Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[ebandit]

Wow

That read like James Joyce's Ulysses but without the weight of intellect behind it.

Put simply, the difference between the issue in which you chose to involve yourself and sceptics continued harrassment of current posters is that my issue was resolved.....your involvement was and continues to be pure trolling.

As for the Himmler/Stasi comparison....clearly I am not likening Sceptic to either of these for their murderous activities.......it is not a suggestion that Sceptic is in anyway responsible for for the deaths of millions of Jews, gays, gypsies etc.......did you think also that I am suggesting Sceptic is a Bavarian chicken farmer?

Mark L

 

[Geraint Too Fast]

 

[the sceptic]

Interesting that calling someone a sockpuppet is considered harrassment, but calling someone a nazi is fine.

 

[ebandit]

I didn't call you a Nazi.....

I called you a Bavarian chicken farmer

Mark L

 

[The Hitch]

As for the Himmler/Stasi comparison....clearly I am not likening Sceptic to either of these for their murderous activities.............did you think also that I am suggesting Sceptic is a Bavarian chicken farmer?

Mark L

That's your defense? "it is not a suggestion that Sceptic is in anyway responsible for for the deaths of millions of Jews, gays, gypsies etc."

Oh ok. So that makes comparing him to the guy who run the concentration camps, perfectly fine then?

 

[The Hitch]

I didn't call you a Nazi.....

I called you a Bavarian chicken farmer

Mark L

Yeah. I'm sure the reason you brought up a man renowned as being one of the worst mass murderers in the history of mankind, is because that's the guy you associate with farming.

And your sentence about how sceptic is behaving as a "self-appointed Himmler", totally makes more sense now that you made clear you were referring to Himler's little known early life as a farmer and not to his notorious role in one of mankind's greatest tragedies.

Its sad how this is all just one big joke to you.

 

[The Hitch]

Interesting that calling someone a sockpuppet is considered harrassment, but calling someone a nazi is fine.

Even worse, he said I was "dehuminising" martinvickers by calling him a "banned troll".

Secondly I think the situation with martin is typical....he is now being dehumanised by people like The Hitch as a "banned troll"......reminds me of stalinism.......and yet he was perma banned for posting under a new identity whilst banned.

Meanwhile saying someone is like Himmler, is totally not dehumanising them, apparently

 

[BigMac]

Clearly ebandit labeled the_sceptic a mass murderer, you know, because that perfectly links to the subject and context of the discussion, and is therefore the focus of his analogy. Right? Right?

 

[Netserk]

Clearly ebandit labeled the_sceptic a mass murderer, you know, because that perfectly links to the subject and context of the discussion, and is therefore the focus of his analogy. Right? Right?

People have been banned before for comparing other members with a Nazi. It's as clear cut as it can get. Don't go there.

The only thing up to discussion is really only why he wasn't banned sooner (afaik said comparison happened a little while ago), but that really ain't no biggie.

 

[red_flanders]

Clearly ebandit labeled the_sceptic a mass murderer, you know, because that perfectly links to the subject and context of the discussion, and is therefore the focus of his analogy. Right? Right?

You're splitting hairs here. First of all, comparing him to anyone is explicitly personal, and therefore out of bounds with all other personal attacks. It is not a comment on the content of the post, but the person.

Secondly, as mentioned, comparing people to Nazis is not allowed on this or a great many other forums. See Goodwin's Law. It's ridiculous, whether it's the "focus of his analogy" or not. That's a meaningless distinction with no practical difference.

When ebandit criticizes the content of people's posts, he's fine. When he continually and repeatedly attacks people personally and derails thread after thread, he's violating the rules of the forum for personal attacks and trolling.

Same with everyone else. He went way over the line and frankly I would not have been surprised with a perma-ban.

 

[BigMac]

People have been banned before for comparing other members with a Nazi. It's as clear cut as it can get. Don't go there.

The only thing up to discussion is really only why he wasn't banned sooner (afaik said comparison happened a little while ago), but that really ain't no biggie.

Because the nit-picking bullies only now have spoken against it. And they stand laughing, while ebandit is banned.

You people get treated. Your stigmas and your opportunistic victimization agendas. Not you, in case you're wondering.

You're splitting hairs here. First of all, comparing him to anyone is explicitly personal, and therefore out of bounds with all other personal attacks. It is not a comment on the content of the post, but the person.

Secondly, as mentioned, comparing people to Nazis is not allowed on this or a great many other forums. See Goodwin's Law. It's ridiculous, whether it's the "focus of his analogy" or not. That's a meaningless distinction with no practical difference.

