He seemed to be a nice fellow. I doubt he'd want to join again out of self respect. :eyes:

He seemed to be a nice fellow. I doubt he'd want to join again out of self respect. — Shawn

He might, for he liked it here and was making his way around; he didn't know about the Lounge and its threads, so he wasn't Marco or anyone who had been here many times.

He has rejoined several times since then. I must say, when he joined as Gravelty he was clearly making an effort to hold back at first. Wasn't starting several threads per day and posting frequency was much lower than before, though still higher than most. If he'd been posting like that the whole time since he first came here, he might not have been banned in the first place.

I banned him for saying something to signal he was Marco. — fdrake

So, did you can him for signalling that he was Marco, or for being Marco? Just curious about how the burgermeisters on here view these things, based upon the apparent idea of bannings being permanent and irrevocable. Would you have not re-banned him if he had not so "signalled", even if you knew it was he? What if a banned member "reincarnates", and behaves in an utterly different manner? Will he be summarily re-banned based upon the original banning, or does TPF offer the possibility of redemption?

He has rejoined several times since then. I must say, when he joined as Graveltty he was clearly making an effort to hold back at first. Wasn't starting several threads per day... — SophistiCat

This begs a question: might it be thought that "Prishon" was another avatar of said "Marco"? I must say, the notion occurred to me almost immediately that "Graveltty" might in actuality be "Prishon" with a newfound discipline, mostly because of the whole "physics" thing, but also...uuhhh...general tenor. I was even considering this before the 'Graveltty' banning; I dropped the name "Prishon" in my very last reply to "Graveltty", to see what type of reaction I might receive. If this is true, I hope that if he reincarnates again, he devises a less wierd username...like, maybe, "Joe".

does TPF offer the possibility of redemption? — Michael Zwingli

No. We tried it once and it didn't work.

Was it TheGreatWhatever? If I recall correctly he was banned twice. (Back when the old forum was online.)

Actually, I'm wrong. We did reverse a ban and they're still here.

That's who I was thinking of but as we didn't carry over bans from the old place I guess it doesn't technically count as an unban.

@Pfhorrest was banned.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/409000

You've said that before. :razz:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/175428

We did reverse a ban and they're still here. — Michael

Ah. So, what type of criteria can result in a "banning"? I just want to know as an aide in keeping a lid on those of my own inherent opinions (I have some strong, fairly "non-P.C." ones) which might amount to liabilities...especially in view of the turbulence of the emotions which I am experiencing at the instant stage of my life.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines

thanks. A couple of questions: what is "flaming", what defines a "troll", and what is a "sockpuppet", or rather, what is "sockpuppetry"? (I don't use "social media" platforms like Facebook, etc., so I'm probably way behind the curve on such terminology.)

what is "flaming" — Michael Zwingli

Flaming is insulting someone in an online discussion, and is much older than social media. As practiced here, I consider it an attempt at bullying rather than arguing and I have a very low tolerance for it. Call your opponent's position 'stupid' all you want; call them 'stupid' and your post may very well be deleted.

A 'sockpuppet' is an account you pretend is not yours. In this case, as none of us are public figures, that would mean a secondary account. If I created an account to constantly chime in agreeing with Srap, that would be a sockpuppet, or if I were banned and returned under a new name every five minutes or so.

Rude not to troll amongst trolls.

But it can still get you banned.

okay, I have that: "flaming"="personal attack", and "sockpuppetry"="the fraudulent portrayal of approbation by means of multi-accounting". How about "trolling"? I have heard that term in the past, but never knew exactly what it referred to, simply inferring that it means something like "seeking out opportunities for belittlement or argumentation". Would that be about right?

Brutish moderation is worse than trolling.

