Only Humean needs a 1 Week Cool Off Period from Mod Duties

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190277&start=275

He just banned a forum member for rejecting another’s philosophy rather tamely, and is randomly attacking others in this silly thread. The thread is like Seinfeld, it us a thread about nothing, classical rhetorical positioning. They used to offer prizes in the classical Olympics for this stuff… you can’t express logic without rhetoric, but you can make rhetorical compositions lacking any purposeful direction. There is a place for this within philosophy, just I don’t think Only Human is aware of it… he is in attack mode, for some bezerk reason.

Thread should be moved to sandbox or debates, and everyone threatened with warnings or actually banned need to have that sillyness undone… what little respect moderators have was undone by one moderator warning another in that thread, Only Humean could of acted matured and bowed out, realizing everyone was “up to something” even if he couldn’t quite figure it out.

Yes, Satyr is back, leading his clique. There will be a lot more arguments, it will get rough at times. It isn’t anything new to philosophy, at least we aren’t buying one another like in classical times. We can live with scary words like “Fuck”, for fucking crying out loud.

Only Humean… I’m asking you to voluntarily turn your moderating powers aside for one week to the other moderators. Go for a long walk… whatever you.need to do to relax… the site is going to get much louder and more tense, you have some opinionated factions about, and literally nobody gives a flying fuck about your outlook regarding ettiquette. It is immoral for debaters to change their style when directly debating one another for the sake of a third party, such as yourself, if it isn’t aligned with their best methods and instincts. If there is a bell curve for moderation, you’ve just fallen off it.

Basically, what he is saying is, Only Humean, you should fuck off!

TF wrote:

Agree. It was ludicrous to ban Hahaha.

As far as the site becoming louder and more tense, do you think so? The goat man is just looking for a way to get a hard on, as nothing is happening over at KT, except the usual nodding heads in agreement and eventually :sleeping-blue:.

Dark rivers run deep…and though the meek seek tumult, it is beneath their feet
They cannot see, or feel, the real,
unless it is slapping them to undress, in distress

Every calm soul needs a bit of change
once in a while
to smile at fools, and their guile

The dullard is bored when gathering is subtle
When no idiots gather
When staying silent, means you have nothing to add, not that you’re sad

A man who finds what he needs in himself
Can sit and watch others jumping and fucking, and mocking
like animals in the wild, for a while

But of the one who peeks in the keyhole and then laughs at what she could not understand, when returning to her
grandstand-ing, among her own finding what she feels in others but cannot share in

What of the one who is so bored she must pretend to be entertained, so as to not be seen as miserable, as void, as lacking what she cannot hold

Trixie and HaHaHa two of the most prolific posters here are both currently suspended. And very often when I log on there is either only me or one other poster [ although this does not include posters who may be hiding their online status ] And I think there are probably fewer posters than ever before. So I do not know where all this loudness you speak of is going to be coming from since a very sparse philosophy forum that discusses relatively little philosophy is not going to be attracting many new active members now is it ? I know you do not approve of Satyr but in my opinion he makes the place rather more interesting than it would
otherwise be. In fact were it not for the sheer diversity of opinion among the very small numbers of regulars I would probably not bother coming here any more

The post HaHaHa was warned for wasn’t on that page. The whole thread was on a warning. It’s now locked and moved to Rant, OP’s been permabanned where he belongs.

Prolific doesn’t equate to valuable, in my eyes.

Your request has been noted and respectfully declined.

why was trixie banned?


Says she was banned for saying women are good at building houses

Listen… permmabanning Satyr isn’t going to work. He just gets angrier, makes more sock puppet user names over on KTS, and recruits the silly to hit this place up, then systematically hits this place up. Your trying to suppress a cross-boarder guerilla war who is quite determined.

Just let Satyr do what he needs to do to get the shit out of his system… it’s a few months tops before the users on the site adjust. He got absolutely nowhere with me… backfired if anything, a person who is a moderate debater can handle him.

Trixie is expressing a rather generic sexist opinion of women in the gay community (well, the male side of it). It was a pointless thread, but it isn’t any more pointless than say, Shield Maiden’s Anti-American stance, or Smears’ Anti-Poor & Sober stance, or Carleas Anti-American stances, or the Anti-Men stances of feminists, or whatever the fucking hell satyr is doing with the gay cross dressing Hannibal Lecter stuff he always pushes.

Part of being tolerant philosophically isn’t merely asserting no bias, but being willing to here them out and hold dialogue… and often that dialogue is going to be one of revulsion or attraction, or taking it foolheartedly by others. This is natural, it always was that way. How do I know? I had a Dago stepfather who didn’t know shit cept cameras… completely uncultured, a true caveman… but he and his ban of merry men knew how to communicate on this level.

Your not purifying philosophy… all logic, pure mathematics, etc… is still pure rhetoric, it’s communication. A phone hooked into a computer us rhetoric, looking at a painting is rhetoric, thinking and dreaming… your merely sorting shit out on a very poorly declared basis, basis being your own prejudice and bias.

Your better off just reestablishing that silly old subforum on logic, and guarding it. Provide some example threads for what you want, and provide another subsection where people are able to talk freely up front… and no, talking freely doesn’t mean go to off topic, mundane babble. I should be able to call Zizek a cock sucker and give a pretty damn good defence for it. There are alot of good reasons to suspect this of him, and challenge the legitimacy of the philosophy of a needlessly closeted homosexual in this day of age. Why does he have to hide this, what else is he hiding, can we really trust his ideas?

The premise is absurd and emotionally driven… but the thread is conflict driven… the actual thesis isn’t Zizek or homosexuality… that is pure emotion and bias based on a decisive persona… the point of the thread is can you accept a person’s philosophy based off their public biography and respected sense of self, or does one have to dig deeper like a reporter (or do what Derrida did), or if ideas can be accepted on the basis of ideas alone, without regard to the individual.

It leads to larger inclusions in debates, a more vibrant dynamic and higher rates of user viewership. I essentially ask stock philosophy questions in such threads… I fully expect some people (the usual suspects, Kropotkin, Zinnati, You, etc) to get upset because I didn’t bow down to liberal ideological demands in how to form the question… but it is a fantastic sacrifice to make… I get much higher rates of inclusion, and more consider it. It becomes not merely the philosophy of dry academics, but a philosophy that even your average fucking abusive cavedwelling Dago can grasp.

Trixie is compulsively driven to dinegrate women. He is a transexual… he didn’t invent this trend. He was trying for the above. Nobody protested you moving his (or my response thread) away because it… was silly and responded to, by me.

You can counter 90% of forum issues, including Satyr, merely by being a philosopher… if you don’t like what they say, stay incentive and challenge them. I think this was Moreno’s main complain about me… I never hit somebody the way he expects, but comes at them sideways from a completely unexpected position.

I do this because I keep it loose and open, float like a butterfly and sting like a bee… but I can only do that because I appreciate logic and rhetoric, how it relates to dialectics… you gotta have a pretty damn good understanding of psychology and how logic unfolds to consistently do this, while playing to the expectations of a predictable persona. I apply philosophy, and apply it differently to other users. For some,I get under their skin, others, merely point out their contradictions and encourage them, others I just play games as that’s all they are here to do.

I do this for everyone, from the administrator down… but I’m consistent in my approach if you look at the groups I engadge.

You accomplished absolutely nothing… and I do mean nothing, by banning Satyr. We know from past experience banning him doesn’t work. Let him come back, we can slap the silly fuck around some more. Romans feared the elephants in the first few battles in which they faced them, but soon learned to get out of the way and hit them from the sides. Fairly simple creatures to take down. Satyr projects a lot of depth, but is really a rather shallow character… quick in the response, but shallow. He is simple to take down. Had you let him stay, the average user would of been man handling him by the fall, making a mockery of him. Now… he gets to act the martyr, hiding out in his masturbation cave, drawling the impressionable in.

You did absolutely nothing to win Trixie over. Absolutely nothing. No change in behavior, now you have his resentment. Absoluteky nothing will change, other than he now can justifiably call you a dick.

Same with Joker… again… your futile attempts to forceably amend his behavior has failed. Yeah… maybe he will change his lifestyle and outlook and embrace your pathetic shitheaded outlook on life Only Humean… no… he too can point to you being a miserable fuckhead who unfairly persecuted him over something absurdly minor.

You no longer have no rules to point to, as your a failed administrator who long ago made a mockery of all the rules. You can’t really expect moderator solidarity because you even attacked a moderator in that thread over nothing. This site had a bad habit back when Pavlov was still around to randomly ban and attack people, and the only thing moderators could do was point to moderator reinforcement of one another’s absurd actions… you can’t even expect this degenerate form of defence for your bans (which is offensive and authoritarian as fuck on a philosophy forum) because your moving in the direction of banning fellow moderators.

Really, do you think Carleas coming in saying he fully supports your actions is going to change shit? Everyone thinks your a piece of shit… perhaps you can cue support from a few other pieces of shit on thus forum I’ve angered over the years (cue Kropotkin or IAmbigous) but nobody really accepts you or your behavior anymore.

You gotta change. You’ve been skiing the slippery slope for too damn long, it has become the new normal for you. You confuse “What is philosophy” with “What do you like”.

How about we just rename that section “Shit Only Humean Wants To Talk About” and we can lump the rest of the site as “For Everyone Else?”.

I know for certain I will never change who I am, or my approach to anything, ever, do to your actions. I know Trixie won’t, Satyr won’t, Joker won’t… many more will refuse. Yet you do this silly pointless absurd shit, and drag your shreds of authority even further down the drain.

You go around randomly attacking people who aren’t even engaged in a discussion with you. You are a fucking menace, a enemy of philosophy and free thinking, and of all the people here, you are the one who needs banned. You can sit at home and ponder if banning actually does jack in changing of mollifying thought patterns, or if you remain who you are. If you remain the same, and remain philosophically inclined… then I would love to hear your unadulterated, honest ideas. This is the best kind of philosophy. I don’t need some third party doing butcher work to a discussion they aren’t even participating in. Such people should be locked up in prisons, as sadistic enemies of democracy and the first amendment.

Bring Satyr back, the hurt has only begun for him.

The answer to this question is always that the user earned sufficient warnings to justify a ban. Banning is tied to how many times a user is warned.

Trixie has three warnings for these three posts:
viewtopic.php?f=10&p=2576988#p2576988
viewtopic.php?f=7&p=2588321#p2588321
viewtopic.php?f=2&p=2610017#p2610017

I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine the length of the ban based on the number of warnings (hint: it’s in the Forum Philosophy).

No it isn’t, I’ve been a member long enough to know it is based purely of how big of a asshole the moderator is being.

Tour rules are meaningless at this point, they haven’t been systematically applied, and if they were, the site would collapse from everyone being banned.

Knock the silly shit dodging off and bring him back.

And no, warning or banning me here, or suddenly in another ban on something seemingly unrelated won’t change shit. Your system is still fucked up, and nobody is buying it anymore. Just do the right thing, by bringing them back. You did the crime, but they shouldn’t have to do the time. This is completely on you two.

Everyone knew who Satyr was when he first appeared, why was he allowed to continue? What… the moderators were the only ones ignorant of this fact. There seems to be a serious lack of consistency here. Satyr uses insults designed to divert others from actually questioning his thoughts, I don’t find his stuff offensive, just repetitious. I do think some ownership from the author of a thread should be encouraged upon a philosophy forum rather than an ‘almighty’ moderator making such decisions all of the time. Posts should allowed to be moved by a moderator if in their opinion they are in the wrong place, but unnecessary censoring can also indicate that the person is fearful of the opposition. A good moderator is someone who doesn’t need or want to do too much controlling, a style similar to an informal ‘super’.
It is a fine balance to achieve the satisfaction of both poster and moderator, too much tampering and the butterflies’ wings are damaged and if it gets out of kilter this is what happens.

Turd…I have an anti-poor and anti-sober stance?

Warned? Please state for public record what I was banned for. :laughing:

Thanks for the kind words and compliments Mr. Turd. :icon-redface:

c.f. my post above. Bans are commensurate with warnings. You have 4 warnings, so upon receiving your most recent warning, you were given a 1 week ban.

And here are experts from the string of posts that earned you your 4th warning:

What I said was relatively mild in comparison to what other members say everyday.

You supposedly support ‘free speech’ here but if it doesn’t meet your terms we all better go on the defensive and watch out I guess. This place is free speech in name only…

World forbid that somebody gets insulted or offended somehow, what a travesty! It’s unthinkable!

Maybe your definition of mild is different to mine. Unfortunately, I moderate to the latter, not the former.

The Philosophy board has a sticky post at the top, “Philosophy Forum Rules”, in which acceptable language is explicitly defined. So clearly your speech is not entirely free when posting on that board, and it would be patently false to claim otherwise.

It’s so nice you can reduce and limit human life, experience, or interaction in such small tightly controlled parameters. As for me I cannot and don’t.

If you feel your life and experience so limited by moderation, it’s an odd choice to sign up for and contribute to moderated forums.