The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here

[UnbiasedObserver]

Unbiased:

"'You want to simplify this by stressing the ganging up on you and the ban on Pilofilo, but it cuts deeper than that.  And you know it!"

I agree with that.  The above is only one of many good examples of what I'm talking about.  It's simply that latest one and the one that I observed most directly.

I don't get this business about Sand's saying that Miss P's complaints about PILOFOLO got him banned not being direct evidence.  Please explain why that's not direct and I'll try to address you explanation.  In my view, it's more or less an admission of what I'm talking about by the person who did the banning.  How do you see it?

Well, while you agree, I don't think you get my point: I think that you're either: a) too blinded by your involvement in your fray to realize that you've caused part of this mess, and continue to do so by making unfounded allegations; or b) you're intentionally ignoring your involvement to make yourself look better.

I really hope that you're in category a, and not b.  I think you're starting to finally see the light (or at least I hope so). 

By the way, EVEN IF Sands said that Miss P's complaints were ONE of the things that got Pilofilo banned, that doesn't necessarily mean that she said he should be banned. One can complain about a poster and still not want that poster banned.  I think you can see the difference, and without direct evidence of this, you're wrong in crying foul. 

[ISUCKATTHIS]

Alright, so you think I'm the cause of the mess...

That's that, then.  I realize that Miss P and others agree with you and would like to see my voice permanently silenced.  That's cool - it's exactly what I'm talking about.

I disagree, but I don't see any point in discussing it further.  If you think my sarcasm and the fact that I disagreed with Miss P is enough to merit the hate fest that follows, we don't see eye to eye.  And, yes, I did know that you were a regular.

If Miss P knew that posters were banned because of her complaints and then complained about a poster, I think it's safe to say she wanted the poster banned.  Arguing otherwise is a bit like contending that someone who sticks a gun to another's head and pulls the trigger didn't necessarily want to shoot that person... that they were just really into pulling triggers. Who knew that indulging one's self in the normally benign hobby of trigger pulling would have such dire consequences in this case?

Yeah, right.

[Julie Fern]

julie still confused.  who right here?

[ISUCKATTHIS]

best if Julie decide that for herself.  However, if Julie prefer I'm sure there are plenty here who would be happy to tell her exactly what to think. 

[UnbiasedObserver]

Alright, so you think I'm the cause of the mess...

I've made that clear a few posts ago, when I made the nasty divorce analogy, that you are a part of the cause, but not the entire cause, of this mess.

That you even make this comment this late in the game betrays your partiality, my friend.  It saddens me to have to see two often well-meaning people do this to one another on a daily basis. 

Am I the only person who doesn't hold grudges, for the most part? 

That's that, then.  I realize that Miss P and others agree with you and would like to see my voice permanently silenced.  That's cool - it's exactly what I'm talking about.

While I don't think you're stating this, I just want to be clear: I do NOT think you should be silenced. 

At the same time, both of you blew this out of proportion.  You keep harping on this too.  If you wouldn't have reposting, we wouldn't be on this carousel yet again.

I disagree, but I don't see any point in discussing it further.  If you think my sarcasm and the fact that I disagreed with Miss P is enough to merit the hate fest that follows, we don't see eye to eye.  And, yes, I did know that you were a regular.

At the risk of you complaining about it yet again, you're pulling a strawman.

I never said disagreeing with Miss P is enough to merit a hate fest, coupled with sarcasm/etc.  In fact, I just said a few posts ago that the ganging up is wrong, and it needs to stop.

Your first post was extremely condescending.  Making claims that the "only" rational  argument against your position is [insert the argument you stated] is ridiculous.  You can't expect that people aren't going to react to that in a nice light.

Does it make it right?  No.  But it's reasonable to expect that: a) when you start off the thread with a "bang," by being extremely condescending, and b)start arguing with someone who is well-known, the people who didn't like your tone to start with come out of the bushes.  It's not they weren't annoyed with you earlier; it's simply that your argument gave them a convenient time to attack.

A lack of virtue brings about problems for a person, my friend.  But that's for another discussion....

(And, no, I'm not saying you're a bad person by any stretch.  If you can't tell, I'm a very philosophical person.) 

If Miss P knew that posters were banned because of her complaints and then complained about a poster, I think it's safe to say she wanted the poster banned.  Arguing otherwise is a bit like contending that someone who sticks a gun to another's head and pulls the trigger didn't necessarily want to shoot that person... that they were just really into pulling triggers. Who knew that indulging one's self in the normally benign hobby of trigger pulling would have such dire consequences in this case?

Yeah, right.

There are a few issues here:

1) Is there direct evidence that she: a) knew that posters were banned; b) solely because of her complaints (this is crucial; if not, your argument is extremely weakened)?  What is the clear evidence?  If it's clear, show it.  No more inferences.  Make it clear.  And don't say "it's in the thread."  You've opened the door by re-posting in this thread.  If you want to close the door, you need to shut the door yourself. 

2) Point 1 leads to this point:  your analogy is imperfect.  The certainty of pulling a trigger is a wanton disregard for another, obviously.  The recklessness here, unless she is certain that her comment, and hers alone, caused the banning of poster(s) (is it one? two? do you have evidence of even one poster get banned, before you make an allegation that she got more than one banned?), is of an entirely different magnitude than your analogy.  In fact, most things in life are, and again, this analogy betrays your partiality because your emotions are getting in the way. 

And again, you know that, ISUCK.  You don't want to hear me out, because you know I have no dog in this fight.  I think my last post to MissP demonstrates this clearly, and when you have calmed yourself down, go back and see what I wrote to her.  Really, it is amazing how two intelligent, well-meaning people can't get along.  It blows me away how fickle humanity is....

Take care. 

[ISUCKATTHIS]

I still think the evidence is clear.  Sands said that PILOFOLO was banned because of complaints.  Miss P admitted that she did the complaining.  Further, she made the complaints knowing that people get banned because of such complaints. 

I agree that my analogy is imperfect, but I think it's also pretty appropriate.

Anyway, have a good holiday.

[Matthies]

I think Unbaised Observer has been, well, pretty unbiased about this whole thing and I agree with him. On that note this thread is giving me a headache, and I would rather, as much as I despise it, go back to reading my wills outline than have this keep popping up in my unreads becuase I feel oblgiged to read everything posted for some reason that can only be pure procrastiation.

[Julie Fern]

julie feeling very republican today and so need be told what think.

[UnbiasedObserver]

I still think the evidence is clear.  Sands said that PILOFOLO was banned because of complaints.

Show us clear evidence that they were banned solely because of those comments, or your argument is severely weakened.  You're a smart cookie; I don't think I need to explain to you why this really weakens your argument.

I also don't really think you have clear evidence of this.  If you do, show it to us!  I'd be happy to see it. 

  Miss P admitted that she did the complaining.  Further, she made the complaints knowing that people get banned because of such complaints. 

Again, did she know they'd be banned solely based on her comments?

There are more variables than just complaining, such as the offense; amount of times an offense was committed; among other things.  It's hard for you to say that she definitely knew this would lead to Pilofilo being banned, when there are more variables than you'd like to admit.

By the way, when should we complain to mods?  It seems that you're holding onto an unpalatable position that we can NEVER complain to mods.  That's fairly unreasonable, and I really hope you're not asserting that.   

I agree that my analogy is imperfect, but I think it's also pretty appropriate.

Your analogy, with all due respect, is extremely overboard.  Making an argument that Miss P was being extremely reckless by complaining is absurd, coupled with the many other variables that cause a person to be banned. 

Anyway, have a good holiday.

Same to you!

[UnbiasedObserver]

julie feeling very republican today and so need be told what think.

Wow, you're still alive here?  Somebody must keep feeding you.