Thread: Rhetorical devices in Hell threads... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025564
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
My apologies to Kelly

[Hot and Hormonal] [Hot and Hormonal] [Hot and Hormonal] Oops...

Anyways, back on point.

As a general rule, I never question hosts and admins. I occasionally read the Styx threads on such but generally I appreciate and am thankful for what they do. And I don't think it's something I could do and hence keep silent about such things.

Comet made this ruling in Hell and I foolishly questioned it... so now I'm here.

Justinian's post was clearly one that would invoke hostly attention. I fully understand the sensitivity and concern. There have been several child abuse related threads recently which I have participated in. My thoughts and views and feelings drawn from knowing far more about child abuse than I would want to, I think have been shown over the last few weeks.

Justinian was clearly making a rhetorical point. I don't think the post could be read any other way. So whilst I understand the concern and sensitivity, I was slightly uncomfortable with Comet's interpretation. I should have started a Styx thread, but I didn't quite think it was a thread, I just wanted to ask the question.

So here we are... I still think Justinian's point could not have been made any other way. Which is not the same thing as saying Justinian was right. Conversely I appreciate Comet's position and wanted to ask about it rather than challenge it per se

[Help]

AFZ

P.S. Hosts have mercy on me please...
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
It is not foolish for you to question a hostly ruling. It is against policy to do so anywhere but the Styx.

But you know that, so I'm not sure why I am having to reiterated it.

Thank you for moving this conversation where it is supposed be.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Chill, I'm not upset. I get your point. I got Justinian's, too. But it was wrongly done. Listen, it takes a lot to cross the squicky line in Hell, but accusing someone of pedophilia- rhetorically or not- will do it. I don't really care if he was making the most valient of points; we don't play that game. It's wrong, it's unfair, and it's nasty. Justinian (and everyone else) will just have to find another way of making their point. There's personal and then there's nasty.

That thread was bringing out the worst in everyone for the last two pages. Hell has been chockfull of pedo talk and everyone is getting demented and ugly. I think everyone needs to take a walk and calm down.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Comet was not the only one to make a ruling on this subject. I did as well.

I would have thought one indication that this form of insinuation was completely unacceptable would have been sufficient. But apparently not.

I completely disagree with the notion that there was no other way to make the point than with that rhetorical device. The entire reason for the THREAD is objecting to the use of an unnecessary rhetorical device. In both cases, there is no need to go there.

If people can't immediately think of a way to make their point other than saying something beyond the pale, they should step back, put their creative thinking cap on and come up with another method.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If people can't immediately think of a way to make their point other than saying something beyond the pale, they should step back, put their creative thinking cap on and come up with another method.
That bit I agree with. I also noted your ruling before which I thought was very restrained.

The point - I think Justinian was making, although I should not really speak for anyone else - is how deeply offensive and unhelpful such rhetorical devices are. So at the risk of creating an infinite loop... I think the rhetorical device was about rhetorical devices. What, I thought made Justinian's comment different was the clear statement in the post that she didn't mean it and that it was in the sense... "If I said this then you would rightly feel upset about it, but can you not see how your own comments have similar effects"

I appreciate what Comet said about how hard it is to get a ruling in Hell and I'm still not sure my meanderings will justify a thread, but yeah, I wanted to ask.

AFZ

[ 18. November 2012, 21:12: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If people can't immediately think of a way to make their point other than saying something beyond the pale, they should step back, put their creative thinking cap on and come up with another method.
That bit I agree with. I also noted your ruling before which I thought was very restrained.

The point - I think Justinian was making, although I should not really speak for anyone else - is how deeply offensive and unhelpful such rhetorical devices are. So at the risk of creating an infinite loop... I think the rhetorical device was about rhetorical devices. What, I thought made Justinian's comment different was the clear statement in the post that she didn't mean it and that it was in the sense... "If I said this then you would rightly feel upset about it, but can you not see how your own comments have similar effects"

AFZ
And it's precisely that risk of an infinite loop that I am trying to prevent.

To me, covering it with "IF I said this" just doesn't cut it. You did say it. You said it with a view to making someone feel bad. You're not automatically excused by the fact that they made you feel bad first.

And personally, I felt that the posts by CK and Justinian weren't merely "like for like", because it was getting more and more specific. We went from comparisons between groups to seeking statements from individuals about the connection between 'their sin' and another, to explicit targeting of a named individual. The steps before are bad enough, but that last step is what led to my warning.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It is not foolish for you to question a hostly ruling. It is against policy to do so anywhere but the Styx.

But you know that, so I'm not sure why I am having to reiterated it.

Thank you for moving this conversation where it is supposed be.
Yep. I meant foolishly questioned it in the wrong place... [Disappointed]

Don't worry, I won't do it again.

AFZ
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
. What, I thought made Justinian's comment different was the clear statement in the post that she didn't mean it and that it was in the sense... "If I said this then you would rightly feel upset about it, but can you not see how your own comments have similar effects"
If Jusitinian had used te lauguage you used there^ I might have let it go. It's got a layer of abstraction that in fact does NOT accuse anyone of pedohilia. It's still toeing the line, but not as ugly as saying, "yeah, you have a "friend" who's a pedo, and we all know what that means." because couched as rhetoric or not, that's an accusation.

The whole point of the thread is that you can't equate homosexuality with pedophilia. The reason this is such a huge issue is becase pedophilia is such a GIANT boogeyman issue in our society. It can't be equated with pretty much anything. We are not, societally speaking, in a healthy place with this issue. Which is why even an accusation couched in a rhetorical device is not okay. People are not objective about it.

If justinian had used shoplifting as te rhetorical device I'd have let it slide. We don't vilify shoplifters without proof. We do that to pedophiles.

(just fyi- i'm using my phone and it's a PAIN IN THE ASS to try and be clear typing with my thumbs. Pity me.)
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
The whole point of the thread is that you can't equate homosexuality with pedophilia. The reason this is such a huge issue is becase pedophilia is such a GIANT boogeyman issue in our society. It can't be equated with pretty much anything. We are not, societally speaking, in a healthy place with this issue. Which is why even an accusation couched in a rhetorical device is not okay. People are not objective about it.

If justinian had used shoplifting as te rhetorical device I'd have let it slide. We don't vilify shoplifters without proof. We do that to pedophiles.
I used paedophilia as the rhetorical device for one specific reason. As Louise pointed out Enders Shadow has been using paedophilia as a rhetorical device on the boards for ten years and the hosts have been warning him about it for eight. The very subject of the hell thread was Ender's Shadow's use of paedophilia as a rhetorical device.

Nothing that has been tried in the meantime has worked. Hell calls haven't worked. Hostly warnings haven't worked. Both were tried eight years ago. And just telling Ender's Shadow to stop doing it might as well be joing the anti-kitten burning coalition. Even IngoB has given up his defence there.

Were this over a one time thing I'd agree with Orfeo's point that there were probably better ways of saying things. But this is an eight year long pattern during which he hasn't changed - and just about every way that isn't pushing the bounds even of Hell has been tried, almost all of them have been tried on that thread no less.

I've no particular desire to join the anti-kitten burning coalition; I care more that kittens don't get burned - to do this means trying to get through to Ender's Shadow exactly why his insinuations and false equivalences are bad. Anything else is just grandstanding (not that grandstanding can't be fun). Any attempt to do that needs more than usual measures; someone with a ten year history of something and who's been called to hell regularly for all those ten years isn't going to change their behaviour based on things that have been consistently tried for all ten years - and after ten years it's quite obvious that the hosts and admins aren't going to do anything that make a difference.

Which brings me back to the point of the thread. Which is that Enders Shadow can equate paedophilia with homsexuality and unless something changes is going to continue to do so. What's worse, he's going to continue to do so on boards that aren't Hell. I consider this a far, far bigger problem for the ship than alternatives might be - and made a calculated decision to go right to the edge of the liberal boundaries of Hell by writing a post that made me want to take a shower just for writing as this is the only thing that I haven't seen tried and that might possibly do some good other than serious hostly sanction (which isn't under my control).

On the other hand I hadn't spotted Orfeo's warning, sorry.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
What consequences has Ender's Shadow received for his eight-year pattern of ignoring hostly admonitions for this specific offense? Just more warnings?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
The comparison was originally banned way back in the mists of time, but was then 'unbanned' by the admins on free speech grounds. l think this was because of a mixture of free speech grounds and because it had been covered by a then broader c 3 wording which was seen as too restrictive.

I see the reasons why that old C 3 wording was abandoned but in my personal view I think it needs to be looked at again in the light of C 1 and what constitutes -isms and being a jerk.

I'm sorry to say that (again my personal opinion as shipmate not as a host) the boards seem to me to have a double standard on some subjects. If someone posted racism as virulent as this sort of homophobia they would barely last ten days, never mind ten years .

I see the distinction being made too. But the problem is that normally when someone posts something slimy against a group, people can post the equivalent to them in Hell. Here we have an accusation so taboo that even posts in Hell saying not 'this is true about you too!' but basically 'how would you like it if we said the same about you?' are, because of the taboo subject, out of bounds.

I think in such circumstances the group accusation needs to be stopped and considered as C1 'jerk' material. These are my personal views and not those of the management.
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
quote:
Justinian:
I've no particular desire to join the anti-kitten burning coalition; I care more that kittens don't get burned - to do this means trying to get through to Ender's Shadow exactly why his insinuations and false equivalences are bad. Anything else is just grandstanding (not that grandstanding can't be fun). Any attempt to do that needs more than usual measures; someone with a ten year history of something and who's been called to hell regularly for all those ten years isn't going to change their behaviour based on things that have been consistently tried for all ten years - and after ten years it's quite obvious that the hosts and admins aren't going to do anything that make a difference.
Lordy, what's that adage about insanity?... I jest.

Justinian, while I presume your desire for ES to acknowledge the error of his ways and reform the hell out of himself comes from a strong sense of moral justice and grace (I'm being genuine here), I wonder at the sense of it. Has the phrase "lost cause" not already been brandied about in regards to ES?

And if the Hosts or Admins -- long may they reign in prosperity -- are prepared to let him be, then perhaps the rest of the community can hedge him in on general threads when he spreads his filth and robbash. And rather than fan his sulfuric flames, as it were (pee-yoo!), ignore him the rest of the time.

Incidentally, I've only been back on the Ship for a little while after quite a hiatus, and it didn't take me long to get to know ES' voice and see his bollocks for what it is.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Ok, please be mindful that I am the only Admin available to comment at the moment, and I have only been at this a week. Therefore, I am not even going to claim to be speaking for my fellow Admins, but here's my thoughts:

1. The ramifications of hinting that an individual is a pedophile-- that is, guilty of a specific crime-- are pretty clear. Our priority is to keep the Ship squeakily clean from any possible consequences of allowing such a suggestion to stand without comment. As has been stated many times before, we must err on the side of caution in that regard.

2. The issue of whether or not repeated comparisons of the actions of a group of people to a criminal act constitutes a C1 issue is currently under discussion.

Please be mindful of time zone issues and the need for discussion of the matter before action (if any) takes place. You patience is appreciated and please know that we are taking all of your comments seriously.

Kelly Alves
Admin.

[ 19. November 2012, 03:12: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
and I have only been at this a week.
Really? I didn't know this! I guess you must always have had that kind of "Adminesqueness" about you in my head, Kelly [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Wait, it's more like three weeks.

A short time, anyway. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
On review, we have to agree that those of you objecting to the rhetoric of Ender's Shadow have made your case. He has been consistently making the relationship with homosexuality and pedophilia in a way that is provocative and disruptive.

SO, Ender's Shadow, consider yourself formally warned-- that rhetoric needs to stop. Any further comparisons of homosexuality and pedophilia will earn you Commandment 1 consequences.

Kelly Alves
Admin

(will repost on the thread in question.)

[ 19. November 2012, 05:16: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Can I ask what has happened to the thread in question? It seems to have gone missing from Hell and doesn't appear for me in Oblivion, either.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Can I ask what has happened to the thread in question? It seems to have gone missing from Hell and doesn't appear for me in Oblivion, either.
It has been taken down for the reasons touched on by Comet, orfeo and Kelly in their posts. This is one of the few Admin actions that isn't up for further discussion btw.

Tubbs
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Dear Tubbs—I wasn't looking for discussion, but notice would have helpful given the numerous orphaned links upthread. As one of the grumpy grousers on this issue, Thank You. I appreciate this decision.—TSA
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Please pardon me while I point out the following:

Ender's Shadow final warning in November.
His final C1 nail.

He is now gone.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Excuse me for being ignorant - what does 'he is now gone' mean? Does that mean a permanent ban?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Yes, it means a ban rather than a suspension.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
My only surprise is that it took so long!

Again, my compliments to the Admins and Hosts who have to parse these type of situations.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
What Siegfried said. Thank you H&As for dealing with this.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
How long until the "It's not faaaaair!" gang comes out of the woodwork? Bets?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
What's not fair? Ender's was warned not to compare of homosexuality and paedophilia - he was clearly told he'd get a C1 response.

Then he goes and opens a thread in which he parallels them. I imagine the delay was while the Admins talked it through.

But it's a fair call imo. I can't see there being any brigade in the woodwork.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I thought he must be deliberately aiming to get banned, not sure why. Fair warning given, after all. Is it a fantasized martyrdom to free speech?
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought he must be deliberately aiming to get banned, not sure why. Fair warning given, after all. Is it a fantasized martyrdom to free speech?
I suspect it's a martyrdom to his homophobia.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How long until the "It's not faaaaair!" gang comes out of the woodwork? Bets?
I've been trying to remember if he had a particular friend on the boards to come to his defense and start such a thread. I can't think of anyone but they may have escaped my notice, since I tended to avoid ES as much as possible because of his views.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
I must confess I am actually surprised that we haven't had the usual voices speaking out against the arbitrary power-hungry Ship's Officers planking a beloved and valuable Shipmate and proposing a new board with 23 rules for properly discussing pedophilia.
 
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 
Can someone please point me to THE offending passage which occasioned the banning?
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
His final C1 nail.

He is now gone.
Glockenspiel, this was Rook's second link, pointing out ES's final Commandment 1 violation. It is the OP of the last DH thread that ES started, to which you have contributed. It was also linked when Rook posted the same thing on that thread.

I suppose one could say "but he was just linking to someone else suggesting that..." but given his past posting habits and given the way he titled the thread I'm not surprised by his planking. Trying to shore up a blog post as "increasing academic respectability" probably didn't help his credibility, either.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
In any case, several people on the thread in question picked up that he was NOT "just linking to someone else suggesting...", because he singled out homosexuality from heterosexuality in contrast to the source material. He also ignored the source material's deliberate distinction between pedophilia and homosexuality.

I think a perfectly reasonable conversation about pedophilia could have been started from the link that ES provided, and indeed Honest Ron Bacardi has been attempting exactly that. But ES' chosen angle was to make it about pedophilia + homosexuality.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
ETA: this is to the thread in general:

Let's try to avoid any unseemly attacks against someone who's no longer around to defend himself, shall we?

Marvin
Admin

[ 24. January 2013, 21:22: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I must confess I am actually surprised that we haven't had the usual voices speaking out against the arbitrary power-hungry Ship's Officers planking a beloved and valuable Shipmate and proposing a new board with 23 rules for properly discussing pedophilia.
I don't think it was arbitrary or power-hungry, because Kelly's warning was pretty damned clear. But, FWIW, I'm not convinced that ES was ever trying to equate homosexuality and paedophilia. I think he was trying to make a 'just because its a natural impulse doesn't make it right' point, and wan't prepared to admit that the paedo thing was a spectacularly crass and inappropriate way of making that (in itself, not unreasonable) point.

And I think the Ship will be impoverished by the loss of an articulate exponent of conservative evangelical Christianity.

I wish he'd listened to the warning. I hope that if he contacts the admins with some indication that he'll listen to warnings in the future, they'll receive that graciously.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I hope that if he contacts the admins with some indication that he'll listen to warnings in the future, they'll receive that graciously.
Stranger things have happened. But not very often.
 
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
His final C1 nail.

