But you'll put it back up when someone else is banned?

Yes, edited to make that clear.

Cool. I'll just leave then.

Okay, seems like a decent decision.

Is DPMartin same as this guy: https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/390/dp-brah ?

Thought about that, but no evidence apart from the name.

By the way, I'm just wondering. If a mod bans someone wrongfully, and everyone realizes that there was no reason that person was banned, can that person be unbanned, and what happens to the mod that banned him? — René Descartes

It can happen, but the ressurected soul will be eternally burdened with the tagline "previously damned." It's only fair.

Punishment for banning wrongly will be dinner with Hanover, unless it's Hanover, in which case, dinner with Hanover's wife. — Baden

Whatever must I do to be your dinner?

By the way, we're going to close discussion on this banning within 24h to avoid going off-topic, so if anyone else has anything to add, please do so within that time. — Baden

The 18 hours or so I have left should be sufficient for all I have to say, which is just about the length of stored episodes of South Park on my DVR, so I'll multi-task while watching.

"previously damned." — Hanover

Sounds good.

It can happen, but the ressurected soul will be eternally burdened with the tagline "previously damned." It's only fair — Hanover

I almost want to be banned and then unbanned just for the priviledge :naughty:

when you start paying me for services to your satisfaction, then I'll worry about such things as grammar to your satisfaction. — Hanover

I’ve never heard of a grammar whore.

Banned @InternetStranger for responding to a PMed instruction to increase the quality of his OPs (if he intended to post them in the philosophical categories) with, and I quote, "fuck you". He would likely have been banned for low quality eventually anyway. This poster also had a sockpuppet account which has been banned too.

Awe, shucks!
What a shame.

Punishment for banning wrongly will be dinner with Hanover, unless it's Hanover, in which case, dinner with Hanover's wife. — Baden

So, for Hanover punishment is just more of the same? I like it! :rofl:

:naughty:

I was wondering how long it would take. Good call.

Its hilarious that for someone whose writing was so overwrought and affected, the best he could do was a simple and vulgar 'fuck you'.

Although there appears to be no opportunity to reply when a discussion has been summarily shut down.

Is there an opportunity to appeal against a 'banning' and are such bans permanent?

I would like to appeal on behalf of internet stranger who has recently been banned.

And it would be useful for me as I feel my own ban is immanent?

"all opinions are equal but some are more equal than others"
and all of that..


M

Is there an opportunity to appeal against a 'banning' and are such bans permanent? — Marcus de Brun

If you had read the guidelines, you would know the answer to that question. Please go and read them.

And it would be useful for me as I feel my own ban is immanent? — Marcus de Brun

Please stop being dramatic and a martyr. There's no need for it. If you were in trouble, you would have received a warning. We're not looking to ban people. It's a hassle and work we don't want.

Apologies

I have always had difficulties with guides and lines. Good ideas invariably tend to break them.

Internetstranger RIP

But I fear we are the loosers,
no doubt he/she would concur.

M

Well, if and when you start your own forum, you might find them useful to prevent the place turning into the equivalent of a YouTube comments page despite all the good ideas therein.

Needs must.

A thankless job, but I fear for the babies, not so much for the dirty water.

:)

M

We have to strike a balance somewhere. I suppose we may kill a few metaphorical babies but if the water's too dirty, the only people who'll want to drink here will be pigs, no?

Is there an opportunity to appeal against a 'banning' and are such bans permanent? — Marcus de Brun


If you had read the guidelines, you would know the answer to that question. Please go and read them. — Baden

"Bans:

Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied. Bans are permanent and non-negotiable. Returning banned members will be rebanned.

The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you. "


The question in respect of the opportunity for an appeal is not contained here. Is it somewhere else to be found. Or will you perhaps do me the honour of an explanation?

I don't mean to bang on about it, but I do love internetstranger and wish to appeal upon his behalf.

He/she would probably vomit at the thought of my doing so.

Perhaps I might sponsor him/her and take ownership of any future offense he might generate?

M

The question in respect of the duration of the ban and the opportunity for an appeal is not contained here. — Marcus de Brun

Yes it is, very specifically:

"Bans are permanent and non-negotiable."

apologies I am referring to the appeal of such bans

That's what the "non-negotiable" bit pertains to. It just wouldn't be practical to have public appeal trials after bannings and possible reinstatements.

:(

Perhaps the indefinite nature of the ban might be considered, at an administrative level?

Minds change, and people mellow.

All good philosophers are ultimately banned, tis the holy grail.

M

I'm sure internetstranger, if he's reading this, will be comforted by your support, so you may have achieved something, but being honest there will be no dramatic changes in the ban policy in the short term at least. We mods, most of us, have been around this and the previous philosophy forum for years, over a decade in some cases, and our aggregate experience suggests temporary bans (which have been tried before) don't work.

I doubt if he will take comfort from my support. I have no interest in him or his feelings per se. Some of his philosophy is quite beautiful and profound. (I doubt I am alone in an admiration for his writing and his thought).

I accept the decision (I have no choice), and the decision to shift/ban/close my last two discussions. But I do wish to register the point that decisions to moderate in some cases (my own included) seem harsh and (IMOP) motivated by personality rather than a deference to Philosophies old and new.

I'll leave it at that, and try to confine my philosophy to the 'rules'; which will mean that for better or for worse, one will read a lot less of my thought.

Doubtless this shall make some happy.

Once again thanks for keeping the wagon on the road.

M

OK, well, it's fair enough to register discontent. That's what this discussion is primarily for.