Question about returns

83 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa
Question about returns

We all understand that this place has made the decision to ban people due to behaviour in the past. There have been at times requests for people to be reinstated and many of those have been denied. They were for long-time posters. When they did come back they used the same identity.

Now we have a situation where a person - not here a long time -  who was banned previously for extremely bad behaviour and attacks is back under a new name. This person has now admitted that he is the banned poster back again.

I am not against forgiveness and most are not here but there are some policy questions.

First, if a person is banned, why can they be allowed back under another name? Shouldn't they be required to keep the same identity so that they do not go through the process of having everyone see them as new when they are not? I did not think that a person could change their identity without permission. Why should a person who was banned? If they are not allowed back under their old identity why are they allowed to be back under a new one? How can they be allowed to come here and put up a new introduction pretending to be new when they are not? When a person who was banned is back and on the attack why are people here not allowed to know their identityso people can know if they want to engage the person or do so slowly and cautiously? Doesn't that give an advantage that is undeserved? The rest of us are using our old identities known to him he gets a new one?

Second, when a person comes here we give latitude for a new person while they learn about this place. That is fair. Some start roughly while getting to learn the basic rules here. How come a person who was banned for bad behaviour in the past can come here and not be under some probation or strict conditions that they not repeat? How do we have a month of a person attacking people and irritating the board, derailing many threads and driving people off threads to avoid him and then find out that this is his second time around? Even the Feminism forum got derailed by this guy and he ended up deleting his posts there. Now we find out it was not his first time?

Third, don't the people who post here deserve some consideration as well as the person who earned a banning -- for abusing the other posters here? When people like this come to the board their effect is that others who try to engage them end up giving up and staying away - like a temporary self-ban until the person is gone or decides to stop blowing up threads. Allowing them to come back has implications if their behaviour is the same. So a person here has to decide to take a vacation now if they want to avoid a disruptive person who they have already waited out in the past. How good for the board is that?

Is it common for banned people to be allowed back under new names?

I really do not mind forgiveness by the community or letting any of the banned people back. We have talked amnesty here. But the conditions ought to be that they do not repeat and that they keep the same identity rather than be allowed to engage as if they are a brand new person. Life does allow you to make amends and ask forgiveness but you don't get to come back with a new identity to face the people you abused in the past.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Good questions, Sean.

In the interim, does anybody remember the term "plonk" from the old days? Might be useful in the interim.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Life does allow you to make amends and ask forgiveness but you don't get to come back with a new identity to face the people you abused in the past.

Good point. So tell me, please, who you're talking about. 

NorthReport

Oh come on now it’s so easy to figure out

voice of the damned

I think I've proposed this before, but I'll do it again, since I think it would be an easy solution to the problem....

Have a clear, consistently enforced four-strikes policy for bannings. IOW, you get three chances to eff up, with a public warning and explanation given each time, and then you're banned on the fourth. It doesn't matter if you're just a well-intentioned newbie who's just finding his way around; if you can't figure out how this place works after three warnings, you probably shouldn't be posting here.

Now, yes, the banned poster can obviously come back under a new name, but the point is, he's not gonna be able to get a whole lot of offensive barbs in under a four-strikes policy. Well, I suppose if he's a troll, he could just keep posting four offensive things each time, get banned, and then come back and go through the whole rigamarole of pretending to be an okay guy before launching his next round of trollings, but I don't think most trolls would be interested in doing that, since their aim tends to be long-term, ongoing disruption.

 

voice of the damned

NorthReport wrote:

Oh come on now it’s so easy to figure out

Montogmery, aka Monty1 in his earlier incarnation.

Unionist

Thanks, VOTD. I guess I don't remember the earlier incarnation. But I'll be transparent in saying that I've complained to the mods about this individual's nasty personal insults. 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Thanks, VOTD. I guess I don't remember the earlier incarnation. But I'll be transparent in saying that I've complained to the mods about this individual's nasty personal insults. 

