A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[NineOneFour]

I'll take it back if you can show ONE person banned permanently from Ratskep specifically for not being happy with their moderation.

Go for it.

Got a list of everybody banned? And can you tell me that the reason they were banned wasn't at least partially because they didn't like the moderation style? And said so? The staff over there is a bit power-mad IMNSHO.

Proof?

Nice.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Got a list of everybody banned? And can you tell me that the reason they were banned wasn't at least partially because they didn't like the moderation style? And said so? The staff over there is a bit power-mad IMNSHO.

Yes, here it is :

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... t2022.html

And considering you boasted here about how you were going to go over to Ratskep and troll until you got banned, and you only managed to get two warnings before you got bored and fucked off I'm not sure how you can say everyone is power mad. You specifically tried to troll your way to a ban and didn't manage it.

You missed a lot of PMs, I take it? I was guaranteed I'd be banned if I stayed, so my point was proven.

Well yes, but as i remember the reason you were getting so many PM's is that you had stated you were intent on trolling your way to a ban and people were trying to talk you out of it instead of just banning you.

I must have missed those.

Of course, if you had decided to stay and continue your deliberate and self admitted trolling the only alternative would have been to ban you. Some people were a bit worried that you had gone a bit mental actually and genuinely gave a shit.

The hysterical thing is that we have a case of pre-emptive modding here. I didn't troll over there, I just posted a controversial opinion and watched things go exactly as I predicted.

I also find it interesting that the staff over there patrols this forum for potential problems. And then assumes that they are actually problems. THAT's why I have a problem with the staff over there.

[NineOneFour]

I'll take it back if you can show ONE person banned permanently from Ratskep specifically for not being happy with their moderation.

Go for it.

Got a list of everybody banned? And can you tell me that the reason they were banned wasn't at least partially because they didn't like the moderation style? And said so? The staff over there is a bit power-mad IMNSHO.

Proof?

Empirical. They gave me a hard time for even suggesting that philosophy was a fucking waste of time. Sacred topic, mustn't even suggest it.

Wow, that's what you're up in arms about?

Damn, dude.

Sad.

[NineOneFour]

Got a list of everybody banned? And can you tell me that the reason they were banned wasn't at least partially because they didn't like the moderation style? And said so? The staff over there is a bit power-mad IMNSHO.

Yes, here it is :

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... t2022.html

And considering you boasted here about how you were going to go over to Ratskep and troll until you got banned, and you only managed to get two warnings before you got bored and fucked off I'm not sure how you can say everyone is power mad. You specifically tried to troll your way to a ban and didn't manage it.

PWNED

[Durro]

Is it not reasonable for a discussion forum to say that it would rather not have racism, vilification of groups, personal attacks, trolling and the like in it ? If they are your things, then there's plenty of fora around where you can indulge those preferences.

But as for the moderation at Ratskep, we go to some lengths to be fair and impartial. Shall we take a look at some of the people moaning about us here at the moment though ? Gawdzilla boasted here on Ratz how he was going to deliberately troll over at Ratskep and now bitches that he was given a couple of warnings for trolling - he's not banned however. Lamont Cranston throws jabs at us, but I believe he hasn't owned up here to the real reason he was banned from Ratskep. Gallstones claims that we're intent on banning her when she hasn't received a single formal warning and/or suspension and has been allowed to make multiple drama queen threads criticising the moderators.

Furthermore, as to GS's accusations that we were unfair on Seth, we dismissed many dozens of reports about him and defended his rights over a period of months despite howls of protest from dozens of forum members. A number of "controversial members" are all still members (some have received warnings and suspensions for their posting behaviour though), so can I ask, just how can you really categorise the Ratskep mods as intolerant and unfair ? Really ?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'll take it back if you can show ONE person banned permanently from Ratskep specifically for not being happy with their moderation.

Go for it.

Got a list of everybody banned? And can you tell me that the reason they were banned wasn't at least partially because they didn't like the moderation style? And said so? The staff over there is a bit power-mad IMNSHO.

Proof?

Empirical. They gave me a hard time for even suggesting that philosophy was a fucking waste of time. Sacred topic, mustn't even suggest it.

Wow, that's what you're up in arms about?

Damn, dude.

Sad.

The mods shouldn't be playing favorites, and they were. Impartiality is important. To me, at least. Others may have different opinions.

[NineOneFour]

Got a list of everybody banned? And can you tell me that the reason they were banned wasn't at least partially because they didn't like the moderation style? And said so? The staff over there is a bit power-mad IMNSHO.

Yes, here it is :

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... t2022.html

And considering you boasted here about how you were going to go over to Ratskep and troll until you got banned, and you only managed to get two warnings before you got bored and fucked off I'm not sure how you can say everyone is power mad. You specifically tried to troll your way to a ban and didn't manage it.

You missed a lot of PMs, I take it? I was guaranteed I'd be banned if I stayed, so my point was proven.

Well yes, but as i remember the reason you were getting so many PM's is that you had stated you were intent on trolling your way to a ban and people were trying to talk you out of it instead of just banning you.

I must have missed those.

Of course, if you had decided to stay and continue your deliberate and self admitted trolling the only alternative would have been to ban you. Some people were a bit worried that you had gone a bit mental actually and genuinely gave a shit.

The hysterical thing is that we have a case of pre-emptive modding here. I didn't troll over there, I just posted a controversial opinion and watched things go exactly as I predicted.

I also find it interesting that the staff over there patrols this forum for potential problems. And then assumes that they are actually problems. THAT's why I have a problem with the staff over there.

I'd say you have a problem with the staff over there because they didn't kowtow to you when you wanted them to.

[pErvinalia]

As I said earlier, there's no point debating with people who hold those views. There is no rational basis for holding views like that, so presenting them with a rational argument isn't likely to hold much sway over them. Some people are just fuckheads, and there's not much any of us can do about it.

In that case all Creationists should be banned from posting, because there is no rational basis for their views, which would mean that we would never again be treated to one of Cali's epic arsehole-tearing nuclear posts destroying the likes of Robert Byers ever again. Of course Byers is never going to learn, of course he will put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la", but people in the gallery like me will read and learn - I like to see bullshit ripped apart, I like to see conspiracy theories and nasty, baseless crap demolished word by vile word.

Yes, in a way all creationists should be banned. But as you say, there is something quite special about watching one get thoroughly demolished. But I think in reality at RS that creationists are welcome, as long as they don't preach. The problem is, that to be a creationist, your only option in an intellectual debate is to preach given that no evidence can be provided. I don't actually spend a lot of time in the theist forums, so I can't comment very authoritatively on what goes on there. But anytime I do pop in, there certainly seems to be some leeway given to the regulars to abuse the more troll-like religionists. I think given our focus on atheism, that it's probably considered acceptable to rubbish religious delusion.

So it's okay for Creationists to spout crap as long as they "don't preach". In that case why can't a Nazi spout crap about Jews as long as he doesn't try to recruit? You may say that the Nazi's views are more odious, but then you are on shaky ground, because there is no definite "scale of odiousness" - if anything, I would say that the Nazi is less dangerous because individually and as a society we are educated and possibly intrinsically lean towards moral repugnance when it comes to Nazi ideology, but Creationism is accorded a level of tolerance, and often respect, by society at large even though it is dangerously anti-science and truth.

Well, as I said, creationists DO preach, as that is about all they can do. Hence, they generally aren't tolerated for much more than the good chewy toys that they are. I don't know if one exists (although I'm sure there must be some out there), but if a creationist was to turn up and was generally curious about atheism and evolution, and was willing to listen with an open-mind, then yes they would be tolerated. Same as if a Nazi was to turn up and be genuine about broadening their horizons.

[pErvinalia]

To differentiate between the two is irrational, especially on a forum with "Rational" in its name.

Unless it's "Rational" in name only.

What's your beef? I seem to remember you getting on fine over there.

[Durro]

Got a list of everybody banned?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... t2022.html

It doesn't include spammers.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To differentiate between the two is irrational, especially on a forum with "Rational" in its name.

Unless it's "Rational" in name only.

What's your beef? I seem to remember you getting on fine over there.

[Trolldor]

If I could present my ideas in a friendly way that makes them palatable to someone who disagrees with me and causing them to reevaluate their own position, but instead choose to be an abrasive prick; then I'm fucking trolling.

No. I'm a troll if I post specifically to illicit reaction, and not because I have any philosophical opposition to you, but because I like to illicit reaction.

A troll isn't someone who is offensive, it is someone who is calculatingly offensive.

[Robert_S]

What a proper troll will do is to present a point of view in a tone that is calculated to elicit an emotional response from another user, causing them to get angry and make a personal attack, insults, or some other breech the rules and possibly get a warning or suspension.

If I could present my ideas in a friendly way that makes them palatable to someone who disagrees with me and causing them to reevaluate their own position, but instead choose to be an abrasive prick; then I'm fucking trolling.

That is a beautiful description of trolling ... I may frame it! Thank you!

And now, back to our regular programming...

Thank you,

I got those ideas from some pdf I got on a discordian site some years ago. Experience has shown that wisdom to be sound.

One other thing I do remember is that it said that that you aren't shit as a troll unless you've caused at least one change in a community's rules.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If I could present my ideas in a friendly way that makes them palatable to someone who disagrees with me and causing them to reevaluate their own position, but instead choose to be an abrasive prick; then I'm fucking trolling.

No. I'm a troll if I post specifically to illicit reaction, and not because I have any philosophical opposition to you, but because I like to illicit reaction.

A troll isn't someone who is offensive, it is someone who is calculatingly offensive.

is why I don't post over there any more. At RatSkep a troll is someone posts something you don't like. You can't have a discussion without seeing it invoked.

[pErvinalia]

rEv, like I said before, I don't post at RatSkep much, do you think the majority of the members there are satisfied/happy with its moderation?

Yes.

They get banned if they aren't

FFS. As I intimated earlier - there's an exceedingly short list of people banned. Get a grip people.