Will Somebody UnBan Tribesman?

[Husar]

Tribesman found Fragony's positions unacceptable and said he wouldn't want to be on a forum where such people are allowed to talk openly.
Fragony was really sorry etc. but it didn't help so Tribesman left, unfortunately. I) miss him, too but I don't know any way to get him back and I don't want to ban Fragony either, so.

[Beskar]

Tribesman posted a while ago in a very similar thread saying he wasn't interested in returning.

[Fragony]

Tribesman found Fragony's positions unacceptable and said he wouldn't want to be on a forum where such people are allowed to talk openly.
Fragony was really sorry etc. but it didn't help so Tribesman left, unfortunately. I) miss him, too but I don't know any way to get him back and I don't want to ban Fragony either, so.

That's more or less correct, yes he left voluntary. I had a mail forwarded asking him to get out of eachothers way. On a personal note, he was much harsher on me than I deserved, posted something (really) bad he couldn't let go and I don't miss him. New members also said things they couldn't have known and he posted weird messages on pm and profile page. But he's a loss for the backroom alright.

[Vuk]

Tribesman was a troll and completely intolerant of the opinions of others. If you had an opinion opposed to his own he took it as a personal attack and preceded to flame you so that no real discussion could take place. When he was around things were 'exciting' because there was lots of trolling, flaming, and fighting. Unfortunately, he would discourage any real debate, and instead just troll and flame everyone else away.
If you ask me, it is a good thing that he is gone.
You wonder why there is little discussion? It is a combination of two things. First of all, those with contraversial opinions (which are the big conversation starters) are discouraged from posting. When everyone agrees, there is no debate. Second of all, most of the more mature, adult members who used to post real debate or interesting topics in the FR are too busy, have left, or have just given up posting because of people like Tribes. It is a dilema caused both by the members and the moderation. Hate me all you want for saying it.

[InsaneApache]

Tribesman was a troll and completely intolerant of the opinions of others. If you had an opinion opposed to his own he took it as a personal attack and preceded to flame you so that no real discussion could take place. When he was around things were 'exciting' because there was lots of trolling, flaming, and fighting. Unfortunately, he would discourage any real debate, and instead just troll and flame everyone else away.
If you ask me, it is a good thing that he is gone.
You wonder why there is little discussion? It is a combination of two things. First of all, those with contraversial opinions (which are the big conversation starters) are discouraged from posting. When everyone agrees, there is no debate. Second of all, most of the more mature, adult members who used to post real debate or interesting topics in the FR are too busy, have left, or have just given up posting because of people like Tribes. It is a dilema caused both by the members and the moderation. Hate me all you want for saying it.

I have to say that, although I disagreed with him on virtually every point of view he had, he was open enough to be engaged in a debate. I got the better of him a couple of times. Argumentative? Yes. Troll? No.

[gaelic cowboy]

I have to say that, although I disagreed with him on virtually every point of view he had, he was open enough to be engaged in a debate. I got the better of him a couple of times. Argumentative? Yes. Troll? No.

The amount of times that he could just pull this or that UN resolution or some other evidence you care to mention to demolish some peoples post made me laugh sometimes.

People probably didn't like the fact once he had done that he would then dismiss you and your entire arguement as based on some lie.

Such robust and skewering debate is quite common in Ireland hence politicians in Ireland have extremely thick skins and take no notice of it.

I thought the thing with Warman did have something to do with him leaving, I remember something about them spamming each others visitor messages.



Can't you just pop down the road or something...

Tribes was a builder if I remember correct doubt he has time to post here anymore I seriously doubt WArman was anything other than a mild irritation to him.

It's a hour an a half drive to Galway and it looks like rain tonight a text should do.

[Strike For The South]

Tribesman was a troll and completely intolerant of the opinions of others. If you had an opinion opposed to his own he took it as a personal attack and preceded to flame you so that no real discussion could take place. When he was around things were 'exciting' because there was lots of trolling, flaming, and fighting. Unfortunately, he would discourage any real debate, and instead just troll and flame everyone else away.

Meh, The man brought the facts.

I swear to god asking for a link these days to back some asserition is like asking for nude pics of the posters mother.

But when can one excpect from a broad which has devolved into pseudo philosiphy minus the logical proofs.

[Fragony]

Wasn't going to say it but I agree with Vuk he could get very unpleasant and never presented a view of his own. Good at it, yes

edit, and I like the current status of the backroom, calm debate over controversial issues. Old guard would love it.

[drone]

Meh, The man brought the facts.

He always had some different angle he brought to a discussion, he was contrary just for the sake of it, I think. I was always waiting for the thread in which everyone would finally agree the sun rose in the east, and he would jump in, call bollox, and tear everyone's points to pieces.

The amount of times that he could just pull this or that UN resolution or some other evidence you care to mention to demolish some peoples post made me laugh sometimes.

My idealized vision of Tribesman in real life: A man with his friends in the pub, typing away on a laptop. His friends included an ex-diplomat, a "retired" intelligence officer/journalist, and a history prof. The group would spend the evening drinking and winding up people from around the world on a games forum. For the lulz.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Meh, The man brought the facts.

I swear to god asking for a link these days to back some asserition is like asking for nude pics of the posters mother.

But when can one excpect from a broad which has devolved into pseudo philosiphy minus the logical proofs.

Sometimes he did, but after a while I realised he wasn't as brilliant as his posting style might intimidate people into thinking. I remember one thread on the effectiveness of militias or something like that, wher he kept doing the bollox and giving vague half-answers routine, and when he finally revealed his point, it was really lame and everyone called on it.

[Gregoshi]

Meh, The man brought the facts.

I swear to god asking for a link these days to back some asserition is like asking for nude pics of the posters mother.

Are you talking about Tribesman? What facts? What links? I don't recall Tribesman ever offering a link to support his argument. He simply acted like he was privy to some superior knowledge source that we weren't and we'd take it as "fact". I also never recall Tribesman offering an opinion. He'd create a thread with only an article link, but no commentary on his part. Then he'd wait for his usual victims to comment on the article and proceed to tear their opinion apart. But I don't recall him ever offering up his opinion first for someone else to counter. He could tear up his opponent's argument and the validity of their links, but he would not expose his opinion to attack nor provide links to support his "facts" so that his opponents could question the validity of his sources. I personally found his style counter productive as one could not effectively debate with him. Yet thread after thread, our patrons would line up to take shots at his "tar babies".

The part I always found most frustrating is that he seemed to know a lot and I felt like he could have done much to win over his opponents to his side of the argument. All he needed to do was to provide supporting links like most of his opponents did - I'm assuming here that his sources were indeed as superior as he led us to believe. Alas, he never took the time to properly educate us on the fallacy of our side. Because of this, to me he was nothing more than a real life Argument Clinic. 'Tis a shame.

[Vladimir]

Tribes was a builder if I remember correct doubt he has time to post here anymore I seriously doubt WArman was anything other than a mild irritation to him.

It's a hour an a half drive to Galway and it looks like rain tonight a text should do.

Are you traveling by stagecoach? It shouldn't even take that long to drive from Wales.

But yes, more feisty Irishmen in the Backroom. You've got potential so have at it!

[gaelic cowboy]

Are you traveling by stagecoach? It shouldn't even take that long to drive from Wales.

But yes, more feisty Irishmen in the Backroom. You've got potential so have at it!

Typical he looks at the map and draws a straight line mentally to Galway an thinks to himself no prob I'll do it in hour from London, that is a classic noob tourist mistake the roads and roadsigns in Ireland will leave you with nightmares.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I have to say that, although I disagreed with him on virtually every point of view he had, he was open enough to be engaged in a debate. I got the better of him a couple of times. Argumentative? Yes. Troll? No.

Him and that Glenn guy was more then immature, especially when I was banned. Surprise that the adults on this forum still think he's not a troll.

[pevergreen]

Him and that Glenn guy was more then immature, especially when I was banned. Surprise that the adults on this forum still think he's not a troll.

That glenn guy rubbed me the wrong way.

Thankfully, ignore list works.

[A Nerd]

People should be repectful of one another. Even if opinions and lifestyles are different. But that's just me.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

That glenn guy rubbed me the wrong way.

Thankfully, ignore list works.

Amen to that .

[pevergreen]

It is a dilema caused both by the members and the moderation. Hate me all you want for saying it.

If anything, IMO the moderation has been toned down over the last few years. Maybe its because I see the people I used to consider equals, as the moderators now. There is no fear aura.

The old backroom mods, for example, were scary and unknown to me, but CountArach is a guy my own age who i've talked to a bit, so hes not this unknown force ready to ban me, in my mind.

maybe i'm just crazy. Doesn't matter either way, I hardly post in the backroom anyway, not smart enough.

[PanzerJaeger]

If anything, IMO the moderation has been toned down over the last few years.

Nah, quite the opposite actually, which is part of the reason the backroom is dead.

Hopefully tribesman will return one day.

[pevergreen]

Nah, quite the opposite actually, which is part of the reason the backroom is dead.

Hopefully tribesman will return one day.

I meant in general, I don't know the backroom.

[Megas Methuselah]

I meant in general, I don't know the backroom.

Ignorance is not an excuse.

[Ser Clegane]

First of all, those with contraversial opinions (which are the big conversation starters) are discouraged from posting.

I would like to roughly repeat what I stated in a recent thread - making offensive and insulting statements is not necessarily the same as stating a controversial opinion.

Ideally, the latter is done without resorting to the former - this often leads to interesting discussions that do not immediately turn into "flame wars". I do not think that we are discouraging this kind of discussion (I am of course happy to learn where we might have done so).

We often have cases were both go hand in hand - these are often threads with wasted potential that are closed early on as the attention of other posters quickly focuses on the tone of the post rather than on the (often) valid discussion point.

If the "controversial opinion" is pretty much limited to (in a nutshell) e.g., calling a group of people idiots this would rather fall under the definition of trolling and/or flame baiting and I personally feel comfortable discouraging it - even if that might be boring.

[Vuk]

I would like to roughly repeat what I stated in a recent thread - making offensive and insulting statements is not necessarily the same as stating a controversial opinion.

Ideally, the latter is done without resorting to the former - this often leads to interesting discussions that do not immediately turn into "flame wars". I do not think that we are discouraging this kind of discussion (I am of course happy to learn where we might have done so).

We often have cases were both go hand in hand - these are often threads with wasted potential that are closed early on as the attention of other posters quickly focuses on the tone of the post rather than on the (often) valid discussion point.

If the "controversial opinion" is pretty much limited to (in a nutshell) e.g., calling a group of people idiots this would rather fall under the definition of trolling and/or flame baiting and I personally feel comfortable discouraging it - even if that might be boring.

I am talking about the policy that one person's opinions are considered more legitimate than those of another. If a persons views conflict with those of the moderator, they will sometimes be deleted or the poster end up with warning points/a ban. For instance, such opinions as "Islam is a religion that encourages violence and teaches terrorism.", "Muhammad was a murderer, child molester, and bandit.", etc. Does it not occur to moderators that people can sincerely have these opinions and not just be 'flame baiting'? (Yet moderators have allowed discussion accusing the Christ of being a rapist, a sodomite, etc., allowed people to post pictures of Jesus being portrayed as a pig, etc.)

Ser Clegane, if you are going to seriously try to say that a double standard has not been applied, then I am afraid that I will have to come straight out and call you a liar. Ban me for that.

[Beskar]

I am talking about the policy that one person's opinions are considered more legitimate than those of another. If a persons views conflict with those of the moderator, they will sometimes be deleted or the poster end up with warning points/a ban. For instance, such opinions as "Islam is a religion that encourages violence and teaches terrorism.", "Muhammad was a murderer, child molester, and bandit.", etc.

How are those comments constructive?
Are they even necessary?
Do they contribute positively to the conversation?

That is the big issue, it isn't about 'such opinions', it is the fact they are also expressed in such a manner which is unacceptable. They are as unacceptable as some one posting "Vuk is a murderer, child molester, and a bandit", "Vuk's post encourages violence and spreads terrorism".

I could also go into arguments on the basis of things such as 'context', 'hypocrisy' and 'inaccurate sweeping statements' on those examples themselves, but I hope you understand my point and why such remarks are not approved.

(Yet moderators have allowed discussion accusing the Christ of being a rapist, a sodomite, etc., allowed people to post pictures of Jesus being portrayed as a pig, etc.)

I have to be perfectly honest with you, Vuk, within my two year stay at the Org, I haven't witnessed any statement like this on at least one occasion. On the other hand, I see your earlier examples frequently from one poster at least who is still residing on this forum around once a week, perhaps even a month latest.

Even then, for those who speak against 'religion' on the forum, they speak against all religion, and not one in particular. Only reason a secular or atheistic leaning poster may target Christianity more, is because there are Christians in the audience it is understood by default that this includes any other religion.

So I have to completely disagree with this comment of yours.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Tribesy is not banned.


With Tribes one has to take the good with the bad. He has an agressive, confrontational style, which is behind both his posting excellence and his...slightly unconventional manners. I myself was not always interested in a lengthy exploration of a subject together with him. I have, however, always considered him a fine asset to the Backroom. A one man force of nature.

Tribes also did a great job in keeping the peanut gallery at bay. He made it difficult to get away with bollox.



I'll have me a pint in Tribes' honour!

[Ser Clegane]

I will have to come straight out and call you a liar.

Oh well, as you have a track record of doing so...

[Husar]

You had to derive Tribesman's opinion from his comments, of course he had one, he just didn't write essays to state it, he debated those with differing opinions (which could be people from "both sides" of a debate ).
Sometimes he was/is a bit too harsh but I wouldn't listen to Whacker either, he's just jealous. I remember debating with him about Fragony and defending Fragony but he wouldn't believe me, which was sad, but I don't really remember ever having a nasty fight with him. Perhaps that's because I'm a wuss without an opinion but then that isn't really true either.
He also had a funny side as can be seen in my signature (I hope I don't need to explain the context).