Please see my post 4 here -- and rest of thread to see the previous shitstorm.

http://rabble.ca/babble/babble-banter/babble-banter-which-requires-moder...

His banning came later  -- I stopped posting for a month so did not stay around for the rest of the period but he continued harassing people until the board finally stepped in.

Now he is back -- without any change in style.

Misfit Misfit's picture

What is plonk 

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

What is plonk 

My mother was from the UK so the first answer is crappy wine. Like baby duck... you remember that wine?

Urban dictionary says that it is the sound of shit hitting the water in a toilet.

I am afraid I don't remember which if either of these definitons was used here but I doubt the first one. Sorry cannot remember...

Sean in Ottawa

By the way here are some of Monty1 or Montgomery's greatest hits from more than three days ago. I have not added anything since as there is no point. Monty will continue until everyone is gone or the board gets fed up and puts a stop to this. these includes condescending remarks as well as attacks. It is a good sample of the tone he is bringing here.

He also has emphasized that he is new here until called directly on the lie.

 

To Kropotkin:
"Wrong Kropotkin! How surprisingly establishment of you to say such a thing! LOL Gee Kropotkin, isn't it a little late in life for you to start learning about how politics trumps justice? You think our justice system is much better than the Scotus or somethin?" "You've nailed it bang on Kropotkin, as I expected you could, but didn't hold out any confidence you 'would'."
"Or if it doesn't interest you then just go back to pulling the wings off of your houseflies."
"Your point is out of context, uninformed, and most likely and attempt to mislead on the issue of Nato."
"Kropotkin, I'm going to end this bickering with you on your petty issues, in the interest of taking away your opportunity to accuse me of being the one who is responsible for the disruptions on this board. If you have anything further to say, make it via p.m."
"That's not an answer."
"It's just your cheap and tawdry politics again."
"you can't accept that I'm more left than you. "
"Oh, and kropotkin, how about coming back to the discussion on 'socially responsible capitalism', which you ran away from?"
"get a grip kropotkin, before you get into leading the 'ban the Liberal' team mode. My ideology represents the future of the party more than your does these days."
"That is, considering you don't have any ideas of your own you want to share with me. ... Nobody is expected to have all the answers. Rather, I suggested that you don't have any answers. And yes, you should take a break from this topic until you are prepared to provide some explanations of what you envision as 'socialism'!"

To TimeBandit:
"It ain't. And this should be no different. At least unless you're a Conservative."
"Read what I said more carefully. TimeBandit did and came out in defense of the Scotus. So I guess I was wrong about everybody. Doooohhhhhhhh!"

Aristotle24
"You didn't react in an appropriate way. "

To WWWTT:
"Your imagination is working overtime."
"I wonder if WWWTT is able to separate the wheat from the chaff? I'm abit appalled at learning that some oldtime solid NDP'ers are lagging behind the curve on international politics. But rather than trying to exclude their voices we must try to bring them up to speed."
"Aren't you just so good at making enemies of everybody you don't think are as NDP as you! "

To NDPP:
"Can you expand on that statement with something of substance? Preferably on this topic?" "Yeah, I know that you're always good with the criticism" "None of you oldtimers on this board seem to have any appreciation for the power the US wields over our country and the Canadian people.  

To Unionist:
"When are you two going to stop pouting about having a newcomer who 'gets it' on the issues as much as you? Probably more on foreign affairs and international politics, but maybe a bit less on the domestic shit."

To cco:
"Well thanks for addressing the issue, or more correctly skirting it. That's speculative thinking out loud at best"

To Paladin
"Wrong Paladin! You didn't state your case correctly."
"How timid you've become!"
"Now I'm wondering if you could put your finger on Turkey on a map?"
"You're in over your head, and that's alarming to me, considering you're an NDP supporter."
"Fwiw, you are totally bereft of knowledge on the topic of the Ukraine situation. It has to be that or you have been propagandized into supporting Nato. I could back up my accusations but that's not the tactic I'm going to choose to use. I'm not going to be able to make my point with you."

