Deconstructing people for the purpose of knowledge seeking?

[floyd]

T/F is a flawed personality dimension, at least as it is used in most typologies i have run across. however, in general, i think the strongest theme of T/F, in most jung typologies, is that Fs have a bias for erring on the side of emotion and sensitivity and Ts have a bias for erring on the side of intellect and emotional insensitivity. one of the mods, claverhouse, is telling me warning me that personal insensitivity on intpcentral is not acceptable. i am interested in exploring the constructiveness of that policy. admittedly, i have a bias towards thinking that there is a lot to learn in deconstructing people (and being deconstructed), just as it is useful to deconstruct ideas. people, to some degree, are their ideas. i think everyone has an inherent error/delusion level and discussion is a useful means for sorting through that maze. of course if sensitivity is the rule here, that is not possible. maybe people are more fragile than i understand or maybe they are more robust than the sensitivity patrol thinks. maybe knowledge seeking is more valued here than individual sensitivity, maybe not. i would like the mods to take a position on this question.

Hypotheticals -

Member A displays a history of believing other people are out to get them. As an inquisitive person, I might inquire what the basis is, and possibly question their reasoning.

Member B says they are really good at learning things but they score average on tests. I might inquire if they are so good at learning why the average test score? i may even speculate that the reality may be they are not very good at learning.

Member C says that obesity is often not reversible, some people will always be overweight regardless of diet and exercise. I might chime in that the evidence does not support that assertion.

in all of the above cases, the person will likely be offended if i counter their perspective. i say so what. the identity i may be offending may not be healthy/accurate anyway and if it is healthy/accurate, it should be able to survive counter ideas. INTPs, i thought, care more about knowledge seeking than feelings.

i am open to convincing reasons why deconstructing people (challenging their personal ideas/perceptions) is a horrible thing to do regardless of the knowledge seeking benefits. barring any convincing reasons, if sensitivity is the enforced norm here, i don't see how this forum is very representive of INT ideals or worth posting at for people who value knowledge seeking over the sensitivity.

[jax0m]

i am open to convincing reasons why deconstructing people (challenging their personal ideas/perceptions) is a horrible thing to do regardless of the knowledge seeking benefits. barring any convincing reasons, if sensitivity is the enforced norm here, i don't see how this forum is very representive of INT ideals or worth posting at for people who value knowledge seeking over the sensitivity.

A lot of the problems I have relating to dealing with people is that once I get past the initial first impression stage and I'm somewhat comfortable with the person

(which takes less time for me than most people, I think, which is a problem as well, or maybe it's just that I don't really _know_ when the time is right to say certain things, or what the comfort level of the other individual is at the moment)

I might start to ask certain questions that most people wouldn't be comfortable with, simply for the purpose of deconstruction.

Like, I'll ask about totally unrelated (and sometimes shocking) things for the purpose of observing reactions. Sometimes it completely alienates me, other times the other party is just so stunned by me that they just tolerate the societally incorrect prodding without much resistance.

I don't know. I think it's kindof fun. I just don't always know when people are getting all sensitive about it or what.

[Sue Denim]

one of the mods, claverhouse, is telling me warning me that personal insensitivity on intpcentral is not acceptable. i am interested in exploring the constructiveness of that policy. admittedly, i have a bias towards thinking that there is a lot to learn in deconstructing people (and being deconstructed), just as it is useful to deconstruct ideas. people, to some degree, are their ideas.
I see two different points here. One is about relative (in)sensitivity, the other is about the merits of deconstruction as a rhetorical tactic. Maybe you can clarify, but I don't see any justification for lumping the two into a single topic.

[distraction tactics]

Context comes largely into play. A side-remark made in passing doesn't necessarily warrant an objective analysis and deconstruction. A full-blown thesis on the subject certainly does. YMMV.

[Rhu]

I realize that you might be delusional enough to think that this argument that you are presenting is objective. It isn't.

I further realize that tact is a pain in the ass and going for polite or indirect methods feel like a waste of time. They aren't, but they sure feel that way.

Nonetheless, I realize that tact and deconstruction are different things. Tact is a measurable quality in communications; deconstruction is a technique of examination. You can pretend that these ideas are inseparable all you like. They aren't.

Finally, I realize that I just said the exact same thing that Sue Denim said, but supplied a completely different and more confrontational structure for the argument. I just felt like it.

[jyakulis]

I realize that you might be delusional enough to think that this argument that you are presenting is objective. It isn't.

I further realize that tact is a pain in the ass and going for polite or indirect methods feel like a waste of time. They aren't, but they sure feel that way.

Nonetheless, I realize that tact and deconstruction are different things. Tact is a measurable quality in communications; deconstruction is a technique of examination. You can pretend that these ideas are inseparable all you like. They aren't.

Finally, I realize that I just said the exact same thing that Sue Denim said, but supplied a completely different and more confrontational structure for the argument. I just felt like it.

off topic:

you're one damn good writer

[eyebyte_atWork]

Am I "Member A"??

[Ivy]

Am I "Member A"??

You WOULD think that, considering you always think people are out to get you. ;P

[floyd]

Am I "Member A"??

no, that example was entirely hypothetical. although, according to claverhouse i pursue and attack you. would you say that is accurate?

[kuranes]

You say in your opening post here that you're open to being "deconstructed" yourself. But you give so little information out about yourself that it is impractical for anyone to do so, should they choose to. In the past you have said to this that this is because you believe in not saying much about yourself in a public forum.

I don't think that you telling ladies - that their photos or romantic philosphies strike you as emblems of insecurity- is much of a "deconstruction."

[eyebyte_atWork]

no, that example was entirely hypothetical. although, according to claverhouse i pursue and attack you. would you say that is accurate?


Did you just call me an asshole?

[jax0m]

Right... I lack tact. I don't think I'm as bad as -some- people, though. Namely certain INTP's I know.

[Dolphin]

A. People are out to get me! Prove me wrong.
B. Because I am lazy. But I am working on this (with some success my grades are improving).
C. I have met people like this, in one case she had an overactive thyroid or something.

Look it all depends on context. How you present your arguments and the reason why you present your arguments. Most things are subjective and arguably not worth arguing about.

The problem with deconstruction is the problem of ad hominem. How is deconstruction different? You are attacking the person, or the very idea of that person.

People do not like their realities shattered. What do you think defense mechanisms are for? People want to stay in their little web of ideas. They do not want to build bigger webs-that is to much work! Which is why people are happy being stupid. Everything stays the same-no worries.

I know I am not perfect. I argue with myself all the time. But people in general fear not being perfect.

By deconstructing them you are triggering their phobias, which causes an emotional response.

In closing, “handle with care” if you even dare.

[joft]

Why seek knowledge?

[Hustler]

In your quest for understanding, floyd, do not confuse insensitivity and apathy. The principle behind the accusation levelled at you has merit; whether or not it is true is beyond the scope of this post to decide. What I am saying is that an F would err on the side of an emotional appeal, whether it is to engender good or bad feelings in someone, while a T would err (?) on the side of leaving emotions out of the picture altogether. Purposefully making someone feel worse about himself is no less an F-oriented undertaking than making someone feel better about himself when both are done through appeals to emotion.

[euterpenc]

I don't know that these questions would arise if anyone read the basis for Jungian typing systems, which would be Jungian psychology. Jung clearly explains what he means.

Your and most peopel's PERCEPTIONS of these types is what is leading you astray. You must realize that even a collective perception my be short of the truth. Buddhism would be good for discerning what is perception and what is reality.

[nottaprettygal]

I don't think that you telling ladies - that their photos or romantic philosphies strike you as emblems of insecurity- is much of a "deconstruction."

Yes! Thank you!

Floyd, you have:
a) Assumed that I have an appearance fixation
b) Told me that I look malicious
c) Said that I sound "pretty fucked up"
d) Suggested that I come from a broken home
e) Assumed there is some subconscious reason why I picked my username based on my obsession with myself

And this was all in the first thread I ever posted in!!

To deconstruct someone you actually have to know something about them. You took one look at my picture and a post I made, and you attempted to rip my fucking life apart. You ask questions not to gain knowledge, but to criticize others. Granted, I have attempted to joke around with you when I'm on the receiving end of your criticisms, but since you've started your own dramatic "Wo is me, I'm so misunderstood *stomp stomp*" thread, I feel compelled to respond honestly. Sensitively isn't the enforced norm here, but something called "tact" is always appreciated. The majority of people here are able to express their opinions, as harsh as they may be, without upsetting others. You can't, and you assume that there's something wrong with everyone else? Puh. That's laughable.

[joft]

I would say floyd's "quest for knowledge" was motivated by his own insecurity, that is, if he were actually on a quest for knowledge.

Confronting people about their motivations or alleged misconceptions isn't a very efficient way of gaining knowledge. It is, however, a good way to establish a certain kind of reputation. Is that your real motive, floyd?

[distraction tactics]

*starts lynch mob*

[jyakulis]

I pity the fool that deconstructulates me!

[Claverhouse]

I further realize that tact is a pain in the ass and going for polite or indirect methods feel like a waste of time. They aren't, but they sure feel that way.
Yup. Now I just wish I'd gone for the Wullie Robertson approach to floyd.

Sir William Robertson, later Field Marshal, started off as a gardener's boy and footman and then joined the army: as Quartermaster-General of the BEF, he was given the sad duty of dismissing Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien from his command:


A famous anecdote, related by an officer who witnessed the interview, reveals that even with a general's badges up there was always a good slice of the ranker in Wully. Marching straight up to Smith-Dorrien, and apparently without any effort to drop his voice, he announced, ' 'Orace, you're for 'ome.'
Tact is wasted on some people.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[MacGuffin]

I pity the fool that deconstructulates me!I found that really funny. I could hear Mr. T saying that!

[nottaprettygal]

I found that really funny. I could hear Mr. T saying that!

I found it funny too. But then again, I read all posts in a Mr. T voice.

[Ivy]

I found it funny too. But then again, I read all posts in a Mr. T voice.

This one is especially funny to read in a Mr. T voice. Of COURSE he would read all posts in a Mr. T voice!

[jyakulis]

mr. t pitys the fool that asks if he still pitys the fool
http://www.pauldavidson.net/2005/11/02/mr-t-likes-the-double-shot-espresso/

mr. t can help you drive!
http://www.wwtdd.com/index.php?type=one&i=316

[floyd]

Yes! Thank you!

Floyd, you have:
a) Assumed that I have an appearance fixation
b) Told me that I look malicious
c) Said that I sound "pretty fucked up"
d) Suggested that I come from a broken home
e) Assumed there is some subconscious reason why I picked my username based on my obsession with myself

And this was all in the first thread I ever posted in!!

To deconstruct someone you actually have to know something about them. You took one look at my picture and a post I made, and you attempted to rip my fucking life apart. You ask questions not to gain knowledge, but to criticize others. Granted, I have attempted to joke around with you when I'm on the receiving end of your criticisms, but since you've started your own dramatic "Wo is me, I'm so misunderstood *stomp stomp*" thread, I feel compelled to respond honestly. Sensitively isn't the enforced norm here, but something called "tact" is always appreciated. The majority of people here are able to express their opinions, as harsh as they may be, without upsetting others. You can't, and you assume that there's something wrong with everyone else? Puh. That's laughable.


this thread is simply asking whether sensitivity rules here and if so why? i was not alerted to the NF takeover, so i am just wondering. i think there is something wrong with all humans, myself included. as stated, i think what makes a person tick is as deconstructable as anything else (that does not mean i am gifted at it, just interested in it). if there is red tape around the mechanisms that are people here, i think that is sensitivity gone too far, and very un-NT.

[floyd]

what this board needs is more tact, politeness, and more threads about who would be dating who if this were high school. claverhouse why don't you go mod an NF board?

[Nadiar]

Floyd, you have:
a) Assumed that I have an appearance fixation
b) Told me that I look malicious
c) Said that I sound "pretty fucked up"
d) Suggested that I come from a broken home
e) Assumed there is some subconscious reason why I picked my username based on my obsession with myself
floyd is obviosly a Japanese clone of Freud.

But how was your relationship with your father?

edit: I can't believe I just wrote that. That was lame =(

[Rhu]

Someone might say that quests for martyrdom would also be at home on an F-centric boards.

I won't, because I personally don't think people should be so limited as to view themselves as being boxed in by a four letter word.

[Dolphin]

He does have a point. I thought this was INTPC. Not INFPC.

However, even INTP's have emotions. You can deny this all you want but it is still true, even for you.

Just because your Fe is weak, it does not give you the right to ignore other peoples emotions. In fact, I think as a person of good character, you should try to be more aware of your own weaknesses.

[Dolphin]

Either he is scapegoating or I am red herring.

I realize that I did not address the issue that floyd put.

To understand what kind of forum this forum is I believe we must take a look at the member themselves and the reasons why they post.

There are many reasons for why people are here but I will only cover two.

Some people are here to argue. It is my belief if that is what you are here to do then you should be able to do it in a logical manner without allowing your emotions to get the best of you.

Some people are here to socialize. These are the people that start the immature threads. I think you know where I am going with this.

[panda]

I generally enjoy your posts, floyd. I think deconstructing other people (and their arguments) is a legitimate activity.

Why post on the forum if you can't stand feedback?

[floyd]

it's fine to have emotions, but mods don't need to govern this board based on them. this place should be as mad max as possible. i think calling people fucks or idiots crosses the line, because it is a non descriptive slur... but i think the following...

a) Assumed that I have an appearance fixation
b) Told me that I look malicious
c) Said that I sound "pretty fucked up"
d) Suggested that I come from a broken home
e) Assumed there is some subconscious reason why I picked my username based on my obsession with myself

whether accurate or inaccurate (and some of it, possibly most of it, i now know is inaccurate), was part of a speculative character analysis which i think has merit intellectually. even when one is wrong about someone, it can prompt/resolve the correct picture of them. watch the tv show house to get an idea of the apparent insensitive INTX style, which ultimately has good intentions.

[kuranes]

it's fine to have emotions, but mods don't need to govern this board based on them. this place should be as mad max as possible. i think calling people fucks or idiots crosses the line, because it is a non descriptive slur... but i think the following...

a) Assumed that I have an appearance fixation
b) Told me that I look malicious
c) Said that I sound "pretty fucked up"
d) Suggested that I come from a broken home
e) Assumed there is some subconscious reason why I picked my username based on my obsession with myself

whether accurate or inaccurate (and some of it, possibly most of it, i now know is inaccurate), was part of a speculative character analysis which i think has merit intellectually. even when one is wrong about someone, it can prompt/resolve the correct picture of them. watch the tv show house to get an idea of the apparent insensitive INTX style, which ultimately has good intentions.

More "inaccurate" and "speculative" than any real "analysis".

You have singled out "Notaprettygal" here but you did the same with a number of other women just because they're outspoken. It's not just a little comment here and there occasionally with you Floyd. It's a pattern. For example, you told Waxwing that it was wrong of her to post pictures of herself taken from odd angles because it didn't cooperate with your "phototyping" requirements. Gee, isn't that tough beans for you.

Regardless of your blather here, you've been warned. Officially.

[lexiphanic]

I pity the fool that deconstructulates me!

Shortest greatest post of the day.

[floyd]

More "inaccurate" and "speculative" than any real "analysis".

You have singled out "Notaprettygal" here but you did the same with a number of other women just because they're outspoken. It's not just a little comment here and there occasionally with you Floyd. It's a pattern. For example, you told Waxwing that it was wrong of her to post pictures of herself taken from odd angles because it didn't cooperate with your "phototyping" requirements. Gee, isn't that tough beans for you.

Regardless of your blather here, you've been warned. Officially.


eyebyte and sil are not women.... are they?

i speculated off angle pictures can be indicative of insecurity. i also stated i had a personal preference for mug shots for typing reasons... i didn't say what she could or could not post, that's ridiculous.

thanks for your blather too kuranes. i will behave as i see fit and you can hall monitor as you see fit. i think everyone should learn how to wield power, however absurd the means.

[distraction tactics]

Hey floyd, if I'm to ever get that cult off the ground, I'm going to need some external analysis. Feel free, buddy.

