Forum Moderation

[PlainName]

I know nothing about it or the users, but surely it is simply being pragmatic regardless of what it is or whoever wrote it. Particularly when some kind of protection scheme has been implemented - who knows how the author's mind works and what he might consider  fair game.

For clarity, I am not casting doubt or aspersions on anyone. I think not taking precautions would be silly these days, and so far as I can tell, you're complaining about someone essentially saying that.

[Nominal Animal]

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-mho900-scope/msg6105543/#msg6105543

Is this normal behavior, accusing a user who can't defend themselves or respond because they've been banned?

Pointing out a suspicious behaviour pattern is normal and healthy behaviour, yes, regardless of whether they are able to post a "Nuh-uh, I didn't!" response.

Take a look at their posting history.  When a member starts using this forum solely as a way to sell and advertise their own proprietary paid hacks, at the same time annoying others who are trying to keep the modifications free and open (because that hurts their "business"), Dave and the moderators are absolutely within their rights to ban the member.  In my opinion, it could have been done months ago, at no loss to the forum.

If you consider that objectionable, then yes, it may be time for you to leave.  (To be clear: I do not want you to leave, but upholding your own principles is a good thing.)  This is Dave's place, not some public zone you've paid for with your taxes, with "rules" that you can use/apply to override Dave's wishes.

For me, the limit is when common sense is replaced with rigid rules that only barristers/lawyers can argue about, or when it becomes forbidden to point out questionable or suspicious behaviour, or when it becomes socially acceptable for members to never admit to wrongdoing even when evidence is presented.  If that happens, it is time for me to leave.  I've had to do it before, too.  In the meantime, I hope to be helpful and useful, at least in the balance.

I like the fact that the rules here are guidelines, ideas, principles; and interpreted by humans using common sense.  Sure, I absolutely may some day get bitten by that myself, seeing many things differently compared to others, but on aggregate, this works better than the rigid rules based forums with their the many players following the letter but not the spirit of the rules.

insinuate nonsense about "infected software"?

It is not nonsense.  It is equally well backed by evidence as the claim of the sold hacks being completely benign, and just by some weird coincidence only working on one scope only.  It is not an insinuation, but an observation of a risk.

You could be honest, and just say "I don't like that you think that way and say such things publicly about the modifications my friend sells".  That, too, is okay — to both feel, and say.

[Ian.M]

Unfortunately, there are some sick or criminal individuals out there selling malware laden versions of cracks, wares, unofficial software tools for device access & etc, so suspicion of anyone who shills such a product here is entirely justified.  Dave (EEVblog) hasn't made an official rule that we cant link to such content, but I'm not surprised that Norbert rapidly got banned once Dave noticed.  Non-profit FOSS hacks get a lot more leeway because experts can scrutinise the code, but even so, Dave has to clamp down on people posting them here if its still in production and the OEM doesn't explicitly tolerate hackers. 

If anyone is wondering how bad it can get, well there was the home grown case of Luan Tahiraj aka BwE selling Playstation repair software that apparently snooped on everything on your PC.  Quote from ABC News:

News articles revealed that in 2013, Tahiraj had been jailed in Australia for offences against two girls, aged 13 and 14. In total, he served an eight-year sentence, with parole after four.

Court records show that Tahiraj sent the 13-year-old a file while chatting to her on MSN Messenger. He promised he would help her get more friends on MySpace, but it was, in fact, a remote administration tool (RAT).

Using the RAT, Tahiraj took over the girl's computer and threatened to destroy it and hack her social media if she didn't perform certain sexual acts for him.

He then recorded these acts via her webcam and shared the video online.

Also see https://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/bwe-(better-way-electronics)-software-and-louis-rossmann/

The odds are Norbert *ISN'T* sick that way and probably doesn't sell malware, but do you *really* want to gamble with your PC and data and your and your family's privacy?

[magic]

The paranoia is probably excessive in this case, but it's not uncommon and not entirely unfounded.

And the user seems to have been banned (for a week) for arguing endlessly in another thread, not for selling scope hacks.

