The Glade 4.0

Yes, but very rarely. However, that's the point. This is a discussion forum, not a debate forum. We don't have rules that say you have to concede when you've lost, so a rule against dogpiling would just encourage obstinacy.

Debate boards like that require very active, very heavy-handed moderation because the point of every debate is to win, either with the facts or with superior debate skills, and people quickly learn that accusing their opponent of violating the rules is a very effective tactic. They're really not pleasant, and they require a great deal of time and effort to participate in; TL;DR posting is the norm, and googling skills are critical.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

TL;DR. What is this, please?

TL;DR = "Too Long; Didn't Read"

LMFAO, so you being a douchebag to Rynar and intentionally being antagonistic then attempting to drum sympathy afterwards is an example of how you take it to PMs....

Awesome.

/golfclap

It is awesome to see that you have as much class as a Foster-Glocester school when it snows.

**EDIT: It should be said... I think your choice of wording was horrible on the random thoughts thread. And yes I did imply that if it were true, I hope a father hunts you down and gives you what you deserve.. but if you are being harrassed in PM about that subject... report it dude. I cannot stand you in any way shape or form. And I fully expect that the feeling is mutual: but even I think that is uncool.**

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I'm not entirely positive that Mookhow doesn't take his phone into the voting box, fire up his favorite IRC app, and ask Moobot,

[Whatever Anime Nick Moo's Using This Week] Moobot, should I vote for Joe Smith?
[+Moobot] Turkey fritters!
Mookhow in voting box: *pulls lever*

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

LOL! Um, no comment.

_________________

What does that even mean? Monty made himself the subject of nearly everything he received. With very few exceptions, his behavior and manner of posting was one which had a streak of personal vindictiveness and selfishness.

It's been said, and I recently just posted it: Monte was selfish. Monte is selfish. This forum was no more than some pedestal for him to spout his opinions, champion the ideas with which he was so infatuated and then demonize everyone who disagreed or didn't agree enough with it through derogatory and personally insulting language. I honestly thing he isn't smart enough to critically analyze the thing he is claiming in terms of labeling people as *-ists or calling certain types of principles inane. The combative and irrational way which he rebutted in every instance is quite ample evidence this is the case.

Even more telling in his personality. Everything he said even outside the controversial boards had to do with him or somehow elevate his opinion as vastly superior. Every other member I can think does this, but every other member also writes many posts which read to be an informative recant or assertion that is logical and thoughtfully made. Monte didn't do this EVER. And it never occurred to him that people being critical of his method and not his idea might, just maybe, have a valid **** point. And so, this place became just a forum for him to elevate his own aspirations while showering the members therein in a bukkake sized load of self-gratification and self-affirmation. Every shred of behavior out of him reflected this.

And no matter what manner the rest of the board tried to engage him in, he continued to respond with escalating vitriol and spite eventually building to an intolerable crescendo of delusion and downright insanity, not because he felt threatened by the logical and thoughtful challenges he was assaulted. No, there's no chance he could even comprehend such responses. It is because the only way to perpetuate such a ridiculous fantasy is to feed unabated it with self-affirmed lies and purpose selected propaganda. In totality, the sum manifested itself within the self-confident and irrational internet persona he finally came to be, one which treated the rest of the board's individuals and the board itself with complete contempt and reprephensible behavior.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

For whatever reason, I think if he and I had met in real life, not knowing each other, I would have thought he was a pretty cool guy. He's done some interesting things... For the most part, I feel that way about everyone here.

I blame the asshattery of the anonymous Internet, to tell the truth.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

There is some truth to this, but honestly, the personality he showed on these boards, presumably intentionally, was obnoxious (to put it nicely). It's not like just popped in one day and wrote an editorial/op-ed piece and then disappeared. He was obnoxious and disrespectful day-in and day-out for 8+ freakin' years.

Yes for 8 years we knew what to expect from him, nothing in his behavior was new or surprising. His complete failure in basic logic, his parroting the party line, and his raw hypocrisy. There were many heated discussions but as a rule those who challenged and argued with supported and cited their cases with fact and documentation, (Something monte couldn't comprehend) It did provide information and educate some the more rational posters and probably some of the lurkers.(which includes myself as my posting only occurs when I have an interest, and time).
So Montes presence did have some uses.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

Ha that made me smile.

I'm still on vacation and have no intention of second guessing this, but generally speaking obviously I've defended Monte in the past. He honestly seems to me like a good guy who happens to be a committed liberal. Just one of many I've met in my internet travels. He's perhaps more strident than most, but other than that all his "crazy" opinions seem pretty par for the course to me.

In this particular setting on this specific board with our politically minded members, oh yeah, he'll clash. Duh. His outlook is virtually identical to someone I spar with regularly. At it's best, this sparring forces you to defend your opinions and principles, which is why I enjoy it and even seek it out. Plus, sorry all you hippie liberals, but some of your ideas are so easy to refute! Granted there is a healthy dose of "someone is WRONG on the internet" too.

I'd probably get voted off the island too by the way so I am against that idea! =p

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

My other thoughts on this matter and the way the board works in general.

First of all, I think we can agree what Dash and Mook say goes around here. I'm not saying this to be a suckass, but quite simply because I believe in personal property rights. We are here on something they created and can make reasonable claim to lay ownership to and therefore should they decide to be arbitrary, we must accept it with the understanding it's an implied provision for participating here. Of course, they can't just do whatever they want and insist people stay and contribute in a certain manner. If they alienate their population, that's on them.

I have no comments or opinions specifically as to which way I think we're biased in regards to the two ends of that spectrum.

I don't agree with banning Monte, but I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it. That reasoning being that Monte has persistently been disruptive and downright destructive in his tenure here.

Those that argue his behavior is expected based on historic information are simply making an appeal to tradition. Just because the ruleset hasn't changed and it may seem inconsistent to ban him now and not previously is not hypocritical. The board, operating with respect to the balance I mentioned above, may decide at any time that his presence is destructive and decide to remove him in an effort to improve the board. Monte, being the ultimate champion of constructed rights, should support this more than anyone else. After all any rights with regards to being a member here are established through a rule set the community develops (again, referencing the balance on which this current iteration of the community rests) and chartered in a constitution of sorts with as clear or vague definitions as suits the community's desire.

I wouldn't ban him, I don't care for his behavior personally, his logic is non existent and he doesn't offer any real constructive prescense here but despite that, I find no reason to ban him. However, above that, I respect what the community decides to do first and foremost.

My points in regards to Monte recently haven't been my personal campaign to justify his ban, but rather, my interpretation of his behavior and how his ban is justified in that context.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I think trying to win is part of the problem. You very unlikely to win. In fact it's mostly impossible. The goal should be to try to understand the other person.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Sometimes, yes. However, sometimes the other person is just clearly wrong and it's better to win.

However, on a debate board, the entire point of the board is to win debates as much as possible, just like on a debating team in high school. The problem is that on a message board the format is less controlled and the rules far easier to abuse. I don't think anyone wants that here.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sometimes the goal seems to be to make the idiot on the other end of the keyboard have a rage-fueled aneurism.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This. I believe that folks here have basically decided which folks they like or agree with and those they don't. Those that they don't agree with or don't like are basically **** on and taunted/provoked in either an effort to get them to lose their temper or type up something so outlandish that they "lose" the "debate".

While I completely agree with Wwen that the goal should be to try and understand people's positions, there are a number of posters here who apparently want to make this a debate board, with all the rules lawyering that goes on about logical falicies, etc. There definately seems to be a competitive feel to the boards on "winning" an argument.

By folks, you mean, everyone ? Everyone but you? just a few 'folks' ?

In my opinion, there are only a few that post with malice on occasion. Whereas Monte did it pretty much constantly. He even often started threads for the sole purpose of taunting his "adversaries"...

All that is just making it a discussion board. To have a debate board you need actual debate rules for how you can debate, not just general forum and administrative rules. There have to be standars of proof and concession and all sorts of other **** that, like I said, requires a great deal of moderator attention.

I don't think anyone here wants to go down that road. What we do here is discuss things. Sometimes people do win and lose, but that's because one or the other of them has generally taken some position that's simply indefensible. Yes, we've got a group of people that discuss things with logical fallacies and sometimes try to provoke their opponent into a screaming tirade. We've also got a crop that doesn't want to be disagreed with and doesn't want anyone to post anything that might call their position into question, and when someone does, goes straight into the "but why does it have to be about winning?" complaint.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

More or less anyone who posts with any regularity in Hellfire is guilty of this IMHO.

Can I be part of the "less" group?

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Of course. The group that anyone belongs to is entirely within their control.

I think they're born that way!

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

It doesn't help fo sho.

I genuinely would take an interest in how Monty saw things now and again, with no other motive, but those questions get ignored. Farther did the same thing and Monty then said he didn't have to answer "demands." Seriously? Monty didn't want people to understand...

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

^ truth.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Yeah, we get a new guy in here and Monte doesn't even want to answer his questions, even though Farther was completely polite and non-aggressive. Anything other than identical frothingly rabid agreement and he had you pegged.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."