[lexiphanic]

eyebyte and sil are not women.... are they?

i speculated off angle pictures can be indicative of insecurity... i didn't say what she could or could not post, that's ridiculous.

thanks for your blather too kuranes. i will behave as i see fit and you can hall monitor as you see fit.

You have a large amount of acquired knowledge, but you lack the ability to express that knowledge in ways others will accept. (aka tact)

I enjoy your knowledge, but some tact would be nice.

Regarding House, that is a dramatization of what might exist in less obstreperous form in real life.

[Sue Denim]

In the interest of gaining knowledge, it would make sense to me to not only pay attention to the explicit feedback (from the 'probing' deconstruction), but also on the feedback in other areas. In this context, it might be something about how the tone of how we treat people affects the way they deal with us in return. Using T as a shield against such feedback limits what we get from such an exchange.

[floyd]

Hey floyd, if I'm to ever get that cult off the ground, I'm going to need some external analysis. Feel free, buddy.

you get a manson caliber cadre of women and i am on board.

[distraction tactics]

you get a manson caliber cadre of women and i am on board.

Fuck... I guess I'm going to have to start buying lottery tickets.

[panda]

I enjoy your knowledge, but some tact would be nice.
Why is tact needed? Are people really that sensitive around here?


Regarding House, that is a dramatization of what might exist in less obstreperous form in real life.
I know a guy who acts a lot like House. He's a good friend of mine. I don't understand why that sort of behavior would bother "thinkers".

[floyd]

You have a large amount of acquired knowledge, but you lack the ability to express that knowledge in ways others will accept. (aka tact)

I enjoy your knowledge, but some tact would be nice.

Regarding House, that is a dramatization of what might exist in less obstreperous form in real life.

i would rather learn more than become a good teacher. the latter is just not very rewarding to me.

[lexiphanic]

Why is tact needed? Are people really that sensitive around here?

Some are. I'm certainly not. However, I empathize with people that do seem to be insulted more easily.

[Dolphin]

Why is tact needed? Are people really that sensitive around here?
I would think that before posting, most people would do research into what an INTP is. They would probably realize that INTP’s are not emotional sensitive in a general sense.

Do you believe that people should go around saying “FUCK YOU” to everyone they encounter because of this? Then where will it end? What kind of environment would that make INTPC? I think that the audience, at least the more “warmer” audience members would leave this forum if that happened.

If membership drops then all that will be left is members saying “FUCK YOU” to each other all day long. There will be no logical debates anymore. Nothing of any intellect happening.

Therefore, the mods should be able to censor at least some of the most offensive posts. Which means that it is up to you the user, to censor yourself and be aware of other peoples emotions.

As I said before, even INTP's have emotions. Sometimes are emotions get tangled up with our values. Attacking someones values can cause emotional distress. Tact is needed to avoid unnecessary stress.

[myabyss]

You seem to be emotionally attached to your T.
:unsure:

[panda]

Do you believe that people should go around saying “FUCK YOU” to everyone they encounter?
No, that would be silly (although I did just that in one thread).


Then where will it end? What kind of environment would that make INTPC? I think that the audience, at least the more “warmer” audience members would leave this forum if that happened.

If membership drops then all that will be left is members saying “FUCK YOU” to each other all day long. There will be no logical debates anymore. Nothing of any intellect happening.
Ok, take it easy. You make it sound as if the Apocalypse is nearly upon us.


Therefore, the mods should be able to censor at least some of the most offensive posts. Which means that it is up to you the user, to censor yourself and be aware of other peoples emotions.
The mods are free to do as they like, of course. I don't think people should need to worry about censoring themselves, though, as long as their posts have merit (i.e. are attacking an argument, and not a person).


Attacking someones values can cause emotional distress. Tact is needed to avoid unnecessary stress.
I don't see anything wrong with "attacking" values as long as the person is rational about it.

[Dolphin]

From http://dictionary.reference.com/

Rational


Having or exercising the ability to reason.
Of sound mind; sane.
Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
Mathematics. Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.


Tact


Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.


Wouldn’t it be rational behavior for a human to be able to deal appropriately with others?

Tact seems rational to me.

[panda]

From http://dictionary.reference.com/

Rational


Tact


Wouldn’t it be rational behavior for a human to be able to deal appropriately with others?

Tact seems rational to me.
It is rational. However, there are times when tact is unnecessary or even harmful. Or pointless.

It's also rational not to be hurt if someone (legitimately) criticizes you, though.

[lexiphanic]

It is rational. However, there are times when tact is unnecessary or even harmful. Or pointless.

It's also rational not to be hurt if someone (legitimately) criticizes you, though.

Not that I matter, but I left this site for quite a while as I got emotionally tired of all of the slandering and insensitivity. I don't know if I contribute on a level that you or floyd can appreciate, but I do become very dis-satisfied if there is emotional stupidity in every other post.

[Dolphin]

True.

I see no problem with legitimate criticism. But I get the impression that his criticism was not legitimate.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=legitimate
Legitimate:


Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.

Which is why I believe the motives of the criticizer should be in question.

What is the point of judging someone based on their looks? Did they ask for that criticism? What motives does the judger have? What is the point?

[Dunearhp]

Why is tact needed? Are people really that sensitive around here?

Because a lack of tact can be disruptive. It cultivates unnecessary animosity and derails the efficient flow of communication.

There can be VERY RARE circumstances where a tactless statement can break trough preconceptions or formality in a constructive manner. If this becomes the only way that a person interacts with people then they will be dismissed (rightly so) as an egotistical attention whore.

floyd complains about this becoming NF central. This is a underhanded way of implying that NTs should act like floyd. My response to this is "floyd, you are an asshole". Not a very tactful summation perhaps, but that is the limit of my patience for the analysis of people with sociopathic tendencies. floyd: your approach is a liability, not an asset.

For my part I have always found it more constructive to be on amiable terms with people until a situation forces me to be otherwise. This technique has always had better success at furthering my goals than any other.


I know a guy who acts a lot like House. He's a good friend of mine. I don't understand why that sort of behavior would bother "thinkers".
I've met people a lot worse than House.

[panda]

Not that I matter, but I left this site for quite a while as I got emotionally tired of all of the slandering and insensitivity. I don't know if I contribute on a level that you or floyd can appreciate, but I do become very dis-satisfied if there is emotional stupidity in every other post.
It's not that I think people should slander each other or be insensitive, just that it doesn't bother me. I also think we should be allowed to criticize each other's views and values, as long as we keep it rational and nonpersonal.

Anyway, I enjoy reading and/or discussing a lot of different topics, including the "light", silly stuff.

[floyd]

most scientific hypotheses are disproven when tested. when speculating on others it's foolish to expect a drastically different accurracy rate. i guess i could alternate positive and negative speculations to avoid hurting feelings... but my natural preference is to go with whatever speculations come to mind (it is possible my mind may produce more negative speculations).

emotionally unstable types do arouse my speculation engine more, also people who have a self image that differs from the facts i have observed. i ideally would prefer more ripping apart of ideas and personalities for the sake of knowledge seeking. again i think everyone has a biased perception and discourse between conflicting views is useful in maybe getting closer to an accurate perception. in the absense of an environment of conflicting views, there is likely a dominant group ethos operating. i don't find that appealing. i find the ever growing 'club/high-school' atmosphere here a little tiresome.

[lexiphanic]

most scientific hypotheses are disproven when tested. when speculating on others it's foolish to expect a drastically different accurracy rate. i guess i could alternate positive and negative speculations to avoid hurting feelings... but my natural preference is to go with whatever speculations come to mind (it is possible my mind may produce more negative speculations).

emotionally unstable types do arouse my speculation engine more, also people who have a self image that differs from the facts i have observed. i ideally would prefer more ripping apart of ideas and personalities for the sake of knowledge seeking. again i think everyone has a biased perception and discourse between conflicting views is useful in maybe getting closer to an accurate perception. in the absense of an environment of conflicting views, there is likely a dominant group ethos operating. i don't find that appealing. i find the ever growing 'club/high-school' atmosphere here a little tiresome.

Perhaps there should be an semi-unmoderated sub-forum? One where people can go specifically to rip apart theories or ideas. Although that could subtly deteriorate the atmosphere of the forum as people developed animosity there would undoubtedly carry it with them outside of that space.

[panda]

Because a lack of tact can be disruptive. It cultivates unnecessary animosity and derails the efficient flow of communication.
It can, sure. But only if people choose to become incensed over it.


floyd complains about this becoming NF central. This is a underhanded way of implying that NTs should act like floyd. My response to this is "floyd, you are an asshole". Not a very tactful summation perhaps, but that is the limit of my patience for the analysis of people with sociopathic tendencies. floyd: your approach is a liability, not an asset.
floyd's posts honestly don't bother me in the least. In fact, I usually like them.


For my part I have always found it more constructive to be on amiable terms with people until a situation forces me to be otherwise. This technique has always had better success at furthering my goals than any other.
I prefer keeping things amiable, as well. It doesn't bother me when people don't, though.


I've met people a lot worse than House.
So have I. Although, personally, I think House strikes just the right balance.

[floyd]

Perhaps there should be an semi-unmoderated sub-forum? One where people can go specifically to rip apart theories or ideas. Although that could subtly deteriorate the atmosphere of the forum as people developed animosity there would undoubtedly carry it with them outside of that space.

it may be worth trying... but i would not want the creation of that to make criticising people in any way off limits. i may have crossed the line with NPG, but i don't believe anything i said in the SIL thread was over the line at all... he appears clearly troubled, he could use some alternative perspectives to his current one... i think everyone (including me) is benefited by alternative perspectives.

[panda]

Perhaps there should be an semi-unmoderated sub-forum? One where people can go specifically to rip apart theories or ideas. Although that could subtly deteriorate the atmosphere of the forum as people developed animosity there would undoubtedly carry it with them outside of that space.
Why develop animosity over it, though? That's what I don't understand.

Personally, I enjoy being torn apart. Maybe I'm a masochist. ;)

[myabyss]

Floyd, If your purpose is really knowledge seeking, then even if you detest being sensitive to other people, wouldn't it still be in your best interest to do so? You can gain alot more understanding and insight in your interactions with people if you do not put them in a defensive position.

[myabyss]

Well I am going to shuffle back over to my rocker. Hopefully I can sever the cat's tail in two this time. Wish me luck.

[nottaprettygal]

i may have crossed the line with NPG

Well, I do believe that this is as close to an apology as I'll ever get.

It's not that I'm offended by your remarks to me; I think your assumptions are so absurd that they are laughable. Nonetheless, I've just grown weary of your constant remarks about my character, my appearance, and my intelligence. No one likes to be subject to degradation on a regular basis...especially when it has no merit.

This entire thread appears to be an F reaction to a warning.

[Biff_Loman]

This thread has been interesting reading.

Floyd: this board is a social environment - in fact, a strictly social environment with no other component. If you find that the individuals within this social milieu are not amenable to you poking them with a stick to see if they squirm, well, the fault lies not with the group.

Being a particular type is a matter of personal tendencies and predilictions. It's not some sort of ideal for which one should strive. No one here is under any obligation to be insensitive or impassive because he or she tested as an NT.

Now, I think a lot of us are guilty either here or IRL of probing others to test their reactions. My one INFP friend said to me, once: "Biff, one day you'll learn that there's more to life than fucking with people." I also can be extraordinarily blunt at times. But Floyd: it's no good to hold a flag that reads "I'm going to mess with you for fun."

[MacGuffin]

I think there is a fine line between trying to provoke a reaction and "deconstructing people". People are not playthings for your amusement. This is not some F thing, INTPs are not sociopaths.


Nonetheless, I've just grown weary of your constant remarks about my character, my appearance, and my intelligence. No one likes to be subject to degradation on a regular basis...especially when it has no merit.
That is an example of going too far.

[rockyroad]

This is just a general observation and to be taken with a few pounds of salt but it's still my 2 cents. I am skeptical of most labels or catagory classifications. Too aften they are used as an excuse or or put down. Depending on which side of the issue a person is on.

Just a case in point: Attention Deficit Syndrome... All of a sudden an unbelievable percentage of children are being diagnosed with this. Did this just now crop up? No. The percentage has probably been that way since the beginning. However, in the past, before it was a recognized syndrome, most children who would have fallen into that catagory weren't diagnosed as having a problem other than a discipline problem and forced to focus. Well.. may have been difficult for the child but amazingly many of them made it. Now... many are just being medicated and this is an excuse for them not to learn.

[lexiphanic]

Why develop animosity over it, though? That's what I don't understand.

Personally, I enjoy being torn apart. Maybe I'm a masochist. ;)

Because people that aren't as mature as they think they are would post there. Inevitably.

[floyd]

Floyd, If your purpose is really knowledge seeking, then even if you detest being sensitive to other people, wouldn't it still be in your best interest to do so? You can gain alot more understanding and insight in your interactions with people if you do not put them in a defensive position.

it feels dishonest to pretend to be sensitive. i also think it's more effective, as far as learning, to just say what you think. if everyone has some level of delusion, i don't see how being affirming/polite is an effective way to get closer to an accurate perception. i just feel while deconstruction may be uncomfortable for some, i don't think it is ultimately damaging. i could be wrong though. i generally learn to avoid people if it becomes clear they are too sensitive.

[Claverhouse]

Perhaps there should be an semi-unmoderated sub-forum? One where people can go specifically to rip apart theories or ideas. We had that: the sadly missed Bitching Parlor, more semi-moderated than semi-unmoderated.


Although that could subtly deteriorate the atmosphere of the forum as people developed animosity there would undoubtedly carry it with them outside of that space. True, but without it they spread it all over in any case.

From melan's Wiki trolls link, there was one paper that might prove thoughtful ( in no way a reference to this thread, but just in case we ever get them ):

What Makes A Fuckhead ? (http://thingy.apana.org.au/%7Efun/fsckhead.html)


Fuckheads will frequently use a persecution defense when they are asked to cease their antisocial behavior. They may claim that they are being singled out because of their unpopular viewpoints, or that they are victimized by the nebulous "political correctness" movement. These claims attempt to avoid the obvious cause of the challenge, which is the antisocial behavior itself, by demonizing the reaction to the behavior.
Yet this abundance of proof and truth does not deter the Fuckhead trait of mendacity. "I never said that," claims the Usenet fuckhead, yet the Usenet archive can give you chapter, verse, and message ID. And, as befits the Fuckhead, when you challenge the Fuckhead and prove that the Fuckhead has lied, the Fuckhead will usually respond with a completely irrelevant ad-hominem attack. Such is the way of the Fuckhead.
"Don't you ever learn?" This question is one of the most frequently asked of wayward children or oft-injured adults. But when asked of the Fuckhead, the answer is always, "No." The Fuckhead does not learn.

"Why must you come where you're not wanted?" This question has been asked of the socially deviant and challenged since the dawn of time. Yet the Fuckhead will keep coming back, over and over again.
...
You can count on the Fuckhead to shriek "Censorship!" when you tune out their input. You can count on the Fuckhead saying rude things about you when he/she is sure you're no longer listening. But it will never occur to the Fuckhead to approach topics and people differently, and never, ever occur to the Fuckhead to avoid venues where the atmosphere is unfriendly. This inability to exit gracefully is a distinguishing mark of a Fuckhead.



Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[floyd]

no call for persecution or martyrdom here. i think that argument is a diversion towards not being able to intelligently defend a weak probably emotion based position. i am just trying to get a sense of the tenor for most here and whether the mods are in line with it. if it's unacceptable to say someone looks malicious, i want to know as i won't likely want to post much in such a constrained environment. claverhouse why don't you defend exactly the atmosphere you want here instead of passive aggressive inferences, use the SIL thread to illustrate your point, quote me. your above post does not fit with the fact that i did not deny saying anything NPG claimed i said, in fact i reposted it myself.

intps by nature push the envelop and humans put in moderator positions by nature frequently exhibit poor judgement as most people in society are not habituated to govern others. my opinion of claverhouse is that if he thinks i behaved poorly in the SIL thread he is off. this thread is exploring whether his opinion is in fact representive of the intp horde, so that i can determine what kind of stuff i will post here or if i will post here.

censorship is fine but defend your reasoning intelligently and with relevant evidence not with vague inflammatory anecdotes.

i think intent matters. i was fishing for why NPG had dating habits that most people woud consider anti-social (getting involved with people in relationships). in the case of SIL, i think he is hypomanic and while most people seem to be applauding his literally life endangering behavior, i was just providing a counter perspective.

maybe people are so socially-affirmation dependent that getting personal in any non affirming way is always non constructive, no matter the intent. that's another element i wanted to explore in this thread.

here is a speculative example relevant to the politeness vs. bluntness dynamic...

if you get rigorous exercise every day, you will not be obese. now, i am cool with someone that knows that fact but chooses to be obese, i am all for free will. but obese people who say they could not ever be thin may attract some perspective challenge from me. i am prone to counter belief systems i think are delusional.

so the question is - is poking at someone who thinks their obesity is unchangeable anti-social behavior? is questioning the current perspective of a hypomanic person anti-social behavior?

[Dunearhp]

Poking people is antisocial behaviour.

[MacGuffin]

Poking people is antisocial behaviour.I feel sad for your woman.

[floyd]

change poking to disagreeing.

[Sue Denim]

Disagreeing is not, in itself, antisocial.

[Helios]

Well since this has evoled into 'floyd's attention whore thread'* I won't disrupt that trend. I know there are a few folks around here who find you wildly annoying. A few times I have even found myself poitning out your redeming features (well really just threads I enojoyed that you had created). I do tend to 'not see' most people's bothersome side here. Almost like an internalized ignore. So maybe you are an asshole, I don't know. Some very respectable people seem to think so! :P

Your behavoir/ideas/comments have always been A) mostly so inane and removed from what was going on so as to be meaningless. Such as, the whole NPG thing. I wouldn't have even regestered that. (but,I understand it is much different if one is on the recieving end such as NPG, rather than watching like I was. Additonally, I realize I am inane myself). or B ) sometimes you ask something really interesting and make me think, and this is why I'd be inclined to tolerate you when you flake out the rest of the time.

Of coarse I also realize that my thoughts and feelings on the matter mean nothing to you, or you may find them obnoxious, but whatever I am sure you've heard worse.

semi-O/T, the club/HS thing is passing and fun. NTs we are, but all humans (even INTPs) are socail animals on some level! You'd act as if we can't even have banter on an internet forum! Few people would label a cyber-socail life as excessive.




*I use this in the N Cen meaning of the word, ie non-derogatory.

[coffeezombie]

Deras/Floyd's desire to piss off women is well-known among those of us who have known him for a long time, and he has definitely behaved this way on other boards besides this one. He has some pathological desire to see women get all feelerish, I guess. I think he feels that women have wronged him in the past, or perhaps that they are wronging him now because they aren't all having sex with him. I'm not sure.

At any rate, anyone can see that his "poking" has a definite gender bias to it, and that the more of a "thinker" that a woman seems, the more he likes to poke.

[Conan]

i cast a vote AGAINST a socially engineered and FOR a libertarian style forum where people can say whatever they choose (the responses they get will be their own to deal with), if you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen (i apologize for the cliche)

[Serotonin]

i cast a vote AGAINST a socially engineered and FOR a libertarian style forum where people can say whatever they choose (the responses they get will be their own to deal with), if you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen (i apologize for the cliche)

If that was the case, then most threads would descend into slanging matches, small talk, members getting all riled up and snarky, gratuitous bawdiness and a complete lack of subtlety. I imagine myself and most of the posters I really like would leave if that was the case. A few rules here and there prevents this. If you don't like some subtle social engineering then you leave.

[Conan]

If that was the case, then most threads would descend into slanging matches, small talk, members getting all riled up and snarky, gratuitous bawdiness and a complete lack of subtlety. I imagine myself and most of the posters I really like would leave if that was the case. A few rules here and there prevents this. If you don't like some subtle social engineering then you leave.

that isnt necessarily true, anyways, i think for the most part we DO have a pretty libertarian type forum in that pretty much no one gets banned, all we have are words against words

[Serotonin]

We had that: the sadly missed Bitching Parlor, more semi-moderated than semi-unmoderated.

True, but without it they spread it all over in any case.

From melan's Wiki trolls link, there was one paper that might prove thoughtful ( in no way a reference to this thread, but just in case we ever get them ):

What Makes A Fuckhead ? (http://thingy.apana.org.au/%7Efun/fsckhead.html)


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

Very good link.

Islamic terrorists in Western nations, the latest French car-b-queing boneheads fit this "Fuckhead" description.

The dark side of utilitarianism.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I pity the fool that deconstructulates me!


Ha ha ha - that was perfect!

[eyebyte_atWork]

It always seemed to me that Floyd read the MB version of the INTP description and decided to emulate it to the letter - of course, aside from his post, including this thread, I have no proof that this actually happened. He tends to ask questions with insults and seems to fail to recognize that if he did that crap in person a bitch slap would be his to study. When someone calls him on it, he says they're emotional. I think he shows signs of narcissism.

Also, I think Floyd lacks a sense of humor - he definitely cannot take a poke without getting all bent out of shape (how F-like) and starting a thread about how he is being singled out. Floyd: Grow a sense of humor mother fucker- it helps with life - believe me.

Finally, until he grows respect or a sense of humor, I will not respond to his ideas, posts or threads anymore.


Peace out.

EDIT: - I just saw his profile and notice that he looks like someone I went to college with - how wierd is that?

(Deconstruction complete)

[Conan]

heres a little deconstruction of floyd, now that hes posted a real picture of himself in his profile, the take no prisoners badass image created by his avatar has been replaced with that of an angry nerd, nothing personal floyd, its all in the name of knowledge, dont let your F make you irrational over it

[lexiphanic]

heres a little deconstruction of floyd, now that hes posted a real picture of himself in his profile, the take no prisoners badass image created by his avatar has been replaced with that of an angry nerd, nothing personal floyd, its all in the name of knowledge, dont let your F make you irrational over it

A picture gives you nothing. Especially true for an intp.

[kuranes]

For everyone who sympathizes with Floyd - Perhaps you are buying what he's selling with the implications of "Who's NEXT in this PC reign of terror? Could it be YOU"? Nothing could be further from the truth. How many people have gotten nudges from us about their behavior in all of this time? Very few. So even though the kind of behavior we dislike isn't defined down to the point of having a definition for every thing possibly objectionable, on a case by case basis, there still IS a standard. It's just a very relaxed one that most people don't even perceive as being restrictive.

It's like if you were playing tag in the middle of a backyard the size of Texas and told "try to stay in the back yard" you probably wouldn't even FEEL the parameters. And if you wandered real far in one direction and we actually went so far as to say "You know you're getting kinda close to Oklahoma there" you'd probably say "OK, man, cool" and that would be the end of it. But if you stand there right on the border and keep sticking your foot over the line, or actually go for a drive in Oklahoma, we ARE going to say something. If you thumb your nose at us at that point, you'll just start accumulating warnings. I think it's three warnings and you're outta here, if I remember correctly. So we're not just "hall monitors".

I think it's kind of neat that we have this co-ed environment here, and with people of all ages. It's not just the typical thing with a bunch of teenage guys all cussing at each other, and people trying to see who's the nastiest troll etc. We did away with that. And yet there still is a "Mad Max" thing going on here, in many ways. And some serious discussions. A mix of the two.

All of us Mods are just people trying to do our best here. And because we are people, we all have different ideas as to what is OK. They don't vary that wildly, but I'm sure you can see a difference in style. This doesn't seem to be a problem for most people, from what I've noticed. Just a few people testing their limits with us. And they FOUND those limits. If this sounds too vague, I wouldn't let it worry you. We're not looking to blindside people with stuff from nowhere. I know I've personally told Floyd about some of these things BEFORE. This time there were other people involved, and we decided to get his attention. He had plenty of warning before his "warning." It wasn't just NPG. There were lots of instances with him and Meshou, Madrigal and other people, from my perspective. That doesn' mean you can't get into an argument with someone and use some sarcasm etc. Use your head, and show some class, or make it clear that you're being playful, etc. if there's some doubt in your mind as to how people might take something. If you go so far as to lose your temper sometimes, or post when you're in a bad mood etc., we usually let THAT stuff go too! ( Maybe we 'll delete the post in that case ) It's when we see an actual PATTERN developing . . . . .we have to take a second look. And even THEN we'll usually give you a nudge first, unless you did something extremely egregious - something extremely OBVIOUSLY "over the top". So, in other words, it's no big deal here. Even Floyd has got plenty of room to have fun in the future.

[panda]

What has floyd done, that's so condemnable?

[Serotonin]

For everyone who sympathizes with Floyd - Perhaps you are buying what he's selling with the implications of "Who's NEXT in this PC reign of terror? Could it be YOU"? Nothing could be further from the truth. How many people have gotten nudges from us about their behavior in all of this time? Very few. So even though the kind of behavior we dislike isn't defined down to the point of having a definition for every thing possibly objectionable, on a case by case basis, there still IS a standard. It's just a very relaxed one that most people don't even perceive as being restrictive.

It's like if you were playing tag in the middle of a backyard the size of Texas and told "try to stay in the back yard" you probably wouldn't even FEEL the parameters. And if you wandered real far in one direction and we actually went so far as to say "You know you're getting kinda close to Oklahoma there" you'd probably say "OK, man, cool" and that would be the end of it. But if you stand there right on the border and keep sticking your foot over the line, or actually go for a drive in Oklahoma, we ARE going to say something. If you thumb your nose at us at that point, you'll just start accumulating warnings. I think it's three warnings and you're outta here, if I remember correctly. So we're not just "hall monitors".

I think it's kind of neat that we have this co-ed environment here, and with people of all ages. It's not just the typical thing with a bunch of teenage guys all cussing at each other, and people trying to see who's the nastiest troll etc. We did away with that. And yet there still is a "Mad Max" thing going on here, in many ways. And some serious discussions. A mix of the two.

All of us Mods are just people trying to do our best here. And because we are people, we all have different ideas as to what is OK. They don't vary that wildly, but I'm sure you can see a difference in style. This doesn't seem to be a problem for most people, from what I've noticed. Just a few people testing their limits with us. And they FOUND those limits. If this sounds too vague, I wouldn't let it worry you. We're not looking to blindside people with stuff from nowhere. I know I've personally told Floyd about some of these things BEFORE. This time there were other people involved, and we decided to get his attention. He had plenty of warning before his "warning." It wasn't just NPG. There were lots of instances with him and Meshou, Madrigal and other people, from my perspective. That doesn' mean you can't get into an argument with someone and use some sarcasm etc. Use your head, and show some class, or make it clear that you're being playful, etc. if there's some doubt in your mind as to how people might take something. If you go so far as to lose your temper sometimes, or post when you're in a bad mood etc., we usually let THAT stuff go too! ( Maybe we 'll delete the post in that case ) It's when we see an actual PATTERN developing . . . . .we have to take a second look. And even THEN we'll usually give you a nudge first, unless you did something extremely egregious - something extremely OBVIOUSLY "over the top". So, in other words, it's no big deal here. Even Floyd has got plenty of room to have fun in the future.


Wise words, and I completely agree, but with some people, the moment you put up rules people will try to break them, more so than when the rules were there before. It's part a lack of Fe, and part a fear that any sort of compliance means failure. As soon as you say "Play tag in Texas" you'll get quite a few people hopping in their hotrods and heading straight for the Oklahoma border. When you start patrolling the Oklahoma border, they'll go to New Mexico (uh, my geography is really bad so I don't know if it actually borders Texas).

[floyd]

Deras/Floyd's desire to piss off women is well-known among those of us who have known him for a long time, and he has definitely behaved this way on other boards besides this one. He has some pathological desire to see women get all feelerish, I guess. I think he feels that women have wronged him in the past, or perhaps that they are wronging him now because they aren't all having sex with him. I'm not sure.

At any rate, anyone can see that his "poking" has a definite gender bias to it, and that the more of a "thinker" that a woman seems, the more he likes to poke.

have i argued with you? are you a woman?

[floyd]

heres a little deconstruction of floyd, now that hes posted a real picture of himself in his profile, the take no prisoners badass image created by his avatar has been replaced with that of an angry nerd, nothing personal floyd, its all in the name of knowledge, dont let your F make you irrational over it

i'm all for free expression.

[Serotonin]

:popcorn:

*watches the implosion*

[2ds]

I personally like Floyd.

I see him as a darker but equally usefull part of the forum ecosystem, being especially valid because he tends to not back down and stands apart from everyone else. He comabts groupthin, etc. You would be deluding yourself to say he contributes nothing to the board. As someone said before I find some of his questions very interesting and revealng.

It's easy to criticize Floyd here as he tends to spend his time on the offensive BUT for effective communications to take place both sides must talk. How many people specifically said to him

"I feel uncomfortable with your line of questioning Floyd and I would greatly appreciate it if you would decist" All I see is the mods appearing and telling him off (please, feel free to correct me here..)

Even if he is wrong I still enjoy and find validity in his viewpoints.

Floyd, personal advice for you here, I know people have said it before but I'l be very direct. lay off the women. I'm going to make the assumption something not very nice happened to you in the past and you're carrying alot of bitterness with you because of it, I personally know how easy it is to do that and not even realise it's effecting your perceptions. Take note of this and correct them.

[floyd]

to respond with utmost seriousness to the misogynist charges - i actually hate old crippled women the most. in the absense of old crippled women, naturally, i feel compelled to target women. if you are male and i have argued with you, it must be because you remind me of a woman... why else would i bother.

on a tangental note, i wonder whether anyone here thinks women should be treated nicer than men, if so why? i definitely try to err on the side of treating men and women equally, which in so far as that goes against tradition, may make me seem more like a misogynist.

[Helios]

on a tangental note, i wonder whether anyone here thinks women should be treated nicer than men, if so why?



equal isn't the same, different isn't nicer

[kuranes]

"I feel uncomfortable with your line of questioning Floyd and I would greatly appreciate it if you would decist" All I see is the mods appearing and telling him off (please, feel free to correct me here..)



Somone may have spoken to him in this fashion way back when. The first reactions against him were most likely from the people he offended, and doubtless they were not sugar coated like this, since his own remarks weren't.

Enigmacrypt -I don't have the time to go back and get urls to link you to all of the attacks Floyd's made over time. Why not just accept the fact that we've decided he's aggressively looking for a quarrel more often than he should? Some objectionable things have been pointed out already in this very thread.

[Vagabond]

Regardless of whether floyd is being an ass or not, if we are starting to walk on eggshells in this forum, please let me know. I've had my share of anal boards that censor based on political correctness, and I would like to pass if this is what this board is turning into.

[kuranes]

Regardless of whether floyd is being an ass or not, if we are starting to walk on eggshells in this forum, please let me know. I've had my share of anal boards that censor based on political correctness, and I would like to pass if this is what this board is turning into.

I thought I stated pretty clearly that we WEREN'T. So I don't know why you would ask this. If we take this at your suggestion, and remove the question of Floyd, how many people have been censured by the Mods? This is the kind of post that just seems a knee jerk reaction to regs of any kind, period. It may be that some members just don't like the idea of Mods at all. Besides asking people not to curse excessively, is there any function for them? You talk about boards that have been ruined by PC regs. I''ve seen boards ruined by trolls and endless petty infights. So what? I don't think we're looking at either extreme here.

[Sue Denim]

You're either with us, or with the terrorists. :rolleyes:

[Vagabond]

I thought I stated pretty clearly that we WEREN'T. So I don't know why you would ask this. If we take this at your suggestion, and remove the question of Floyd, how many people have been censured by the Mods? This is the kind of post that just seems a knee jerk reaction to regs of any kind, period. It may be that some members just don't like the idea of Mods at all. Besides asking people not to curse excessively, is there any function for them? You talk about boards that have been ruined by PC regs. I''ve seen boards ruined by trolls and endless petty infights. So what? I don't think we're looking at either extreme here. It is funny that you would accuse me of "not liking mods at all", especially since I have been one of the first mods of this board. I didn't accuse you of general censorism, which is why I asked if this is what this board is turning into. If this was a general trend, I wouldn't be asking, I would be packing my bags. I definitely think floyd has a talent of being an ass at times, but the question is - why should one not be allowed by the mods to be an ass? In cases of excessive cursing and swearing, I agree with bans and censoring (although in some such cases there has been some extreme leniency demonstrated). What this particular situation looks like though, is more like a "you are annoying, shut the fuck up" thing. I am not saying that floyd cannot be annoying, because he surely can. But if "annoying" is a criterion for a ban or censoring, which means someone's subjective sensitivity is a criterion for a ban or censoring, please let me know, so I can decide for myself if this board is still good for me or not. That's all I'm saying.

[ApeTheDog]

I think Vagabond makes a good point. Moderators, as I see it, should only aim to protect people against things that they cannot defend themselves against - such as there are flooding the forums, starting threads with inappropriate content (although, here, again - this is a difficult thing to decide. An example would be posting a picture that nobody wants to see, without there being a good reason for doing so) - arguments and the likes that can be solved without resorting to moderating, I believe, would be better off being solved in that way. Otherwise it's a case of swatting a fly with a giant, large pneumatic hammer.

I do think this board has the best, most thoughtful moderators of all the forums I have been to - I think things are being handled well around here.

[Sue Denim]

Whoever is advocating that moderators exert strict PC control over this forum, please speak up now! Then the rest of us can use our biting words to send you cowering back into the corner.

[kuranes]

Vagabond - I didn't say that you personally didn't like mods at all. I said that SOME members maybe didn't. I have no idea what your own thoughts are, but I would guess that you're not overjoyed with them at the moment. I think there's a tremendous grey area between being sensitive to EVERY possible slight and going after extremely obvious trolls. Floyd's behavior looked like a pattern of repeated attacks on people. We wanted to discourage this, as it contributes to an overall lean towards the troll side. It's a judgement call when it's in this grey area, and, yes, we MADE that judgement. That's what we're HERE for, so I'm told. If all you did as a Mod was to censure people that were on the extreme end of trolldom then that was YOUR choice when you were a Mod.

BTW, I didn't go to the Admins and say "Please make me a Mod so i can have powers". I was ASKED if I would do so. During the course of considering whether I would agree, I asked if there was going to be a lot of hair splitting about what constitutes being a troll, as I didn't want to get embroiled in a constant chewbacky about it. The person who asked me said that there was some disagreement about this but that most people felt that it was a matter of common sense etc. And if you look around, most people DO. Has anyone ever told YOU that you were out of line? If they haven't, then why fuss about it? Do you know a lot of members that have Mods breathing down their neck? I don't.

You're one of the original members here, and apparently a fave amongst the old guard. I've read some nice posts by you, and I guess if you left I'd be deprived of those in the future. But if you want to "pack your bags" because of a lot of hypotheticals , that's your biz. Maybe I'll get my head bit off for being so blunt about it to an old favorite but that's how I feel. I won't ask why you decided to stop being a Mod. I know some have left in past because of frustrations. I can tell you that when I'm out there working on these vague guidelines, and doing my best to keep this place pleasant but still edgey, I find posts like yours just now irritating. That's more the kind of annoyance that YOU were talking about though. Not the kind of thing we censure people for.

I'm also annoyed that more people who would like some kind of moderation around here don't stand up and say so. I guess either they haven't read this thread yet, or they're afraid of someone like you thinking them too sensitive.

Having been a Mod yourself, I'm sure you know very well about that big grey zone. So why you decided to post that bit about whether you need to pack your bags seems like a cheap shot to me. You're saying if it's in the grey zone assume that it's OK? Nothing qualifies for censure except extreme cases?

[kuranes]

I think Vagabond makes a good point. Moderators, as I see it, should only aim to protect people against things that they cannot defend themselves against - such as there are flooding the forums, starting threads with inappropriate content (although, here, again - this is a difficult thing to decide. An example would be posting a picture that nobody wants to see, without there being a good reason for doing so) - arguments and the likes that can be solved without resorting to moderating, I believe, would be better off being solved in that way. Otherwise it's a case of swatting a fly with a giant, large pneumatic hammer.

I do think this board has the best, most thoughtful moderators of all the forums I have been to - I think things are being handled well around here.

Ape, if you had been a Mod when Esteban made his remark, you wouldn't have considered giving a warning? Even though "Heather can defend herself" etc.

[ApeTheDog]

I honestly don't know, Kuranes. I think I would have tried to talk about things, but it's hard for me to put myself in that position. I might have deleted his posts, but I would have been wrong.

I also know that, as a moderator, you have some very hard decisions to make - and knowing that nobody else can make them, and that they are your responsability to make - probably leads to taking things on the safe side.

We need to simply talk about these things, and not form two sides in this (which is not what I see happening, but what I fear happening). There are no moderators and normal people - we all want the same things.

[ApeTheDog]

Would it perhaps help to rotate the moderating positions? I think there are enough trustworthy people here - and having some relief from the responsability might help keep everybody keep a better perspective.

[kuranes]

It was brought up once before by someone.

[Vagabond]

Kuranes, I am not telling you how to moderate and I did not play any 'old fave' card, because frankly I have no clue whether I am a fave or a hated one, neither do I care. I simply asked what the current mods/admins policy in regards to annoying non-cursing posts is, in order to judge for myself what action I will take that will affect myself. I had no idea if it was you or someone else that gave the warning, and I expressed no opinion about whether your judgement call was good or bad for the board; but I have every right to judge if a policy is good or bad for me and act accordingly. Whether anyone told me I was personally out of line or not is completely irrelevant. I don't usually cross limits, but I don't like my limits restricted either. So this is as much my business as anyone's.

Sorry for being blunt as well, but if you are annoyed by my post, I don't give a shit either. That comes with the position (which I never suggested you asked for, I always assumed that you were asked to help, like you said). At least no one called you a cunt and expected you to act detached and mod-like. I am not trying to tell you how to define and deal with the gray zone; I am asking you (not you personally, the mods/admins) to clarify how you are intending on dealing with that gray zone, so I can decide if I still want to be around as much or not. Fair enough?

As for people being afraid to speak up because "someone like me" will think they are too sensitive, well tough shit. If one can't handle criticism, then that's entirely their problem. I don't intend to censore my thoughts or my opinions, and if "people like me" are now considered a problem, then apparently things have changed a lot, which I think makes a clarification of the rules imperative.

[ApeTheDog]

*inferior F*

Let's not polarise things here - vagabond and kuranes, you both want the same things, a moderating system that works. We should simply talk about this until we are all happy... not - which is the direction I can see this going in - until we're all unhappy and people start getting defensive.

*/inferior F*

Wow. What just happened?

[Sue Denim]

If this keeps up, we'll have to nominate this thread for classic status.

[kuranes]

Vagabond - How could we possibly have a policy that addressed every possible thing that could ever come up as an issue in the grey zone? Of course there is NO legal-esque set of rules about it. And I doubt there ever will be. I'm speaking for myself, and just guessing here, on the "ever will be" part. The admins make the final decisions. There is a certain amount of "speaking with a unified voice" here, but it only goes so far. All I can really do is give you my personal perspective. Maybe things were different when you were a Mod. I don't know. I can't speak for Mac and Div and Shaytana and FC. Nor the other Mods. I can tell you that the decision on Floyd was a group decision. There were a couple votes not there from absent members. No votes contesting it. So the answer to your question about the grey area is that there IS no answer. You can live with that or not. Of course you're entitled to ask the question. Why you would have expected any other answer than the one I just gave is beyond me.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I do not think that the MODS should be questioned or picked apart excessively - their word should be final. If we open up discussion as to what a MOD can do - those MODS lose any purpose as threir descretion gets whittled down. MODS should answer to other MODS and ADMINS only - there is a reason why they were picked in the first place. THe MODS here have shown great care as not to be censoring jerks - I repect their descretion.

[Vagabond]

Why you would have expected any other answer than the one I just gave is beyond me. Yes, apparently.

Well, fair enough - saying that there is no clear guideline on how to deal with the kind of posts I asked about is at least an answer.

[Vagabond]

I do not think that the MODS should be questioned or picked apart excessively - their word should be final. If we open up discussion as to what a MOD can do - those MODS lose any purpose as threir descretion gets whittled down. MODS should answer to other MODS and ADMINS only - there is a reason why they were picked in the first place. THe MODS here have shown great care as not to be censoring jerks - I repect their descretion. Me too. I wasn't questioning any decision, I wanted things clarified.

[kuranes]

We just go with our gut and we talk to each other. That's all, as far as I know.

[eyebyte_atWork]

We just go with our gut and we talk to each other. That's all, as far as I know.


You mean you guys use your intuition with the evidence at hand???

radical.

I think you guys are doing a good job. I do think that you guys should keep your intentions secret while deliberating and think that Floyd's bringing it out here was a power play.

[ApeTheDog]

I do not believe that a moderator's word should be final, because they, too, make mistakes. That's a fact. They're people, and people make mistakes.

Now if nobody is allowed to point out the mistakes they make anymore, they cannot learn of them anymore, they'll become arrogant, and make more and more of them.

I do agree that they should not be faulted excessively. They're not enemies, they're simply people who do a job for the community. I think THAT is what deserves respect. Not the title, but what they do. But then if they do something wrong, it would be wrong to show them respect for that as well.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I do not believe that a moderator's word should be final, because they, too, make mistakes. That's a fact. They're people, and people make mistakes.

Now if nobody is allowed to point out the mistakes they make anymore, they cannot learn of them anymore, they'll become arrogant, and make more and more of them.

I do agree that they should not be faulted excessively. They're not enemies, they're simply people who do a job for the community. I think THAT is what deserves respect. Not the title, but what they do. But then if they do something wrong, it would be wrong to show them respect for that as well.


Again - they should meet in secret.

If a MOD PM'd me and told me to cool it - I would. No questions - ofcourse I think I know why they would (I am no idiot).

[ptGatsby]

and think that Floyd's bringing it out here was a power play.


I think this is an interpretation that should be looked at.

It has been a consistent theme in many boards.

[kuranes]

Very true. Nobody has said that Mods cannot be criticized. So if you think we screwed up on this one feel free to say so. it won't be held against you. In fact it will inform us where the membership stands on these areas.

Obviously, if you think we're doing a good job we'd like to be informed about that too. We can't assume that "no news is good news".

Edit - Thanks for the thumbs up to those who think we did the right thing.

[MacGuffin]

You mean you guys use your intuition with the evidence at hand???

radical. That is the standard operating procedure. We don't have any hard and fast guidelines. And if there were, we'd ignore them anyway.

I think what this forum does is put people into a mod/admin position and trust they make the right decisions.

I am wary of anyone who asks for firm guidelines. That sounds like someone who wants to know exactly how far they can take it and try pushing it a little bit more. Then hide behind the guidelines and protest when called on their behavior.

And I think mods/admins should be criticized for what they do, if posters think the mods/admins are becoming onerous.

[AcidGoethe]

I like floyd.

He's a real "T" and an independent thinker. I like him because he doesn't care about social engineering and just goes with logic. He's straightforward and says what he thinks.

There's a place for social rituals: real life.

[ApeTheDog]

Sure, but only to keep things simple and manageable - and to be able to discuss things that would be sensitive/impolite to discuss when other people can hear them (such as: is floy being a jackass) not because they should harbour secrets.

I don't think we disagree about this.

[xavierd]

Confronting people about their motivations or alleged misconceptions isn't a very efficient way of gaining knowledge. It is, however, a good way to establish a certain kind of reputation. Is that your real motive, floyd?

I think Socrates would disagree with you here joft.

[Vagabond]

I am wary of anyone who asks for firm guidelines. That sounds like someone who wants to know exactly how far they can take it and try pushing it a little bit more. That would be me. Name names, I don't mind.

[jyakulis]

i never had a problem with floyd either or mr. t

he comes off a little brash is all

on a side note floyd this thread is teh suck.

[MacGuffin]

That would be me. Name names, I don't mind.I don't think I realized you were asking for firm guidelines. I thought you were being hypothetical.

[Sue Denim]

[I] think that Floyd's bringing it out here was a power play.Agreed. At first, it looked like it might have backfired, but it has taken a turn in his favor more recently.

[floyd]

Again - they should meet in secret.

If a MOD PM'd me and told me to cool it - I would. No questions - ofcourse I think I know why they would (I am no idiot).

but you are an intj and therefore likely have a bias for being a structure conforming whore.

-------------------------------------------------------------

i think if mods are out of step with the zeitgeist here they should alter their policies. i don't think the purpose of mods is to bioform the board to their personal liking. of course, the zeitgeist here may be for more sensitivity, that was what i was attempting to figure out in this thread.

as a lazy intp i understand why one would not want to go look for posts to defend one's position.... but if you are going to continually imply i am a troll and fuckhead well i think you have a burden to defend your position with more coherent evidence or abandon it.

this thread has frequently has been pretty stupid because it rarely covered the ground i wanted - exploring the importance or unimportance of sensitivity on an intp board - it has served more as a magnet for more personal yeahs or neahs, which maybe in a roundabout way answers the question that personal feelings rule even most intps.

as to patterns of behavior, patterns of behavior = one's personality. so if my pattern is to be a jerk, then the question is are jerks like myself welcome here. if the zeitgeist says no, then i should not be here. the purpose of mods, i think, is to reflect the overall zeitgeist not to define/determine it.

[ApeTheDog]

Why would anyone want to act less sensitive than they are? I can understand why people would do it - it keeps them from getting their sensitivities hurt by others - but surely artificially acting more tough than one is is not something one should try to stimulate.

[Sue Denim]

this thread has frequently has been pretty stupid because it rarely covered the ground i wanted - exploring the importance or unimportance of sensitivity on an intp board - it has served more as a magnet for more personal yeahs or neahs, which maybe in a roundabout way answers the question that personal feelings rule even most intps.When you anted to expore the importance or unimportance of sensitivity on an intp board, did you mean that with regard to the moderators, or with regard to the overall population? If it's the latter, then including a moderator in the original post may have muddied the waters unnecessarily.

[Sue Denim]

but you are an intj and therefore likely have a bias for being a structure conforming whore. If they're still giving out titles when you get 1000 posts, I suggest yours be "Teddy Bear".

[floyd]

When you anted to expore the importance or unimportance of sensitivity on an intp board, did you mean that with regard to the moderators, or with regard to the overall population? If it's the latter, then including a moderator in the original post may have muddied the waters unnecessarily.

i meant with regard to the overall population.

[floyd]

Why would anyone want to act less sensitive than they are? I can understand why people would do it - it keeps them from getting their sensitivities hurt by others - but surely artificially acting more tough than one is is not something one should try to stimulate.

this also begs the question, why would someone want to act more sensitive than they are?

[ApeTheDog]

this also begs the question, why would someone want to act more sensitive than they are?

In order to fool people into a false sense of security. I don't see much benefit from anyone doing that here, though.

[Sue Denim]

I'm not sure that I buy the idea that people either ARE or ARE not sensitive. The word 'sensitive' can describe an action or a feeling, indicating a relative degree of empathy. But as an identity, I think it falls short.

[ApeTheDog]

No, you're right, Sue Denim.
I think all people are sensitive at the core - but how one acts is a choice one makes - we all know nobody is ever really themselves. I do believe it is possible to be sensitive, or unsensitive, though - and have that be a semi-conscious choice. It's simple a matter of how willing you are to let yourself be hurt, in order to learn new things/free your mind.

[C.J.Woolf]

Interesting stuff here. I don't have time for a thorough reply, but here's a short one:

Some view this board as a community. Others view it as an arena. The first group doesn't need codified rules because they are sensitive to other members; others' reactions tell them if they're pushing the boundaries. The second group wants to know the letter of the law 'cause they want to know their options. ;)

[eyebyte_atWork]

but you are an intj and therefore likely have a bias for being a structure conforming whore.



True dat.


I do find it funny that any pure T-type would even care to perform any social deconstruction - I would think he/she would have better things to deconstruct.

The idea of F-type means that people issues do factor into the logical choices - the side effect is that sensitivity that you talk about. People do seem to be of some importance to you as evidenced by your needing to discuss social issues.

I also applaud you in your challenging the Mods desicion - you have gained support and have the others debating a worthless issue.

[ApeTheDog]

I think, at the core, the rules that apply everywhere concerning social behavior apply here as well. It is not because we are INTP's that somehow, that means we have to act according to some profile that states we're all insensitive blockheads. We're good enough at doing these things WITHOUT doing them on purpose, I'd think...

[Claverhouse]

*eyes bright with unshed tears*

This thread, bizarrely placed in General Psychology rather than Complaints, or Rants&Raves ( but WTF should I move it from it's overt purpose of discussing emotion when it's just an emotional whinge... ), merely feeds floyd's self-pity. Geez, it's just a warning, and we don't compel the transgressor to wear a scarlet W under their avatar, ( for Warned, what else ? ). No-one else knows that someone has been warned, nor should they. If floyd had a problem with the warning he could have replied to my PM or complained to file cabinet or Division56.

There are some subjects that are either forbidden, or otherwise practically forbidden because most people here have been conditioned to accept them as wicked and will go apeshit when anyone offers other views. Under the first comes paedophilia and human/animal sacrifice; under the second comes say, nazism or creationism. Whilst I would agree with the former strictures, I have no limits to what should be said in the realm of idea, even if someone comes along praising monsters such as Lenin or Yagoda: whilst many members here feel there should be definite taboos.

That leaves politeness --- or what floyd might call passive-aggressive FE. If anyone noticibly offends other people, or there are complaints, then the mod/admins act, either in concert as now, or with obvious grossness one might act instantly alone ( as should have happened when EdwinJefferson called one member here a cunt ).

But as kuranes has pointed out, repeatedly, with floyd there has been a pattern. Yesterday the British newspapers mentioned a French footballer here playing for an English club who earns £40,000 a week and got legal aid to help him in court where he was fined £500 for spitting juice over a small football fan. This would not be news, but that in 2004 he was fined two weeks wages for spitting in the face of another player; in 2003 he was fined £5000 for spitting at football fans. After a while it becomes quite obvious that if accused of spitting at someone, he's going to have a hard time proving his innocence.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[Conan]

I like floyd.

He's a real "T" and an independent thinker. I like him because he doesn't care about social engineering and just goes with logic. He's straightforward and says what he thinks.

There's a place for social rituals: real life.

despite my unflattering comment about floyd, in general, i do feel the same way, he made my list in the favorite posters thread and though i dont always agree with what he says, i actually enjoy it when he ruffles some feathers especially when hes right, not that i dont think others are justified in criticising him when he goes overboard (as i have been when i was a little TOO insensitive that one time), just saying what i think

[panda]

Personally, I don't think floyd has done anything damnable; I think the warning was silly.

Still, as Claverhouse once said:


One thing that does beat me is that half the posts seem to be about the forum and it's members: this is like buying a computer and spending 90% of the time improving it's performance, securing it against the outside world, downloading tools that ensure the OS works better; and only 10% of the time using it to do something.

[coffeezombie]

have i argued with you? are you a woman?
Many times, and no. It does seem at some point you've decided to lay off most of the men and focus on the women, though. There is plenty of evidence not just from this board but the others you frequent as well. Your misogyny seems pretty transparent to anyone but the mentally blind.

[panda]

Many times, and no. It does seem at some point you've decided to lay off most of the men and focus on the women, though. There is plenty of evidence not just from this board but the others you frequent as well. Your misogyny seems pretty transparent to anyone but the mentally blind.
I honestly don't recall seeing floyd display misogynistic behavior. Perhaps it's obvious when taken in context with his posts from other forums, I don't know.

[floyd]

Many times, and no. It does seem at some point you've decided to lay off most of the men and focus on the women, though. There is plenty of evidence not just from this board but the others you frequent as well. Your misogyny seems pretty transparent to anyone but the mentally blind.

cz, you know i have experienced you as a bitter and vindictive person so forgive me if i doubt your view of the things. in any case, would you say vagabond would be objective on my other board behavior? if so, do you think she would strongly affirm your viewpoint? if she strongly agrees with your past two posts, then i will agree with you.

[floyd]

*eyes bright with unshed tears*

This thread, bizarrely placed in General Psychology rather than Complaints, or Rants&Raves ( but WTF should I move it from it's overt purpose of discussing emotion when it's just an emotional whinge... ), merely feeds floyd's self-pity. Geez, it's just a warning, and we don't compel the transgressor to wear a scarlet W under their avatar, ( for Warned, what else ? ). No-one else knows that someone has been warned, nor should they. If floyd had a problem with the warning he could have replied to my PM or complained to file cabinet or Division56.

There are some subjects that are either forbidden, or otherwise practically forbidden because most people here have been conditioned to accept them as wicked and will go apeshit when anyone offers other views. Under the first comes paedophilia and human/animal sacrifice; under the second comes say, nazism or creationism. Whilst I would agree with the former strictures, I have no limits to what should be said in the realm of idea, even if someone comes along praising monsters such as Lenin or Yagoda: whilst many members here feel there should be definite taboos.

That leaves politeness --- or what floyd might call passive-aggressive FE. If anyone noticibly offends other people, or there are complaints, then the mod/admins act, either in concert as now, or with obvious grossness one might act instantly alone ( as should have happened when EdwinJefferson called one member here a cunt ).

But as kuranes has pointed out, repeatedly, with floyd there has been a pattern. Yesterday the British newspapers mentioned a French footballer here playing for an English club who earns £40,000 a week and got legal aid to help him in court where he was fined £500 for spitting juice over a small football fan. This would not be news, but that in 2004 he was fined two weeks wages for spitting in the face of another player; in 2003 he was fined £5000 for spitting at football fans. After a while it becomes quite obvious that if accused of spitting at someone, he's going to have a hard time proving his innocence.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

claverhouse, as stated i think the mods should reflect the ziegeist of the board not individual complainers, because the latter can reflect outlier positions (just as the mods can reflect outlier positions if they lose site of the zietgeist). so why would i take up this issue privately with the mods if i think they may be out of step with that (you already told me the mods were in agreement with you). your calling this a self pity thread is just an easy diversion from addressing the fact that your mod style may be overly sensitive, out of step. forget about me, defend the issue of forbidding people from hurting someone's feelings by questioning their perspective. the fact is i don't deny that i may offend some, so there is no innocence defense here. as per your example, i would say that footballer spits at people by nature of his personality. if he stops, it's for external reasons, he is still a spitter at heart. in any case, i don't think my irreverent questioning 'pattern' is akin to spitting bodily fluids.

self delusion is the norm for everyone. consequently, i find a board where you can question perspective and have your perspective questioned useful/enlightening. i would draw the line at repetitive questioning of the same person on the same topic from thread to thread when they clearly are averse to it, that's hounding. if a member says they are a skilled learner but their test scores don't show that, i don't see the problem with questioning their self concept even if it hurts their feelings.

on a serious note is there an HSP (highly sensitive personality) majority among the mods which is possibly viscerally allergic to impolite personalities?

[coffeezombie]

cz, you know i have experienced you as a bitter and vindictive person so forgive me if i doubt your view of the things. would you say vagabond would be objective on my other board behavior? if so, do you think she would strongly affirm your viewpoint? if she strongly agrees with your past two posts, then i will agree with you.
Hmm... it sounds to me like you just want an excuse to kick a woman again. I'm sure if Vagabond posts that you will focus your vitriol on her and that I will soon be forgotten about.

[Vagabond]

cz, you know i have experienced you as a bitter and vindictive person so forgive me if i doubt your view of the things. would you say vagabond would be objective on my other board behavior? if so, do you think she would strongly affirm your viewpoint? if she strongly agrees with your past two posts, then i will agree with you. Quite manipulative of you. I would analyse my viewpoint if I was asked on a different context, but I am not playing a role in your little mind game. Trying to shift the focus of the dispute on other people was low of you.

(Since when do you accept my viewpoint as The Truth? Too funny deras).

[coffeezombie]

on a serious note is there an HSP (highly sensitive personality) majority among the mods which is possibly viscerally allergic to impolite personalities?
That's a nice Catch-22 you put everyone in. If someone punishes you they are HSPs but if they counterattack you then they are "bitter and vindictive." I guess we all should just ignore you and let you do whatever you damn well please, huh?

[Vagabond]

Well, I am HSP and I am allergic to other stuff - censoring opinions being one of them and manipulating my behaviour being another.

[floyd]

Quite manipulative of you. I would analyse my viewpoint if I was asked on a different context, but I am not playing a role in your little mind game. Trying to shift the focus of the dispute on other people was low of you.

(Since when do you accept my viewpoint as The Truth? Too funny deras).

i think cz posts on this thread are total manufactured bs because of his ill will. he is one of the most vindictive people i have ever encountered online. he basically took the most unacceptable accusation of my behavior here and said that there is a ton of evidence on other boards of it. you are the only other regular here who would know if that is true or not as you have been on those boards. my position is everyone is deluded to some degree, so that includes me, which is why i queried your version to see if it affirmed his. if your view affirms his, then i agree i am probably a transparent misogynist.

[floyd]

That's a nice Catch-22 you put everyone in. If someone punishes you they are HSPs but if they counterattack you then they are "bitter and vindictive." I guess we all should just ignore you and let you do whatever you damn well please, huh?

are you saying you personally are not more bitter and vindictive than most people? i have frequently stated on here that i may be to acerbic for the zeitgeist of this board, but i don't think the zeitgeist has been determined. everyone seems to not want to discuss what that is.

[Vagabond]

i think cz posts on this thread are total manufactured bs because of his ill will. he is one of the most vindictive people i have ever encountered online. he basically took the most unacceptable accusation of my behavior here and said that there is a ton of evidence on other boards of it. you are the only other regular here who would know if that is true or not as you have been on those boards. my position is everyone is deluded to some degree, so that includes me, which is why i queried your version to see if it affirmed his. if your view affirms his, then i agree i am probably a transparent misogynist. Okay, if you insist then.

I don't know if you are a misogynist, but it is true that for the last several months you seem to particularly enjoy kicking women around and dodging any edgy comment men make on you. This is my perception too. Now, if you are a misogynist, or if you are bitter for personal reasons, or if you find it amusing or whatever else, I have no clue. I also don't mind it, because I don't need to ask my mommy to tell you not to bother me. Which has been my objection to the entire warning thing.

[coffeezombie]

are you saying you personally are not more bitter and vindictive than most people?
Why would I be bitter or vindictive about any quality you have, Deras? This is just how I try to send a message to people. You're not the only misogynist I've pointed out on here in a nasty way. And I have also spoken out against any elitism I see that is similar to the blatant and ugly elitist views you possessed in regards to the Enneagram.

[floyd]

Okay, if you insist then.

I don't know if you are a misogynist, but it is true that for the last several months you seem to particularly enjoy kicking women around and dodging any edgy comment men make on you. This is my perception too. Now, if you are a misogynist, or if you are bitter for personal reasons, or if you find it amusing or whatever else, I have no clue. I also don't mind it, because I don't need to ask my mommy to tell you not to bother me. Which has been my objection to the entire warning thing.

but cz claimed i had a extensive past history of targeting women on other boards. so the question is, is that true? i don't disagree the last few months on here i have had words more often with women but i think that just shows that a small period of time can be unrepresentitive.

[Vagabond]

but cz claimed i had a extensive past history of targeting women on other boards. so the question is, is that true? i don't disagree the last few months on here i have had words more often with women but i think that just shows that a small period of time can be unrepresentitive. I didn't say "on here". And I said "several months".

The misogynist part comes in the picture because you don't enjoy kicking men as much, instead I have been surprised many times to see you avoid a conflict with guys, while you are too easy to start one with women.

[coffeezombie]

but cz claimed i had a extensive past history of targeting women on other boards. so the question is, is that true? i don't disagree the last few months on here i have had words more often with women but i think that just shows that a small period of time can be unrepresentitive.
I wonder what certain 4w5s on the Enneagram board would think of this discussion on here if they happened to read this board.

[floyd]

Why would I be bitter or vindictive about any quality you have, Deras? This is just how I try to send a message to people. You're not the only misogynist I've pointed out on here in a nasty way. And I have also spoken out against any elitism I see that is similar to the blatant and ugly elitist views you possessed in regards to the Enneagram.

i am not saying you are bitter and vindictive because of me, i am saying that is your innate personality.

[Vagabond]

i am not saying you are bitter and vindictive because of me, i am saying that is your innate personality. Dears, you ask questions, you get answers. You kick people, you get kicked back. You post on public boards in a controversial way, you get critisized. That's how it works. I don't know why you get all worked up about that. I disagree with people getting banned or warned or censored for being bitter or controversial, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get an equal behaviour back.

[CosmicDust]

You can gain alot more understanding and insight in your interactions with people if you do not put them in a defensive position.
Not necessarily true. If you put people in a defensive position, you get to learn about how their defensiveness works. If you don't put people in a defensive position, you learn other things about them, but not necessarily "more" things.

So to learn the maximum, you'd want to try interacting with them in all different kinds of ways to sample a fuller range of their behaviors. Or if you don't provoke them to these states yourself, observe what happens if other people/things provoke them to these states.

Starting with something that makes them defensive, though, could produce a negative-emotion memory that will make the person more likely to be defensive around you no matter what you do, closing off your opportunity to learn more.

[kuranes]

Nobody's ever asked me to "protect" them. I have gotten some comments along the lines of "thanks for watching my back". Not everyone who is annoyed by Floyd is 'too sensitive". Some are people who avoid conflict, because they'd rather spend their time here doing other things, and let the mods do their job. Some are posters who I'd really miss if they went elsewhere. I wouldn't miss Floyd much, even though he's come up with some good threads.

People say things along the lines of "Sure he's an asshole, but that's not the point" or "sure most of us are not being harassed with warnings, but that's not the point." I must be coming from the planet Mars or something, because to ME that's EXACTLY the point.

[floyd]

Nobody's ever asked me to "protect" them. I have gotten some comments along the lines of "thanks for watching my back". Not everyone who is annoyed by Floyd is 'too sensitive". Some are people who avoid conflict, because they'd rather spend their time here doing other things, and let the mods do their job. Some are posters who I'd really miss if they went elsewhere. I wouldn't miss Floyd much, even though he's come up with some good threads.

People say things along the lines of "Sure he's an asshole, but that's not the point" or "sure most of us are not being harassed with warnings, but that's not the point." I must be coming from the planet Mars or something, because to ME that's EXACTLY the point.

kuranes is the moderating policy to maintain a board which reflects the mod's sensibilities OR to maintain a board which reflects the zeitgeist (what the average of person here wants)? i may be out of line with both of those, but i am curious which one is the foundation of board policy? i think if it's about the mods values then the board will be more likely to reflect a narrow viewpoint resulting in a less dynamic, diverse, and interesting board.

[floyd]

Not necessarily true. If you put people in a defensive position, you get to learn about how their defensiveness works. If you don't put people in a defensive position, you learn other things about them, but not necessarily "more" things.

So to learn the maximum, you'd want to try interacting with them in all different kinds of ways to sample a fuller range of their behaviors. Or if you don't provoke them to these states yourself, observe what happens if other people/things provoke them to these states.

Starting with something that makes them defensive, though, could produce a negative-emotion memory that will make the person more likely to be defensive around you no matter what you do, closing off your opportunity to learn more.

cd, you are on the same boards as cz and vagabond, what's your opinion on whether i am a misogynist?

[kuranes]

Like you Floyd, I'm interested in hearing a lot of voices on this issue. If it's a big concern, that is . . . what's happened so far is a fait accompli. It's done.

[floyd]

Like you Floyd, I'm interested in hearing a lot of voices on this issue. If it's a big concern, that is . . . what's happened so far is a fait accompli. It's done.


you did not answer my question.

is the moderating policy to maintain a board which reflects the mod's sensibilities OR to maintain a board which reflects the zeitgeist (what the average of person here wants)?

[CosmicDust]

I wonder what certain 4w5s on the Enneagram board would think of this discussion on here if they happened to read this board.
But...they start it! Sometimes, anyway.

[Hustler]

but cz claimed i had a extensive past history of targeting women on other boards. so the question is, is that true? i don't disagree the last few months on here i have had words more often with women but i think that just shows that a small period of time can be unrepresentitive.

So, floyd, do you consider yourself a misogynist?

[Claverhouse]

kuranes is the moderating policy to maintain a board which reflects the mod's sensibilities OR to maintain a board which reflects the zeitgeist (what the average of person here wants)? i may be out of line with both of those, but i am curious which one is the foundation of board policy? i think if it's about the mods values then the board will be more likely to reflect a narrow viewpoint resulting in a less dynamic, diverse, and interesting board.
and earlier:


claverhouse, as stated i think the mods should reflect the ziegeist of the board not individual complainers, because the latter can reflect outlier positions (just as the mods can reflect outlier positions if they lose site of the zietgeist). so why would i take up this issue privately with the mods if i think they may be out of step with that (you already told me the mods were in agreement with you). your calling this a self pity thread is just an easy diversion from addressing the fact that your mod style may be overly sensitive, out of step.
This isn't a democracy, nor an anarchic paradise: it belongs to the board owner who delegated running the place to admins, they decide the policy, mods just enforce the policy. If people, including you and I, dislike anything they needn't turn up. If the zeitgeist is that mod/admins are too mean, that's tough; if the zeitgeist is that they are too lax, that's tough; if the zeitgeist is that they are acting perfectly, s'nice, but it doesn't matter. People can complain to the admins and hope they modify their behaviour, but the admins are not bound to do what anyone suggests, whether they are in the majority or minority. If giving you a warning was out of step with the feelings of the majority: that's no reason for me to care, any more than I care about your feelings. Provided I am polite, otherwise I would be wrong, if not out of step.

I fully agree that I am exceptionally sensitive and prone to emotional thinking: however my warning was not issued because of any incidents between us personally, since there have been none; it was issued because the mod/admins felt that some of your posting record has been bitter and vindictive. Had you not created a martyr-thread to protest about it, no-one else would have known.

There are exceptionally few warnings and bannings given here compared with other boards, mainly for direct trolls; that makes it in itself a tolerant place, but if some posters disrupt other posters merely to prod or dissect them, or attempt discussions of the other's attitude to them on public threads off-topic, it gets boring and makes us lose still further members --- as happened extensively during the SB34/EZ Affair*.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif



* Soon to be made into a film with Pierce Brosnan & Catherine Zeta-Jones.

[floyd]

So, floyd, do you consider yourself a misogynist?

no, but that does not mean i am not.

[CosmicDust]

cd, you are on the same boards as cz and vagabond, what's your opinion on whether i am a misogynist?
I don't pay much attention to whether you poke men or women more on average. I don't spend much time here compared to the other boards, so I don't notice your preferential kicking of females here. I will say that I've witnessed you kicking two females without provocation on another board in "recent months," but that in itself is inconclusive of misogyny. Hell, it might not even be misogyny, per se, but rather a distorted expression of the opposite, in that you find them interesting enough to accuse of being natural born fuck-ups from a long line of fuck-ups and see what happens, while men are more boring and not as much fun to study.

So, my opinion is that the data can be read in multiple ways. Guess you can't count on me to have a "real" opinion...just ain't my thing.

[coffeezombie]

Hell, it might not even be misogyny, per se, but rather a distorted expression of the opposite, in that you find them interesting enough to accuse of being natural born fuck-ups from a long line of fuck-ups and see what happens, while men are more boring and not as much fun to study.

A lot of wife beaters actually love their wives.

[CosmicDust]

A lot of wife beaters actually love their wives.
There was some discussion on the EIDB about gifts and curses going together...maybe strong positive and strong negative feelings about your gender of romantic preference tend to go together in a similar way?

[Nighthawk]

is the moderating policy to maintain a board which reflects the mod's sensibilities OR to maintain a board which reflects the zeitgeist (what the average of person here wants)?
My personal opinion ... having been a moderator only a short time ... is that the moderators try to do what a consensus of the members of the board would want. Successful all the time? Of course not. We are but human. I haven't seen any overly sensitive moderators in my time here. Look how far the trolls got before there was a consensus to finally stop them. Most of the moderators seem to follow quite a bit of restraint, in my opinion.

[CosmicDust]

Funny, CZ...you once suggested this place was sort of a mythical utopia where the 5s and the 6s get along, but in some ways it's not so much different from the Enneagram boards. Deras still pisses people off and gets warned by the admins/mods for it, and people still spend half their time on board soap operas.

I posted a link to this thread on Ocean's board for people who might be amused by it, e.g. "certain 4w5s."

[floyd]

My personal opinion ... having been a moderator only a short time ... is that the moderators try to do what a consensus of the members of the board would want.

claverhouse's response seems to suggest an aversion to that approach.



If the zeitgeist is that mod/admins are too mean, that's tough; if the zeitgeist is that they are too lax, that's tough; if the zeitgeist is that they are acting perfectly, s'nice, but it doesn't matter. People can complain to the admins and hope they modify their behaviour, but the admins are not bound to do what anyone suggests, whether they are in the majority or minority. If giving you a warning was out of step with the feelings of the majority: that's no reason for me to care, any more than I care about your feelings. Provided I am polite, otherwise I would be wrong, if not out of step.

[coffeezombie]

There was some discussion on the EIDB about gifts and curses going together...maybe strong positive and strong negative feelings about your gender of romantic preference tend to go together in a similar way?
Sure, I actually find Deras/Floyd very interesting and very annoying at the same time. I always have, which is why I'm against him getting any kind of banning eventually no matter what his behavior is on here. However, I'm not the one being constantly verbally maligned by him. Maybe I'd feel differently then.

Oh well. Floyd lovers can always go to www.similarminds.com (http://www.similarminds.com) if they want more of him.

[CosmicDust]

Sure, I actually find Deras/Floyd very interesting and very annoying at the same time. I always have, which is why I'm against him getting any kind of banning eventually no matter what his behavior is on here. However, I'm not the one being constantly verbally maligned by him. Maybe I'd feel differently then.
Hmm...I got a lot of hell from him when I was a moderator on the EIDB, yet remained firmly against banning him. (Of course, he got banned anyway long after I quit moderating, for criticizing their Enneagram test "validation study." My opinion has always been that policies should be at least equal for insults to admins/mods/businessmen and insults to ordinary members, and perhaps even more lax for insults to the people in charge insofar as it makes them look weak for not being able to handle such insults, but the people in charge don't and it's their board, so what can I do?) Then again, my ways of responding to verbal alignment and the associated feelings may not be representative of the general population, and are probably also not very relevant on this board given that I am an "irregular" here and there are tons of "regular" members who may respond quite differently despite having the same four-letter code as I do.

[Nighthawk]

claverhouse's response seems to suggest an aversion to that approach.
Possibly ... but I have seen him deliberate a lot before taking any actions. He tries to get a feel for the board before he does anything. Still, it was just a warning ... and I think it is being blown out of proportion a bit.

[floyd]

Possibly ... but I have seen him deliberate a lot before taking any actions. He tries to get a feel for the board before he does anything. Still, it was just a warning ... and I think it is being blown out of proportion a bit.

but logically, if i remain the same and the mods remain the same, i will keep getting warnings hence my desire to explore the source of the sensitivity standard and whether it fits the board mentality or some out of step mods.

[Nighthawk]

but logically, if i remain the same and the mods remain the same, i will keep getting warnings hence my desire to explore the source of the sensitivity standard and whether it fits the board mentality or some out of step mods.
That's a possibility ... but we've certainly explored the issue quite a bit here ... and I'm fairly certain all that has been said will be taken into account.

[Master O]

nobody should be banned on the basis of asking questions, even if they are being insensitive. we don't need to be coddled here.

unless someone is flaming for flaming sake or deliberately trying to inflict pain or being insensitive without being constructive or honestly seeking answers, banning is ridiculous.

we intp's are in the business of seeking answers and truth and even if some of our methods are obnoxious, annoying, insensitive or whatever, censorship is wrong in the face of that pursuit.

floyd can occasionally be annoying and it even appears to be deliberate sometimes. still i always believe that he is seeking answers and is only applying techniques that he thinks causes people to unwarily reveal truths about themselves by unnerving or agitating them. frustrating maybe, but so what. who's to say whose methods are proper?

censorship pisses me off. i think we're all smart enough here to know when someone has no intention of being constructive and is only out to cause misery or screw with people.

that is who the ban is for. IMH(umble)O

[s0978]

no, but that does not mean i am not.FWIW, I always thought it was more like a pulling pigtails kind of thing. Totally obnoxious and misguided, but not at all hateful.

I'd miss Floyd. I think the sensitivity question is very silly, and don't get why you don't get it, you're obviously quite bright, which makes it comes across as rather disingenuous... but then I think, nah, he just didn't get enough hugs as a kid and can't quite see past this INTP=robot nonsense.

And there's something to be said for the guy who always wants to embrace the provocative, unpopular point of view. I don't know what, but something. :P.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Freedom of expression and opinion is fine, until the freedom gets in the way of expressing opinions.
I don't think this fabled warning should or would have been issued if floyd only attacked arguments and opinions in his constructive deconstructive way. Personal attacks almost always change the discussion into irritated sparring, which derails any kind of debate going on. That's bad for a forum and therefore warnings are issued (and doing that is the mod's function). Floyd's attempt to turn this discrete request for cooperation into an omen of censorship is laughable.
It's still a fine topic for this thread, judging from it's many posts. Don't overdo it, though. Provocation is useful to spark debate about a subject, not the provocation itself.

Let the quality of a forum and it's mods be evaluated by it's content. Bad forums have no posters. Bad posters have no forum.

[floyd]

i think sensitivity is a function of social dependence, so i don't value it.

on an unrelated not, i was curious to see what your avatar looked like if it were smiling.

http://sminds.com/happy.gif

[Hustler]

no, but that does not mean i am not.

Of course. I worded the question that way for a reason. I just wanted to see what you believe about yourself on the matter.

[s0978]

on an unrelated not, i was curious to see what your avatar looked like if it were smiling.oh good grief! see? proof he really lacks the social skills, not that he's out to be a dick. he just doesn't know any better!

[CosmicDust]

oh good grief! see? proof he really lacks the social skills, not that he's out to be a dick. he just doesn't know any better!
Ah, but by his own admission, he does not believe in the importance of social skills. IMO, he's not out to be a dick so much as he's out to study and provoke people who interpret him as a dick in the hope that they will think about it, and also perhaps to have a little fun, although getting people to think about it might be as much part of the fun as pissing people off.

[ApeTheDog]

It's zeitgeist, not zietgeist.

[Claverhouse]

I know.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[ApeTheDog]

I wasn't going to, but floyd mentioned the zietgeist like six times in a row, and it really bugs me for some reason. Zeitgeist is such an awesome word - pronounciationwise and all - and zietgeist just sounds like a brand for diapers.

[Claverhouse]

http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/rofl1.gif

And Weltanschauung, and Weltschmerz, and Angst, and Zugzwang
and ... Schadenfreude.

http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/2ar15.gif


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[ApeTheDog]

Absolutely. They have the best words for things that really have to sound seriously.

[myabyss]

Floyd,
I personally don't have anything against you, but I haven't been here that long either.
Seriously though, from my point of view this forum seems very tolerant and relaxed about people stating their points of view. Given that, I surmise that if the moderators needed to speak to you, or warn you, whatever they did, then they felt it was for a good reason. I think they are trying to do what they think is best for the forum as a whole.
Now while you may disagree with things, utimately nobody can tell you what to do or to act differently. They can however ban you if they feel your "style" is not in the best interest for the forum as a whole. So you have a choice in the matter, you may not like the choices, but you do have them.
Frankly, I would think getting reactions out of people by putting them on the defensive would get a bit boring after a while, as well as the easiest way to get a reaction. You seem intelligent enough to be able to step up to the challenge of finding a less offensive, and perhaps more creative means of interacting with people.
As I stated, I have not been here that long, so though I have not personally been able to witness it, you have been accused of most often going after woman. Something which you have not seemed to deny.

to respond with utmost seriousness to the misogynist charges - i actually hate old crippled women the most. in the absense of old crippled women, naturally, i feel compelled to target women. if you are male and i have argued with you, it must be because you remind me of a woman... why else would i bother.

I do not know you well enough to know if this is the truth or you were joking.
While I could get into another whole discussion about this, I will try to be brief.
Assuming there is some truth in this quote, it would appear , at least to me, that you view "crippled old woman" as weak. So there is something about being weak that triggers something in you. If I am wrong about that, then there is something else it evokes in you.
Why?
I am perplexed, with your thirst for knowledge, why have you not turned your quest inward. Try dissecting yourself. You have much more to gain. I know, I have been there.

[kuranes]

Myabyss, he was joking in that quote. But he's admitted elsewhere that he's gone too far with some people in the last few months, which is all we've been saying. It's actually a pretty simple matter.

[Slider]

Nobody's ever asked me to "protect" them.

then why d'you feel compelled to do it?


I have gotten some comments along the lines of "thanks for watching my back".

how touching. and utterly pathetic. seriously. wot the hell? d'ya wanna tissue, as well? maybe some dark chocolate and an hour of Oprah?



Not everyone who is annoyed by Floyd is 'too sensitive". Some are people who avoid conflict, because they'd rather spend their time here doing other things,

ignore him. wot a novel concept.


and let the mods do their job.

is it the mods job to jump in for people who haven't asked to be protected? No. and wot, might I ask, is the significance of a warning? three warnings you're out? d'you get time out? maybe send someone to a virtual corner until they apologize to the other kiddies for being mean?


Some are posters who I'd really miss if they went elsewhere. I wouldn't miss Floyd much, even though he's come up with some good threads.

good to know personal feelings have clouded moderator actions.


People say things along the lines of "Sure he's an asshole, but that's not the point" or "sure most of us are not being harassed with warnings, but that's not the point." I must be coming from the planet Mars or something, because to ME that's EXACTLY the point.

if that's the point you're getting, you need to remove the Liquid Stupid IV from your arm. if a member is not a troll, they shouldn't be warned, or banned in any capacity. Is this a difficult notion to understand?

this board, besides the 'woo-hoo we're all sci-fi geeks together' mentality, has always seemed to me full of cream puffs. warnings for being rude, c'mon for chrissake. I've frankly been surprised that I've never been warned, though I'm sure it'll come any day now seeing how I've disagreed with the moderation (shock! gasp!).

I don't think any children frequent this board, so there should be no need for censoring. or perhaps the mods should take a roll-call for people who want help being the best they can be. you can title it "Help Me Fight my Battles".

[kuranes]

If a member is not a troll a Mod should not blah blah. Who the fuck are YOU to tell me what the rules are around here and how to do my job? My personal feelings don't "cloud" the issue. They ARE what I go by. You were suggesting the "Slider Book of Rules" perhaps instead? You don't like it you can "slide" your ass out of here. If you prefer a free for all site where "anything goes" then maybe you should be there instead of whining to me about some member whose cause you just picked up to see how far YOU can go as an asshole. Maybe I should pass YOU some tissue if you feel so bad about Floyd.

I've talked to people who got here and read a post that was mostly cussing and they were about to leave and not come back. One lady told me that she read a post by Nighthawk and it made the difference and she decided to stay. Who knows how many people we've lost just because of this sort of thing that never became members? And there's others that explained that they were dropping out because of it.





then why d'you feel compelled to do it?



how touching. and utterly pathetic. seriously. wot the hell? d'ya wanna tissue, as well? maybe some dark chocolate and an hour of Oprah?




ignore him. wot a novel concept.



is it the mods job to jump in for people who haven't asked to be protected? No. and wot, might I ask, is the significance of a warning? three warnings you're out? d'you get time out? maybe send someone to a virtual corner until they apologize to the other kiddies for being mean?



good to know personal feelings have clouded moderator actions.



if that's the point you're getting, you need to remove the Liquid Stupid IV from your arm. if a member is not a troll, they shouldn't be warned, or banned in any capacity. Is this a difficult notion to understand?

this board, besides the 'woo-hoo we're all sci-fi geeks together' mentality, has always seemed to me full of cream puffs. warnings for being rude, c'mon for chrissake. I've frankly been surprised that I've never been warned, though I'm sure it'll come any day now seeing how I've disagreed with the moderation (shock! gasp!).

I don't think any children frequent this board, so there should be no need for censoring. or perhaps the mods should take a roll-call for people who want help being the best they can be. you can title it "Help Me Fight my Battles".

[Vagabond]

If a member is not a troll a Mod should not blah blah. Who the fuck are YOU to tell me what the rules are around here and how to do my job? My personal feelings don't "cloud" the issue. They ARE what I go by. Wow? Didn't you just say a few posts above you welcome feedback and criticism as a way of improvement (because people make mistakes, mods are people, blah blah)? You go by your personal feelings? Excuse me?? So if you have one personal feeling for a thing, and another mod has another personal feeling for the same thing, you just go back and forth cancelling each other's decisions? No, you are not supposed to go by your personal feelings. You are supposed to act on your personal perception of what is the best for the board. Moderators and admins are there to secure that the board functions in a way that keeps the general population happy, not to impose their personal feelings. You can post as Kuranes the member about those, but as a mod you must act as a representative of the board.


I've talked to people who got here and read a post that was mostly cussing and they were about to leave and not come back. One lady told me that she read a post by Nighthawk and it made the difference and she decided to stay. Who knows how many people we've lost just because of this sort of thing that never became members? And there's others that explained that they were dropping out because of it. I didn't realise we were out fishing for members. Despite that though, we were not discussing cussing, but what is or is not annoying and how annoying should be dealt with.

And you may choose to deal with my post as feedback, or you may choose to tag it irritating like you did before. Might as well give me a warning.

[kuranes]

I don't look at what he said as "feedback". He just re-stated a desire that has already been put forth that there shouldn't be any censures in the grey area, as you and I discussed. I had already stated that i don't agree with that. He implied that i was not intelligent enough to understand that this was what some people want. But he said it in a way guaranteed to not add anything but instead be insulting. I responded to him in kind. And my personal feeling of what is best for the board IS what I go by.

It's too bad you don't seem to care about losing members or not getting new ones who aren't interested in a constant battle. Nevertheless, your feelings have been noted. Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with all your additional scolding.

[interface]

I don't look at what he said as "feedback". He just re-stated a desire that has already been put forth that there shouldn't be any censures in the grey area, as you and I discussed. I had already stated that i don't agree with that. He implied that i was not intelligent enough to understand that this was what some people want. But he said it in a way guaranteed to not add anything but instead be insulting. I responded to him in kind. And my personal feeling of what is best for the board IS what I go by.

It's too bad you don't seem to care about losing members or not getting new ones who aren't interested in a constant battle. Nevertheless, your feelings have been noted. Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with all your additional scolding.

If you have allready done this i apologize, but could you please link to at least at couple of posts where you feel floyd went over the line?..that would be a fair approach i think.

[kuranes]

If you have allready done this i apologize, but could you please link to at least at couple of posts where you feel floyd went over the line?..that would be a fair approach i think.

We have people in this thread itself who describe what he was doing to them. I don't have a way to go back and search through all the old threads for the other posts that I remember reading. I would have to look through half the posts that Meshou and Madrigal and Floyd and other people have made, which is quite a large task. Some posts of his are more intense than others, but the gist of it is that he keeps at his questioning or accusing after people have expressed irritation. And some of it seems designed just to hurt their feelings vs. "illuminate" any thing in particular, even though he always cloaks it as some "investigation."

[ApeTheDog]

My personal take on this is that floyd likes the attention doing this brings him, and since he happens to be good at it - through training - posting like this brings him way more attention than he would get if he were to simply post normally.

Why is jyakulis walking around in a Mr. T outfit, calling people fools? It's not a social experiment either - it's because people are paying attention to him, I think. Not to single out somebody. Why do I, well, post in this thread. Or make jokes. Or whine about things? Attention! It's all about the attention. Otherwise, if there was no attetion and response to our actions, we could all just stay offline and type in our notepads.

I would also think floyd, being a heterosexual person as I am guessing he is - prefers female attention over male attention, and that is why he picks on them.

Maybe we should talk about moderating in another thread, so it can be tied loose from this -issue. I think it's an interesting discussion - how does one moderate, when does one intervene, when not, and so on... but maybe one to discuss a little bit later when everybodies heads are clearer.

[kuranes]

Good idea.

[coffeezombie]

You can post as Kuranes the member about those, but as a mod you must act as a representative of the board.
Not really. The mods must act as a representative of the admins. As much as you may not like it, this place is a dictatorship, not a democracy. Floyd can get banned, half the board can get pissed, but it's not going to change the fact that he got banned. As long as Kuranes' actions don't piss off the higher-ups, he can do whatever the hell he wants. The whole problem with Internet message boards is that they are run more like dictatorships than democracies. Until this changes, there will always be incidents like this. We went through this once already on the EIDB, of course.

[Vagabond]

Nevertheless, your feelings have been noted. Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with all your additional scolding. Stating my opinion. For as many times as I see fit. Is there a problem there?

[Vagabond]

Not really. The mods must act as a representative of the admins. As much as you may not like it, this place is a dictatorship, not a democracy. Floyd can get banned, half the board can get pissed, but it's not going to change the fact that he got banned. As long as Kuranes' actions don't piss off the higher-ups, he can do whatever the hell he wants. The whole problem with Internet message boards is that they are run more like dictatorships than democracies. Until this changes, there will always be incidents like this. We went through this once already on the EIDB, of course. I know all that. Of course they may start over-censoring and practically do whatever the admins wish. I just took it for granted that mods and admins want this board to be functionable and pleasant, and I am sure that is their intention indeed. It is not a question of "can" or "can't", it is more about what one needs to do in order for a board to function as smoothly as possible. Again, this is my personal opinion and I might be wrong. But Kuranes being annoyed at my posts is not reason enough for me to shut up and stop thinking for myself.

[Nighthawk]

Seems like we have a lot of armchair moderators out there. Anybody else up for the job? Several of us have maintained that we could use more.

[ApeTheDog]

I agree with Vagabond. Someone being annoyed is not a good reason to quit talking to them.

Nighthawk, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would do a good job at moderating, and I would not be surprised at all if there were a lot of people willing to do so either.

[Nighthawk]

INighthawk, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would do a good job at moderating, and I would not be surprised at all if there were a lot of people willing to do so either.
Cool :) I, for one, welcome it.

[ApeTheDog]

We're gonna need to talk about what moderating is, then. I'm sure most people can do it - if they know what it is exactly they want to do. And we can set up a rotating system so everybody can carry the burden... I do like this idea.

[Claverhouse]

On the record, I have always advocated having from 8 - 10 moderators here --- for the rather limited use they are --- and supplied lists of members I thought should be asked. This has never been well received. nobarcode, who felt the same way, resigned over the near-pointlessness of the job as presently envisaged.

However, seeing the responses here and the shattered fury at there being any limits, I am going to suggest to the admins that we have a trial period of absolutely no moderation at all by mods or admins, in order to satisfy the majority: eg: democracy rather than dictatorship, since that is what the consensus wants.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[coffeezombie]

However, seeing the responses here and the shattered fury at there being any limits, I am going to suggest to the admins that we have a trial period of absolutely no moderation at all by mods or admins, in order to satisfy the majority: eg: democracy rather than dictatorship, since that is what the consenus wants.

How do we know what the consensus wants unless we put issues to a vote? It's obvious that there are different factions on this board (the Floyd shut-up faction and the Floyd doesn't annoy me faction). Plus, it would give you another chance to criticize democracy.

Personally, I find a democratic solution less appalling than a "moderators and admins dictate by feelings" solution, even if the result ends up in a way that I personally dislike. It's always the problem I've had with monarchy/dictatorships.

[Slider]

If a member is not a troll a Mod should not blah blah. Who the fuck are YOU to tell me what the rules are around here and how to do my job?

well, you did ask for feedback. care to explain why you consider some members as giving feedback and others as not? could it be that you simply disagree? as well, I don't see the point of having qualifications in order to give an opinion. do I need a resume as well? references?



My personal feelings don't "cloud" the issue.

perhaps you'd like to revisit your feeling on the floyd issue and your support of a superfluous warning.


You were suggesting the "Slider Book of Rules" perhaps instead?

no, I'm suggesting the most reasonable course of action. that this also happens to be suggested by me shouldn't cloud your assessment. oh, but how silly of me . . .

mods should exist solely for technical issues, and an occasional troll banishment.


You don't like it you can "slide" your ass out of here.

so you're only concerned with keeping members here that you like. tell me again how personal bias is uninvolved?



If you prefer a free for all site where "anything goes" then maybe you should be there instead of whining to me about some member whose cause you just picked up to see how far YOU can go as an asshole.

[yawn] been there, done that.



Maybe I should pass YOU some tissue if you feel so bad about Floyd.

whilst triggered by that incident, this really has nothing to do with Floyderas. I thought that was pretty obvious.


I've talked to people who got here and read a post that was mostly cussing and they were about to leave and not come back.

as has already been stated, I'm not talking about this. even still, I fail to understand why that would drive anyone away, and if it did, I don't think it would be a loss. a person feeling so strongly about such a post doesn't understand that the author is 1) lacking a sufficient vocabulary and who really cares if a dumbass insults you? and 2) doing it purely for shock effect, and, again, who cares if this is the case?


One lady told me that she read a post by Nighthawk and it made the difference and she decided to stay.

and she decided to stay regardless. so the problem is wot?


Who knows how many people we've lost just because of this sort of thing that never became members? And there's others that explained that they were dropping out because of it.

is there a shortage of members to your forum that I don't know about? why would you care that nancies are being turned away in droves (if they are)?

oh, and I'm a "she", thanks.

[ApeTheDog]

Hey I have an idea. Let's do FUCK ALL

[Claverhouse]

How do we know what the consensus wants unless we put issues to a vote? It's obvious that there are different factions on this board (the Floyd shut-up faction and the Floyd doesn't annoy me faction). Plus, it would give you another chance to criticize democracy. Why should there be a vote ? Either people want limited moderation or no moderation at all. The majority of posters in this thread have shown that they think it absolutely wrong that floyd should have been given a ( private, not broadcast ) warning. And under such a regime there will be no bars to anyone saying anything, so even if I criticised democracy or Britney Spears' singing ability there'd be the chance for you to defend both. And I'd quite enjoy telling some people exactly what I thought of them and their reasoning ability, although I'd refrain from 'deconstructing' them.


Personally, I find a democratic solution less appalling than a "moderators and admins dictate by feelings" solution, even if the result ends up in a way that I personally dislike. It's always the problem I've had with monarchy/dictatorships. Fine. This way you get real democracy.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[Nighthawk]

mods should exist solely for technical issues, and an occasional troll banishment.

Hmmm ... so there appears to be a disconnect here. Mods don't have the ability to affect technical matters, nor are they able to ban people. That is the domain of the Admins.

[Slider]

moderator/administrator, wotever. same difference. see the forest, dude.

I don't understand why there's a difference. with this setup, mods are completely superfluous in my opinion.

[Nighthawk]

moderator/administrator, wotever. same difference. see the forest, dude.Actually, there is a difference. You're expecting moderators to do things that they have no ability to do. All moderators can do is send warning PM's or deleted/edit posts.

[Nighthawk]

I don't understand why there's a difference. with this setup, mods are completely superfluous in my opinion.
I'm beginning to agree with you on that point.

[Slider]

again, I say, don't get lost in details. wot is the point of having administrators and moderators? wot is it the mods exactly do besides give silly warnings?

ahh okie, read above edited reply.

[coffeezombie]

Why should there be a vote ? Either people want limited moderation or no moderation at all. The majority of posters in this thread have shown that they think it absolutely wrong that floyd should have been given a ( private, not broadcast ) warning.
My point is that I don't think all parties have been broadcasting their views on this thread. The pro-Floyd people tend to be speaking on this thread much more. In order to get away from both admin-dictatorships and mob rule, more formalized voting processes need to be incorporated. That's how all the communities I've belong to work, at least, and this place is undoubtedly a community.

Of course, I've also stated that this is not the reality of internet-run message boards, but if those who own and control the board have any real interest in the people who frequent their boards, I would think that they would want to incorporate some kind of democracy.

[Nighthawk]

again, I say, don't get lost in details. wot is the point of having administrators and moderators? wot is it the mods exactly do besides give silly warnings?That ... no doubt ... is what is getting hashed out by all of this. ... and unfortunately, the details are what binds the moderators' hands ... and seems to annoy some portion of this forum.

[Slider]

All moderators can do is send warning PM's or deleted/edit posts.

warning pms are worthless. and if you're going to use warnings, why use PMs anyway? make it public.

no one should edit/delete another person's post unless said person is found to be a troll.

[Claverhouse]

warning pms are worthless.
Not exactly: as kuranes said if they get rather too many warnings the admins ban them


and if you're going to use warnings, why use PMs anyway? make it public.
Geez, why not make people wear a dunce's hat and chant: 'I am a bad person' ? It's no one else's business if someone's warned for any reason.


no one should edit/delete another person's post unless said person is found to be a troll.
No-one does. Occasionally though there may be some message unsuitable for most viewers --- although not those who think like you though --- such as a porno link, or a request to 'eat my --- from out of my ---' posted by an intp regular.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[Nighthawk]

Since I took off my moderator hat, I guess I can chime in as well. floyd doesn't really annoy me. We've never gone head-to-head about anything. He brings up some interesting points. I'm not as much of a purist as he is when it comes to the T preference however. I can see where he would annoy some people, due to his blunt style. The T-F juxtaposition is a tricky thing. People can use one or the other all they want, but it will tend to piss off the opposite preference. Purists will say that the T can say whatever it wants in the logical pursuit of truth. I'm a T myself and subscribe to some of that. However, I have found through the course of my life that it helps to temper the T with some F. In my opinion, you can gain truth in a more gentle way without ruffling F feathers. ... and oh yes, many T's also have some element of F, including myself. All this is just my opinion ... nothing more.

Do I think floyd makes an attempt to annoy women in particular? I'm not sure ... I don't have enough data to work with there. He has not struck me as a misogynist however, from the limited amount of his posts I have read on this board.

Do I think the warning given floyd was warranted? Yes, if somebody complained to the moderators about him. That is the way it worked. Whether it will continue to work that way is another matter.

All of this has underscored in my mind, yet again, that INTPs really hate being told ... even suggested ... what to do. Myself included.

[Nighthawk]

no one should edit/delete another person's post unless said person is found to be a troll.Exactly ... the only time I've ever used that option was to counter a troll ... and at the request of several other forum members. "Why is that person permitted to post that kind of shit here?!?"

[MacGuffin]

Wanna know what started all this?

This post:



I can only speak for myself, but I learn quite fast.your gre score would suggest otherwise.

On this thread: Is INTP the fastest learner? (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=7422)

Which I deleted and brought to the attention of the other admins/mods.

Posting like that seems to have no legitimate purpose. floyd had been following nottaprettygal around from thread to thread commenting on her IQ, looks, whatever. So we decided to warn him.

As in find a new bone to chew on for a while. At no point was banning him discussed. The only reference made was that he couldn't be banned.

The post above, from my point of view, considering the pattern of posting that proceeded it is disruptive. Get the right pair and we've got another EZ/Songbird forum fuck.

[floyd]

My personal take on this is that floyd likes the attention doing this brings him, and since he happens to be good at it - through training - posting like this brings him way more attention than he would get if he were to simply post normally.

Why is jyakulis walking around in a Mr. T outfit, calling people fools? It's not a social experiment either - it's because people are paying attention to him, I think. Not to single out somebody. Why do I, well, post in this thread. Or make jokes. Or whine about things? Attention! It's all about the attention. Otherwise, if there was no attetion and response to our actions, we could all just stay offline and type in our notepads.

I would also think floyd, being a heterosexual person as I am guessing he is - prefers female attention over male attention, and that is why he picks on them.

Maybe we should talk about moderating in another thread, so it can be tied loose from this -issue. I think it's an interesting discussion - how does one moderate, when does one intervene, when not, and so on... but maybe one to discuss a little bit later when everybodies heads are clearer.


no, which is why i keep trying to make this about what the standards are here, others keep making it personal (which is their right but not my intent). as i said, if i stay the same and the mods do to, i will keep getting warnings, so i thought it merited discussion. the mods have revealed there is a lack of concern for the general board opinion in how they run things and i think that is a problem. i really don't understand this obsession with losing new members. what is that all about?

[coffeezombie]

The post above, from my point of view, considering the pattern of posting that proceeded it is disruptive. Get the right pair and we've got another EZ/Songbird forum fuck.
I don't think it is nearly to the extent of that feud. EZ and Songbird were going at it constantly on every thread. Notaprettygal can always use ignore if she gets sick of the insults, of course, rather than complaining to a moderator. Better yet, she can learn to ignore him without an ignore button, or learn to kick his ass like people like me have.