I agree with Dave that his belief about being legally in the clear is rather optimistic.

[TUMEMBER]

The paranoia is probably excessive in this case, but it's not uncommon and not entirely unfounded.

And the user seems to have been banned (for a week) for arguing endlessly in another thread, not for selling scope hacks.

I agree with Dave that his belief about being legally in the clear is rather optimistic.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/profile/?u=626612
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg6073771/#msg6073771
Since hacking is prohibited, please ban this user as well, after all, there is equality under the law.

Norbert was banned for "swagger and lack of respect for authority" (a Polish national trait). This is easy to notice if you examine his profiles and posts.
 

 And here's a hypocrite about hypocrisy, it was impossible to install more "pieces" without an additional fee... he was cheated.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-mho900-scope/msg6105743/#msg6105743
2* ten sam link edycja.

[Nominal Animal]

Norbert was banned for "swagger and lack of respect for authority" (a Polish national trait). This is easy to notice if you examine his profiles and posts.

So that is what riled you up.  Not that someone was banned for some reason, but the fact that they were Polish like you that you identify with.  Gotcha.

One more into the ignore list, methinks.

Who you are, what group you belong to, does not matter.  What matters is how you interact with others.  You cannot and should not try to change your personality, but that's not exposed here: what is exposed, is only how you interact with others.  This you can adjust, change, modify, to bring about better results.

If you adopt an unsuccessful communications style and stance just because you believe it makes you somehow better than others or distinguished or a member of your tribe, you are an idiot.

[TUMEMBER]

Norbert was banned for "swagger and lack of respect for authority" (a Polish national trait). This is easy to notice if you examine his profiles and posts.

So that is what riled you up.  Not that someone was banned for some reason, but the fact that they were Polish like you that you identify with.  Gotcha.

One more into the ignore list, methinks.

Who you are, what group you belong to, does not matter.  What matters is how you interact with others.  You cannot and should not try to change your personality, but that's not exposed here: what is exposed, is only how you interact with others.  This you can adjust, change, modify, to bring about better results.

If you adopt an unsuccessful communications style and stance just because you believe it makes you somehow better than others or distinguished or a member of your tribe, you are an idiot.

Norbert was banned for "swagger and lack of respect for authority" (a Polish national trait). This is easy to notice if you examine his profiles and posts.

So that is what riled you up.  Not that someone was banned for some reason, but the fact that they were Polish like you that you identify with.  Gotcha.

One more into the ignore list, methinks.

Who you are, what group you belong to, does not matter.  What matters is how you interact with others.  You cannot and should not try to change your personality, but that's not exposed here: what is exposed, is only how you interact with others.  This you can adjust, change, modify, to bring about better results.

If you adopt an unsuccessful communications style and stance just because you believe it makes you somehow better than others or distinguished or a member of your tribe, you are an idiot.

Are you really "talking" to an idiot? You know that someone with the intellectual level of an idiot can't operate a computer, can't even learn spelling, and may have significant trouble independently providing for basic life needs—like preparing a meal, shopping, buying prescription medications... they might even "do it themselves" because they're so dependent.

Let me explain the "gradation":
-moron, a person with a slight mental disability - independent, does not require constant care and supervision
-imbecile - a person with significant mental retardation, requiring frequent supervision and assistance in basic life activities
-Cretin - a developmental defect inherited and transmitted through women's DNA, incorrectly applied to men as well, even though it's considered dementia.
-And the idiot in question, as you described me, is a completely dependent person who requires 24/7 care, usually in treatment and care facilities. If you have daily contact with such a person, it's devastating to your life and your so-called "happiness."
I wouldn't want you to be my defense attorney, you make a superficial judgment without "reviewing the facts and evidence."

And you misread the intentions. I wasn't "pissed off" that a "Pole was banned," but that "equal measure" wasn't applied. Norbert, by the way, was banned for using "idiot" towards other forum users. Do you think you deserve a "7-day" reward for using "idiot" towards me?
"Speech is silver but silence is GOLD"

[Sorama]

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-mho900-scope/msg6105543/#msg6105543

Is this normal behavior, accusing a user who can't defend themselves or respond because they've been banned?

Pointing out a suspicious behaviour pattern is normal and healthy behaviour, yes, regardless of whether they are able to post a "Nuh-uh, I didn't!" response.

Take a look at their posting history.  When a member starts using this forum solely as a way to sell and advertise their own proprietary paid hacks, at the same time annoying others who are trying to keep the modifications free and open (because that hurts their "business"), Dave and the moderators are absolutely within their rights to ban the member.  In my opinion, it could have been done months ago, at no loss to the forum.

If you consider that objectionable, then yes, it may be time for you to leave.  (To be clear: I do not want you to leave, but upholding your own principles is a good thing.)  This is Dave's place, not some public zone you've paid for with your taxes, with "rules" that you can use/apply to override Dave's wishes.

For me, the limit is when common sense is replaced with rigid rules that only barristers/lawyers can argue about, or when it becomes forbidden to point out questionable or suspicious behaviour, or when it becomes socially acceptable for members to never admit to wrongdoing even when evidence is presented.  If that happens, it is time for me to leave.  I've had to do it before, too.  In the meantime, I hope to be helpful and useful, at least in the balance.

I like the fact that the rules here are guidelines, ideas, principles; and interpreted by humans using common sense.  Sure, I absolutely may some day get bitten by that myself, seeing many things differently compared to others, but on aggregate, this works better than the rigid rules based forums with their the many players following the letter but not the spirit of the rules.

insinuate nonsense about "infected software"?

It is not nonsense.  It is equally well backed by evidence as the claim of the sold hacks being completely benign, and just by some weird coincidence only working on one scope only.  It is not an insinuation, but an observation of a risk.

You could be honest, and just say "I don't like that you think that way and say such things publicly about the modifications my friend sells".  That, too, is okay — to both feel, and say.

I find this post in particular very objectionable and most of your other post questionable: what now?

[Shock]

Go visit each other for lunch it's only a few hours drive.

[Nominal Animal]

I find this post in particular very objectionable and most of your other post questionable: what now?

On my part, nothing.  Am I "offended" by that?  No.  Will I add Sorama to my ignore list, too?  No, of course not.  I use it as a tool to control my own interactions, and  I see nothing wrong in that post, although I would have preferred to see some reasoning instead of seeing just an opinion.  (As it is, it is rather useless, unless of course Sorama knows me and intentionally wanted me to respond like I usually do.)

Also, Dave and the moderators do not tend to act based on someone getting offended, so I believe it is unlikely either post will be moderated/edited/deleted.

Do I expect other Finnish members to barge in to my defense?  Fuck no, that'd be stupid, tribalistic, and idiotic.

I'd like to repeat the fact that nobody reacts here to someone elses personality.  All they react to is output, and your output style you can modify (to some extent) without violating your personality, principles, boundaries, morality/ethics, et cetera.  If you behave like an idiot, you are an idiot, even if you had a PhD and Mensa membership, it's that simple.

And the user seems to have been banned (for a week) for arguing endlessly in another thread, not for selling scope hacks.

In that "Rigol MHO98 and MHO900 oscilloscope tricks" thread?  All I've seen them ever participate in involves Rigol oscilloscopes and quite a self-important communications style; not exactly an asset to any discussion forum.

[thm_w]

Take a look at their posting history.  When a member starts using this forum solely as a way to sell and advertise their own proprietary paid hacks, at the same time annoying others who are trying to keep the modifications free and open (because that hurts their "business"), Dave and the moderators are absolutely within their rights to ban the member.  In my opinion, it could have been done months ago, at no loss to the forum.

Personally I'd rather have Norberts implementation who is willing to sell the hack, which he took multiple days to implement on DHO1000 as I requested for some nominal $10-20 fee, than whats happened with mid range Siglent gear where the hack is hidden behind closed doors out of fear of the manufacturer finding out.

Yes he is very arrogant at times and clearly needs to chill out, but he has also added a lot of useful information and helped out many with issues they've had when modifying their scope. Completely disagree that its somehow "no loss" for someone with clear skill and knowledge to leave.

