check out thread central for the rundown, but i believe he made some pretty innapropriate comments regarding autism and ausbergers? perhaps some homophobic insulting tirade was involved... not really sure
shame evilp got the boot. after reading his posts for a few years, i tend to just skip over the crude or baiting ones, but his views on architecture and urbanism were often well thought out and enlighting (and he posted the youtube link to that great mies documentary). he was a regular and for the most part a solid contributor.
EvilPlatypus Got Banned--- (Sung to the tune of David Bowie's classic rock tune Ziggy Stardust)
EvilPlatypus got banned
For pissing off too many people
And the Archinect Staff
He did it without trying
Was it all for a laugh
Became a contrarian man
Until that is he got his ass banned.
Ep really raged
Screwed up views and a right wing outlook
Even though he was a Democrat
He could really go Blago, how you like that
He could wring you like a wet limp rag
Well hung like a Santori teabag
So where were his allies
When the shit finally hit the fan
Just the PBR to guide him
He took his final stand
And that's what got him banned
EP's out of time
Unable to continue posting
Some thought him crass, an occaisional blast
Or just a pain in the ass?
He took it to the brink
And raised up quite a stink
So were his opinions were Evil
Shocking some sometimes even me
Like a leper of archinect
But if you don't like his stuff
Just tell him to shut the fuck up.
there have been a lot of bans throughout the years... for trolling, making inappropriate comments, posting inappropriate things... so yeah, people have been banned before for doing things like that... evil just happens to be the most high profile case in some time... as long as ive been posting here for sure
The Breathalizer Thread got EvilP the boot? Seriously...just take down the thread, but to boot a 'nect veteran for a thread that looked more like a joke than anything else?!?
I liked reading Evil's posts since he wasn't part of the mainstream Archinect groupthink which is a bit tiresome at times. EvilP was an original, that's for sure.
Dude was a troll and a tool...I have no idea what he did or what thread caused what - but I do know more often than not he has been happy to inflame and distort rather than be helpful and constructive. I don't really know of an adult online professional community that needs much of that. I am sure there are plenty of mySpace forums, etc for him to lash, rant , and defile on.
i dont think he was booted for that thread... it was a series of comments he made on the ausbergers thread that were apparently well over the line... if you read the thread you can even see some of the regulars mentioning that he had crossed the line... i missed the whole thing unfortunately! still wishing someone had the convo so i could read what exactly happened...
as i think beta said in the thread central though... this isnt evils personal website... the 'nect folks have the right to boot whoever they want, and deem whatever they like appropriate or not. i personally appreciate their strictness and promptness in keeping this forum so reasonable...
He got the boot because of some hate speech posted on another thread. He had a long track record of hijacking discussions with his bigoted tirades and insults, and this was the final straw. IMO, he was like Archie Bunker but without the charm or ironic social satire. I'm happy he's gone and I hope he stays gone.
"hijacking discussions with his bigoted tirades and insults"
Exactly...I quit posting on this site because that loser would take any topic and turn it into a rant fest for him with little or no actual discourse or thinking outside of his pedantic drivel. Good riddance - I may actually participate in discussions again.
"I quit posting on this site because that loser would take any topic and turn it into a rant fest for him with little or no actual discourse or thinking outside of his pedantic drivel."
-- amen to that !
the same is becoming true of h&r
I have no problem whatsoever with dissent or contrary views -- those differences help me assess my own thinking and, more often than not, help me learn. However, I draw the line when a poster becomes exceedingly distasteful or disrespectful or is so consumed with his/her own self-importance as to hijack any thread for any purpose.
Without ongoing active efforts by the site to moderate the threads to some reasonable degree, many people who really do want to come here for interaction, collegiality and learning simply are driven away to find less hostile, and more worthwhile, pastures.
Sweet jesus! Really?? Quite the sensitive little regime in here..
The Breathalizer Thread got EvilP the boot? Seriously...just take down the thread, but to boot a 'nect veteran for a thread that looked more like a joke than anything else?!?
06/01/09 11:02
liberty bell - one more use of the f-word and you're getting banned ;)
seriously, we're incredibly lenient with what we allow in the forum. most people think we're too lenient. what we don't allow, however, is continuously offensive comments from members. if we're forced to choose between hosting a forum only for members that are offensive and those that can tolerate it, or hosting a forum that has a reasonable level of decency that accommodates a larger proportion of the architecture community, we'll choose the latter.
the most recent complaints about EP's comments were the last of a long string of complaints about him. his suspension (the decision to be banned is ultimately his) is due to his history of offensive comments.
So, as you can see, I believe it was his decision to be banned.
Jeez, Steven, that comment is proof that you *really* haven't been around much lately!
As I said on TC, I'm disappointed if evilp disappears, because he has offered - amongst the increasingly-common obnoxious rants - humporous, intelligent, alternative veiws on a lot of topics encompassed by our profession: practice, academia, and construction knowledge to be sure.
In addition he pointed me (us) to the best ever Stevie Nicks tambourine art website in the universe, for which I'm forever grateful (still haven't ordered mine, though).
vado, your tribute song is excellent. If evilp doesn't make his way floating through space back to Archinect, by his own decision or otherwise, I'll be sad.
I'm with LB on this one. I disagreed with Evil a lot, but that's not to say that he didn't have valid points sometimes, and he contributed a lot. I understand why he was banned, and I'm not criticizing the decision or the reasoning behind it, just saying I'll miss Evil.
I have a hard time with this. Im just personally adverse to censorship in principle. Maybe its that Im not innocent of a salty little diatribe of my own now and again, something I probably take with slightly too much glee, and dont like the idea either that I might meet the chopping block or that others would be held to stricter codes. Being "offended" seems to me in practically any context a pretty mild injury. I mean if someone is spouting craziness thats gonna be pretty transparent to everyone reading. Cant we just roll our eyes and and ignore it? Like if someone is talking about killing people or giving away nuclear codes I can understand, but just calling names? Really? We cant handle that?
I guess its triply tough because these things always seem to happen in a thunderous cloud of erasure and no one gets to see just what someone got banned for, so everyone just has this fuzzy kind of fear instead of a concrete idea of where the line is.
The other question I have is, who is making the determination of where that line is? I mean obviously, its the moderators and the owners of the site, I fully understand this is in a lot of ways a 'place of business', and theyve got full right to kick anyone out they want or need to to preserve the integrity of the site. I do fully realize that. But I wish there was some kind of transparency over what the criteria really is. I mean I dont expect I could be banned for saying, say, religious people are faking it. So why is it so bad to to say people with aspergers are faking it? Have we offended the mighty god-head of science in some excommunicable way? And I anyone one of us can [aparently] call republicans a bunch of racists, but we cant say fag? under and context? I can say dick cheyney is a subhuman nematode, but I calling obama the devil is out of bounds? I mean I would just find it really bothersome that theres some kind of political litmus test for being a poster here. Kind of a deaf-in-one-ear echo chamber in here to begin with in't it?
archinect is sustainable because of advertising. advertisers want an audience. if users of archinect (who don't participate in the funding of it) are free to chase away other users because it seems to be a hostile environment, advertisers lose an audience and archinect loses its sense of community.
it's not that we can't take it, oe; it's that we don't need to take it.
we can choose to leave and, because that will not serve the interests of any of those with an investment in seeing archinect continue as a positive phenomena, those arbiters with the biggest investment get to make a choice.
uh, I have an issue with that argument, Steven
I think arguments about economical viability should not have a bearing on deciding about what is acceptable in a public forum and not, although I understand that this is ultimately a business, I think that's a separate issue.
Ultimately this is an even larger question about what a public place of debate really is.
Not that the admins need me to speak for them, but here's my $.02:
First of all, banning a disruptive user is not censorship, so let's just nip that idea in the bud right now. Archinect is a private organization that pays for its own web hosting, and is free to use those resources any way they see fit. If they want to ban anybody with blue eyes or anybody who votes Republican, they're free to do so without raising any First Amendment issues. If the feds or your local library block Archinect from public computers, though, then you can legitimately run to the ACLU and cry censorship.
Secondly, nobody banned EP for having contrarian political views. He's not the only right-winger on Archinect, and you don't see other people of his political persuasion getting banned. Wh? Because those people apparently had parents who taught them how to properly conduct themselves in public and handle disagreements like adults. EP got banned for being a disruptive, hateful brat whose repeated temper tantrums made it impossible for the rest of us to carry on a normal conversation.
As noted above, EP had a long history of such behavior, and the admins had shown remarkable patience for allowing him to stick around this long. EP responded to that graciousness by being even more disruptive, and the admins finally reached their breaking point.
