The Banning of Dr. Tyko Glas: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Feedback » The Banning of Dr. Tyko Glas » The Banning of Dr. Tyko Glas

The Banning of Dr. Tyko Glas

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

The Banning of Dr. Tyko Glas

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1021

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 04/20/09 - 10:58 AM: Subject: The Banning of Dr. Tyko Glas	#1
It makes no difference, I know, but I regret to see the Doctor has been banned. I don't know the reason for the banning, and so may be without all pertinent facts. He (or she) could be sharp, fierce and sarcastic, but I always found his posts interesting, and enjoyed jousting with him in this forum. I think it is fair to say that others in this forum, myself included, have been less than polite in debate in several instances; there are even times when that can be appropriate. Frankly, if he has been banned because of his posts in the in some respects amazing thread regarding whether Hitler was evil, I can understand his outrage in that case. Threads can become heated when important issues are involved. This should be expected. Ave atque vale, Doctor.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5133

Posted 04/20/09 - 12:27 PM:	#2
Too interesting to be banned ... I wonder when (or if) that's ever a consideration? Sounds about as specious as "too big to fail", I know, but still I wonder if it applies here. Did DTG more often than not post things of dubious philosophical merit? Or was it just that s/he had insufferable table manners -- ? Another P-I-A (for the mods?), I guess, whom this P-I-A (for the trolls, fundies, et al) is likely to be missing before long ... Adieu, comrade.
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

ying
I ♥ Scepticism

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 20, 2004
Location: Lichtenvoorde, Netherlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1485

Posted 04/20/09 - 01:04 PM:	#3
I'm a moderator so can't ban people. I first have to run it past an admin to make it happen. This is what I posted: After my not so nice discussion with Dr. Tyko Glas, I decided to check his post history. Apparently, the dear doctor is very prone to ad hominem attacks/claims, since I'm not the only one he's been namecalling. On top of that, he cries "foul" whenever someone does it to him. Quitte the hypocrite. In the Fascist America in 10 easy steps thread to nosos: It's very typical for anglophiles to center their world-view on the U.K. and on the U.S. "Racial discrimination" is an arbitrary concept that has to be defined in order to be applied; the U.S. Constitution contained no such bias. Same thread, to enkidu: A very francophone answer... In the Anarcho-Primitivism thread to MacabreIncarnated: That sounds very sectarian... In the Parenting thread to lostallaround: You are doomed to be practicing and promoting Judeo-Christian values. ...and in the same post: All it demands from you is maturity. And in the Moral relativism thread he outlines his tactics quitte clearly: Simply put - I "rattled the cage" in order to see if you were "the real McCoy." When poking someone, or rather "superficially deciphering their philosophical identity," you learn to see how their reasoning is affected when identity comes into question. It may strike you as a bit manipulative, but it presents answers to a series of questions, for instance: "How knowledgeable is X?" or "Will a continuation of the dialogue be worthwhile; i.e.: will it give me 'food for thought'?" (After Libertine asked what the relevance of duscussing his username was) This is trolling under a thin veneer of intellectualism if you ask me. Edited by ying on 04/20/09 - 01:12 PM
*"I determined nothing."* -Sceptical expression

Michael T
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2008
Location: Plymouth, UK.

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 126

Posted 04/20/09 - 01:06 PM:	#4
The 'Hitler' post certainly did get understandably heated at times, and it's a shame if Dr Tyko Glas over-stepped the mark, assuming that’s the reason for his ban. I was wondering if posters are always banned permanently, or whether the ban can be for set periods of time depending on the severity of the offence or extenuating circumstances such as reactions to particularly emotive/obnoxious topics? Accepting, of course, that it’s up to the poster to maintain a certain level of civility. Either way, good luck and fairwell Dr Tyko Glas. Edited by Michael T on 04/20/09 - 02:25 PM. Reason: addition of a question mark

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

Posted 04/20/09 - 01:42 PM:	#5
Dr. Tyko Glas was not banned for his posts on the "Was Hitler Evil?" thread, though certainly he managed to bring wider attention to his faults through it. The moderators do an excellent job keeping inappropriate material off the threads despite overwhelming practical limitations. Keep in mind that those who ban can see the moderating history on a member, not just what's been left behind for public consumption. If you can't tell why someone has been banned, it means the moderators are doing their jobs. 180 Proof wrote: Too interesting to be banned ... I wonder when (or if) that's ever a consideration? You've raised this concern before, and I've let a few people roam a little longer than I might have in deference to their usefulness or interest value. But they eventually serve their purpose and need to be put down. If you're looking for a zoo, try Sciforums. 180 Proof wrote: Did DTG more often than not post things of dubious philosophical merit? Often enough. 180 Proof wrote: Or was it just that s/he had insufferable table manners -- ? Flaming and ad hominem attacks constitute not just poor etiquette, but poor philosophy as well.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12173

Posted 04/20/09 - 02:51 PM:	#6
ciceronianus wrote: I think it is fair to say that others in this forum, myself included, have been less than polite in debate in several instances; I've noticed many people have this strange notion that bans are based on a post or a particular thread, rather than a poster. If a post is a problem, we just delete it and would certainly not ban an otherwise good poster for it. Very few people have ever been banned for a particular post (off hand, all I can recall is spam and when dead-quasar posted graphic mutilated body photos circa 2004). People are banned for the entirety of their posting history considered together. So whether your worst posts have been worse than Tyko's worst posts is irrelevant. As noted in the shoutbox, Tyko has 27 deleted posts (and who knows how many edits). I'm not going to read them all to categorize their problems (since it's not my ban), but the number satisfies me that he had a long history. Edited by Paul on 04/20/09 - 03:00 PM

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6301

Posted 04/20/09 - 04:46 PM:	#7
Banning is always contentious. I thought the good Doctor's posts generally pretty weak, with little that one could get one's teeth into. All meringue and no lemon butter or crust. Not enough reason to ban, I would have thought. But none of us bungled and botched have all the details. I suppose if he were creating a great deal of work for the mods, we are better off without him. I wonder if fair warning was given, with an expectation of improvement. That would be a common courtesy I would expect from any exec on a forum. But in the end, it's Paul's forum, he can employ who he likes to run it, and they do what they do with his blessing. I've disagreed with quite a few things that happen around here, it has the appearance of being quite arbitrary, but somehow it does work; the forum is pretty cool. I don't like some of what goes on here, but the Forum works.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

Posted 04/20/09 - 05:31 PM:	#8
Banno wrote: Banning is always contentious. Visible bans are contentious. Of the 74 people I have banned as of this post, three have aroused complaint. Banning is an editorial decision. Spammers and illiterates are easy to discover and ban. Others may take time to root out. Banno wrote: I wonder if fair warning was given, with an expectation of improvement. That would be a common courtesy I would expect from any exec on a forum. As Paul said, deletions and edits -- especially when warning points are applied -- should be sufficient. But I also give warnings in the form of private messages whenever there is a reasonable expectation that a given member can change. Said messages detail how the member's posting style is coming into conflict with the posting guidelines and what might be done to reconcile the two. Typically, these warnings are taken to heart -- indeed, most of the people who have received them are still members today. Occasionally, they garner a litany of insults and ban for their author. Once it resulted in the "resignation" of someone who wanted no part in a forum that would "so thoroughly violate the freedom of speech my editing its member's posts." Banno wrote: I don't like some of what goes on here, but the Forum works. What can I say? No one likes seeing sausage made, but so many people still want to eat it.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6301

Posted 04/20/09 - 05:44 PM:	#9
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: What can I say? No one likes seeing sausage made, but so many people still want to eat it. Mmmmm sausages.... I must admit that I found the rigmarole around banning folk on the Wikipedia so much trouble that I gave up. To be able to ban without, in most cases, having to present a justification would be so much easier. Ah, the bliss of living in a benevolent dictatorship... Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 04/20/09 - 06:10 PM. Reason: you did that on purpose, didn't you? ;)
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

Posted 04/20/09 - 06:13 PM:	#10
Banno wrote: To be able to ban without, in most cases, having to present a justification would be so much easier. Ah, the bliss of living in a benevolent dictatorship... I have to give a justification for every ban I enact. I just don't usually have to defend them on the Feedback forum. But yes, our benevolent dictatorship does seem to be working out just fine, thanks.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.