To Ken
"I also know very well that there is some definitive support for Nato, and some of the ones who are the supporters. You're way behind the curve with me on this issue Ken. "
"I think you did but maybe your mind isn't open to anything new? So I'm going to start from scratch and explain my thinking to you and others who care to read. "
"You're a bright guy Ken and you can understand that if you care to do so. "

To Lagatta4"
"But do remember, when you tell me why you are critical of Putin, you have to separate that from being critical of Russia. Can you do that?"

To the board:
"I'm calling the question on Nato for NDP members who are well informed enough to take part in the conversation."
"Being so far ahead of the curve on international politics,"
"Superiority can be claimed by me, based on some of the ill-informed comments."
"This board is still all fuddleduddled up with arrogant pricks who think they own the place. It's not going to change."
"Accepting newcomers to this board is very difficult for some people Ken, as you may know. So I'll take it easy in my knowledge that I'm more NDP than they are."
"There, I'll feel safe, and be happy to point out some of the people by name who are very far behind the curve on international politics. Have a nice day! "
"Those of us who understand must continue to try to educate all babblers of the facts!"

Anyway I think I will take a break from spending much time on the site as there is nothing productive going on now and ignoring the shitstorm while pretending all is well is really pointless also. I'll check in from time to time so won't be completely gone (will want to read about plonk) but others can deal with this jerk as I won't have more time.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Misfit wrote:

What is plonk 

Its cheap wine. It was also code for ignoring someone offensive - a sort of “sent to Coventry”. 

bekayne

Misfit wrote:

What is plonk 

Ronnie Lane's nickname.

Paladin1

voice of the damned wrote:

I think I've proposed this before, but I'll do it again, since I think it would be an easy solution to the problem....

Have a clear, consistently enforced four-strikes policy for bannings.

Personally I think a four strike policy is too much. We're all adults and we all understand right and wrong, following rules and breaking them.

If someone doesn't get it by their second warning chances are they're not going to by the 3rd or 4th.

voice of the damned

Paladin1 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

I think I've proposed this before, but I'll do it again, since I think it would be an easy solution to the problem....

Have a clear, consistently enforced four-strikes policy for bannings.

Personally I think a four strike policy is too much. We're all adults and we all understand right and wrong, following rules and breaking them. If someone doesn't get it by their second warning chances are they're not going to by the 3rd or 4th.

Well, can we split the difference and say three?

In any case, the main point is that there should be a set number of warnings, publically delivered and recorded as to time and place, after which point the person is banned. Or maybe even just suspended, with a certain number of suspensions followed by a permanent banning.

Though looking over the compendium of Montgomery's posts, it occurs to me that a lot of them wouldn't fit neatly into one of the categories of violations, and in a lot of cases, are really not much different from things that get said quite often around here, when the discussion gets testy. Except that Montgomery seems to have a knack for doing it a lot, in a relatively short period of time.

NDPP

It should be obvious that the loss of quality posters such as ikosmos, Slumberjack, Fidel etc has had a serious and deleterious effect upon what is supposed to be a left site. If there are posters previously banned that have returned, then a 'second chance' should be accorded these others as well. Perhaps the right-wing reactionary influence which resulted from the previous bannings can be mediated.

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

I think I've proposed this before, but I'll do it again, since I think it would be an easy solution to the problem....

Have a clear, consistently enforced four-strikes policy for bannings.

Personally I think a four strike policy is too much. We're all adults and we all understand right and wrong, following rules and breaking them. If someone doesn't get it by their second warning chances are they're not going to by the 3rd or 4th.

Well, can we split the difference and say three?

In any case, the main point is that there should be a set number of warnings, publically delivered and recorded as to time and place, after which point the person is banned. Or maybe even just suspended, with a certain number of suspensions followed by a permanent banning.

Though looking over the compendium of Montgomery's posts, it occurs to me that a lot of them wouldn't fit neatly into one of the categories of violations, and in a lot of cases, are really not much different from things that get said quite often around here, when the discussion gets testy. Except that Montgomery seems to have a knack for doing it a lot, in a relatively short period of time.

