Retroactive Table of Contents: March 2 to March 9

Avatar

Rufus F.

Rufus is an American curmudgeon in Canada. He has a PhD in History, sings in a garage rock band, and does a bunch of other stuff.

Related Post Roulette

75 Responses

  1. Avatar Elias Isquith
    Ignored
    says:

    This place is overrun by all of hell quite frequently.

     

    (Thanks for doing this!)Report

  2. Avatar Christopher Carr
    Ignored
    says:

    Very dry and sophisticated.Report

  3. Avatar Ryan Bonneville
    Ignored
    says:

    Man, somehow I missed all the Rush arguments. Reading through them now… I am not sad that I missed them.Report

  4. Avatar Tod Kelly
    Ignored
    says:

    Thanks, Rufus.  This was great.Report

  5. Avatar James Hanley
    Ignored
    says:

    It was a somewhat tumultuous week here at the League of Ordinary Nerds.

    Should the new name be “A Plague of Ordinary Gentlemen?” 😉Report

  6. Avatar Mary
    Ignored
    says:

    The League of Ordinary Nerds? I like it! If there is ever any name changing, this needs to be the result.Report

  7. Avatar Erik Kain
    Ignored
    says:

    Rufus, thanks for doing this.

    But, I am the formatting police. Please remember to not insert images at the top of posts. Instead: upload the image, copy the hyperlink, and paste it into the Post Image spot below the editor – all of which you can read about here.Report

  8. Avatar Murali
    Ignored
    says:

    Hey Rufus, the retro-active table of contents seems to have come out early. Will my stuff be in it orisit not part of next week already?Report

  9. Avatar Will H.
    Ignored
    says:

    How’s about a monthly feature of retroactive table of bannings?
    I’ve missed a lot of the action.

    It’s like sitting through an hour-and-a-half of a Chuck Connors movie to watch the big gunfight at the end, only to have to sit on the can and miss the big shoot-out.
    I’m thinking that a retroactive table of bannings might be more manageable than a roster of current writers & commenters.Report

    • Avatar Dennis in reply to Will H.
      Ignored
      says:

      Don’t think of them as “bannings.” Erik doesn’t like that word. Think of them as “homogenizing the group and ensuring thoughtconsistency through creative doublethink by blackwhite revision.”

      Or look at it another way: I’m pretty sure Mark’s little claim that “all trolls were really just one person” was a method of instituting a stealth banning scheme. Now that the “proof” exists, anyone with any viewpoint that Erik or Mark don’t like can be banned without comment, Just Because. Kind of like how Obama can now order any American citizen whose speech he doesn’t like killed or indefinitely imprisoned on charges of “helping terrorism.”

      The League is growing. High profile posts are getting quoted around; Mark’s post about the lunch line nontroversy was all over Slashdot and of course the Batman Medical Writeup went all over. It seems that Erik and Mark’s goal is to prevent new discussion by new commenters at all costs.Report

      • Avatar Bad-ass Motherfisher in reply to Dennis
        Ignored
        says:

        Yeah.   Banning one person was the first step to the gulags.Report

        • Avatar Dennis in reply to Bad-ass Motherfisher
          Ignored
          says:

          I can see you believe you are being sarcastic, but I am serious.

          What, really, was the purpose of Erik and Mark’s statement claiming numerous people they called trolls were really all the same? Let’s look at what it accomplished:

          1. It set up the false claim they had “only banned” a tiny number of people.
          2. It set the stage for banning anyone in the future without adding to the ban list and without public comment as to why.
          3. It made it that much easier to run Robert off.

          That is now the standing policy at the League. Comment deletion, previously controversial, justified under “oh it’s just another ____.” Silent banning, on the table and valid.

          It allows Erik and Mark to publicly claim policy is one way, when the reality is completely opposite, because they now have a pretext cooked up.Report

          • Avatar Anne in reply to Dennis
            Ignored
            says:

            Dennis

            1. How is it a false claim? Erik and Mark have been very upfront and open about the discussion of banning of sockpuppets and of why Bob was to be moderated NOT banned. they have the option of banning whomever they want WITHOUT having the open discussion that they have.

            2. How has this set the stage for what you claim? How can they ban with out adding to the ban list? If Bob or anyone else for that matter decides they do not want to abide by the comment policy here at the League they are free to take their ball and go play else where. Is this what you are counting as “banned”? No that is their choice. This IS Erik and Mark’s blog we are here at their invitation therefore out of respect most of us play by their rules. If they decide to ban or moderate people in the future (as is their right) without public discussion it will be because of not wanting to deal with the flack they are receiving by being open about it. I for one want to have the discussion public but realize they are under no obligation to do what I want, it is their blog.

            3 Bob is a big boy. He was not “run off” he made a choice

            It seems to me you are creating your own reality, and attributing false motives to Erik and Mark. When they have gone above and beyond (in my opinion) to be as transparent and above board as possible.

            my rambling two cents worthReport

            • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Anne
              Ignored
              says:

              I always knew it was going to just be a passing fling.  One of those moments taken for the sake of living, that makes life taste so sweet but from which we must then move on…  but I miss the Charlie in the box.

              Not that I don’t also like the llama, mind.Report

              • Avatar Anne in reply to Tod Kelly
                Ignored
                says:

                Actually it’s an Alpaca, a related South American camelid, smaller than a Llama and Guanaco but bigger than a Vicuna. Did I mention I am also a textile geek? All of the aforementioned cute critters’ hair is used in spinning and weaving so close to my heart. Plus the guy pictured spit on me so we have a bond. However, I shall follow the edicts of my TOD and Charlie can returnReport

        • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Bad-ass Motherfisher
          Ignored
          says:

          Pretty soon, Erik’s going to be banning people for using the wrong number of pixels.Report

        • Avatar North in reply to Bad-ass Motherfisher
          Ignored
          says:

          Uh, just a note: no one was banned. One commentor was put on probation for consistant bad faith arguementing and trolling and then chose to no longer comment. Or am I missing some other banning?Report

          • Avatar Rufus F. in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            Well, Dennis is saying it’s happening secretly, which means you wouldn’t have caught it, North.

            So, Dennis, who is it that has been secretly banned so far under this system? Or, are you saying that it will happen in the future?Report

            • Avatar Dennis in reply to Rufus F.
              Ignored
              says:

              Perhaps you haven’t noticed how comments mysteriously “go missing” lately, but I have.

              Commenter “Gruntled” mysteriously stopped posting after a snark comment by Mark, in a very contentious topic re: Israel and Palestine. I don’t think that is a coincidence. I think Mark used exactly this justification to institute a stealth ban on someone willing to call out BlaiseP’s ridiculously one sided and borderline anti-semitic commentary.Report

            • Avatar Dennis the Menace in reply to Rufus F.
              Ignored
              says:

              Confirmed. Someone marked it so my first reply to you vanished. We’ll see if this one gets through.

              Specifically, I suspect the same to have happened to “Gruntled”, who got a snarky reply from Mark when he/she called out BlaiseP’s borderline anti-semitic remarks in the Israel/Palestine thread and then was never seen again.Report

            • Avatar Dennis F. in reply to Rufus F.
              Ignored
              says:

              You just watched it happen when someone deleted my first reply to you here.

              I also have watched three attempts to reply to you further vanish. Check your home blog, even left you a message there just in case.

              I suspect this is the same thing that happened to commenter “Gruntled”, who received a snarky comment from Mark after calling out BlaiseP’s borderline anti-semitism and then up and vanished.

              Of course, likely my reply to you will just be “disappeared” again, and someone will insist it’s proof I “ran away” from the conversation. That does seem to be the League MO.Report

              • Avatar Mark Thompson in reply to Dennis F.
                Ignored
                says:

                This might possibly be because “Gruntled” was using the same anonymizer as the demonstrated sock puppet and exhibiting much of the same behavior. It might also be because “Gruntled ” appeared for the first time just a day or two after the sock puppet was discovered. It might also be because “Gruntled” was taking precisely the same peculiar set of positions as said demonstrated sock puppet.

