Did Zenbane and Atmos73 deserve the ban hammer?

trial by combat should be used to resolve disputes - superhot maybe?

Percy1983 said:

I would say Atmos more than Zebane as he was basically spamming the forum with a pro Vive agenda.

I am not against somebody having a different opinion but the way he was very selective with which parts of stories or which reviews he would post was rather annoying, it does seem Zebane was the main one to keep calling him out on this but then neither could/would drop it.

falken76 said:

  I'm wondering if he got pissed over the ban and sold off his Rift really.  

HoIIywood said:

brantlew said:

HoIIywood said:

Man, internet forums are like college campuses, a bunch of softies hiding in safe spaces.
No wonder this generation cannot function socially, they cower and run away from any sign of resistance.

Old school conversation : 

Hi,
Hello,
You're ugly,
You're fat,
Cool want to be friends?
Yes!

?

That is not at all how complete strangers meet in the real world.  Physical meetings are very restrained until people know each other well.  (only close friends comfortably insult each other like that).  It's just too dangerous in the real world to talk smack all the time - especially to known enemies because guys get into physical fights.  My guess is that Zenbane and Atmos would be quite different if you met them in person or they met each other in person.

But the Internet is a strange place because all of the social conventions and checks and balances that you need for protection in the real world just don't apply.  So people (men in particular) immediately launch into insults with strangers without any repercussions.  Ironically, the world is somehow more civilized when people can get their ass beat on a moments notice.

Maybe you misunderstood. The point was that you didn't always have to have some metaphysical special-K experience to get on with someone; in fact sometimes get along was a necessity towards reaching a goal, so you learned to work with not against. Remember there was no social media to run to to explain to your friends how dreadful it was to be around someone for four hours at work or whatever your daily issue is.

You make a good comment about only friends behaving in such a jostling way, yes, if you take my word literally I would suspect that's more accurate. Though there was a time where people DID NOT PUNCH YOU FOR SAYING THINGS THEY DID NOT LIKE TO HEAR. The difference is, people had tolerance, restraint, discipline and sometimes compassion for another's disposition which may have lead them to be angry or aggressive. Remember 'taking the high road?' 'walking away from a fight?' 'being the better man?'

I am sorry younger people now live in a more violent world despite all the efforts we made in the past to create a safe and violent-less future for them. 

kevink808 said:

Anyone who isn't new to the internet knows damn well "no holds barred", "self-policing", etc., forums do not work. Anonymity brings out the asshole in a lot of sociopathic people who don't feel constrained by social norms because they are shielded from the consequences of their actions.  Sometimes you have to sacrifice some personal liberties for more security, or in this case community standards.  If we had to use our real identities then sure, I'd support self-policing.

DaftnDirect said:

@AndyW1384, I've been to several forms and had always been impressed with the above average levels of freedom and discretion given to members here, that's before volunteering to mod. After taking this position I've been keen to carry on the process in the same vain. People tend to behave mors like adults if you treat them as such.

I can't speak for the other mods but I'm not planning on changing my style, and I sincerely hope cyber doesn't change his. if this means we lose you as a member that would be a shame, we'd have to live with it.

Effectively you are a cyber Sheriff and beholden to no one(except the narrative).

And no, you won't be losing any sleep over people leaving for that reason. Because you'll continue to pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that your narrative is more important than what people want. You'll see it as a 'necessity.'

Kevin, 

You are 100% correct that the internet's anonymity mask 'allows' extrovert negative behavior. It goes hand hand with people not knowing how to function socially. Therefore it's a two part problem. We see it with kids that 'cyber bully' each other, because they A) as you said, can hide and B ) they do not have to deal with the consequences of their action in real time. Even as a simple example, seeing the hurt on someone else's face or their slumped body language.

However I 100% disagree with the notion you 'have to sacrifice some personal liberties for more security.' Wrong, not in America, that's the entire point of how we are to run society. As Franklin said, Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. (and the subtext there was that in the end, you will get neither as doing so gives power to government and government will take them away by force). And this model is not some sort of jingoistic American only view. A lot of individuals around the world support it and have long before America was a concept or a dream.The problem was they lived under oppressive regimes which would tell people almost literally word for word things such as "Sometimes you have to sacrifice some personal liberties for more security."
Go figure..

Maybe what you were trying to say is that sometimes we shouldn't enable and condone extreme individualism over the common good. Which I can support. This generation has taken power to the individual and turned it into 'power to me every five seconds as I tell the world [whom I just assume cares about me and everything I do] what I am going to be doing in one hour, ten minutes, five minutes, right now -- how I am feeling, new pictures of my dog, pictures of my new hair - check my status on Facebook,follow me on Instagram, give me a Like if you enjoyed this video, thanks I love you all my kittens!'  infinite ad nauseam.

It's about attention - they seek adoration and adulation. As I think we've all agreed here, that is why these individuals in question used an unrelated medium to engage in this correspondence, and furthermore let it bleed into others' discussions with little consideration.

Though just because they couldn't behave themselves, doesn't mean we should change how we as adults can manage things.

Doing so is called 'corporate ransom.' It's what you often find in office environments in the modern day, where one individual does something wrong and instead of simply pulling them aside and telling them to knock it off or else, the company has a meeting between H.R. and management to discuss a new policy or procedure that will 'address' the situation. What that means is, they couldn't fire you so they've decided to deploy this new policy which in effect makes everyone have to work harder by continuously watching their Ps and Qs, crossing Ts and dotting Is out of fear that they'll lose a finger or worse. That one person's mistake has now doubly affected everyone. You can hear the collective groan by the staff as they are informed during the next 'mandatory' company update meeting about changes to x y z policies. Some guy in the corner going 'man who screwed up this time?' and the other persons saying 'ugh, not again!! I swear I'll kill them'

It's ransom because the company holds someone elses mistake against you. And people do not like that as they are facing a destiny that was not of their making. They did not cause this.

Between you and I, I would much rather someone do something wrong, and if I take issue with it personally, then that's up for me to decide how I want to handle it - as a free man, and a free thinker.

It's not up to someone else to decide for me how I should feel, think or respond to it. And that's exactly what this age of overt zealous moderation brings about. Someone else playing overlord hiding behind the guise of protecting 'my' interests and well being.

No, the real reason it's done is because they are working to a mandate given by someone above them. It's about ensuring the 'environment' is a safe space for people so they won't whine and complain to a corporation whom then fears bad publicity and ultimately a loss of share holders - Palmer Luckey incident anyone?

As always, it's really about money.

And with that, Zenbane and Atmos are irrelevant and insignificant pawns in these corporatists chess game for power. Let them back in. If they behave like children, they will get treated like such and maybe, they'll learn that they don't like it and change their attitude.