I don't think that the comments are themselves the entire problem. Yes, people do get mad and have angry exchanges here. However, the problem is this is the sum total of the interaction. Every post seems designed to drive someone apart and being condescending and self congratulatory. A person who comes here who is clearly baiting and this is their total interaction is not the same as a person who behaves normally and gets angry from time to time.

Also I think there is a level of percieved superiority here in multiple comments about teaching people that show that this person sincerely believes that he is too good for us but is donating his time to educate us. This is a different thing than a blow up from time to time between contributers. The problem is the contempt he shows for the entire board and every single person he interacts with.

You might engage in a couple fights naturally at the same time here and have long term grievances. Coming here and having negative reactions with 10 people in three weeks is not natural it is a person who is here intentionally or not to blow up the board. The volume of comments contemptious about whole groups of people -- the NDP, who he claims to be part of, the netire community, the board and people who have been here a while, show a general hostility to the environment that goes beyond anger with a particular exchange.

This is the type of person who posts his bile at such frequency that any normal conversation is sidelined. You cannot extract such a person from a conversation -- the only solution is to abandon any thread he insersts himsself into which means avoiding, for the time being until things settle down, the politics and international threads.

You cannot ignore a person who is responding to your posts demanding a reaction and criticising you when you refuse to engage and doing this at a level nobody can keep up with. This is classic trolling behaviour. We have a word for this becuase it works.

Anyway, I personally will avoid most threads he is in and dial back my invovlement here like I did the last time this particular troll operated here like this. I can see the posting frequency of others seems to be declining as well. I guess we wait this out. there are a number of attacks agsint me (he insists on calling me a name he has made up for me) already that I have not responded to. I will leave them even though I think that it is not right to have to ignore direct attacks but oh well.

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

It should be obvious that the loss of quality posters such as ikosmos, Slumberjack, Fidel etc has had a serious and deleterious effect upon what is supposed to be a left site. If there are posters previously banned that have returned, then a 'second chance' should be accorded these others as well. Perhaps the right-wing reactionary influence which resulted from the previous bannings can be mediated.

Absolutely.

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

I think I've proposed this before, but I'll do it again, since I think it would be an easy solution to the problem....

Have a clear, consistently enforced four-strikes policy for bannings.

Personally I think a four strike policy is too much. We're all adults and we all understand right and wrong, following rules and breaking them. If someone doesn't get it by their second warning chances are they're not going to by the 3rd or 4th.

Well, can we split the difference and say three?

In any case, the main point is that there should be a set number of warnings, publically delivered and recorded as to time and place, after which point the person is banned. Or maybe even just suspended, with a certain number of suspensions followed by a permanent banning.

Though looking over the compendium of Montgomery's posts, it occurs to me that a lot of them wouldn't fit neatly into one of the categories of violations, and in a lot of cases, are really not much different from things that get said quite often around here, when the discussion gets testy. Except that Montgomery seems to have a knack for doing it a lot, in a relatively short period of time.

I do not think it is a number. I think it is about seeing the purpose of the person's contribution here as much as anything else and the volume.

I do not agree with the three strikes you are out as it implies that a person who accumulates three strikes over ten years with thousands of posts could be the same as someone who does it in a day. Just my opinion.

Also I think it matters what the posts are about -- are they in reaction to something or instigating out of the blue - and this is important to consider as a person could pick fights just inside the line and gat the rest of the board banned if they try without actually contributing anything real.

voice of the damned

NDPP wrote:

It should be obvious that the loss of quality posters such as ikosmos, Slumberjack, Fidel etc has had a serious and deleterious effect upon what is supposed to be a left site. If there are posters previously banned that have returned, then a 'second chance' should be accorded these others as well. Perhaps the right-wing reactionary influence which resulted from the previous bannings can be mediated.

Well, I don't know if there is anything stopping your favorite banned posters from doing what Monty1 likely did: Making up a new handle and resuming their posting. There's really nothing the mods can do to stop that, and in fact, the only reason we can say with relative certainty that Montgomery is Monty1 is that his name gives it away.

So, if ikosmos wants to come back as, say, Capt. Doodlebuck, there'd really be nothing we could do about it.

NDPP

Urgent Message to Slumberjack, ikosmos, Fidel, Morrell, etc. COME BACK! It's AWFUL here now!

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

NDPP wrote:

It should be obvious that the loss of quality posters such as ikosmos, Slumberjack, Fidel etc has had a serious and deleterious effect upon what is supposed to be a left site. If there are posters previously banned that have returned, then a 'second chance' should be accorded these others as well. Perhaps the right-wing reactionary influence which resulted from the previous bannings can be mediated.

All three of those posters were either abusive to other posters or repeatedly did not follow forum guidelines in a way that was overly disruptive. They all received more than three warnings, and all three refused to listen.

"Quality" is a pretty subjective term.

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

NDPP wrote:

It should be obvious that the loss of quality posters such as ikosmos, Slumberjack, Fidel etc has had a serious and deleterious effect upon what is supposed to be a left site. If there are posters previously banned that have returned, then a 'second chance' should be accorded these others as well. Perhaps the right-wing reactionary influence which resulted from the previous bannings can be mediated.

Well, I don't know if there is anything stopping your favorite banned posters from doing what Monty1 likely did: Making up a new handle and resuming their posting. There's really nothing the mods can do to stop that, and in fact, the only reason we can say with relative certainty that Montgomery is Monty1 is that his name gives it away.

So, if ikosmos wants to come back as, say, Capt. Doodlebuck, there'd really be nothing we could do about it.

Actually no -- he said this:

"Yes, indeed I am monty1. So make that your motherhood issue Ken and others if you think that's what Tommy would do? It's the easy way out for people of your ilk Ken!"

Underneath Meg said this which I do not understand given his post above it (Likely she did not see the admission as the thread and posts are very long):

"Montgomery, if you've signed on with another user name after having been previously banned you will be permanently barred from participating on babble. "

He said he just set up a new account:

Did the board allow you a new name or did you sneak back on with a new identity to get around the banning?

If the board allowed you to come back with a new name WHY?

I dunno Shine? I just registered as montgomery. [Shine is the name he insists on calling me for whatever reason]

http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/murderous-israel...

Post 410, 412 and post 416

 

voice of the damned

Ah, I see. I don't closely follow the thread in question, so I missed that admission of guilt.

Anyway, seeing as how he has openly stated that he is a banned poster back under a new name, MegB would have my full support in banning him on that basis alone. Not that I'm one of the people overly perturbed by him, but as long as banning is regarded as a valuable part of the mods' toolkit, the rulings need to be enforced.

Though, again, that still leaves the easy option of just coming back with a totally new name, and not admitting that you're the original persona non grata.  

 

 

MegB

At one point in time we could compare IP addresses of new user requests and previously banned members and determine whether a banned user was re-registering under a different name. That functionality no longer exists. Accordingly there is no way to determine whether a new user has been here before and been banned unless they openly admit it.

Sean, do you have a link to the thread where he admits this? Re-registering under a different name after being banned is grounds for immediate blocking of the account.

NDPP, there is no right-wing reactionary element to bannings. When people behave in a toxic manner towards others they get warned. Usually a few times, depending upon the severity of the offense (s). If they ignore warnings then they're done. It's pretty simple, actually. There is no right-wing conspiracy at work here. If you're consistently an asshole and treat others like shit, you get banned.

I've never had an instance of a banned individual asking to return on the basis of understanding how their behaviors are unacceptable and promising no further abuses. If I had I'd give their request every consideration. If montgomery is a previously banned user coming in under another name and hasn't in any way changed the way he interacts with others he'll be gone.

Edited to add: have confirmed that montgomery is the formerly banned monty1, having openly admitted it. He's done.

Sean in Ottawa

MegB wrote:

At one point in time we could compare IP addresses of new user requests and previously banned members and determine whether a banned user was re-registering under a different name. That functionality no longer exists. Accordingly there is no way to determine whether a new user has been here before and been banned unless they openly admit it.

