Banned
Well tonight I was banned from the TSA's IRC channel, my place of hangout for about a decade. The reason is, to put it simply, that the admins decided that it was against the rules for me to discuss politics in any way shape or form, once they decided that I figured it was only a matter or time. I'm not going to go into anymore detail beyond
( Read more... )
As for last night, basically a political discussion occurred on its own without prompting from me, during which I was almost entirely AFK during the entire affair. I came back, made a comment about there being a politics channel, which I had just opened and was preparing to move the discussion into to avoid violating my probation, and I was then informed that I had just violated my probation and was banned fairly promptly.
So no I don't believe my willingness to change viewpoints had anything to do with the last incident, nor the incidents leading up to it really. Such factors may have eventually led certain parties to being so intolerant towards me in the first place, but really that's just speculation.
All of that is mostly irrelevant though, it's speculation over inconsequential events in the past and has only little bearing on the future. As it stands I don't feel there is any future on TFchat anymore, the bans looks irreconcilable, and frankly I'm tired of having to put up with unwarranted hit and run quips about my religion and beliefs anyway.
My only regret is not being able to talk to the people I got along well with anymore, Phil, Snow, Morgana, I don't really have any other way of getting in touch with them for a real time conversation, so I will miss them. However I will not miss little comments about the Book of Mormon being fiction, my politics being horrific or my world views being idiotic.
Frankly I don't think anybody should have to put up with that sort of crap, so on some fronts I'm actually a little relieved.
Reply
While I am not one to easily change my beliefs, I'm pretty much fine with agreeing to disagree, plus I have a rule not to take differences in opinion personally. Getting emotional over a difference in viewpoints is in my point of view a waste of time and energy.
That's all well and good so long as you know when it's time to pull out, and in the eyes of many your ability to recognize this has not been adequately demonstrated, unfortunately.
As for last night, basically a political discussion occurred on its own without prompting from me, during which I was almost entirely AFK during the entire affair. I came back, made a comment about there being a politics channel, which I had just opened and was preparing to move the discussion into to avoid violating my probation, and I was then informed that I had just violated my probation and was banned fairly promptly.
Hrm. I'd be interested in seeing the chat logs of that, if that's possible. I may ask around. My supposition, though, based on what little I know, would be that the terms of the gag order involved no discussion because they frankly don't trust you to handle said discussion in a mature and intelligent manner (whether or not you get emotional about it or not, if you're unwilling to adapt ideas and/or consider alternatives, that is immaturity in a debate, so giving that impression - or worse, actually being that way - is a kiss of death), and so if I were in that position I would have at least double-checked with Jessie and/or Kristy if special-purpose channels were OK. (And for my part, I would have defended that, because the continued conversation that frustrates folks with you does so in large part because it clogs public channels; if people want to talk to you and aren't frustrated by your debate style, why not let 'em? ;) )
So no I don't believe my willingness to change viewpoints had anything to do with the last incident, nor the incidents leading up to it really. Such factors may have eventually led certain parties to being so intolerant towards me in the first place, but really that's just speculation.
I can't say on the last incident 'till I've seen what happened and had the chance to make a call myself, but the incident immediately prior (our ANWR debate) was kind of a direct result thereof. I went into that debate we had initially as a fun little side topic, and it started to turn into "Can I get him to at least possibly concede the idea that this may not necessarily be the cure-all he started out selling it as?" I would have been perfectly happy with something like "Okay, so maybe it's not the special future of the people of Alaska, but I still think it's a good idea because of X". Your phrasing never really approached this format; whenever a new idea was brought up, it was just brought up without any reference to the prior idea. I was willing (to some degree) to assume that this just meant you were exploring alternative reasons why ANWR Drilling Is Good, but a lot of folks will take that as unwillingness to compromise - and realistically that is NOT an error on their part because that's how most people who won't compromise ACT.
I'm not saying that you're all wrong and some kind of idiot for bringing it up; I don't believe that for a moment. I'm just saying that your debate skills need a heck of a lot of work, and that in their current state they are severely detrimental to whatever argument you may be making, and that's the ultimate reason you were banned. (The final determination of probation warning may have been slightly different - again, I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure yet - but frankly at that point you'd stretched things so far that just about any further slip on your part would have broken the camel's back.)
Reply
All of that is mostly irrelevant though, it's speculation over inconsequential events in the past and has only little bearing on the future. As it stands I don't feel there is any future on TFchat anymore, the bans looks irreconcilable, and frankly I'm tired of having to put up with unwarranted hit and run quips about my religion and beliefs anyway.
My only regret is not being able to talk to the people I got along well with anymore, Phil, Snow, Morgana, I don't really have any other way of getting in touch with them for a real time conversation, so I will miss them. However I will not miss little comments about the Book of Mormon being fiction, my politics being horrific or my world views being idiotic.
Frankly I don't think anybody should have to put up with that sort of crap, so on some fronts I'm actually a little relieved.
I think these events have a tremendous bearing on the future, because I virtually guarantee that if you do not take any important lessons from this then it is going to happen again elsewhere. In my personal experience, when this sort of frustrating thing happens, it's because G-d intends for us to learn something from it (which I think is a good idea whether one believes in G-d or not). I'm supposing based on what I've seen that that lesson is supposed to be "dude, your debate skills *suck*", which is why I'm still pestering you. ;)
I also consider "those people are just wrong/bad/misguided" to be a bit of a cop-out lesson. If I'd leaned on lessons like that growing up, I probably wouldn't have survived this long. (Ask about the trash can incident if you're curious, although I suspect I may have described it before.)
Now, with that said... I absolutely agree on the hit-and-run stuff being just plain unnecessary, but unfortunately you'll run into comments like that all the time one way or another, because not everybody you meet in life is going to be mature at that moment you meet them. Ideally, however, you try and work on how you present yourself such that you can actually come out as the aggreived party in those circumstances, rather than the current state in which folks view it as "the ignorant moron is going after the stubborn moron; hey, win-win!" (Yes, that's arguably an unfair characterization. But if you don't actually do anything about the behavior patterns that lead people to such a conclusion, then folks are going to make that assumption regardless, and you won't be in a position to convince them otherwise.) It's a lot easier to deal with being singled out for stupid garbage if you don't already single yourself out. :)
Reply
At the core though I don't think my actions have differed all that drastically from many of my debate partners.
Something else I feel inclined to point out is, that realistically I don't bring up politics all that frequently. This year is of course an election year so certain issues weigh more heavily peoples minds, during a normal year though the topic comes up far less.
Of course I do sometimes debate about other things, such as videogames, but generally those sorts of debates are far less passionate all around.
I guess what I'm getting at is that the perception that I'm a unyielding combative person is likely at least in part connected to very recent events and conditions, which are not likely to persist at the level they are at now beyond the end of the year.
Thus trying to summarize my decade of participation under such a light is undoubtedly going to paint an unrealistic portrait of my activities.
Reply
I admit I have made some errors and have been too headstrong in the past, trying to deny that would be stupidity. That being said though, I don't see a reluctance to change viewpoints to be all that unusual or detrimental. Do I sometimes fail to take the time to admit where my debate partner is correct, yes, especially in a live format where there is a lot of emphasis on responding promptly.
"Sometimes" is one thing, but this is different. Failing to acknowledge issues happens far too often for you to be within average social norms - and my evidence for same is that these folks are actively saying that that's why they've banned you. (Perhaps not as much to your face, but that's largely because they don't trust you to actually do anything about that problem - which is somewhat justified, since you seem reluctant to think of it AS a problem that needs a solution regardless of the difficulty involved.)
I really do sympathize with the issues involved on responding promptly; stress from the mental workout that gives me is why I can't deal with people 24/7 no matter how much I enjoy it and want to keep going. But that doesn't mean that that difficulty makes it okay; it's something that absolutely must be practiced, because otherwise you can just as easily end up communicating incompletely or improperly. IRC gives you a whole heck of a lot more time in this regard than face-to-face discussion, and allows you to easily edit and reconsider statements before you send them; that's something to take advantage of early on.
At the core though I don't think my actions have differed all that drastically from many of my debate partners.
You may not believe so, but those partners and other observers disagree, and since debate is a social interaction, it is their perception that counts, not what you think is going on.
Reply
Something else I feel inclined to point out is, that realistically I don't bring up politics all that frequently. This year is of course an election year so certain issues weigh more heavily peoples minds, during a normal year though the topic comes up far less.
Of course I do sometimes debate about other things, such as videogames, but generally those sorts of debates are far less passionate all around.
This is absolutely true, and this is why I'm trying so hard to get across the point that it is not your politics that are causing the problem. It is not necessarily the topic; that's just icing on the cake of annoyance. It is the way the topic is being presented, debated, and responded to.
I guess what I'm getting at is that the perception that I'm a unyielding combative person is likely at least in part connected to very recent events and conditions, which are not likely to persist at the level they are at now beyond the end of the year.
Thus trying to summarize my decade of participation under such a light is undoubtedly going to paint an unrealistic portrait of my activities.
Those recent events certainly haven't helped, but to assume they'll go back to being A-OK again after November is, I think, a little naive. This has been going on for quite some time now, and folks have been frustrated about it for some time now; they just usually don't bring it up to your face because they fear getting drawn into a debate much like this. (A significant example: you once had a fairly long topic going on on IRC about Popples around the same timeframe as the 2006 Bash. I remember this very vividly because it was driving people nuts to the point that they were still talking about it there two days later - and at least one attendee still mentions it now and again whenever your name comes up in conversation when you're not present, although admittedly he's got his own issues there.)
Take it from an outside perspective: If you know somebody who is prone to being uncompromising and stubborn on debates, and you're pretty sure that if you confront him on this you'll end up on the receiving end of that uncompromising stubbornness, would you engage, or would you just do your best to ignore the annoyance and move on? :) (This supposition is independent of whether or not that is a fair characterization of you as you see yourself. That is what people see, and you can't convince them otherwise by simply talking to them; your actions and reactions have to change, and show continued change over quite a long time.)
Having said that, I do acknowledge that given the whole decade, you have changed and improved a lot (a few years ago I doubt this conversation would be possible, for example ;) ). I'm just trying to get you to change the priority on one particular area that needs improvement.
Reply
I've noticed that I do a lot better when a discussion isn't done live, or in front of a lot of other people. It allows me to sit back and carefully say everything I want to say, instead of trying to quickly summarize everything I want to say into as few sentences as possible.
When I try to summarize on the fly, everything seems to come out wrong, I'll readily admit this. I do feel I've gotten a little better at this, but obviously not fast enough for other peoples tastes.
Reply
Conversation kind of works that way on IRC, unfortunately. I wish I had some sort of Super Power Secret or whatnot to share, but honestly it's just the sort of thing that really only gets easier with a hell of a lot of practice. (I find it to be so *very* worth it, tho.)
Incidentally, I put a lot of emphasis on "knowing when to stop" early on in this particular discussion because it's difficult to keep areas available to practice in when folks get frustrated by your continuing on a topic - as illustrated by the ban. ;) (At one point I had to find myself a completely different arena in which to practice at one point after things just completely fell apart at college; that turned out to be the TSA.) Also, if the forum you're in is going to be inappropriate for the debate at hand, it may be wiser to simply withdraw rather than press on; knowing when to pick your battles is very important. (And on that separate politics forum attempt on IRC... while that would be a reasonable start along these lines, you probably would have have to sell the idea to Jessie and Kristy as such rather than doing so unilaterally. When you're already on thin ice, things just get that much more rough.)
I've noticed that I do a lot better when a discussion isn't done live, or in front of a lot of other people. It allows me to sit back and carefully say everything I want to say, instead of trying to quickly summarize everything I want to say into as few sentences as possible.
When I try to summarize on the fly, everything seems to come out wrong, I'll readily admit this. I do feel I've gotten a little better at this, but obviously not fast enough for other peoples tastes.
Fair enough. In that case, there's two things I can recommend:
1) (as mentioned above) Keep practicing live discussion more, and
2) Spend even more time observing how other folks manage; look for how they respond, and how it differs from how you might respond. (And not just in terms of what the content is, but *how* it's presented and how it's done).
Just don't fall into the trap of assuming that All This Happened because They Just Don't Get it, or The Forum Was Somewhat Inconvenient, or whatnot. Communication's a two-way street; both parties are equally capable of screwing it up. ;)
Reply
As for this situation, as far as I'm concerned it was the result of two things. Of course there's my general clumsiness in those sorts of situations that rubs people the wrong way, however I also feel that certain parties were over-emotionalizing things and over-reacted on multiple occasions.
Do I need more practice, of course, but I've been getting better, and compared to the arguments I would stumble my way into when I first arrived on IRC, the incidents lately have been very small.
Reply
I don't recall seeing that at the time - from what I remember, what was suggested and accepted was "ban on discussion or else ban from server" - but it might have been prudent to check regardless. *shrug* Again, being on thin ice makes things much less simple than they normally would be.
As for this situation, as far as I'm concerned it was the result of two things. Of course there's my general clumsiness in those sorts of situations that rubs people the wrong way, however I also feel that certain parties were over-emotionalizing things and over-reacted on multiple occasions.
Fair enough, but that first part is the part you should be focusing on the most, because that's the part you can and ought to do something about. I also get the impression that we might disagree on the degree to which either of those factors had an impact. :) People do get very very frustrated over that clumsiness, and that's not exactly a major fault; I'm sure there are times when you get frustrated over how a discussion's going. When that frustration just keeps building and building - such as when there seems to be no hope for resolution - you get reactions like what happened.
Do I need more practice, of course, but I've been getting better, and compared to the arguments I would stumble my way into when I first arrived on IRC, the incidents lately have been very small.
The only thing I would argue here is that last part about their size. They may seem small to you, but many of them are not so small for others. Granted, it is a significant improvement over a decade ago, but it's still short of baseline. As you astutely stated previously, the pace of improvement has not fast enough for other people's tastes, and since they control who you talk to because they are your potential audience, that's something to keep in mind.
I do acknowledge, tho, that some people are just hypersensitive, and it's sometimes difficult to tell whether it's one's self exacerbating a problem or someone just being overly touchy. In those circumstances, however, I would still advise to err on the side of caution and back away.
Reply
Well I guess I can only add that I'm aware I have issues and I'm working on. Though I do hope you'll forgive me for feeling miffed anyway.
Reply
Fair enough. I have no issue with that last part (you being miffed), so long as that part immediately prior (aware, workin') is around. :)
Reply
Leave a comment