Petition to perma-ban Harbal

[Magnus Anderson]

For obvious reasons.

It's actually very sad that I have to ask for this. He should have been perma-banned long time ago.

[Jakob]

I disagree. He is so directly and unilaterally trollish that he forms no danger of anyone taking him seriously. See him as a homeopathic troll.

[A Shieldmaiden]

It's actually very sad that I have to ask for this. He should have been perma-banned long time ago.

He has the finest sense of humour and expresses himself beautifully.

Rather you went than he.

Has that Nazi Forum you visit given YOU the arse.

[Jakob]

It's actually very sad that I have to ask for this. He should have been perma-banned long time ago.

He has the finest sense of humour and expresses himself beautifully.

Voila. No surprises here.

Please ban this other person as well, mods - verify her trolling in any of my threads.

She has never made a serious OP, only makes sideline posts, has a grudge and cant help shitting on things that were made with love.

Send her home to the daddy she never loved.
You can't cure everyone.

[Carleas]

How is this problem not solved by adding Harbal and whoever else you don't want to hear from to your 'foes' list?

[Magnus Anderson]

I vote for eliminating that feature -- the foe list -- altogether, because it has never really been a proper solution. It just ruins the continuity of discussions.

What's your excuse for preserving trolls on a philosophy forum? What kind of forum atmosphere do you want to create? Do you want people who will carefully listen to each other or do you want people who will create drama? Is this a reality TV of some sort? If the latter, then fine, but then, good people of the world will leave, and rightfully so.

Out of all the philosophy forums on the web, this is probably the one with the least strict moderation rules . . . not a good thing. The only reason I am here is because of Historyboy. He introduced me to this forum. Otherwise, I'd never have joined this place.

[Magnus Anderson]

I disagree. He is so directly and unilaterally trollish that he forms no danger of anyone taking him seriously. See him as a homeopathic troll.

This line of thinking depresses me. It depresses me because it betrays a need to prove to others that you are not weak, but strong, which is to say, that you're capable of enduring violence. It's unnecessary. It's what bullies want you to do so that they can continue bullying you.

We have a power to eliminate bullies. It's not like we do not have it. We do have it. It's just one click way. We shall not allow bullies to paralyze us psychologically into not being able to use it. Moreover, we have a very clear reason to ban this particular bully. It's not like our judgment is blurred by our emotions. It's pretty clear that Harbal is a troll. So we should ban him.

And being a need (to prove that you're strong), rather than will (which is outward looking), it's selfish, which manifests itself when you take it for granted that everyone will be able to endure violence. Why are you so sure of that?

[Ecmandu]

I've been on the net for over 20 years...

It never even occurred to me to ignore someone...

I think you have an issue..

[Carleas]

What's your excuse for preserving trolls on a philosophy forum?

I reject the premise of the question. What you're really asking is, "What's your excuse for preserving [people Magnus Anderson deems trolls] on a philosophy forum?" And the answer is that what ruffles Magnus Anderson's feathers isn't what ruffles everyone's feathers; trolls-for-you is not the same thing as trolls simpliciter.

So foe people you don't like and don't deal with them, problem solved.

[Ecmandu]

Back when all there was, was usenet and irc, they still exist btw!! It was much crazier !!

If you can't handle the insanity, I don't know what to say to you.

[Ecmandu]

Back when all there was, was usenet and irc, they still exist btw!! It was much crazier !!

If you can't handle the insanity, I don't know what to say to you.

I'm not saying Harbal is insane btw..,

Just that you may have a low threshold

[Harbal]

I'm not saying Harbal is insane btw..,

I'm so glad about that, I'm not too keen on being known as the mad troll.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I'm not saying Harbal is insane btw..,

I'm so glad about that, I'm not too keen on being known as the mad troll.

There's nothing terrible about being a forum's honorary troll. Wear it like a badge of honor and with pride Harbal.

[Ecmandu]

I'm not saying Harbal is insane btw..,

I'm so glad about that, I'm not too keen on being known as the mad troll.

There's nothing terrible about being a forum's honorary troll. Wear it like a badge of honor and with pride Harbal.

Well... To give Harbal a little advice...

Don't just say "you're wrong" when an argument hasn't even been given yet which counters the op, and then say nothing else !!

Say, "you're wrong because..." And list a reason that us not just ad hom !

[Harbal]

See him as a homeopathic troll.

