A line through a person's name means they're currently banned, yes?

Author: K_Michael ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 43
  • K_Michael
    K_Michael avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 267
    0
    4
    9
    K_Michael avatar
    K_Michael
    I'm assuming so. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  • David
    David avatar
    Debates: 82
    Forum posts: 1,202
    4
    7
    10
    David avatar
    David
    Yes that's correct. 
  • K_Michael
    K_Michael avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 267
    0
    4
    9
    K_Michael avatar
    K_Michael
    Thanks.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 329
    Forum posts: 10,115
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @K_Michael
    Think of 'strikethrough' instead of 'blank space' and listen to this song:

  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 30
    Forum posts: 12,536
    5
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    Affirmative
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @K_Michael
    It has the effect that everyone knows THAT someone is banned but no-one knows WHY.
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,039
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @keithprosser
    That is to protect the privacy of the banned user.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Castin
    How does it protect the privacy of a banned menber to publicly flag that they are banned?

    Its no more protecting privacy than sending everyone a PM  saying "Yoo hoo X is banned everybody!!!"

    it's even worse than that - the present system is something out of Kafka or Orwell - after a few days you notice X has gone quiet, only to find "X has been made an 'unperson' - do not ask why".

    The only privacy being protected is that of the banning decision process.


  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,039
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @keithprosser
    It's reasonable to have some indication that a user has been banned, just so members know when they're talking to someone who isn't here anymore. But why the user was banned is considered private information to the banned user, at least to the extent that bish doesn't want to publicly advertise the dirty details for all to see. But the information is still available on request. You can ask bish in a PM, and he'll tell you.

    It really is amazing how people can turn a dinky internet forum into a sinister Orwellian dystopia or Game of Thrones. We all have a flair for the dramatic. Maybe we should be honest with ourselves and admit we all just secretly want more e-drama.

  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Castin
     You can ask bish in a PM, and he'll tell you.
    So it's not private.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,910
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @keithprosser
    He won't tell you because he hasn't told me. 
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Never mind.  I'm sure it was fully justified - whoever it was and whatever it was for.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,910
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @keithprosser
    I'm sure it was fully justified - whoever it was and whatever it was for.
    Based on faith rather than something tangible. 
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    When I hear two people on a bus discussing what Supaduz said to SecularMerlin I'll start giving a hoot.

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,910
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @keithprosser
    Doesn't really answer what I said since you gave a hoot enough to say what the moderators do is fully justified whereas you don't give a hoot about whether it is based on faith or something tangible. 
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    My mistake - I thought you had noticed the irony in #12.

    DA is a cheap pass time while I'm laid up, nothing more.

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,910
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @keithprosser
    Okay. 
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,039
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @keithprosser
     You can ask bish in a PM, and he'll tell you.
    So it's not private.
    That's why I said "at least to the extent that bish doesn't want to publicly advertise" it. He'll inform you in a discreet PM, but he is against putting it on display or yelling it through a megaphone.

    Originally his convictions about member privacy were such that he didn't even have a "PM me and I'll tell you" policy. He relaxed his stance on that at the appeal of myself and others.
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,039
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @keithprosser
    it's even worse than that - the present system is something out of Kafka or Orwell - after a few days you notice X has gone quiet, only to find "X has been made an 'unperson' - do not ask why".

    The only privacy being protected is that of the banning decision process.
    Every banned member gets at least one hour to post a protest thread telling their side of the story. If a banned member does not choose to create a protest thread in this time, doesn't it seem reasonable to assume they did not want their trouble advertised to everyone? And shouldn't the mods proceed accordingly, in respect to their wishes? Some people want everyone to hear what happened; others don't want to be a public spectacle.

    If bish and Virt were just protecting the privacy of their banning process, I imagine they would never allow banned members to shout their defiance and criticism from the mountaintops like that. It's a terribly impolitic policy that invites constant scandal and headache; no Orwellian government would ever permit it. They also probably wouldn't let us freely post moderator PM's whenever we want, without even having to ask permission.

    I think they're quite willing to have their decisions exposed. They're just often too discreet in the name of privacy, and it can come across looking shadowy and sinister to some people.

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,910
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Castin
    Every banned member gets at least one hour to post a protest thread telling their side of the story.
    That is no way near enough time to give them a chance to respond. I will go on a limb that people would be viewing this site on specific time. Some at 7 some at 12, some at 3. This should be increase to 24 hours in order for everyone to have a chance to respond. Yes people who are simply ill for the day would not be able to respond but my proposal would definitely reduce the amount of people not giving their side. 

  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    I'd use one of those general notice things and say "X is banned for being a dick.  Anyone who disagrees can PM me and I'll ban them too."



  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,910
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @keithprosser
    I'd use one of those general notice things and say "X is banned for being a dick.  Anyone who disagrees can PM me and I'll ban them too."
    I rather it be "A broke X rule and refused to change his way which is why A is permanently banned."
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    On kpdebate.org the CoC would be 'Don't be a dick'.  It has a sort of pleasing symmetry of innuendo.


  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,910
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @keithprosser
    On kpdebate.org the CoC would be 'Don't be a dick'.  It has a sort of pleasing symmetry of innuendo.
    They would have to define what a "dick" is in order for people to understand what not to do. 

  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Not knowing what 'being a dick' is is being a dick.  I'm banning you from the non-existent (and never will exist) kpdebate.org.

    But i'm adding extra rules:  you can be banned for spelling 'lose' as 'loose', using the wrong form of there/their/they're, and omitting the u in colour.