If I'm hosting a dinner party, and a guest continuously interrupts the conversation by calling the other guests "fags" and "pussies" and mocking their disabilities or medical conditions, do you think anybody would blame me for showing that person the door? Fuck, he'd be lucky leave my house with all his teeth intact. If I allowed that disruptive guest to continue their behavior, how long do you think it would be before all my other guests started heading for the door, and declining invitations for future gatherings? Paul handled the situation exactly how any responsible host should have handled it.
can i call jews money-greedy regressive sub-human species, can i call afro americans jigaboos, can i call moslems pampered-head blood thirst rabid madmen? ok, now when i call a non-jew a "jew", isn't the persisitent demeaned object still a jewish person, by standing in as a figure of pejorative similitude and comparison?
if this is 'allowed', then by all means make me and others here, who are gay and who have no mind to put up with more bullshit from you breeders..ahem, make us such a demeaned and demeaning figure of comparison. on par, allow me to insult and incite hatred against you and others, through your race, your family and the very rubrics of what makes you you.
but aside from that, paradoxically i guess, i am not content with having moderators in the first place.
LIG, youre probably right, he is totally getting a kick out of this.
Personally, ill miss EP... i never took him seriously and figured everyone else was the same way. Someone is going to have to step up and replace is additions to the Agg. Chicago thread though...
Both Steven and LIG have legit arguments that i tend to agree with... But OE, i also understand your fear of such sudden bannings of such local characters of note.
You notice it mentioned playfully very often, the big brother references, the giant green head references. I dont think its necessarily un healthy. Perhaps its a bit facist, but it truly is the ONLY method the Admins have for keeping archinect legitimate. Without active admins willing to use the axe, public forums of this size more often than not cant police themselves... thats been my experience at least.
I think the policing happens more often than people typically realize. On many other forums, admins often post in an "official" capacity to give warnings, delete threads, or ban users. Because of the minimalist user interface of Archinect, I think a lot of this stuff generally takes place under the radar here. For example, when some spammer posts a thread with a thousand links for cheap digital cameras or something like that, the thread will quietly disappear within a short time without any official announcement from the admins, or any indication on the main page that the thread ever existed.
On another forum I sometimes frequent, the admins are much more heavy-handed, but they always post an official explanation for any actions taken and the site has very specific rules of conduct. Probably the opposite approach that Archinect takes, but it seems to work for them, and it allows them to discuss some very charged political/religious issues without descending into chaos.
I'm not saying one approach is better than the other, just showing an example of a different approach to moderating an internet forum. Without some degree of admin control, though, any internet forum would quickly devolve into Usenet territory.
my perspective is very close to those expressed by Steven Ward and LIG above - those of us viewing this site are here voluntarily and will remain here only so long as the experience is both positive and rewarding. when bad behavior drives people away, we all suffer and the site suffers.
civil, respectful behavior - be it voluntary or enforced by moderators - will, in the long run, make this site valuable both to its owners and to its visitors. persistant and unchecked bad behavior will leave this place a wasteland, visited only by those who enjoy the arguments.
I dislike censorship, but feel that the lack of effective moderators here is a mistake on the part of the site's management. many posters argue that the other members of the forum will keep bad behavior by others in check -- I believe the opposite to be true. efforts by some to curb bad behaviour by a few disrupters only results in an escalation of the heated -- and often off-topic -- debate.
Kurt, I think Quib is emphasizing that "fag" is an insult of a different kind of breed. I actually quite agree.
Gin Im sure youre legally right, Im not talking about censorship in any constitutional sense, I just think its worth discussing what our tolerances and standards are as a community. I can certainly imagine a rant that would put you well beyond the line for civil discourse in a public space, but its just hard to tell once the whole thing has been scrubbed and were left here to discuss a fog, yknow?
can i call jews money-greedy regressive sub-human species, can i call afro americans jigaboos, can i call moslems pampered-head blood thirst rabid madmen? ok, now when i call a non-jew a "jew", isn't the persisitent demeaned object still a jewish person, by standing in as a figure of pejorative similitude and comparison?
if this is 'allowed', then by all means make me and others here, who are gay and who have no mind to put up with more bullshit from you breeders..ahem, make us such a demeaned and demeaning figure of comparison. on par, allow me to insult and incite hatred against you and others, through your race, your family and the very rubrics of what makes you you.
