The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: NaziHunter on September 04, 2012, 01:19:54 PM

Title: Wrongful banning
Post by: NaziHunter on September 04, 2012, 01:19:54 PM
[Message body intentionally left blank]
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: SeanD on September 04, 2012, 10:56:29 PM
Whoever said the banning was wrongful?  It could have been quite deserved.  Even if it wasn't - Fuck 'em.
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: NaziHunter on September 05, 2012, 12:53:31 AM
The term is Wrongful Banning.  It's by definition wrongful or at most innocent a reckless and/or  callus mistake.  Banning of people who truely -- and truthfully deserve it is by definition different.  And is not what I'm against.  And, [so-what if they're innocent victims of something, fuck'um]... What the hell kinda
attitude is that?!  For "liberty-minded" people you sure aren't all that idealistic.  I've seen thought police in science fiction movies that where more idealistic than that.
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: SeanD on September 05, 2012, 11:37:46 AM
The forum is private property.  Everyone here is here voluntarily and can opt out whenever they wish.  The forum owner and it's appointed officers have the property rights to ban everyone if they want to.  Would be rather foolish but there it is.

You can't ascribe the same idealism to private property that you can to Gubmint.
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: dalebert on September 05, 2012, 11:42:31 PM
And you can't be particularly demanding of moderators who aren't getting paid and who have no particular incentive for keeping you interested in the forum or the chat room.
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on September 06, 2012, 12:18:36 AM
Did I miss some drama?
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: dalebert on September 06, 2012, 12:54:47 AM
Did I miss some drama?

I guess you can call it drama if you thought Saved By The Bell was dramatic.
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: Bill Brasky on September 06, 2012, 05:48:54 AM
Its not drama, the dude just has (1) some opinions, and (2), needs to familiarize himself with the user controls.

Also, I think there is some conflict with his "handle".  I haven't been to the chats and/or the news portion of the domain.  I'm pretty sure he's getting one name displayed in the user-submitted news article area, and another here, on the BBS. 

I often see my registered username pop up in odd places, and my BBS name in place when I come to the boards.  I'm pretty sure that happens to anybody who activated an account and then changed their display name later on. 



Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: NaziHunter on September 06, 2012, 05:36:13 PM

Foreword.
  After I started writing this (offline) in reply to #3, I logged on to the website to see where the poll was going, and one thing is obvious the from reading this message board from the beginning, and knowing even just what anyone reading that and "I too need to change my username[...]" is that, like many places where wrongful banning is a big problem, Free Talk Live, you the entity ARE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION! In addition to other factors.  Now...

Thats about as inside the box as I've seen in awhile.  Man!  For openers before I start I want to say that I agree with you on at least one level of right to.  A forum, such as this one and most like it on the internet and chat rooms is private property and dominion and should be.  Only major exceptions being in the case of paid admission, such as with Xbox Live and PlayStation Network, or  government run "community support forums" -- say, if the EPA had one, then a LEGAL obligation to be fair does and should come in. Not just a moral and ethical one.  But beyond that, back to your thinking outside of that box.  You have a right to go to a  soup kitchen and give all of the money in your pockets to the first poor person you see.  You have the right to take your brand new tv and soak it overnight in the bathtub.  You have the right to spontaneously order all of the guest at your dinner party to leave your house at once.  You have the right to see somebody drowning in a river, noone else around for miles take out your cellphone and video it for your later personal amusement instead of call for help.  You have the right to watch and evil police office beat an innocent civilian to death and then 15 years later vote for him for President.  But.  And this is the boxcutter.  That doesn't even mean much less prove that you should!  Giving away all of your money is a serious thing, it has repercussions.  In most practical cases there are strong reasons you shouldn't do it.  The tv set, If your making a video or something where your making a point... Oh... Japanese electronics are the work of oh, people other than people living in the United states that need work, as your friend I might suggest you take the set back for a refund and hire someone for the odd job of soaking the rest of the money overnight, and then give up seeing it as basicly your problem and not infringing on anyone else, but that you still shouldn't.  You shouldn't be so rude to your dinner party guests...If there was an extenuating circumstance, you and the Mises been suffering an out-of-sync based sexual disfunction, and suddenly you bother sensed it...  Very much in the mood at the same time for the first time in decades... You should at least at some point explain yourself.  But you do and should have the right not to.  You don't even need a shread of a good reason.  You might be thought of as an asshole and treated accordingly, but you'll deserve it. The drowning victim.  Even though the law can't and I my opinion should never compele you, Joe Average River Bystander to, snap out of it.  Unless otherwise noted you OWE that person pressing a botton on your hip and signaling someone to save their life, and whatever good part of your soul a video of the rescue.  The first time you watch it, you should pull that other part of your soul out of your chest and stomp it to death.
As for the evil police office turned President... How many sci-fi movies and tv show episodes have we seen that take place in the 1990s through early 21st century...  You have the right to, but trust me who can see blind man what somehow is invisible to, you definitely shouldn't.  Most would think this is an easy one even for low-souls, but scale it down and change the shape slightly and they can't see it.

Back to wrongful banning.  What should be done?  Well, on an individual level that depends on who you are.  If you are in a chat and you see someone wrongfully banned.  Say so as part of the chat.  Maybe also report the known or suspected wrongful banner.  The part of human nature in exploit when the wrongful ban-ee somehow says they were wronged doesn't work as well when its instead against a hey, I saw that person get wronged. And in most cases there's a tape; if whoever you report them to is fair-minded a tape of the incident is too powerful a tool to ignore.  They'll instintively know to go right for it or at least not leave it out, you will have called their attention to a log of the wrongful banning.  And if you make a mistake or if its a these three who could have did it were present situation, you will never get someone who doesn't deserve it in trouble.  If you are someone who would get such reports, don't ignore them.  Do something about the problem.  Unban the person, and talk to the problem banner.  If that doesn't help and its within your authority get rid of them.
If, and this is the most important catagory, if you ARE a wrongful banner, STOP DOING IT.  You say from the sidelines "its not that simple.  and you were doing rather good too...".  I know it's not that simple.  I'm not stupid, you think I don't know its not THAT simple?!  If you are a problem banner, you probably fall into one of n categories, with shades of some of the others.

1)The power tripper. With arbitrary tastes in who they tolorate.
2) the (almost) xeno phobic speratist/elitist.
3)the shallow elitists.  Does away with "not-we"s, tends to have shallow grasp and concept of us and them, insider/outsider, worthy/not worthy. Typically younger, but adult and even mature-aged adult not unheared of.
 
 *) (and this is the one you probably don't expect me to know about) the boxed in.  All ages. Ranges from grooves to the wrongfulness, to apathetic, to romantically simpathetic.  Would do right without much if any pressuring if only had the resources, and/or access to have situational awareness enough to judge for themselves, instead of (at least feeling like) being dependent on someone's emailing them in some cases, to alert them to a troll.  Which they by order must do something about immediately.  Made of the position they are in in an authority structure.


---       ---
Tell you what.  This IS a reply to a particular post.  Last time I was on the forum was heating up and there were afew or several reply posts... So I want to get what I have so far of this in, so its timely and finish it soon as almost a part 2.

And whoever, DUDE... There's no way you watched or read the chats in question and thought I was  a spambot.  For a week.  Bet'ch you're either just saying that (dangerous) or you are basicly going on a form of hearsay and yourself weren't paying ANY attention.  Someone is being judged or getting justice here.  ...be truthful.


Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: freeAgent on September 07, 2012, 09:47:35 AM
Did I miss some drama?

I think we all did.  I have no idea what this is about.
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: NaziHunter on September 07, 2012, 04:42:32 PM
Reply to #9
FreeAgent, thank you part in advance for taking an interest in this.  I see from your rather heavy-looking "Amplifier" icon that you are of a catagory if user that, by category might have some weight or even access, where I have no such weight.  Before we start, quick curiosity question about how the other half in cyberspace lives: is the Terms of Service agreement invisible to everybody, or can well-off or people with such weight / basicly people who aren't me in particular see it? 

Now.  Pleease at your leisure, read both this message forum and the General Problems "I too need to change my username or delete my account" at least up to the time of this posting, it's not that much material, and chime in with what you think, and maybe via some special channel to  Free Talk Live.  Oh, one thing you'll realize if you do is why you had no idea what this is about.
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: Turd Ferguson on September 07, 2012, 07:27:05 PM
Before we start, quick curiosity question about how the other half in cyberspace lives: is the Terms of Service agreement invisible to everybody, or can well-off or people with such weight / basicly people who aren't me in particular see it?  


Go to: The Free Talk Live BBS> General> FTL BBS Terms of Service (Stickied for people who don't read before they post.)............3rd post from the top. Its right there for anyone to see.
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: NaziHunter on September 08, 2012, 06:39:45 PM
Excuse the rough, barely edited state of this.  I didn't believe I should put an inordinant amount of time/effort into it, and it checks good enough.


I have decided to give this some time.  Not to become overly consumed with it.  Not to over touch or over talk to it.  Not to try going forward until I better see what's ahead, and where I am.  And to give effort and moves I've already made a chance to play out into ripples and chains of events.  I have decided, after this post, except for answering email from Free Talk Live, to treat all things Free Talk Live as "read-only", no "writing to" for a period of either 2 weeks or 4 weeks.  To be decided at the 2-week mark.

This, in addition to a sanity-maintaining break will give me time to:

# maybe owl up (maybe owl up some...*maybe* owl up some?  What the hell have I been thinking!?).  One, learn a general outline of the technical environment that these chat networks are.  Two learn the basics of the IRC command language etc., Three the common ethics traditions and  customs, modern equivalent to "netiquette".  Oh, on that subject.  I have picked up that it is a kick below the belt to by effort prevent someone in an IRC chat system from "registering their nick",  Seems conceptually like establishing with and/or applying to the official network owner entity for an account on the network, and once approved a registed nicknames registeredness can be used to prove both your particular identity and the network-approvedness of your presence.  In addition to being required for such things as, finding out by asking the chat system itself if you are allowed in a particular chatroom, finding out if you in particular have been sent any "memos", if you in particular are allowed to display text in color in the chat, or if instead, if you try to you'll automaticly be banned from the channel... (I gotta throw this in.  You people have created a bizarre and upside down reality.  In a BAD way.  Do you know what happens in the GOOD universe when someone unauthorized tries to display something in color?  It either just fails, or they get a 'you are not allowed to do that' message.  Maybe even a brief explanation of why.  The relivant bot control language DOES NOT SUPPORT THE 'GOOD UNIVERSE' VERSION! Repent!  Are you sure you weren't *tricked* into a draconian future?, a lot like how iPhone-heads were arguably tricked into that.  Was there a,"movement"?  Did you have a Steve Jobs?), that you have been invited to a particular chat by someone, that the networks administration wants to tell you something.  Users with unregistered nicknames are apparently basicly a rigid systemic underclass, to the point where the very concept of being part of an overall network or being communicated to or handled at all by the chat network administration doesn't even apply to them.  The fairness being that anyone can register a nick, and thus join the chat network.  It sortof seems like once you have a registered nickname, *the chat network's* rules and standards of fairness also apply in a practical sense.  Depending on your "access" and "privilege" level can access captures of chats, logs of actions taken... "the tape", and report unfair activity to administration that already has the proof of it.  The scums in the #LRN chatroom knew all that, picked up that I didn't, and couldn't resist preying on an easy victim.  And in hindsight seem to have specificly been trying to prevent within the scope of their ability me from having a registered nick.  ...yea, defiantly owl up.

#*strap up* some!  I naturally tend toward being a poweruser, I'm a programmer/tinkerer at heart when it comes to computers.  Have been since my childhood.  One of the things in exploit against me (I'll skip the "conspiracy theory" for now) is that I'm not using a chat client, am not setup to do my own capture log of chats, am not already ready already for seemless awareness of such things as weather I'm allowed to chat in color, autohiding my IP address when visiting an untrust chatroom, use single-key macros... On and on.
Plus I get all titillated at the thought of an API; if I ever become a chat moderator, It's within my bent to write a remote bot that watches for wrongful banning and either undoes it or reports it to me.  My karma counter balance to "the sticker-bot".

#let whatever powwowing or pooling and comparing notes has to happen first transpire.  Let some of the (statistically probable, law of averages I think) people who do actually take the time, start from the beginning (of both relivant threads) and when caught up fathom what's going on and what "this is about" say their something or do their something.  Maybe I'm lucky and there is a regularly scheduled review or meeting, a briefing of Ian (and maybe Mark) of things that have happend in the online facet since the last such meeting.  And that meeting will happen in the meantime.  And such questions as "whatever happend with that nutcase that said we fried his router with a secret guvment command,  have we heared from him again?", and "Are there any liberty-relevant new threads or polls on the website that might interest us?  Any good new show topics come up?".  Or that and a combination of that and looking/having looked around in preparation for the meeting are not uncommon. 



So goodbye for now.  But, no promises though , if there are obvious paradises out there in IRC-land, meaning places I for sure would turn up.  I can tell one of the first things I'm going to do armed and shielded with a registered nickname is search out such places.  Wrongful banning support/fight back group, if any 95%.   Groovy hangout spots especially techno-relevance oriented, just look for me amongs the hopefully still many such places. 

And if your thinking "whuh, who the hell are *you*?!"  That feeling isn't universal to everyone.  If you have it just keep it to yourself, and stay here.  It's a good chance you'ld be an unwanted presense in the Paradise you would have followed me to  and ironicly they won't be quick enough for my taste to kick you out.  So just stay here with your own kind please.
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: dalebert on September 08, 2012, 08:16:13 PM
Wow, that post strikes me as... long.

Scott Pilgrim vs The World - This is Boring... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__jiz18l84U#ws)

I Skimmed It - Scott Pilgrim Kinetic Typography (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtBmP1SxLkY#ws)
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: Bill Brasky on September 13, 2012, 07:17:07 AM
Well said.

Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: dalebert on September 13, 2012, 12:37:47 PM
Well said.

You read it? So what did he say?
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: Bill Brasky on September 15, 2012, 03:13:41 AM
Well said.

You read it? So what did he say?

I donno, I was just kidding.

Its the ramblings of a lunatic.  I'm not reading that horseshit.


Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on September 16, 2012, 06:00:48 PM
It matters to me if someone I give a shit about is banned.

I don't give a shit this time.
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on September 30, 2012, 03:55:27 AM
It matters to me if someone I give a shit about is banned.

I don't give a shit this time.


How could that happen if half the posters on this site are also mods?

Highest mod to user ratio of any website I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: liberaunchy on September 30, 2012, 09:02:48 AM
Well who gets wrongfully banned from the mall?

It's privately owned cyber property with public access.

Until there's some over riding civil law,  the owners reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Yeah yeah, it's a Jim crowe law, but that means absolutely jack shyte.

They might also let in people you don't like.

You get to do what you want in your popsicle stand and the popsicle stand down the block gets to do what they want  in their establishment. Free enterprise. It's a good thing. Get on board.

If it rubs one the wrong way, possibly take it where the sun shines the way you want it.

Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: John Shaw on October 01, 2012, 01:19:50 PM
"Omit needless words"

Strunk and White, The Elements of Style, 17th principle of composition.

Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: Bill Brasky on October 02, 2012, 03:32:09 AM
It matters to me if someone I give a shit about is banned.

I don't give a shit this time.


How could that happen if half the posters on this site are also mods?

Highest mod to user ratio of any website I've ever seen.

Do a lumbar puncture, a CT-5 scan, and a lung biopsy.  

I know what you're thinking:  High mod to user ratio equals Lupus.  Well, its not Lupus, it's never Lupus.  Now, go find out why it's not Lupus.


Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: DragQueen on October 11, 2012, 09:35:10 PM
the banning rule is quite political, if you really wanna get to the brass tacks of it.
fuck no, i don't mean ''political'' in any intelligent or real-life sense of the meaning.
i mean political HERE, inasmuch as a pack of insipid little twat-bags on a 5th grade playground would get together & ''vote'' out the kid that doesn't kowtow to their particular version of ''in'', or stepford-fucking-wives lemming march......
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: Alex Libmаn on November 16, 2012, 11:50:53 PM
I am a shithead who was completely obsessed with the Free State Project and Free Talk Live.  For five years, this BBS was the most important thing in my life.  Frustrated with my own inadequacies, illnesses, and my inability to do anything meaningful for the cause of liberty, I spiraled into an ever-deeper depression, with my only opium being pathetic self-expression on this BBS.

Along the way, I've managed to alienate everyone I ever cared about, and eventually got banned (and, by implication, banished from the Free State Project).  I've spent the next two years hanging by a thread between life and death.  That banishment was an existential endpoint, the collapse of all my values, after which I have completely lost the will to live, pretty much becoming a homeless bum who endlessly mumbles something incoherent about "Ian Fraudman stabbing me in the back".  This emotion overpowers all of my capacity for reason, but it is an emotion nevertheless.

I am just here to say that my banishment was not "wrongful".  I alone am responsible for my actions, and no one has any obligation to "be fair to me" or "treat me like a human being".  It was my decision to trust and support Free Talk Live in the foolish way that I did.

In my mind it remains the paragon of achievement, the center of my universe, the greatest pillar supporting the struggle for human freedom.  I have proven myself unworthy of it, and that is the epitaph of my existence.

I have failed to accept my failure with dignity.  I can only hope that others will learn from my mistake.
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on November 19, 2012, 06:31:22 AM
That banishment was an existential endpoint, the collapse of all my values, after which I have completely lost the will to live, pretty much becoming a homeless bum who endlessly mumbles something incoherent about "Ian Fraudman stabbing me in the back".

:?

Ummm.....HUH?
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: Laetitia on November 19, 2012, 07:06:57 PM
No.

Free speech should be discussed. It's also good to discuss the rights of a property owner, whether real or virtual, to remove individuals who are behaving in a manner against published guidelines, or in a manner chasing off other customers.

It would be foolish to let people who deliberately and repeatedly break the very loose rules on the FTL board take that same behavior onto the air, chasing off other listeners.
Title: Re: Wrongful banning
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 26, 2012, 05:01:19 AM
I'll ban whoever I want. 

I've deliberately infiltrated this message board, and theres nothing you can do about it.