling the "well why are you offended bro" card. when two liberals argue, their goal is to walk off as friends, to be friendly afterwards(now i know you, you know me, lets live and let live, fuck the argument and its solutions). when two conservatives argue, their goal is to find a solution for the argument in question and that goes up to and includes hurting each others(physically or psychologically) to see who'll win. (note: i used liberal and conservative as placeholder for opposite states of being, biologically driven) I got nothing here except that is a weird as hell framework. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On February 18 2019 21:15 Godwrath wrote: You have a weird sense of what constitutes being a dick. I didn't write anything on what constitutes being a dick. What I wrote was that Plansix is right to disparage xm)z. How exactly are you supposed to communicate with xm(z? Are you too a biologically driven argument; that you triggered yourself into extracting meaning, revealing that you is a whole lot of nothing about nothing and just wastes lives. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
i'm going to wrap up things in here with a note to ticklishmusic+ Show Spoiler + - there's distant past and immediate past; - people unable to pass over their first impressions of someone, or more inventive - people who forget to press F5 to refresh their deprecated brain pages. - the last bit alludes to the general systems theory applied to humans. its been gaining traction since late 19' early 20' and was/is used from research on human sexuality to questions of teleological or purposeful behavior, passing through (new)models for the study of human thought. anyway, long-story short - you pick a system, define its context then watch/study its entropy. visualizing this case, you had energy flowing from the warm body GH, to the cold body p6 by ways of triggers. p6 would then take the energy, feel all giddy inside, consume it then go cold again. when you ban all GHs you'll leave all p6s dead cold. + Show Spoiler + it's why the more hot-heads he gets banned the more empty he feels; there's a nice irony there. RIP | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
he is the kind of person i was talking about, unhappy with the ban because he liked GH being an asshole to people he disagreed with/didn't like. i think. there's a language/coherence/possible dimensional communication barrier going on here | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On February 18 2019 21:21 Acrofales wrote: Didn't take that long for this thread to become a bigger flaming turd than even USPol. And somewhere in heaven, GreenHorizons's TL account is smiling at this perfect homage to his time on the site. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16642 Posts
On February 14 2019 00:03 travis wrote: Ah, so now people are more bannable if they have a stance that someone (I guess aquanim or m4ini) defines as a "conspiracy theory". That is a very stupid stance. What's even stupider is that "conspiracy theorist" is used disparagingly. You'd have to be a goddamned idiot to believe there are no conspiracies in the world, it's not even an opinion it is a fact. Some of them were huge, that's also a fact. edit: I guess aquanim didn't necessarily imply a negative connotation to conspiracy theorist, unlike the other guy (but I would guess that is how he feels by his post) just to add to your point. All conspiracy is .. is communications for the purposes of committing a criminal act. It happens all the time. It is difficult to prove. When I was in high school I worked part time at a very disorganized and understaffed Shell Gas Station. The Gas station grossed $4.5 million a year in the areas three staff members ripped off. Two staff members and I conspired to shave 4% of all non-gasoline sales and 4% of all oil changes. It was a criminal conspiracy. We didn't get caught so it never gets reported as a "criminal conspiracy". When I was 16 I ripped off a Video-99 ( Blockbuster type store ) for really big money when I hacked their POS system and Inventory system. That was a solo job though. No communicating with others ... so no conspiracy. In Canada, it is estimated retailers are ripped off for $5 billion per year by employees. Many times the employees co-ordinate their efforts... in other words.. they conspire to rip off their employers. Most of the time its just for a few thousand dollars. The fact that its $5 billion per year in total tells you how rampant employee theft is and how big the #s are. There are hundreds of criminal conspiracies going on of various sizes. Understaffed, disorganized retail stores are vulnerable to their employees working together to rip the place off. | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16642 Posts