Listen, Im absolutely with you. I think anyone whos going to throw this around is absolutely gonna fucking hear about it. But I think people who call women bitches or say muslims are all violent or republicans are all racists should hear about it too. Its actually a really important discussion to have, its important people get called out and theres a verbal discussion about it, as heated and difficult as it may be sometimes.
I guess maybe we agree thats difficult when voices, even offensive ones, get permanently snuffed and the discussion erased.
I dunno - I liked having evilp's dissonant views sometimes...
I don't mind the ignorant comments people make sometimes (I've made my fair share - once your post count gets up there you're bound to say something you regret)
but I'm with bluegoose, SW, et al. - I really don't want to be around a place where people are attacking each other personally - especially when the attack is against someone who is reaching out for help (no matter how awkward).
"Its actually a really important discussion to have, its important people get called out and theres a verbal discussion about it, as heated and difficult as it may be sometimes."
Problem is, there's usually another discussion going on that people are trying to participate in on the same thread, and that legitimate discussion always ends up getting derailed into a flame war about EP's reactionary worldview.
In this particular case, somebody started a legitimate topic asking for advice on how to deal with a chronic medical condition in regards to his future career options, and several people attempted to provide helpful advice before the entire thread got hijacked by EP's tirade. So, if EP hadn't gotten banned and his hateful comments hadn't been deleted, that thread would now be well into the 5th page of a massive flame war about EP's behavior, and the original topic would have been long-forgotten.
Besides that, real discussion only happens when all parties are willing to learn something from people they disagree with. EP has never shown the slightest hint of doing that.
So, I know. Its annoying. But boards kindof have to go through an aging process. When they start out theyre all superficial and no one knows anyone and its all fluff and crass comments, but over time, (and this to me is actually an improvement) people build up enough familiarity and history to actually argue about things. Eventually, you get to a point where people have made all the mistakes of flamewars and trollfeeding and people learn how to deal with it and discussions can take on a real depth. Ive been fortunate enough to be a part of some really wonderful old boards, and it just seems like the more heavy-handed the moderators are the longer it takes for people to learn how to negotiate all the drama.
And also, I really meant this, I hope we dont get so absorbed by our sensitivities that it blinds us to our own biases, that we allow ourselves to hold some to different standards just because we dont agree with them.
"...but I'm with bluegoose, SW, et al. - I really don't want to be around a place where people are attacking each other personally - especially when the attack is against someone who is reaching out for help (no matter how awkward)."
Hmm. And ditching EvilP fixes that? Even if you think it's a step in the right direction, you've got a looooong way to go, and many other to ban, to attain a place without personal attacks.
The owners can ban at will? Gee, you're kidding. Really,? Wow, I never knew that... And please, it's not a genius statement to point out the economic position of the site. Whoopee. Some of you... man. Perhaps stating more than the profoundly obvious might actually serve a purpose.
Here's my real issue: Who can honestly say that EvilP was the worst right now, and so he should be the first to go right now? Which is EXACTLY what some of you are saying. I'd suggest that maybe a little gut check is in order for some of you, because some of you posting above have gotten very down and very dirty with the very best of them. And you know it.
Some of you that have posted some very, very personal attacks are now pretty self-righteously handing down wisdom as the new self-appointed "voices of reason", all instructive and pious, and together piling condemnation on EvilP for things you have most certainly done yourselves.
EvilP
?
he got the boot
What happened?
check out thread central for the rundown, but i believe he made some pretty innapropriate comments regarding autism and ausbergers? perhaps some homophobic insulting tirade was involved... not really sure
he posted some awesome advice for beating breathlyzer tests when drunk driving...obviously that was top secret information.
shame evilp got the boot. after reading his posts for a few years, i tend to just skip over the crude or baiting ones, but his views on architecture and urbanism were often well thought out and enlighting (and he posted the youtube link to that great mies documentary). he was a regular and for the most part a solid contributor.
EvilPlatypus Got Banned--- (Sung to the tune of David Bowie's classic rock tune Ziggy Stardust)
EvilPlatypus got banned
For pissing off too many people
And the Archinect Staff
He did it without trying
Was it all for a laugh
Became a contrarian man
Until that is he got his ass banned.
