Noa and derailing

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
May 29 2018 20:40
Noa and derailing
Noa Rodman wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
Noa if you continue to derail threads it's going to be time for a temp ban, I've wasted too much time the past week or so cleaning up after you.

First it was R Totale who asked you to ban me from the incel thread, though you kindly enough merely split some of my comments (it was in fact when I was responding to a comment directly about incel ideology). I formally noted that was unjustified.

On this thread you have split the comments about my example of supporting non-direct workplace reforms (i.e. freeing Assange), but the derailing comments were by others like Fleur who made into the question of his personal conduct (and I didn't respond to that).

Now you intervene with a final warning, at a time when I gave some very basic info, like tracing the intellectual origins of key concepts associated with identity politics (and for me it's not about John Money's abuse of a patient, I specifically said it's not the easy argument ad hominem I'm going for), and challenged people to defend the scientific worth of these concepts.

I again formally object to your intervention against me, and reject the charge of derailing.

Noa the great d...
Offline
Joined: 20-06-18
Jun 20 2018 08:54

This is just a reminder that I've been banned for 18 days now by you Mike, whereas a temp-ban (which you threatened I would receive) seems to be only 3 days. This post is merely for the record, so that you cannot claim in the future that it slipped your mind to unban me.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jun 20 2018 15:03

I would like to express my solidarity with Mike Harman in the face of this attack.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 20 2018 15:25

Noa the great derailer, indeed!

Now, these, these are some great derailleurs:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2018/jun/07/10-weird-and-wonderful-derailleurs-and-how-they-changed-cycling

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Jun 20 2018 18:16

Is that a picture of me Chilli? I still haven’t forgotten your hurtful words...

Quote:
Webby, you’re a dick

And I’m assuming that (not without justification)you stick to your view?

Craftwork's picture
Craftwork
Offline
Joined: 26-12-15
Jun 20 2018 19:48

High-waisted trousers are cool

birdtiem
Offline
Joined: 29-11-15
Jun 20 2018 23:00

There was definitely a correlation between that guy’s presence in any given discussion and the degree of difficulty trying to figure out what the hell anyone was talking about, just saying... It was impossible to ignore.

Noa the great d...
Offline
Joined: 20-06-18
Jun 21 2018 20:18

I feel like The Trial's Josef K. where at the end his executioners expect him to finish himself off. The charges against me are unspecified, just as my sentence (how long the ban will last, or whether it is permanent, is not stated).

As a long-time site member (+8,5 years) I have posted a comment (cannot link directly) on the redmarx forum ("Me getting banned from libcom").

At the time of my last post on the IP thread, which triggered my ban, I actually did not have the intention to continue posting there anymore, and since then I have felt no inclination to jump in, even if I could (nor do I expect to want to do so in the future). I try to understand the situation as objectively as possible. If the point was to prevent me to stop posting on the thread, an explicit and clear indication from the admin would have sufficed (e.g.: "Do not continue to post on this thread or you will be banned".). I wouldn't agree, but I would comply. Or the admin could withdraw my ability to post comments for a while, as happened in Craftwork's case, who made certain comments deemed indefensible there, and did go personally for Mike Harman (creating an article about him having supposedly joined the LibDems), but he's (justly) allowed to post again.

I have counted the number of my posts: 39 out of a 318 (the thread's total figure when I was banned), i.e. 12%. Mike Harman's number at that point was not far behind at 29 (not counting his warning to me). But keep in my mind that he has home court advantage: others argue his position and there is no pile-on against him, so he is not forced to reply, unlike I was.

birdtiem wrote:
There was definitely a correlation between that guy’s presence in any given discussion and the degree of difficulty trying to figure out what the hell anyone was talking about, just saying

That happens when there's a pile-on. You could just ignore me (let me post "into the void"), like Sadie did at the end, and that would solve it by itself.

jef costello wrote:
I would like to express my solidarity with Mike Harman in the face of this attack.

To repeat what I wrote on Redmarx, you as a moderator were not informed of my ban when it had taken place. That tells you a bit about the transparency of the admin's mop. Mike Harman evidently acted on his own (and probably the other admins cannot object, since he seems to be one putting most time in running this place). Nor are you informed that my "talking about sex/love" thread has been deleted (where you first complained about my posting style).

And also again, I deny the intent to derail. Your problem is in general with my posting "style", that is inherent to my way of expression. I don't know how to change that, even if I wanted.

Chilli Sauce wrote:
Now, these, these are some great derailleurs:

See this is an intentional derail, and nevertheless I find it an interesting article; and am not bothered by you posting it in the least.

Noah fence wrote:
Is that a picture of me Chilli? I still haven’t forgotten your hurtful words.

It does look like a dick. Your attempt to diffuse potential drama is appreciated.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jun 22 2018 07:26
Noa the great derailer wrote:
To repeat what I wrote on Redmarx, you as a moderator were not informed of my ban when it had taken place. That tells you a bit about the transparency of the admin's mop. Mike Harman evidently acted on his own (and probably the other admins cannot object, since he seems to be one putting most time in running this place). Nor are you informed that my "talking about sex/love" thread has been deleted (where you first complained about my posting style).

And also again, I deny the intent to derail. Your problem is in general with my posting "style", that is inherent to my way of expression. I don't know how to change that, even if I wanted.

I don't need to be informed, I am a mod not an admin, I only ban spammers or maybe very extreme hate speech. As far as I know admins discuss bans, but they have a set of guidelines so that individual admins can act quickly. It might take two days for all the admins to exchange messages.

You haven't been disappeared in the middle of the night, you were publicly warned and then publicly banned. And you haven't been rebanned in spite of breaking forum rules by reregistering after a ban.

Firstly, if your posting style is to derail then you should try to change it, if not out of respect for others, but simply out of a desire to make these discussions a means to illuminate and examine issues rather than a way to show us you have read books or that you will continue to defend your point until other people give up (the prostitutes thread springs to mind)

Secondly, if you don't want to change it then you shouldn't be here. You have added to some discussions, but in general you kill them by trying to bludgeon people with long, verbose posts. Even if the rest of the thread is good I often give up once I start skipping posts, I imagine others do the same, and yours are regularly skipped so that kills discussions.

I don't think you are trolling, but your posting style leads to similar results. The comradely thing to do would be to make an effort to facilitate discussion, even if that means changing the way you post. And you should definitely change your attitude to disagreement, this isn't debate club, you don't need to win everything.

Noa the great d...
Offline
Joined: 20-06-18
Jun 22 2018 10:46
jef costello wrote:
I don't need to be informed, I am a mod not an admin, I only ban spammers or maybe very extreme hate speech. As far as I know admins discuss bans, but they have a set of guidelines so that individual admins can act quickly. It might take two days for all the admins to exchange messages.

You haven't been disappeared in the middle of the night, you were publicly warned and then publicly banned. And you haven't been rebanned in spite of breaking forum rules by reregistering after a ban.

And without sarcasm or flattery, your moderating work is appreciated.

My reregistering for the question about my ban (how long if temporary, or is it permanent? please answer), is due to the fact that I don't have a friendly liaison to ask it in my stead (and I'm not so full of myself that I'm going to ask someone else to bother with this). The question is legitimate since you (and apparently others) call for my permanent ban. Of course I now thereby have risked to be permanently banned, which I indicated above by saying how my executioners expect me to finish myself off. The warning by Mike served only as future justification for a predetermined intent to ban me for any old excuse. And derailing is surely a very weak excuse.

The announcement of my ban was only given on the thread itself (and on one other where I was active), but most people weren't aware of it. Just compare with how the Redmarx, the SPGB or the ICC forums handle a ban; they either have a special thread listing their bans, or even create a special thread about it for a single user (e.g. LBird).

Quote:
Firstly, if your posting style is to derail then you should try to change it, if not out of respect for others, but simply out of a desire to make these discussions a means to illuminate and examine issues rather than a way to show us you have read books or that you will continue to defend your point until other people give up (the prostitutes thread springs to mind)

Referencing books is a way to illuminate and examine issues. What sounds arrogant is giving the impression that one comes up with an original idea all by oneself, or that it is interesting just because one expresses it. On my alleged sin of defending my point until others give up, on the incel-thread you baited me with the opposite charge: "If you could actually stand your ground then it might seem like you believed in things rather than being a contrarian." I don't make the ad nauseam fallacy: if other people "give up" it doesn't mean the argument I presented was correct.

Quote:
Secondly, if you don't want to change it then you shouldn't be here. You have added to some discussions, but in general you kill them by trying to bludgeon people with long, verbose posts. Even if the rest of the thread is good I often give up once I start skipping posts, I imagine others do the same, and yours are regularly skipped so that kills discussions.

I love forums for their ability to make "verbose" posts. It's an advantage over social media. I know you defend forums as well. But the eternal complaint that the forum is dead is a bit nonsensical if at the same time the posters who are active on them are banned for being active (like I was; for making 3 short posts in exchange with Sadie). You may think you are saving the discussion from banning me (the discussion-killer), but you're the one killing the forum.

A more general point; Revleft and Revforum have recently been closed (in unannounced fashion), and I suspect that despite reassurances to the contrary, the significant number of people who are calling for the libcom forum to be closed (one of the offered reasons, precisely over the trans subject) could very well be successful.

Nobody is expecting you to like anyone else's posting style, feel free to say so to that person, but a reason for banning it is not.

But even if you still don't want me here in discussions (odd after 8.5 years me being here, that it's just now around the IP issue that you express the feeling),then, like I said on the Redmarx forum (cannot link the thread) I would find it less of a problem to be barred from the forum, then to be completely banned, which I certainly don't wish, since I also have contributed materials to the library.

Quote:
And you should definitely change your attitude to disagreement, this isn't debate club, you don't need to win everything.

Like I said to you on the since deleted "talking about sex/love" thread, I don't wish to bludgeon anyone's mind into submitting to my position (as if that would even be possible or ever work).

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jun 22 2018 19:04

Iirc for some years you only posted links to stuff and almost never engaged in debates. Only in recent years have you become obsessive about prolonging arguments beyond all reason and down the most ridiculous byways.

That it's apparently so important to come back and flout the ban to state your case at length suggests your obsessive attitude hasn't changed. Though I find your posting style often irritating and self-obsessed with grinding people into submission on technical points or dubious claims, often pointless and sometimes dishonest in the selective way you use references and interpretations in the cause of defending the holy god of leninism/social democracy; I don't care if you're banned or not. (Though the hair-splitting on, eg, the Lenin & prostitutes thread was laughable in its desperation.) But you apparently don't really see what people find annoying about you - or don't consider the annoyance justified cos, as always, you're sure you're right.

If the forums have become as addictively important to you as they seem to be that's almost invariably a bad sign. You could've just e-mailed the admins.