                …unless somehow, magically, every single person who uses that anonymizing program and attempts to comment on this site holds precisely the same set of opinions (ie, a liberal who hates Muslims and accuses anyone who disagrees with him of racism and/or anti-semitism), I’m quite comfortable with including that account as another version of the sock puppet.Report

              • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Mark Thompson
                Ignored
                says:

                I just want to say that if it ends up turning out the BAMF is also the sock puppet, I am going to be very, very disappointed. I’m starting to look forward to his comments.Report

          • Avatar Stillwater in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            And that happened only after repeated discussion about antagonistic trollery and the expression of offensive views, a distinction that’s very relevant (at least from my pov). The central issue with Bob, I think, wasn’t the expression of views some people disagreed with or even found offensive. It was a) the lack of argumentation justifying those views coupled with b) the appearance that many (too many?) comments were an attempt to be deliberately antagonistic. This is a very gray area, I think, and you (North) were quite right when you said that EDK had a rather heavy burden on his shoulders in making a decision regarding what to do about it. I’m opposed to banning people generally, since I really do think offensive, false, insulting, trollish comments are best dealt with by a reasoned response (or even ignoring, as C Carr said). But there is a line there. At least, if you want to maintain some semblance of civility in the discourse.Report

            • Avatar Rufus F. in reply to Stillwater
              Ignored
              says:

              Bob leaving reminds me of the Chico Marx line where he’s asked, “Do you love your brother?” and replies, “Ah, I’m used to him”. I was pretty used to Bob, so it’s hard to see him go.

              That said, I find some of this amusing. Bob noticed that Erik is trying to make the site more welcoming to women and argued that women are boring and mentally confused and not really worth listening to, and so Erik came down on him for that and started putting his comments in moderation, which led Bob to leave. What’s so funny to me is that this is the critical conservative perspective that is apparently censored at the League: that women are mentally inferior to men. This is what outrages the conservatives here- we’re too left-wing to acknowledge female inferiority and, thus, one of the central ideas of modern conservatism can’t be spoken here, and the very freedom of conservatives is in question. Whether that’s the case or not, were’re going to be hearing for months to come about how Bob was “banned” and it was because “the conservative viewpoint is not welcome here”. You’d think they’d want to find a better hill to die on.Report

          • Avatar Snarky McSnarksnark in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            There was one ban..   See here.Report

  10. Avatar Snarky McSnarksnark
    Ignored
    says:

    There’ve been some configuration changes to WordPress that lead to sometimes-confusing changes in the way the commenting box works.    Nothing more than that.Report

  11. Avatar James Hanley
    Ignored
    says:

    <i>Did someone put all replies on this thread in lockdown now?</i>

    I’ll take tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists for $1000, Alex.Report

    • Avatar James Hanley in reply to James Hanley
      Ignored
      says:

      Hey, I’m glad you’re here.  I always get a kick out of this type of nuttiness.  Do you by any chance know who shot JFK, or where Obama’s original birth certificate really is?

      [Back to kitchen for more beer and popcorn.]

       Report

  12. Avatar Rufus F.
    Ignored
    says:

    Sigh. Okay, well for the record, I’ve been off-line for the last hour reading a book. So, if someone removed your comments, or held them up for some reason, I’ve heard nothing about it. Usually, comments that are held up as potential spam and approved show up in the ‘site admin’ section as “un-spammed by ____” after someone approves them and yours are not marked as so. I find it pretty unlikely that Mark or Erik held up your comments and then approved them for no clear reason, but it looks to me like they’re all here now and that “Gruntled” is a word that can be spoken here. So, maybe someone else can explain the delay.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Rufus F.
      Ignored
      says:

      I’m going through the spam folder now, even as we speak.Report

      • Avatar Rufus F. in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Okay, that helps. The stuff I saw when I looked was clearly spam, but if you’re approving his comments, it’s probably a good idea.Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Rufus F.
          Ignored
          says:

          Every now and again, I see a comment that says “comment was flagged as spam by name” and I’m not approving them (at least, I think I haven’t approved any of those).

