Did Zenbane and Atmos73 deserve the ban hammer?

Zoomie said:

Not to throw gas on the fire here, but I have a significant post count on this board and yet I often chose to omit or delete a post because I knew Zen would respond first and I didn't feel like five pages of argument.

I had a disagreement with him early on and, after suffering a few flame wars with Sharpfish, V-Walker, and passiveVR, I decided I no longer wanted to spend my time on this board arguing with strangers.  I said earlier in this thread that Zen was a big asset to the board, but I also think he was death by a thousand cuts if left unchecked.  The sheer frequency and volume of his posts was amazing.  He took offense to that once, but I didn't mean it as an insult.

However, while no one post was ever offensive enough to demand a ban, taken as a whole his posts could absolutely drive people from the board.  If you got him riled up you would be subjected to constant bombardment of ad hominem and harrassment that skirted just within the rules.  I don't think he meant true malice, it's just how he argues.  He obviously enjoys the back and forth.  Mostly forth.  

Cybereality alone will decide whether these official Oculus forums benefit or suffer from the likes of Atmos and Zenbane.  We can opine all we like but ultimately this forum is not a democracy: It's a benevolent autocracy.
I find it interesting that so many people want Zen back, yet no one cried foul when Rikk the Gaijin or V-Walker were banned; He obviously resonated with quite a few members.

lukwtwz said:

Well said. I remember reading a post of yours in which you quoted Wikipedia a few weeks ago for something relating to optics, and Zenbane shot you right down, saying did you really have to go to the trouble of quoting Wikipedia. It was as if he resented you for chiming in and wanted to belittle you right then and there. Even when Zenbane wasn't escalating arguments to the point of getting his posts deleted, he was making countless personal digs like that and worse. I think he'll return fairly well habilitated. He's smart enough to know where he went wrong, but possibly still too impulsive to not overstep a few times.

OpticKing said:

lukwtwz said:

Zoomie said:

Not to throw gas on the fire here, but I have a significant post count on this board and yet I often chose to omit or delete a post because I knew Zen would respond first and I didn't feel like five pages of argument.

I had a disagreement with him early on and, after suffering a few flame wars with Sharpfish, V-Walker, and passiveVR, I decided I no longer wanted to spend my time on this board arguing with strangers.  I said earlier in this thread that Zen was a big asset to the board, but I also think he was death by a thousand cuts if left unchecked.  The sheer frequency and volume of his posts was amazing.  He took offense to that once, but I didn't mean it as an insult.

However, while no one post was ever offensive enough to demand a ban, taken as a whole his posts could absolutely drive people from the board.  If you got him riled up you would be subjected to constant bombardment of ad hominem and harrassment that skirted just within the rules.  I don't think he meant true malice, it's just how he argues.  He obviously enjoys the back and forth.  Mostly forth.  

Cybereality alone will decide whether these official Oculus forums benefit or suffer from the likes of Atmos and Zenbane.  We can opine all we like but ultimately this forum is not a democracy: It's a benevolent autocracy.
I find it interesting that so many people want Zen back, yet no one cried foul when Rikk the Gaijin or V-Walker were banned; He obviously resonated with quite a few members.

Well said. I remember reading a post of yours in which you quoted Wikipedia a few weeks ago for something relating to optics, and Zenbane shot you right down, saying did you really have to go to the trouble of quoting Wikipedia. It was as if he resented you for chiming in and wanted to belittle you right then and there. Even when Zenbane wasn't escalating arguments to the point of getting his posts deleted, he was making countless personal digs like that and worse. I think he'll return fairly well habilitated. He's smart enough to know where he went wrong, but possibly still too impulsive to not overstep a few times.

Then why in dear lord did you make me argue with you, the only reasoning behind wanting to keep him banned would be if you didn't think it would be a learning experience. Bit of a waste of time if we were on the same page.

Was is the key phrase you're both saying, meaning in the past, not as bad as he was before said warnings. His main problem here seems to be the frequency of which people like ronson and atmos posted. As he would retaliate in those instances which are as of late, a minority. I wonder if certain people (of which I've personally only really seen negative things from) had not come to the forum, he wouldn't have gotten so vehement in the first place.

lukwtwz said:

OpticKing said:

Row summary:

1) You addressed me directly without me ever referring to you, directly or indirectly, and made what's tantamount to a personal attack - that I suffer from 'social anxiety' and that my apprehension of Zenbane was entirely attributable to that and my general attitude toward forum participation, which is that it is essentially pointless, but that that pointlessless is easy to forget as is the pointlessness of playing games when playing games designed without pointless ball-breaking features or flaws (i.e. games and forums posts not designed to make you angry on purpose).

1) If you noted I said a small bit, which is easy for any person even those without the affliction to get. It was no attack against you, you taking it as such doesn't make it so. From your post history there is no want for participation on any big scale, you were using it as a casual place, to claim you didn't post for fear of traumatic attack on the ridiculous topic of misspelling astigmatism becoming warrant for an all out attack on you and you didn't have the will to post at the thought. Once again there was no need to fear voicing your opinion.

2) I addressed you directly, without attacking you, only to clarify my stance, saying that although Zenbane never attacked me, I was nevertheless a bit inhibited my his ubiquitous, aggressive posture and overly judgemental posts against others in these forums - including those who had some legitimate concerns that he unfairly tore apart while often inappropriately attributing those concerns to facets of their characters and life stations about which he knew nothing - such as their income and socioeconomic status.

