YOU FOOLISH PSEUDO JEDI

I gave someone the benifit of the doubt, give an inch and some will take a mile. I do not know what I missed in these interactions being gone most of yesterday evening, Also, being it was directly said to this person that their behavior would be watched, I am not all that suprised.

Is it not obvious Gisteron? Not only here, but offline as well?

What "it", ren? Is what not obvious?

I think Ren is pointing to unpopular opinion being grounds enough for some. I have to admit it is why I stay was staying quiet a lot, First, this being apublic site in general any opinion I share contrary to the popular outrage puts my lively hood at risk, second I have over time grown fairly fond of this site and it's members I would prefer not be banned because I disagree with someone (that then turns into a group). I only say this because this is a truth I have seen in the past on both sides and well, there ya go.

That being moderately unpopular locks you out of places, that obeying the mob is necessary in order not to be burnt at the stake by said mob?

No, that's not obvious at all. Most places you can be banned from have rules upon which you can be that either explicitly include being disliked by whoever else happens to be inside, or they include no such condition at all. I have yet to come across a place out there from whence I'd be physically removed in my sleep in such a way that the gates are locked shut for my return come morning, but where putting on a sloppy disguise like a new user name grants me a magical passway through the shut gates.


Now, if you want to excuse this by saying this is how any other place operates, if you want to say that TOTJO is no better than the village that burns its visitors on the stake on popular demand, by all means, be my guest. I find that a rather morbid admission to make, and I'd object to the implication that almost every other place out there is just like that, too, but as one of its leaders you can say that of TOTJO, if that is how you wish to portray it...

Whilst I agree with what Gisteron is saying, it seems to me that being 'unpopular' is not the main reason for the banning. Both Phoenix/Mortose and Arinme breached the ToS numerous times and were advised that if they continued to do so, they would be banned. And yet they continued to do so.

I've seen my fair share of bannings here in the past, and whilst I've disagreed with some, and whilst reasons for banning like 'they were unpopular' or 'they were annoying me' get thrown around, I can't actually recall a time where someone banned purely for those reasons. There is almost always demonstrable evidence that they breached some kind of ToS.

HOWEVER, I do think that when we ban people we should notify them as to why they are banned, it would avoid threads like this which tend to pop-up EVERY TIME someone gets banned lol

In many cases people get banned for TOS breaches, and when anyone questions that it is clearly declared what rules were broken and by what action, like when they advertised to users or so, and that's usually the death of that thread.

And then there are threads that go on for multiple pages. It's curious how they tend to be about people with some notoriety, and that in the course of those threads the first and last thing that comes up is complaints and some vague sort of "misbehaviour" instead of anything specific. We are then of course to trust that the actual reasons are as concrete as tangible as in cases where we get to see them fully declared. And they had it coming anyway. And also this is what would happen any place else. And this is a church, mind you.

If there was anything to point to, we would have all seen it by now. Instead we see excuses and deflections.

I don't know... I don't understand wanting to stay if the "mob" is against me, anyway. Is it because on the internet there are no physical ramifications and that makes turning ones nose up at the haters easier than walking away? Is some attention, any attention, preferable to none? What would it do to my mind, to my soul, to constantly entertain an environment where I am seen as the bad guy? The few, rare moments someone admits they appreciated something I wrote?

I personally see nothing wrong with tailoring my behavior for the comfort of those around me. Does that make me fake or polite?

This is like a cold shower after a hot date. We were enjoying the thread that Phoenix started. Someone came into that thread and started to attack Phoenix. Yes, she got banned too but I think more attention should have been paid. She was even threatening the temple's tax exempt status. So now it looks like she got Phoenix banned even though she told me she wasn't a victim. I had someone cuss me out on this site and nothing happened to them as far as I know (all parties involved should be notified if anything is going to happen). But what Gisteron said does ring a bit true. If' you're unpopular you can be voted off the island. If you're popular... well perhaps you can't shoot someone on 5th avenue but you can get pretty close.

Personally, I think new rules should be created. I don't think guests should be held to the same standards as Jedi. I agree that sometimes you do need to use the power afforded by the system, but you have to be judicious and fair with how you apply it. These are powers that don't exist in the real world. If two people in the real world had an argument do the police take them both to jail? No. If it was in the Temple forum or the studies forum or somewhere we can all agree is more "holy" then absolutely do not tolerate any thing that doesn't fit with the atmosphere and seriousness of that space. But that said, there are different spaces for different types of communication. And I was told that Open Discussions was more of a free for all and basically snowflakes (paraphrasing) shouldn't post there. I've had numerous talks with people about creating a special place for debate so that we don't have to be limited by those who cannot handle more adult discussions and interactions.

On top of that we allow Sith and Grey, which I support. But I think we shouldn't simply allow them access to these open areas but allow them to live by their code in those areas that we allow them to post in. Let boys be boys and Sith be Sith. If we have a conflict, then I think the conflict should play out under certain conditions. In this case it was Phoenix's thread. So Phoenix should have had the right to defend it from someone trying to derail it with personal attacks. Had it been someone else's thread it would be like someone shooting at someone at someone else's house. But if it's your house and this person is an intruder... while I don't agree with trying to kill them, I do think the owner has a reasonable right to fight back against the person picking that fight. And if that's not the only reason for the ban, okay, but that reason, shouldn't be considered imo.

rugadd wrote: I don't know... I don't understand wanting to stay if the "mob" is against me, anyway. Is it because on the internet there are no physical ramifications and that makes turning ones nose up at the haters easier than walking away? Is some attention, any attention, preferable to none? What would it do to my mind, to my soul, to constantly entertain an environment where I am seen as the bad guy? The few, rare moments someone admits they appreciated something I wrote?

I personally see nothing wrong with tailoring my behavior for the comfort of those around me. Does that make me fake or polite?

...but there shouldn't be a "mob".

Like the Salem witch trials, the mob isn't always righteous. And when the driving force is fear...

it is the path to the dark side.

rugadd wrote: I don't know... I don't understand wanting to stay if the "mob" is against me, anyway. Is it because on the internet there are no physical ramifications and that makes turning ones nose up at the haters easier than walking away? Is some attention, any attention, preferable to none? What would it do to my mind, to my soul, to constantly entertain an environment where I am seen as the bad guy? The few, rare moments someone admits they appreciated something I wrote?

That is a question you could ask her and learn about... But oh well, some people weren't quite fond enough of her, so now you don't get to. Unless, that is, she elects to create another account to circumvent the ban, which will of course itself be a bannable offense all over again.

I personally see nothing wrong with tailoring my behavior for the comfort of those around me. Does that make me fake or polite?

I would say so, yes. To some extent, anyway. As you say, nothing wrong with that. Something wrong with not doing that, though? Well, it would seem so, wouldn't it...

I would say the “Digital Murder” topic was enough to warrant disciplinary action.

The root of the problem is a lack of clear communication. Had a moderator or administrator given her proper warning and explicitly state which rules she broke and why she was going to banned and for how long, then we wouldn’t have this thread.

Not that any lack of clarity on TotJO’s part excuses her inflammatory behavior.

I agree Manny, I wanted to try and shift that into a non-serious thread, because yea that was kind of a fudged up thing to say in the first place, but one can see that it did not go that way.

I do believe a warning should be issued of an imminent ban is being processed.

Much love,
Kobos

Kobos wrote: I agree Manny

No one's called me Manny in a long time, haha. Feels odd. :silly:

Manu wrote: I would say the “Digital Murder” topic was enough to warrant disciplinary action.

Ugg... I had promised myself I would stay out of this thread, however you have peaked my curiosity with this comment. Are there certain things that are not allowed to be discussed here then?

Manu wrote:

Kobos wrote: I agree Manny

No one's called me Manny in a long time, haha. Feels odd. :silly:

Manny

(there, now 2 people have done it in quick succession )

Allow me to clarify...when I said "mob" I meant prevailing perspective...and those will exist whether they should or not.

VixensVengeance wrote: Ugg... I had promised myself I would stay out of this thread, however you have peaked my curiosity with this comment. Are there certain things that are not allowed to be discussed here then?

I would say that in general, most service providers are bound to prevent sharing of content that is inciting criminal activity.

So if I were to say “help me out, I can’t kill someone, so I want your input on the next best thing on how to do it digitally”, I think that it’s crossing the line, since the conversation was not about the phenomena of digital bullying, scamming, hacking, but more of a “how to” thread.

Manu wrote:

VixensVengeance wrote: Ugg... I had promised myself I would stay out of this thread, however you have peaked my curiosity with this comment. Are there certain things that are not allowed to be discussed here then?

I would say that in general, most service providers are bound to prevent sharing of content that is inciting criminal activity.

So if I were to say “help me out, I can’t kill someone, so I want your input on the next best thing on how to do it digitally”, I think that it’s crossing the line, since the conversation was not about the phenomena of digital bullying, scamming, hacking, but more of a “how to” thread.

Do you think "digital murder" should be a crime? If so how would you define those parameters? What would be the specific requirements to be accused or convicted of such an offense?