Seth wrote:Hello everybody, I'm back.

rEvolutionist wrote:

Seth wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

Seth wrote:Hello everybody, I'm back.

Good to have you back.... I think....

Just no fucking trolling, kay? If you cut the trolling then I think everything will work out fine.

Depends on what the rules are and how "trolling" is defined here. I didn't see anything about it in the welcome message.

Come on, we both know what trolling is. You and I both did it to each other at the other place, and we both suffered for it. Most of those threads we were involved in turned to farce. I reckon we turn over a new leaf and try not to troll so much. I am interested in the idea of freedom and what limits it can be taken to.

come here you...

Well, let's give it a go anyway.

Hi Seth!

Good to see you again.

Already taken advantage of that handy feature myself.

anthroban wrote:Hi Seth!

Bye Seth!

This post was made by Seth who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post. NO

I wish I had your will power....

I am glad to see Seth here. I'd like to see this work out for everybody. Why put someone on ignore or foe, then announce it in their welcome thread? I can't respect that. It's just plain shitty.

I'm with Gallstones here guys! As much as I frequently clashed with Seth based on some of his ideas, I never agreed with his ban for trolling. I think it is disingenuous (& trolling) to come to his (anyone's) welcome thread and be antagonistic. At least wait until he gives you proper cause to disagree with him before lobbing the grenades. It's highly likely that if you hang out in politics you won't have to wait long! LOL

I agree.

I really don't see the need for the friend/foe system. It seems petty.

Gallstones wrote:I am glad to see Seth here. I'd like to see this work out for everybody. Why put someone on ignore or foe, then announce it in their welcome thread? I can't respect that. It's just plain shitty.

Well, if he argues honestly, then I too want to see what he has to say. But if it turns into a giant trollfest like a lot of the threads did at the other place, then you can't blame people for not wanting to have anything to do with that.

Everyone should be given a second chance (although interestingly I don't know whether Seth would concur with that), but likewise everyone has to take responsibility and ownership of their past actions.

Mac_Guffin wrote:I agree.

I really don't see the need for the friend/foe system. It seems petty.

I felt the same way until about 2 hours ago.

mmmcheezy wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:I agree.

I really don't see the need for the friend/foe system. It seems petty.

I felt the same way until about 2 hours ago.

I think I know what you're talking about.

...But even if some posters are "enemies", what's the point of making a list of them?
Maybe there's a point I'm missing.

Mac_Guffin wrote:

mmmcheezy wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:I agree.

I really don't see the need for the friend/foe system. It seems petty.

I felt the same way until about 2 hours ago.

I think I know what you're talking about.

...But even if some posters are "enemies", what's the point of making a list of them?
Maybe there's a point I'm missing.

If you make a poster your "foe" you can't see their posts anymore. It might prevent some heat of the moment posting for some of us...

maybe like me...

anthroban wrote:Gallstone, as much as I respect you, I don't give a suppurating rat's anus what your opinion re: my post is.

Posting hate in a welcome thread just isn't right. Isn't it also skirting FUA violation by making a personal attack/insulting or ridiculing?

anthroban wrote:Maybe I'm rushing to judgement. Maybe this is a new, improved Seth from the one I knew. So from what I see of others replies to him I'll be the judge of that.

Are you sure that last sentence is correct? You are going to judge Seth based on what others say to him and not on what he does? I must have read that wrong.

LOL anthroban. It's ok, you can turn off the waaaambulance sirens now. It's just that I wouldn't want you to get banned for ridiculing.

mmmcheezy wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:

mmmcheezy wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:I agree.

I really don't see the need for the friend/foe system. It seems petty.

I felt the same way until about 2 hours ago.

I think I know what you're talking about.

...But even if some posters are "enemies", what's the point of making a list of them?
Maybe there's a point I'm missing.

If you make a poster your "foe" you can't see their posts anymore. It might prevent some heat of the moment posting for some of us...

maybe like me...

Oh, so it's like the "ignore" feature on some forums. In that case, I may be using the feature if I get tired of having fun with the trolls.

anthroban wrote:....I don't give a suppurating rat's anus what your opinion re: my post is....

I think we should trademark that insult. Of all the stuff to come out of the implosion of rd.net, this was a shining beacon.

rEvolutionist wrote:

Gallstones wrote:I am glad to see Seth here. I'd like to see this work out for everybody. Why put someone on ignore or foe, then announce it in their welcome thread? I can't respect that. It's just plain shitty.

Well, if he argues honestly, then I too want to see what he has to say. But if it turns into a giant trollfest like a lot of the threads did at the other place, then you can't blame people for not wanting to have anything to do with that.

Everyone should be given a second chance (although interestingly I don't know whether Seth would concur with that), but likewise everyone has to take responsibility and ownership of their past actions.

Although I generally eschew such systems because I'm always willing to debate anyone on just about any subject, I want to make sure that it's not me that gets banned (again) because others can't control their emotions. I intend to use it judiciously, but the first entry was the result of an insulting PM, which I won't tolerate because it's cowardly. At least have the courage to put your insults, if you must, out in front of the membership, in the open, where it's a fair fight and everyone gets to decide who is right and who is wrong.

I have traditionally been extremely forgiving and I have almost always been willing to engage even ardent foes in rational and reasonable debate if they are willing. But it is my belief that I was banned at RDNet only because there was a concerted and deliberate campaign on the part of some members and some moderators to suppress my opinions because they ran contrary to the obvious Socialist/Leftist/Progressive/Marxist/Liberal bent of RDNet. The excuse that I was "trolling" was exactly that, an excuse for an act that violated the fundamental precepts of the forum and which destroyed the credibility and honor of those who made the decision. It was a dishonest, deceitful, narrow-minded, petty, biased and egregiously political decision entirely unworthy of any rational, honorable person.

Whether that will happen here is the true OP, but I intend to abide by the letter of the law and do my best to remain objective and not give the Mods cause to repeat their error.

But do not mistake that for capitulation on my principles, beliefs or arguments. If I get banned again, it will not be anything I actually did, but rather it will be a repeat of the despicable and disgusting whisper campaign and slander that occurred at RDNet.

With that, I'm going to ask the Mods to give me the last word in my welcome thread and lock it now.

Seth wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

Gallstones wrote:I am glad to see Seth here. I'd like to see this work out for everybody. Why put someone on ignore or foe, then announce it in their welcome thread? I can't respect that. It's just plain shitty.

Well, if he argues honestly, then I too want to see what he has to say. But if it turns into a giant trollfest like a lot of the threads did at the other place, then you can't blame people for not wanting to have anything to do with that.

Everyone should be given a second chance (although interestingly I don't know whether Seth would concur with that), but likewise everyone has to take responsibility and ownership of their past actions.

Although I generally eschew such systems because I'm always willing to debate anyone on just about any subject, I want to make sure that it's not me that gets banned (again) because others can't control their emotions. I intend to use it judiciously, but the first entry was the result of an insulting PM, which I won't tolerate because it's cowardly. At least have the courage to put your insults, if you must, out in front of the membership, in the open, where it's a fair fight and everyone gets to decide who is right and who is wrong.

Just to be clear. It's not me you are talking about here.

Anyway, I look forward to some respectful discussions.

anthroban wrote:I don't see that it is posting "hate" at all. But, by all means, feel free to give me a warning for speaking my mind.

Huh? I'm not a moderator in this thread. I'm just speaking my mind like the rest of you. [MOD HAT IS OFF]

anthroban wrote:And yes, you did read the last sentence right. Since he's blocked, the only representation of the "new" seth I see will be in what other's quote of his posts and how they respond to him generally. There are a few posters here whose judgement I trust, and dependent on the tone and tenor of their reactions to the "new" Seth I'll judge whether he is worth the pixels his words would occupy on my screen or not.

Oh. I didn't get that before.

anthroban wrote:In the mean time, I choose to err on the side of experience, and block him.

Okie dokie.

anthroban wrote:Well, that's really much more than needed to be said about that, but there it is.

One thing though, is it reasonable to block a person, ie not read what he writes, but post comments about him anyway? You can't know if your judgment about what you think you are commenting on is accurate.

The forum has an "ignore" function. Go ahead and use it if you want to, that's what its there for. But utilizing someone's welcome thread to gleefully tell them that they are on your "ignore" list is simply rude and arrogant, besides being completely unnecessary.