I have heard that term in the past, but never knew exactly what it referred to, simply inferring that it means something like "seeking out opportunities for belittlement or argumentation". Would that be about right? — Michael Zwingli

The way I always understood trolling is to say something you either don't really mean, or about which you don't really care, simply to get a rise out of someone. Others call it "stirring the pot." It's like the kid on the playground who foments discontent for his/her own amusement. The troll often thinks of their self as witty or smart for having done so. They pat themselves on the back, or, quite possibly, they "pat themselves" (if you know what I mean) rather than looking at porn like normal people do.

How about "trolling"? — Michael Zwingli

Wikipedia is your friend:

In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others' perception. — Wiki

Yes.

Brutish moderation is worse than trolling. — Varde

Either can destroy a community we intend to preserve.

haha good.

Send him a PM. If they are invested and believe it was a mistake... Might consider it. Otherwise, doing something indistinguishable from impersonating a banned member who is currently sockpuppetting up the site on a 1 week old account - that's a suicide by mod.

To those concerned with being banned, I do want you to know that, barring some extreme behavior, it's usually a process where you receive a PM and there's a discussion and eventually a warning and then a ban. It's not like you're going to try to log in one day and not know why you can't get through. I say that just so you know we're not trigger happy and we do want people to be here and enjoy the site and we're not just looking for a reason to make your life difficult.

The internet is a great big place and not everyone comes here with the purest intent, so we have to police it for those who are here and want a quality place to visit.

The rules are pretty clear and getting banned takes some amount of intentional effort. We've not really had anyone surprised by their ban.

So, did you can him for signalling that he was Marco, or for being Marco? — Michael Zwingli

Signalling that he was Marco and behaving like Marco. If we weren't currently being bombarded by Marco sockpuppets, I would not have banned them.

Will he be summarily re-banned based upon the original banning, or does TPF offer the possibility of redemption?

We've offered redemption before when contacted, but only once. The poster had built up quite a lot of good posts and was generally very nice, then they went off on someone with every prejudicial and sexual profanity under the sun on an off day, then they asked to get back in. We let them. They've been fine since.

Rude not to troll amongst trolls. — Varde

Ah, the rare cannibalism amongst trolls is a sight to be seen.

..."stirring the pot"... — James Riley

Oh, yes. This makes sense. I think that my own conception about this term involving "surfing around for opportunities" was influenced by the sense of "trolling" as a fishing term, wherein a line is dragged behind a moving boat in search of hungry fish.

quite possibly, they "pat themselves" (if you know what I mean) — James Riley

Hahaha, oh yeah, I know what you mean. I've "patted" myself a few times in my life, thank you very much...although it concerns me that this has grown more infrequent over the years.

Wikipedia is your friend... — Srap Tasmaner

...and a good friend at that. I turn to Wikipedia for the quick synopsis of everything, but I never though to reference it for this term. I guess, since I have never used social media (no interest, and I disdain artifice in general, anyways) or have used online forums until recently (which I only started using when I decided to learn Latin), I never though it important enough for me to bother.

I think that my own conception about this term involving "surfing around for opportunities" was influenced by the sense of "trolling" as a fishing term, wherein a line is dragged behind a moving boat in search of hungry fish. — Michael Zwingli

As a former fishermen, that too was my perception at the beginning. Then I remembered the troll that hid under bridges and fucked with people. But "baiting" people, like fish, brought me back around. So there is a little bit of both in the definition.

when in Rome.

Then I remembered the troll that hid under bridges and fucked with people. But "baiting" people, like fish, brought me back around. — James Riley

Ah, good. Well, nobody has to really worry about me "trolling". I prefer my violence to be physical too much to enjoy the "virtual" brand. To myself, there is no worse feeling than wanting to grab someone by the lapels, and be prevented from doing it by a computer screen or a telephone line (I've experienced the telephone version many times in my life).

Ah, good. Well, nobody has to really worry about me "trolling". I prefer my violence to be physical too much to enjoy the "virtual" brand. To myself, there is no worse feeling than wanting to grab someone by the lapels, and be prevented from doing it by a computer screen or a telephone line. — Michael Zwingli

Ha! Wait till you are an old man. I guess that's why Col. Colt came along. :wink: