I guess ADreamer got banned

I suppose they are, to a certain extent. But conventional bullies are usually face-to-face individuals (or they operate in very visible packs.) It's the supposed anonymity of cyber trolls that sets them apart a wee bit. When they do get 'outed' - and a few of them do - they usually emerge from their lairs blinking at the unaccustomed light flung in their faces. More often than not they are socially excluded from real relationships, and are not part of any hunting pack.

I'm not an expert, as I don't understand either type.

 

I suppose John Lennon put it best when he sang 'You may say I'm ADreamer, but I'm not the only one. . .'

 

Sheesh. Lennon admits ADreamer is his sock puppet, and that he has others! We have to ban John Lennon, too!

 

Jinkies.

I've never come across Aire/ADreamer but it's always sad when a forum gets a ban. Less so for a troll.

 

Yeah, was just going to post that I've heard the term "griefer" used in online games to at least the early 2000s, if not before.

 

Yeah looks like I'm totally wrong about that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

But in my defense I was playing Quake III and Star Craft where team component was pretty much non-existent.

 

@Link the Writer in trouble with the mods

 

I remember hearing it playing Unreal Tournament, but I think I started hearing it used more regularly with vanilla World of Warcraft.

 

At the risk of being banned, I can't say I agree with anyone being banned. If a post is stupid or unreasonable, just ignore it. Some people display over-compensatory self-assertiveness, uh-huh. Some people deploy outrageous rhetoric in order to get heard, uh-huh. You certainly shouldn't be taking offence at things written on the internet.

If sock puppetry is proved, just give them a warning. The only reason for banning someone is if they refuse to discuss topics which the site was set up to discuss, ie. writing.

Reason for tolerance is that evolution has designed all types, including extremes and including idiots, to be part of the system. It helps stir things up and avoid complacency, and that's a good thing. As someone has already said, it's good to have a few villains. I don't agree with all this hiding from opinions that provoke you, and certainly not exercising a kind of social engineering on that account, which is what it is when you restrict the group to certain people. Sensitivity is becoming the new fascism.

 

Private forums aren't governments. It's not fascism. You need rules to keep the place from degenerating into what much of the rest of the Internet looks like. No one is forced to create an account here, and people doing so agree to the terms of the site

 

Certain rules are needed - sockpuppetry should be controlled - but over-sensitivity is gaining ascendency, and that bothers me for evolutionary reasons.
Sensitivity creep is definitely taking over society and the rules everywhere are trending towards a "thou shalt not say anything provocative because my nerves can't take it" kind of thing. Free speech is surely healthier, especially on a site like this because literature shouldn't have any bounds, certainly not egotistical ones.
It's possible to ignore the idiocy and attention-seeking and still address the underlying issues, which is often where the real debate lies.

 

I've never understood the concept of the internet being this mystical invention detached from reality. If books, movies, games, music, and art can offend someone, what makes the Internet any different? Often do I see people say "look at those two, fighting on the Internet" which implies that doing the same thing face to face is somehow more justified or honourable.

If you're a dick on the Internet, chances are you're a dick in real life as well. Over sensitivity is certainly an issue which should be addressed, but that doesn't mean you just pretend the douche bags don't exist.

 

If you're worried that you're going to get banned because you childishly listed your location as "Bangkok," don't worry: we allow swear words. Your sense of humor on the other hand...

 

That works better as an argument that one should not be offended by books, movies, games, music, and art, than as an argument that one should be offended by something on the internet. The modus tollens of your argument is more persuasive than the modus ponens.

Either way, I do agree that any kind of internet community needs to be moderated in order to survive. It is simply a means to an end. Ever heard of the broken windows theory? I think it applies to internet communities much better than it applies to cities.

 

Makes me think of a corresponding broken political promises theory.

@davidov I agree with your thoughts on over sensitization. Whilst the sock puppetry was cited as the banning reason, there was a lot more to the character of the user that needed, I think, to be observed in toto before a full understanding could be reached. I can't speak for any moderator, but I'd like to think it was more than a breach of sock-puppetry rules, as outlined by Wreybies above.

 

Is there any particular reason why you appear to be channelling the spirit of Elvis in your post? Uh huh huh.

 

And then when they carry on sock-puppetting...?

 

<shakes legs in a weird way>

Ah-thankyouverymuuuuuch!



At any rate, Tenderiser, I would imagine if they continued sock-puppeting, the mods will smite them with their Ban-Hammer +3000.

 

Did the guy create characters, played away on threads with his inventions? I only remember 'her' once when we were talking about Hitler, she said 'Pro-choice,' 'Pro-Life,' something random, sent radar spinning, kept @Brian up all night arguing the toss about state orphanages, religion, gun ownership. Anyway, don't like the Hitler thread any longer, nobody 'liked' my Hitler story, tears ruined all of my last weekend...

'Those writers are all such bloody bitches...'

'Calm it baby, calm...'

'I, I didn't get any "likes."'

'Oh come on - our @Brian must have "liked" it?'

'No, he did not.' [snivel]

'How curious, let me think. Were you making paedophile jokes again, honey? Or perhaps darling, it was your deeply ironic, the wheelchair trans-lesbian monologue, black-face persona, the fantasy grandfather in his diaper wielding a truncheon and daughter on knee, your work in progress, darling?'

'Yis, it was her I utilised in this facility. I am so sorry, pack the suitcases, I hear helicopters...'

[That's just shit, eh? Never mind]

There have been so many 'retirees' - I'd like a most-wanted board in their honour, really. There was the guy who was just an...just an idiot, he was fun but not fun, a crazy avatar, just said nonsense shit all day long. IS THAT SUCH A CRIME! But then there was also the guy who said:

'I don't know about the rest of these jerk-offs, eh, but you are a swell guy, Maddy.'

I liked him. He was banned after advocating terroristic warfare upon Canada. There was popular outrage, up-rising in defence of the Maple Flag; this site - actually 65% Canadian apparently, just some quirk, strange.


'

 

All right, then. I think the eulogy has run its course. I have no problem answering questions as to why a member who isn't a spam-bot gets banned. As stated in the past, though threads like these are verboten in most web forums, such will not be the case here. The People have a right to ask for an accounting.

As stated by @Steerpike, the forum rules are pedantically clear on the topic of sock-puppetting. This is a behavior that is denounced across the internet, a behavior that has the sole purpose of undermining the function of the venue; thus, our tolerance of this behavior is zero. We do not mince words.