Banning

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 25 Apr 2005 16:33

After trading PMs with Damon we have agreed that he should be banned from the forum. Damon has decided to go willingly and the length of the ban is as yet undetermined.

I am very sad about this, because I hate the idea of banning anyone from Modified no matter how much I hate what they say.
I agree with almost nothing Damon has ever said on any non-footbag related topics and even many footbag related topics as well. I absolutely hate the way he says just about everything and incites people to flame wars. I think he has brought out the bad side of most every person who has replied to anything he's ever said; myself included.

Even so, I sympathize with him because I believe he is a struggling soul. I believe there is good in him, but having been brought up with a lifetime of abuse, hatred and bigotry has nurtured too much of the same in him, much like Darth Vader.

He may be back, he may not.

The Philosophy topic will be reopened. Most every reply of Damon's that was personally or persuasionally inflammatory has been deleted. The "Tolerance 360" topic is going to be locked less it cause more issues.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 25 Apr 2005 17:08

I'm curious as to why someone would leave modified over, more or less, one user. I find that rather inane as the flames were really only in 1 forum the whole time.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 25 Apr 2005 17:16

BainbridgeShred wrote:I'm curious as to why someone would leave modified over, more or less, one user. I find that rather inane as the flames were really only in 1 forum the whole time.

Because it's a recurring issue that the person believed to have gone unchecked for too long and it affected them in a very profound way.

QuantumBalance · Post by **QuantumBalance** » 25 Apr 2005 17:27

I really like your reference to darth vader.

*shakes fist at the sky and yells "lucaaaaass"*

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 25 Apr 2005 17:59

dangit dangit dangit dangit dangit.
i cant believe i missed the entire thing. this was MY area too! haha, i know i woulda been there with damon (honestly, probably would have been banned with damon too). i honestly really like damon, and his style. i dont really thing he is a "Struggling Soul," and i doubt he thinks he is either, and i dont really think its right to call him stuff he probably doesnt agree with while he cant even reply...though replying is what seems to get him into trouble most often.

i dont enjoy watching electrified gonads.

much

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 25 Apr 2005 18:17

slapdash21 wrote:i dont really thing he is a "Struggling Soul," and i doubt he thinks he is either, and i dont really think its right to call him stuff he probably doesnt agree with while he cant even reply...

Having known him longer than you and had many more arguments and probably more PMs and e-mails as well, I will respectfully disagree with that whole statement.

qphox · Post by **qphox** » 25 Apr 2005 19:38

I know Damon no further than the posts he's made on Modified and Flipsider, and therefore I have no choice but to draw conclusions from what I have read.

I am disgusted.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 25 Apr 2005 20:41

I've known damon for about 8 years. I think he just needs some time to work through the difficult issues he faces currently with his family.

He's a good man, just with a different mindset than the more vocal among us.

B_Man · Post by **B_Man** » 25 Apr 2005 21:49

Tolerate them for being human. Respect them for their differences.

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 26 Apr 2005 02:31

I'm personally against bans, but I also didn't like to visit the discussion forum anymore, not because I always have to argue with conservative dogmatists, but to be thrown into hatred and degrading flame wars.
The footbag forums aren't the only ones where such shit really keeps me from reading at all, so I find it really good, that brad tries not to ban people but to ban problems.

Different opinions become a problem if people actively destroy others social relationships (even if they are in the inet).
maybe I should just be a bit more ignorant, but those flame-wars always really discourage me to visit modified at all (because I am forced to click on that "discussion" with that orange symbol next to it and I know I will feel bad afterwards)

so, my conclusion :

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 26 Apr 2005 05:26

yeah it's a toughy. I've gotten on really well with Damon in the past - despite us disagreeing on so many issues - I guess I still have a really high regard for him - so I've been pretty bummed about this since it happened. I guess though that since he was a willing participant in the "ban" he probably knows what's best for him and I think definitly some time break will be a good thing. I'm sure he'll be back eventually - so will Eric. You can't spend so much time being obsessed with footbag to give it up. It's an addiction.

I think that maybe there are times when banning somebody is a good thing - but really it depends more on how the other members of the community react to that person than how they behave. Of course how they behave matters too - but I can't be responsible for their actions, only my own - and if what I do gives them more attention or fires them up more - I have to be responsible for that.

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 26 Apr 2005 06:07

Jeremy wrote:and if what I do gives them more attention or fires them up more - I have to be responsible for that.

am I ?
I think in this case, the entire dicussion forum or, at least several threads inherently gave them/him more attention or fired them up more.
I can't feel responsible for his reaction, if I only participate in A NON DEGRADING WAY (not to be understand as shouting but emphazising) in a thread that wants to gather the opinions of the forum members about their philsophical direction ! And, as someone in this thread stated, an atheist may also feel harmed by [christian,...] statements, but they did not discuss in that way. I'd say, it's exactly the other way around.
What matters primarily, is the attitude of the person, and the reaction of the community plays a minor role.
Well, I completely base this statement on this particular case. It may be (or for sure IS) different in other cases, but I suppose it ain't possible to conclude a rule of thumb out of idealistic, but empiric aspects.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 26 Apr 2005 06:12

Sorry I didn't write that very well.

If I say something I think will make somebody start flaming, and it does - I definitly hold myself responsible.

If I say something completely innocently like "is 2pac dead?" and it turns into a crazy flame war - well I couldn't have known any better.

In the first instance I'd say an involuntary ban is an over reaction. In the second instance I think there are definitly times.

Also anybody remember the "Waldo Faldo" guy (I know Carl Winslow does)?

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 26 Apr 2005 07:05

Jeremy wrote:If I say something completely innocently like "is 2pac dead?" and it turns into a crazy flame war - well I couldn't have known any better.

I think you're talking about expectable provocation. That for sure in most cases ain't good, but that 2Pac issue doesn't fit imo.

If I know, that someone may be provocated(sp?) and may flame around, e.g. if I say that I think most religions are irresponsible should I stop saying it ? If that would be the better way, the "philosophy" thread would consist of two posts.
Or take the next higher instance :
Did the one who posted the thread (forgot who it was) act in a bad way ? Was it wrong ?

I personally see myself often walk the streets protesting against several things I think are a harm to mankind. By this, I provocate a lot of people who not only flame around (in fact I often get hurt and the ranking of primary social groups who do/want to hurt me are 1.) Nazis 2.) Christians...). Well, I'm not gonna stop saying my opinion, though I know I'll cause flame wars or even worse. If I see christians march the street, I'm not gonna attack them, I even don't disturb them (well, nazis are another case, but that's Off-Topic). I expect "the other side" to act the same way and I think, that I do not have to feel responsible for the wounds I get, I do make use of one of the last right that are left by our system : freedom of speech.

And that without degrading or irresponsibly provocating anyone (well, except nazis)

So, it may be that our opinions are heavily different, or I did understand sth. in a wrong way
plz correct me on that if necessary

Paul Agostinelli · Post by **Paul Agostinelli** » 26 Apr 2005 07:16

comastalker wrote:
Jeremy wrote: If I know, that someone may be provocated(sp?)

provoked

~NEL~

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 26 Apr 2005 08:01

oups... thanks !
one of those non-analogies to the german language

Asmus · Post by **Asmus** » 26 Apr 2005 09:25

I love fucking bush..

I wonna say sorry for making the philosophy thread.. I did not want to start a war or make people enemys..

Sorry!

Asmus · Post by **Asmus** » 26 Apr 2005 09:27

Tsiangkun wrote:There is a difference between an opinion,

"Bush supporters are rabid bible thumping idiologs who enjoy tying people up and placing electrodes on their gonads while watching them perform homosexual acts they claim to despise, all the while jacking off to the video in private"

There you got it all out of the system, Hoh?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 26 Apr 2005 09:41

Why don't you paste my post in it's entirety instead of cutting it up ? Trying to start a flame war are we?

edit: I forgot to close my sarcasm tag.