Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Seth]

IMHO, Mr. Samsa is the one who has been truly wronged by the moderation at RatSkep. That someone like Scot Dutchy remains to shit on every thread he posts in while Samsa is essentially driven away with the flimsiest of baseless accusations is a travesty.

Who cares? You've got to be an idiot to remain there anyway. Anyone with an iota of intelligence would simply run, not walk away from that shithole. The only reason I'd go back is if I were a hacker and could wipe the site out completely and make sure it never comes back.

[Strontium Dog]

Strontium Dog is easily the most disruptive member in the history of Rat Skep as his posting history shows.

If this is the case, I don't even know what "disruptive" is supposed to mean. Unless it's to hold a minority opinion and express it in a clear, cogent and rational manner - in which case, guilty as charged.

For me "disruption" has to be more than the mere presentation of a viewpoint that a small number of very vocal hypocritical people dislike. There has to be an intent to provoke. I do not believe that "no smoke without fire" is a principle that belongs anywhere near a forum for rational discourse.

I'd love to hear some examples of what you consider to be "disruptive" posts. I could do with a laugh.

[Mr.Samsa]

Say what? Try reading that again, carefully. They banned people for being supportive of the mods and because some other fuckwit gets angry and can't control his or her temper they banned the other guy?

Holy fuck, those people, all of them, are simply too fucking stupid to be permitted to even touch a keyboard. Sheesh.

I'm not sure if you're misreading my posts or you're using my posts to make a tangential point and what I say isn't relevant to your claims. The people I was talking about weren't banned (for being supportive of the mods or otherwise), I just said that they were the ones that took up most of the mod discussion on who was being disruptive to the site and who might need to be banned (i.e. those people I named). I don't get what you mean by the "other guy" - who's the other guy in this situation?

I obviously had no role in the banning of people after my time so I don't know what was going on there. I'm not sure if any real members were permabanned in my time there, except maybe Tyrannical.

IMHO, Mr. Samsa is the one who has been truly wronged by the moderation at RatSkep. That someone like Scot Dutchy remains to shit on every thread he posts in while Samsa is essentially driven away with the flimsiest of baseless accusations is a travesty.

Cheers Scott.

[Seth]

Say what? Try reading that again, carefully. They banned people for being supportive of the mods and because some other fuckwit gets angry and can't control his or her temper they banned the other guy?

Holy fuck, those people, all of them, are simply too fucking stupid to be permitted to even touch a keyboard. Sheesh.

I'm not sure if you're misreading my posts or you're using my posts to make a tangential point and what I say isn't relevant to your claims. The people I was talking about weren't banned (for being supportive of the mods or otherwise), I just said that they were the ones that took up most of the mod discussion on who was being disruptive to the site and who might need to be banned (i.e. those people I named). I don't get what you mean by the "other guy" - who's the other guy in this situation?

Evidently I did misunderstand, I think.

First you said:

You're attributing more power to me than I ever had. The issue of SD being a troll never came up as far as I remember among the mods, the main discussions of possible trolls that might need to be banned mostly revolved around Scot dutchy, cito, and the people that mostly hung around the feedback section who are just there causing trouble like that Ed guy.

I took it that when you said "the main discussions of possible trolls that might need to be banned mostly revolved around Scot dutchy, cito, and the people that mostly hung around the feedback section who are just there causing trouble like that Ed guy" that this meant that a number of people in the feedback section who were "just there causing trouble" by posting opinions that mods had to deal with but didn't want to deal with were being discussed by the mods as "possible trolls."

Then you said, in response to me:

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, most of those people were supportive of the mods- they got on our radar by constantly supporting us in ways that resulted in trolling other users. And obviously cito's posts just never make any sense so nobody knows if he's trying to make a point, supporting or attacking mods, or in the middle of a mental breakdown.

In conjunction with the statement preceding this one, I took that to mean, when you said, "they got on our radar by constantly supporting us in ways that resulted in trolling other user" that this meant that they (being those who were causing trouble in the feedback section were being sanctioned and or banned for doing something that was considered trolling other members, which is an FUA violation over there, seemingly because they were "supportive" of the mods.

That's how I took it anyway. Sorry if that was a misunderstanding.

[surreptitious57]

The only reason I would go back is if I were a hacker and could wipe the site out completely and make sure it never comes back

Why do you think that it is so much more powerful than you and what should you be doing to be more in control

The thing you usually do to be in control has zero effect so how long before you work out what the answer is

If you hate it so much why do you spend so much time here debating with either past or present members

And instead simply refuse to have anything at all to do with anyone that has ever been a member there

If you wanted to shut it down permanently you would have to kill its members not just hack the site

Because they would simply regroup and from another site which is actually how it came into being

[Mr.Samsa]

Evidently I did misunderstand, I think.

First you said:

You're attributing more power to me than I ever had. The issue of SD being a troll never came up as far as I remember among the mods, the main discussions of possible trolls that might need to be banned mostly revolved around Scot dutchy, cito, and the people that mostly hung around the feedback section who are just there causing trouble like that Ed guy.

I took it that when you said "the main discussions of possible trolls that might need to be banned mostly revolved around Scot dutchy, cito, and the people that mostly hung around the feedback section who are just there causing trouble like that Ed guy" that this meant that a number of people in the feedback section who were "just there causing trouble" by posting opinions that mods had to deal with but didn't want to deal with were being discussed by the mods as "possible trolls."

I'm a little confused as to what's happening here now, but my point there was just that they were the kinds of people who hung out in the feedback section, not that them posting in the feedback section and being annoying was the reason for the discussion of possible bannings.

It would be the kind of people who'd pepper and troll members in the wider forum, and when those members raised an issue in the feedback section (e.g. asking why they got a warning), these people would pile on, tell them to stop whining and just accept the mod judgement, etc etc, and the whole behavior just affected how the site ran - from the initial conversations getting derailed to members not being able to raise concerns with the mods without getting derailed into hearing about how a lot of people don't like them.

Then you said, in response to me:

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, most of those people were supportive of the mods- they got on our radar by constantly supporting us in ways that resulted in trolling other users. And obviously cito's posts just never make any sense so nobody knows if he's trying to make a point, supporting or attacking mods, or in the middle of a mental breakdown.

In conjunction with the statement preceding this one, I took that to mean, when you said, "they got on our radar by constantly supporting us in ways that resulted in trolling other user" that this meant that they (being those who were causing trouble in the feedback section were being sanctioned and or banned for doing something that was considered trolling other members, which is an FUA violation over there, seemingly because they were "supportive" of the mods.

That's how I took it anyway. Sorry if that was a misunderstanding.

What you're saying seems to be on the right track but it's not that they were supporting the mods, but the way in which they chose to "support" the mods ended up being just blatant trolling. Like with Strontium, he'd raise a complaint in the feedback forum and then we'd have 20 pages of discussion about whether he lied about where he lived 2 years ago, because the members were digging through his history and bringing up past complaints just to "support" the mods' decision to warn him on a current issue or whatever.

[surreptitious57]

I would love to hear some examples of what you consider to be disruptive posts

You are no longer a member over there and I have no desire to carry this on over here but as you asked I shall oblige

Denying the racism of Liverpool fans on twitter just because you support them also though you claim to be anti racist
Justifying the routine punching of women in the face when they get too mouthy to show them that men are in charge
Persistently claiming you have never been wrong in your entire life then calling people who disagree with you fascists

Just for the record however I absolutely defend the right of anyone to say what ever they want no matter how much I might disagree with it
or how offensive it may be. So while I do not support any of the above statements of yours I would not censor you for saying them. Although
having said that you are to me about as offensive as ice cream on a summer day. Then if that is your intention well you are failing miserably

You have less need for it here anyway for you are not on your own so to speak for there are a few others who also hate us lefties with an all
consuming energy. So if you want moral support Seth will be only too happy to provide it. He is also one of the best debaters on the net and
if you want to up your game you can do no better than learn from him

[Seth]

The only reason I would go back is if I were a hacker and could wipe the site out completely and make sure it never comes back

Why do you think that it is so much more powerful than you and what should you be doing to be more in control

The thing you usually do to be in control has zero effect so how long before you work out what the answer is

If you hate it so much why do you spend so much time here debating with either past or present members

No one here is in any way related to anyone there. Everyone here is a sterling member whom I hold in the highest esteem.

