So that is the technique to curb the trend. talk to people on the internet like you would talk to them to their face.
You know what. Here it is. I am sincere. I am decent person. I don’t want to go down to West Virgina and beat the fuck out of Jason in front of his wife and brother.
They seem like decent people. But Giuli posting on here just makes me sad.
That’s what Jason deserves though, the way he talks to people, and someday, if he doesn’t straighten up, someone will.
I think Jason owes me an apology and I will say this to his wife:
I am sorry.
But i’m not expecting one because Jason basically…is small.
Prove me wrong. If you don’t apologize, I am reaching out an olive branch here, if you don’t reciprocate, maybe Some one down in West Virgina next month will jump out of the bushes and fuck you up Jason, mybe they won’t.
That will give you somthing to think about while you are down there anyway.
But its up to you. Apologize and admit you get off on trashing people on the internet in order to feel superior.
its up to you. This could be a healing moment here.
There might be a point where it isn't enough though, depending on the person involved and the situation.
Yes, at which point we can move to temporary ban, and if things get worse than that, we can move to permanent ban.
I would say keep it public.
Yes, I could see potential pitfalls in keeping it private. Perhaps we should keep it all out in the open for safetys sake.
I'm very bad at ignoring things.
Haha. Oh I know from all of our boughts. I have a lot of difficulty with it too. That’s why I love you, man! Don’t give in, you have our support!
Great questions Guili. They have sparked some ideas, but I’ll have to think about them some more before I bounce them off of all of you.
You know that’s fine.
Egg me on, Urban scout. That’s fine. Some is getting fucked up in West Virginia next month.
Maybe you should go too. Drink lots of Vodka.
You know, Fuck all you guys.
Fucking losers. Fuck this forum.
And Jason, I will fuck you up. I am dead fucking serious.
You fucked with the wrong guy.
I like the system. I think having a method to go by and to point to as we have to use it, lets everybody know what’s up so that there are fewer surprises next time.
REWILD has remained a peaceful place, full of good conflict, all kinds of personalities and great discussions for its life so far–until today when the conflicts turned sour and the discussion became too much of a personal attack.
[quote=“Plains, post:2, topic:300”]Ignoring sounds cool. There might be a point where it isn’t enough though, depending on the person involved and the situation.
If there need be any discussion of a conflict between the conflict creator and a mod, I would say keep it public. Not doing so has caused a lot of stupid grief in another forum I belong to. Maybe people here are cooler though.[/quote]
I agree that any conflict between mods and users should stay in the open so that moderator activity can be discussed by the whole group.
It may take a lot of ignoring before a conflictive user calms down. Which would probably result in a lot of one-sided posts by the agressor. I’m okay with that. If we can all just agree to not give in, then the agressor will probably calm down.
I don’t like banning. I don’t like censorship. I didn’t want to ban Ted today when he started picking fights. I’m glad I didn’t, and I’m glad he calmed his name calling down when I suggested the ban.
I like the idea of temporary bans if ignoring the offender doesn’t quieten the problem down.
You think this is a fuck joke RiX?
Name calling? I am going to find Jason Godesky and beat his ass into a bloody pulp.
So laugh, act all superior. You are a bunch of fucktards. The conflict is Jason getting his ass beat.
If you wanted to resolve a conflict you dropped the ball
Alright. Scout and I just discussed this possibility on the phone, and I’m going to put it into action now.
Anyone who uses the board to threaten physical violence against someone else gets banned.
So, as soon as I click the post button, I am banning Free_Range_Organic_Human from this forum.
Feel free to keep discussing this topic, including the action I am about to take.
I have banned Ted, his email address and all of the IP addresses he has used.
As this is the first time I’ve had to use this feature of the forum, I may have overshot the ban and blocked someone else’s IP address as well as Ted`s. If you happen to not be able to post on the forum because I accidentally banned your IP when I was banning Ted, please send me an email at wilderix at gmail dot com telling me your username, and I will try to rectify the situation.
The only thing I really don’t like is the (permanent) locking/closing of threads, unless the creator of said thread is the one attacking someone else. -cough cough- my thread got locked : / and I thought it was perfectly fine thread until it got distracted.
You’re quite right, Fenriswolfr. You had a good thread going, and I would like to see it come back to life.
It would have been better for me to split the tangent from your thread before I locked it, and I will try to do that in the future.
Live and learn.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Likewise, any lock does not have to be permanent if the party or parties involved can cool the flaming down and get back on topic.
I’ll try to separate out the tangent and unlock your thread again, Fenriswolfr, but not tonight as I don’t have that much brainpower left after today’s events. In case I forget, feel free to PM me, but I’ll try not to forget. 
okay thanks
Also, I think this thead belongs in the Suggestion Box/REWILD.info Forums board instead of here. But I’ll do that tomorrow, too.
I feel sad about the angry language used in the conflict. :’( Sigh.
I support REWILD (forums and wiki) as a resource for people who need help with rewilding and all that entails.
Much like in another thread, concerning my feelings toward Ken Wilbur, I don’t give a fig about what folks who don’t want to rewild think, in the sense of rewild that we understand it here. But I give my time away for free for those who just need some to talk to about this rewilding stuff.
I place a lot of value on the slowly increasing body of (ever-evolving!) rewilding knowledge here, both ‘philosophical’ and practical.
If someone has not come here either to learn, or to substantively contribute, I don’t think this place makes a good match for whatever they do want.
Learning requires a certain amount of openness; contributing requires a certain amount of openness.
I have no problem with the idea of booting folks who don’t make a good match with this place, in need or intention. It takes a lot to get to this point and make a poor match abundantly clear, as I think we’ve seen, but for clarity’s sake, booting ‘those who don’t belong’ can possibly encourage a certain amount of groupthink. So I also like the idea of the conflict resolution continuum offered, especially the ‘ignoring’ option, which I think we should flesh out.
I have mixed feelings on the issue of banning users. On one hand, I don’t like to censor. Period. On the other hand, why should someone be allowed to drag down an otherwise healthy learning environment?
When I first “threatened” Ted with banning today after he hinted at violence and called Jason some childish names, I had to ask myself over and over “what constitutes a good reason for banning someone from such an otherwise open-to-conflict forum?” And I decided that petty and obviously personal name-calling really has nothing to do with the spirit of this forum. I thought “this behavior is just destructive when everything else on this forum–conflicts included–feels constructive.” So I decided to wave my ban stick around.
It seemed to have an effect for a while. Ted stopped being as petty in his argument style while still expressing his feelings–negative and otherwise. “Great,” I thought. “It’s just like animals. A little bit of posturing goes a long way to preventing the extreme by merely pointing out the extreme.”
Then Scout and I discussed our feelings about banning via email and telephone, deciding that we could explore other options like the conflict continuum Scout posted. But that the ultimate extreme of someone threatening someone else via the forum should be considered immediate grounds for banning. When we discussed this, I don’t think either of us expected it to come to that. Ironically, it was probably happening on the forum at that very moment that Ted was making serious threats.
It really hurt and pissed me off. I felt like I had extended a lot of latitude to Ted to share his sentiments, express his anger, continue the conflict–in a constructive manner. But he took it back to pettyness and then escalated into outright threats. I gave him a lot of opportunities to rise above his personal vendetta against Jason, but he spurned the opportunities.
I don’t feel bad for banning Ted. I do feel bad that the situation escalated so quickly–that we really didn’t have much time to discuss anything before it turned super ugly and reached what Scout and I had discussed as the worst possible extreme (threatening to physically harm someone).
So I propose a modified conflict continuum:
- Self-policing (don’t insult others)
- Report insults to moderators.
- Publicly ask for conflict to end. (no more posts)
- Lock thread
- Ignore any posts by abuser.
- Temporary Exile (ban user for a set period of time [3 days? 5 days? 7 days?]) and allow the community the opportunity to discuss the merits of the ban.
- Permanent Exile (ban user, email, IP indefinitely)–again, allowing the community do discuss the merits of the ban.
I don’t like that the admin option falls into a few hands–namely that my hands are among the few–who can possibly make rash decisions that affect the cohesiveness of the community. So I guess I want to temper that aspect by stating that I welcome any discussion and criticism from the community concerning my actions as a moderator and administrator. I hope that Willem and Scout and anyone else who might come into the position feel the same way.
I try to act with the community’s interests at heart whenever I have to take action like this. I think Willem’s last post expresses the sentiment very well. Which is why I like the option of a temporary ban that allows the community to respond to the situation and then to re-welcome the banee should the conflict pass. Now, the question remains: how long should a temporary ban last?
Personally I think a week is a good amount of time. It allows people who don’t go online very often the chance to read the thread and think about their position on the ban, and it allows the offending person to spend a nice chunk of time in meat space to (hopefully) cool off, think about it, and then return if they want to.
I agree. Less than a week, and there’s too great a chance that a good chunk of the community here will be prevented from using the time to review the contentious posts. That would be inviting a lot of problems, imo.
Excellent points. I think a week sounds good.
That also not to say that anyone who didn’t happen to log on during the week of a ban couldn’t still post their thoughts after the fact and allow their thoughts to inform future situations.