He is now gone.
Glockenspiel, this was Rook's second link, pointing out ES's final Commandment 1 violation. It is the OP of the last DH thread that ES started, to which you have contributed. It was also linked when Rook posted the same thing on that thread.

I suppose one could say "but he was just linking to someone else suggesting that..." but given his past posting habits and given the way he titled the thread I'm not surprised by his planking. Trying to shore up a blog post as "increasing academic respectability" probably didn't help his credibility, either.
Ok - so there he is referencing something which says it's almost entirely men - I still don't get it.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But, FWIW, I'm not convinced that ES was ever trying to equate homosexuality and paedophilia. I think he was trying to make a 'just because its a natural impulse doesn't make it right' point, and wan't prepared to admit that the paedo thing was a spectacularly crass and inappropriate way of making that (in itself, not unreasonable) point.
You're prepared to give him credit that I'm not, frankly, because of his continual repeated choice to only make that point in one context.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
FWIW, I'm not convinced that ES was ever trying to equate homosexuality and paedophilia. I think he was trying to make a 'just because its a natural impulse doesn't make it right' point, and wan't prepared to admit that the paedo thing was a spectacularly crass and inappropriate way of making that (in itself, not unreasonable) point.
I can't see how, from a Ship's 10 Commandments point of view, that distinction matters.
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
His final C1 nail.

He is now gone.
Glockenspiel, this was Rook's second link, pointing out ES's final Commandment 1 violation. It is the OP of the last DH thread that ES started, to which you have contributed. It was also linked when Rook posted the same thing on that thread.

I suppose one could say "but he was just linking to someone else suggesting that..." but given his past posting habits and given the way he titled the thread I'm not surprised by his planking. Trying to shore up a blog post as "increasing academic respectability" probably didn't help his credibility, either.
Ok - so there he is referencing something which says it's almost entirely men - I still don't get it.
Because his point was equating homosexuality to pedophilia, which he was given a very specific final warning not to do. Orfeo puts it perfectly:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In any case, several people on the thread in question picked up that he was NOT "just linking to someone else suggesting...", because he singled out homosexuality from heterosexuality in contrast to the source material. He also ignored the source material's deliberate distinction between pedophilia and homosexuality.

I think a perfectly reasonable conversation about pedophilia could have been started from the link that ES provided, and indeed Honest Ron Bacardi has been attempting exactly that. But ES' chosen angle was to make it about pedophilia + homosexuality.

 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And I think the Ship will be impoverished by the loss of an articulate exponent of conservative evangelical Christianity.

I wish he'd listened to the warning.
I'm glad the Hosts and Admins acted as they did, but I'm with Eliab here. I'm going to miss him and hope he petitions to return.
 
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
His final C1 nail.

He is now gone.
Glockenspiel, this was Rook's second link, pointing out ES's final Commandment 1 violation. It is the OP of the last DH thread that ES started, to which you have contributed. It was also linked when Rook posted the same thing on that thread.

I suppose one could say "but he was just linking to someone else suggesting that..." but given his past posting habits and given the way he titled the thread I'm not surprised by his planking. Trying to shore up a blog post as "increasing academic respectability" probably didn't help his credibility, either.
Ok - so there he is referencing something which says it's almost entirely men - I still don't get it.

Because his point was equating homosexuality to pedophilia, which he was given a very specific final warning not to do. ...
Ok - I have now read the passage in question yet again - and it says it equates to hetrosexuality OR homosexuality - and this is the only passage which is being presented as evidence - so I still don't get it.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Ok - I have now read the passage in question yet again - and it says it equates to hetrosexuality OR homosexuality - and this is the only passage which is being presented as evidence - so I still don't get it.
The whole point of why ES was in trouble is because he wanted to talk about the parallels between pedophilia and homosexuality. Again.

One only has to compare ES' heading and opening sentence with the link/quote to see the difference between the passage presented as evidence and the angle that ES put on it.

