With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

[Wombaticus Rex]

A lot to digest in the post above, and of course, these are only my personal responses.

2) This is for Jeff and the Mods - In the cases of what have been two of the most difficult and ultimately incredibly destructive threads on the board (on Atzmon and on Icke), there were multiple calls to lock the thread earlier on and the decision was made to not interfere. This was like having a nuclear reactor with the moderator rods removed. It's fate was sealed.

In both cases, those threads were allowed to go because they were the manifestation of a contentious interpersonal conflict that had been popping up in multiple threads. They were not locked because doing so would only lead to a continuation of the interpersonal conflict in other threads: more of a quarantine theory than any attempt at text-based nuclear fusion on our part.

As always, I remain a big fan of simply deleting personal attacks and single-sentence venom posts. (Ask Mason I Bilderberg! I think I've trimmed about 20% of his, uh, contributions here.)

d) That if a particular topic is potentially 'flammable' that a simple protocol is adopted.
At the top of the first post, the
"THIS IS A POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE FLAMMABLE COLOUR TOPIC - EXTRA MODERATION REQUESTED"

That currently already exists, in the form of flagging offensive posts. Puts a big red caution sign next to a thread, and that, for instance, is why I'm reading the Trayvon Martin thread every day now even though the topic is of minimal interest to me.

I would also point out that once "Flammable" threads get started, nobody's clicking on Page 1, are they?

If a thread is started with no outcome in mind - how is one supposed to know the best way to contribute???

That is a good point, but the vast majority of "threads" here are begun as reposts of news stories. Actual, focused, cultivated threads are a minority of what goes on here, like any natural system, most growth here happens quite by accident.

e) That there is a 'good practice' for thread titles

We have a good system of learning by example in place here, Elfis and PW always very helpful on that front.

And, of course, we have a few colorful characters who gleefully ignore/subvert any such goals. Spice of life.

[Col Quisp]

Perma-banning should be meted out evenly. That is, do not let some get away with bad behavior while others get banned for the same offenses. Not naming names. Long time members should get more chances to redeem their bad behavior. I understand keeping out the riffraff (can't remember their names), but getting rid of people who have contributed a lot to our collective knowledge seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face. You can always put people on ignore.

Was the banning because of the rant against Brekin? I admit, that was pretty reckless and stupid. But if we have to fear a humorless Big Brother to that extent, then we are in pretty deep doo doo.

[Wombaticus Rex]

My decision had nothing to do with "fear of Big Brother" -- it was a severe broach of respect, not to mention basic grown-up conduct.

I did not, at any point, think Brekin was in actual danger from the panty-sniffers of the NSA. That was not the logic here, at all.

[DrVolin]

I see RI as an incredible resource for finding hard to make connections between hard to find facts. I've never seen one of those emerge from a personal attack or a 20 page flame war. I don't particularly care what anyone thinks of Icke or why. I am interested in how his stuff relates to other stuff, and how his discourse functions in society. I'll discuss that with anyone, anytime. And when a poster persistently disrupts those discussions by making them personal, I will advise banning them. Every time.

[worldsastage]

As a long time lurker and relatively newish poster, what I witnessed here over the past few weeks was appalling....personally frightening, given my cult experiences (that says much about me I guess). I also know these sort of flaps are not new here. They do occur when dealing with complicated subjects and passionate personalities. Still, caring sometimes calls for restraint......

That Icke thread was enough to make me withdraw from participating and revert to a sort of lurking mode. My logic was, fuck this shit. There will always be disagreements but if a bunch of intelligent adults who give a shit about the state of our reality are unable to disagree respectfully and instead repeatedly tear each other down when the stakes are just an internet discussion, what chance do we really have against the shit we face as a species? Are we so wounded by the system that we can't come together and discuss and disagree in a reasonable way? As a result I chose to go back to focusing even more on what I can do in my little part of the world-work with troubled youths and occasionally lurk.

That said, I am now posting because I do think the CW ban extreme regardless of my disgust at times with some of her behavior. She has contributed information of substance with as much heart and passion as she exhibited when misbehaving. It's just how she is. I really think she was seeking acceptance of the good, bad and ugly sides of who she is. Can't fault someone for that, but I can understand how difficult it is when the ugly is disruptive and harmful to others and the bind it puts the moderators in. I still think she sort of deserved a final warning and a probationary period before a perma ban. Maybe I missed those warnings. If the six prior temp bans were the warnings I guess she didn't or couldn't get it...oy!