When ebandit criticizes the content of people's posts, he's fine. When he continually and repeatedly attacks people personally and derails thread after thread, he's violating the rules of the forum for personal attacks and trolling.

Same with everyone else. He went way over the line and frankly I would not have been surprised with a perma-ban.

Please, it's as clear as day the point of ebandit's comparison was not actually to compare the_sceptic to a Nazi or anything 'nazistic' for that matter. It's Himmler's personality and working traits he is invoking, but far way from any genocidal instincts in said person. The latter is an irrelevance to the point he was making.

Ebandit doesn't ''continually and repeatedly attacks people personally and derails thread after thread'', I don't know where you get this idea from. If he ever attacked someone personally, it was sceptic, master of all master baiters, who doesn't deserve less than that. He who ignores the rules non stop but sees no action taken against him. Ebandit is the voice of reason. Proof that to ban him you have to pick meaningless and inoffensive things. Taking advantage of the Nazi card the same way some do with the Racist's, knowing that's ultimate way to shut one up. No one would give a rat's, or at least he would not have been banned, had he mentioned any other figure linked with crimes against the humanity outside of the Nazi circle.

Shame on you all.

 

[Netserk]

Because the nit-picking bullies only now have spoken against it. And they stand laughing, while ebandit is banned.

You people get treated. Your stigmas and your opportunistic victimization agendas. Not you, in case you're wondering.

I'm absolutely sure that if Susan had stumbled over that post when it was posted he would've been banned immediately. So I don't think you can blame the "nit-picking bullies", the blame is entirely on ebandit.

 

[red_flanders]

Because the nit-picking bullies only now have spoken against it. And they stand laughing, while ebandit is banned.

You people get treated. Your stigmas and your opportunistic victimization agendas. Not you, in case you're wondering.

So your argument against this is to call people names and accuse folks of an agenda. Sounds like the exact reasons ebandit got banned.

 

[The Hitch]

Because the nit-picking bullies only now have spoken against it. And they stand laughing, while ebandit is banned.

You people get treated. Your stigmas and your opportunistic victimization agendas. Not you, in case you're wondering.

You got the insults, the sarcasm and the avoidance of subject matter all nailed down. All thats missing now is to "connect the dots", so to speak. Here let me help you out.

Because the nit-picking bullies.......
only now have spoken.............. against it.

And they stand laughing.......... while ebandit is banned.

You people get treated. Your stigmas and your opportunistic victimization agendas. Not you........... In case you're wondering.

Mac.

 

[Echoes]

On this forum, I've been labeled a "Nazi Apologist", a "defender of Franco" or a "Fascist", without any mods acting. Fortunately for these people, I'm not a reporter at heart.

 

[mrhender]

In general terms my opinion is:

- Posters should refrain from any comparison with nazi characters.
If a poster cracks a sad like this they should apologise immediately and recall the post. If not a ban is in order, regardless of context...

These kind of comparisons strengthens no argument whatsoever, and is only insulting..

- Posters should strive to keep their postings on topic...

There are many informative/entertaining/clever posters here.

I'am sad to observe that so much energy is used to discuss eachother instead of topics at hand...
---------------------------------------------------------------------

And for the record, my slate is far from clean.
But I like to think that I learn from my mistakes...

 

[Afrank]

Because the nit-picking bullies only now have spoken against it. And they stand laughing, while ebandit is banned.

You people get treated. Your stigmas and your opportunistic victimization agendas. Not you, in case you're wondering.

Actually no one speaking against it did anything to get ebandit banned. He was banned solely for his own actions. And anyone that did speak against it is 100% correct to do so.

Please, it's as clear as day the point of ebandit's comparison was not actually to compare the_sceptic to a Nazi or anything 'nazistic' for that matter. It's Himmler's personality and working traits he is invoking, but far way from any genocidal instincts in said person. The latter is an irrelevance to the point he was making.

Ebandit doesn't ''continually and repeatedly attacks people personally and derails thread after thread'', I don't know where you get this idea from. If he ever attacked someone personally, it was sceptic, master of all master baiters, who doesn't deserve less than that. He who ignores the rules non stop but sees no action taken against him. Ebandit is the voice of reason. Proof that to ban him you have to pick meaningless and inoffensive things. Taking advantage of the Nazi card the same way some do with the Racist's, knowing that's ultimate way to shut one up. No one would give a rat's, or at least he would not have been banned, had he mentioned any other figure linked with crimes against the humanity outside of the Nazi circle.

Shame on you all.

This is a pretty simple one, when you google Himmler the first thing that pops up is wikipedia with the first paragraph talking about his role as a Nazi leader. I personally know nothing about the personality or working traits of this person. I don't study people from the Nazi party. And I highly doubt most others do. I'm willing to bet anything that 9 times out of 10 what people are going to recognize this reference as, is a reference to a famous Nazi above all else.

If ebandits goal was to compare sceptic to someone with a specific personality or with specific working traits then I'm sure there are tons of other people he could have chosen from that would have made his post less offensive. But he chose someone who is most well known for being a Nazi. It's already geting personal comparing someone to a character in history, but comparing someone to a Nazi? That is definitely not okay no matter how you try to spin it. There are simply too many other connotations that come up when you think Nazi to make such a reference acceptable.

And lately, ebandit has not been a voice of reason. Far from it. He's been acting in the same way that he accuses others of acting. Many times I have seen him not even joining in debate or even trying to argue his opinions rationally but instead just calling others trolls, making fun of them, and accusing them of baiting. If others are also engaging in this kind of behavior please report it and I'll take care of it depending on the gravity of the posts in question. This is no way to act and it does nothing to help the civility of the forum.

One last thing, just because one agrees with another posters stance on other cycling or non-cycling related subjects does not mean that they should defend everything that poster does. And because one disagrees with another poster does not mean they should disagree with everything that poster does and treat everything they do like trolling and baiting. This is something that happens far too much.

Now I am returning to studying for my finals, and hopefully I won't have to be back here too soon.

 

[peloton]

Actually no one speaking against it did anything to get ebandit banned. He was banned solely for his own actions. And anyone that did speak against it is 100% correct to do so.



This is a pretty simple one, when you google Himmler the first thing that pops up is wikipedia with the first paragraph talking about his role as a Nazi leader. I personally know nothing about the personality or working traits of this person. I don't study people from the Nazi party. And I highly doubt most others do. I'm willing to bet anything that 9 times out of 10 what people are going to recognize this reference as, is a reference to a famous Nazi above all else.

If ebandits goal was to compare sceptic to someone with a specific personality or with specific working traits then I'm sure there are tons of other people he could have chosen from that would have made his post less offensive. But he chose someone who is most well known for being a Nazi. It's already geting personal comparing someone to a character in history, but comparing someone to a Nazi? That is definitely not okay no matter how you try to spin it. There are simply too many other connotations that come up when you think Nazi to make such a reference acceptable.

And lately, ebandit has not been a voice of reason. Far from it. He's been acting in the same way that he accuses others of acting. Many times I have seen him not even joining in debate or even trying to argue his opinions rationally but instead just calling others trolls, making fun of them, and accusing them of baiting. If others are also engaging in this kind of behavior please report it and I'll take care of it depending on the gravity of the posts in question. This is no way to act and it does nothing to help the civility of the forum.

One last thing, just because one agrees with another posters stance on other cycling or non-cycling related subjects does not mean that they should defend everything that poster does. And because one disagrees with another poster does not mean they should disagree with everything that poster does and treat everything they do like trolling and baiting. This is something that happens far too much.

Now I am returning to studying for my finals, and hopefully I won't have to be back here too soon.

Appreciate your work here, good luck for your finals!

 

[python]

Appreciate your work here, good luck for your finals!

i agree to an extent, but mostly disagree.

agree, b/c a mod (or the modS, plural) honouring his/her/their volunteer commitment to serve the board, have shown a restraint and patience BEFORE administering a vacation...

disagree, b/c a mod obliged to take an action in response to a relatively ubiquitous personalizing tactic when the 2 sides bicker, was in essence framed...framed b/c the the very thread (member suspension appreciation...), as i said many times before, is counterproductive to say the least, and in fact proven by the thread very record, is stimulatory/promotional of bickering, flaming, bating and ..a surprize those mutual accusations of trolling worthy of a ban.

how this could be off-topic in a thread designed to gloat a ban of someone you dont like or disagree with

obviously, a conscientious mod framed by such a thread would have to allow a totally useless load of personal attacks to last until a red line was crossed by the least careful ... i am not taking sides, but ebandit administered what he had received (unsurprisingly from those who always disagreed with him).

the result was that that the side most vocal (and relatively more circumspect) about their opponent had succeed in banning the enemy.

i do not find it the board's winning...