If you're looking for something offensive in the material that ES linked to, you won't find it. That's the point.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How long until the "It's not faaaaair!" gang comes out of the woodwork? Bets?
I've been trying to remember if he had a particular friend on the boards to come to his defense and start such a thread. I can't think of anyone but they may have escaped my notice, since I tended to avoid ES as much as possible because of his views.
I wouldn't count myself as a particular friend though I have some sympathy with his basic underlying theology. He was about more than the subject of homosexuality in his postings on SOF. However, I think the conservative case is brought into disrepute when hurtful and unnecessary and completely illogical comparisons are made which leave people feeling belittled and insulted.

I can't see how the admins had any choice but to ban him given the extremely clear warning they'd already given. I hope he will acknowledge that he was at fault and apologise. If he does so, it hasn't been unknown for the admins to exercise some grace to offenders when they have served a reasonable sentence.
 
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Ok - I have now read the passage in question yet again - and it says it equates to hetrosexuality OR homosexuality - and this is the only passage which is being presented as evidence - so I still don't get it.
The whole point of why ES was in trouble is because he wanted to talk about the parallels between pedophilia and homosexuality. Again.

One only has to compare ES' heading and opening sentence with the link/quote to see the difference between the passage presented as evidence and the angle that ES put on it.

If you're looking for something offensive in the material that ES linked to, you won't find it. That's the point.
Right - that's a little more helpful - So if HE had said that it is fine to parallel paedophilia with EITHER hetrosexuality or homosexuality, there wouldn't have been any problem?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Who's he?

If you mean ES had simply linked to an article about pedophilia which suggests that pedophilia is an innate orientation, then in my personal opinion he probably would have been okay. Sailing very close to the wind given his past history, but in and of itself I would have thought it was okay.

That's pretty much what I was trying to convey earlier. As I said, Honest Ron Bacardi has illustrated how you can have a conversation about the implications for pedophilia without attempting to make it "those pedophilias are just like those gays".

Please note, I am a Host not and Admin and I had no involvement in the decision to ban ES.

[ 25. January 2013, 09:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 
Oh, is it a she? I've lost track - the person who was banned.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Sorry, I've gone back and edited on you. For a moment I was confused about whether we were talking about Ender's Shadow or about the blogger that he linked to.

EDIT: And in the process I've made a shocking number of typos. [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 25. January 2013, 09:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 
Thanks - mystery solved.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
While there may be a small group who would wish Ender's Shadow's return, it ought to be said plainly that such a willfully obstreperous poster as he must consume considerable time and care, while producing an even greater amount of teeth-grinding and frustration in the Hostly Adminisphere.

I offer my thanks.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Please may I add my tainted, serial offender's voice, plea for Ender's Shadow to be allowed to return with assurances of repentance on their part ? On parole ?

I have been at least tacitly guilty of being non-inclusive of LGBT Christians here.

I have argued traditional, conservative views. I can't do that any more and the Ship has been there regardless, has carried me, like Christ, through years DESPITE me.

The proposition has just popped up in my head that just as society ESPECIALLY the Church needs to be inclusive of paedophiles it needs to be inclusive of homophobes, sexists, racists.

Where else are they to be ... loved ? And others, like Andreas / El Greco. Can there be an amnesty ? A jubilee ? Can we open the gates of Hell ?

I DO appreciate the nightmare job of the hosts and admins, that I have contributed to.

WWJD ?

[ 26. January 2013, 12:28: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

I wish he'd listened to the warning. I hope that if he contacts the admins with some indication that he'll listen to warnings in the future, they'll receive that graciously. [/QB]
You do make the assumption that if he came back, there would be a need for more warnings. That seems merited by his track record, but why let him back to continue actions that need warnings?
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
While there may be a small group who would wish Ender's Shadow's return, it ought to be said plainly that such a willfully obstreperous poster as he must consume considerable time and care, while producing an even greater amount of teeth-grinding and frustration in the Hostly Adminisphere.

I offer my thanks.
Being a rather stupid person, I actually wish everyone's return, though with the qualification that the behaviour resulting in the removal of privileges be reformed. I suspect that's how it goes. Having moderated and administered a forum in the past, I suspect that the HA group brux much less that might be thought and experience brief emotion only, if any. Such things have an objective inevitability when the behaviour in question is clear.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Martin:
quote:
I have been at least tacitly guilty of being non-inclusive of LGBT Christians here.