[stevie ray]

I think that I, as a very hesitant poster, would appreciate a little clarification of "harmful to others" as it pertains to this message board. This is in reference to worldsastage's comment right above mine but also sort of alluded to by others as well.

I would also wonder about number of suspensions leading up to a banning as I have to ask myself whether or not those suspensions were reasonable in the first place.

Finally, as other people have commented already so sorry to repeat, why is the same behavior punished when some do it but not when others do it?

[Col Quisp]

I don't know what went on - I don't have time to read much of the posts here anymore, and so I am going to assume the behavior was egregious. I am sure the mods did not do this lightly.

Maybe the banned posters could start their own board so we can lurk on it. OIK, I go back to work now.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Finally, as other people have commented already so sorry to repeat, why is the same behavior punished when some do it but not when others do it?

Probably because this board is being moderated by five human beings, rather than a single omniscient AI script running on preset protocols.

I know I'm only intervening when 1) something completely egregious happens in front of me, or 2) someone flags a comment or PM's the moderators to complain.

More specifically, though, that question is impossible to answer specifically because it's a general assertion without any examples.

Specific examples would help us all have a more illuminating conversation on that issue.

[stevie ray]

I'm sorry if that is too difficult a question to answer.

Perhaps the other two I asked are easier. Could you give them a try if you don't mind? I'm curious. I wouldn't want to be banned without understanding why.

[barracuda]

I'll miss Canadian_watcher. I enjoy having someone like her around who, in my opinion, is so monumentally wrong about things, that is to say, people possessing a wildly differing perspective from my own.

But she was not one of my favorite posters. She went out of her way to start fights. She was intolerant of differing points of view, even sometimes mild and innocuous ones. She had, by her own telling, a large ignore list she never tired of reminding the board and individual posters of, something I find completely ridiculous and childish in this context. The ignore list is a form of self-bannning: particular posters within the community piss you off so much you don't even wish to be reminded their writing exists, so you hide their posts from your view? That sort of behavior is small. People have built-in ignore functions, don't they: turn away from the machine, go to another thread, skip the post and read on. She was a grudge-holder, though, and certain usernames were never gonna escape that clutch.

Worst of all, I think, she cultivated animosity and cliquishness by flattery and insincerity. She was a bit manipulative that way, imho. It's a strategy one has to guard oneself against, because in the end, there's a tinge of cruelty about it.

I read everything she ever wrote here, I think, most of it more than once, the way you might re-examine the actions of an abusive spouse, or a petulant and spiteful child, in a search for rationale. But she hated rational thinking, and I knew that usually even my most measured responses to her would inevitably be found by her to be counter-productive, stupid, or even insulting. And so we wound up fighting, because many of her worst faults are rather easily located within myself as well.

I sometimes flag 'em, but I don't mind the personal attacks so much. They don't add to the final analysis, but they do sometimes aid the throughput. Some rules have to be meant to be broken around here, for we are discussing the cracking breakage of the world at its joints. Canadian_watcher's barbs never stung so much as her points well taken. But whoever says that "words can never hurt me" has never been in love. And I guess I love this place now. Ugh.

Anyway, as a general rule - don't ban long-timers. Mete them out long suspensions, weeks and months, but don't outright ban. I say that less out of self-interest than sympathy, I really do, even admitting my need for people around here with whom I can get into a throwdown. I sympathize with the aggravation, with the quickly posted thoughtlessness, with the words in haste later regretted. Mostly I sympathize with the face at the closed window never to be re-opened.

Somebody, let the cat in. Even if it pissed on your favorite new shoe.

Okay, I'm done with my back-handed eulogy

[DrVolin]

By the time anyone gets banned, lots of people have tried to explain, usually many many times.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I think that I, as a very hesitant poster, would appreciate a little clarification of "harmful to others" as it pertains to this message board. This is in reference to worldsastage's comment right above mine but also sort of alluded to by others as well.

I would also wonder about number of suspensions leading up to a banning as I have to ask myself whether or not those suspensions were reasonable in the first place.

No personal attacks. That's the long and short of it. Discuss content, not contributors. Have you ever checked out the Posting Guidelines?