          20 at a time.

          The ones that really bug me are the ones that honestly look like responses to a real comment but then have names like “FREE BLACK AND WHITE TELEVISION TUNER”.Report

          • Avatar Rufus F. in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Has this got something to do with IP addresses? I looked at the comments currently in the trash file and there’s all sorts of weirdness going on there. Also, why does Dennis have so many IP addresses? How does that happen? One of them is the same as “Gruntled”, which isn’t a real surprise, but does that mean “Gruntled” did get yanked? Or is it just that certain IP addresses are on lockdown? I’m curious about this now. Maybe it’s my fault that I don’t know what’s going on, but I really can’t make heads or tails out of it.Report

            • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Rufus F.
              Ignored
              says:

              Just sent you an email.Report

            • Avatar Will H. in reply to Rufus F.
              Ignored
              says:

              So it looks like your ordinary table of contents has taken the semblance of an ordinary vast left-wing conspiracy.
              It’s like Bob used to always say about “the gummint.”
              I’ll bet it’s part of “Barry’s” plan to take over.
              First, hide the birth certificate. Then take out his critics over at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Will H.
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s exactly right. And I really shouldn’t say it outloud so’s not tip off the scam, so keep this between us … but lefties of all stripes have agree to ‘silence’ the right. It’s for the best for everyone – them, others, us. It’ll be oh-so-much better when the dust clears, you’ll see. The little secret we haven’t tipped off yet – until you exposed it – is that the libertarian-inclined people who run this site aren’t even in on the ruse. It’s us commie-dems who are really pulling the strings here, and Erik and Mark are unwittingly going along for the ride (and Rufus, Tod, Mike Dwyer, Burt, etc.). We’ll let them know about our plans soon enough, but for now, it’s enough to say that resistance is futile (of course it is!). The collectivist will to destroy any last vestiges of individuality or personal freedom cannot be overcome. We’ve collectively agreed that we are of one mind on this and that there is no autonomy.

                Your lives are in our hands. Dennis is the only one who really understands.Report

              • Avatar Snarky McSnarksnark in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                When I snark, it’s usually one or two sentences.

                Therefore, let me say:   Bravo!  That was like a snark symphony!Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Snarky McSnarksnark
                Ignored
                says:

                Thanks!

                But is it really snark?!?! {{evil laugh}}

                 Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Rufus F.
              Ignored
              says:

              Yeah, the whole “long time reader, first time commenter here and I’d like to say that I find the way you’ve banned that other guy who happened to use the same web anonymizer that I use to be distasteful” is a hair transparent.Report

              • Avatar Rufus F. in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “I’m a long time reader, but this is my second comment here. My first has been held up for the last 45 seconds, which leads me to the inescapable and immediate conclusion that Mark is a lying fraud who hates free speech, as we saw with the banning two days ago of that other guy who uses the same web anonymizer.”Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Rufus F.
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, I’m seeing a whole mess of “Kenneth” comments caught by the filter and they appear to have the same language… I don’t know what the word would be… tics? Patterns? as the other folks being caught by the filter.

                Maybe moral outrage over other people being caught by the spam filter makes everybody sound the same.Report

          • Avatar Plinko in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            I knew y’all are conspiring to keep me from getting free stuff!Report

  13. Avatar Snarky McSnarksnark
    Ignored
    says:

    I gotta admire your persistence.Report

    • Avatar Rufus F. in reply to Snarky McSnarksnark
      Ignored
      says:

      You’re talking about two different people. I’m the one who doesn’t understand how TOR works. Also, I’ve never banned anyone; nor would I know how to ban anyone, if I actually wanted to. Ask Mark why he banned people, or, better yet, decide for yourself why he banned people and attribute those motivations to him.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *