banned

[SoylentGreen]

I noticed in the new suspension thresholds you can either be suspended or permanently banned.
i also see that zharvic is listed as banned. Is that a permanent ban ?

If so is it possible to petition for his return? I know he can be some what confrontational in his approach, but he is not a troll.
I also realise that letting him back he probably wont change his ways. But unlike trolls who just post to be annoying and i have no problem with them being banned. Zharvic does argue with logic if not passion.

IMO it would be a loss not to allow him back.

[Hurt]

I think he's proven far too immature for civil debate.

[SteveMcKay]

I also realise that letting him back he probably wont change his ways.

So what you are saying is that he should be allowed to flaunt the rules with no consequences? Why have rules then? Or do you propose that only the rest of us operate under the forum rules but he be allowed to be a free agent?

Can you imagine how bad he would be after that little "never mind... you are above the rules, please come back" reverse?

[Matt W]

Zhravic was warned repeatedly about his insults and style, and never tried to change, and indeed was proud of his growing list of infractions. He's not coming back. Deal with it.

[Diogenes]

But unlike trolls who just post to be annoying and i have no problem with them being banned. Zharvic does argue with logic if not passion.

Well...I would argue that even though he is not a troll per say, he does post intentionally to be annoying...I would also argue the statement he uses logic...passion yes...logic rarely.

But he's not the only one who starts topics with ( seemingly ) the only intention being to provoke other members...not spur discussion or debate...but solely to just provoke.

Quite frankly...it makes the site look bad when visitors come here looking for quality discussions and see threads that are nothing more than put-downs disguised as honest debate...all that does is attract more trolls and bottom-feeding debaters...and the quality debaters move on to the next site passing this one by.

It does not in any way serve or benefit this site to have threads designed to attack or denigrate others.

Getting rid of Zhravic was a necessity...and as far as I'm concerned there's 3 or 4 more that should follow him out the door.

[Jack]

But provocation isn't a rule violation. Insulting a group of people anonymously isn't a rule violation. Insulting other members and failing to debate civilly are.

Infractions and bans are only handed out for repeated rule violations (except in the case of spammers). People earn their infractions and bans. The vast majority of our regular members have minor or no infractions and have shown debating within the rules is not impossible or restrictive.

[Diogenes]

But provocation isn't a rule violation. Insulting a group of people anonymously isn't a rule violation. Insulting other members and failing to debate civilly are.

Whether it is rule violation or not...the fact remains that ' serious debaters ' who purposefully or accidentally come by this site who see ' bait ' threads aren't likely to join...they will pass on by...

whereas trolls and baiters will freely join...

as I said:


It does not in any way serve or benefit this site to have threads designed to attack or denigrate others.

Personally I would be less concerned with the content of a page that is deep in a thread than what appears upon a first look...both are important...yes...but it's the thread and the first few posts that either make someone join or make them move on.

Guess it's a choice between attracting intelligent debaters or people who just like to argue.

[SoylentGreen]

So what you are saying is that he should be allowed to flaunt the rules with no consequences? Why have rules then? Or do you propose that only the rest of us operate under the forum rules but he be allowed to be a free agent?

Can you imagine how bad he would be after that little "never mind... you are above the rules, please come back" reverse?

No, i am just saying that allowances can be made. Rules can be flexible.
I know zhav is not on everyone's xmas list but IMO he is not a troll.

Matt W
He's not coming back. Deal with it.

I am dealing with it by enquiring , Note, not demanding, that he ban might be lifted. if you don't like your authority as a mod being questioned , well tough luck, get over yourself.

Well...I would argue that even though he is not a troll per say, he does post intentionally to be annoying...I would also argue the statement he uses logic...passion yes...logic rarely

I disagree, you may not agree with his logic but he does use it. And yes unfortunately also a lot of passion.

Diogenes
Guess it's a choice between attracting intelligent debaters or people who just like to argue

But this isn't a professional debaters site. We get many who can not tell the difference between debate , just arguing and preaching.
Should we only allow those who have the ability to debate enter into debate.
I know i am going to have a hard time convincing those that zharv has annoyed. I am basing this on the fact that personally i like him and his style doesn't annoy me.

[Jack]

I know i am going to have a hard time convincing those that zharv has annoyed. I am basing this on the fact that personally i like him and his style doesn't annoy me.

Please note I really don't like to discuss other member's infractions with anyone besides that member. Having said that, I will say this once that members who contribute and participate are given chances to correct their posting behavior. Warnings are given and even advice on how to avoid getting infractions. When those warnings are ignored and when the advice is dismissed as contemptible, then we have no choice but to continue to issue infractions until the member earns their banned status.

There's no need, no matter how contentious the debate, to insult those opposed to your opinions. Incivility isn't necessary and it's a rule violation. No matter what your opinions, you should be able to defend them and debate without the need to insult other members. Focusing on the opinion expressed and ignoring who expressed it is a good way to avoid making debates personal.

[Nono]

Deal with it.

This is a gratuitously bossy addendum to "he's not coming back".
I like Green's retort.

[Matt W]

True, it was unnecessary. But, given the amount of grief Z caused us, I see absolutely no reason to let him return, He was one of the few who even got suspended by Sean, which took some doing. As far as I'm concerned, we are better off without him.

[Disinformant]

don't you think you guys are kind of asking for it: a political forum where you guys spend literally hours nit-picking ever post for censorship? What about commonsense, bring him back.