Sean, do you have a link to the thread where he admits this? Re-registering under a different name after being banned is grounds for immediate blocking of the account.

NDPP, there is no right-wing reactionary element to bannings. When people behave in a toxic manner towards others they get warned. Usually a few times, depending upon the severity of the offense (s). If they ignore warnings then they're done. It's pretty simple, actually. There is no right-wing conspiracy at work here. If you're consistently an asshole and treat others like shit, you get banned.

I've never had an instance of a banned individual asking to return on the basis of understanding how their behaviors are unacceptable and promising no further abuses. If I had I'd give their request every consideration. If montgomery is a previously banned user coming in under another name and hasn't in any way changed the way he interacts with others he'll be gone.

Edited to add: have confirmed that montgomery is the formerly banned monty1, having openly admitted it. He's done.

Thanks Meg - I laid out the answer to your question in post 23 with the link and post number but you ahve already confirmed on your own.

I have to say that I really appreciate your comments above about a condition for return. I wonder if you would consider taking that comment and making it a sticky. I think that it may be good to lay out for people here who raise the issue. and I think it sends a clear invitation of how people can respond if they want to come back. I appreciate your efforts here.

Also I will refrain from any more comment on Monty as he is not here and we don't comment more on posters no longer here who cannot defend themselves.

NDPP

The condition of return amounts to a confession that the banned individual did what the mod said they did even if untrue. It is highly unlikely those banned I mentioned will ever concede that might makes right, which is what the condition of return amounts to. No wonder the NDP-style 'yellow' leftism and brown-nosing to authority is so popular here. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The condition of return amounts to a confession that the banned individual did what the mod said they did even if untrue.

Except it's not untrue, and we can all -- if we don't mind spelunking in the archives -- see it with our own eyes, if we didn't see it the first time.

Quote:
It is highly unlikely those banned I mentioned will ever concede that might makes right, which is what the condition of return amounts to.

It amounts to "babble has rules, and every user must follow them no matter how urgent their revolutionary anger feels".

Curious that you only seem interested in the return of these three specific babblers tho.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Fidel had some issues but if I remember correctly he lost it completely when he was told that talking about the CIA involvement in the Egyptian Spring was not allowed because it took away from the agency of the Egyptian people. It seems he was right and the whole thing was a "colour revolution" that co-opted the real movement.

voice of the damned

NDPP wrote:

The condition of return amounts to a confession that the banned individual did what the mod said they did even if untrue. It is highly unlikely those banned I mentioned will ever concede that might makes right, which is what the condition of return amounts to. No wonder the NDP-style 'yellow' leftism and brown-nosing to authority is so popular here. 

Fidel, for one, was banned for going into the feminist forum and immediately berating another male poster about an issue entirely unrelated to feminism that they had been debating on another forum ie. whether it was the Americans or the French who had wanted to use nukes in Vietnam in the 1950s. That is what he was banned for, and there is nothing "untrue" about saying that. I and numerous other posters witnessed it.

And, I'm pretty sure he wasn't getting any grief from the mods when he was debating that issue in the appropriate forum.

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

NDPP wrote:

The condition of return amounts to a confession that the banned individual did what the mod said they did even if untrue. It is highly unlikely those banned I mentioned will ever concede that might makes right, which is what the condition of return amounts to. No wonder the NDP-style 'yellow' leftism and brown-nosing to authority is so popular here. 

Fidel, for one, was banned for going into the feminist forum and immediately berating another male poster about an issue entirely unrelated to feminism that they had been debating on another forum ie. whether it was the Americans or the French who had wanted to use nukes in Vietnam in the 1950s. That is what he was banned for, and there is nothing "untrue" about saying that. I and numerous other posters witnessed it.

And, I'm pretty sure he wasn't getting any grief from the mods when he was debating that issue in the appropriate forum.

