Request to remove member from Discourse discussions

Discourse Resources Guidelines
,
1

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
2

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
3

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.

4

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
5

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
6

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]

7

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.

8

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

9

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…)

10

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

11

Yes, remove him.

12

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

Discourse ignore list 1
Discourse ignore list 11375×446 43.2 KB

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

Discourse ignore list 2
Discourse ignore list 21543×564 43.7 KB

Discourse ignore list 3
Discourse ignore list 3770×464 24.9 KB

1 Like
13

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?

14

2 posts were split to a new topic: Recurrent misconceptions

16

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

17

This is in reply to Fundamental literature on the reorganization system - #6 by Borislav_Harihari

My answer to your question about being able to see your replies does not belong in the topic about reorganization as a fundamental aspect of PCT. That’s the reason why I put it in a new topic in the subcategory about guidance in using Discourse.

In that answer I compared using email vs. using the web interface to Discourse. Among other things, I showed how quotations and links are nicer (in my opinion) in the web interface but more difficult and less attractive and useful in email. To illustrate that I linked to a different topic. For the illustration, I picked a topic that at least had something to do with replies in Discourse.

It sounds like you are angry about what you imagine to be perceptions that I am controlling. Is that true?

If that is true, what makes you so confident that you have identified my CVs?

“I’ll give you one day and then XYZ” is a threat. Threats and other forms of verbal abuse are perceptions that we control collectively with a reference value of zero. For evidence of that collective control, scroll up and review earlier posts in this topic.

“So how can Bruce get away with threatening me” you might say. This is not a threat, Boris. It is a condition of participation on Discourse. Our conduct on Discourse is collectively controlled: there is general agreement that abusive language is unprofessional and that it repels people who we want to attract to PCT. Resistance to disturbance of a collectively controlled variable is not a threat. It is a condition of participation.

Temporarily, I’m in the personally unpleasant position of acting to resist the disturbance that you presented. However, any one of us can do likewise. Resisting disturbance in an inappropriate way will likewise be a disturbance that someone else might act to resist. That’s how this form of collective control works.

I have placed this reply in a topic that is relevant because it provides strong evidence for the collective control that is the basis for it. I am defending your access to participate in conversations here, Boris. It will take some time for me to be able to reply to your post advocating Maturana’s views. Remain civil, and that conversation can proceed. But to write with care takes time, and refreshing my memory about Maturana will take time.

1 Like
18

Bruce,

It’s a very high probability that you are controlling your own moral standards which you claim to be collectively controlled. Usually leaders hide behind these words. It happens rare that people would think the same.

I’m probably really angry because I think that you try to manipulate with me or in PCT you try to control me and my writings. That’s what moving from CSGnet to Discourse was about. But you obviously changed you mind because you saw through my presentation on Cybernetics Society that you missed something in your imagined “picture” of PCT. Although you try to keep PCT as a whole personal understanding of organisms functioning, you have no chance against science and I feel you feel that. You are very intelligent what I simply missed on CSGnet forum and insulted you. And I appologized to you for that because I really think I made a mistake.

Whatever… I’d just like that our conversation is clearly presented on Discourse because it’s about democracy in presenting different opinions and civilized discussion as you are repeating all the time. And I think you try to prevent that, because you probably try to present that Ricks side of PCT is correct. That was the problem on CSGnet and it is problem here. So if you are asking what I think I imagine that you might be controlling (which perception not CV in your sence, because complex perceptions can be rarely matched to something exactly outside like CV in your and Ricks sense) I think that you are controlling for your BNCT and Ricks RCT theory to be correct. Others in process of collective control should adopt yours and his understanding of PCT and probably the World view (system concept).

It’s no doubt that you probably as Ricks friend try to “protect” Rick’s RCT, but believe me Bruce this game is lost. Rick has exactly zero scientific evidences what he is talking about and friendship shouldn’t be measure of scientific discovery. I understand that you are so many years together and that special bonds appeared between you but as I said before, if you want to keep your word of civil and democratic discoussion you’ll have to keep my posts in public on actual time of origin as non of them are abuse.

