Is this supposed to support or disprove my claim? — Outlander

I don't disagree with what you wrote about the internet in general, but that doesn't mean it's not reasonable to hope for more here on the forum

Confiteor, I've been suspended thrice. I feel like Puss in Boots against :death: in the new animation — Agent Smith

Hang in there, buddy. You have a lot to offer beyond the goofiness at times. :cool:

Jesus, if they keep me, they must keep @Agent Smith.

So the multitude goes – like the flower and the weed
That wither away to let others succeed;
So the multitude comes – even those we behold,
To repeat every tale that hath often been told.

For we are the same things that our fathers have been,
We see the same sights that our fathers have seen,
We drink the same stream, and we feel the same sun,
And we run the same course that our fathers have run.

The thoughts we are thinking our fathers would think,
From the death we are shrinking from they too would shrink,
To the life we are clinging to, they too would cling –
But it speeds from the earth like a bird on the wing.

They loved – but their story we cannot unfold;
They scorned – but the heart of the haughty is cold;
They grieved – but no wail from their slumbers may come;
They joyed – but the voice of their gladness is dumb.

They died – ay, they died! and we, things that are now,
Who walk on the turf that lies over their brow,
Who make in their dwellings a transient abode,
Meet the changes they met on their pilgrimage road.

Yea, hope and despondence, and pleasure and pain,
Are mingled together like sunshine and rain:
And the smile and the tear, and the song and the dirge,
Still follow each other like surge upon surge.

‘Tis the twink of an eye, ’tis the draught of a breath,
From the blossom of health to the paleness of death,
From the gilded saloon to the bier and the shroud –
O why should the spirit of mortal be proud!

William Knox

That's not an apt analogy. — SophistiCat

'Fings ain't what they used to be. It's less apt here than it was at the old site for 2 reasons: 1 the old was explicitly run to produce an archive of readable threads, whereas this is, as you say, more of a community discussion, and 2, there seems to be much less editing done here than on the previous site. We used to correct for spelling, grammar and punctuation - don't think that happens much here. Nevertheless, it is a form of publication, and copyright is assigned. Publishers are communities too. So it's not actually an inapt analogy, though you may not find it useful or agreeable to your understanding.

It is a voluntary community, moderated ideally for that communities benefit. — hypericin

Actually it is a privately owned site, run by the proprietor for his own purposes which obviously do not necessarily coincide with what anyone else thinks they are or should be. I suspect the community aspect is important to him, but also probably the philosophy.

Hang in there, buddy. You have a lot to offer beyond the goofiness at times. — jgill

:lol:

Jesus, if they keep me, they must keep Agent Smith. — Banno

:lol:

Now that I think of it, I should really consider a reevaluation of me values and overall direction of my forum life. I'll treat the suspensions hangings as NDEs. :smile:

It's a conspiracy to have me tarred and feathered I tell you. The mods are all working for Putin! :lol:

However, I think it is quite unjust to permanently ban a long-term poster who has contributed well and evenly for most of their TPF travels. — Amity

It has happened many times over the years, both on the old PF and on TPF. It normally doesn't happen without a lot of discussion first, as Hanover has described. But occasionally it does.

I know that this discussion was prompted by the recent banning of Olivier5. In that case I didn't take it to the rest of the staff for discussion. The refusal of moderation, the attitude it was received with, and his suggestion that he be banned for all he cared, are what led directly to the ban. Refusal of moderation has been a reason for such bannings before, e.g., The Great Whatever, who was a high-quality poster who refused to make a small change to his spelling habits.

What 'status' other than 'Banned' would be appropriate?
Suspended account? — Amity

As others have said, we do now have a Suspended user role, but it hasn't been used much.

That is a valid point, I think. It would be better to find a neutral term - "account closed" or some such. Not sure if the software can be tweaked? — unenlightened

I had a look and it seems that we can't change the word. We could assign the user to a custom user role that would prevent them from posting, but I don't think that would be equal to banning, since I think they'd still be able to log in, as I assume they can't do if they've been banned. Alternatively, we could delete the member, while retaining their posts.

But Olivier5 had thousands of posts, and more importantly, real relationships, mayhap even friendships. It seems cruel to sever those over this incident, which had multiple sides to it. — hypericin

Yes. And not only that.
@Olivier5's contribution and integrity can be had by searching his name under any discussion.
An example where he not only learned but supported the thread leader @Fooloso4 against @Apollodorus

112 results in the Euthyphro thread alone.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/search?Search=Olivier5&disc=RXV0aHlwaHJv

Though, possibly, too complex for the intellectually or metaphysically challenged to grasp.
— Apollodorus

You are confused and challenged because you are not looking at the right place. You are looking at the tools (concepts) used by Plato, not at what he says with these tools. You are staying at level of words, at the surface therefore.

When the wise points at the stars, you dissect his finger. — Olivier5

In this discussion, exchanges became increasingly unpleasant. To say the least.
I note on p4 of the search my departure and the reasons. The trolling so clear and yet not banned.

I did not get a chance to read the posts that were deleted, but it is certain that they were not substantive or on topic. As you said, it was a moderator who thought they should be deleted.
Unfortunately, you have become a target too
— Fooloso4

Apparently they have no problem with overdrawn personal feuds.
— Olivier5

Unfortunately, the misrepresentations and lies continue. Such blatant dishonesty:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555262

I will leave it stand. As an example.

My concern is that it will not stop - not particularly from the point of view of being a 'target' - but that any further threads concerning Plato's Dialogues will suffer the same fate.
— Amity

It has happened many times over the years, both on the old PF and on TPF. It normally doesn't happen without a lot of discussion first, as Hanover has described. But occasionally it does.

I know that this discussion was prompted by the recent banning of Olivier5. In that case I didn't take it to the rest of the staff for discussion. The refusal of moderation, the attitude it was received with, and his suggestion that he be banned for all he cared, are what led directly to the ban. Refusal of moderation has been a reason for such bannings before, e.g., The Great Whatever, who was a high-quality poster who refused to make a small change to his spelling habits. — Jamal

Thanks for that. I appreciate your honesty. It is as I thought.
It is not so much any original 'crime' in the thread but how the immediate, heated responses were dealt with. Without any space or time given, any consideration as to underlying reasons or circumstances, any thought other than he broke the moderation rule.

Good to know that it wasn't the result of the entire team's judgement so it wasn't their egos involved:

There was no benefit here afaict, rather the mere assuagement of the moderators' egos. — hypericin

Such a pity that there seems to be no way to resolve this.

Edit:

I know that this discussion was prompted by the recent banning of Olivier5 — Jamal

@Jamal thanks, I've edited the OP to clarify this for new readers.

It is only a concern when it is related to the 'status' of a forum member.
If you see the label 'Banned' on someone's profile, what is your first impression?
Unworthy of being read or thoughts considered? — Amity

It wouldn't affect me, though you may be right in that it would affect others. I just don't look that carefully 'up there' and have only understood later why someone never responded to me. I guess for some it might stain their pre-ban posts. I don't see that as a big loss. I think most move chronologically through posts so those post quickly become unseen along with all the other unbanned people's posts. I could be wrong about that.

My main point was that the person need not feel a stain on their character after the banning moment and
any short term emotional effects of that.

A real pity when this happens and not picked up on.
It's happened before and it will happen again.
Some expert, clever trollers are never banned... — Amity

Yes. And I am not sure any process that would 'catch' them and ban them would be one I'd vote for. But I do think the issue should be thought about. There's a poster on another forum. He with regularity responds not quite to what you are saying. He dismisses critiques of parts of his posts as 'not solving issue X.' IOW he does not need to support any point made in his posts since he treats all responses as failing to solve his main interests. He does not state this openly and I think is not aware that he is doing this, but it happens with great regularity. He has trouble understanding many things and if he does he will more or less, label someone as a professional philosopher - which is just silly when aimed at me and most of the others - and a strange ad hom or insult. There's a quite a bit of labeling as argument. It tends not to be rude. There are some forays into psychologizing those he disagrees with, but mostly in general, not so much You think this because....type obvoious attacks.

You can find yourself, if you engage with him, chasing down responses to points raised much earlier and finding the whole thing spinning in a slow circle.

I wouldn't ban him. He can produce interesting things. But engaging with him is pointless, but it can take pages and for some years to realize this.

On the other hand I think it is worse than anything a traditional troll does.

Starting a thread with Democrats are weak men and men hating women...
or All repulicans and psychopaths and closeted gays.

or some other blunt smash, I mean, how many pages are you going to keep talking to that kind of posting?

But the seemingly-around-the-next-corner might concede or clarify something slow-burn poster can really suck the life out of thread after thread.

I wouldn't ban him. He can produce interesting things. But engaging with him is pointless, but it can take pages and for some years to realize this. — Bylaw

Yes. Bans are not always what is required. An extreme and opposing viewpoint is useful to stimulate discussion. Things are brought out that wouldn't if everyone was in a cosy exchange or agreement. It can help clarify your own position by making you reflect carefully before responding. However:

I mean, how many pages are you going to keep talking to that kind of posting? — Bylaw

It can reach the point where discussions become ego-centric attacks with knee-jerk responses. Increasing and continuing hostility over a number of threads can wear people down.
The life being sucked out of not just a thread...

I've spoken about this before but time to give it a rest now, I think.
Thanks for your contribution.
Thanks to Admin and team for doing the best they can :sparkle:

The Great Whatever, who was a high-quality poster who refused to make a small change to his spelling habits. — Jamal

Uh-oh, does my refusal to accept the Americanism of my spell-check subject me to the possibility of banning? I always thought "practice" is a noun and "practise" is a verb. But the spell-check doesn't look at it that way.

My main point was that the person need not feel a stain on their character after the banning moment and any short term emotional effects of that. — Bylaw

Thanks for clarification. I am sure that in @Olivier5's case, at least, he would not see the banning as a stain on his character. His good character remains intact.
However, others might...

I agree. I believe in second chances. People do change/acknowledge community guidelines after a ban has been employed causing them to re-evaluate their approach. — Benj96

Sorry I missed this. I'm pretty much done now but yes, there have been a few suggestions like:

Perhaps a temporary ban followed by a probation period is more apt. — Benj96

It seems that the system is unwieldy and that there is no easy solution.
Thanks again :sparkle:

I know that this discussion was prompted by the recent banning of Olivier5. In that case I didn't take it to the rest of the staff for discussion. The refusal of moderation, the attitude it was received with, and his suggestion that he be banned for all he cared, are what led directly to the ban. Refusal of moderation has been a reason for such bannings before, e.g., The Great Whatever, who was a high-quality poster who refused to make a small change to his spelling habits. — Jamal

Are you admins considering the possibility of revising the banning policy by any chance?

As always, we're open to suggestions, but I don't see a reason to change things at the moment. We introduced the Suspended status last year, but we don't have standard criteria for its use.

I don't like the "suspended" expression to be used for temporary banning. In Hungary during communist times they suspended people by various small body parts until they passed out or confessed, whichever came first. It's an emotionally laden word for me.

Your thoughts are twisted as hell...

Your thoughts are twisted as hell... — javi2541997

The man is a reflection of a depraved world, not a source of it. I don't believe, at least. One could argue to not be impacted by the various goings on of this world is what should call a man's sanity to question.

Still, I'm sure many wish they had real life friends with the adamant loyalty and fervent determination to see things through as the online friends of some. What a testament to the good of humanity this thread is, if nothing else.

What 'status' other than 'Banned' would be appropriate? — Amity

"Unclean"? Then the member would be untouchable, but there would be the hope of a cure.

"Unclean"? Then the member would be untouchable, but there would be the hope of a cure. — Ciceronianus

!!CRASH!! - SYSTEM FAILURE - NO CAN DO - OVER AND OUT - *White Noise*

Nice try, hunnikins :kiss:

Along with @unenlightened, I see banning more as an expression of incompatibility rather than a personal judgement, so if there is anything we can do in practical terms to reduce the stigma of the banned, I'm for it. However, I can hardly think of a more obvious incompatibility than refusing moderation, so this should remain a justifiable reason for banning, with the caveat that though we should have the right to ban for this reason, we don't have to if we think the situation is resolvable. That would be our judgement call. As for suspensions, I suppose we need to work out more systematically and transparently how they are used. Anyhow, that's how I would move towards addressing the concerns raised here.

[...] As for suspensions, I suppose we need to work out more systematically and transparently how they are used. Anyhow, that's how I would move towards addressing the concerns raised here. — Baden

Thank you for considering all points and questions [*] raised in this helpful discussion. Most constructive feedback.

@Baden @Jamal- I've returned to edit:
[*]

For example: transparency of the 'Banning Procedure' and timing/pacing of steps within. Including the new 'Suspension' category. A sticky added to the Guidelines for the benefit of members' awareness

Look forward to the progress on:

We introduced the Suspended status last year, but we don't have standard criteria for its use. — Jamal

To all who contributed their time, thoughts and energy. Good talkin' with ya'.
Take care. :hearts: :sparkle:

Time to go :sparkle:

Apparently, I've been here for 4yrs with 3968 posts.
Other interests beckon. Thanks to TPF, members and friends for all the good times :flower:
To @Olivier5 with 3yrs and 6168 posts - "Au revoir, mon ami!" :cool:

Edit to add:

I see banning more as an expression of incompatibility rather than a personal judgement, — Baden

I disagree. It is a judgement about the person and behaviour. But even if were the case...
The arising of a sudden 'incompatibility' issue could/should be easy enough to resolve.
Where there is a will, there is a way...
But there is no will. Therefore there is no way.

As in reply to @neomac:

↪neomac As always, we're open to suggestions, but I don't see a reason to change things at the moment. — Jamal

He was full of empty opinions and probably just trolling. People like that should be banned. I have my own personal system for engaging with people here. He was on his last life with me and I am sure many others felt the same too.

Permanent bans do not stop people returning in another guise. If they return and change the way they engage with people then the ‘ban’ worked.

His good character remains intact. — Amity

:D Yes, many would disagree!

This guy and Streetlight are literally the two people who have been on this forum I had almost completely given up on.

You should perhaps check how they engage with others rather than assume because they agree with you and are reasonable to you that they are the same to others they have different opinions too.

Do not get me wrong lots of people act up sometimes (including myself). Generally though 90% of people can simply step away, rethink their approach or just avoid ‘derailing’ threads … lately this forum has seemed pretty poor on the quality front … maybe that frustrates some so much they just start taking it out on others? I have lost patience here for the most part lately due to people being plain lazy and simply voicing blind opinions as if they count for something.

Anyway, rant over :) Have fun here if you can.