And instead simply refuse to have anything at all to do with anyone that has ever been a member there

If you wanted to shut it down permanently you would have to kill its members not just hack the site

Because they would simply regroup and from another site which is actually how it came into being

Anything I might be able to do to annoy those fuckwits would be a pleasure. They deserve to be annoyed because they are fuckwits.

[Strontium Dog]

Denying the racism of Liverpool fans on twitter just because you support them also though you claim to be anti racist

I'm sorry, I have no idea what this refers to. I do not believe I have ever denied racism in my life, nor would something like football affiliation make any difference to anything.

Justifying the routine punching of women in the face when they get too mouthy to show them that men are in charge

Ditto this. It doesn't resemble anything I've expressed in my life.

Persistently claiming you have never been wrong in your entire life then calling people who disagree with you fascists

I didn't call other members fascists, so I fail to see how this is disruptive. True, I called some politicians who believe in jailing people for victimless crimes fascists. But on a forum where actual libellous statements are permitted against politicians, this seems to be small fry in the scheme of things, don't you think?

You surely must have better examples of disruptive behaviour than two invented scenarios and one that is apropos of nothing.

[Seth]

Evidently I did misunderstand, I think.

First you said:

You're attributing more power to me than I ever had. The issue of SD being a troll never came up as far as I remember among the mods, the main discussions of possible trolls that might need to be banned mostly revolved around Scot dutchy, cito, and the people that mostly hung around the feedback section who are just there causing trouble like that Ed guy.

I took it that when you said "the main discussions of possible trolls that might need to be banned mostly revolved around Scot dutchy, cito, and the people that mostly hung around the feedback section who are just there causing trouble like that Ed guy" that this meant that a number of people in the feedback section who were "just there causing trouble" by posting opinions that mods had to deal with but didn't want to deal with were being discussed by the mods as "possible trolls."

I'm a little confused as to what's happening here now, but my point there was just that they were the kinds of people who hung out in the feedback section, not that them posting in the feedback section and being annoying was the reason for the discussion of possible bannings.

It would be the kind of people who'd pepper and troll members in the wider forum, and when those members raised an issue in the feedback section (e.g. asking why they got a warning), these people would pile on, tell them to stop whining and just accept the mod judgement, etc etc, and the whole behavior just affected how the site ran - from the initial conversations getting derailed to members not being able to raise concerns with the mods without getting derailed into hearing about how a lot of people don't like them.

Ah, interesting dynamic there. So, some trollbait halfwit in the wider forum can't control him/herself or his/her typing fingers and eyes and becomes offended, reports someone for "trolling" and then when the mods don't hammer the "offender" adequately the trollbait halfwit then complains in the feedback section that the penalty should have been harsher, at which point people who are offended by the trollbait halfwit's fuckwitted interference with someone else's free speech chime in and tell the trollbait halfwit to fuck off because the mods have acted and it's THOSE people who are causing trouble? I'd ban the halfwitted trollbait fuckwits in a heartbeat rather than those who rise to the defense of anyone sanctioned at RatSkep because it's simply a fact of life that if you've been sanctioned or permabanned there it's because you are a free-thinker who does not pander to the halfwitted fuckwits who infest the joint and who speak truth to authority (and everybody else) and fuck the intolerant asshats who can't exercise index finger control and scroll past something they find annoying.

Then you said, in response to me:

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, most of those people were supportive of the mods- they got on our radar by constantly supporting us in ways that resulted in trolling other users. And obviously cito's posts just never make any sense so nobody knows if he's trying to make a point, supporting or attacking mods, or in the middle of a mental breakdown.

In conjunction with the statement preceding this one, I took that to mean, when you said, "they got on our radar by constantly supporting us in ways that resulted in trolling other user" that this meant that they (being those who were causing trouble in the feedback section were being sanctioned and or banned for doing something that was considered trolling other members, which is an FUA violation over there, seemingly because they were "supportive" of the mods.

That's how I took it anyway. Sorry if that was a misunderstanding.

