^ I really don't like this new software, because it won't let each Asyncritter rep that post, the way that sentiment deserves! And so on and so forth...
Well, it's true I wouldn't quite put it that way myself, but I agree with the general sentiment very much.
Yeah. Here's a more decent way to put it: I keep telling my students that you simply cannot be a serious scholar of media studies and yet entertain a personal facebook account. It would be like a chain-smoking medical doctor... oh, wait.
1) Might be time to move this to the RR. 2) Facebook is useful for keeping up with people. Especially when you've got friends and family spread around the world.
Does anybody else hear the title of this thread in your mind pronounced in El Chup's British accent? "Cahstle," rhymes with "fossil"?
What she said. If it's because of the FB thing, Castle's been the one mostly bumping that shit. The rest of us have moved on, regardless of their initial position.
Um, no. The internet is useful for keeping in touch with people. Twitter is. Google+ would be if anyone used it. Email works fine, Xing and LinkedIn have their uses, and serious people have RSS streams. Facebook won't even let you decide whose updates you want to see.
The reason Facebook works is the same reason Myspace worked, is the same reason Friendster worked, is because a major demographic made it a part of their internet habit. I want to say that it won't be long until a new service comes up and takes over Facebook's role, but unlike the previous incarnations, Zuckerberg and Co. monetized things very quickly, bringing in corporate and government footholds. So I think they have staying power, and so while Grandma will get lost with emails and websites and so on, she knows what the Facebook is, and people will stay for those relatives that can't or won't go anywhere else.
The thing with Facebook is that it benefits from the snowball effect. It long ago ceased to be the best and most effective form of social media out there, but it has grown to such a size (17% of the entire world's population uses it) that it subsists because of itself. I find that there are four types of users. Those who rarely use it but are on there to keep touch, as Anc says above, those who use it for attention seeking (such as the subject of this thread), those who use it for vanity related personal approval and those who use it to make statements on social or political issues that they feel is worth saying. Almost all Facebook posts you see can be squeezed into one of those categories. Otherwise it's just pointless memes and jokes.
That's a minor, but very annoying gripe I have with FB, namely that no matter how many times I switch it to "most recent" it reverts back to "top stories" within a little while. I don't want my feed decided by a fucking algorithm thank you very much Mr. Zuckerberg.
Well the reason is that the threads intended purpose (Castle should be let back in) has played it's course. Castle can come back he just has to talk with us about it and his behavior that led up to it. Instead of doing that every time we send him an email about coming back, he posts the email in the facebook breakdown thread (does he really think that's a good idea when part of the reason he got banned was for posting private information?) doing a stock Castle rant, fascists, free speech, liberty etc. etc. and then making demands on us for letting him back. At this point the ball is all in his court. And since the thread has gone in interesting directions, I figured moving it to the Red Room where it could get more attention would be a good idea. But if people want to keep it in the HD then I don't have a problem with that.
Well, there is on issue outstanding that I want to enquire about before you move it. Castle says his return is conditional and is being made by you guys to answer questions. What are the questions? Are they fair? Are they secret?
Castle's actually posted the question a couple of times. He's posted the complete emails, although broken down so he could rave at each sentence individually. 'Do you understand why you were banned?' He can't get passed that one.
Well, it seems to me that you have an bit of an issue there because the suggestion coming from Gul is that it was for use of personal info, but on the face of it it appears more as if it was because he wouldn't answer the question you posed to him by you on the day he was banned. So he's going to cling on to that come what may....and, to be honest, he's not wrong in that respect, no matter how much of a douche he behaves like. It genuinely does appear on the surface as if he got shitcanned for not showing forced humility....and I have to say that I probably wouldn't have responded to the question you put to him either as it was extremely manipulative. Wouldn't a better approach not be to simply ask him to confirm that when he returns he'll undertake to break no rules? He's an utter twat, but this place is ultimately quieter the fewer people who are here, and pathetic and needy creatures like him help probably deserve our sympathy more than anything else.
It's the totality of his behavior that's the problem. While he's broken multiple rules (private information, trolling outside the Red Room, etc. etc.) he's also pushed the limit on what is acceptable in the Red Room. Remember the idea of the Red Room was not to create a new TK but to allow free spirited discussion without over moderation. It was never a free for all. Starguard and others were permabanned for shitting the place up just to see how far they could shit the place up. Castle's not here to discuss, he's here to disrupt. He's even gone on record saying he doesn't give a fuck how much he shits up the place, it's all just a troll for him or alternatively research for characters and how people react to them. We don't want to be TBBS and create 'Enterpriser' rules to lay out the exact circumstances when people cross the line of what is tolerable in the Red Room, that's why we have the whole "We aren't big on elaborate rules instead relying on common sense..." at the beginning of the conduct guide. And it's served us well. We don't WANT to create some kind of matrix of X of Y offenses in Z amount of time to try and trap him. Fuck that. The threat to attack the board and our membership was just the final straw in a long, long string of abuses. Until he is willing to sit and talk about the overall picture and his contribution to his ban, we're not going to lift it. Him avoiding that, instead just copy/pasting our emails and then going off on Castle rants on Facebook doesn't help, especially since it demonstrates not only a lack of self awareness, but also of 'common sense.'
Ok, fair enough. That's your prerogative as owner I guess. Feel free to move this to the Red Room. He's bumping the FB thread again as we speak, but I think he'll soon realise that very few are interested much in his meltdown now (it's been, what, 6 weeks?). I wouldn't be surprised if then you'll get a more crawling line of communication from him, much as was the case when he fucked off in 2012, only then to go crawling back to Tamar thereafter.
Um, yes. That method you're quoting gives you some influence, but it's not decisive; and as it emphasizes that the other person can't figure out what you'll see, it increases the opacity of the system, which in turn lends greater latency to the algorithmic manipulations on top of the influences you exert. And that's really the pattern well beyond that specific practice described in your link.
One last point on Castle (don't wish to derail this Facebook thread): I've actually explained to him why he was banned in some of the e-mails. He needs to demonstrate that he can acknowledge the issue. As long as he refuses to do so, he cannot come back, because not being willing to see the problem means he has no intention or ability to change his behavior. As for Facebook, good idea, lousy execution. My biggest gripe lies with the mobile ap, though, which seems only capable of showing me posts from about a dozen friends. At least the web version shows me a bit more (along with a shit load of ads).
So this seems to explain his latest meltdown of "Faceman gets away with X, Chup does Y" and so on. He's reached his own personal impasse. He needs to understand and accept that it's not his decision who gets warned and banned and who does not (and I don't believe that either I or Face have breached any rules recently anyway). I don't get the logic of being so argumentative yet at the same time being so desperate to get back in that he can't help but keep bumping his own FB thread to maintain his diet of attention seeking behavour. Mine just seems to erratically choose to show posts from days before whenever it chooses. I loathe it.
One things for sure: watching this whole sad thing unfold has been kind of like watching someone on the low side of average intelligence play chess with someone who is moderately retarded. You see the moves coming a mile away and can even easily see ways to turn them back on the player, but you just watch the other guy take the bait time after time.
You guys are gonna make Anc move this to the RR, aren't you? Which is exactly what he wants. [Ancalagon]"Hey, Castle! We're talking about you behind your back! Don't you want to come back and defend yourself?"[/] Playing right into his agenda, you are.
As a banned member, he can see everything on the board except for the Blue Room and the Shelter. He's quoted from this thread in his Facebook posts. Log out of your account and you'll see exactly what he or any non-member can see, which is nearly everything.
Yeah, but he can't say what he really means in a HD thread. Move this to the RR and people will start talking even more smack about him, and the urge to trounce everyone with his 187 IQ will win out over his current stubbornness.
(Quoted as a reference point) So, what I'm getting out of this, Anc's comments on the matter, Castle's "HE HIT ME FIRST!!!1" rebuttal about Chardman, Liet, et al over on FB is that Castle has gotten to the edge on things that are banning offenses but hasn't actually crossed it at any specific point--apart from being stupid enough to take the bait on an obvious troll by Anc with an ambiguously worded reply. But he did provide that opportunity. And his posting, while not technically warnable, is deemed "inappropriate" by The Powers That Be and that he needs to agree to post in a manner "approved" by The Powers That Be in order to be allowed back. This gets me to the two sticking points he seems to be having but seems unable to articulate without foaming at the mouth (and trying to bite his own face, Gargamel ) is that: 1) By making him agreeing to post in a manner approved by TPTB, he's essentially surrendering any right to equality on the board--from that point on if Anc or gul or someone decides his "reeducation" didn't take, they can ban him without having to cite any rule he's broken. Just "Sorry. We gave you a chance. You promised to change if we let you back and you haven't. :wave: : 2) There are plenty of other posters who are comparably disruptive and contribute equally little that are allowed to post apparently because their political views match those of TPTB. Chardman. 14th Doctor. Garamet. All post links and articles from sources of varying degrees of veracity that support their own perspectives. They all disrupt, flame, and generally shit up threads when someone rebuts their point. (I'd add Liet to that list, but I don't think I've ever seen him actually post anything worthwhile .) The one difference I see is that these posters all have political views in line with TPTB, while Castle's contributions don't. So they all get a pass on any thing they do that affects the board adversely while Castle gets banned until he agrees to reeducation.
