Jedi Master Spock wrote:Mr. Oragahn wrote:Not to say, btw, that the only transsexual person to come here as we knew of, Athene, hardly engaged in any formal VS debate.
I believe you're getting things mixed up.
Serafina didn't engage in much VS debate.
That is actually pretty much what I said. The sentence you quoted, in full context, is clearly refering to any VS debate Serafina/Athene would have been part of in parallel to the nature of Serafina's transsexual nature being known, and supposedly used as a point of pressure to harass and win dishonestly.
So yes, Thanatos' posts are irrelevant. Back then, Thanatos was just some guy on internet calling himself Thanatos here and there. He's indeed one of the few who even tried to come here. And incapable of winning, he attempted to trash the place before leaving and, iirc, claiming on SDN that he had the upper hand (usually according to the age old argument that since SFJN is a fringe forum full of cretins and weirdos, whatever happens at SFJN is just not relevant anyway and proves nothing at all).
The context is important because of the false accusations Athene made on the quite freshly created SV boards back then.
He/She mixed things up, conflating strictly VS debates with other debates (shitfests in truth) and creating that kind of realm where he/she was supposedly taking some kind of anti-LGBT fire in
VS debates.
As far as we know and can show, this is totally false. It's even more absurd considering how we cherished proper debate here because of what many of us had taken elsewhere for defending facts and sound logic against bias and mod abuse.
Besides, it would be rather hypocritical to use minor flaming as an excuse for not pursuing any discussion here any longer considering the kind of abuse one would easily get at SD or SB, times a thousand.
Indeed, and that was quite telling because the rules here were quite generous to begin with. We know that, we've seen said rules being pushed to their limits years ago, even before Serafina came.
I considered this a pity, because she and I had a lot of fun in a
highly formalized debate format. A pity about the temper, because it's really not often that someone will stick it through to the end of one of those - few people ever challenged me to a structured debate, and fewer still followed through.
But that is the problem, since we actually made the effort of having structured and documented arguments, the tricks could be used on other boards didn't work anymore here. The bar was probably quite high.
Since the thread I'm mentionned in doesn't feature a link, I can't even retrieve the thread where I lost my temper. That's the way I am anyway, mods know it here, I always have a tendency to speak my mind a bit too harshly, up to get getting a warning. When things are generally civil like they used to be on this board, it's OK. But when a troll and troublemaker enters the party, it takes a lot of restraint for things not to go south quickly.
As I said
here:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:In that case where do the board rules stand on harrassment as he is obviously pushing for this ban to score a victory that he failed to gain in the thread, he is essentially using the letter of the law to ignore the spirit of the law.
A temporary ban is supposedly a punishment like a driving ban but for one driver who drives sometimes multiple times every day it is a punishment, but for another who drove only once (the time of the incident) it means nothing, in fact due to the circumstances it is at least a double reward as it is punishing a person they dislike and they know that person is aware they would gain satisfaction from it.
If you can come up with a punishment that has a equal negative effect on both of us i would not bother arguing, but as it stands i would be being punished twice, once by the ban and once by knowing that he is gaining satisfaction from it. While he would not give a damn about the ban but enjoy the fact that i was inconvienienced and enjoy the fact i know he caused it.
Double punishment VS double pleasure that is not the reality of SFJ justice.
Stopping arguing with Serafina and solely showing the insults contained in her posts would have probably been far more efficient in retrospect.
But don't do that over more than one post. I was getting swallowed into such a maddening spiral of spending most of time chasing the strawmen and showing the insults, although not in a detailed manner, and it was really tiresome.
At some point, when I realized that in order to merely explain the strawmen upon strawmen and the fact that she was arguing over misinterpretations, a single section of a post dedicated to one single quote was growing out of reasonable proportions, I knew it wasn't worth it.
I'm a human being after all, I don't enjoy being treated like shit: and it's quite clear that I took a lot in that thread. I also probably have been quoted or replied to in more than half a dozen obscure private boards I don't even know about.
So I walked out of that retarded nonsense.
It is right that proving an act of trolling is hard, but when you get the feeling that you're dealing with it, I suppose the best thing to do is play by the rules and show what's wrong, and refuse the debate, even if that comes after a couple of insults from both sides. If the troll, or person perceived as a troll, then claims a victory by using your refusal to partake in his games, you report the person.
That's why I suggested a lock of the thread, because it was clear that you were not cold blooded enough to not getting dragged into this silly dance, and the dishonesty and lies might have just been plain enraging.
It wasn't worth it anymore.
Seriously, SFJN never had it that hard.
That was probably my limit at being civil and I think, iirc, that the "debate" involving went on. This person doesn't deserve any respect IMHO.
Looking back on that, it's rather funny to call this place a "hugbox," because in spite of the fact that we do have rules that talk about being polite, it's actually pretty hard to earn more than a short-term temporary ban here, and even one-day bans have been pretty rare. SDN and SB both banned people quite routinely on the basis of someone being stubbornly on the wrong side of an argument as far as insiders were concerned. (I haven't looked around enough on SV to know if that's the case there or not.)
That's the point. Arbitrary, half-hidden in-house rules enforced under the mood of mod A or B were tactics that weren't going to work here.
That is probably why the vast majority of the "debaters" didn't dare registering here. Because, frankly, creating an account is just damn dead easy. But what's easier is to stay on the otherside and make all sorts of excuses to be lazy and coward.