I have argued traditional, conservative views. I can't do that any more and the Ship has been there regardless, has carried me, like Christ, through years DESPITE me.
Martin, speaking for myself, as a gay man, I want to say that I have never felt rejected or offended by any of your posts. At times I may disagree with you, at times I may not understand you (!), but you are very honest about your own brokenness. And that resonates with all that is broken in me.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And I think the Ship will be impoverished by the loss of an articulate exponent of conservative evangelical Christianity.

I wish he'd listened to the warning.
I'm glad the Hosts and Admins acted as they did, but I'm with Eliab here. I'm going to miss him and hope he petitions to return.
Me too. Ender's is one of the people I most enjoy violently disagreeing with.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Robert, you are MOST gracious. I may have complied with the letter of the law of SOF, but my heart has been benighted. You are a shining example of inclusion of those who would exclude you. I'm MOST moved. An example of how the post-evangelical must be to the evangelical, the inclusive to the exclusive across the board.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I have argued traditional, conservative views. I can't do that any more and the Ship has been there regardless, has carried me, like Christ, through years DESPITE me.
Martin, I'm not aware that you have a ten year old ban on this board or a recent final warning about one specific and narrow type of comparison.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
I suspect that people like ES enjoy the attention. Since joining the Ship a few months ago, I have noticed the way that threads started by such people-- or in which they become heavily involved -- tend to become ABOUT them. As do the inevitable sequel threads in Hell and the Styx.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
No Justinian.

A wild idea - we vote people off and the duration.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
The Kingdom is not a democracy and neither is the Ship (I am sure they have other things in common too).

Fly Safe, Pyx_e
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I think it is worth pointing out that it is perfectly possible for people to be suspended from the ship for a period of time - determined by the Admins, not by popular vote - and to then come back.

The whole point of that is to give people an opportunity to mend their ways.

I don't know how many times Ender's Shadow might have been suspended. But the most recent suspension was very recent. I doubt he had forgotten it, because the post that got him into trouble this time refers to him getting a pasting last time. Whether he specifically had the formal consequences (suspension) or the informal consequences (a lot of people yelling at him in Hell) in mind, I can't know for sure, but he seemed well aware that his last attempt at comparing pedophilia and homosexuality had got him into trouble.

So if someone is suspended, given an opportunity to reflect on why they were suspended, and then doesn't mend their ways, what's the next step? Just repeat the suspension over and over?

EDIT: I'm not merely asking the question rhetorically. I'm genuinely interested whether there are people who seriously think that suspension should be the highest sanction available.

[ 31. January 2013, 11:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm genuinely interested whether there are people who seriously think that suspension should be the highest sanction available.
It's obvious to me that suspension could not practically be the highest sanction. There are some prats who deserve to be banned; Ender's Shadow is one of them.

It is also obvious that my expressed desire for Ender's Shadow to beg for and receive remission is not logically consistent with this.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm genuinely interested whether there are people who seriously think that suspension should be the highest sanction available.
There probably are, but I'm not one of them. This is especially true since we have examples of people on the Ship who have been "permanently" banned--even for sock-puppetry--but then came back after a come-to-Jesus exchange with the Adminosphere. Sometimes they self-destruct yet again, but sometimes they make real contributions to the Ship.

As much as I love and enjoy the Ship, I do try to remember that this is a small bulletin board, and the internet bulletin board format seems to be losing popularity in general. It is not a church, it is not a pub, it is not even a particularly large or important semi-Christian bulletin board. Getting thrown out of here is not tragic in the grand scheme of anyone's life.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So if someone is suspended, given an opportunity to reflect on why they were suspended, and then doesn't mend their ways, what's the next step? Just repeat the suspension over and over?

EDIT: I'm not merely asking the question rhetorically. I'm genuinely interested whether there are people who seriously think that suspension should be the highest sanction available.
Good questions. A ban becomes a suspension when its lifted doesn't it? Not sure of the history of bans and suspensions, but I have seen forums which put people on very short leashes after misbehaviour. Kind of like allowing someone who would have been executed to be confined to a monastery.