Would that get a permanent ban rather than a warning?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..all the banning i have witnessed have been spectator events. meaning one could see it coming a mile away. right or wrong it could have been avoided by the person banned. it was a choice.

..i believe our moderation is excellent. sometimes i feel there should be more intervention on some of the nastiness and disrespect that goes on but that's personal preference and doesn't take away from my feeling that it is excellent. i believe instead of fighting old battles (unless it can be used in a constructive way) we should try and find a way to bring some of those folks back if that is what babblers want.

..i also agree with meg that there is no right wing element. it's an off the rails angry comment to make of rabble/babble.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Misfit wrote:

What is plonk 

My mother was from the UK so the first answer is crappy wine. Like baby duck... you remember that wine?

Urban dictionary says that it is the sound of shit hitting the water in a toilet.

 

And there's often cause and effect between drinking the first and frequently experiencing the second, from what I've been told.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

NDPP wrote:

The condition of return amounts to a confession that the banned individual did what the mod said they did even if untrue. It is highly unlikely those banned I mentioned will ever concede that might makes right, which is what the condition of return amounts to. No wonder the NDP-style 'yellow' leftism and brown-nosing to authority is so popular here. 

Fidel, for one, was banned for going into the feminist forum and immediately berating another male poster about an issue entirely unrelated to feminism that they had been debating on another forum ie. whether it was the Americans or the French who had wanted to use nukes in Vietnam in the 1950s. That is what he was banned for, and there is nothing "untrue" about saying that. I and numerous other posters witnessed it.

And, I'm pretty sure he wasn't getting any grief from the mods when he was debating that issue in the appropriate forum.

Always wondered what happened with him.  Knew he was banned, but not why.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

He was definitely banned for not respecting the boundaries in the feminist forum but he was very angry leading up to that about a bunch of things.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Thanks guys for enlightening me on plonk.

 

6079_Smith_W

Fidel was not banned. He walked. As I recall the last word was Catchfire saying it was up to him if he wanted to come back.

WWWTT

If montgomery openly admitted being a previously banned poster, he then displayed that he wasn’t putting much thought into his comments. Therefore he’s an idiot!

I thought he added a good element, but you got to set the bar somewhere and I’m not going to stick my neck out too far out. 

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

He was definitely banned for not respecting the boundaries in the feminist forum but he was very angry leading up to that about a bunch of things.

I started reading this 2013 thread. I guess I should say "Trigger warning".

voice of the damned

For the record, that's not the thread I remember as being the one that got him banned(and until shown otherwise, I'm sticking to the history that he was banned, rather than that he departed voluntarily). As I said earlier, the topic he barged in with was nuclear weapons in French Indochina in the 1950s, and was completely unrelated to the topic under discussion. He was just carrying over an argument with another poster from another thread.  

Paladin1

I miss Slumberjack.

Caissa

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

Sean in Ottawa

Look on one bright side:

When a real troll or jerk comes here all the petty squables take on a new light. Those we think are trolling or being jerks have the context of what that really looks like.

This affects behaviour in three ways:

1) it unites people here more

2) it illustrates some behaviours we see and do not like and makes us modify ourselves

3) it encourages us to give more slack to those who are not as bad - patience loves context

The rest of the community improves even as the troll disrupts it and when theya re gone it is better than it was before.

There are people here who think they hate each other and faced with a real troll realize that they really do not -- faced with a banning they have to consider that they might actually miss the person they were fighting with if they went away. They realize the value in others they think do not ahve value.

I am not in favour of trolls coming here but there are some benefits that we may as well take given we suffer the disruption.

NDPP

Paladin1 wrote:

I miss Slumberjack.

NDPP wrote:

Yes, me too. And nspector, northernshoveler, frmrsoldr, morell and others also.

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:

For the record, that's not the thread I remember as being the one that got him banned(and until shown otherwise, I'm sticking to the history that he was banned, rather than that he departed voluntarily). As I said earlier, the topic he barged in with was nuclear weapons in French Indochina in the 1950s, and was completely unrelated to the topic under discussion. He was just carrying over an argument with another poster from another thread.  

