If you come to India, you know what we do to Anglo people?

You are trying to separate any behaviour of ours from yours, but as @gul is suggesting to you, where is the credibility in pretending that any behaviour from us is entirely exclusive of the claimed experiment? If there's any disingenuous here, it's your pretense that this hasn't come off the back of a self admitted board wide deception.

I mean seriously, you come out and tell us that you've been lying to us and conducting a social experiment with us without our permission and then when we tell you that such deceit isn't acceptable and go on to highlight how you're still carrying on the lies, you have the audacity to pretend that the serious breach of trust you've just carried out is entirely irrelevant to people not believing up and calling you a liar, as if they are the ones just giving poor ickle innocent Castle shit for no reason. I don't know what's more important, the lies themselves or the stupidity that you think we'd buy into the crap you're now peddling.

Oh, people gave a damn, quite a few did, and it's created a problem in that there are some who have told me they feel less comfortable posting in a place where such things happen. You are going to act responsibly, or you're going to be gone. And nobody is going to miss you. On your present course, I predict we'll be done with you before the weekend is out. Take that however you'd like.

Nobody here has performed a sustained deception on you like you have (or claim to have) on them. Therefore you aren't on equal footing. Accept that or fuck off. But we all know you won't do the latter, don't we....

And just how hard are you going to push to engineer that? Because the way it looks right now, it looks like railroading already. You might want to drop that plank and look cherubic just long enough for the snapshot.

Oh, yes. Oh, yes it is. Even the orchestrated outbursts were responses, not initial posts. They had to be triggered before they happened. That was a rule. And you had years to figure out better than to trigger them. You knew they would happen, at a certain point, yet you still elected to trigger them. So oh, yes. We are absolutely on equal footing morally.

When and your friends were triggering them, you thought that there was something mentally wrong with me. You were the gang of kids slapping around the tard kid, so you thought, and then when the tard kid detonated a bomb in your faces you'd run and scream to the teachers. And a week later you'd get back to slapping around the tard kid again. You're either villainous or just stupid, but one thing you are not is innocent.

I'm borderline speechless with this latest round of drivel. So now everything was acutely orchestrated, but the orchestrated parts could only be "triggered"? So what you are in actual fact saying is that you were purposely goading people into reacting in a certain way so that you could then implement the next stage of your little manipulation. You goad them into perform a certain way for your experiment...and this someone makes them the villains.

There's a word for that sort of internet manipulation, it's called trolling.

Now, remember how you were bitching the other day that there was nothing in the rules that could be used against you. Well, remember Rule 1 and what it says about common sense? I'd say it's common sense that if you troll the entire membership of board you might then not get much sympathy from those members or it's owner/s. Yes, I'd definitely say there's a rather clear example of common sense to be had here.

I never said it was random sampling. It was purposive sampling, and the selection criteria fit the extant assholes on the board. And at the time of the ban, none of this was known, meaning that it could not have been used as a justification for the ban.

Not hard at all, actually. As soon as the other owners confirm, you're done. Best make peace with it.

Justification for what ban? You're being astonishingly obtuse. We're not talking about before, we're talking about what is likely to lead to a ban for you this time around and in very short order if you carry on lying and manipulating.

That's as good as an admission that it's a classic railroad job. How do you plan to spin it?

How about "you trolled an entire board for a non-consensual social psychological experiment in contravention of federal regulations that apply legally in the country in which both you and the board are based". How does that sit, as that's exactly what has happened?

You've taken care of that yourself:

Oh, go chase your head. This wasn't the Stanford Experiment, it was words in an environment where any poster including you was free to put me on ignore or, as previously mentioned, not provoke the responses you now seem to be implying have traumatized you.

You may want to research the terms 'random sampling' and 'purposive sampling'.

Nonsense, you can't crawl away from the regulations just because you were ignorant of them. Whether you like it or not, when it comes to legal issues you can't expect the board owners to ignore them just because you didn't think before conducting your little test.

So, if this was all some great big bullshit and there was no experiment, then it confirms you as a lying, trolling arsehole. If there was such an experiment then there are genuine legal aspects for the board to consider. Which is it?

Cite 'em.

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.117

I already posted this in the callout thread you posted for @gul. You'll see that there are multiple steps you are required to carry out in respect of obtaining consent and protecting the privacy of and data gained from human test subjects.

From your link:

Which, now that you've demonstrated your awareness of the research, can be said to have been done.

You have met neither provision (1) or (2), nor have you sought out and obtained the IRB waiver. If you have obtained such a waiver, produce it.

Tell me how you've been harmed. Or I suppose you could yell to INTERPOL about how you think I've given somebody teh sadz.

Provision 1 is satisfied because no one here who is connected with their real world name was selected to have their instigations included for the purposive sample. Provision 2 is satisfied because no tangible harm was presented to anyone for which a consent form would have been required. Both provisions' exceptions came into effect because you are now aware of the research.

On the more practical plane, however, I was never a dick to anyone who didn't spend a few pages asking me to be a dick to them first. Easy reaction, the lab mouse simple learning experiment, was this: Don't be a dick. But you couldn't not. You still can't wrap your head around it.

Research data is confidential and must be treated as such. It's one of the reasons these regulations exist. By failing to get consent, it means you are using and distributing research data against the choice of that person. Furthermore, if you have been stirring up trouble and harassing people without their consent, with the deliberate intention of getting a reaction, then that may well be considered to be cyber-bullying, which is a prosecutable offence on both sides of the Atlantic. However, all of that is largely irrelevant as it isn't as simple as saying "what harm have I done?" The regulations require to to obtained a waiver or obtain consent, notwithstanding. Points (1) and (2) are the requirements to be met to get the waiver. But thereafter you still need to get the waiver from the IRB, which you do not have. Therefore your experiment was unethical and a breach of the regulations.

You can spin it anyway you like, but the bottom line is that you either engaged in board wide trolling that raises legal and ethical questions for the owners, or are continuing your lying and trolling tactics to further stir up trouble and undermine the place. Since you're sticking with the first scenario you are, in my opinion, more than enough of a problem to have constituted a thread to the wellbeing of the board and it's members and if you get banned I won't be defending you this time.

RIP.

So, anyone want to link me to his original post about doing research here? I can't seem to find it.

He brought it up a few times. Here's one place where he mentions it:

http://wordforge.net/index.php?threads/ask-castle.105712/page-5#post-2699873

I believe he discusses it in more detail in the thread where he pretends to have an office.

Just as an aside, have you ever looked at his twitter feed media? Man lives in a shithole and can't even be bothered to clean. Loser incarnate.

Surely his "office" is where he puts his 10 year old PC on the kitchen counter because he can't even afford a used desk to put it on?

BTW I didn't even read this thread. Was it as bad as it looked when I was scrolling past all those VisionCastle posts?

Link? It is not that I don't believe you, I do, it is just that I want to witness the disaster myself.

Not sure if it's allowed under the rules.

It's easy to find via google. No need to post a link for the lazy.