Ep really raged
Screwed up views and a right wing outlook
Even though he was a Democrat
He could really go Blago, how you like that
He could wring you like a wet limp rag
Well hung like a Santori teabag
So where were his allies
When the shit finally hit the fan
Just the PBR to guide him
He took his final stand
And that's what got him banned
EP's out of time
Unable to continue posting
Some thought him crass, an occaisional blast
Or just a pain in the ass?
He took it to the brink
And raised up quite a stink
So were his opinions were Evil
Shocking some sometimes even me
Like a leper of archinect
But if you don't like his stuff
Just tell him to shut the fuck up.
oh yeah
ooo ooo
Evil Platypus got banned....
Anyone else get banned for similar reasons, or just him?
there have been a lot of bans throughout the years... for trolling, making inappropriate comments, posting inappropriate things... so yeah, people have been banned before for doing things like that... evil just happens to be the most high profile case in some time... as long as ive been posting here for sure
The Breathalizer Thread got EvilP the boot? Seriously...just take down the thread, but to boot a 'nect veteran for a thread that looked more like a joke than anything else?!?
I liked reading Evil's posts since he wasn't part of the mainstream Archinect groupthink which is a bit tiresome at times. EvilP was an original, that's for sure.
I think I'd second that, aqua --
Evil's posts were rather colorful at times, but over the last year I'd suggest that his were certainly no worse than some others here.
But, I don't own the site.
Dude was a troll and a tool...I have no idea what he did or what thread caused what - but I do know more often than not he has been happy to inflame and distort rather than be helpful and constructive. I don't really know of an adult online professional community that needs much of that. I am sure there are plenty of mySpace forums, etc for him to lash, rant , and defile on.
i dont think he was booted for that thread... it was a series of comments he made on the ausbergers thread that were apparently well over the line... if you read the thread you can even see some of the regulars mentioning that he had crossed the line... i missed the whole thing unfortunately! still wishing someone had the convo so i could read what exactly happened...
as i think beta said in the thread central though... this isnt evils personal website... the 'nect folks have the right to boot whoever they want, and deem whatever they like appropriate or not. i personally appreciate their strictness and promptness in keeping this forum so reasonable...
He got the boot because of some hate speech posted on another thread. He had a long track record of hijacking discussions with his bigoted tirades and insults, and this was the final straw. IMO, he was like Archie Bunker but without the charm or ironic social satire. I'm happy he's gone and I hope he stays gone.
"hijacking discussions with his bigoted tirades and insults"
Exactly...I quit posting on this site because that loser would take any topic and turn it into a rant fest for him with little or no actual discourse or thinking outside of his pedantic drivel. Good riddance - I may actually participate in discussions again.
-- amen to that !
the same is becoming true of h&r
I have no problem whatsoever with dissent or contrary views -- those differences help me assess my own thinking and, more often than not, help me learn. However, I draw the line when a poster becomes exceedingly distasteful or disrespectful or is so consumed with his/her own self-importance as to hijack any thread for any purpose.
Without ongoing active efforts by the site to moderate the threads to some reasonable degree, many people who really do want to come here for interaction, collegiality and learning simply are driven away to find less hostile, and more worthwhile, pastures.
Just my 2¢
Sweet jesus! Really?? Quite the sensitive little regime in here..
The Breathalizer Thread got EvilP the boot? Seriously...just take down the thread, but to boot a 'nect veteran for a thread that looked more like a joke than anything else?!?
Its peanut butter isnt it!
*ducks head*
oe, I think Archinect is actually very laizzes-faire about such things. On any other forum I frequent, EP would've been banned years ago.
Paul posted the reason on Thread Central.
Paul Petrunia
Total Entries: 2024
Total Comments: 2799
06/01/09 11:02
liberty bell - one more use of the f-word and you're getting banned ;)
seriously, we're incredibly lenient with what we allow in the forum. most people think we're too lenient. what we don't allow, however, is continuously offensive comments from members. if we're forced to choose between hosting a forum only for members that are offensive and those that can tolerate it, or hosting a forum that has a reasonable level of decency that accommodates a larger proportion of the architecture community, we'll choose the latter.
the most recent complaints about EP's comments were the last of a long string of complaints about him. his suspension (the decision to be banned is ultimately his) is due to his history of offensive comments.
So, as you can see, I believe it was his decision to be banned.
funny, it's only because of this that i learned who ep is! i didn't know i (sort of) knew him by another name.
