Request to remove member from Discourse discussions

Here’s a copy of a post I sent to CSGNet:

[Rick Marken 2020-10-05_14:51:04]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 11:55 AM bobi.hartman@t-2.si <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

BH: I’ll not allow writing nonsense about PCT in public. You two are shame for PCT and Powers name.

BH: It seems Warren that we’ll have to go hard way. So expect that pressure on Elsevier will graduate and I’ll have to talk to your superior. You give no other choice.about PCT in public. You two are shame for PCT and Powers name.

RM: For a person who ostensibly doesn’t like the idea that behavior can be controlled you certainly are not shy about using “graduated” means to try to control other people’s behavior. I think this is the most shameful post I have seen yet from you – and that’s saying something given your history of posts to this list. You are actually threatening violence against Warren (the “hard way” , “expect pressure”, “you give me no choice”). I think this merits immediate removal from all PCT discussion groups. It’s clear that you are not going to change. Warren Mansell and Bruce Nevin (both whom I disagree with about many things PCT) have made heroic efforts to have civil discussions with you. This last post proves that this is simply impossible. So I call for your removal from both csgnet and Discourse. (I’ll post this to Discourse as well). But I will go with whatever the group decides. But if anyone agrees with me I would appreciate it if they would reply to the email with “yes, he should go”.

Best

Rick

1 Like

Thanks Rick. I’d prefer it if any threatening or abusive post from anyone is immediately removed from both systems if this is technically possible in the resources we have.

1 Like

Hi Rick,

I am not sure removing a member from discourse is a good idea. Members can flag up any abusive posts which will hide the post. Moderators can then request the member to edit their abusive posts before unhiding it.

I would have no objection if Boris were banned. On pretty much every other moderated forum I have been on, he would have been years ago. He has for years consistently made contributions of negative value. I routinely ignore him, and whenever I look to see if the leopard has changed his spots, he has not.

I admire Warren’s persistence and forbearance in engaging with Boris, but it is like trying to teach a bear to talk.

– Richard Kennaway

1 Like

It is appropriate that this is posted in the Discourse Resources category. We do have resources that we have not fully used.

As Mak pointed out, any user can flag a post. You can find out how to do this by Googling something like “discourse how to flag abusive post”. When I do that, the first link takes me to this FAQ page.

Once a post is flagged administrators could require the removal of abusive and insulting language and personal attacks before it can be posted.

After abusive insults and personal attacks have been removed, administrators can intervene in how a post is categorized.

Boris alluded to his interest in education and child development in his last exchange with Warren, and he has alluded to the need for more grounding in physiology. If he were to propose ways to carry out or extend research in these areas such a post could appear under an appropriate subcategory. He has claimed to have done such research but to my knowledge has never posted anything of substance about any such research that he has done.

Boris’s posts often fit the description of trolling: hijacking a thread to the troll’s preferred theme, which is usually disputatious or incendiary, insulting and belittling a poster’s intelligence or character, misrepresenting and distorting what they have said, and indulging in opinionated language, e.g. arguing ad hominem and ad verecundiam and exemplifying control of a perception that his beliefs are true and certain to be true and therefore any disagreement is false.

Most of his posts quote statements and diagrams from the writings of Bill Powers, together with claims that what others are writing deviates from this standard and is therefore incorrect and should not be presented in a forum about PCT. Such posts are moved to the subcategory “Dogmatic PCT”. In my view it is important to have examples of this form of scientism available so that we can avoid falling into such traps, as has too often happened over the past 30 years for which we have archives of internet discussions. However, we really don’t need a lot of examples, and Boris’s posts are thoroughly repetitive.

These resources provide a reasonable way to consider continuing to tolerate Boris’s presence.

On the other hand, Boris has demonstrated no capacity for doing science and no evidence of actually applied PCT in education of children, his stated interest, or in any other field. His main preoccupation has been to tell the rest of us that we are wrong (with a few exceptions, but they’d better be careful), and sometimes to suggest that he has enjoyed special insider acceptance by Bill and Mary and by others in the Powers family, an obvious appeal to authority.

After he self-identified as a troll I stopped responding to him. That got me off the hook by not taking the bait. It does not solve the problem of his misleading newcomers and tarnishing the professionalism of IAPCT.

Lacking full administrative powers on Sympa, and given the loosey-goosey character of a listserv, banning him was not a practical option in csgnet. At the annual meeting we will announce a plan to shut down csgnet as of 1 December. Here in discourse we have a wider range of options, including banning him. I have tried to lay out the resources that I see. We do not have clearly established ways of using them for collective control, but perhaps this little survey can help us to discern what perceptions we wish collectively to control.

1 Like

Hi Bruce

BN: As Mak pointed out, any user can flag a post. You can find out how to do this by Googling something like “discourse how to flag abusive post”. When I do that, the first link takes me to this FAQ page.

RM: I don’t want to waste my time doing that. I’ve seen only about 7 replies so far to my suggestion that Boris be removed and only 2 of those agreed with me that he should. So I’ll accept the majority result, noting only that it was nice to see that my true sentiments on this matter were expressed nicely by the wonderful Dr. Kennaway.

Anyway, CSGNet will be gone by Dec. 1 and the threads are so varied on Discourse that Boris is not much of a problem here.

Best

Rick

Once a post is flagged administrators could require the removal of abusive and insulting language and personal attacks before it can be posted.

After abusive insults and personal attacks have been removed, administrators can intervene in how a post is categorized.

Boris alluded to his interest in education and child development in his last exchange with Warren, and he has alluded to the need for more grounding in physiology. If he were to propose ways to carry out or extend research in these areas such a post could appear under an appropriate subcategory. He has claimed to have done such research but to my knowledge has never posted anything of substance about any such research that he has done.

Boris’s posts often fit the description of trolling: hijacking a thread to the troll’s preferred theme, which is usually disputatious or incendiary, insulting and belittling a poster’s intelligence or character, misrepresenting and distorting what they have said, and indulging in opinionated language, e.g. arguing ad hominem and ad verecundiam and exemplifying control of a perception that his beliefs are true and certain to be true and therefore any disagreement is false.

Most of his posts quote statements and diagrams from the writings of Bill Powers, together with claims that what others are writing deviates from this standard and is therefore incorrect and should not be presented in a forum about PCT. Such posts are moved to the subcategory “Dogmatic PCT”. In my view it is important to have examples of this form of scientism available so that we can avoid falling into such traps, as has too often happened over the past 30 years for which we have archives of internet discussions. However, we really don’t need a lot of examples, and Boris’s posts are thoroughly repetitive.

These resources provide a reasonable way to consider continuing to tolerate Boris’s presence.

On the other hand, Boris has demonstrated no capacity for doing science and no evidence of actually applied PCT in education of children, his stated interest, or in any other field. His main preoccupation has been to tell the rest of us that we are wrong (with a few exceptions, but they’d better be careful), and sometimes to suggest that he has enjoyed special insider acceptance by Bill and Mary and by others in the Powers family, an obvious appeal to authority.

After he self-identified as a troll I stopped responding to him. That got me off the hook by not taking the bait. It does not solve the problem of his misleading newcomers and tarnishing the professionalism of IAPCT.

Lacking full administrative powers on Sympa, and given the loosey-goosey character of a listserv, banning him was not a practical option in csgnet. At the annual meeting we will announce a plan to shut down csgnet as of 1 December. Here in discourse we have a wider range of options, including banning him. I have tried to lay out the resources that I see. We do not have clearly established ways of using them for collective control, but perhaps this little survey can help us to discern what perceptions we wish collectively to control.
[/quote]

Please explain why it is a waste of time. A click or two and the post that offends you can no longer be seen, and you’ve handed the problem off to Discourse admins.

Banishing someone should not be lightly done. On what basis should the admins do it? Agreement with those who are complaining?Perhaps we should do so–I have not disagreed with you. If we establish an agreed process, it could happen. If we don’t, watch your back. I for one do not relish a community in which I have to watch my back.

“One lives not for oneself but for one’s community.” (Ruth Bader Ginsburg). The perceptions (and the reference values for them) which are implicit in that quotation might not occur to everyone, but they lie upon Discourse admins as an obligation.

Hi Bruce

BN: Please explain why it is a waste of time.

RM: Because you have to read the whole damn post and see whether it’s worth it to do the clicking. I made the suggestion to remove Boris because he has been a problem for years and (as Richard Kennaway said) “on pretty much every other moderated forum I have been on, he would have been [banned] years ago”. But I didn’t want to suggest banning him because during most of that time I was the object of his ire and I didn’t want it to seem like it was a personal thing. I thought his posts were so egregiously rude and ignorant that there would eventually be a groundswell to remove him from the list (just CSG at the time). But to my astonishment, no one seemed to mind and many even agreed with the junk he was posting.

RM: But apparently there was one person who felt as I did. As Richard Kennaway said in his post " He has for years consistently made contributions of negative value [emphasis mine] I routinely ignore him, and whenever I look to see if the leopard has changed his spots, he has not." So Richard would have been happy to have seen him removed long ago but, maybe since no one else was rising to the occasion, he laid low and hoped that the leopard would change his spots.

RM: And I was doing the same as Richard (though I knew that the leopard was not going his spots) but when he posted threats to Warren (and implicitly me, I suppose) I thought that that would be the last straw (kind of like Trump separating children from their parents) and people would rise up and get rid of the scoundrel. But, no. Like those who support Trump, many PCT supporters seemed to agree that though Boris is rude (a far too kind description of his and Trump’s behavior) he has some worthwhile things to contribute. So the majority seems to be willing to keep him on for those supposedly worthwhile things that I have yet to see. So I’ll accept the community verdict, even though I vigorously disagree with it.

BN: “One lives not for oneself but for one’s community.” (Ruth Bader Ginsburg).

RM: I love Ruth; met (well, sat near her) her at the opera once. But she’s only half right here. One lives both for oneself and for the community. That’s what makes life (and politics and community) difficult. But I am going with the community; if they don’t want to remove him then that’s the way it will be. But I think the PCT community is making as big a mistake by not removing Boris as the US Congress made by not removing Trump. Sometimes the community is significantly improved by (non-violently) removing people from participation.

Best

Oliver Wendall Marken

Upon reading Boris’s posts on both CSG and then seeing his post here on Discourse, I immediately looked for a way to personally “block” a user. That would have been my preferred recourse so that I simply wouldn’t ever see a post by anyone I had blocked. Is that not a possible feature on Discourse and another alternative?

Just as an aside… in what seems like a previous lifetime, I once had a role in a pre-Facebook, social media company and saw up close and personal the technical difficulty in blocking someone from a forum. (A new email and woohoo… they’re back…)

Hi all,
I do agree that something needs to be done!
As a new-be in the PCT community, many posts (also in past archives) created some errors in my system, because of the destructive way of communication. I suggest to publish some code of conduct or core principles of communication and then that any post that is not honouring that would be immediately removed.
Warmly, Malou

Yes, remove him.

Hi all,

You can add other users in your ignore list, but you need to get to Trust level 2.

Please see this article on How to get to Trust level 2 (or read and post a lot on discourse). If you have reached Trust level 2. Please read on. Currently, we have 4 members are at Trust Level 2 on discourse.

Here is how you can ignore an user by following the guide below. By ignoring a user, you will suppress all posts, notifications, and PMs from the user. Alternatively, you can mute them which will only suppress all notification and PMs.

  1. Click on your profile icon
  2. Click on the “setting” icon > Preference

  1. “Users” on the left panel
  2. Click “+Add” under ignored

1 Like

I understand Warren that any oppinion that causes you error you’d like to be removed (perception varied arround reference). I’m really surprised that you as psychoterapist solve interaction problems in this way.

Could you think of solution where you’ll change your understanding of PCT and move from RCT to PCT. Wouldn’t be that more appropriate way to honor the memory on W.T. Powers.

Whatever Rick is describing as “attack” it’s only informations about my intentions. I could also make direct actions with no warning. Would you like rather that scenario?

2 posts were split to a new topic: Recurrent misconceptions

Yes, you can ignore posts from a person. See the explanation that Mak posted in this topic (forumControlSystem October 7).