patrick.net

So many people have independently complained about Ironman that it seemed good to point out his page.

To be fair, everybody should probably be able to see or post in any thunderdome threads.

Can you do this to somebody after a thread has already started and the person has commented? This way it is possible to prevent somebody from replying. I suppose there is no perfect solution...

Patrick says

Let me know if I've mucked anything up with the site. Thanks.

It's not you! It's Patnetters that are the problem! Lmao
Is there any way to BAN my threads & comments when I click "submit"?

Watch all the SNOWFLAKE Republican SOCIALISTS jump on the BAN wagon.

YesYNot says

To be fair, everybody should probably be able to see or post in any thunderdome threads.

Good point, I will make it still allowed to post in thunderdome threads.

FP says

Can you do this to somebody after a thread has already started and the person has commented?

Yes, the ban just starts when the thread author bans the person.

. I suppose there is no perfect solution...

Well, people could just extend the courtesy of civility to one another. I know, I know, it seems to not be in our nature. I gave it a little more thought, and I think a lot of it boils down to something else that isn't natural to humans, but is seemingly taboo to discuss: Isolation. We have yet to adapt to loneliness as a species. I have a feeling that loneliness is the underlying cause of a lot of problems from depression, crime, lack of civility etc. It's often said that Idle hands are the devils playground, and usually people use this in reference for non-working people to need a job, but it's quite obvious that isolation breeds negativity.

OK, now it is still allowed to comment in thunderdome threads even if you are banned by the author otherwise.

rando says

YesYNot says

To be fair, everybody should probably be able to see or post in any thunderdome threads.

Good point, I will make it still allowed to post in thunderdome threads.

FP says

Can you do this to somebody after a thread has already started and the person has commented?

Yes, the ban just starts when the thread author bans the person.

I think you should make it retroactive for the entire thread. If somebody disrupts the thread, wouldn't it be better to have the disruptive posts removed, along with the ability to comment further?

Patrick says

Just go to their user page like https://patrick.net/users/Ironman and click "ban" under their name.

This is discriminatory to Ironman. I like him and i like his contributions.
Controversy is what makes this site fun and interesting.

Strategist says

Patrick says

Just go to their user page like https://patrick.net/users/Ironman and click "ban" under their name.

This is discriminatory to Ironman. I like him and i like his contributions.

Controversy is what makes this site fun and interesting.

Nobody is against controversy, it's the propensity to make it personal. Who wants to willingly subject themselves to personal attacks? Patrick asked that we invite more friends to his site, snd then commented that "maybe it's hard to recommend this site to friends " after yet another thread was littered with crappy personal attacks.

I welcome controversy, it is interesting and the way to better understand conflicting sides of an issue. But the negativity around the personal attacks is off putting and tiring

Strategist says

This is discriminatory to Ironman. I like him and i like his contributions.

He'd be OK if he made a point and then moved on and respected the subject matter of the thread. I won't comment more about ironman here, because I don't want to derail this thread.

Maybe the ban should be temporary. That way people can redeem themselves and the ban could be used more liberally. There's a slight possibility that the process could teach some people the difference between thought provoking and just plain annoying.

Don't BAN, BOYCOTT!

It's up to thread authors to decide who to ban. Personally, I don't plan to ban anyone, so my own threads will still have lots of controversy.

But I will quickly flag personal attacks as "ad hominem" and they will go to comment jail until edited to be less personal.

That feature will quickly show the easily offended types. Not sure if that's good on a free speech forum.

Isn't there an anonymizing mail service that can send them flaming dog poo instead?

I did fuck up the instant comment feature.

Well, it's not critical for using the site. I'll get around to fixing that.

You guys really pay attention to ironman? Watching him and TPB flounder around looking like idiots is pretty good amusement. They perfect representatives of the tell me what to think sect that dark money has convinced to have beliefs totally against their own interests. Patnet's own microcosm of the trump phenomena.

Ironman says

Says the guy who says the owner of this site sucks Trump's balls and calls the owner mentally retarded...

Ironman says

Why are certain people here such hypocrites?

Is this an attempt at the grownup version of "he started it"?
Does it matter if most of the kids in the sandbox don't want to play with you anyway?

rando says

I did fuck up the instant comment feature.

You are the first one to ever make a mistake.
How can all us perfectionist continue to participate in
such a fallible website? lol

An addition to the BAN.
Post a list in every thread of all those that are banned by those that start a thread or comment
on another thread.
They need to face their immaturity,constantly.

Ironman says

I have NO interest in playing in the pre-school sandbox that most of you Special Snowflakes hang out in.

The sandbox in this case is Pnet, and every time we talk about moderation of these forums, you are the loudest advocate for radical free speech at the very expense of adult conversation. You appear to think loudest, most divisive, most combative is what is to be valued. You also have a very poor ability to rationally look at data being presented and counter it specifically. You reply mostly with questions, or by posting a simpleton tangental poorly supported argument.

You appear to be a troll or just a lonely out of touch old man looking for attention on the internet. I'm sorry.

Rew says

Does it matter if most of the kids in the sandbox don't want to play with you anyway?

But he still wants to play with the kids.

Ironman says

Not at all, I have NO interest in playing in the pre-school sandbox that most of you Special Snowflakes hang out in.

www.youtube.com/embed/deFDXYdF2g4

We need a function to ban CIC from the Earth.

Is this at the thread level , comment level, or global level?

It's by author.

So if an author bans you, you cannot comment on his threads.

rando says

So if an author bans you, you cannot comment on his threads

OK, so I should expect multiple threads on the same topic.

Yes, probably so.

People will self-segregate into relatively like-minded groups.

What we need is another thread about the special snowflakes and how they don't understand how awesome Trump is.

Also let's talk endlessly about how these are the 6 tenets of liberalism:

1) Everyone having the exact same income

2) Not working

3) Expecting infinite support and free shit from the government

4) Calling freedom loving patriots hateful or racists

5) Being godless pagans that are way too interested in deviant sex practices and gender weirdness

6) Fascist free speech denial on college campuses. All lefties and liberals are 100% supportive of this.

What did I forget ? (probably something about teachers ? Or perhaps how liberals actually want more terrorism becasue they refuse to condemn all of Islam because of some convoluted foolish belief that it would make radical Islamic terrorism worse) )

Hater says

patrick

Is there a reason you hide my posts?

What?

No one's posts are hidden. What post are you referring to?

Ah, there was a post which was marked "ad hominem" and indeed you were insulting another user instead of simply addressing his point.

This is not an ad hominem post. There is no personal attack in it.

Hater says

@patrick

Is there a reason you hide my posts?

They are mindless propaganda disseminating debunked lies as facts and often pure ad hominem attacks. At least your username is honest. You are full of hate.

Dan8267 says

You are full of hate.

That is actually a personal attack.

Whether or not a user is "full of hate" is irrelevant to the point the user is making, and that particular accusation the standard technique used by the left over and over to shut down civil and open debate on many issues.

rando says

Whether or not a user is "full of hate" is irrelevant to the point the user is making,

I disagree. The intent of the author is relevant to his writing. Intent matters.

Furthermore, hate is not inherently bad. Hate is an emotion, and no emotion is purely good or evil. Hatred serves a purpose. The purpose of hate is to deny evil the benefits of cooperation. Hatred is the appropriate response to harmful ideologies like Nazism and harmful behavior like terrorism. Therefore, it is appropriate to question whether or not a person's hatred is constructive or destructive. Hate can be good or bad, but either way it affects a person's position and is a valid topic of conversation.

My response to Hatred's objection to his posts being marked ad hominem stated,

They are mindless propaganda disseminating debunked lies as facts and often pure ad hominem attacks. At least your username is honest. You are full of hate.

The statement "You (Hatred) are full of hate." is materially relevant to why his posts are "often pure ad hominem attacks". It explains the root of the problem and suggests the solution, for Hatred to let go of his hate. Context matters. Saying that a person has a character flaw is not a personal attack if the context is identifying a problem and how to fix it, as is the case in my post.

Now, if I had said "you are a hateful little shit", then obviously that would be an ad hominem attack because it is no longer a factual statement, but rather a judgement of the person. The statement "you are full of hate" is not necessarily a judgement, and in the context of my post, was an objective observation.

Even if it's true, it doesn't matter.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Banning is up to thread authors. Let's see how that works for a while.

I did not delete any of your comments, but did delete one post which insulted Dan. There is no "post jail" yet, but I guess there should be.

Yes, that's it.

IIRC, there were like 3 comments.

Hacking is always possible, but I doubt that's it.

Those "confirm patrick.net post" emails get sent if you write a post when not logged in. Then it logs you in and publishes the post when you click on a link in the email.

Or, if you don't do that, eventually I see that the post is held in moderation, and approve it, or delete it if it's spam.

It was like "Dan is so triggered, that..."