ILP rules and the permaban of Lys?

The point of the OP though, was that lyssa wasn’t bring in here satyr’s insults, just his ideas, and carleas has stated that he has no issue with satyr’s ideas being presented.

So it’s more like the dog’s friend is bringing over a lot of dog fur and it’s geting stuck all over the furniture and people’s clothes and stuff. The head janitor said he has no issue with pet fur, though. Just piss.

Frankly, who gives a shit about those two.

As far as those who bow down to Satyr and Lyssa, let them go to Know thyself and bathe in the delights and appreciation that will be given them.

Kiss, kiss to both of you.

an afterthought with regard to Satyr….

Beyond a certain point, very insistent presentations of one’s opinions reflect badly on that person, they make that person look inflexible, self-congratulatory, and opinionated.

I am saddened and surprised that the administrator of this forum has responded to my OP with an allegory about dog piss.
I guess it goes to show the extent of his intellectual, and philosophical, sophistication.

The ILP/KT war is not what interests me. What interests me is the unjust banning of another forum member. Once again:

  • in your first quote in my OP, you mention that Satyr was not banned because of his ideas, but because of his way of engaging other members, and that Satyr, the human behind the mask is banned.
  • but then, in the second quote, you claim that posting the thoughts (ideas) of a banned member is a warnable offense. If it is not a person’s thoughts/ideas that gets them banned in the first place, then this second rule does not make sense coupled together with the first one.

Precisely. But let’s be honest, everybody in this building leaves their fur all over the place. In fact, this building (forum) is precisely a place for fur (ideas), is it not?
Carleas, I would appreciate if you at least had the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit that the reason you support the banning of Lys, is because of the ideas that are being promoted by her.
In other words, that you are not the all-inclusive forum that you pretend to be, and that not all fur (ideas) is welcome here, but only certain kinds of it.

ILP is scum to KT, why do they care to come over here?

There’s plenty of places they can preach racism to.

AoC,

Lower your expectations of the people who inhabit these forums.

Little integrity to be found.

You’re giving them too much credit.

Firstly, they can’t address the ideas on any level that shows they understand them or that they can rationalize whatever they think they have that challenges them. So it’s more a defensive phenomenon than any sort of intelligent, thought-out maneuver. This is not a new thing either, years ago Satyr’s thread the Feminization of Man was locked on here and his account renamed to something retarded, mostly to prevent newcomers searching his posts. They won’t change and you can’t convince them to change. These people are not salvageable, so take what you can from them and move on.
Secondly, there isn’t an ILP-KT “war”, this would imply that there is something to fight about, or some sort of conflicting interest. ILP is about socializing, not philosophy, so there is nothing to bring conflict, other than the attempt of Lys to inject actual philosophy into the ruminating and fart-sniffing at the water hole… an effort which does promote conflict, of ideas and values and perceptions of reality, and so it must be removed to protect and conserve what has been maintained here.
The most KT members do, here, is try to attract the like-minded who are mislead by this forum’s name. This forum is a resource because it is indeed like a well-traveled public square, shitSmeared with piss and skidmarks, dotted with fetid puddles where the pavement is cracked and crumbling, but occasionally allowing the odd interesting encounter with a fellow traveler who, like yourself, takes advantage of the public space without making it his home nor wanting to become too comfortable.

Make friends with who you can and if they respond, invite them to a more suitable venue. But don’t invest yourself too much in what you can’t fix.

Moderator: Carleas, there is unrest among the people. They are saying you you have acted unjustly by banishing the Satyr from the kingdom. You must reconsider, my lord.

Carleas: You are advising that I should let it back in? You understand this would be very dangerous. [thinks] Okay, but under one condition. The people will be given what they want, but the creature must be contained. We will keep it in the arena and force it to defend itself in battle. This should appease the people. Do you have a fighter who can do this?

Moderator: Yes, my lord, there are rumors of a man… a shadowy, mysterious man who walks among us, though we know not where. The legend has it that he is a mercenary and assassin. He is called Zoot Allures. I will seek him out and give him your proposition.

Moderator: Zoot Allures, Carleas has asked me to contact you and make a proposal. There is a Satyr that has been bansished from the kingdom. The people are restless and feel his decision was unjust. To appease the people, Carleas had agreed to let the creature back in, on the condition that it be contained in the arena and forced to fight. We need a fighter to do battle with this creature. Please, Zoot Allures, you must help us.

