Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
^ That explains a lot. I only really knew him from the threads he made here. I thought he had some defensible opinions but it was a pity he chose to be so difficult about them.
Especially given these opinions were mainly about cartoons, as opposed to the existence of God or the need for world peace.
"As for talking about people negatively behind their backs, I agree that people should be told why certain users were banned. Still, I feel bad about going on and on about someone's negative traits when I know that I have many negative traits of my own. I guess it is the implicit idea that the people remaining on IJBM II or some other site are better than those who were banned that bugs me. I might be looking at things a bit too idealistically though considering some of the rather objectionable things certain banned users have done."
There's a difference in the way we treat people who were permabanned out of one incident (Vorpy, GLORIOUSLeader, etc.) compared to people who were persistent pests. For the latter, we look on them with scorn because of their refusal to improve, usually by not being so damn narcissistic. This being the Internet, a lot of us have narcissism issues, but most of us at least know how to acknowledge that other people exist.
Even so, I cannot see much good that can result from complaining about people who have already been banned."
It's mostly a way of saying everything you wanted to say about the person while the person was still unbanned but couldn't because you'd instigate drama or get blamed for not being more tolerant or something.
He also said he feels all modern gamers are testosterone infused hicks that only like power fantasies, and that Nerd culture is oversaturated and glorified.
We do show something of a tendency towards conceitedness at times, although I'd argue that's symptomatic of the gap between "normal" and "nerd". That gap is quickly closing, however, given how the internet has made our nerdshit much more accessible towards those who otherwise mightn't be exposed to such materials. By that token, I doubt we could be called "glorified". The difference between now and 20 years ago is that nerd culture is mocked affectionately as a rule rather than derisively.
Those points you bring up are excellent examples of why Dantes has earned his own derision. He's lost objective perspective in favour of escaping into nostalgia, which seems like a surreptitious form of self-pity to me. While the following is merely guesswork, I think he's yet to have anyone outside the internet challenge his perspectives to a truly significant degree. Many of us have been through the process of having our perspectives and assumptions damaged to such a degree that necessitates character development, which makes Dantes' extreme perspectives seem all the more immature. For someone who's in his late 20s, he comes across more like an arrogant teenager than anything else, and it gives me the impression that he's below his years in life experience.
In short, sometimes life hurts you bad. It's up to each individual to perservere, change their ways or give up. Most of us, at some point, will change our ways to some extent and come to realise the virtues of doing so from time to time. It's just a part of becoming an adult, seemingly one that Dantes is yet to grasp.
>=/
There's a difference in the way we treat people who were permabanned out of one incident (Vorpy, GLORIOUSLeader, etc.) compared to people who were persistent pests. For the latter, we look on them with scorn because of their refusal to improve, usually by not being so narcissistic. This being the Internet, a lot of us have narcissism issues, but most of us at least know how to acknowledge that other people exist.
I think you are correct on both points. I may just have a skewed view here, but I feel like there is also a general opinion (on TV Tropes and probably IJBM II as well) that people who are banned for attacks on unpopular users or users who bother others tend to be looked upon with more respect than those who are banned for consistently not getting along with other users and for causing drama and such. I guess part of the idea is that the users considered unpopular or annoying deserved that treatment or something.
I am not a fan of that kind of double standard though maybe that type of thinking is less common and accepted than I think it is. I sincerely hope I am right about that last part since I am no fan of the whole "two wrongs make a right" logic.
It's mostly a way of saying everything you wanted to say about the person while the person was still unbanned but couldn't because you'd instigate drama or get blamed for not being more tolerant or something.
Out of curiosity, why do you think that kind of stuff should be said at all (if you do)?
I will concede that popularity does play a role in the general opinion of a banned or belligerent user. I vividly remember one time on Tvtropes where one user brutally attacked someone for having an opinion he considered wrong or idiotic, yet this was only attributed to a bad mood by other users.
"Out of curiosity, why do you think that kind of stuff should be said at all?"
Because I feel that if I don't like a person's behaviour, I'd like to be able to say it so that I can let the other person know that they should probably change it, especially if it's a recurring problem. Otherwise, if the person doesn't receive negative comments for their actions, they end up getting the message that it's okay to attention whore for sympathy, which encourages their annoying behaviour. Obviously I do not advocate cyberbullying, and there's a fine line between genuine angsting and attention whoring, but I feel being sincere is really important. Besides, masking it only leads to passive-aggressive animosity.
think in an effort to try and get me to "appeal his case" on TVTropes
and IJBM. He kept whining to me so I blocked him.
He did the same thing to me shortly before he got banned over here. He made a bunch of passive aggressive topics complaining about the advice I gave him, and threatened suicide when I wouldn't help him appeal his ban. I blocked him immediately after that.
I will concede that popularity does play a role in the general opinion of a banned or belligerent user. I vividly remember one time on Tvtropes where one user brutally attacked someone for having an opinion he considered wrong or idiotic, yet this was only attributed to a bad mood by other users.
Aye, that kind of thing does happen. I would say it is just as if not more annoying when people use a user's intelligence as an excuse for allowing him or her to break the rules (i.e. Q person is really smart and knowledgeable so it is okay if he/she personally attacks Y person who is "dumb"). It seems to me that if the person in question is intelligent, he or she has even less of an excuse for not following the rules since that person should be very capable of understanding and abiding by them.
Waltzy,
But the person doesn't hear what you have to say on their behaviour because it's said after they've been banned.
Exactly, which is why those kinds of justifications seem so problematic (at least to me). Before someone is banned, I agree that trying to give advice makes some sense. If that does not seem to be working and the person in question is breaking the rules, then I think going to a mod is a good idea.
However, once the person is banned, I think the issue should be mostly resolved. The user will no longer be able to bother you on the site and punishment has been given in recognition that what the user did was wrong. Questions about why someone was banned seem reasonable to me though given that it is not always clear why people were banned at first.
Yet, I think comments about how bad a person is/was are pretty unnecessary given that the ban itself already recognized that the user's actions were wrong. I just do not see any reason why people need to air all of a banned user's dirty laundry or talk about their personal hangups with that person. I might just have a personal aversion to hearing those complaints, but I would prefer that people keep that kind of stuff to PMs if they are resolute in their belief that it has some cathartic effect.
Oh hey, this thread.