Jeez, Steven, that comment is proof that you *really* haven't been around much lately!
As I said on TC, I'm disappointed if evilp disappears, because he has offered - amongst the increasingly-common obnoxious rants - humporous, intelligent, alternative veiws on a lot of topics encompassed by our profession: practice, academia, and construction knowledge to be sure.
In addition he pointed me (us) to the best ever Stevie Nicks tambourine art website in the universe, for which I'm forever grateful (still haven't ordered mine, though).
vado, your tribute song is excellent. If evilp doesn't make his way floating through space back to Archinect, by his own decision or otherwise, I'll be sad.
I'm with LB on this one. I disagreed with Evil a lot, but that's not to say that he didn't have valid points sometimes, and he contributed a lot. I understand why he was banned, and I'm not criticizing the decision or the reasoning behind it, just saying I'll miss Evil.
also, LB, congratulations on recently breaking the 10k comment mark!
hmmm....i miss evip too...but i suppose it was inevitable that the feds (ie, obama admin) would take over internet forums too. usa is sad place.
you're next puddles you merlotch drinking drunk!
Only the user name is banned, correct? I mean, anybody can return under a different ID, can't they?
If so, here's to the return of those banned under new noms de plume.
I imagine IP addresses can also be banned.
"but i suppose it was inevitable that the feds would take over internet forums too"
TIME FOR A PARTY! A COMMUNIST PARTY!
So, a couple of serious points;
I have a hard time with this. Im just personally adverse to censorship in principle. Maybe its that Im not innocent of a salty little diatribe of my own now and again, something I probably take with slightly too much glee, and dont like the idea either that I might meet the chopping block or that others would be held to stricter codes. Being "offended" seems to me in practically any context a pretty mild injury. I mean if someone is spouting craziness thats gonna be pretty transparent to everyone reading. Cant we just roll our eyes and and ignore it? Like if someone is talking about killing people or giving away nuclear codes I can understand, but just calling names? Really? We cant handle that?
I guess its triply tough because these things always seem to happen in a thunderous cloud of erasure and no one gets to see just what someone got banned for, so everyone just has this fuzzy kind of fear instead of a concrete idea of where the line is.
The other question I have is, who is making the determination of where that line is? I mean obviously, its the moderators and the owners of the site, I fully understand this is in a lot of ways a 'place of business', and theyve got full right to kick anyone out they want or need to to preserve the integrity of the site. I do fully realize that. But I wish there was some kind of transparency over what the criteria really is. I mean I dont expect I could be banned for saying, say, religious people are faking it. So why is it so bad to to say people with aspergers are faking it? Have we offended the mighty god-head of science in some excommunicable way? And I anyone one of us can [aparently] call republicans a bunch of racists, but we cant say fag? under and context? I can say dick cheyney is a subhuman nematode, but I calling obama the devil is out of bounds? I mean I would just find it really bothersome that theres some kind of political litmus test for being a poster here. Kind of a deaf-in-one-ear echo chamber in here to begin with in't it?
ps. archinect is on a rofl-roll today with the images ha ha
archinect is sustainable because of advertising. advertisers want an audience. if users of archinect (who don't participate in the funding of it) are free to chase away other users because it seems to be a hostile environment, advertisers lose an audience and archinect loses its sense of community.
it's not that we can't take it, oe; it's that we don't need to take it.
we can choose to leave and, because that will not serve the interests of any of those with an investment in seeing archinect continue as a positive phenomena, those arbiters with the biggest investment get to make a choice.
so, it's an economic decision. ; )
Wait, did I miss something, Steven? Who is EvilP and how do you sort of know him by another name?
*puts a lampshade on his head*
uh, I have an issue with that argument, Steven
I think arguments about economical viability should not have a bearing on deciding about what is acceptable in a public forum and not, although I understand that this is ultimately a business, I think that's a separate issue.
Ultimately this is an even larger question about what a public place of debate really is.
Not that the admins need me to speak for them, but here's my $.02:
First of all, banning a disruptive user is not censorship, so let's just nip that idea in the bud right now. Archinect is a private organization that pays for its own web hosting, and is free to use those resources any way they see fit. If they want to ban anybody with blue eyes or anybody who votes Republican, they're free to do so without raising any First Amendment issues. If the feds or your local library block Archinect from public computers, though, then you can legitimately run to the ACLU and cry censorship.
Secondly, nobody banned EP for having contrarian political views. He's not the only right-winger on Archinect, and you don't see other people of his political persuasion getting banned. Wh? Because those people apparently had parents who taught them how to properly conduct themselves in public and handle disagreements like adults. EP got banned for being a disruptive, hateful brat whose repeated temper tantrums made it impossible for the rest of us to carry on a normal conversation.
As noted above, EP had a long history of such behavior, and the admins had shown remarkable patience for allowing him to stick around this long. EP responded to that graciousness by being even more disruptive, and the admins finally reached their breaking point.
If I'm hosting a dinner party, and a guest continuously interrupts the conversation by calling the other guests "fags" and "pussies" and mocking their disabilities or medical conditions, do you think anybody would blame me for showing that person the door? Fuck, he'd be lucky leave my house with all his teeth intact. If I allowed that disruptive guest to continue their behavior, how long do you think it would be before all my other guests started heading for the door, and declining invitations for future gatherings? Paul handled the situation exactly how any responsible host should have handled it.
Actually, oe, you made a few very good points in your post. Points that need no correction or adjustment.
oe;
can i call jews money-greedy regressive sub-human species, can i call afro americans jigaboos, can i call moslems pampered-head blood thirst rabid madmen? ok, now when i call a non-jew a "jew", isn't the persisitent demeaned object still a jewish person, by standing in as a figure of pejorative similitude and comparison?
if this is 'allowed', then by all means make me and others here, who are gay and who have no mind to put up with more bullshit from you breeders..ahem, make us such a demeaned and demeaning figure of comparison. on par, allow me to insult and incite hatred against you and others, through your race, your family and the very rubrics of what makes you you.
but aside from that, paradoxically i guess, i am not content with having moderators in the first place.
I'll bet EvilP is rather enjoying all this.
who fucking cares. he's merely incidental to the underlying topic of censorship, he is only useful here as an case study.
Like any delusional fanatic, I'm sure he's happy to become a martyr for his cause.
LIG, youre probably right, he is totally getting a kick out of this.
Personally, ill miss EP... i never took him seriously and figured everyone else was the same way. Someone is going to have to step up and replace is additions to the Agg. Chicago thread though...
Both Steven and LIG have legit arguments that i tend to agree with... But OE, i also understand your fear of such sudden bannings of such local characters of note.
You notice it mentioned playfully very often, the big brother references, the giant green head references. I dont think its necessarily un healthy. Perhaps its a bit facist, but it truly is the ONLY method the Admins have for keeping archinect legitimate. Without active admins willing to use the axe, public forums of this size more often than not cant police themselves... thats been my experience at least.
LIG, great analogy with the dinner party thing...
I don't think so, Quib. EvilP breaks down to just a "useful case study"? Nah. Settle down.
Also, I can't see how your post was a response to oe...?
I think the policing happens more often than people typically realize. On many other forums, admins often post in an "official" capacity to give warnings, delete threads, or ban users. Because of the minimalist user interface of Archinect, I think a lot of this stuff generally takes place under the radar here. For example, when some spammer posts a thread with a thousand links for cheap digital cameras or something like that, the thread will quietly disappear within a short time without any official announcement from the admins, or any indication on the main page that the thread ever existed.
On another forum I sometimes frequent, the admins are much more heavy-handed, but they always post an official explanation for any actions taken and the site has very specific rules of conduct. Probably the opposite approach that Archinect takes, but it seems to work for them, and it allows them to discuss some very charged political/religious issues without descending into chaos.
I'm not saying one approach is better than the other, just showing an example of a different approach to moderating an internet forum. Without some degree of admin control, though, any internet forum would quickly devolve into Usenet territory.
my perspective is very close to those expressed by Steven Ward and LIG above - those of us viewing this site are here voluntarily and will remain here only so long as the experience is both positive and rewarding. when bad behavior drives people away, we all suffer and the site suffers.
civil, respectful behavior - be it voluntary or enforced by moderators - will, in the long run, make this site valuable both to its owners and to its visitors. persistant and unchecked bad behavior will leave this place a wasteland, visited only by those who enjoy the arguments.
I dislike censorship, but feel that the lack of effective moderators here is a mistake on the part of the site's management. many posters argue that the other members of the forum will keep bad behavior by others in check -- I believe the opposite to be true. efforts by some to curb bad behaviour by a few disrupters only results in an escalation of the heated -- and often off-topic -- debate.
Kurt, I think Quib is emphasizing that "fag" is an insult of a different kind of breed. I actually quite agree.
Gin Im sure youre legally right, Im not talking about censorship in any constitutional sense, I just think its worth discussing what our tolerances and standards are as a community. I can certainly imagine a rant that would put you well beyond the line for civil discourse in a public space, but its just hard to tell once the whole thing has been scrubbed and were left here to discuss a fog, yknow?
can i call jews money-greedy regressive sub-human species, can i call afro americans jigaboos, can i call moslems pampered-head blood thirst rabid madmen? ok, now when i call a non-jew a "jew", isn't the persisitent demeaned object still a jewish person, by standing in as a figure of pejorative similitude and comparison?
if this is 'allowed', then by all means make me and others here, who are gay and who have no mind to put up with more bullshit from you breeders..ahem, make us such a demeaned and demeaning figure of comparison. on par, allow me to insult and incite hatred against you and others, through your race, your family and the very rubrics of what makes you you.
Listen, Im absolutely with you. I think anyone whos going to throw this around is absolutely gonna fucking hear about it. But I think people who call women bitches or say muslims are all violent or republicans are all racists should hear about it too. Its actually a really important discussion to have, its important people get called out and theres a verbal discussion about it, as heated and difficult as it may be sometimes.
I guess maybe we agree thats difficult when voices, even offensive ones, get permanently snuffed and the discussion erased.
I dunno - I liked having evilp's dissonant views sometimes...
I don't mind the ignorant comments people make sometimes (I've made my fair share - once your post count gets up there you're bound to say something you regret)
but I'm with bluegoose, SW, et al. - I really don't want to be around a place where people are attacking each other personally - especially when the attack is against someone who is reaching out for help (no matter how awkward).
Problem is, there's usually another discussion going on that people are trying to participate in on the same thread, and that legitimate discussion always ends up getting derailed into a flame war about EP's reactionary worldview.
In this particular case, somebody started a legitimate topic asking for advice on how to deal with a chronic medical condition in regards to his future career options, and several people attempted to provide helpful advice before the entire thread got hijacked by EP's tirade. So, if EP hadn't gotten banned and his hateful comments hadn't been deleted, that thread would now be well into the 5th page of a massive flame war about EP's behavior, and the original topic would have been long-forgotten.
Besides that, real discussion only happens when all parties are willing to learn something from people they disagree with. EP has never shown the slightest hint of doing that.
So, I know. Its annoying. But boards kindof have to go through an aging process. When they start out theyre all superficial and no one knows anyone and its all fluff and crass comments, but over time, (and this to me is actually an improvement) people build up enough familiarity and history to actually argue about things. Eventually, you get to a point where people have made all the mistakes of flamewars and trollfeeding and people learn how to deal with it and discussions can take on a real depth. Ive been fortunate enough to be a part of some really wonderful old boards, and it just seems like the more heavy-handed the moderators are the longer it takes for people to learn how to negotiate all the drama.
anyhoo, lots of .2$ flying around ;)
And also, I really meant this, I hope we dont get so absorbed by our sensitivities that it blinds us to our own biases, that we allow ourselves to hold some to different standards just because we dont agree with them.
"...but I'm with bluegoose, SW, et al. - I really don't want to be around a place where people are attacking each other personally - especially when the attack is against someone who is reaching out for help (no matter how awkward)."
Hmm. And ditching EvilP fixes that? Even if you think it's a step in the right direction, you've got a looooong way to go, and many other to ban, to attain a place without personal attacks.
The owners can ban at will? Gee, you're kidding. Really,? Wow, I never knew that... And please, it's not a genius statement to point out the economic position of the site. Whoopee. Some of you... man. Perhaps stating more than the profoundly obvious might actually serve a purpose.
Here's my real issue: Who can honestly say that EvilP was the worst right now, and so he should be the first to go right now? Which is EXACTLY what some of you are saying. I'd suggest that maybe a little gut check is in order for some of you, because some of you posting above have gotten very down and very dirty with the very best of them. And you know it.
Some of you that have posted some very, very personal attacks are now pretty self-righteously handing down wisdom as the new self-appointed "voices of reason", all instructive and pious, and together piling condemnation on EvilP for things you have most certainly done yourselves.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.