2) I had not attacked you at all by saying it was a paranoid assumption, (meaning you were claiming to be worried about something that wouldn't have happened) I was not saying you're afflicted with paranoia mind you. Any person can make these type assumptions on a day to day basis, given differing scenarios. The fact of the matter is you're basing his current actions on those of his past. As I said this is all on the basis that this ban should be enough of a punishment and if cyber deems it worthy, it should have been a teaching lesson, that's what I've been arguing.

3) You attacked me, saying my psyche was much worse than you initially suspected, upgrading your baseless psychological assessment of 'social anxiety' diagnosis to 'paranoia' and saying that I was acting if is Zenbane was an evil predatorial "spider" or "Voldermort" instead of the affable fellow who only acts in self defense that you consider him to be.

3) See 2.

4) A bit exasperated and disappointed, I then said you were sounding like an inverted troll who gets a rise out of those who set out to get a rise out of others, and then reminded you that being 'evil' or 'spider' 'Voldemort' is not required in order to be considered inappropriate enough to ban in a forum like this. One merely has to make enough unprovoked personal attacks - or needlessly escalated provoked attacks - and receive enough fair warnings to qualify for such a ban according to forum rules.

4) You were actually attacking me as a person without knowing me as well, basing your grounds on semantics, or misinterpretations. (purposeful or not) - See 2.

5) You then said I was 'throwing out insults' like the wholly redeemable, witty troll you were defending, and that I, despite never attacking you until you had already attacked me twice, was looking for "drama of the highschool variety."

5) I said I was not looking for the drama of highschool variety, that I was wanting to give him a second chance as I think he still has much to positively contribute. I did not infer that you were looking for that type of drama, and had (still haven't) yet to attack you.

6) I then said you were looking for drama of the troll school variety, and that you had better step it down.

6)Yes, actually twisting my own claim of not being one, into an attack against me, while calling me a troll.

lukwtwz said:

I never argued in favor of keeping Zenbane banned. In fact, in my first post in this thread I said he should be given "another chance or two in the near future." That's partly why I took so much offense at your attempt to take me down; I was merely arguing for him being banned at the moment, and supporting that argument with an anecdote about how his tendency to attack the sort of opinion that I had considered posting had indirectly influenced my decision to not post in one particular instance. Moderators had already expressed the intention to unban him in the near future.

OpticKing said:

lukwtwz said:

OpticKing said:

Row summary:

1) You addressed me directly without me ever referring to you, directly or indirectly, and made what's tantamount to a personal attack - that I suffer from 'social anxiety' and that my apprehension of Zenbane was entirely attributable to that and my general attitude toward forum participation, which is that it is essentially pointless, but that that pointlessless is easy to forget as is the pointlessness of playing games when playing games designed without pointless ball-breaking features or flaws (i.e. games and forums posts not designed to make you angry on purpose).

1) If you noted I said a small bit, which is easy for any person even those without the affliction to get. It was no attack against you, you taking it as such doesn't make it so. From your post history there is no want for participation on any big scale, you were using it as a casual place, to claim you didn't post for fear of traumatic attack on the ridiculous topic of misspelling astigmatism becoming warrant for an all out attack on you and you didn't have the will to post at the thought. Once again there was no need to fear voicing your opinion.

2) I addressed you directly, without attacking you, only to clarify my stance, saying that although Zenbane never attacked me, I was nevertheless a bit inhibited my his ubiquitous, aggressive posture and overly judgemental posts against others in these forums - including those who had some legitimate concerns that he unfairly tore apart while often inappropriately attributing those concerns to facets of their characters and life stations about which he knew nothing - such as their income and socioeconomic status.

2) I had not attacked you at all by saying it was a paranoid assumption, (meaning you were claiming to be worried about something that wouldn't have happened) I was not saying you're afflicted with paranoia mind you. Any person can make these type assumptions on a day to day basis, given differing scenarios. The fact of the matter is you're basing his current actions on those of his past, has anyone seen him be horrid lately? As I said this is all on the basis that this ban should be enough of a punishment and if cyber deems it worthy, it should have been a teaching lesson, that's what I've been arguing.

3) You attacked me, saying my psyche was much worse than you initially suspected, upgrading your baseless psychological assessment of 'social anxiety' diagnosis to 'paranoia' and saying that I was acting if is Zenbane was an evil predatorial "spider" or "Voldermort" instead of the affable fellow who only acts in self defense that you consider him to be.

3) See 2.

4) A bit exasperated and disappointed, I then said you were sounding like an inverted troll who gets a rise out of those who set out to get a rise out of others, and then reminded you that being 'evil' or 'spider' 'Voldemort' is not required in order to be considered inappropriate enough to ban in a forum like this. One merely has to make enough unprovoked personal attacks - or needlessly escalated provoked attacks - and receive enough fair warnings to qualify for such a ban according to forum rules.

4) You were actually attacking me as a person without knowing me as well, basing your grounds on semantics, or misinterpretations. (purposeful or not) - See 1.

5) You then said I was 'throwing out insults' like the wholly redeemable, witty troll you were defending, and that I, despite never attacking you until you had already attacked me twice, was looking for "drama of the highschool variety."

5) I said I was not looking for the drama of highschool variety, that I was wanting to give him a second chance as I think he still has much to positively contribute. I did not infer that you were looking for that type of drama, and had (still haven't) yet to attack you.

6) I then said you were looking for drama of the troll school variety, and that you had better step it down.

6)Yes, actually twisting my own claim of not being one, into an attack against me, while calling me a troll.