We are all devastated.

:cry:

Banned Zenny for refusing moderation by repeatedly posting off-topic posts in the religion thread — Baden

Gonna ban me too?

No, I'm busy taking a crap. Get someone else to do it. :up:

No, I'm busy taking a crap. — Baden

I see, you're gonna go de-platform?

Sorry, can't hear you over flushing noises. Try again tomorrow.

Today I started a thread in the Lounge forum, and now I realize it ought to have been inserted here.

Here's the body of my original post for that thread in its entirety. I offer it for consideration to the executive body of the forum... that is, for the moderators to decide if this proposal should be used or not, in the way I wrote it or in some other forms with parameters changed.

-----------------------------------

There is no hard-and-fast rules for ousting members. Some guidelines are presented.

I suggest that a number be established within a time frame. The number be X, and the time frame, a period Y.

In this scheme, if any user can be shown clearly without a shadow of doubt that the user uttered greater than X number of logical fallacies within a time period of Y, then the moderators can be asked by users to exclude the offender from membership. Temporarily at first offence, for a longer period temporarily for the second offence, then permanently at the third offence.

I suggest, X to be 10, and Y to be a week (seven days duration). There would be a time period Z, the passing of which past the last day of Y would declare amnesty for the offender. That is, if no one brings a complaint against the offender by the end of Z, then a statute of limitations will apply after Z period, which could be a month (Z=30 days).

I really wish this to be made effective. It is a philosophy forum. Here the only "judge" should be reason and lack of ill or faulty reason. If someone keeps using faulty reasons, by way of using fallacies and other errors in arguments, then it must be punished, for they insult the judge itself.

how on earth did you post in here when it's closed?

I simply typed into the box that is ready to take the next post. The same way you did. I used no tricks or trickery. I saw the box, and I typed into it. Not rocket science.

Maybe someone switched the "closed" toggle to off? I don't know how this site is programmed. I am just a philosopher.

Hi, this thread should only be for discussion of recent bans. Looks like we forgot to lock the thread! Do you mind either creating a new thread for this, or preferably, posting to this for discussion:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/30/feature-requests

@Anand-Haqq was banned for poor post quality. And because there was some confusion around this - this user was banner for how, and not what they wrote.

Good call.

poor post quality — StreetlightX

Jeez who'd be left if you uniformly enforced that?

We should probably have caught him earlier if anything.

Incidentally he returned as @Bhagwan-Awe, with the same insufferable posting style, but not for very long.

An odd one. Glad he's gone.

I am sure that you had your reasons for banning him, but he had a certain unique style. It may just be that his writings fit somewhere else rather than in the context of a philosophy forum. He used to write comments on my threads, and I did write some replies, but it was hard at times, because he did not use much philosophy argument. I think that he is more of a poet really.

Anand is a breathe of fresh air. An excellent poster.
I didn't agree with everything he wrote. And his style was a little too samey. But the man had some tremendous original insights. Didn't just quote or cut and paste,or appeal to authority, or use abstract logic...
Insufferable posting style? Wow! The irony!
Most philosophers write like shit. Ditto many posters here.
This thread is like orwells two minutes of hate!!!

I do agree with you that many philosophers write badly. Perhaps it is about going too far in the direction of logos. I do think that there is a danger that if a new Nietzsche or Kafka appeared in our midst they might be outlawed for being so different.

@Jack Cummins That is an excellent point Jack.
The best philosophers have a poetic style and are mavericks and unapologetic.
Anand is that!

I just hope that he is able to see this online and not give up. I think that it would be possible for someone to feel so demoralised for banning, but this probably comes down to a person's sense of self esteem. When someone is excluded or banned from some sphere it is easy to feel a 'failure', but hopefully this will not be the path for Anand. I am sure that failure and success transcend being able to post on this site and, I will try to remember this if I ever get banned.

I don't usually come by such stereotypical "guru talk" anymore though I enjoyed listening to it to kill time before in my life, so his posts were entertaining for me to read, even if they were extremely low effort cliches. Some days vague eastern philosophy cliche mache is exactly what I want to read. I'll miss those posts.

@Jack Cummins He struck me as a solid confident guy.
The banning won't hurt him.
One of the purposes of me writing this is so he can read and know he has supporters and people who appreciate his work.
Never feel a failure because small minded bigots ban people.
You are OK. Your style is not provocative or super poetic.
Success is determined by attitude not "bannings" or opposition.
Life is so much bigger than a forum!

It is just that it does appear to me that this is so unusual for a person to be banned on the basis of how they wrote, or style.

@Jack Cummins The "mods" will claim his posts were of "low quality" according to their "logic"...
Low quality meaning they don't like confident yet true assertions or a post which doesn't reference academia or a clichéd template of dialectic reasoning. Just elitism really.
It's ironic because nietzsche would have been banned.
And plato,kant,aristotle,hegel and many many others would have been banned by the woke crowd because of racism,misogyny,being right wing ,etc,etc.

The "mods" will claim his posts were of "low quality" according to their "logic"...
Low quality meaning they don't like confident yet true assertions or a post which doesn't reference academia or a clichéd template of dialectic reasoning. Just elitism really. — Mystic

He was banned because he didn't use proper punctuation and grammar. This style of writing just isn't acceptable here:

. If you're watchful ... you'll see that ... the majority of people's Life ... is summed up ... like this: Born, eat, drink, sleep, facing the angry boss ... or ... at least ... be competitive and greedy and a miser to others ... return to home and facing the angry wife ... hang out with friends ... so they can forget for a bit about their misery ... eat, drink, sleep, facing ....................... Ad infinitum ... and ... finally ... the physical Death ...

@Michael I read many of his posts. I could understand them clearly. His style was just different.
Many posters on here are vague and full of jargon. Very unclear.
You do realise Shakespeare and nietzsche really fucked a lot with punctuation and style!?

There's plenty of writing that's good, but doesn't belong here. And some that is poor, but belongs. Philosophy is an actual topic and a tradition, in which we participate. If you want to play gurus, there is a whole web-net of places to go, just not here so much.

You do realise Shakespeare and nietzsche really fucked a lot — Mystic

They don't tell you this!

@unenlightened Yep! Marcus aurelias,seneca and nietzsche are not welcome here with their guru mentality.
Nor plato...