Pixel/Bannings

[cottonzway]

Let's move it here.

Just to be clear on something, Paul. I don't dislike you or anything. We don't agree on a lot, but I like what you are doing for the site/show as well as the other guests. You made an excellent film on the UFO topic IMO. I think a lot of your comments about our former host are valid, though I did like what he had to offer as well at times. I do like the show better now with this "rotation" so to speak to get a lot of different prospectives and wish David was a part of that. My issue with you today over Pixel is DB did the same thing to him and stated it was for the same reasons. I would think on the same day of making your comments that you would not want to do the same thing the guy you are ripping did.

This kind of debate is healthy for the members IMO. It's better then members holding it back, getting frustrated, and then just leaving because they did not speak their mind. That is fine if you want to make the call you did, I just take issue with it. I think it sets a bad precedent as the other examples you had given of people banned are quite different then Pixel's situation IMO.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Let's move it here.

Just to be clear on something, Paul. I don't dislike you or anything. We don't agree on a lot, but I like what you are doing for the site/show as well as the other guests. You made an excellent film on the UFO topic IMO. I think a lot of your comments about our former host are valid, though I did like what he had to offer as well at times. I do like the show better now with this "rotation" so to speak to get a lot of different prospectives and wish David was a part of that. My issue with you today over Pixel is DB did the same thing to him and stated it was for the same reasons. I would think on the same day of making your comments that you would not want to do the same thing the guy you are ripping did.

This kind of debate is healthy for the members IMO. It's better then members holding it back, getting frustrated, and then just leaving because they did not speak their mind. That is fine if you want to make the call you did, I just take issue with it. I think it sets a bad precedent as the other examples you had given of people banned are quite different then Pixel's situation IMO.

You cant have a reasoned and rational debate when one person is knowingly using false information to make his point. That runs against everything that the search for the truth should be.

As for the similarity to the Biedny banning of Pixelsmith, consider this one of the things DB and I agree on... and look at the context of the two decisions, and who made them.

Finally, if everyone wants Pixelsmith back, tell him to e-mail me at [email protected]. If he'll publicly apologize for posting false information about Stephen Schneider and his views, I'll reinstate him immediately.

 

[cottonzway]

*googles the name Stephen Schneider*

 

[Paul Kimball]

*googles the name Stephen Schneider*

Remember, the issue is not whether you agree with Schneider or not, but that Pixelsmith quoted him falsely and out of context, and then would not apolgize (indeed, he said it didn't matter).

 

[cottonzway]

Yeah, but to be honest you keep on baiting him as well in that whole thread before making the decision to ban him. I still don't think that is a valid reason to ban someone. It is a reason to question someone's credibility, but not to ban someone IMO.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I didn't think that he was being baited into getting banned. If a forum's administrators feel as though a user has violated the terms of service, they are in their full right to ban them. He was even given the opportunity to not get banned, something that DB never seemed to do, and he didn't take it.
And about DB, and Paul taking the opportunity to comment on a closed thread about him, I think that was fair, especially after hearing what DB said on that podcast about Gene. Not cool. I couldn't even listen to that whole tirade.

 

[cottonzway]

We agree on the latter half of your comments, AOI.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

We agree on the latter half of your comments, AOI.

We seem to agree sometimes - cool eh?

 

[cottonzway]

Indeed.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Yeah, but to be honest you keep on baiting him as well in that whole thread before making the decision to ban him. I still don't think that is a valid reason to ban someone. It is a reason to question someone's credibility, but not to ban someone IMO.

I wasn't baiting him, I was trying to engage him in an honest discussion. They key word is indeed "honest" - something he simply could not understand. And now you're trying to excuse what he did, or just whitewash it. No thanks.

There are too many liars in this world, and too many people who cut corners with the truth. That's why we're in the mess that we're in. Why put up with them when you catch one red-handed?

I don't.

 

[CapnG]

Huh... things you miss when you don't check the forum for a few days.

I'll say only this: for a guy who decried the ability of humans to adversly effect the climate, he certainly never missed an opportunity to "pollute" any and every thread he posted in with his particular AGW views and then dominate that thread with repeated postings until it lost all focus. Whether or not you agreed with him, that sort of behaviour is always disruptive.

 

[cottonzway]

Huh... things you miss when you don't check the forum for a few days.

I'll say only this: for a guy who decried the ability of humans to adversly effect the climate, he certainly never missed an opportunity to "pollute" any and every thread he posted in with his particular AGW views and then dominate that thread with repeated postings until it lost all focus. Whether or not you agreed with him, that sort of behaviour is always disruptive.

As I pointed out in that other thread.....

There is an ignore option for each one of us to use on whoever we see fit for any reason we want.

 

[Paul Kimball]

As I pointed out in that other thread.....

There is an ignore option for each one of us to use on whoever we see fit for any reason we want.

And as I pointed out, I refuse to ignore people who lie, or spread false or misleading information. That's how the truth gets obscured.

 

[cottonzway]

That sets a bad precedent IMO.

 

[CapnG]

There is an ignore option for each one of us to use on whoever we see fit for any reason we want.

I've never used the ignore button on any board I've ever been on because a) I consider it petty and b) even though someone may annoy the living crap out of me there's always a 0.00001% chance they may occaisionally say something of interest that I might miss.

On the other hand, boards have rules and moderators for a reason.

 

[Michael Allen]

Cottonzway >>

Forum moderators basically have the last word--I am surprised to see Paul even bother to explain himself (most mods just kick out the entire dissenting batch along with the initial troll).

Much better things to be done--unless of course you like pushing other's buttons. Overall I don't see much value in this exercise of questioning the Paul's decision -- a useless navel scab poking/examination (at best) that will simply get the other admins attention.

Pixel's posts seemed repetitive -- as if by hitting one over and over with the same information would change minds. In my book that's sufficient grounds for partial (cooling off period) banning.

 

[cottonzway]

I've never used the ignore button on any board I've ever been on because a) I consider it petty and b) even though someone may annoy the living crap out of me there's always a 0.00001% chance they may occaisionally say something of interest that I might miss.

On the other hand, boards have rules and moderators for a reason.

I only used it once here (Jose) and someone really has to be an ass for me to do it. I rather like reading the posts of people I disagree with as long as they are civil.

Rules and mods are needed for forums like this for sure. I just don't think a poster saying something on a random topic that is "misleading" is one of those things. I have been both a mod and admin for websites before so I understand the need for structure on the internets. It just sets a bad precedent to make that as a reason to ban someone. It blurs the line on what someone might consider "misleading" and for other situations like it to come up in the future. It is an area that this site should not enter IMO because it was not needed since 2006 and it is not needed now. If someone comes on here and posts "F this place, Gene, Paul, ect" or does something that we as a community can realize is wrong then by all means get them out of here. A long-time member over this is not a good reason IMO.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Forum moderators basically have the last word--I am surprised to see Paul even bother to explain himself (most mods just kick out the entire dissenting batch along with the initial troll).

I always feel obliged to explain banning someone, because it's not something I would ever do lightly, or without cause. I believe that there is a moral "social contract" between board owners / moderators and participants - the latter agree to play by the rules, and the former agree to enforce the rules fairly, and with as much restraint as possible, and to explain why they think those rules have been broken and someone removed in egregious cases.

Members will of course disagree with those decisions from time to time, which is fair enough, but they should at least understand why they were made.

---------- Post added at 05:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 AM ----------

It blurs the line on what someone might consider "misleading" and for other situations like it to come up in the future. It is an area that this site should not enter IMO because it was not needed since 2006 and it is not needed now.

It's always been needed in my opinion, particularly when the misleading and out of context nature of the statement can clearly be shown, as it was in this case.

Anyway, I've said all that I'm going to say about this particular case.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

Not having read the originating post that led to the banning, I don't know what was said or implied.

Given that, cottonzway, I disagree with the idea the ignore button will solve an issue of untruth or exaggeration.

If someone is deliberately distorting/misquoting or outright lying, then ignore will only work for the one who chooses it. That type of post has a way of infecting itself into the minds of others, until instead of one person knowing they created a false impression, you have a large group who believe what was said because most of us do not appear to check facts before we blithely go on forming opinions and/or sharing what we read as the gospel truth.

So, think of it in that context, not in the frame of habit that you may have developed wherein you check on what you read before you give it credence or pass it along to someone else.

Email myths are a good example; pretty soon you have an alarming amount of people in the country believing some trash that they could have disproved by a quick check of snopes.com. Yet those of us who ignore those emails and do not send them on, don't even make a drop in the bucket compared to those who DO send them on, believing there has to be something to it - after all, it has 5 zillion names in the 'send' section of the email!

Ignoring fabricated facts only has a way of coming back and biting you later. If a person is downright rude or plain offensive in their manner or language, that is where the ignore button comes in handy. When someone posts remarks they know to be untrue, ignoring does not really benefit anyone. If you know it's bs, call them on it.

that is my opinion, and maybe not so well constructed as to be completely clear, but it is out there for what it's worth.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

In a country where over 25% of the population doesn't believe the president is a U.S. citizen, you can expect anything.