ConCen
Did Negentropic warrant banning? - Printable Version

+- ConCen (https://concen.org/oldforum)
+-- Forum: Main (https://concen.org/oldforum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic (https://concen.org/oldforum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Did Negentropic warrant banning? (/thread-47530.html)

Pages: 1 2 3


Did Negentropic warrant banning? - Frank2 - 11-05-2012

Did Negentropic deserve banning outright in the given situation? Please offer opinion if inclined.

my opinion is that banning him was totally OTT


RE: Did Negentropic warrant Immediate outright Banning? - Anarchist - 11-05-2012

As I stated in his Manginas thread, while I am no fan of seeing a Jew sucking the blood off a freshly circumcised infant... Some of what he posts is interesting. I do not think he warranted banning.


RE: Did Negentropic warrant Immediate outright Banning? - FastTadpole - 11-05-2012

Interesting phrasing of the question. A ban is always immediate, by nature. Also it was not without warning and discussion - several personal messages have been passed back and forth between Negentropic and I.

More details on the most recent incident that broke my patience starting here http://concen.org/forum/thread-46447-post-251001.html#pid251001 but even that isn't the entire situation, just the most recent one. To get a better insight on that maybe read his posts http://concen.org/forum/search.php?action=finduser&uid=16509

If there is an overwhelming response to have him back with a resounding embrace on his behalf that would certainly have us reconsider the ban.


RE: Did Negentropic warrant Immediate outright Banning? - Frank2 - 11-05-2012

Good to know you will reconsider FT if the vote shows support to reinstate him.

"several personal messages have been passed back and forth between Negentropic and I."

Was he abusive to you? Did he make it clear that he was intentionally going to ignore your 'warnings' in a belligerent manner? If so, where's any proof of that? It is definitely not in the board history..


Two points - a ban wasn't always immediate: we used to give people "holidays" like a hockey sin bin or so.

- you should remove your vote from the poll. It should be obvious why.

(11-05-2012, 06:46 AM)Anarchist Wrote: As I stated in his Manginas thread, while I am no fan of seeing a Jew sucking the blood off a freshly circumcised infant... Some of what he posts is interesting. I do not think he warranted banning.

I agree with you: to wit, much of his conjecture is also an anathema to me too but nevertheless, the content of his input was not the issue in question and is irrelevant in whether he should have been kicked out or not.


RE: Did Negentropic warrant Immediate outright Banning? - FastTadpole - 11-05-2012

Quote: - a ban wasn't always immediate: we used to give people "holidays" like a hockey sin bin or so.

Who is to say it is permanent. Mods only have the ability ban people immediately, as opposed to a delayed ban and it can be set to days, to months to a permanent ban. That's why I suggested this thread. For now it is permanent but anything done can be undone. He was already on post moderation, he had a 50% warning level set for a month, all before he was banned.

Quote:you should remove your vote from the poll. It should be obvious why.
I have just as much right to vote as anyone else as I am a member of ConCen too.

Negentropic is free to vote as well for the either side if he wishes to do so. He is still a member, he can still log in, he is just a member that is not allowed to post anymore. I have not received an email to appeal this decision to date. "summary execution and banishment from the community?" is NOT what transpired, contrary to what is construed by the poll question in a common tactic to sway opinion. I can only suggest you change it (and the thread title) to read more accurately if you want to conduct a poll in a non-partisan manner.

That said I'm looking more at the points to reinstate him versus points to keep him banned. The vote being supplemental. Members who participate more in the community will carry more weight, of course. i.e. Frank2's vote would be considered more weighted than a couple of n00blets that have logged only a few minutes on the forum. In the end though it is ultimately up to the forum moderators but moderators who have been chosen to be as impartial as possible to keep this medium running smooth.

This is just for the forum posting privileges, not the tracker, not viewing the forum; he can still view PMs (but cannot send them) and he can still vote in polls.

Quote: the content of his input was not the issue in question

I considered the entire package. He did communicate well with the mods. He was involved in a lot of public exchanges that ranged from straight up factual to no holds barred debate which could be perceived either as passionate or tangent inciting depending on the tint of your glasses. We had discussed the manner of his exchanges as well in the past at least a couple of times. As a point I did have to move a significant amount of spiteful (sometimes personal) banter posts to the Fists of Fury Section so not to derail a number of threads. There is also the outstanding point on racism that is being discussed on a separate thread http://concen.org/forum/thread-47475.html .

Quote:Was he abusive to you? Did he make it clear that he was intentionally going to ignore your 'warnings' in a belligerent manner?

The answer is in his action of 97 concurrent posts, after I told him not to in no uncertain terms, as outlined in my link upthread .

I would post more of our discussions via PM but really they are "Private Messages". I want people to feel that they can say what they want via the PM system without the inherent restraint of having them published for all to see. So I exercise restraint in making any PM public but to summarize there were a few warnings some of which were complied with, some of which were accepted for a short time and one that was outright ignored.

This poll/thread should serve as a good gauge as to what responsibilities are placed on the membership to retain their posting privy and shape future policy in the larger question of how do we move ConCen forward as a community of diverse viewpoints, outstanding alternative research, independent journalism and a incubation tank and hopefully a launchpad for real actionable solutions. This is best acheived in an environment free of trolling posts inciting broad brush accusations with no solutions presented, absent of infighting of a personal nature and absent of thread hijacking, spamming and derailing. I feel the ConCen membership should encompass that mission but we'll let the membership speak for themselves on that point.


RE: Did Negentropic warrant Immediate outright Banning? - CharliePrime - 11-05-2012

(11-05-2012, 06:46 AM)Anarchist Wrote: I do not think he warranted banning.

I agree with the ban. He was cutting and pasting the same multi-page wad of links and youtube videos over and over. When asked to stop, he spit in the moderator's face.

An analogy would be a discussion group that meets every Wednesday night at the pancake house, and one guy abuses the group by reading aloud THE SAME prepared, hour-long rant every Wednesday.

Concen is graduate-level conspiracy discussion. We aren't newbies unaware of Jewish crimes who happen to stumble across a Godlikeproductions thread. Negra knew that, yet he spammed us just the same.

Negra's posts would crash my little Atom Linux nettop in the garage. Even on my big I5 Win7 power machine in the office Mozilla would seize-up on his spam.

Negra should not be allowed back. I've moderated forums since the days of Wildcat! on 1200 baud phone lines. He would start off nice, then slowly revert to form. I've seen it a hundred times.


RE: Did Negentropic warrant Immediate outright Banning? - shortwave - 11-05-2012

I know people sometimes post nonsensical things from time to time, maybe a post or two..but nine pages? I still don't understand what was he trying to convey. Why did he go through all the trouble, what point was he trying to make?

Usually people post things to make a point, or to bring something relevant to the attention to others, or to agree or disagree with a particular point. None of that thread made any sense whatsoever. How does a picture of a cop watching a female fix a car have anything to do with conspiracies?

And regarding spam, yes people spam...usually for a reason. But what was the reason? That is what I am not getting. Were they pissed at the mod, the site, wanted to disrupt the site? I still don't know who Manginas is, or the relevancy of Manginas.

If the intent was purely to spam in order to disrupt the site and waste bandwidth, then yes I agree with the ban.

(But let me emphasize that I disagree with banning in general, some of the best uploaders ever were banned here at Concen for one reason or another. And it is not for me to say who is right or wrong. As such the bans, have led to some of the members starting other sites as a result, thus leaving members going to those other sites looking for material that used to be here. I'm glad this site and others like it exist. I think efforts to disrupt this site, whether by a member using valuable resources like bandwidth to spam for no reason, or someone trying to shut it down by threats and intimidation should be dealt with accordingly).

If he had a valid point to make (which I cannot see, and still cannot figure out what that was) then I would disagree with the ban.

The nine pages or whatever wasted MY time because I was trying to understand what he was trying to convey...to no avail.


RE: Did Negentropic warrant Immediate outright Banning? - R.R - 11-05-2012

I agree with the ban. He was clearly told not to doublepost to get around the lack of pictures he could add but he did it anyway. I don't know what point he was trying to make about 'manginas' and what relevance it had nor why it required constant updating. Was there even a 'demand' to know more about 'manginas'? Simply put he was taking the piss.

Its an interesting observation though when you look into the effects of having an internet personality. We know about the masses and the highs they get off of their facebook alter-egos but the same applies on any internet forum. Basically he showed a lack of self-control and that is even more stupid as surely he must have thought someone was going to say something to him as he was constantly posting.


RE: Did Negentropic warrant banning? - Frank2 - 11-06-2012

I had the thought that his threads often come from a very "right brained" grounding. Abstract. Not easily quantifiable as simply information sharing.

I believe there is a validity in that. The flow of consciousness approach has led to some of mankind's greatest inventions and breakthroughs. WTH should everyone post in a homogenous carbon copy manner anyway? Obviously, he intends his threads to try and make people think..and even if the intended meaning remains opaque, the act of thinking about it is still brain exercise which may prove fruitful. I remember a poster here, forget their username, some years back, who would only share info and communicate through youtube videos. Shame they are not here still, as I recall, Mike banned them during a pissed wardance and wouldn't renege.

I don't believe it is fair to label Negentropic a "spammer" for being unorthodox and not fitting into the box tidily. Once again, I think this can relate to the theory of mind. We don't all construct and relate ideas and thoughts in the same way! Neurodiversity is equally as important as diversity of opinion. I don't know why that is seemingly a difficult concept to grasp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

He, himself, illustrated his thought process very clearly, when appealing that he "would have to make single posts" for each video and how it would make the thread a headache - from his POV...that in itself clearly delineated that he wasn't fully grasping what FT was trying to convey or the response he was trying to elicit.

On these grounds alone banning is too harsh a measure - judging solely from the available board history it is apparent there was no Mens rea. I posit it was simply a mutual misunderstanding, not being privy to any other info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

@FT - It is good to hear the ban isn't set in stone and can easily become temporary and also I agree with you about editing the thread title. edit) unfortunately I do not have access to edit the poll title accordingly but you do..

@CharliePrime:
"An analogy would be a discussion group that meets every Wednesday night at the pancake house, and one guy abuses the group by reading aloud THE SAME prepared, hour-long rant every Wednesday. " - if, the pancake house meetings were in order to exchange info and ideas, opinion etc it would be a closer analogy and if it happened to be a rant of great merit and import, once a week wouldn't be overkill to get it to sink in IMO Besides, it isn't a pancake house here and it is always possible to choose which threads to read or not.

@RR: "simply put, he was taking the piss" - that isn't necessarily as cut and dried as you suggest and have decided. If you were required from one moment to the next to radically alter the presentation in which you construct your own threads to a manner which you found impractical and hard to accomodate, it could potentially trip you up too.

On the grounds made, I would ask those who have voted for the ban to reconsider their vote and help to reinstate Negentropic's posting privs. No doubt they are reading this thread and may be taking on board what people have said.

@shortwave: - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mangina "Example; Bryan needs to pull the sand out of his mangina and grow a pair."


RE: Did Negentropic warrant Immediate outright Banning? - FastTadpole - 11-06-2012

Quote:he intends his threads to try and make people think..and even if the intended meaning remains opaque

That's why I vouched for the guy, and we kept him around as long as we did. It's not all negative but I feel he did deserve to be banned, despite his opaque attempt. I got it on the thread but that wasn't the issue in that particular shattering of the rules.

He is still free to explain himself via email. forum@concen.org

.. I really do find it hard to believe he didn't understand the term "don't try to circumvent it by double posting".

@Frank2
It's your poll you can change the title with the edit poll button (a hyperlink under the stats, thought you could do that. I updated it to the following:

"Did Negentropic deserve to lose his posting privledges on the ConCen Forum?"


RE: Did Negentropic warrant Immediate outright Banning? - Frank2 - 11-06-2012

Yeah, maybe he was smoking meth *shrugs* I don't have that hyperlink on my interface..reads fine though..


RE: Did Negentropic warrant banning? - R.R - 11-06-2012

I still believe he deserved to be banned on the grounds that he was pre-warned although I wouldn't have an issue with his posting ability restored should other forum members feel that way and he explains himself.


RE: Did Negentropic warrant banning? - psilocybin - 11-06-2012

The user was nuisance. I don't need scrollthritis, nor do I need to read regurgatative material.

Let's try to keep this place the way it is/was. Somewhere where I can go and engage in serious conversation about conspiracy and also get enlightened on the way. We don't need to pander to anyone, just because we are slightly conflicted about it...

Last I saw, this forum didn't say http://www.safeharborforanyonewithwierdthought.org in the url.

There is no implicit morality to running this site, and in fact, because we deal with all shapes of nuts, it's best that there is some type of bullshit filter or we might as well just un-ban Leo Z while we're at it.

Also, If you have only been a member for 2 months, your two cents aren't worth what you think.


RE: Did Negentropic warrant banning? - capnchronic - 11-07-2012

I don't know exactly how annoying his posts were or anything, but while I didn't see many of his posts, he did leave me a very helpful one in my tooth decay thread. For that alone I'd think it would be better to give him a break for a week or two, instead of permanently excommunicating him.

Just my view.


RE: Did Negentropic warrant banning? - Frank2 - 11-07-2012

I only set this poll for 10 days. Either only 14 people use this board or the level of apathy in the community is too high.