How does that work? Presumably you get your post disrupted and then offered treatment for your minor ailments.

[Harbal]

Well... To give Harbal a little advice...

Don't just say "you're wrong" when an argument hasn't even been given yet which counters the op, and then say nothing else !!

Say, "you're wrong because..." And list a reason that us not just ad hom !

Yes, you are perfectly right. All I would say in my defence is that I try to only do it when the post in question is so absurd that the reasons for criticising it are self evident.

[Ecmandu]

Well... To give Harbal a little advice...

Don't just say "you're wrong" when an argument hasn't even been given yet which counters the op, and then say nothing else !!

Say, "you're wrong because..." And list a reason that us not just ad hom !

Yes, you are perfectly right. All I would say in my defence is that I try to only do it when the post in question is so absurd that the reasons for criticising it are self evident.

Yeah... So you should say "its self evident you are wrong because..."

You have to dig in with the "crazies", otherwise they aren't people, and neither are you!

[Magnus Anderson]

What's your excuse for preserving trolls on a philosophy forum?

I reject the premise of the question. What you're really asking is, "What's your excuse for preserving [people Magnus Anderson deems trolls] on a philosophy forum?" And the answer is that what ruffles Magnus Anderson's feathers isn't what ruffles everyone's feathers; trolls-for-you is not the same thing as trolls simpliciter.

So foe people you don't like and don't deal with them, problem solved.

What you and other people don't understand, being selfish people that you are, who can't see outside of the confines of egoism, is that this isn't a personal problem. It cannot be solved with a personal solution such as foe-ing people (which is, moreover, not even good at that because it ruins the integrity of discussions.)

Harbal is indeed a troll and that is an objective truth, not a matter of perception the way you and other subjectivists think.

[Magnus Anderson]

I understand very well that it is not in some people's natures to be objective. And nature being fixed, something that cannot be transcended, there is nothing I can do about that, except to limit their behavior, to make it appear as if it belongs to another nature, which I do not want to do, and definitively not at the present time.

With that in mind, I will be leaving this topic, because as it reveals itself to me, it is futile. It is futile to ask so much as to ban someone who is apparently a troll because some people are by their very nature egoists who will be more than willing to preserve/protect such trolls.

What I want to say before I leave is the following, and this will be directed to people who need to hear this, not to Carleas and the rest who will dismiss it.

Carleas is apparently a people pleaser. He's your regular mass hedonist who takes people's wishes for granted and then works to make sure that everyone is pleased, rather then looking objectively at reality, beneath the surface of these wishes. This is his preferred mode of government because he himself is an egoist who wants to be pleased.

[Ecmandu]

Carleas likes giving to others so he can receive joy. *gasp*

You know... Magnus, after reading your threads, I still believe I exist and I still respond to my name!!

Damned egotists !! Always being logically consistent!!

Unlike myself!!!

Just like me for being Magnus you assholes!!!

Otherwise you're a non contradictory egoist!!!

[MagsJ]

Harbal is not against being moderated one bit, but when I started moderating you the abuse was atrocious... you have only calmed down these last few months, but yet you are still here.

[Harbal]

Carleas is apparently a people pleaser.

He doesn't seem to be making much headway with you.

[Moreno]

Well... To give Harbal a little advice...

Don't just say "you're wrong" when an argument hasn't even been given yet which counters the op, and then say nothing else !!

Say, "you're wrong because..." And list a reason that us not just ad hom !

Yes, you are perfectly right. All I would say in my defence is that I try to only do it when the post in question is so absurd that the reasons for criticising it are self evident.

That's no defense. It will never be self-evident to the person making that post, so as a communicative act you are simply derailing. People get to be wrong. They get to present ideas that are wrong and get criticism that is useful. And what is self-evident to you may of course also be wrong. To just come in and insult or write 'you're wrong' puts you outside potential criticism. Whereas if you take the time to demonstrate your criticism, suddenly you are now open to criticism. You may give yourself a pass because you have decided something needs no criticism, it is so obviously wrong, but what you are actually doing is avoiding showing your own process of thinking, and that keeps you safe from criticism where it might actually have some bite. I can't know if that's why you avoid justifying your positions, but it certainly seems like a possiblility.

[Carleas]

I'm locking this topic, it's effectively an ad hominem against Harbal. I should have done so immediately, and I apologize for the lapse.