If you behave like an idiot, you are an idiot, even if you had a PhD and Mensa membership, it's that simple.

An abrasive personality does not mean someone is an idiot.
Can we give it up with the personal attacks? Just because the person is not present doesn't mean the rule no longer applies.

[Nominal Animal]

An abrasive personality does not mean someone is an idiot.

No, but that is not what I wrote, either!

I didn't call anyone an idiot, either: I described a situation which would makes one an idiot, using grammatical generic you.

Who you are, what group you belong to, does not matter.  What matters is how you interact with others.  You cannot and should not try to change your personality, but that's not exposed here: what is exposed, is only how you interact with others.  This you can adjust, change, modify, to bring about better results.

If you adopt an unsuccessful communications style and stance just because you believe it makes you somehow better than others or distinguished or a member of your tribe, you are an idiot.

Perhaps you reacted to what others implied I wrote, instead of reading what I actually wrote, hmm?

This is also not the first time I talk about this.  See e.g. Why writing style and grammar matters in posts in the Beginner forum.

The reason one is an idiot if they adopt an unsuccessful communications style, is exactly that it is simply a skill, a style, an affectation, and not inherently part of your personality.  It is like taking up a habit of speaking with a stone in your mouth, and then taking offense when others cannot understand what you are saying.  It replaces intelligence with emotion and/or belief, ignoring all common sense.

And yes, I am aware of the excess verbosity in my own style.  I still haven't found a better balance (between annoying others and expressing myself specifically enough), so I fully accept it makes members skip my posts.  I bear no ill will about that to anyone.

[EEVblog]

For those wondering, Joe still hasn't logged in since that post.

[EEVblog]

Take a look at their posting history.  When a member starts using this forum solely as a way to sell and advertise their own proprietary paid hacks, at the same time annoying others who are trying to keep the modifications free and open (because that hurts their "business"), Dave and the moderators are absolutely within their rights to ban the member.  In my opinion, it could have been done months ago, at no loss to the forum.

If someone is just here to flog a product and doesn't contribute then they are not welcome. In this case he did contribute technically, so I have no problem with him staying. But he's got to behave, his posts were reported.

[MK14]

For those wondering, Joe still hasn't logged in since that post.

If it hasn't already been mentioned in this thread.  You can't please everyone, all of the time.

Whatever policies you come up with, or don't.  Some will like and others might not.

Why should anyone (else) feel guilty, for THEIR outburst, wishing harm to other(s).

[Bud]

For those wondering, Joe still hasn't logged in since that post.

"And I pray that we'll stay just that way
'Til the day comes along when we catch the Sun..."

[wilfred]

For those wondering, Joe still hasn't logged in since that post.

You've obviously decided to not ban him. Maybe consider not commenting as well. I don't see what good can come of it or the speculation and commentary that ensues.

It doesn't sound like it lays out the welcome mat for return and if that is the intent then it can look like you want to not ban and avoid the flak from those who oppose a ban.

I'm not pro or anti ban in this case but I do not want to see discussion of it. Have a set of rules, apply them consistently and leave it at that.

[EEVblog]

You've obviously decided to not ban him. Maybe consider not commenting as well. I don't see what good can come of it or the speculation and commentary that ensues.

He's a big frequent and popular poster on this forum, people are going to notice and ask why he hasn't posted. FWIW we have not corresponded privately at all about this.

[RoGeorge]

Do I expect other Finnish members to barge in to my defense?  Fuck no, that'd be stupid, tribalistic, and idiotic.

"United we stand, divided we fall".
What I want to discuss next has nothing to do with the recently banned account.

My point is, "tribalism bad" is a wrong idea, and very damaging.
Tribalism is good for society, and it is good for individuals, too.