On February 26 2019 05:57 BigFan wrote: "Very smart"? How about low-life and scummy? I can't believe you're actually admitting to a crime even if anonymously and trying to normalize theft... meh, i'm not the same person i was 15+ years ago. also please note that wage theft is bigger... https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/analysis/2017/12/31/what-will-2018-bring-for-the-war-on-wage-theft.html and work place laws in Ontario are routinely flouted. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/07/27/workplace-violations-widespread-in-ontario-government-report-says.html The high minimum wage in Ontario has created a zero-regulation, no-rules, underground economy that is a libertarian's wet dream. I distinctly recall attempting to find a retail job where they always paid vacation pay, always paid overtime, and always insured you got a break after 5 hours. What I found was.. that place didn't exist unless it was unionized. And when you are 14 years old its tough to get into a union. So I got the whatever job i could get when i was 14. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16642 Posts
On February 26 2019 07:42 JimmiC wrote: This is JJR, the amount of jobs and criminal activity he has coped too is unbelievable, I know he has also been a "fence" I can't remember the others but he has sure lead an impressive life. He also knows and or is related to very many impressive people. not really. i started delivering flyers when i was 10... so did other kids in my public school. moved on to retail at 14. then i went to the university of waterloo and took co-op software engineering. the academic terms are 4 months. the full time work terms are 4 months. This requires 9 or 10 moves in 4 and 2/3s years. most students live in 3 or 4 different cities during that time. its the biggest engineering school in canada. So its not like this is some crazy. out-of-the-norm experience. From 18 to 22 I worked 6 four month work terms at 3 different companies. Just like everyone else in Waterloo's co-op engineering program does. I think CombatEx went to Waterloo shortly after i did.. but i don't think he was in the co-op program.... i think he took computer science in the math faculty. probably the reason why i didn't become very good at Starcraft during high school is that i always had some kind of part time job.. and in the summers a full time job. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16642 Posts
On February 26 2019 08:17 JimmiC wrote: Side note, I also had no idea you were such a ladies man. I don't even know how you have managed to fit everything in! If you read my posts carefully i think you'll find i had a very long brutal stretch of ZERO gfs during 4 of my years at Waterloo. Waterloo's co-op program is not exactly good for relationships or for meeting women because you are constantly moving. | ||
|
KelianQatar
303 Posts
On February 14 2019 00:03 travis wrote: Ah, so now people are more bannable if they have a stance that someone (I guess aquanim or m4ini) defines as a "conspiracy theory". That is a very stupid stance. What's even stupider is that "conspiracy theorist" is used disparagingly. You'd have to be a goddamned idiot to believe there are no conspiracies in the world, it's not even an opinion it is a fact. Some of them were huge, that's also a fact......... Conspiracy happens in all walks of life. I think people misuse the phrase "Conspiracy theory" to belittle concepts they don't want to or can't comprehend. It's what lazy people do when they don't want to think critically. Also, I don't find JJR's job history that difficult to believe, I've been working since I was 15 and most of the time I had 2 to 3 jobs at a time and went to school. I had about six jobs before I left high school. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16642 Posts
On February 26 2019 08:17 JimmiC wrote: Side note I also notice your first job was delivering flyers, working at burger king, and retail. You also held jobs at Kinko's a movie store (which you robbed hacker stylez) a gas station (which you also robbed) and this was all a pretty short little search. I wonder what other nuggets you have. With the amazing life you lead you should really start writing your life story, there is at least a few movies in there. here you go. On February 26 2019 08:43 KelianQatar wrote: Also, I don't find JJR's job history that difficult to believe, I've been working since I was 15 and most of the time I had 2 to 3 jobs at a time and went to school. I had about six jobs before I left high school. that is about the same for me. I started working retail at 14 though. in the summer i'd sometimes have more than 1 job. usually when i had more than 1 job.. they were part time jobs. during the school year i had 1 job. not everyone grew up with 2 parents. if your parent or parents are only willing to provide the basics then you probably have to get a job to buy the nice clothes you want and save up for the car you want. .. if you want to go to a big baseball game or big hockey game.. how do you pay for it ? your part time job money. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16642 Posts