Zoot Allures: I will help you. Inform the people of Carleas’s decision. I will need some time before I am ready…

Sandra: Zoot, my love, you must be careful! They say the creature will create 74,000 word posts of unintelligable nonsense, and then visciously attack you when you refute its arguments.

Zoot: Sandra my dear, what would I do without you? You must trust me, Sandra, and know that I can handle this. The beast is clumsy, obscure, inconsistent, and contradicting with its words. I know how and where to strike the beast. With surgical precision I will defeat it. Worry not, my love.

Zoot: Hear me Carleas! I am ready. The time is now! Open the gates!!

But this is just to refuse to understand the full set of relevant events that can lead to a moderator action. You’re looking at one member and one event. The action was taken in consideration of years of history and thousands of events, multiple accounts whose conduct is relevant, and specific warnings made to this specific poster with regards to her future conduct in consideration of that history.

So to reiterate:

Satyr cannot post here (I will take as a given that his permanent banning is just; I don’t take you to be disagreeing with that). His direct participation in this forum is prevented, both by the code (his account is banned) and by the law (new accounts are banned when it is discovered that they are Satyr sock-puppets).

The question presented by Lys is not “can users bring Satyr’s ideas to ILP”. I will reaffirm that Satyr can be cited, quoted, discussed, applauded, etc. Jar his pee, show it around, have a ball. That’s not what Lys was doing. Lys was spamming multiple topics with substantial quotes from Satyr and nothing else. Lys’ conduct was simply spamming, it was deserving of a warning without reference to who’s text she was dumping on threads unannotated. The fact that she was spamming with the words of a user who cannot post here directly – that she was effectively abetting Satyr’s indirect participation in ILP (i.e. “acting as [his] agent”) – serves to amplify what is already a disruptive behavior in its own right.

This is a problem for law and justice in practice generally. Not only must the law be just, it must appear just, and at times the reality and the appearance of justice are irreconcilable.

In trying to keep the building piss-free, we look like we’re just shouting at dogs. Thus is the War of Dog Piss.

Well so much for that. Hey, either one of you know where I can get a beer around here?

I remember Satyr being on NietzscheForum… he was very quiet and polite, Lys was never around. I suppose its because I know there is a couch potato, non-confrontational side to him that allows me to tolerate his presence. I dont like him, made it clear, but can tolerate the spud, he is a real fucked up potato.

This being said… at a certain point, were going to have to admit thus is CarleasTown, and Carleas has certain says, and his prejudice is the ultimate arbitrator. This is hardly the first time we’ve urged Detente, but Carleas rules.

On the one hand, its a philosophy forum, and freedom of speech is dear and should be held at a maximum expressibility, especially as this is a pan philosophy forum… Clashes are expected when literally any two philosophies are presented.

On the flip side, Satyr is incredibly fucked up and I wouldn’t trust him to babysit a gold fish… I’ve never seen what a goldfish with sexually induced PTSD looks like, and desire never to know. People are attracted to him for the perve factor, and the egoism. As far as actual philosophy goes, he blows at it, and is rather simple to grasp. Does he really have much to contribute? In terms of quality posts, no. You can tell looking at his site.

This being said, even while acknowledging Satyr is a fucked up piece of shit, and likely is under investigation by CSIS for all sorts of disturbing crap (I infer this from his posts and what I’ve been PMed, no hard evidence yet) and Carleas is most wise, as a DC Lawyer type, to want to stay clear of him… every time someone mentions Satyr or his ideas on this site it can understandably trigger a desire in Satyr to respond. That’s not Satyr circumnavigating the rules, that just being a human being… you naturally eavesdrop on people talking about you.

Imagine you were Zizek, and a Austrian Economics journal did a cover story on you. Obviously a clash of bias and self interest, but is it wrong for Zizek to have the impulse to write a counter message to the magazine? No… its understandable. Gets you fired up.

So we have to ask ourselves, while the near general consensus is Satyr should stay, is Satyr a good enough human being to deserve to even post here, and talk to us? Not really, he is a piece of shit, and this forum is Carleas personal charge (he pays for it). Its not how I would do things, but we gotta recognize Carleas as a different person than me or you, and he has a attachment to this site fundamentally different than anyone else here.

If you needed a baby sitter, and Satyr showed up from some Agency, would you honestly leave a child alone with him? I think most of you would say no. He is pure shock value. He is the freakshow. He has remarkably little to say of value, and just wrong. Its opinion, but I think widespread.