What you're saying seems to be on the right track but it's not that they were supporting the mods, but the way in which they chose to "support" the mods ended up being just blatant trolling. Like with Strontium, he'd raise a complaint in the feedback forum and then we'd have 20 pages of discussion about whether he lied about where he lived 2 years ago, because the members were digging through his history and bringing up past complaints just to "support" the mods' decision to warn him on a current issue or whatever.

What a bunch of fuckwitted crybabies. Now that you've made it clear, yes, those fuckwits should have been permabanned, not SD.

[Seth]

I would love to hear some examples of what you consider to be disruptive posts

You are no longer a member over there and I have no desire to carry this on over here but as you asked I shall oblige

Denying the racism of Liverpool fans on twitter just because you support them also though you claim to be anti racist

Huh? Expressing an opinion is enough to get banned?

Justifying the routine punching of women in the face when they get too mouthy to show them that men are in charge

"Justifying" it or merely discussing it by playing the devil's advocate. There are after all legions of men (and women) who feel that's the right way to shut a mouthy bitch up...and some of them are in the UK, among other places.

Persistently claiming you have never been wrong in your entire life then calling people who disagree with you fascists

I would think it's not just "disagree with" that's involved. I imagine it's all sorts of complaints and mod actions by fuckwits who cannot understand sarcasm.

You have less need for it here anyway for you are not on your own so to speak for there are a few others who also hate us lefties with an all
consuming energy. So if you want moral support Seth will be only too happy to provide it. He is also one of the best debaters on the net and
if you want to up your game you can do no better than learn from him

Why thank you, that's very kind of you.

[surreptitious57]

You surely must have better examples of disruptive behaviour than two invented scenarios and one that is apropos of nothing

I said I have no desire to go through this with you here for you are no longer a member over there so I will leave it at that
If you wish to discuss your posting history do it with someone who is actually interested in it if you can find anyone who is
So many topics that you could discuss other than what you wrote at the other place in the last five years so think of some

[JimC]

Denying the racism of Liverpool fans on twitter just because you support them also though you claim to be anti racist

I'm sorry, I have no idea what this refers to. I do not believe I have ever denied racism in my life, nor would something like football affiliation make any difference to anything.

Justifying the routine punching of women in the face when they get too mouthy to show them that men are in charge

Ditto this. It doesn't resemble anything I've expressed in my life.

Persistently claiming you have never been wrong in your entire life then calling people who disagree with you fascists

I didn't call other members fascists, so I fail to see how this is disruptive. True, I called some politicians who believe in jailing people for victimless crimes fascists. But on a forum where actual libellous statements are permitted against politicians, this seems to be small fry in the scheme of things, don't you think?

You surely must have better examples of disruptive behaviour than two invented scenarios and one that is apropos of nothing.

I'm not familiar with your posting at Ratskep, but your posts here have not been anything like surreptitious has alleged. Unless you are Dr Jeckel here, and Mr Hyde over there...

[Seth]

I'm not familiar with your posting at Ratskep, but your posts here have not been anything like surreptitious has alleged. Unless you are Dr Jeckel here, and Mr Hyde over there...

Well, I think the point is that "Jekyll and Hyde" in this case is an entirely a subjective matter that depends on the political bent of the associated groups.

[surreptitious57]

Why thank you that is very kind of you

You may be right wing and libertarian and want all of us lefties put up against a wall and shot but I can still admire someones reason and logic
even if I do not agree with it. Furthermore your output here has been significant in terms of both quantity and quality as you always generally
answer posts with as much detail as possible. And that is something which you should be commended for regardless of any thing else. I myself
like debating those with diametrically opposite views to mine since it is the only way I can develop intellectually. So it does not matter to me
how much you hate lefties as long as you can provide good counter arguments. I may not agree with them but for me that is largely irrelevant
as long as I can see some validity in them. And agreeing or disagreeing from an emotional perspective is something that I keep to an minimum
and favour a more logical perspective instead. I am also more interested in the opinions of those whose views are diametrically opposite mine
any way rather than in having my own rigid world view. This I put down to being more an observer than a participant which enables me to see
all points of view and allowing my own to be as flexible as possible. Because for me at my old age [ I am fifty one ] it is as much if not moreso
about listening to others to see how they think rather than how I think