For instance, Nordic just got 7 days for "You fucking racist." That's pretty clear cut, yes?

It's just the golden rule: "Be excellent to each other."

As for your inquiry into the legitimacy of CW's previous suspensions, that's not really a question so much as your insinuation that we did a horrible job moderating. If you'd like more information, it's all here. There are no internal records for you to FOIA. If you want to conduct your own independent investigation, you can start anytime. Pro Tip: use google in addition to the phpBB search, you'll locate the key threads faster by running parallel queries.

[82_28]

Still, as Barracuda said, the window has been closed never to be re-opened. I just saw her as feisty and outspoken. She vented and took it out on others to now, obvious detriment. I took that shit in stride. Again, she never did nothing to me. In fact she PMed me several times over the years just as others to whom she was contentious with thanking me for having their back and complimenting me on just being the old 82_28 you know and see.

But the door's been shut and locked, the window closed, the store shuttered, you're no longer welcome here and have a good day. Thanks for your patronage!

That's what I don't like because, again, she never bothered me none. I typically just let people do their thing while I do mine. It's perfectly understandable that moderation duties include moderating. They have spoken and decided. I still disagree insofar as that we are as a community unable to let her back in. Think of all the times in life you've been so mad at someone and swore them off only to concede the other too, has feelings. She was expressive and that is not her fault. Perhaps this board is so polite that even a smidgen of animosity appears to us as sin. When in truth, we have the animosity dial turned so far down that any deviation looks like a disaster waiting to happen.

Furthermore, it's come down to we are now more of a family than a "community" and inter-familial disputes, spats, whatever are bound to happen in any situation of that kind. Banning a family member is not right. We've come to know one another in an unlikely fashion. Thus, I still dissent. And if I could, I would throw that window open because it is not nice to leave someone we know, warts and all, out of the circle she has been a part of for going on a decade.

[worldsastage]

I think that I, as a very hesitant poster, would appreciate a little clarification of "harmful to others" as it pertains to this message board. This is in reference to worldsastage's comment right above mine but also sort of alluded to by others as well.

Words can hurt, especially when they can easily be perceived as threatening.
threat- An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.

The hormonal flood that ensues when threatened is physiologically, and psychologically damaging when repetitive. It destroys neurons and impairs the immune system among other things.

Even when something is not explicitly stated as a threat stuff like

ATTENTION ABC agency, THE POSTER WITH THE USERNAME BREKIN ON THE RIGOROUS INTUITION DISCUSSION FORUM IS A *%
&$%#@.

and

get out of my fight. Who the fuck do you think you are?

are threatening.

I would dare say that these types of discussions were also harmful for CW, given

good lord, how much of this am I expected to endure? seriously.

. It appears that she felt pain was being inflicted upon her.

The above were from the recently locked thread that preceded the banning but there were other instances previous to that in which the discussion had a threatening feel. It included emotional manipulation which is threatening. I feel odd dredging it up and apologize but you asked.... I took a cursory look at some other locked threads and CW was involved in quite a few. I liked some of the questions she raised even if I disagreed with a bit of it but the antagonism is a bit much. It can't be healthy for her or for those who have to interact with her whether pro or con, thus my allusions to harm. I feel bad about the whole situation and frankly reading some of those posts got my heart racing along with other reactions that accompany an HPA axis activation. I had to pull back. That however may have more to do with my past experiences and diagnosed PTSD. Still, they are triggers and I can imagine how harmful it can be for those participating in the actual discussion. Then again maybe it's just me that see it that way and for most it's par for the course in an internet forum.

I suspect quite a bit of her actions/reactions are influenced by past pains that caused a deep wound in her own psyche and she could use a welcoming community that accepts her fully. However, I'm being an arm chair psychologist there and I don't think the job of this forum is to heal our pains. It certainly should, however, avoid causing further harm. If a poster's repeated behavior causes harm to themselves and others, well?.......

[stevie ray]

oops, sorry Wombaticus. Please accept my apology I certainly did step out of line to ask for clarification and I guess I see now that questioning authority is one of the things I should stay far away from because it comes off as insinuation of something sinister and ill intentioned.

I consider myself warned and also my question and ponderings to have been adequately answered in a roundabout way.

i don't think you'll be seeing me around anymore.