The "tribalism bad" idea was planted recently, with the purpose to subvert societies, by the principle of "divide et impera".  The word "tribal" used to mean "to be part of a group, to share common values and traditions", and yes, sometimes you are supposed to stand shoulder to shoulder with your tribe, too.

tribalism /trī′bə-lĭz″əm/
noun

- The organization, culture, or beliefs of a tribe.
- A strong feeling of identity with and loyalty to one's tribe or group.
- The state of existing in tribes; also, tribal feeling; tribal prejudice or exclusiveness; tribal peculiarities or characteristics.
- The condition of being tribal.
- A feeling of identity and loyalty to one's tribe.
- The state of living together in tribes.
- The beliefs of a tribal society.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

Recently, the main meaning of "tribal" was flipped with its tertiary meaning, and now the default meaning of "tribal" is perceived as "to be hateful, unfair, or very biased, to inflict prejudice against any outsiders".  At the same time, other fallacious concepts were pushed into the western world, like for example "diversity as a social strength", when in fact, diversity only leads to social fragmentation, turmoil and instability.  Forced mixing is a recipe for disaster.  It was tried countless times in the past, and it never went as planned.  You have to have a very strong common goal first, to keep everybody united, or else you'll end up with some sort of civil war.

Another related propaganda pushed aggressively in the recent years is the "melting pot".  Every time I hear that phrase, and it is repeated ad nauseam lately in the most unexpected contexts, every time I hear it I can only think how boring such a planet will be.  I do not want to see the same clone-like people everywhere, with the same habits, same culture, same tradition, and same behavior, like the Borgs from Star-Trek.  Such a globalism will be incredibly boring.  Even more, a single infectious disease will wipe us all, if we would somehow manage to achieve a perfect "melting".

When I travel to another place, I want to see people/habits/culture/architecture specific to that place.  I want to find them proud of where they live, and proud of what they are.  I want them to be united, to stand together if somebody or something threatens their "tribe".

Being proud doesn't mean superior to everybody else.  Being proud doesn't imply diminishing others.  Tribalism doesn't imply racism.  And none of these traits like proud/tribal/patriotic/whatever, none of these imply hate towards others, like the current propaganda tries to insinuate.

Humans are social beings, it is normal to be tribal.  And the strongest tribalism one is supposed to have in the first place, is towards its own bloodline, meaning family.  Then, one must be part of other larger and larger other groups, up to the largest possible tribe.  And by the largest possible tribe I mean all living being of this planet, all life on Earth.


If you refuse to "band" together in any such tribes, you will end up extincted pretty fast, because others will form groups, and they will organize and nurture their tribe together.  And at the first serious conflict between you and somebody else, you'll find yourself standing alone against an entire tribe.  No one would stand a chance alone, against an entire tribe.  So you'll better have your own tribe, or else you'll perish.


A last remark, everybody is tribal, more or less, even you.  You may say:  no, I am not like that.  OK, let's imagine a critical situation:
- two people barely hanging of the edge of a glacier, and the edge is crumbling down
- both are about the same age/size/whatever, both screaming for your help, except one is a relative of yours, the other one is a total stranger you've never seen before
- because of the ugly situation, no matter what you do, you can only save one, even if you sacrifice yourself you still can not save both.

Who would you save?
Would you choose to save the stranger, and let your relative die?

The proper answer is to save your loved ones first, which is a form of tribalism.


Again, this wall of text is not about you, it is not about who was banned, or about who sided with whom.  It is because your reaction implied to not expect help from your own kind, and that was quite a surprise to me.  Your reaction implied to stay divided.

I've suspected such a reaction was induced by all the subversive propaganda that is floating around, and this is what I wanted to speak against.  I wanted to speak against the damaging propaganda that is affecting all of us.

There is nothing wrong in being tribal, and patriotic, and proud, and united with your own kind, and protective with the ones you care about.  It is imperative to be that way, and to share common values, and common goals with your tribe.  None of these are bad traits.  None of these traits implies hating, or hurting, or diminishing others, as the subversive propaganda tries to insinuate.  None of these traits implies racism, or supremacism, or nazism, or communism, or who knows what other *ism.

So, let's all stand together, be united, and snap out of the propaganda that was inflicted upon us so far.

[Shock]

In my opinion both personal attacks and discussing your personal circumstances in technical threads are disruptive. Minor indiscretions are ok as by nature (and as other members have mentioned) sometimes it just can't be helped.

However, the more focused/prolific it becomes the more frustrating it is for readers and for people in turn who feel they are being unfairly treated or victimized, and that can be just from having to continually read other peoples nonsense posts.

This has nothing to do with any forum members personal circumstances or one side or another, it's about respecting the forums and peoples contributions when appropriate for all users. Keep the threads on topic (as with this post) and be professional and courteous, report disruptive posting, spammers, scammers and schilling.

Bagging out Dave and other moderators isn't appropriate, by my observation he/they seem very fair and based on your forum contribution give a fair whack of the stick.

For moderators to avoid upsetting sides further it requires impartial and sometimes delicate responses. People easily find a hill to die on (happened many times here) and all we get in the end is to miss out on their technical input. Or in some cases they were getting so disruptive in the end it's more peaceful without them.

[EEVblog]

For moderators to avoid upsetting sides further it requires impartial and sometimes delicate responses.

Hence me temporarily closing the ESR thread instead of just swinging the temporary ban hammer in that instance.
Each moderator has their own tolerance in this regard, so an action may be different based on which moderator looked at the report first, and also their experience in the thread, and their experience with the post history of individual concerned.
If it's me looking at something, a lot of people get off lucky because my memory is bad about who said what when and to whom 

A lot of people say "just enforce the rules evenly", well, it's never that easy. Every circumstance is difference.

[shabaz]

Do I expect other Finnish members to barge in to my defense?  Fuck no, that'd be stupid, tribalistic, and idiotic.

"United we stand, divided we fall".
What I want to discuss next has nothing to do with the recently banned account.

My point is, "tribalism bad" is a wrong idea, and very damaging.
Tribalism is good for society, and it is good for individuals, too.

The "tribalism bad" idea was planted recently, with the purpose to subvert societies, by the principle of "divide et impera".  The word "tribal" used to mean "to be part of a group, to share common values and traditions", and yes, sometimes you are supposed to stand shoulder to shoulder with your tribe, too.

tribalism /trī′bə-lĭz″əm/
noun

- The organization, culture, or beliefs of a tribe.
- A strong feeling of identity with and loyalty to one's tribe or group.
- The state of existing in tribes; also, tribal feeling; tribal prejudice or exclusiveness; tribal peculiarities or characteristics.
- The condition of being tribal.
- A feeling of identity and loyalty to one's tribe.
- The state of living together in tribes.
- The beliefs of a tribal society.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

Recently, the main meaning of "tribal" was flipped with its tertiary meaning, and now the default meaning of "tribal" is perceived as "to be hateful, unfair, or very biased, to inflict prejudice against any outsiders".  At the same time, other fallacious concepts were pushed into the western world, like for example "diversity as a social strength", when in fact, diversity only leads to social fragmentation, turmoil and instability.  Forced mixing is a recipe for disaster.  It was tried countless times in the past, and it never went as planned.  You have to have a very strong common goal first, to keep everybody united, or else you'll end up with some sort of civil war.

Another related propaganda pushed aggressively in the recent years is the "melting pot".  Every time I hear that phrase, and it is repeated ad nauseam lately in the most unexpected contexts, every time I hear it I can only think how boring such a planet will be.  I do not want to see the same clone-like people everywhere, with the same habits, same culture, same tradition, and same behavior, like the Borgs from Star-Trek.  Such a globalism will be incredibly boring.  Even more, a single infectious disease will wipe us all, if we would somehow manage to achieve a perfect "melting".

When I travel to another place, I want to see people/habits/culture/architecture specific to that place.  I want to find them proud of where they live, and proud of what they are.  I want them to be united, to stand together if somebody or something threatens their "tribe".

Being proud doesn't mean superior to everybody else.  Being proud doesn't imply diminishing others.  Tribalism doesn't imply racism.  And none of these traits like proud/tribal/patriotic/whatever, none of these imply hate towards others, like the current propaganda tries to insinuate.

Humans are social beings, it is normal to be tribal.  And the strongest tribalism one is supposed to have in the first place, is towards its own bloodline, meaning family.  Then, one must be part of other larger and larger other groups, up to the largest possible tribe.  And by the largest possible tribe I mean all living being of this planet, all life on Earth.


If you refuse to "band" together in any such tribes, you will end up extincted pretty fast, because others will form groups, and they will organize and nurture their tribe together.  And at the first serious conflict between you and somebody else, you'll find yourself standing alone against an entire tribe.  No one would stand a chance alone, against an entire tribe.  So you'll better have your own tribe, or else you'll perish.


A last remark, everybody is tribal, more or less, even you.  You may say:  no, I am not like that.  OK, let's imagine a critical situation:
- two people barely hanging of the edge of a glacier, and the edge is crumbling down
- both are about the same age/size/whatever, both screaming for your help, except one is a relative of yours, the other one is a total stranger you've never seen before
- because of the ugly situation, no matter what you do, you can only save one, even if you sacrifice yourself you still can not save both.

Who would you save?
Would you choose to save the stranger, and let your relative die?

The proper answer is to save your loved ones first, which is a form of tribalism.


Again, this wall of text is not about you, it is not about who was banned, or about who sided with whom.  It is because your reaction implied to not expect help from your own kind, and that was quite a surprise to me.  Your reaction implied to stay divided.

I've suspected such a reaction was induced by all the subversive propaganda that is floating around, and this is what I wanted to speak against.  I wanted to speak against the damaging propaganda that is affecting all of us.

There is nothing wrong in being tribal, and patriotic, and proud, and united with your own kind, and protective with the ones you care about.  It is imperative to be that way, and to share common values, and common goals with your tribe.  None of these are bad traits.  None of these traits implies hating, or hurting, or diminishing others, as the subversive propaganda tries to insinuate.  None of these traits implies racism, or supremacism, or nazism, or communism, or who knows what other *ism.

So, let's all stand together, be united, and snap out of the propaganda that was inflicted upon us so far.

I actually thought better of you, but that is the daftest set of thoughts you've ever penned, and is indeed racist,  in the context of how you're using "tribalism". There's no honest unity in the way you're using the word united. If someone is behaving badly then you've got poor morals if you'd stick up for them just because they are in your tribe. So I trust that's not what you meant.

And if a bunch of children were on a cliff edge, and I managed to save my child who is my responsibility, and the remainder were a brown child, a black child, a Romanian, a Polish and a Finnish child, then no I would not consider which are in a "tribe" that I would like to see in that local place, and save that one first. Most people would be completely color-blind and do their best to save whoever.

And just because you'd like to travel and see people that you think belong to a location, doesn't mean those people have to bend over and stay there just to please you, and no, they are not causing extinction when they move. If you really don't like that, then put your money where your mouth is and practise what you preach, and only travel to such locations from now on where tribes don't move, if such destinations exist, and share those spots with those of the same conviction as you, so you're all nicely satisfied. I trust you won't visit the USA, or most of Europe as a result, because they contain plenty of people from different races and "tribes".

I actually think it's pathetic when people have a problem seeing Polish or Romanian or African people in England, or whatever. As far as I'm concerned they belong right where they are, if they are there legally (which of course, most are).

[MK14]

Obviously I'm a normal user and NOT a moderator.  But, Please STOP with political/racist/racism (for or against) talk!

It is essentially off-topic and could end up derailing this thread and/or getting it locked, or posts deleted etc.

[ebastler]

It is essentially off-topic and could end up derailing this thread and/or getting it locked, or posts deleted etc.

If the Forum Moderation thread gets locked, where are we supposed to complain about make valuable suggestions regarding moderation? 

Actually I seem to recall that exactly this happened a year or two ago, and a new moderation-related thread was started immediately... Might have been a slightly different context though?

[tggzzz]

...

That's a big political/racist/theological diatribe which only convinces those that are already True Believers who have Swallowed The Red Pill. Yuck.

A key question that such diatribes always carefully omit to consider is "what is the appropriate size?": household/street/city/nation, or the equivalent sect/genetic boundaries.

FarceBook and Twatter are appropriate  forums for such "discussions".