I noticed there has been a banning carnage here

[Rubirosa]

If the mods are going to flex their muscles on this forum, then please enforce the age requirement in the Mature Man section...I had some nice posts deleted from there when I first joined because I didn't state my age ....It seems that enforcement has become lax on this issue........

 

[Desdinova]

Please don't take it the wrong way. I've read your posts and you come across as a perfectly sensible, intelligent guy. But what you wrote above, I just don't understand. How can you be so tremendously offended by something - anything - that is posted on an anonymous online discussion board? Surely people have better things to do than cry because some guy with a pair of ascii tits for a username hurt their feeling on the internet?

I didn't say I was offended by it. I said that I couldn't relate to it. If I was a regular member on the forum, I would just ignore the posts. Because I'm a moderator, I've received many, many messages regarding the offending posts. This became a problem for myself, the other mods, the people who are genuinely offended by what was posted, and those who refused to cease their repeated postings about these issues. It wasn't just a minor spat between two members, it was something on a much larger scale.

Again, it all boils down to keeping this place friendly for those who wish to not only be more successful with women, but also to become better men.

 

[SamTheHobit]

If you wanna blame somebody, you're more than welcome to blame me. I voted to ban every single one of 'em. And I stand behind my choice 100%.

This site, in my opinion, is INCREDIBLY tolerant. But in my mind, the recent level of disrespect, insults, and harassments got to be so common place, and rose to such a despicable level---that the bannings were inevitable--and they were way overdue, too, in my opinion.

If I had to do it over again, I'd do it the exact same way.

The site has rules, and I'll help enforce them, because I've been entrusted to do so, and I will do what I feel is in the best interest of sosuave.com.

I realize not everybody is happy about it. Oh well. No matter what, you won't please everybody.

Look at you taking your "job" all seriously and all.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I didn't say I was offended by it. I said that I couldn't relate to it. If I was a regular member on the forum, I would just ignore the posts. Because I'm a moderator, I've received many, many messages regarding the offending posts. This became a problem for myself, the other mods, the people who are genuinely offended by what was posted, and those who refused to cease their repeated postings about these issues. It wasn't just a minor spat between two members, it was something on a much larger scale.

Again, it all boils down to keeping this place friendly for those who wish to not only be more successful with women, but also to become better men.

I get that, I can go along with it too. The thing that we may be overlooking is that it really isn't the topics (race, religion, politics) that are at issue, it's the inability for some to be able to honestly discuss them without feeling personally slighted and feeling the need to berate someone or a group of people to protect their ego. Overcoming that in itself would exponentially help guys to become better men.

 

[Jaylan]

I get that, I can go along with it too. The thing that we may be overlooking is that it really isn't the topics (race, religion, politics) that are at issue, it's the inability for some to be able to honestly discuss them without feeling personally slighted and feeling the need to berate someone or a group of people to protect their ego. Overcoming that in itself would exponentially help guys to become better men.

Lets not ignore the obvious flaming, personal attacks, and outright hatred in the language of some of those banned. Better men can behave more maturely than that, can they not?

 

[Jaylan]

Also,

As someone said earlier, all forums have their rules...and if one dislikes those rules, they can find a different forum with rules they like. I myself have had mods on this forum and others give me warnings before. How did I avoid bans? I decided to respect the wishes of the mods and take the warnings seriously if I wanted to continue posting on that forum.

Its really that simple. If certain people want a wild west of language and discourse, they can go to 4chan...where trolling and flaming run amok.

 

[Bokanovsky]

I get that, I can go along with it too. The thing that we may be overlooking is that it really isn't the topics (race, religion, politics) that are at issue, it's the inability for some to be able to honestly discuss them without feeling personally slighted and feeling the need to berate someone or a group of people to protect their ego. Overcoming that in itself would exponentially help guys to become better men.

Well said. Being easily offended is a sign of insecurity and weak inner game.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Lets not ignore the obvious flaming, personal attacks, and outright hatred in the language of some of those banned. Better men can behave more maturely than that, can they not?

Actually, let's ignore it. Better men will not have their feathers ruffled by internet "flaming". There is also something called the "ignore list" feature for the particularly delicate flowers. Though I must say that I find the idea of you, of al people, criticizing others for "obvious flaming, personal attacks, and outright hatred" especially ironic.

 

[Jaylan]

Actually, let's ignore it. Better men will not have their feathers ruffled by internet "flaming". There is also something called the "ignore list" feature for the particularly delicate flowers. Though I must say that I find the idea of you, of al people, criticizing others for "obvious flaming, personal attacks, and outright hatred" especially ironic.

Funny you should mention the ignore list. Both you and TicTac threw hissy fits when I mentioned my usage of it.

Guys like you cannot stop a good flip flop though can they? Funny how now you advocate use of the ignore list when it benefits your argument, but you were quick to bash me just last week because I said I use it.

And regarding better men....better men dont get their feathers ruffled because a few anonymous trolls were removed from a forum online. Its a shame that our teenage moderator is more mature about this than some of you complaining. He said it best:

This is the last time I'm posting on this thread. Let me make this very clear.

Members political views were not taken into account at all. Allen was hardly involved in the discussion and was not the one who banned them. The only reason for the ban was because of the horrific amount of hate spewed across AE. Simple. You're all overthinking this and wanting to blame the wrong people. You can't blame anyone but the members who decided to ignore multiple warnings. And if you can't deal with that you really need to reconsider your priorities in life.

Quoted for truth, bolded for emphasis.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Funny how now you advocate use of the ignore list when it benefits your argument, but you were quick to bash me just last week because I said I use it.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Of all the things you deserve to be bashed for (being a loveshack troll, a self-appointed LGBT rights crusader who calls other people f@gs, and a racist who constantly whines about racism, to name a few), using the ignore list certainly isn't one.

 

[Tenacity]

I guess I'm still lost in all of this because, I'm still trying to figure out what is the purpose of Sosuave.com?

- Is it to be better with women solely?

Or

- Is it to become a better man (self-improvement) all the way around?

If it's solely about dating, relating, marrying, being with women, then why is there even an Anything Else section in the first place? Why is there a Wealth and Success section? Why is there a Health and Fitness section?

If this is a Don Juan focused site, then political and social commentary is relevant as I stated earlier. Furthermore, if warnings were indeed given to the individuals that were posting and they didn't heed them, then I guess it would be helpful to know what were the warnings centered on?

Was it a warning on not making anymore Michael Brown and Freddie Gray posts? Was it a warning on not discussing the ills of inner-city thugs? Was it a warning on not discussing liberal/conservative differences in ideology?

Or, was it a warning on name-calling? If you warned them about name-calling and they didn't stop, THEN I understand. Referring to Jaylan as Gaylan wasn't necessary, even if Jaylan was gay, I'm not sure what that even had to do with the argument he was making. I'm saying this despite the fact that Jaylan has personally called me names as well, such as being a racist, taking my stances out of context, but I digress.

Other than the childish name calling, I'm still trying to figure out what exactly did they (the banned members) do wrong? Again, if political and social commentary isn't allowed and we are only supposed to log in here and discuss women all day, why even have these other sub-sections to the main Discussion/Mature Man sections in the first place?

Make it clear in BOLD LETTERS, that you are only supposed to log in here to discuss women all day.

 

[Desdinova]

I guess I'm still lost in all of this because, I'm still trying to figure out what is the purpose of Sosuave.com?

- Is it to be better with women solely?

Or

- Is it to become a better man (self-improvement) all the way around?

It's both. Way back when you were still an AFC, a man named Allen Thompson wrote articles and enclosed them in a newsletter. These articles promoted bettering yourself so you could actually become better with women.

Allen got it long before many of us did. Read for yourself:

http://www.sosuave.com/articles/at/anger.htm

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Francisco that's a great point.

If we can't face an online discussion without throwing tantrums and trying to censor people, how can we expect to grow toface adversity and challenge when it really matters?

Lets not ignore the obvious flaming, personal attacks, and outright hatred in the language of some of those banned. Better men can behave more maturely than that, can they not?

That's what I'm talking about.

^^^I personally think MOST of us can...and do.

But there will always be a few who won't.

And that's why there are warnings and then consequences if they aren't heeded.

Jaylan you engaged in a great deal of flaming personal attacks....I focused on asking you specific logical questions to spark critical thinking, you would ignore them and not respond at all.


Example: Remember when you stated that governments should be teaching specific morals in school (which aligned with only one political party) and I asked that with that precedent what happens when the wrong party gets in power? And you ignored me multiple times?

The simple fact that you would not respond to cool headed well-reasoned logical questions shows that you had no interest in debate, learning or improvement, but merely wanted to silence and subjugate, with personal attacks all along the way.

So is this going to turn into another flame war, discussed passionately (without profanity) or fall by they wayside. Someone grab some microwave popcorn.

Well said. Being easily offended is a sign of insecurity and weak inner game.

True but to be a man one commands respect. What should guys do when they're disrespected? Is this the venue to address such things?

...Other than the childish name calling, I'm still trying to figure out what exactly did they (the banned members) do wrong?

I'm guessing it was because they broke the forum rules by disrespecting one another and enough people complained about it to make it a pain to the mods when warnings were ignored. Consequences ensued.

 

[TheVirtualMind]

It had nothing to do with WHAT was being argued, but more so HOW things were being argued.

Warnings were issued, warnings were ignored, bans were given. Not all were permanent. People may have their friends back soon.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

That assumes that I have engaged in a flame war Francisco.

I ask reasonable questions for a reason, whether it is about girls, or other topics. Because I want people to think about the topic, their present course, and the future consequences of that action.

You're preaching to the choir...

If we have a guy on here that refuses to listen to well-reasoned advice on girls, they often are either forced to grow a spine and deal with the issue, or leave the site to keep their blue-pill mindset. Should that be any different on other topics? If we had an invasion of blue-pill forces who "reported bad post" because their feelings were hurt on the latest Rollo thread, do we tell Rollo to stop? Or do we expect the blue-pillers to respond with well-reasoned logic?

"Blue Pill Forces (BPFs)," I like that... These are the guys who will say that it's their right to sensor Rollo because they disagreed with him for whatever reason; that their right to free speech allows them to become angry and request censorship.

My point is, if I ask well-reasoned questions without engaging in a flame war, I would expect the person to respond or think about the question if they are interested in improving. If they are not interested in improving but merely in silence and subjugation, then they will either ignore or "report bad post". I am merely pointing out a specific example of this for everyone to see.

That's a good expectation for some but obviously not all. Trust me, challenging personal perspectives in such a way that invalidates their entire premise and thus the very platform they base their existence invalidates them too. They in turn do what they are accustomed to protect their livelihood.

If we truly believe in our position and logic, then we should be ok with responding to well reasoned counter-points, shouldn't we? What does it say about the person or the reasoning if they refuse to address such well-reasoned counterpoints?

You're delving into the philosophy of Objectivism which can be a very heated topic.

 

[Who Dares Win]

It had nothing to do with WHAT was being argued, but more so HOW things were being argued.

Warnings were issued, warnings were ignored, bans were given. Not all were permanent. People may have their friends back soon.

Is it possible to know who got the permanent ban and who the temporary one?

Some of those users had surely some wisdom.

 

[Slickster]

GREAT WORK MODS!!!

Too much negativity for far too long from those guys.

I have nothing against them personally but they were not contributing to the site in a positive or meaningful way.

For those complaining about the bans maybe do a search and look at each guy's post history and the threads they have started in their time here. Decide whether you think those posts were inline with the meaning and purpose of this site. Also if the mods were to lift the bans on the condition that those guys stayed on topic would they stick around anyway? I think not. The truth is those guys weren't interested in discussing improving with women.

With all the discussion forums out there it makes you wonder why many of them would get so involved in this site in particular for off topic discussions and not supporting the purpose of the forum. It's like going to a forum dedicated to cats only to post that cats suck and dogs rule and then start posting about politics and other random stuff. It's more than a little weird. Especially considering the amount of time some of them have been here. How do you come to a discussion forum for years and years and never post anything on topic? It says a lot about the people involved.

 

[Tenacity]

Espi,

I agree with you in theory, "life isn't fair, if you don't like it then leave." But I just don't think that's a balanced moderating approach my friend.

It's like being a loyal customer to a company and you providing criticism to them in relation to what they can work on in terms of improvement, and the company just saying, "Welp, if you don't like the way we do it, then go to a competitor!"

But on the other side, I have never been a Moderator before. When Sosuave had an opening for a Moderator, I did apply for it because while everything can't be "fair" in life, I do think it can be "balanced". I believe a Moderator should strive to be fair and balanced.

Put it like this, if I were the Moderator, I would not have banned any of those guys. I would have instead made stickies and made it clear of a change of direction of the website in terms of types of threads that will be allowed for creation. I would NOT ban consistent and somewhat decent contributors to the website.

Like I said, even myself personally, I had NO IDEA that these types of threads on political and social commentary couldn't be created? There was no announcement, email, PM, nothing in relation to the ceasing of such discussions.

 

[Jaylan]

Just saw Espi's quote of Danger's post. Quite silly of a poster to be on a personal crusade to have me or FatalJay banned, all the while ignoring the numerous problems created by removed members.

Clearly some mods see a difference in my behavior compared to some of those who were banned. I create current event threads, and I direct no malice towards any members here when creating my OPs. Nor is the purpose to flame anyone, but rather shed light on different issues in this country.

Oh, and I also create threads and give advice in the main forums on this site.

On the other hand, guys like StaggerLee really only have posts and thread creations in the AE section for over a year. He and VikingKing were creating thread after thread bashing the same minority group(s) over and over. VikingKing/Noobolgy was even given a temp ban in the past for his outright racism and trolling.

And on top of that, when he was finally permanently banned, he took it upon himself to inbox me from a couple of spare accounts. And you know what he did? He directed racial hate towards me and I decided to let a couple of mods see the evidence. Ive even had a couple other members try and troll me in my PM box or in my reps...but I just ignored it as immature flame-troll behavior.

Im not the only one either, as I have spoken to other members who have had these trolls attack their inbox because their views were disliked. I normally never talk about what goes on outside of threads...but there were banned members on this forum who were harassing people inside threads and outside of threads.

But Im the troll who needs banning?

What is flaming about Ireland thread? How is my bringing up history being made in Ireland with their gay marriage vote trolling? I didnt attack anyone in that thread. But of course there were close minded replies to the events happening in Ireland. I created that same thread on a couple other discussion sites I use, and the responses were much different and very supportive.

My OP was exactly the same too. So thats something to think about. When certain members are lashing out and insulting people all because a discussion is created on a historic national referendum abroad...whos not following the rules? I followed the rules to the letter....I created an OP that only discussed the main topic and the articles...and then I made a followup post when the voting results were finalized. I never even address some of the negative replies in the thread.

But hey, some people are gonna see what they wanna see.

 

[amoka]

Espi,

I agree with you in theory, "life isn't fair, if you don't like it then leave." But I just don't think that's a balanced moderating approach my friend.

It's like being a loyal customer to a company and you providing criticism to them in relation to what they can work on in terms of improvement, and the company just saying, "Welp, if you don't like the way we do it, then go to a competitor!"

No, it is not. Explain to me exactly how insulting other members would "improve" sosuave? Using your own analogy: if you have a company and a particular customer always disrespects other customers and you failed to do nothing about it, your company/business is doomed to failure. What Espi is saying is that those that were banned received repeated warnings yet they failed to adhere to the warnings. The Moderators only other alternative was to ban them. Period.

But on the other side, I have never been a Moderator before. When Sosuave had an opening for a Moderator, I did apply for it because while everything can't be "fair" in life, I do think it can be "balanced". I believe a Moderator should strive to be fair and balanced.

How do you strive for "fair" and "balance" when one party directs insults at the other and refused to listen even after repeated warnings?

Put it like this, if I were the Moderator, I would not have banned any of those guys. I would have instead made stickies and made it clear of a change of direction of the website in terms of types of threads that will be allowed for creation. I would NOT ban consistent and somewhat decent contributors to the website.

That explains why you were not selected to be a Moderator. And what does a "consistent and somewhat decent contributor" mean exactly? Does that mean someone that spews nonsensical comments with zero substance?

Like I said, even myself personally, I had NO IDEA that these types of threads on political and social commentary couldn't be created? There was no announcement, email, PM, nothing in relation to the ceasing of such discussions.

READ. READ. and READ. It is clearly stated in the Forum Rules what can and can't be discussed. It is no one's fault if you fail to read.