Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Should Jeff and TheMods be asked to re-consider their permanent ban on Canadian_Watcher?

1 No The permanent ban should stay
22
44%
2 Yes The permanent ban should be lifted
28
56%
 
Total votes : 50

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby brekin » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:07 pm

rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:57 pm wrote:also, all things considered, CW's commentary does not - in any way - seem to indicate that she cannot control herself as is being alleged repeatedly in this thread.


Interesting rollingstone. I'm curious how familiar you are with CW's commentary since you have only recently joined RI three days ago. Are you speaking of her commentary the last couple of days? Or have you gone back and reviewed her other posts? How far back did you go? Or perhaps you have some innate connection with CW that helps you understand her thinking? It is amazing that you are able to make a decision about a poster after just having joined. Or are you perhaps a long time lurker who suddenly found that CW's plight was the issue that finally made you realize you needed to raise your voice here on RI?

ON EDIT: I see that this has already been covered here now:
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=16700&start=855

So I guess goodbye Canadian_Watcher!
And a welcome to rollingstone!
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:17 pm

I don't want my contribution to get lost in a sea of questioning my integrity. I would refer people to the thread called 8 Crazy Reactions and Ridiculous Conclusions to see how C_W handled herself there. I was happily surprised by how well it defies the current characterization.
rollingstone
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby DrEvil » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:24 pm

rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:57 pm wrote:also, all things considered, CW's commentary does not - in any way - seem to indicate that she cannot control herself as is being alleged repeatedly in this thread.


Then you haven't been paying attention.

People are fucking stupid cowards, for the most part.

When the odd person shows up who ISN'T a stupid coward, the mob descends.
Or if the mob doesn't get the scent of blood first, the overlords stage a hit.

it's a great system they've got going, 'cause most of the time the mob does all the work.

Free thought policing.
Free courage killing.
Free peer pressure.

If only they could monetize it, though. Then they'd REALLY have a good thing going.

if I could teach the world one lesson it would be to honour brave people - they are rare, and getting more so. Why? Because you're staging an ethic cleansing.

If you aren't part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.


I think I know what's happening here.

Some people are building their online profile so as to be exceptionally pleasing to the NSA data sniffing dogs!

good boy, good girl! you get a pass.


So if you lived in the time of the Crusades you'd fit right in, dude.


But hey, easier to just throw out accusations instead of doing a quick search of the forums.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2614
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:50 pm

Thanks for those. I can find examples like that from everyone who has contributed to this thread. And I agree with the second quote, above, although maybe the f word hurts some people's sensibilities, so I might have left that out. That post wasn't directed at anyone at all was it? I can't see that it was.

But I am not going to argue this. My point is and has been that I cannot watch this one sided witch hunt without speaking up. The poster you are banning has spoken for me, more or less, as I've sat silently reading. My turn has come.
rollingstone
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby American Dream » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:58 pm

rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:50 pm wrote:
The poster you are banning has spoken for me, more or less, as I've sat silently reading. My turn has come.


What is this supposed to mean?
Last edited by American Dream on Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19708
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby brekin » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:02 pm

rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:50 pm wrote:Thanks for those. I can find examples like that from everyone who has contributed to this thread. And I agree with the second quote, above, although maybe the f word hurts some people's sensibilities, so I might have left that out. That post wasn't directed at anyone at all was it? I can't see that it was.

But I am not going to argue this. My point is and has been that I cannot watch this one sided witch hunt without speaking up. The poster you are banning has spoken for me, more or less, as I've sat silently reading. My turn has come.


rollingstone a.k.a. Canadian_Watcher why don't you just speak your peace now so we all don't have to play pretend? Instead of pretending to channel CW you can just let us all know why you think you deserve to stay. You run the risk of rollingstone being banned if in fact it is a puppet for CW and then they will probably block your IP range indefinitely and you will lose any chance then. Why not just speak plainly to the board as a whole now so we can bring this to some type of conclusion for everyone?
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:12 pm

brekin » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:53 pm wrote:
Thanks compared2what but Jerky wasn't addressing that rather vile remark towards me - but I think wintler or barracuda.


:oops:

Oh. Well, my apologies to whichever, then.

Not that it matters however. Granted someone opened that door, but then he went in and shit on the floor. To me a little crassness is fine - but there are limits. Violent sexual imagery with a request to visit a member at their home address has an odor of implied threat and is not something I want to wade through. That he hasn't been talk to about this is pretty troubling. I'm not completely sure about wintler or barracudas genders but if they are women and I assume that Jerky is a man it is even more vile (not that if they are all men or women it is a pass). It is kind of ironic that Jerky is CW's most outspoken advocate also. It seems members who have troubling deciphering where the lines of appropriate discourse are have a common cause as the RI nation goes to the polls.


I don't totally agree that it doesn't matter who it was addressed to. For stuff that's clearly assaultive and nothing but that, it doesn't. (Or clearly topical and nothing but that, obviously.)

But you can't mandate that people not have personal feelings about themselves and others. And it would actually be a bad idea to mandate that they not express them. Personal feelings are necessary. Useful. Important. Inseparable from life and liberty. And since that includes anger, the non-chronic, occasional expression of personal anger is a useful, important thing that's inseparable from life and liberty, QED.

It kind of goes without saying that good personal conduct is generally a plus, and that violent overtones are generally a minus because they're somewhat threatening in themselves, even when not actionable. But to some extent, everybody is always basically guessing about what's going to constitute good conduct and/or meaningfully violent overtones, as far as the other party is concerned.

I mean, loosely speaking, everyone judges that by a reasonable-person standard. But that's not a fixed thing, it's circumstantial/cultural. So sometimes it includes who said it to whom.

I also don't think your suggestion about Jerky in the last line there is fair. He's not typically given to saying ugly, insulting things. So he doesn't really have a reason to fight for that right. He likes and appreciates Canadian_watcher enough to be willing to fight for her. That's a good thing, not a bad thing, whether he does it perfectly or not.

______________________

FWIW, imo, the real question is always "Does this silence discussion and inhibit free expression?" and not "Is this an insult, or hurtful, or a personal attack?"

Because if you're erring on the side of more expression, sometimes that means hurt feelings even without insults, unfortunately. Is my point.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:20 pm

brekin » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:02 pm wrote:You run the risk of rollingstone being banned if in fact it is a puppet for CW and then they will probably block your IP range indefinitely and you will lose any chance then.


Let’s not be threatening any more bans for awhile here. Just a small quibble, but please.

User rollingstone has posted from 7 IP addresses over the course of 10 posts to date. All of which are associated with proxy/anonymizer services.

I have no problem with any RI members using such honeypot services and do not think it should be grounds for suspicion, now or in the future.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby DrEvil » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:25 pm

rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:50 pm wrote:That post wasn't directed at anyone at all was it? I can't see that it was.


Uh, she was accusing everyone who disagreed with her of being the thought police, while at the same time insinuating that everyone who disagrees with her is also a stupid coward. And of course, not a single sentence regarding the actual topic of the discussion. She's basically accusing this board of conspiring against her because she's so smart.

(On a more general note - people who claim to be smarter than everyone else are usually the dumbest fucks around. They don't have the mental capacity to understand how stupid they are.
There's even research backing that up. Sorry - there's scientism backing that up :wink: )

People are fucking stupid cowards, for the most part.

When the odd person shows up who ISN'T a stupid coward, the mob descends.
Or if the mob doesn't get the scent of blood first, the overlords stage a hit.

it's a great system they've got going, 'cause most of the time the mob does all the work.

Free thought policing.
Free courage killing.
Free peer pressure.

If only they could monetize it, though. Then they'd REALLY have a good thing going.

if I could teach the world one lesson it would be to honour brave people - they are rare, and getting more so. Why? Because you're staging an ethic cleansing.

If you aren't part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2614
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:26 pm

That's right on. I began using the anonymizers after I was roundly accused of sockpuppetry on my first or second post by more than one user. I knew they were bluffing, but it did get me to thinking that it might not be a bad idea to keep my location hidden.
rollingstone
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:29 pm

Dr Evil:
And of course, not a single sentence regarding the actual topic of the discussion.
That was the topic of the discussion. it's the OP. If you'd care to link to the post you're referring to everyone else could see that as well.

c'est toute
rollingstone
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby barracuda » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:31 pm

rollingstone wrote:I don't want my contribution to get lost in a sea of questioning my integrity. I would refer people to the thread called 8 Crazy Reactions and Ridiculous Conclusions to see how C_W handled herself there. I was happily surprised by how well it defies the current characterization.


Are we allowed to call Candian_watcher "a complete asshole" now that she's no longer a member? Or is it too soon? Because that's one way I would characterize her behavior in the thread you list as a character reference.

Please.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12887
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:34 pm

barracuda » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:31 pm wrote:Are we allowed to call Candian_watcher "a complete asshole" now that she's no longer a member?


I would greatly prefer it if nobody did that, thank you for asking.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:42 pm

rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:57 pm wrote:also, all things considered, CW's commentary does not - in any way - seem to indicate that she cannot control herself as is being alleged repeatedly in this thread.


I don't see that being alleged.

I mean, I allege that since her I-was-goaded defense isn't true, her vow not to allow herself to be goaded into attacking people doesn't indicate an intention to change. Or anything very meaningful, ftm.

But maybe you weren't talking about that? Not sure what you mean, I guess.

rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:17 pm wrote:I don't want my contribution to get lost in a sea of questioning my integrity. I would refer people to the thread called 8 Crazy Reactions and Ridiculous Conclusions to see how C_W handled herself there. I was happily surprised by how well it defies the current characterization.


I agree. There was a very tiny little bit of of unsupported opponent-bashing. But not enough to make a difference. And therefore, so what?

I'm again not sure what your point is, though.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby barracuda » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:44 pm

Wombaticus Rex wrote:I would greatly prefer it if nobody did that, thank you for asking.


Well, let me know when the phony respectful mourning period ends, will you?

rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:26 pm wrote:That's right on. I began using the anonymizers after I was roundly accused of sockpuppetry on my first or second post by more than one user. I knew they were bluffing, but it did get me to thinking that it might not be a bad idea to keep my location hidden.


I wasn't bluffing, Not-Canadian_watcher.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12887
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Ask Admin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest