View Poll Results: How long should ProIndividual Be Banned For?

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • 0 days

    5 33.33%
  • 2 days

    2 13.33%
  • 1 week

    3 20.00%
  • 1 month

    0 0%
  • 6 months

    0 0%
  • 1 year

    0 0%
  • 2 years

    0 0%
  • 5 years

    1 6.67%
  • 10 years

    1 6.67%
  • Indefinitely

    3 20.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: Should ProIndividual Have Been Banned?

  1. #1

    Default Should ProIndividual Have Been Banned?

    Several years ago I taught English in China for a bit. The classes were composed of working adults and were very informal. One class that was a lot of fun and rather lively was when we talked about the concept of transparency.

    To help illustrate the concept I took a student outside through a sliding glass door and said "tiao wu ba" ("let's dance"...I actually used the class to work on my Chinese). Then we went back inside and I asked the class what we did outside. Of course they responded that we danced and a few chimed in that we danced poorly. Then I took another student outside but closed the curtain on my way out. When we went back inside and I asked the class what we did outside, they responded that they couldn't see. From there we went on to discuss the US vs China in terms of transparency.

    For those of you that aren't aware...the other day ProIndividual was banned from this forum.

    I'm guessing he was banned for "excessively?" protesting against being banned from chat? But as a huge fan of transparency it feels weirdly wrong that I need to be guessing about why somebody was banned from a self-titled "Liberty Forum".

    I'm curious why none of you anarchists have spoken up? Is it because you're scared of getting banned too? Is it because if he was justly banned then that demonstrates that an ultimate authority is necessary? Or is it because if he was unjustly banned then that demonstrates the danger of the private courts that you say that Ron Paul supports?

    In my thread on the Redundancy Test I quoted Milton Friedman as saying..."If we can't persuade the public that it's desirable to do these things, then we have no right to impose them even if we had the power to do it."

    Here in this "Freedom" community should we have to be convinced that it's "desirable" to ban a member? Or...is no convincing required? We'll take your word for it...? Wield your power as you see fit...?

    On the other hand, Conza88 posted this thread...Democracy: The God that Failed [Ron Paul recommended] from which we get the idea that

    ...whereas both monarchies and democracies are deficient as states, democracy is worse than monarchy [...] In sharp contrast, the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position as a result of their efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of government.
    Hmmm...since Congressmen are selected by means of popular elections...

    So given how authority is used on this forum should we say that the Freedom Forum is a democratic state...or a monarchy...or a dictatorship...or a model of the type of volunteer based society that so many of the anarchists on here say that Ron Paul supports?

    I'm guessing many of us define liberty as the ability to do anything that does not violate the harm principle. In other words, the freedom to swing your fist ends where somebody else's nose begins. So did ProIndividual punch you in the nose? In other words...how long should he be banned for?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    For those of you that aren't aware...the other day ProIndividual was banned from this forum.

    I'm guessing he was banned for "excessively?" protesting against being banned from chat? But as a huge fan of transparency it feels weirdly wrong that I need to be guessing about why somebody was banned from a self-titled "Liberty Forum".

    I'm curious why none of you anarchists have spoken up? Is it because you're scared of getting banned too? Is it because if he was justly banned then that demonstrates that an ultimate authority is necessary? Or is it because if he was unjustly banned then that demonstrates the danger of the private courts that you say that Ron Paul supports?
    I doubt it has anything to do with private courts; but rather a respect for private property. Something that the anarchists and the non-anarchists agree upon here is private property rights and the right of the property owner to kick out whomever they like for whatever reason they like.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Snowden;
    So its, I would say; illustrative that the president would choose to say, "someone should face the music" when he knows the music is a show trial.

  4. #3

    Default

    Government alleges to represent us. RPF admins do not. RPF admins provide a service, which they have the right to decide who is and is not allowed to use.

    Consider RPFs a fascist organization which listens to members' input. Allowing RPFs to function this way in no way implies our views of how a non-voluntary government should function.

  5. #4

    Default

    I don't know if PI was perma-banned or just given a cooling down term.

    In my opinion, he needed to cool it. I understand getting emotional an overreacting, but he pretty much spammed the board over, as I understood it, much ado about nothing.

    But, bottom-line, it's not my board. It's privately owned and, as such, the owners and their representatives have the right to allow/disallow anyone they want. If they become heavy-handed with it, I'll reconsider my membership. I don't think I have a right to post here.

  6. #5

    Default

    specsaregood, LOL, uh yeah...Captain Obvious to the rescue. Of course it's their private property...but it's also a virtual community that for all intents and purposes provides us with a working model of society.

  7. #6

    Default

    Too funny...can any of you please quote me where I asked if this forum is private or public property?

  8. #7

    Default

    What do you want us to say? Do I think he should have been banned? Not permanently, but I can see mods pulling his rights for a while as he was essentially spamming the board.

  9. #8

    Default

    Some folks will turn any party into a gripefest for their pet peeve/cause. Sometimes those at the party would rather continue the thematic they established rather than have the party guests continually be disrupted by the gang or individual who is trying to alter the parties' theme. If folks were asked not to use certain terms that may have given visitors/media on the very important straw poll weekend the wrong impression based on common societal and news media use of a word/words which those around here define differently than the general public and they went ahead and just did it anyways then tough shit in my book. I consider it selfish/self centerd with no regard for others. I have no opinion on how long or whether or not PI was/is banned. I just note what the rule was and why it led to the situation.

    HTH
    Rev9
    Drain the swamp - BIG DOG
    http://mindreleaselabs.com/
    Seeking work on Apps, Games, Art based projects

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Too funny...can any of you please quote me where I asked if this forum is private or public property?
    I was just trying to explain it's central to whether or not we're going to care. I care about what I do (as government interferes with my family and I, as well as does it in my name, I'm obviously going to care about it). I don't care about what RPFs admin are doing so long as using RPFs is still beneficial to me and it's doing no harm (IP banning is not harm as it, at most, takes away a privilege - unlike gov't or violent criminals, who take away our rights).

    RPF admin administrate as they see fit, and we choose whether or not we're going to stay or not, though we have the added option of talking with the mods & admin. It has nothing to do with our ideal form of society as you implied, because RPFs isn't claiming to represent that, and I think it'd be foolish for anyone else to. RPFs has no authority over what we can and cannot do outside of RPFs, which we choose to participate in.

    Or put more simply, I don't care that PI was banned. If he's determined enough, he can simply re-register using a proxy. Either way, he was not harmed.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Several years ago I taught English in China for a bit. The classes were composed of working adults and were very informal. One class that was a lot of fun and rather lively was when we talked about the concept of transparency.

    To help illustrate the concept I took a student outside through a sliding glass door and said "tiao wu ba" ("let's dance"...I actually used the class to work on my Chinese). Then we went back inside and I asked the class what we did outside. Of course they responded that we danced and a few chimed in that we danced poorly. Then I took another student outside but closed the curtain on my way out. When we went back inside and I asked the class what we did outside, they responded that they couldn't see. From there we went on to discuss the US vs China in terms of transparency.

    For those of you that aren't aware...the other day ProIndividual was banned from this forum.

    I'm guessing he was banned for "excessively?" protesting against being banned from chat? But as a huge fan of transparency it feels weirdly wrong that I need to be guessing about why somebody was banned from a self-titled "Liberty Forum".

    I'm curious why none of you anarchists have spoken up? Is it because you're scared of getting banned too? Is it because if he was justly banned then that demonstrates that an ultimate authority is necessary? Or is it because if he was unjustly banned then that demonstrates the danger of the private courts that you say that Ron Paul supports?

    In my thread on the Redundancy Test I quoted Milton Friedman as saying..."If we can't persuade the public that it's desirable to do these things, then we have no right to impose them even if we had the power to do it."

    Here in this "Freedom" community should we have to be convinced that it's "desirable" to ban a member? Or...is no convincing required? We'll take your word for it...? Wield your power as you see fit...?

    On the other hand, Conza88 posted this thread...Democracy: The God that Failed [Ron Paul recommended] from which we get the idea that



    Hmmm...since Congressmen are selected by means of popular elections...

    So given how authority is used on this forum should we say that the Freedom Forum is a democratic state...or a monarchy...or a dictatorship...or a model of the type of volunteer based society that so many of the anarchists on here say that Ron Paul supports?

    I'm guessing many of us define liberty as the ability to do anything that does not violate the harm principle. In other words, the freedom to swing your fist ends where somebody else's nose begins. So did ProIndividual punch you in the nose? In other words...how long should he be banned for?
    wow, discussing transparency a la the U.S.A. in China...

  12. #11

    Default

    Revolution9, yeah, that has to be the most opaque clarification ever. Was there a "Make Ron Paul Look Good By Not Mentioning Certain Terms" memo sent out? Or is there a place on this forum where we might find a list of those terms? Or are we supposed to guess what those terms are? You said "what the rule was"...so is it no longer a rule? Do rules frequently change on this forum?

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kludge View Post
    Or put more simply, I don't care that PI was banned. If he's determined enough, he can simply re-register using a proxy. Either way, he was not harmed.
    Or course if he does that, he'll be trespassing and admitting that he does not believe in private property rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Snowden;
    So its, I would say; illustrative that the president would choose to say, "someone should face the music" when he knows the music is a show trial.

  14. #13

    Default

    Cool his heels for a few days, let him back in. So long as he isn't being obnoxious or trolling, I don't care who's here.

  15. #14

    Default

    I don't know why he was banned or if I would agree with the reason, of how long he should have been banned if at all.

    But I voted "indefinitely," not because I really have an opinion about banning him, but because I think the argument made in the OP is ridiculous. Site owners can ban whomever they want for whatever reason they want. They have the right to do it. Nobody else has a right to be here. What are good reasons for banning people? I don't know, that's up to the site owners to decide based on what they're trying to accomplish. I'm in no position to second-guess it. If I found the process to be something that made this site unenjoyable to me, then I'd stop visiting it. Anyone else who thinks that can do the same.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  16. #15

    Default

    erowe1, what a hoot! Please quote me where I said that site owners cannot ban whomever they want for whatever reasons they want...

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    erowe1, what a hoot! Please quote me where I said that site owners cannot ban whomever they want for whatever reasons they want...
    Doesn't starting a thread rather than talking directly with the mods/admin kind of imply that? They're generally pretty nice folks.

  18. #17

    Default

    Kludge, if the mods are generally pretty nice folks then what's wrong with discussing the topic openly in this thread?

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Kludge, if the mods are generally pretty nice folks then what's wrong with discussing the topic openly in this thread?
    One moderator or admin did it. It'd be more productive to talk to them directly and give reasoning for why PI didn't break the forum guidelines. Calling on the forum for support means nothing since RPFs is not a democracy and doesn't function on the whims of the community.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Then I took another student outside but closed the curtain on my way out.
    The only thing I know is that in the US, you be banned for something like that.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    erowe1, what a hoot! Please quote me where I said that site owners cannot ban whomever they want for whatever reasons they want...
    Please quote me where I said that you said that.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  22. #21

    Default

    Kludge, I posted this sentence earlier in the thread..."Of course it's their private property...but it's also a virtual community that for all intents and purposes provides us with a working model of society." Does that sentence make any sense to you?

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Kludge, I posted this sentence earlier in the thread..."Of course it's their private property...but it's also a virtual community that for all intents and purposes provides us with a working model of society." Does that sentence make any sense to you?
    I'm not Kludge. But no, it doesn't make sense.

    The reason it doesn't make sense is because the very fact of this site's being private property means that it cannot be a model of society.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I'm not Kludge. But no, it doesn't make sense.

    The reason it doesn't make sense is because the very fact of this site's being private property means that it cannot be a model of society.
    That. I like RPFs admin, but I wouldn't want them in charge of levying fines, punishments, and/or evictions on properties including mine.

    RPFs admin are in charge of decided who should and shouldn't be allowed to use their service. More along the lines of a working model of an online forum administration than an ideal working model of society.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Please quote me where I said that you said that.
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I don't know why he was banned or if I would agree with the reason, of how long he should have been banned if at all.

    But I voted "indefinitely," not because I really have an opinion about banning him, but because I think the argument made in the OP is ridiculous. Site owners can ban whomever they want for whatever reason they want. They have the right to do it. Nobody else has a right to be here. What are good reasons for banning people? I don't know, that's up to the site owners to decide based on what they're trying to accomplish. I'm in no position to second-guess it. If I found the process to be something that made this site unenjoyable to me, then I'd stop visiting it. Anyone else who thinks that can do the same.
    Why did you write that "site owners can ban whomever they want for whatever reason they want?" In my original post did I write that site owners shouldn't be allowed to ban people? Or in my original post did I ask whether site owners should be allowed to ban people? I'm just curious why you're wasting my time with the obvious...

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Why did you write that "site owners can ban whomever they want for whatever reason they want?"
    Because that undermines any challenge to their banning of anyone on the grounds that such a ban doesn't comport with "libertarianism" or "anarchy" or any other such thing.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Revolution9, yeah, that has to be the most opaque clarification ever. Was there a "Make Ron Paul Look Good By Not Mentioning Certain Terms" memo sent out? Or is there a place on this forum where we might find a list of those terms? Or are we supposed to guess what those terms are? You said "what the rule was"...so is it no longer a rule? Do rules frequently change on this forum?
    I recall reading that the chats were asking folks not to use minarchist and anarchist terms on chat as they were expecting straw poll visitors in that timeframe and wanted to present the best face with no strings leading to concepts that can be quite easily twisted by disreputable or ignorant viewers and then carried elsewhere with enmity.. That is pretty transparent to me. I could certainly hold off on one of my fave gripes if asked for the sake of the forum for a specific events duration. It is my respect for the board owners that would cause ME to do so. And I am a shit disturber.

    Rev9
    Drain the swamp - BIG DOG
    http://mindreleaselabs.com/
    Seeking work on Apps, Games, Art based projects

  28. #27

    Default

    erowe1, can you please clarify...is it the "private" part or the "property" part that prevents this site from functioning as a model of society?

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    erowe1, can you please clarify...is it the "private" part or the "property" part that prevents this site from functioning as a model of society?
    I'm not erowe1. But I think he probably thinks that because the site is voluntary, online, and has no authority outside of what it owns, it isn't a functioning model of society, where people will have self-given or community-given authority to exercise over other folks' property.

    I guess the problem here is what we're calling a "model of society." I think we're believing that implies government (and how it interacts with others), whether self-governing, delegated-governing, or unauthorized governing. In RPFs, there isn't really any government because there's nothing to govern other than RPFs' own property -- so I guess it could be called self-governance. At any rate, members have no authority to change RPFs because it's not ours. It's not OUR society, and I don't think it could be called a society at all. It's an online discussion board. Maybe the discussion would go further if we defined what "society" is, and how RPFs admin controlling their own property is supposed to be a representation of us.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    erowe1, can you please clarify...is it the "private" part or the "property" part that prevents this site from functioning as a model of society?
    Both.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  31. #30
    Member Son of Detroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
    Posts
    1,706

    Default

    The Internet is serious business.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •