Photobucket
My Photo

Tip Jar

Support Blog

Tip Jar

Official Second Life Blog

EngageDigital

« "You will probably be in jail for the next 3 to 6 years" | Main | History of Sims: Ross -- the Shared Dream of a Telehub Sim »

June 02, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cfe069e200df351ccc1c8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Uncultured Clickability:

Comments

Erbo Evans

For what it's worth, Prokofy, I'm not planning on banning you either. The comments you've left on posts over on Evans Avenue Exit haven't given me any reason to, and, if someone were to personally attack you in my comments, I would ban THEM, not YOU, if anyone. As a virtual-community person who occasionaly is one of the ones people want to silence, I know that the answer to "bad" speech is MORE speech, not curtailing speech.

Untameable Wildcat

I have to ask myself, if all these people are harassing you - why do you publish a list of places you are still allowed? It strikes me as putting a red flag in front of a bull... or is that the idea, to bait people into "coming after" you at these places so that you can say "See? I TOLD you this evil crowd was after me!"

You've been abrasive to me. In some cases you've twisted what I've posted completely out of context to back up your own arguments, and in some cases you have disregarded what I've said if it poses a challenge to your arguments. I'm afraid I just can't see you as the "victim" in all of these cases; you seem to be quite happy to give as good as you get, and in some cases to rant spectacularly at anyone who debates with you. The 12,300+ word rant here about csven (yes, I loaded it into MS Word to count the number of words... 22 pages, my god...) is a perfect example.

I don't know most of the people you speak of, I can only go on the way you've responded to my posts in various places - but that has shown me you're FAR from the victim when it comes to flame wars, and it doesn't surprise me that if you meet someone who is just as bad if not - as you would have it here - worse, then BOTH of you are looking at a permaban. Why does that come as such a surprise?

Prokofy Neva

I have to ask myself, if all these people are harassing you - why do you publish a list of places you are still allowed? It strikes me as putting a red flag in front of a bull... or is that the idea, to bait people into "coming after" you at these places so that you can say "See? I TOLD you this evil crowd was after me!"

I don't put any red flags in front of a bull, I speak normally, by the light of my conscience. I'm actually a very normal, ordinary person with fairly conventional liberal views. It's just that I'm in a setting dominated by neuralgic, defensive, insecure, mainly 20-something tekkie assholes who have absolutely no value for civil liberties, unless they can be harnessed somehow to extend out endlessly their fuck-you hedonism.

If there were thousands more like me in this setting, it would be a different place. But it isn't, because the people running these venues, and the Lindens themselves, come from a cranky, neuralgic, self-obsessed geeky sort of social stratrum, and tend to have no tolerance for real free speech, and no ability to tell people how to be civil, either.

Since my criticism is a bell-wether of sorts, I think I'm a good litmus test for how free a blog is. And also how well moderated the blogs are -- moderated in the sense of having an owner who is present and intervenes now and then telling people they are asswipes. I'm *ALL* for the editorial voice on a blog. Totally for it. It's faux freedom when people remove the editorial voice.

The editorial voice is vital. The editorial voice that Strife Onizuka represents is an exasperating and unfair one, and that's why people hate it, but the editorial voice as an institution is one that is needed. Again, I think of Urizenus Sklar as my ideal of an editorial voice. He's able to come in to a thread, and with one subtle knife, make all the trolls dry up. With a simple explanation like this, he is able to completely devastate all the idiot flamesters: that real mental health experts don't administer diagnoses over the Internet, and if they did, they'd not be credible.

>You've been abrasive to me. In some cases you've twisted what I've posted completely out of context to back up your own arguments, and in some cases you have disregarded what I've said if it poses a challenge to your arguments.

I do realize you fancy these things because it makes you feel special, but it's not the case.
No, I think someone like you just has never been told "no," and never argued with persuasively. For you, "abrasiveness" will be anybody pushing back against what you imagine to be your precious pearls of wisdom. I don't see whatsoever that I've ignored any argument that somehow undermines my beliefs. That's not possible. By now, people know that there aren't things that are going to undermine my beliefs, and if they appear to do so, I'm surely not going to ignore them, and have absolutely no fear in taking them on.

But people put lots of junk in their posts, some of it not worth responding to, so I leave it aside. If there's some magic bullet that you think you've come up with that "undermines my beliefs" gosh, bring it on, I fear not, don't be ridiculous, this is just your little meme for trying to make yourself more important than you are.

>I'm afraid I just can't see you as the "victim" in all of these cases; you seem to be quite happy to give as good as you get, and in some cases to rant spectacularly at anyone who debates with you. The 12,300+ word rant here about csven (yes, I loaded it into MS Word to count the number of words... 22 pages, my god...) is a perfect example.

I'm happy to rant for 22 pages or 44 pages to csven, because nobody should be allowed to get away with the crap he does so cavalierly, manipulating meaning, and gaslighting his own posts to back away from their obvious content.

>I don't know most of the people you speak of, I can only go on the way you've responded to my posts in various places - but that has shown me you're FAR from the victim when it comes to flame wars, and it doesn't surprise me that if you meet someone who is just as bad if not - as you would have it here - worse, then BOTH of you are looking at a permaban. Why does that come as such a surprise?

I think you should read what csven wrote, only some of which is here, and ask yourself whether calling people "liars" (something I never begin doing with them in a debate) or claiming they are "wriggling" like "worms" and all the rest of it, is acceptable discourse. It's not what I do. But when people do that to me, I fight back.

I don't portray myself as a victim whatsoever. I do hope by fighting back, in fact, I can empower those who might feel victimized by these razing asshole tekkies. csven is notorious and others who have taken him on including Tony Walsh himself have found the experience annoying.

csven can persist in this way way past the sell-by date because he either doesn't care (lately he's been chillingly cavalier about even the fear of being banned from SL, which shows he is either suffering from depression or giving into nihilism) or because he is confident that he has other little assholes like Ian Betteridge to back him -- but of course Ian and Csven, as much as they make common cause against me, would fight each other like cats and dogs.

I think you tune in selectively, and tendentiously.

Desmond Shang

To be permabanned from anywhere one must be one of two things.

1) a spammer

2) relevant to the discussion at hand *and* provocative in some way

Quite honestly, I think the relevancy is slipping.

The grid's getting huge. Pretty soon, very few will care who you are, or who I am.

Prokofy Neva

You wish, Desmond *shrugs*.

Untameable Wildcat

Okay, if you're interested in debating, maybe you can point out the flaw in my logic here.

I'm combining two things you've said: "I don't portray myself as a victim whatsoever." is a pretty clear statement - but at the same time you do say "I'm actually a very normal, ordinary person with fairly conventional liberal views. It's just that I'm in a setting dominated by neuralgic, defensive, insecure, mainly 20-something tekkie assholes who have absolutely no value for civil liberties, unless they can be harnessed somehow to extend out endlessly their fuck-you hedonism."

Now this second quote seems to contradict the first one. In the second one you state that you are the normal person, who would be fine but for the [persons matching the description] INFERRING, if not directly saying, that these people who seem through the noise they're making to be the more noticeable (louder?) majority are picking on you - thereby making you the innocent victim of assholes.

Where is my logic flawed in this? Either you're the victim of - what was it - "neuralgic, defensive, insecure, mainly 20-something tekkie assholes who have absolutely no value for civil liberties" - who are ruthless in their persecution of you, a normal liberal person with a desire to debate productively, in which case yes, you ARE presenting yourself as a victim, or you're not actually a victim of these people in which case why are you complaining to such lengths about anything they have to say if it is, ultimately, pointless and not worth spending time considering?

You can insult me again (what was it this time? Oh yes, I'm "fancy[ing] these things because it makes [me] feel special," and thereby "ridiculous" and "trying to make [my]self more important than [I am]" - but is there any point in just insulting me rather than thinking about the points I'm trying to make - and if you're the one who resorts to insults rather than debating, surely that says more about YOU than it does about ME.

>"I think you tune in selectively, and tendentiously"

I think you just became the proverbial pot that called the proverbial kettle black. You can't see the wood for the trees, you think Prokofy is always automatically right and you insult and try to devalue anyone who in any way disagrees with that. On several occasions I've asked you to point out where you think flaws in the logic I'm using for my debate are, and you just belittle me and suggest that my views are simply wrong because I'm trying to make myself out to be more important than I am. Well, for your information, I'm one person (avatar, in game) amongst millions. Insignificant to the overall picture. But I'm prepared to admit that, in the knowledge that it doesn't mean arguments I may make are any less correct.

I can see why people don't like you. I can't see that in some way I'm blinkered for that, or that you're not deliberately abrasive because the words you choose are much harsher than they need to be. If I'm wrong, fair enough; I'm wrong - at least point out WHERE I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, stop insulting me. That's not debating, that's the very bullying you're deliberately portraying yourself as the victim of.

Prokofy Neva

You sound like one of these young college kids who has never been told "no" or countered in their will, ever.

>Now this second quote seems to contradict the first one. In the second one you state that you are the normal person, who would be fine but for the [persons matching the description] INFERRING, if not directly saying, that these people who seem through the noise they're making to be the more noticeable (louder?) majority are picking on you - thereby making you the innocent victim of assholes.

That's your take on it. I describe a field dominated by tekkie assholes; I describe myself as fighting back. I'm hardly a victim. If anything, I'm a hero of sorts, but whatever the Don Quixote like images that might come to mind for some, I have the inner freedom and satisfaction of knowing that I have done the right thing by the light of my conscience, and that's a great thing, let me tell you.

>Where is my logic flawed in this? Either you're the victim of - what was it - "neuralgic, defensive, insecure, mainly 20-something tekkie assholes who have absolutely no value for civil liberties" - who are ruthless in their persecution of you, a normal liberal person with a desire to debate productively, in which case yes, you ARE presenting yourself as a victim, or you're not actually a victim of these people in which case why are you complaining to such lengths about anything they have to say if it is, ultimately, pointless and not worth spending time considering?

Because I'm not a victim? You have difficulty being able to understand nuances, I guess. I'm a fighter. Fighters are not victims. You've merely framed this into your own largely irrelevant narrative.

>You can insult me again (what was it this time? Oh yes, I'm "fancy[ing] these things because it makes [me] feel special," and thereby "ridiculous" and "trying to make [my]self more important than [I am]" - but is there any point in just insulting me rather than thinking about the points I'm trying to make - and if you're the one who resorts to insults rather than debating, surely that says more about YOU than it does about ME.

There's nothing to think about? Because you're too dim to figure out that I'm a fighter, not a fictim, and even describing a situation where the deck might be stacked against me, I can point out that I fight hard and obtain dignity in that. I'm never a victim.

>"I think you tune in selectively, and tendentiously"

>I think you just became the proverbial pot that called the proverbial kettle black.

Well, just as all threads have Godwin's Law, so the Kitchen Law fairly rapidly enters any discussion where one party, yourself, cannot understand nuances and subtleties and begins windmilling her fists trying to lash out by saying "pot meet kettle".

>ou can't see the wood for the trees, you think Prokofy is always automatically right and you insult and try to devalue anyone who in any way disagrees with that. On several occasions I've asked you to point out where you think flaws in the logic I'm using for my debate are, and you just belittle me and suggest that my views are simply wrong because I'm trying to make myself out to be more important than I am. Well, for your information, I'm one person (avatar, in game) amongst millions. Insignificant to the overall picture. But I'm prepared to admit that, in the knowledge that it doesn't mean arguments I may make are any less correct.

You are wrong? And Prokofy is right? That's hard to swallow, I know, but there's a big girl now, swallow it!

>I can see why people don't like you. I can't see that in some way I'm blinkered for that, or that you're not deliberately abrasive because the words you choose are much harsher than they need to be. If I'm wrong, fair enough; I'm wrong - at least point out WHERE I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, stop insulting me. That's not debating, that's the very bullying you're deliberately portraying yourself as the victim of.

Start your own blog, don't read this one? There's a big girl!

Prokofy Neva

I'm appalled that no one is protesting this permabanning by that old grumpy granny Tony Walsh, my God, is everybody THAT afraid of Game Geek Guys???

http://www.secretlair.com/index.php?/clickableculture/entry/clickable_culture_history_permabans_updated/

Untameable Wildcat

So what you essentially said in your abusive rant at my last comment is "I'm a fighter. I'm an angry person. I like to fight people." then in the next entry it's "Boo hoo, waaaa, why is nobody upset I got banned for fighting?"

Newsflash: if you abuse and fight people all over the place, you're going to get banned for being a nuisance. Prokofy is only 100% right in Prokofy's mind, and those who run or edit other organisations may get tired sooner or later of Prokofy insulting everyone else because they don't agree with Prokofy.

Visitors to my blog (yes, I do have one, and have had for some time - I even put it in the "url" field of the 'post a comment' option here) I try to treat with some degree of respect. If they disagree with me, that's their right - as long as they don't post comments that aren't outright abuse. There's a difference between outright abuse and debate.

I'm sure you ARE appalled that nobody seems to be taking your side here. After all, as you've said most definitively, Prokofy is ALWAYS right... It couldn't possibly be because someone who first meets you in a debate and gets insulted and belittled by you learns rapidly that all you do is spew hate and ego at everyone who gets in your path.

Or could it?

Prokofy Neva

I don't think you're capable of very deep thought or nuanced perception.

I'm not boohooing, I'm asking people to do the right thing and protest what's wrong. That's not victimhood but fighting for what's right.

I didn't abuse anybody NEWSFLASH NEWSFLASH. Go read the threads here and there. I fought back against a completely deranged asshole. I was the one insulted, and I fought back because the moderator didn't moderate. Very good case study.

Sure, I'm appalled, because I know what I did was right, fighting back is right, and many people are pussies about this. They're afraid.

I hardly think that telling someone off who calls you a liar and a worm is "spewing hate and vitriol". But I wouldn't expect to convince you, with your selective and biased take on this.

Untameable Wildcat

I wasn't referring to HIM when I made the last comment, I was referring to ME.

Your private war with him doesn't excuse you from your behavior towards me which definitely leans towards spewing hate and vitriol even if it doesn't totally reach there.

If it wasn't for the behavior directed towards me, then I may well have written on your behalf; but the way you've reacted towards me causes me to pause and think "Say, what if the guy who banned him DOES have a point?" Can't you see that the way you treat others will have a direct impact on how they treat you in return?

Maybe I am insignificant. But you're asking for my support here, in your original post asking for support from the general public. Turning round and attacking me like this isn't the way to get my - or others - support.

Desmond Shang

>>I'm appalled that no one is protesting this permabanning by that old grumpy granny Tony Walsh, my God, is everybody THAT afraid of Game Geek Guys???

Why should anyone be appalled?

Egads, he's less relevant than you are these days. Why should even you care?

Let me put it this way. Even Cristiano's Open Letter was worth exactly this: a 'town hall' meeting followed by business as usual.

At least governments the size of Germany still have some traction, but if you aren't a member of the Group of Eight you are prolly going to be less than 'all that' when it comes to relevancy.

Besides, wasn't this the future you hoped for, when all the so-called Normal Folk came to the grid, overtook the FIC in terms of relevancy, swept BDSM and such back into the dark corners, and made the grid their own?

Well, here we are. You should be happy!

Prokofy Neva

Desmond,

Where do you see BDSM swept back into the dark corners? Um...on your sim? They're all alive and well and living in the light and renting from me, far as I can tell. *Shrugs*. They even have made protest groups with as many as 800 plus people in them.

Whatever my differences with Tony Walsh, and my belief that he no longer provides a truly interesting and critical forum for discussing virtual worlds and games, I couldn't concede that he's now "irrelevant." He is in demand precisely because he says some of the cheerful if bland stuff that corporations and universities want to hear.

BTW, Andrew Linden is now victory-dancing in this thread about my permabanning --really unprofessional and uncool.

I hope people can respond. It's especially nasty to slam someone and say they are to blame for their bannings when they cannot respond.

Ian Betteridge

"It's especially nasty to slam someone and say they are to blame for their bannings when they cannot respond."

In which case, you should life your bans on the people you ban from your site, given that half the people you spend your days slamming are banned from it. Including me.

Prokofy Neva

In which case, you should life your bans on the people you ban from your site, given that half the people you spend your days slamming are banned from it. Including me.

I have rules for my bans, and they are stated in advance, unlike Tony, who made no rules.

My rules involve using a SL name or RL name, and as you know full well, not advocating harm or doing harm objectively to another person. Constantly harassing me by linking my RL name to discussions which is not my preference is exactly that sort of harm. So, bye once again.

Richie Waves

Prokofy, I am Insulted that you call Thundershite Nomates an "SC idiot"... He's just an idiot. Leave Second citizen out of it where he's concerned, also you shouldnt encourage him, he been after your recognition for some time now.

if you read SC youd realise that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ads

  • Google AdSense

Ads

  • Google AdSense
Blog powered by Typepad

Networked Blogs

  • Networked Blogs