rather, a cop - perhaps involuntarily - taking the side of one of the street gangs

 

[mrhender]

i agree to an extent, but mostly disagree.

agree, b/c a mod (or the modS, plural) honouring his/her/their volunteer commitment to serve the board, have shown a restraint and patience BEFORE administering a vacation...

disagree, b/c a mod obliged to take an action in response to a relatively ubiquitous personalizing tactic when the 2 sides bicker, was in essence framed...framed b/c the the very thread (member suspension appreciation...), as i said many times before, is counterproductive to say the least, and in fact proven by the thread very record, is stimulatory/promotional of bickering, flaming, bating and ..a surprize those mutual accusations of trolling worthy of a ban.

how this could be off-topic in a thread designed to gloat a ban of someone you dont like or disagree with

obviously, a conscientious mod framed by such a thread would have to allow a totally useless load of personal attacks to last until a red line was crossed by the least careful ... i am not taking sides, but ebandit administered what he had received (unsurprisingly from those who always disagreed with him).

the result was that that the side most vocal (and relatively more circumspect) about their opponent had succeed in banning the enemy.

i do not find it the board's winning...

rather, a cop - perhaps involuntarily - taking the side of one of the street gangs

Is it the thread premise, or the posters/gangs that make it counterproductive?

Is it not rather the usage of this thread that is the problem?

The threads topic is about previous bans, if posters want to discuss eachother in a current sense then maybe the sidebar thread is better suited..
(not that moving the postings there will solve anything, only commenting to the topic issue)

But since this thread has become the official "clearing up misunderstandings in an often hostile fashion thread" -then okay.
But regardless the mods will and should intervene when any poster crosses the line of "normally allowed CN insulting"..?

Would we be better off with closing this thread?
(not saying this is your direct request, but it seems as such?)

I don't know for sure, but don't think so because plenty of venting goes on in the Clinic threads as it is, so closing this one could result in accumulating OT postings, then maybe resulting in fewer participants in the forum as a whole, as threads are "infected" more.

 

[red_flanders]

i agree to an extent, but mostly disagree.

agree, b/c a mod (or the modS, plural) honouring his/her/their volunteer commitment to serve the board, have shown a restraint and patience BEFORE administering a vacation...

disagree, b/c a mod obliged to take an action in response to a relatively ubiquitous personalizing tactic when the 2 sides bicker, was in essence framed...framed b/c the the very thread (member suspension appreciation...), as i said many times before, is counterproductive to say the least, and in fact proven by the thread very record, is stimulatory/promotional of bickering, flaming, bating and ..a surprize those mutual accusations of trolling worthy of a ban.

I agree. I think exposing the bickering and complaints to the mods makes this forum more contentious than it would otherwise be. I argued that point when I was a mod but others felt it is important to let people air grievances publicly. As a participant on a forum which takes a different view, I can tell you I still strongly disagree.

how this could be off-topic in a thread designed to gloat a ban of someone you dont like or disagree with

Who said it was off-topic?

That said, I think it's safe to say that calling people Nazis is off-topic on any thread and a personal attack in any situation. Seems clear...

obviously, a conscientious mod framed by such a thread would have to allow a totally useless load of personal attacks to last until a red line was crossed by the least careful ... i am not taking sides, but ebandit administered what he had received (unsurprisingly from those who always disagreed with him).

the result was that that the side most vocal (and relatively more circumspect) about their opponent had succeed in banning the enemy.

Here is the sequence. Arguing was going on. I saw the Himmler post and reported it instead of adding to the horse-manure in the thread. Others may have done the same. A day or so passed, and ebandit was banned. Reason given was the Nazi thing and repeated trolling as was explained.

My take is that ebandit was given full benefit of the doubt and then when he didn't stop, the plug was pulled. Well handled IMO.

i do not find it the board's winning...

rather, a cop - perhaps involuntarily - taking the side of one of the street gangs

I don't think that's in any way a fair characterization of what happened. But I do agree these threads are EXTREMELY counter-productive. But can you imagine the **** storm which would follow if they got closed? I say let it happen, but it will be a mess for a while.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

 

[red_flanders]

That is my favorite post by you, ever. Laughed my *** off.

 

[nhowson]

As someone who generally took the same side as ebandit in certain areas, I agree with the ban.

 

[hrotha]

Wow, the notion that the Himmler reference was strictly about his personality traits as a non-mass murderer, even though it was followed by a reference to the Stasi, which I suppose also had a distinct personality.

If you're going to say something like that, at least own up to it.