Reasons for Bannings

I think we should have a thread outlying the reasons why each person was banned.

This thread would help new members gain a better understanding of what this forum is about.

What do the rest of ya'll think?

I don't. I know another forum that does that and it looks really pathetic.

Metal Gear wrote:I don't. I know another forum that does that and it looks really pathetic.

Just throwing it out there...

What other forum, can you show a link?

I despise them but I will link you in private.

Romanticist wrote:I think we should have a thread outlying the reasons why each person was banned.

This thread would help new members gain a better understanding of what this forum is about.

What do the rest of ya'll think?

Why would we want that? The FAQ makes it quite plain what is and what isnt acceptable. Now if someone insists on posting something that is deemed reactionary or cosmopolitan. They will be restricted, and if they continue to flout the forums rules they will get banned, simple.

So if you don't want to get banned, stay within the guidelines in the FAQ.

http://www.socialistphalanx.com/t184-faq

Banning, restrictions, ok. What about closing threads? I was in a discussion with a moderator and he wrote a reponse to my message and locked the thread so I can't respond. Where is that in the forum rules?

Leveller wrote:Banning, restrictions, ok. What about closing threads? I was in a discussion with a moderator and he wrote a reponse to my message and locked the thread so I can't respond. Where is that in the forum rules?

It was silly of you to bring this up here. The reason I closed the thread was specified quite clearly: it strayed far from its original intention, and we were arguing in circles. Celtiberian expressed that he also desired to close it.

It is not as though you have anything original to respond with, so let us agree to disagree. The thread will remain closed unless Celt cares to reopen it.

Leveller, if you have any comparable concerns in the future, please contact a forum moderator directly. I assure you that the issue will be handled promptly.

It was completely unnecessary to make such a trivial concern public.

It is not as though you have anything original to respond with

And you had? Why wasn't it closed without your answer, instead you answered and then the thread was closed, disallowing me to post my reply. I must "agree to disagree" and also not to voice my disagreement; I don't see why would your opinion matter more then mine, because you're in a position of authority on the forum?

Leveller wrote:

It is not as though you have anything original to respond with

And you had? Why wasn't it closed without your answer, instead you answered and then the thread was closed, disallowing me to post my reply. I must "agree to disagree" and also not to voice my disagreement; I don't see why would your opinion matter more then mine, because you're in a position of authority on the forum?

I think we already have a thread about the subject. (See the markets thread.)

That and personally I believe our efforts would be better spent on other subjects since it is impossible to get two sides with different fundamental priorities to agree with one another.

You're a good user, Leveller. And, the last thing I want is for you to end up grinding up all of your efforts on a debate that is nearly impossible to win for both sides.

Edit: Also, feel free to extend the discussion to the markets thread if you want to. But still, don't let it hog up all of your zeal.

Leveller wrote:

It is not as though you have anything original to respond with

And you had?

Yes, I had, but as you are either unwilling or incapable of seriously addressing what was presented to you (as but one example, you completely dismissed the theory of exploitation Celtiberian and I defined, ignoring its logic and failing to admit to the negative implications of your crude theories while merely restating their correctness), have allowed the thread to digress over fundamental disagreements, and are not intellectually honest enough to bow out gracefully. You also view Nestor Makhno, the SRs, the Mensheviks, and whatever irrelevant bands of anarchists existed at the time as having been a more revolutionary force than the Bolsheviks, primarily due to the ahistorical, idealistic, and harmful theories to which you subscribe, whereas I am diametrically opposed, so we are at an impasse.

Why wasn't it closed without your answer, instead you answered and then the thread was closed, disallowing me to post my reply.

Because I wanted the opportunity to reply to you and Celt before closing it.

I must "agree to disagree" and also not to voice my disagreement; I don't see why would your opinion matter more then mine, because you're in a position of authority on the forum?

My own heart, and doubtlessly that of everybody else, weeps at the foul injustice done to you, sir. Why must I be so cruel?

If you had, then I had, too. You give a bad example, being that you and Celtiberian have done precisely that of which you accuse me of- you have completely dismissed the theory of exploitation that I have explained, ignoring it's logic, failing to admit to the negative implications of your crude theories while merely restating their correctness.

You also view Nestor Makhno, the SRs, the Mensheviks, and whatever irrelevant bands of anarchists existed at the time as having been a more revolutionary force than the Bolsheviks,

No, I view Anarchists and Esers as revolutionary, being that they were genuine socialists, as opposed to the Bolsheviks, who were not "less revolutionary" but plain reactionary state-capitalits and anti-socialists. You considering them not being so just shows your disregard of history and socialism as a movement of emancipation of the working people.

Why must I be so cruel?

Being sacrastic doesn't undo nor diminishes the abuse of your position that you have committed.

Leveller wrote:If you had, then I had, too. You give a bad example, being that you and Celtiberian have done precisely that of which you accuse me of- you have completely dismissed the theory of exploitation that I have explained, ignoring it's logic, failing to admit to the negative implications of your crude theories while merely restating their correctness.

Leveller, here's the problem. Both Celtiberian and Rev Scare thoroughly refuted your points. The thread, however, continued to go in circles because you continue to believe you are right. You wouldn't be satisfied until your opponents gave up and/or conceded. As for 'repeating crude theories', you're going to always judge them as such as long as you don't agree with them, obviously.

As the RSF takes this forum seriously, we must thoroughly refute guests and, when it comes to the point of being redundant, close the thread. Does it make any sense to let the guest, whose views don't harmonize with our own, post last in the thread, and let forum guests view it that way? That's not how you run a forum, comrade.

The problem is I thoroughly refuted their points, but they continued to belive they are right and to go in circles.

No, actually, there is nothing obvious about that comment of yours. If someone proves that his theory is correct and mine is wrong I will abandon mine and accept his, in fact, that is precisely how I came to accept the opinions I now hold.

Leveller wrote:The problem is I thoroughly refuted their points,

Perhaps in your opinion. I happen to disagree, as do many others on this board. The positions you assume on a number of pertinent issues are clearly contradictory.

If someone proves that his theory is correct and mine is wrong I will abandon mine and accept his, in fact, that is precisely how I came to accept the opinions I now hold.

Well, if your current opinions are truly based upon your past efforts to evaluate the soundness of particular arguments, I would submit that it would be pointless to allow the debate to continue.

In any case, I believe that we have given you sufficient latitude to present your arguments to our members and guests. At this point, I would recommend that you move on to another discussion and desist in your efforts to revive that thread.

Admin wrote: I  happen to disagree, as do many others on this board.

Appeal to authority and appeal to majority are fallacies, therefore, it's irrelevant to whether or not I am correct.

The positions you assume on a number of pertinent issues are clearly contradictory.

They are nothing of the sort. I would be happy to prove you wrong on a thread opened specifically about this.

Leveller wrote:
Appeal to authority and appeal to majority are fallacies, therefore, it's irrelevant to whether or not I am correct.

They are nothing of the sort. I would be happy to prove you wrong on a thread opened specifically about this.

Admin wrote:In any case, I believe that we have given you sufficient latitude to present your arguments to our members and guests. At this point, I would recommend that you move on to another discussion and desist in your efforts to revive that thread.

It's not healthy to be so fixated on such trivial things, Leveller.

Yes, because having a correct view of what are class, exploitation and socialism is a trivial thing.