In the 2013 thread I cited above, Fidel was "suspended" - for how long and under what conditions aren't clear. There was nothing there about him departing "voluntarily", though that notion does ring somewhat of a bell. At least your recollections are consistent.

Mobo2000

Me as well.   Also Maysie (who wasn't banned, just left), and especially ikosmos.

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

For the record, that's not the thread I remember as being the one that got him banned(and until shown otherwise, I'm sticking to the history that he was banned, rather than that he departed voluntarily). As I said earlier, the topic he barged in with was nuclear weapons in French Indochina in the 1950s, and was completely unrelated to the topic under discussion. He was just carrying over an argument with another poster from another thread.  

In the 2013 thread I cited above, Fidel was "suspended" - for how long and under what conditions aren't clear. There was nothing there about him departing "voluntarily", though that notion does ring somewhat of a bell. At least your recollections are consistent.

My rebuttal to the idea that he allegedly left voluntarily was in broad response to Smith's recollection, post 37, which says that he "walked".

By the way, that hyperlink with the word "consistent" does not work on my computer. Is it a link to something I posted elsewhere?

voice of the damned

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Look on one bright side:

When a real troll or jerk comes here all the petty squables take on a new light. Those we think are trolling or being jerks have the context of what that really looks like.

This affects behaviour in three ways:

1) it unites people here more

2) it illustrates some behaviours we see and do not like and makes us modify ourselves

3) it encourages us to give more slack to those who are not as bad - patience loves context

The rest of the community improves even as the troll disrupts it and when theya re gone it is better than it was before.

There are people here who think they hate each other and faced with a real troll realize that they really do not -- faced with a banning they have to consider that they might actually miss the person they were fighting with if they went away. They realize the value in others they think do not ahve value.

I am not in favour of trolls coming here but there are some benefits that we may as well take given we suffer the disruption.

That is kind of like the Wayward Puritans theory of deviance, applied to message boards...

The main argument of Wayward Puritans is that deviant forms of behavior are often a valuable resource in society, providing a point of contrast which is necessary for the maintenance of a coherent social order.

https://tinyurl.com/y9477woe

 

voice of the damned

And, in reality, the argument only applies to trolls who blatantly violate the norms of a group, eg. on a cat-lovers message board, he shows up and says all cats should be fed to wolves, thus making everyone realize how much they have in common, compared to those awful cat-haters.

By contrast, a troll who shows up on the same forum and says that all lions and tigers should be released from the zoo and allowed to roam free, could have the opposite effect: some posters will automatically denounce him as a lunatic, while others might say "Well, okay, he's a little extreme, but with all these crazed cat-haters running around poisoning kittens, should we really be attacking someone on our side?" Thus provoking conflict, rather than unity, among the group.  

voice of the damned

And for the record, I don't think any of the banned posters referenced so far on this thread count as trolls under the real meaning of the word, as they were IMO all trying to express a sincere opinion. I have some ideas about a few long-gone posters who I think WERE genuine trolls, but I will keep those opinions to myself.

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:

By the way, that hyperlink with the word "consistent" does not work on my computer. Is it a link to something I posted elsewhere?

Weird. It works on mine. Yes, it's a comment of yours from Jan. 30, 2017. I'll try copy and paste:

voice of the damned wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 

If I recall correctly, Fidel was never even banned.  He simply chose to leave when the mods dropped a moratorium on goofy, conspiracy-k00K nonsense and effectively, his job here was done. 

I could be wrong about this, but I thought Fidel was banned because he showed up on a Femnist Forum thread and started berating one of the male posters about an argument they had been having in another forum, totally unrelated to feminism. I think the issue was Whether It Was The French Or The Americans Who Wanted To Use Nuclear Weapons Against The Vietnamese In The 1950s.

After a bit of back and forth between Fidel, his critics, and the mods, he was banned from babble, and shortly thereafter turned up on En Masse, where he posted intermittently until that site went dark.

That's my recollection anyway.

 

Pages