It's been a while, but I think all of these are possible with modern forum packages, like phpBB. Things like preventing participation in various parts of the forum and not allowing certain topics. Not allowing more than X number of posts per Y span of time. Disallowing a user from using certain words. Restricting a username from having their posts appear before moderation. I don't think old UBBclassic has these features.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
It's not that I don't think people have to be banned, but I am often surprised at the banning.

Maybe I don't see the offense so clearly as I usually have to re-read threads to see the problem. On other boards I have been vilified so perhaps I have developed a thick skin, as anything here has been comparatively mild.

I do wonder if the violations of some 10C are more easily determined (measured) but less important to be acted upon.
In Systems Development Measurement there is an adage: that if it's easy to measure then its not important, and if it's important then it's hard to measure. I suppose that perspective influences my thoughts on the violations.

It did appear to me that there was a heightened sensitivity to 10C violations immediately after Erin's death.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
If phpBB does everything you say, no prophet, I don't think that such administrative censorship would float well with the Ship. Even if we finally upgrade, I don't see many of those features being turned on. Rather labour intensive, as well as setting the field for "we don't like you much, so we are limiting you only to a small section of the Boards"
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
It did appear to me that there was a heightened sensitivity to 10C violations immediately after Erin's death.
Erin had stepped back from much activity for a year or so before her death, seemingly satisfied with the way which the Administrators were doing things. But to balance my possible subjectivity, it would be helpful for increased objectivity if you could point out relevant examples before and after.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
I am aware mine is a subjective impression and I was not actively monitoring. I don't think it is possible to be so objective.

One that stands in my memory was the suspension of Multipara. I thought it was planking, but on reviewing I see it is a suspension, which I suppose was time-limted, though she never posted again.

Possibly it stayed in my memory because I similarly missed the inclusion of Hellhost in the signature once. I feigned obsequiousness to a second host rejoinder and the matter passed, though someone else started a Styx thread about it.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
This seems much more lenient.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
This seems much more lenient.
Sorry, I'm not clear precisely which bit you're talking about here. You linked to my post, rather than Marvin's, and I'm not sure there was anything for me to be 'lenient' about.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
Both this exchange and the one I linked to in my previous post were commenting on a host/admin mode post. One resulted in suspension while the other did not even get a reminder that those comments are only to be raised in The Styx.

Rook, a few posts back, was asking for evidence that there was a heightened sensitivity to 10C violations just after Erin's death, which was my perception. This seemed to be one example.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Both this exchange and the one I linked to in my previous post were commenting on a host/admin mode post. One resulted in suspension while the other did not even get a reminder that those comments are only to be raised in The Styx.

Rook, a few posts back, was asking for evidence that there was a heightened sensitivity to 10C violations just after Erin's death, which was my perception. This seemed to be one example.
Sorry, I don't agree. And here's why:

The actual Admin/Host post here was by Marvin. Not me. Marvin's post was actually an explicit reminder about Commandment 6 - which is the Commandment that requires Shipmates to raise matters in The Styx. So that disposes of one aspect of your reasoning - the relevant reference was already given. It didn't need to be given a second time.

Now, Marvin can correct me if I'm in error, but I'm pretty sure that his warning was to passer, not to deano.

All that I was doing was pointing out to deano that he'd misinterpreted Marvin's post. There isn't anything especially Hostly about that. Any other Shipmate could have made the same remark.

I suppose you could mount an argument that he was disputing Marvin's post in some way. But in my view, any ruling he was disputing was a ruling that didn't exist - if he was arguing with anything, it was with a warning to deano about Commandment 6 (not a warning to passer about Commandment 6).

And if there is no warning to deano about Commandment 6, I don't really see the point of telling deano not to dispute warnings to deano about Commandment 6.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Now, Marvin can correct me if I'm in error, but I'm pretty sure that his warning was to passer, not to deano.
You are quite correct.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
To my mind there was not much difference between Multipara's comment to "Take note" and Deano's to "Chill out".
Or is it OK to comment out of Styx on a Host/Admin post as long as it was not one on your own post?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Or is it OK to comment out of Styx on a Host/Admin post as long as it was not one on your own post?
No comments about Official™ posts outside of the Styx are a good idea.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0