On February 26 2019 09:23 JimmiC wrote: For all I know he has had 100. I just found it strange to have multiple first jobs. you have to read the qualifications in the language. So my first full time co-op job is different from my first flyer delivery route at age 10. Then my first REAL co-op job that paid good money (so i could quit my part time job completely and forever) is another thing. Then upon graduation from univesity i had my first full time permanent job. which is different from any previous "first job". lots of firsts with qualifications. On February 26 2019 09:23 JimmiC wrote: Welcome back, are you now unbanned for being an alt of JJR? she is not an alt though. On February 26 2019 09:23 JimmiC wrote: At any rate the number is one thing, the criminal activity is another as i posted earlier...$5 billion in employee theft of retailers indicates that thousands of retail employees are ripping off their employers. high school kids ripping off their retail employer is common. I have not worked retail in 12 years. | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
On February 26 2019 09:46 BigFan wrote: Guys, I'm glad you are getting acquainted, but let's get back on topic please. Thanks! Close it. | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
Close what? | ||
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
The topic. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7998 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9484 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On February 26 2019 18:14 Excludos wrote: I was going to suggest that earlier as well when the thread was at its "shittest", but I could imagine closing this thread would put some pressure on the mods for "censoring". Now that it's clearly run it's course tho, I think it might be a good idea to put it behind us. yep. If this got closed, no doubt someone will decide to chime in and claim that the mods are censoring stuff and such. I'd rather just let it run its course and have it fade with time. | ||
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
On February 27 2019 04:31 BigFan wrote: yep. If this got closed, no doubt someone will decide to chime in and claim that the mods are censoring stuff and such. I'd rather just let it run its course and have it fade with time. There's been 8 pages and people aren't even talking about the subject at hand, anyone claiming censorship can be readiily ignored. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9484 Posts
On February 27 2019 04:35 farvacola wrote: The people clamoring for thread closure can be ignored as well. Who cares if this thread stays open or not? Well the thread is all about a guy who was a forum user for years and now isn't here to defend himself. I'm not that arsed about it to be honest it just seems a bit off. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7998 Posts
On February 27 2019 04:35 farvacola wrote: The people clamoring for thread closure can be ignored as well. Who cares if this thread stays open or not? "As well"? Who else is being ignored here? Is this was we call "projecting"? | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
 | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On February 27 2019 05:54 Excludos wrote: "As well"? Who else is being ignored here? Is this was we call "projecting"? "as well" means "in addition" as a follow up to a previous phrase. It's only really used when the phrase could be said standalone, but you one to signify that it is in relation to a previous phrase. "The people clamoring for thread closure can be ignored." In this case, the people clamoring for thread closure can be ignored in addition to anyone claiming censorship can be ignored. He's not literally saying someone is being ignored as well as someone else who is being ignored. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
GreenHorizons was just temp banned for 30 days by KadaverBB. That account was created on 2011-04-16 10:56:04 and had 15287 posts. Reason: Reduced ban length after quite a lengthy discussion. He lives! | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9484 Posts
This pleases me. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12043 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10637 Posts
| ||
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
| ||
|
KadaverBB
Germany25656 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 09 2019 00:41 ticklishmusic wrote: i'm sure i'll miss him up till his first post back. possibly the second or third, anything past that may result in pleasant surprise. We can always hope for surprises. But I expect to be treated like shit, just like always. | ||
|
KadaverBB
Germany25656 Posts
On March 09 2019 03:19 Jealous wrote: When you unban a permabanned user you only make them stronger. I thought you guys would know this by now. We will use the sword of a thousand truths if we have to. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On March 08 2019 23:27 KadaverBB wrote: You guys are hard to please Different people have different opinions Except mods. They are all one monolithic group. | ||
| ||