You imagine them as abuse as they are unfavourable; unpleasant, disagreeablw, annoying, unwelcome, uncomfortable, inconvenient, awkward; troublesome; uneasy; harmful TO YOU. But that is just your way of controlling perception of my statements. Others would control it differently if you would let them have their oppinion. But you don’t, because you try to filter what they can see that is not in accordance to your references. This keeps your control of perception intact or or IN PCT words everything has to be aligned with your “system concept” (references).

You can take my warning that I’ll talk to founders of Discourse as you like, It will be always your subjective control and the problem is that I feel that you are misusing your power. Obviously there is no other way but we’ll have to check to which level you are missusing social powers (probably being main moderator). And that is by social control standards punishable.

Usually normal people reaction is that they will “defend” with back accusations of being like you said threatened that uncivil discousing is going on and so on. That’s normal control of ALMOST ALL PEOPLE ON THE WORLD - TRYING TO KEEP PERCEPTION AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THEIR REFERENCES. Look what Trump did just to keep his warm sit on president chair. I think you try to do the same . Stopping civil and democratic discsussion to keep your perception in line with your references is not allowed by social standards on such a discourse forum.

I don’t care how you felt my “threat” that is on founders of Discourse to find out. And warning that you should do your job as you should I’m sure they will not take as a threat. More they will lake of YOUR OBLIGATION TO RESPECT social rules. You know rules of democratic discousion !!! You are tresspaing them by filtering and directing conversation into your direction (near your references). But problem is that your references are quite far from understanding how organisms function although you think that you understand PCT but you don’t.

Threat is your “control” because you maybe feel that you could loose control over Discourse. There is no secret that you are pulling the commnands. And the most probable is that you will try to keep discussions on Discourse aligned with your references of what you know about PCT and organisms functioning.

But understanding of organisms functioning is not a matter of individual to understand as he wants, but it has to respect “collective control” in scientific research work as the way of integrating knowledge of many people to come to “objective” truth. Not “collective control” which is a reflection of individual who managed to “control” others. You tried to get rid of me once (exactly here was discussion) and Rick was estonished that there is so low number of members who wanted to “dump” me. I think there were only 4 of you.

So you see that collective control if you really want to know what it is about, you have to expose problem to people’s collective control and then you can talk what collective control is. It will be collection of usually very different opinions among there will be also scientific researche results…

Whatever. Your interpertation of my posts has nothing to do with collective control you are hiding behind. Just do your job of keeping democratic discousion and everything will be O.K…

Our new start was like a dream. Why don’t we keep it that way. You can beleive me or not that no individual can win against science (milions of people having aproximatelly the same perceptual “CEP” in their minds). CEP is something that should be “mirrored” into mind of Living beings if we take Martin’s CEV as standard for mirroring. Martin is using different perceptions for “mirrored” and I think he is wrong.

I personally think it’s true that it’s very hard to persuade people and try to form “collective CEP” in their minds, although I think it’s civil that you let people to determine which CEP they will form in their minds without trying to use your power and direct course of their forming of CEP in your or Ricks direction of control. You already described such an attempt as “crippling”.

V V sre., 27. okt. 2021 ob 22:03 je oseba Bruce E. Nevin via IAPCT <noreply@discourse.iapct.org> napisala:

19

The move to Discourse was not about you, Boris. You received the same announcements as everyone else, announcements in which the reasons for the move were stated repeatedly, and you were as free to start using Discourse as everyone else has been.

I have neither the motives nor the powers that you are imagining that I have. Others are free to correct or reprimand me if I do wrong – especially if I claim that some value is collectively controlled here when it is not.

Best to ignore these perceived offenses and permit me some time to respond to the substantive issues that you said you want to talk about.

For many reasons, it is physically not possible for me to do that immediately. Most recently, a windstorm has put a lot of things into disarray here. I was away all day yesterday (off Island) getting a COVID vaccination. Today I spent the first five hours of the day taking the widow of a friend and her son to the local hospital for a medical appointment. While I was waiting for them in my car I was able to continue my literature review on Maturana, Varela, et al. On my return I had some fallen trees and limbs to clear around my house.

I will try to respond to your Cybernetic Society ideas as soon as I can. Please be patient.

20

Bruce,

it’s no use. I read your manipulation. As I wrote before you are inteligent and your means of control are quite sophisticated. It’s no secret that you are “protecting” yours and Rick’s interest. You even don’t have to lie about why you changed forum.

So we are not talking whether you have time or not for our conversation to be properly exposed on Discourse. It has to be immediatelly there because that’s how other conversations democratically work. You try to buy time, but Bruce please don’t test my patient.

It’s also irrelevant whether you’ll respond to my Cybernetics Society “ideas”, because the problem is not about that. Anyway you have nothing to answer about my Cybernetics Society “ideas”, because they are scientifically based. And as you mentioned many times before you are not enough equiped for such scientific discussion. I noticed your effort to find out whether you can safe PCT to be intact. Sorry Bill was a genius but he didn’t understand some basic physiological “facts” although Wiener was clear about use of general physiology. And general physiology is important part of medicine, and medicine advance every day in understanding genetica and functioning of human organism. As I wrote before you and Rick have no chances against science. So you can’t safe Bill’s theory as whole. Many parts of PCT that can be scientifically proved will stay but also many parts will have to change because of scientific advancement. That’s not only about PCT it’s concerning whole Cybernetics.

So Bruce if until monday you’ll not democratically arrange everything about our conversations I’ll start talking with founders and other members about removal of any “autocratic” mechanisms from Discourse because they are being misused. You are autocrat by your nature. You can’t escape your genes. Control is deeply burried into your body and the only problem is that you have so high gain for controlling what you want. Democracy is not working in that way. So you have 2 days.

But one question appeared to me. How did you know that my presentation on Cybernetics Society will be usefull for next generations if you didn’t see it? We know that before I had presentation on Cybernetics Society you thought and announced that my knowledge is worthless. And of course that I don’t understand language. Now everything has changed. WHY ?

21

This is in response to some confusion about how Discourse works and some mistaken ideas about my role in it which you posted under the topic “How organisms function form view of Ashby, Maturana, Powers, physiology and neurophysiology”. I will respond to the accusations and innuendo here, continuing this topic. I will respond at that location to what you say about how organisms function etc. I think the only thing of substance there is a re-posting of the link the Cybernetic Society youtube video, but I will double check.

In general, the Discourse category for a post is determined by the subject matter of that post. If a new post changes the subject, it belongs in a topic and category devoted to that subject.

Boris, I don’t ‘publish’ your answers, Discourse does. It’s an automatic software process.

All of your posts that you have sent to me in this way are present in Discourse. When you post them to Discourse, Discourse sends them to me and to everyone else who receives such email. They are all visible to anyone who goes to Discourse.

For example, you posted this:

That post is on Discourse in the post that is specified by this link (post number 27 in the topic "You say you want a revolution).

You will also be able to scroll up from there to see all of the prior discussion under the topic “You say you want a revolution”. Nothing has been omitted or ‘filtered’.

If you think that something that you emailed to me is missing from Discourse please identify it by subject line and date. I am not aware of getting any private email from you, our conversations have all been mediated by Discourse.

You have perhaps forgotten that a few days ago I said

The reason I said that is not because I am ‘triggered’ (a stimulus-response notion). It is because it’s been maybe 20 years since I’ve read anything by Maturana or Varela, and I wanted to refresh my memory. That’s why I put a summary of what I reviewed in a separate topic about autopoiesis. I put it in the Fundamentals category, so that others could correct it where I am wrong, and so that it would be there as a baseline to refer to. You replied that it was “misleading”. I have asked you to provide specific corrections.

With that baseline in place, I will resume our conversation referring to the Youtube recording of your presentation to the (UK) Cybernetics Society. That conversation does not belong in the topic “You say you want a revolution” under Learning PCT > Interdisciplinary Opportunities. I will reply to your post “How organisms function from view of Ashby, Maturana, Powers, physiology and neurophysiology”, ignoring all the personal accusations.