I was just banned from another philosophy forum...

[existential yellow snow]

I posted my Kant project, its purpose, and a link to this forum. I called it "Kant Community Project" and cited the purpose as being "a thread devoted to outlining and dissecting Kant's philosophy".

Well, I was banned.

They deleted the topic, so I posted it another section making the topic clearer. Well, apparently, they didn't like that either.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/

Terrible forum.

You guys are much better.

[Nick_A]

[wanabe]

I too acknowledge this forum may be the 'best place'. As is Scott's mission; because of the allowed extremism. Not only that but this forum is much smaller, and easier moderated because of this, I'm glad I found it.

Thank you Scott!

Sorry about the ban, it's sad when people are so willing to completely ignore and smash ideas they don't agree with.
_________________
The Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, And Help All Others To Do So. Fear is weakness leaving the mind.

[Softarget]

I used to be a mod over there. 'bout a year ago (long after I quit being a mod), I was banned for drunken belligerence. (I know, it's a bad omen lol.) I will say that that forum is sometimes ran with an iron fist, though I probably did deserve to get banned at that point.

But, yeah. They are kinda trigger happy over there.

[Gecko]

I'm a member of the forum that you're banned from.

Frankly, I don't visit it very often, especially since I discovered this forum. Much less lively than here. And it can take days for someone to answer your posts.

So: I know it must feel really bad, but actually you're not missing out on much.

[Zazopolis]

I was banned from Sports Frog's Swamp for calling an idiot an idiot and relishing in the crashing of their board too enthusiastically.

[Anon007]

Banned. What a word, like something a little boy's club would say. Anyway, I've also been "banned." And I'm sure if they could, they'd ban me from the Internet itself. But that's another topic. Or, is it???

But whatever, I don't follow the herd mentality. You'll find people on that site claiming the same, but they're full of you know what. You follow the herd on that site, or be banned.

So much for philosophy.

[Billy]

I've been banned in the area of 200 times. It's the price you pay for free-speech. I made my own philosophy forum to put a nix on this problem, but didn't tell anyone I was the board's admin, so even on my own discussion board I have been banned a few times. Have a laugh at it. I've been banned from PF three times I think. They can teach you a lot and I suggest you re-register from a proxy or next time you move or get a new IP. It can be very helpful to laugh when things go against you rather than getting hurt or angry, this makes life a lot more fun!

[Nick_A]

It seems that the better a philosophy site would become, the less posts it would contain. Yet a good FU site will attract lots of posts. I wonder why that is?

It seems people as a whole prefer expressing one of the myriad of ways to say FU rather then impartially considering and expressing the love of wisdom which is so difficult yet essential for philosophy. How else can we explain the following observation?

[Scott]

If you break the rules of a website, you'll get banned.

Forums are much less enjoyable when they are not heavily moderated with strict enforcement of clear rules.

For instance, it would be utterly unfair for people to join this forum to have, as openly stated on the forum rules, open-minded discussions without personal attacks and such only to be called an idiot or such. While people are free to be mean, anti-social or poor debaters, they have no right to join a private club with clear guidelines only to violate those guidelines. Besides, if one wants to talk in an unmoderated or very little moderated environment, one can go to such a place--at least insofar as they can find other people who want to have unmoderated conversations with them.

If you go to a dance club that has a specific, clearly displayed dress code and you are violating that dress code, you would likely be kicked out. It'd be unfair to everyone else if you weren't kicked out.

If you believe the moderator of a website or bouncer at a dance club abused his power or otherwise did not adhere to the forum's or club's rules, then that's a fair complaint. I suggest you direct the complaint to the owner or local authorities. To be fair, either the moderator needs his privileges removed or the rules need to be updated to match practice.

Anyway, I'm sorry some of you got banned from other places. I recommend you learn from it and abide by the rules elsewhere. On these forums I try to give people warnings. I find that if you delete any posts that break the rules, contact the poster and point out the relevant rules to the poster, there person will not bother to waster their time continuing posting rule-breaking posts that will just be deleted. They almost always either learn from their mistake and do a better job posting or just stop posting if they don't like the rules. So I almost never need to ban people--for as long as I have the time and patience to spend so much time deleting posts and explaining rules. Though occasionally one runs into a person that would keep breaking the rules without trying to improve even though they know their posts will be deleted. It would seem they are just some sort of troll who gets jollies out of annoying admins with rule-breaking posts that will be deleted until they are banned--very very rare and very pathetic.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[Nick_A]

[Scott]

Sure, a person may feel compelled to yell about what they perceive as the negative aspects of the dress code or conduct code as the bouncers kick them out of a dance club. Or, sure, a person may make a similar rule-breaking outburst on a forum before being banned completely. This may make the person feel better in some way. It won't make me think any higher of the person, and I bet it will just confirm any prejudices or faith-in-the-rules that the owners and other rule-abiding participants have.

Granted, it's more understandable when the private club is one of mean-spirited bigotry such as say a KKK meeting in a private home or the web forum you described above. I can understand a little more why a person would want to crash said meeting only to be kicked out or make rule-breaking posts on a bigoted website only to be banned. But I still would recommend against it. Generally, I think the rule-breaking person is probably making the same childish but common mistake that a brokenhearted person makes when they throw a scene and be very mean to their ex after the ex brakes up with them.

To a small degree, one is violating the property rights of the dance club or website owner. So let's remember that the dance club with a certain dress code, the meeting of law-abiding racists to say racist things to each other, or the website owner are just exercising their own freedom of speech. If anything, trespassing on or vandalizing their property to bother them because one doesn't like their dress code, racist opinions or forum rules would be an instance of the trespasser/rule-breaker infringing on the freedom of speech of the owner and other rule-abiding participants. Granted, it's not a big deal since it is generally something that can be solved with a simple bouncer or internet ban.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[Nick_A]

[Scott]

Yes, I think it would be particularly upsetting--and in some circumstances perhaps an illegal instance of fraud--for a club or publication to claim to follow certain standards or rules but biasedly enforce those rules or enforce bigoted unwritten rules. Let's consider the even more extreme but cliche example of a business that claims on paper to be an Equal Opportunity Employer who then refused to hire a better qualified applicant because of that applicant's race or religion. I couldn't blame that applicant for getting upset and not leaving politely. Nor could I blame a member of a web forum for getting upset and not leaving politely when the forum violates its own written standards out of bigotry, bias or favoritism.

I guess in my previous posts in this thread I was understating the instances where a person could get banned from a site through little fault of their own but rather the incompetence or fraudulence of the moderator/owner.

Needless to say, I hope that would never apply here. Of course, as you pointed Nick_A, it's probably something more common among "FU sites" rather than a site meant for civil, open-minded debate in which the expression of opposing arguments and critiques is desired and encouraged.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[Anon007]

Banning someone has a lot to do with the Internet itself, I think.

It’s just that when it comes to philosophy, you’re going to get a lot of what you don’t want to think about … God, for instance. I’d think you’d also get some troublemakers in the sense of people lost at the moment.

I just seen a news reel here in Wisconsin about a man who needed money and a priest helped him out. The priest gave him a ride and money. The man later returned that money, plus thousands more. You see, this whole question about life and what it means will bring in some who are really searching and may be a little lost. Don’t ban them but show the world where they are even if it looks bad. That’s my opinion. They might get stronger and put more into you than you put into them.

In other words, try to be more objective and appreciate freedom of speech because the open debate is what will change this world. I believe our forefathers had it right.