[Nighthawk]

Notaprettygal can always use ignore if she gets sick of the insults, of course, rather than complaining to a moderator.
Just for the record ... I'm not sure if NAPG complained to a moderator. At least she never complained to me.

[Claverhouse]

My point is that I don't think all parties have been broadcasting their views on this thread. The pro-Floyd people tend to be speaking on this thread much more. I doubt that --- obviously there are three themes here: a/ Should floyd have been sent a warning. b/ Should there be any moderation. c/ The limited use of moderators and different structures for the board. --- now floyd hobbled on, crying 'Aidez-moi: votre pitié pour le misfortunate faible floyd; Je suis désolé' and showing the injuries inflicted by the mod-guards and their dreadful flashing warning: trouble is he purposefully shoved it in General Psychology rather than complaints, where it would seem a scholarly discussion rather than a whinge. That meant people might not find it easily, but by now anyone who wanted could have come here, the fact they didn't post indicates they feel the same way as floyd and the others.



In order to get away from both admin-dictatorships and mob rule, more formalized voting processes need to be incorporated. That's how all the communities I've belong to work, at least, and this place is undoubtedly a community To do what exactly ? Big discussions on banning members by name, then a formal vote to cast them off ? 'We have our own justice here, stranger' type-thing ?


Of course, I've also stated that this is not the reality of internet-run message boards, but if those who own and control the board have any real interest in the people who frequent their boards, I would think that they would want to incorporate some kind of democracy. That's up to the admins, not the mods.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[ApeTheDog]

I should not underestimate the "there doesn't seem to be many other interesting threads to talk about, so let's go bitch in the floyd thread a bit" factor.

For example: I do not, actually, give a flying shit about moderating, or the moderators, or floyd, or anything that happened.

[coffeezombie]

To do what exactly ? Big discussions on banning members by name, then a formal vote to cast them off ? 'We have our own justice here, stranger' type-thing ?

It's better than "Obey our rule, you miserable peasants!"

[Slider]

Not exactly: as kuranes said if they get rather too many warnings the admins ban them


wot is defined as "too many"?


Geez, why not make people wear a dunce's hat and chant: 'I am a bad person' ? It's no one else's business if someone's warned for any reason.

they've already put themselves in a public position. a public warning is merely the most logical way of maintaining continuity. if you're going to give warnings, you might at least make it available for public viewing so members know which posts mods deem warning-worthy. and warning someone doesn't make them a bad person, so this is a completely ridiculous statement.

[Nighthawk]

they've already put themselves in a public position. a public warning is merely the most logical way of maintaining continuity. if you're going to give warnings, you might at least make it available for public viewing so members know which posts mods deem warning-worthy. and warning someone doesn't make them a bad person, so this is a completely ridiculous statement.
I disagree with this. I would rather that any warnings to me be made in private.

[Slider]

I would rather that any warnings to me be made in private.

why?

[Nighthawk]

why?Just a personal preference. I would rather have the option of making it public myself, as floyd has done ... or letting it go in private. ... but I would rather the choice rests with me. Perhaps the P preference to keep my options open.

[floyd]

Wanna know what started all this?

This post:

On this thread: Is INTP the fastest learner? (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=7422)

Which I deleted and brought to the attention of the other admins/mods.

Posting like that seems to have no legitimate purpose. floyd had been following nottaprettygal around from thread to thread commenting on her IQ, looks, whatever. So we decided to warn him.

As in find a new bone to chew on for a while. At no point was banning him discussed. The only reference made was that he couldn't be banned.

The post above, from my point of view, considering the pattern of posting that proceeded it is disruptive. Get the right pair and we've got another EZ/Songbird forum fuck.


i have no problem addressing that. i think many people think they are smarter than they are, to their detriment. this board is filled with unappreciated geniuses. the fact is if you are smarter than average, you have a real advantage over others. so if you are unsuccessful in life it must be for other shortfalls or because you are not really that bright. NPG implied she was particularly skilled at learning, an aptitude which i think would particularly reflect itself on standardized tests. i don't think her test scores reflect such a skill at learning. NPG is more outspoken than most people so if i don't agree with her she is easy to want to argue with. you can ask NPG but prior to that comment i think i had pretty much started to avoid her after i found arguing with her not that interesting. Meshou is similarly outspoken. SIL is similarly outspoken. my 'pattern' is that when i disagree with someone, i will question and/or counter them. if that topic becomes uninteresting / played out, i avoid it in the future. if they become uninteresting, i avoid them in the future. i don't tend to hold grudges or feel personal emnity. it's more like - 'i think this person has whacked out ideas/behavior/etc., why?'

there is an element of bias/desperation/indulgence in the males here which i think causes them to treat some dodgy women nicer than if they were dodgy males. maybe, i should handicap women similarly. in so far as i don't do that, i guess i may bother some of the mods and others. if Meshou was a male i think she would have been ridiculed a lot because she was frequently saying contradictory things. since i am more interested in women + treat people equally (intellectualy), i may be arguing with more women than men... but so what. i think if some male poster says something i disagree with, generally someone else will say something so i don't feel the need to bother. but i did not see anyone or very many people countering some of meshou's perspective which i found somewhat ridiculous and contradictory. although other people seem to be countering SIL now, most were applauding his possibly hypomanic behavior when i decided to question his perspective. this is an intp board. most intps are men, most ints are men, so no matter how much slack you give women here they will always be a minority so logically i don't see the point of behaving 'nicer' to boost that demographic. this is also an internet messageboard, not a singles bar, your odds of getting laid here are very very low, so it makes no sense to let that influence the atmosphere of the board.

[Dolphin]

If you are unhappy with the way INTPC is being ran, perhaps you would rather post here: http://www.wordforge.net/



they've already put themselves in a public position. a public warning is merely the most logical way of maintaining continuity. if you're going to give warnings, you might at least make it available for public viewing so members know which posts mods deem warning-worthy. and warning someone doesn't make them a bad person, so this is a completely ridiculous statement.
Some people do not want their privacy violated. Some might find it embarrassing. Why else would we have the invisibility feature?

[shaytana]

as I said, if I stay the same and the mods do to, I will keep getting warnings, (and eventually get banned... my note but I will assume this is your point -shay)

That is not necessarily true. This isn't a new habit that you just picked up, I've noticed this behaviour in you since you first joined the forum, and you have been here for over a year now. With only one warning to date. We never warned you before because you usually don’t take it too far before moving on to something else. All we are saying is move on, get over it and find something else to amuse you because we are starting to get complaints about you, and we don’t like complaints. Stop getting complaints and you will not get anymore warnings. It's really that simple. (don’t get me wrong, we do not issue warnings for every complaint we get, we analyse each complaint case-by-case)

Do you annoy me? No not really, I usually just skim over your posts but that’s irrelevant anyways, as an admin I have to base my decisions on what is right for the whole forum.

Someone else said that the majority in this thread is of the mind that the warning was unjustified - I disagree with this, and I disagree that the majority of the forum want zero moderation.

During the whole EZ/SB drama, especially after they were banned the majority agreed that the main problem was that it was not stopped before it got out of control, so we got more mods - now you are trying to say that we should just wait until things get out of control before we step in? No, that's not going to happen. We do not rule with an iron fist but we will not continually turn a blind eye to disruptive behaviour, especially when it becomes a pattern, which it has in floyds case. I am not going to provide links, as I said this has been going on since the beginning and there are enough posts in this thread from people he has "attacked" to justify one warning for me. And seriously, that’s all it was, a single warning. Not a ban, not a threat of a ban, banning wasn’t even discussed, at this point it is not an option and no, you wont get another warning for disagreeing with the mods/admins. Disagree with me all you want to but the decision is final and your warning stands as is.

"the mods/admins should be there solely for technical issues and trolls"
That is an ideal concept and actually the one that we started off with and strive to achieve again. The mods/admins dislike rules and policy as much as the next intp but we have been placed (by our own choice) in a position where we have to make decisions. Sometimes we are wrong but we try to learn from those, and if we were to learn from the EZ/SB drama then giving floyd the warning now is the right decision.

More mods? I don’t know, its hard to gauge this one actually, half of you are saying that the mods don’t do anything and shouldn’t do anything anyways so why would we need more, I say we bring this one to a vote.

I have been sick the past few days so I am just catching up on all of this now.

[floyd]

the ez/sb comparison is just a bs comparison. i think this is personal/emotional and that is why the explanations have been so weak ('i am not going to find/post links' blah blah) . the fact is everyone has an individual standard for accetable behavior and i fall on the edge or outside of that for the mods. so the question is do i fall on the edge or outside for average person here. if yes, the mods are in line, if no they are out of step. that is the question i was curious about. i don't recall asking to have the warning rescinded... i just think it reflects a sensitivity bias. maybe most would agree with you, i don't know. i was just curious as to how sensitive people on here are, that's what i wanted this thread to explore. i think this board is pretty boring already. this is a personality board to some degree, talking about/examing/deconstructing personality and behavior seems appropriate. i can't imagine not being able to question people or behavior which i think is dodgy because it may offend, cause complaints, or (gasp) scare away new members. how many new members have we lost to impoliteness... that line of argument is absurd to me.

[C.J.Woolf]

Anarchism is a fine ideal but it does not work on a message board.

My favorite board, which was effectively unmoderated, literally flamed out when a troll/flamer found alt.flame too hot for him and came looking for an easier environment to flame in. (I say effectively unmoderated because it was a private board on a commercial site, but the owner was unsophisiticated about running one and he would not delegate any power to active members who cared about it more than he did. It was ultimately the owner's loss.)

You can blame the members who refused to ignore him, but it is unrealistic to expect every member to have the patience of a saint. The realistic policy is: if there is one problem poster, ban him and there is no more problem.

Moderation-wise, I find this a very laid-back board. I suspect Slider and some others are against moderation more in principle than in practice here.

I have a question for you all: Have you have been personally impacted by the moderation here? (I made a poll in this category; sorry I don't know how to link a thread.)

At the risk of being labeled a brown-noser, I agree with the moderators' actions with floyd so far. I regard floyd as a part-time provocateur (I'm not sure if "troll" or "flamer" fits here). If he did nothing but stalk and bait other posters, his ass should be banned and good riddance. But he posts enough material of interest to build up a credit balance of goodwill. Not with the posters he baits, of course, but he's selective in who he baits. He's got an ounce of discretion there.

A question for you floyd defenders out there: Would you defend him if he baited you?

[panda]

A question for you floyd defenders out there: Would you defend him if he baited you?
Yes.

[coffeezombie]

A question for you floyd defenders out there: Would you defend him if he baited you?
I'd kick his ass if he baited me. Floyd leaves you alone if you know how to fight back. He's a bully, just the intellectual version of one.

[floyd]

i don't advocate anarchy. i advocate the mods 'may' have lowered the bar of what makes a troll/fucktard to an unreasonable extent because their personal ideal for acceptable behavior is too sensitive, possibly more sensitive than most here might want. and if they are too sensitive, they need to accept that their personal preference is out of step and adjust accordingly OR make it clear that this board must meet their personal preferences. i am genuinely curious, are most people here as sensitive as the mods on my behavior? this thread is not about changing minds, it's about figuring out how sensitive this environment is. if i can't question someone's personality or behavior here than this is not the board for me.

[floyd]

I'd kick his ass if he baited me. Floyd leaves you alone if you know how to fight back. He's a bully, just the intellectual version of one.

i prefer to think i move on when the topic of debate is no longer interesting, but you are entitled to your version. if i was a bully my goal would be to mold minds. i don't think you can mold minds. i am more interested in the contents of minds... the exchange of opposing viewpoints.

[Nighthawk]

this thread is not about changing minds, it's about figuring out how sensitive this environment is. if i can't question someone's personality or behavior here than this is not the board for me.
There have been over 200 responses to this thread so far. Do you feel that you have an answer about the sensitivity level of this board?

[floyd]

There have been over 200 responses to this thread so far. Do you feel that you have an answer about the sensitivity level of this board?

not really... i created a rants/raves poll to get a better sense of it.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=7512

[Rajah]

I've read through the posts on here and I have one question: Who cares?!?

When I first opened this thread, I hoped for a real analysis of deconstructing people, or at least some discussion about it. I was disappointed to realize the thread is really about floyd being irritated by being "censored" by the mods. If I'm wrong, then please correct me, but I gather that the mods received complaints about floyd and told him to tone it down. How in the hell that becomes a rant about censorship is beyond me. 99.9% of us get along just fine on this board, with no incident. Apparently, floyd's actions have annoyed at least enough people that the mods/admins/whatever felt compelled to take some very mild action. Fine; I don't care. Whatever they need to do to keep the board running smoothly is fine by me. It's a freaking board, not a government. They don't owe me a damn thing on here. I can't imagine asking them for standards -- I think that if a situation arises, they handle it as the situation warrants. Rules and procedures? Please.

Ape, I think you're brilliant and I'm very receptive to your ideas, but I really don't get what having a rotating group of mods will accomplish. I mean, the mods are around to handle problems on the board, and they've graciously taken their time to do so. They've been selected because people -- the admins? -- recognized they'd do a fair job. I don't see a need for rotating the position; it seems to me the mods are doing a great job. I frankly don't care who's a mod and who's not, as is painfully obvious by my relative ignorance of the INTPC hierarchy. Don't care. Really don't care.

And lest this be seen as me siding with the mods against floyd, that's just not the case. I don't know all that much about floyd. Sometimes he's said things I've found laughable or confrontational, and I've simply skipped to the next post or responded saying, "Hey, you're being laughable. Or confrontational." However, this doesn't change the fact that some people felt floyd crossed a line and the mods felt compelled to respond. Period. I'm not buying the, "Woe is me. The mods are out to get me" alarmist crap. Yes, floyd should be able to have his opinion and share it. I can see the censorhip argument, but really... at some point, the right to be confrontational probably will bend to people being able to be on this board without worrying about being attacked unjustifiably. I maintain, though, that if floyd really has you worked up -- ignore him. That's what the feature's there for.

So, please, tell me what I'm getting wrong. Because it just seems people are arguing or getting worked up about nothing.

[Lee]

Floyd, treat people with more respect, you can attack their ideas without attacking them. Some people are more sensitive than others, and if you want to get the best debate out of them, you should treat them with that in mind... other people are not nearly as sensitive, and will not care as much about how they are treated.

Any attempts at "deconstruction" on a messege board like this will be fairly futile anyway, simply because of the medium used to communicate. You also should not be so surprised when people feel offended or annoyed by you asking probing personal questions, as though you are trying to undermine their arguments by finding flaws in their character (I am not saying this is what you do, but rather what it may seem like).

Besides, what do these questions actually teach you? other than what a warning PM looks like?

Anyway, it is at the owners discretion what happens here, and for the most part they are quite fair. *sigh* this is a pointless thread.. If you come here seeking knowledge, then start an interesting debate, if this place is too "sensitive" for you, then good riddence.

[Nighthawk]

I've also found that I can get answers to my questions best with a mixture of T and F. I try to use compassion and sensitivity. That's just me however. I won't tell others which methods are best for them. As a corollary though, don't be surprised if, not using F, your methods are not as well received by others as they could be.

[floyd]

i am not interested in bending the board to my preferences (minds don't change) but if most here are fine with my innate somewhat insensitive nature, i don't see why i should pretend to be someone else to satisfy a hypersensitive minority. that makes no sense. this is an intp board not an F outreach board. the mods should ideally reflect the zeitgeist here or explain why they know better. maybe polling the board on non obvious questions like this one would be a good idea to avoid letting personal bias of the mods to bioform this board.

[Claverhouse]

I just love floyd's endless, quite endless, rambles about 'sensitivity' and 'insensitivity' on this thread: perhaps [deconstructing], he's got a complex. After all real men don't even think whether they're sensitive or insensitive.


*releases vast horde of Giant Sumatran rats all over the forum*


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[Vagabond]

I'd kick his ass if he baited me. Floyd leaves you alone if you know how to fight back. He's a bully, just the intellectual version of one. Exactly.

Not that it hasn't happened already. :P If you take the bait, the problem is with you.