Were gonna have to work out some sort if compromise if people here keeps discussing his ideas while banning him. That is just wrong. But we all know Satyr earned his bannings, its not a question of guilt, but of clemency and flexibility… and meeting half way by both sides.

I think in the future, Carleas might change his mind. Why? Time, change of tactics on both sides. Perhaps court order counseling. Satyr might grow out of doing certain things. Like I said, I’ve seen him calm and boring on another site. He has it in him to adapt.

I still urge Carleas to show clemency to him, even if not today.

I do not agree that Satyr’s permanent banning is just, BUT, I can see how, from YOUR point of view you might think it is just so it is pointless to try and convince you otherwise, especially since Satyr doesn’t seem to be all that interested in posting at ILP other than exposing idiots, which he can do at KT undisturbed, by simply linking to ILP. But compared to the likes of you and Satyr, I am a relatively new member here, so I have no idea what happened here some 5 or 10 years ago.

But just to make it clear, no, I am not here to argue that Satyr should be unbanned or whether his banning is just (would be a pointless argument as I said). I only take for granted that he is banned, but not that his ideas are.

From what I see of Lys’s posts, she wasn’t spamming. She mostly posted in the rant house in 2 threads (as far as I know, one can post as much as they want in rant, especially in their own threads), and posted a post or two in about 5 non-rant threads, in 2 days. That is far from spamming, that is normal and average posting. You want to know what’s spamming?

Spamming is when people like LaughingMan manage to rack up over a thousand posts in 1-3 months. The guy hasn’t posted for 7 months now and still has more posts per day than Lys, and he joined after.
Or look what HatingMeIsEasier has done to Science subforum, countless threads about nothing and bullshit that barely deserves Rant House, and yet it was allowed in Science of all places. The guy claimed he had cured cancer and will achieve immortality with numbers, and most of his posts consist of basic fucking arithmetics.
Or mr reasonable, who has 6.5 posts per day and 20,000 posts overall, how many of them are philosophy? Only a few, highlighted by Lys in this post: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=188004&p=2544847#p2544954
So the few posts that guy contributed that ARE philosophy, are nothing but copy-pasted texts from other philosophers. Yet it was allowed, he made entire threads of it, and NOT in rant, mind you. As for the rest of his 20,000 posts, he mostly spammed the offtopic section with his inane daily routines, letting us know what he ate, how much weed he smoked, or how many crackwhores he exploited and convinced to have sex with him.

Now THAT is disturbing.

So compared to all those people who were allowed to post here without being banned, now I am supposed to believe that Lys, who joined here the same month and same year that I did (January, 2014) yet has only 700 posts and 1.6 posts per day, compared to my 2000, is the one spamming when numbers say that there are plenty of other posters here, including MagsJ the moderator and myself, who would much more easily qualify for a spammer than her?

Carleas, either you are innocently ignorant of this (indeed, to the extent that ignorance can be innocent), or you are intentionally ignoring it. There are plenty of other users here who ‘spam’, according to your standards of what it means. Did iambiguous not make entire threads where he just quotes famous personas and says a line or two, or merely links to a song and/or lyrics and adds nothing else? And you know what, I personally am fine with it, sometimes I even had fun reading it.

So what, does Lys need to quote Satyr and then write “yeah” or “I agree with that” below, to make it look less ‘spammish’ and add something of her own? That’s silly. If Lys and Satyr have the same positions, and she thinks Satyr expressed them in an adequate manner, why should she waste time adding anything?

Turd, I had some respect for you when I first saw you post here. The more I read you, the more you sound like an ordinary turd.

EDIT: Carleas,

Doesn’t Lys always include in quotations who the author of the text is? I mean, she quotes alot, yes, but sometimes she even quotes herself, but I don’t see that as spammy or banworthy itself, just her posting style. It is the same at KT, I don’t perceive any ill intent at all in that regard.

Can you find me one instance of her quoting a text and not somehow referring whose text she is posting? I didn’t manage to find it, myself.

Hardly. He’s a father who has split custody of a son (I think), owns a house in which he and his mother live, and works a few days a week. He isn’t Hannibal the cannibal or a horned goat man with a perpetual boner that participates in cult orgies on Friday nights. All that is one part forum persona, one part your own paranoia.

I’ve known Satyr for over ten years. He’s a good dude. The best quality about him is his ability to antagonize and probe people… something that has a kind of dark Socratic quality to it. But in general I don’t like what he is pushing… and he grossly misunderstands me, which I find very insulting.

There is also some personal business between him and I that dates back many years; I felt like he was interfering with my business in a malicious, provoking way… specifically a relationship I had with another forum member. That’s not important though. My beef with the Satyr is a matter of chivalry and principle. No matter what happens between us, there will always be that history looming in the background, destroying any lasting peace there may be between us.

I demand of it a full surrender, or by the gods I shall strike the beast down if ever I find it lurking outside of its dark forest swamp.

So be it!

Since she has recently been denied a voice of her own, she has asked me to post her response to this:

knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1754 … rums#47710

Carleas says:

Posting ideas of a banned user: allowed.
Spamming: Not allowed.

I follow so far.

How does an action that is allowed amplify a disruptive behavior? Are you saying that an allowed action is disruptive, or did you miscategorize posting ideas of a banned user as ‘allowed’, when it’s really all about NOT allowing Satyr’s ideas to be seen, as I suspect it is?

And yet, as I pointed out, Lys is one of the last people here you could call a spammer.

[size=150]In conclusion: An action that is allowed somehow amplifies the severity of a ‘crime’ she is accused of, that she did not commit but yet suffers the consequences of.[/size]

When one party is insisting on behaving in such a manner, which is totally unacceptable to the second party, no matter who is right or wrong, it is better to part ways. Both can blow their own trumpets. That is fine but do not force the other party to listen.

If either party wants that other party should listen its music, it should play some thing melodious or at least non-objectionable to the ears to the other party.

Let the conversation begins. Do not force the issue immediately that far so that aggrieved party starts taking all past into consideration.

The problem is that everyone has its own definition of right and wrong. Unless all concerned parties do not agree on some minimum common definition, they cannot be together.

With love,
Sanjay

zinnat, I agree with that. I realize this is not my forum, and that Carleas calls the shots here.

What I am pointing out here is what I perceive as a double standard - that some ideas aren’t allowed here, and that some users espousing those ideas get banned for reasons X claimed to be unrelated to their ideas, but the problem is then that many other users are guilty of X, but do not get banned.

I either want to convince Carleas not to use a double standard, or have him at least sincerely admit that he uses it and that’s just the way it is on ILP, in which case I would be thankful to him for at least being honest and bringing an end to this discussion, and I would leave.

Change,

I did not pay attention previously but after I made my post.

Look carefully at the post of Lys which you quoted in your post, its tone and voculabury. That was precisely the issue with Satyr here at ILP and some other forums also. You cannot expect a compromise after that.

It is not fair to expect fairness after intentionally doing what is not fair, or not considered fair, at least.

By the way, I can bet that Lys did not write that post. Those words came right from Satyr.

And also, how many posts having such language find place at KYT, in which Satyr happens to be the target?

With love,
Sanjay

I don’t think you do follow. There’s a difference between an idea and it’s expression. When I talk about emergent minds, I’m often relaying ideas from Douglas Hofstadter, but I’m rarely quoting him directly. And I’m never taking words that Hoffstadter has written for the purpose of posting here and posting them here on his behalf.

Let’s look at it this way: when a user is banned, what is it that they cannot do? They can’t post on this site. They can’t contribute to or respond to conversations happening here. Put simply, they can’t write something up and post it here.

Look at a couple bright-line hypotheticals. Assume User A is banned.

  • User A creates a new account, A Ruse, in order to post on ILP. Obviously, A Ruse should be banned as well, or else banning is meaningless.
  • Now User A asks A Friend to post for him. User A peruses the forums, sees a discussion he’d like to wade into, so he writes something up, sends it to A Friend, and A Friend posts it. The post is exactly the kind of think User A is prevented from doing, so A Friend is functionally serving the same role as A Ruse was. Again, unless A Friend is prevented from doing that, the ban is meaningless.

Admittedly, Lys’ situation is less a bright line scenario. On the one hand, it’s not clear that the quotes Lys was posting were custom tailored to reply to the thread where she was posting them. On the other hand, it’s quite clear that they aren’t merely the ideas of Satyr: they’re his words without annotation – as distinct from citation: she credits Satyr, but she merely dumps his text without connecting it to the topic at hand (“I agree with that” isn’t what I’m talking about: how does Satyr’s general screed about topic X relate to this specific conversation about topic X?). Like all applications of the law, it’s line drawing. Lys crossed it, and while she can argue the line she crossed wasn’t bright enough, she can’t say she didn’t know she was pushing it.

Arbiter, consider this your warning for posting on Lyssa’s behalf. You are doing the very-clearly-over-the-bright-line thing we’re talking about here. Lyssa is banned. She may not participate on ILP, and if you act as her proxy, you will be treated as her sock puppet.

Did she ever get a warning, like “don’t make posts that are just a quote and nothing else”, before getting banned?
As antagonistic as she can be, she is making posts about philosophy, and that is always a good thing… isn’t it?
However the whole spamming problem isn’t so much about making off topic posts, as it is just copy and pasting walls of text without any words of your own, just because it is really easy to completely flood a discussion board with that sort of post. Someone can write a script to string 5000 characters from a text file onto an entry field and post it and then just let it iterate, and render the entire forum useless in about as long as it takes me to get up and grab a coffee. I mean, they. That’s if there’s no flooding protection. If there is, let the loop sleep for 30 seconds at each iteration, and go to lunch. Sure, modspolizei will ban the account before there’s a chance of real damage, but you get the point.
That is not to say that this is what she is doing. She is selecting little morsels of thought here and there and quoting with references and whatnot, which is a nice effort, but the effect is the same as spamming/flooding because whoa-there-nigga-I-aint-reading-all-that-shit. Discussions end up getting buried and then they die.
Anyway, so philosophy, good, yes, but if we’re just going to be reading stuff, we may as well grab a book, or do our own research. This is a discussion forum though, it’s for discussion. You’re suppose to write up some of your words, supplement it with ideas from someone else if you want, then have conversations about it. So nice to e-sit with your little e-friends over a cup of e-coffee and share some e-thoughts.
So if this was a democracy I’d vote for lyssa to come back, if I voted at all. But give her a little smack in the bottom and say original content only. Should be easy enough to understand.

Yo Arb, be a sport and deliver this to the cockroach over at KT, will ya?

(Carleas, sorry man… but this asshole has got me boiling again)

You poor idiot. You were already old news half way into our relationship. The last time I saw Natalie she was almost in tears because we were saying goodbye to each other, you stupid piece of shit. When she came back to the apartment one last time to get the camera she had forgotten, both of us were on the verge of stopping the whole thing and trying to start over. The last thing on her mind was anything you ever said.

We broke up because we couldn’t get along. Your dumbass had nothing to do with this. It was your bullshit brainwashing that acted as a catalyst for Natalie’s developing sense of anger toward me… an anger toward me for other reasons… not anything a cockroach like you ever said. Sending her nude pictures of yourself in emails… you wanted her so bad, didn’t you you slimy fuck. Well, I would tell you how wonderful she was in bed, and how bright her personality was when we got along, but that is our business.

And where is Natalie now? She didn’t stick around KT too long, did she? I saw that coming three years prior, and told her one day she would discover what a piece of shit you really are.

The fact is, I could have made that relationship work if I wanted; she was as committed to me as she could be. We almost got married, but the clerk of court wouldn’t let us. I fucked our relationship up, not you. I was not fit for a relationship… I had my own problems and frustrations, I was impatient, I felt trapped, overwhelmed by probation, none of which had anything to do with what you’ve ever said about me, to her.

Natalie has a son now, and I couldn’t be happier for her. Tell your buddies at KT whatever you want, and then go fuck yourself.

Wow, thousands of events?.. So surely there must be at least some small accounting and record keeping of said infractions? Could you at the very least, in the interest of justice, provide just come evidence of crimes committed (links to threads/posts) so that everyone can see for themselves ? You know, so things “appear” fair? Or is this case-building all very hush hush, behind the scenes? You being the “fair” judge and jury all in one. If you have already collected the evidence it shouldn’t be very time consuming to share your findings.

So what you’re trying to say is that Lys’s quoting of Satyr constituted spamming because she only included quotes in her posts? So are you saying that replying to a topic with only quotes from an author is itself spamming even IF the quotes directly relate to whatever questions or concerns are related to the original poster of the thread? Or are you saying that Lys’s posts of only quotes are completely unrelated to the thread topic…in which case, you really should prove that if you want to maintain any legitimacy as an administrator, no?