You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
January feels weirdly long to me now, even if I know it is almost over.
Blah. This month has sucked for me so bad. Between the TVT drama, not sleeping and a rather torturous run on a project at work, I think I actually managed to make myself sick. It happens if I'm stressed enough.
And I told Ally I'd read her book and do a good job of it, but I screwed up and have to start over (though thankfully, I was only a few chapters in). I feel awful about this, but I just haven't felt like doing anything more challenging than reading the forums, reading Homestuck and watching TV. :P
In fact, I should tell my therapist about all this on Wednesday. Just...I wish I wasn't so damn depressed. I'm not even sure what I've been depressed about.
Hopefully this week will be better. I'm going to get some sleep now and hope for the best.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
And I lack motivation and also have lots of work to catch up on. I hope I can make it through without crashing everything like I did at this time last year.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I wonder if Religious apologists ever get irate that "apologists" is often used to describe someone who thinks pedophila is reasonable or that the Holocaust was justified...
@Whale from another thread: Apologetics(from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information.
I'm completely against prosecuting people for their beliefs. Even if I do not like that belief.
I would sure as hell not defend murder, but I would not condemn a person for liking it. That's not really some "heroic response". I'd rather ban the talk or person. But attacking them doesn't make it better or change their views.
I tend to not like flaming others because you don't agree with them.
I try to be a Lawful Neutral person. Context is very important to me.
My stance is that they're both in the wrong. Likewise, that's not really what I'm talking about.
I don't believe in an "eye for an eye". Especially when it only proves that you're not as some saint as you think you are. Saying you're going to kill a murderer(this is sadly what people say) is very hypocritical, to be honest. I definitely find that beyond rude and bad. I don't want to hear people talk about enjoying murder, nor do I want to hear about people wanting to kill murderers. The line between them really does not exist for me. I cannot see it any different from advocating murder on both ends. I also hate how extreme(and true) this example is.
That's kind of my point, Justice. Too many people think it's alright to scream and flame them for being a "deplorable human being" strictly in their opinion. I agree they're definitely bad. I don't agree with flaming. It's extremely immature. And I do think silencing that kind of talk isn't extreme, but helpful to prevent flame wars on both ends, and creepiness.
And sadly, this is a lot of the case. I could name names, but many seem to be advocating killing people because they have horrible opinions.(I really freakin' wish I was lying here)
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Well, I think the whole killing people because they have horrible opinions is quite a bit beyond what anyone here is discussing.
I think what we're mostly discussing is the idea of banning people. Not necessarily just for their bad opinions. But be cause allowing them a soapbox for their bad opinions can reflect negatively on a site.
Though, this is drifting precariously close BACK to the same topic I originally took my post out of.
Well, to be fair, a ban is the same as killing someone on the net(since they can't come back and are forever gone). Or atleast near it. The comparison is sadly realistic.
Banning people for having bad opinions is in poor taste. Why I would rather them be banned is simply because of the drama and flames. Most of the time, nobody tries to help these people improve, and is so quick to hurt them for it, then it just becomes hypocritical at best.
I have a personal interest in helping people, and rarely does banning do that.(keep in mind that forum banning is what I'm referring to) There are times where it works. If a person only does nothing but flame/troll, they clearly cannot be helped. They should know better, and frankly, I'm not interested in them doing this.
Strawmanning is not something I find permaban worthy, but I would ban them from debates in general. Strawdogging, however, if constantly using extreme examples, is downright bad and I may consider a permaban for that.
Generally, I would ban for Strawmanning(temporarily), Flaming(this can easily be permanent), Trolling(same), Causing really bad drama(Perma), Not respecting authority(honestly, I cannot see why people have to treat people like dirt, and why they think they're above the law either), and especially posting illegal content(unless allowed in general). I don't allow illegal content on a board, clearly, but a chat room would have to be approved.
>Well, to be fair, a ban is the same as killing someone on the net(since they can't come back and are forever gone). Or atleast near it. The comparison is sadly realistic.
No, it really isn't. It's more like being barred than being killed.
I agree that banning people won't help them, but that's not really the point in banning them. More often than not, it means they're too insufferable to put up with any longer.
And, well, you can't help somebody who doesn't want to be helped.
And then I realized Safari was my one true browser love.
But what's your stance on prosecuting people who prosecuting people for their beliefs?
I think you should be able to prosecute people who use this argument. I mean prosecute-prosecute, instead of persecute-prosecute. There should be a law against this derpery.
Sorry, Fourier, but it actually is. You cut off their only way to every contact people on the site. They do not exist. They're dead to it. Barring only works if it's a temporary ban. A full ban(especially a bounce) is zero difference as if they're dead. Once someone is banned, has no pm's, and cannot site-edit(and only read), they have not just zero influence, but they might as well not exist. Obviously, some level of bannings aren't severe, but the second I ban someone from my site/chat, they are gone. They have no influence, and more than often cannot even read it. They've got nothing, and are completely dead to the site. That's why banning should always use be the last straw, of course. Just like the death penalty is the last straw. It should never have to happen, and in fact, removing the death penalty would be great.
@whale: You ban them from the OTC, but not from the site. What's the problem? Advocating something like that is of course a problem. Telling them to Eff Off does not send them any message that what they're doing is wrong either. It just says strictly that you hate them. Which to be honest, nobody gives a crap about that and has zero influence on a debate. It's the same reason why all flaming is thumped in OTC just as strawmanning and strawdogging is. Doing something bad gets consequences.
@Irene No, it actually isn't. I'm afraid I find this comparison absurdly melodramatic. TV Tropes is just a website. It's not the end of the world if a person gets banned from there; kind of annoying but you move on and find other things to do. If you don't like losing contact with people on a site like TVT you shouldn't get yourself banned from it. It really is as simple as that.
@Whale If you're talking about Tom, he already got banned from OTC.
TVTropes is also it's entirely own world. You are banned from that particular world, being dead from it. I do not believe this as "melodramatic" either. If you don't have that contact, you have zero way to ever talk to them again. Just as if they were killed. I apologize if this seems extreme, but there is zero difference to me here.
Permabans very often have a negative effect on the banned one, whether they deserved that or not. I do not disagree with them being banned much of the time, but I refuse to believe it does not cause depression or otherwise. I would know this from experience. It does happen. It does mean you can lose permanent contact with people. People have left because of bannings for one reason or another.
But whatever. I do tire of people being quick to ban, just as I tire of people advocating banning as an easy solution to a problem. It should be the last resort, and being ban-happy is not a good way to solve issues either. Which of course refers to a forum ban.
TV Tropes does not exist wholly in isolation. You can exchange emails, or get in touch with people via the various satellite/successor sites.
I know that some people respond very badly to bans. Tnu was one such example. I don't think this is normal.
But either way, TVT is so far from ban-happy it's not even funny. I'd say the problem is more that we're too swift to ban for certain reasons and nowhere near quick enough to ban for others.
And let's say you never were able to contact that person in any way or form. And nobody else can. They're gone forever. So yes, it's possible that the comparison is correct without a doubt. I still can't find enough of a real difference.
And it's more isolated than one thinks. In fact, there's tons of people who have disappeared that I've wanted to talk to that I can't forever, and not just on that site. Not everybody keeps information about themselves in the open, even if you're they're friend. Some are too paranoid.
Also to be fair, it was pretty heavy on that last month. I generally think the rage quits don't need to be banned nearly as easily, as context is important, on the other hand, they reflected badly on the site. In some ways, I agree people are too light on non-liked people, on the other hand, I don't like silencing people very easily. I'd rather avoid bans IF possible. Like I said, it should be a last resort.
PMs are the last thing we disable, and only ever as a last resort. You can still PM most banned users.
The exception to this would be users who have been bounced from the site, a measure which I would be happier about if it were reserved solely for spambots and really serious offenders, but which has seen less use of late, not more.
If you can't PM a banned user, they can still get in touch with you via the IRC channels or via other forums with large numbers of tropers such as IJBM and BTL. If they're not sufficiently interested in staying in touch to do that, they're under no obligation to talk to you.
I don't really agree with the banning for ragequits thing; I can understand why Eddie does it, though. Ragequits tend to cause drama, and drama is a pain in the neck for all concerned (and easily the hardest thing to moderate against).
I hate it when I wake up in the middle of the night and can't get back to sleep. Finally ended up giving up on trying for any more sleep and hoping I can 1) catch up tonight so I feel good tomorrow and 2) make it through work without falling asleep on my desk.
I haven't 8een any more anxious than usual unless it's really su8conscious. Which is possi8le, 8ut usually I know when I'm feeling stressed. Might 8e hormonal too. Though I won't worry too much a8out it unless it happens tonight too, since it's rare that it happens twice in a row unless I am getting sick. (Which I 8etter not 8e, I was sick a few weeks ago and don't want it to happen again.) Even when I was under stress from jo8 hunting I only had it happen rarely and for one night at a time.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Comments
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I think I said it already, but Holocaust apologists are bad because they're defending the Holocaust, not because they're "defending".
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
I WAS BRUSHING A LOCK OF MY HAIR BEHIND MY EAR AND I CUT THE SKIN AROUND MY TEMPLE WITH MY FINGERNAILS
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
No, it really isn't. It's more like being barred than being killed.
I agree that banning people won't help them, but that's not really the point in banning them. More often than not, it means they're too insufferable to put up with any longer.
And, well, you can't help somebody who doesn't want to be helped.
Theres some geezer in the OTC who has continuously calls for the United States to "glass" Iran.
Would you think this is acceptable?
@Whale If you're talking about Tom, he already got banned from OTC.
I know that some people respond very badly to bans. Tnu was one such example. I don't think this is normal.
But either way, TVT is so far from ban-happy it's not even funny. I'd say the problem is more that we're too swift to ban for certain reasons and nowhere near quick enough to ban for others.
The exception to this would be users who have been bounced from the site, a measure which I would be happier about if it were reserved solely for spambots and really serious offenders, but which has seen less use of late, not more.
If you can't PM a banned user, they can still get in touch with you via the IRC channels or via other forums with large numbers of tropers such as IJBM and BTL. If they're not sufficiently interested in staying in touch to do that, they're under no obligation to talk to you.
I don't really agree with the banning for ragequits thing; I can understand why Eddie does it, though. Ragequits tend to cause drama, and drama is a pain in the neck for all concerned (and easily the hardest thing to moderate against).
My schedule broke.
That was awesome.
That's in a bit more than eight hours.