Animosity is a Curious Animal Indeed

Dr. Bantham

Dr. Bantham

Town Manager
Staff member
I am employing a warning system in hopes of deterring the disrespectful behavior to other members which seems to have become so fashionable of late. For now, the first yellow card thrown will be a warning which expires in 30 days. Thereafter, they will be tracked by a points system which could ultimately result in membership restrictions or even banning.

If you do not follow membership rules, then you can expect to receive warnings when break them. I will respond in a manner which I deem fair and appropriate when I see a post or it is reported to me directly. Do not ask me thereafter to read through a threaded argument to decide who instigated the matter or who might have been the greater offender. The point is not to protect specific members from insult or even worse to stifle otherwise lively interaction, but instead to restore an atmosphere of respectful discussion among peers. A distressing pattern of thread discord has been weaving through the forums over the past few months and it will no longer be tolerated. So mote it be.

THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE - Forum Rules and Etiquette
 
Re: User Warning System Deployed

A single question, good doctor: I've finished reading over #8 of the Rules and Etiquette and find myself unfamiliar with what "appreviations" are. Is this some strange ritual from a forgotten place that I've ... er ... forgotten? Something weird from beyond the veil? Should I be frightened by its awesomeness? I beseech thee, tell me so I might slumber again!
 
Re: User Warning System Deployed

I was unaware that there was a formal code of rules and etiquette for this site. Alerted to its existence, I've looked for it, but can't find it. :confused:
 
Re: User Warning System Deployed

G. S. Carnivals said:
Odalisque said:
I was unaware that there was a formal code of rules and etiquette for this site. Alerted to its existence, I've looked for it, but can't find it. :confused:
Click to expand...
Forum Rules and Etiquette
Click to expand...

Thank you, Phil! I really hadn't seen that before. By good judgment or perhaps good luck, I don't seem to have offended against it very much. I do wonder about rule 4 though:

Members should not post messages which can provoke, harass, disturb, agitate other members or minors.

Specifically (to edit):

Members should not post messages which can disturb minors.

I don't think I've posted anything of the sort myself, but I've seen posted links to video clips that would have given me nightmares when I was little. They seemed appropriate to this site, but (unless today's brats are much more hardened that I was) are likely to disturb minors. The government seems to agree that horror material is likely to disturb minors hence (or so I assume) age restrictions on who can watch horror films at the cinema or buy/rent horror DVDs.
 
Re: User Warning System Deployed

Odalisque said:
Members should not post messages which can provoke, harass, disturb, agitate other members or minors.

I don't think I've posted anything of the sort myself, but I've seen posted links to video clips that would have given me nightmares when I was little. They seemed appropriate to this site, but (unless today's brats are much more hardened that I was) are likely to disturb minors. The government seems to agree that horror material is likely to disturb minors hence (or so I assume) age restrictions on who can watch horror films at the cinema or buy/rent horror DVDs.
Click to expand...

Perphaps it would be best read as Members should not post messages which can disturb other members without their prior consent.
 
Re: User Warning System Deployed

nomis said:
A single question, good doctor: I've finished reading over #8 of the Rules and Etiquette and find myself unfamiliar with what "appreviations" are. Is this some strange ritual from a forgotten place that I've ... er ... forgotten? Something weird from beyond the veil? Should I be frightened by its awesomeness? I beseech thee, tell me so I might slumber again!
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I fear that it is not a word after all, but instead a misspelling of the word abbreviation. It sounds wonderful, however, and I suggest we adopt it forthright to define a sense of "apprehensive reservations".

Evans said:
Odalisque said:
Members should not post messages which can provoke, harass, disturb, agitate other members or minors.

I don't think I've posted anything of the sort myself, but I've seen posted links to video clips that would have given me nightmares when I was little. They seemed appropriate to this site, but (unless today's brats are much more hardened that I was) are likely to disturb minors. The government seems to agree that horror material is likely to disturb minors hence (or so I assume) age restrictions on who can watch horror films at the cinema or buy/rent horror DVDs.
Click to expand...

Perphaps it would be best read as Members should not post messages which can provoke, harass, disturb, agitate other members or minors without their prior consent.
Click to expand...
It appears that I must proof-read and amend this document. Per the final item note, it was generated by another party and distributed as a standard for forum rules and etiquette. As for the scope and weight of this particular rule, the intent is to prevent pornographic material from being displayed. TLO limits membership to persons of the age thirteen and older per COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule) guidelines. Since the vast majority of membership is comprised of adults, it is understood that adult conversations will be held. I only ask that material of pornographic nature be avoided. Sexually explicit text is typically acceptable in the context of literature, though I do recall a piece being submitted to The Repository which was so offensive that I immediately removed the content and banned the user. It was their first and only interaction with the site and the content was grossly pornographic and contained graphic references of pedophilic nature. The intent with this particular rule is not to stifle contribution and interaction within the site, buy instead to maintain a reasonable level of content responsibility given the fact that this is a public web site. Most content is viewable to site visitors without the requirement of membership, therefore care must be taken when in the public eye. I will amend the verbiage of this document very soon for the sake of clarity and dispelling any unintended appreviations the document might otherwise instill.
 
Re: User Warning System Deployed

I should have read this before I posted on the Supernatural Thread. I'm not used to warnings. My wife usually just whacks me across the head.
 
Re: User Warning System Deployed

Judge Holden said:
I should have read this before I posted on the Supernatural Thread. I'm not used to warnings. My wife usually just whacks me across the head.
Click to expand...
It should be noted that warnings will only be issued for what I consider to be gross infractions. Differences in opinion are are to be expected and even encouraged to a certain point. The major concern is when offensive comments are intentionally directed towards other members. I realize that there is ultimately a fine line to be drawn with consideration to content, but the isolated occurrences which I have seen should have been obvious to all parties concerned. If you are a person who by nature exhibits an insensitivity to the feelings of others without intentional malice, the warnings should serve as a signal of encroachment for future considerations.

A snippet of my previous social commentary on the subject:
Dr. Bantham said:
Ironically, the one post element that I hold in great disdain is when members exact personal attacks on other members. I am generally opposed to censorship and policing these forums, but I must issue a request at this time for everyone to respect your fellow members. My intent here is not to restrict interaction, but from a personal perspective I find the recent surge of animosity amongst members as a greater threat of censorship. Not everyone can dare to speak freely amidst such an atmosphere. Some enjoy a lively argument, but others like myself loathe confrontation. In the end, such folly proves to be a great distraction from what could be otherwise engaging discussions. I do ask that members respect one another, first and foremost.
Click to expand...
 
Might I suggest a slight amendment to the rules (or at least a recommendation for good practise)?

I think it would be good form not to reference unpleasant or malicious comments posted elsewhere. This would minimise collateral damage to TLO in addition to sending out a clear signal that the TLO forum is independent.

We should be grateful that some of those who already post in a variety of other forums have stated that they will steer clear of the TLO lest arguments spill over into here and poison the atmosphere. I think this is a sensible decision which benefits everybody.

It's easy to forget that democracy and freedom of speech often needs to be fought for and then defended. Personally I've become an advocate for light-touch censorship in response to a) the internet and b) becoming a parent. I disagree strongly with Aleister Crowley's selfish doctrine that 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'.

Many discussion forums become soured by conflict, immature moderation or dictatorial ownership. The TLO is in my opinion almost unique because it provides a liberal and broad church where all but the violent are welcome to worship. It also scores highly on the diversity of intellectual discussion, to say nothing of its peerless graphics, varied content and technological wizardry. What's more, the group proprietor doesn't breath down our necks seeking to influence opinion or encouraging us to buy his books. I think that sets a fine example not least because it encourages others to modestly reference their own work rather than aggressively market it.

For these reasons I think the discussion forum is definitely worth defending. If the cost of this fortification is a potential infringement of liberty in extreme cases, then so be it.

JK
 
Julian Karswell said:
It's easy to forget that democracy and freedom of speech often needs to be fought for and then defended. Personally I've become an advocate for light-touch censorship in response to a) the internet and b) becoming a parent. I disagree strongly with Aleister Crowley's selfish doctrine that 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'.
Click to expand...

Just a side note regarding Crowley's quote, as this is often a very misunderstood statement: I realize this is off topic, so I'll make it brief. From my understanding of Crowley and Thelemic beliefs, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" in no way means "Do whatever you want". It means follow your true Will, information only our 'higher self' is privy to. Crowley firmly believed that if everyone followed their true Will (which is far beyond material wants and needs), everyone's actions would work in perfect harmony to a higher order, much like a school of fish moving in concert and not bumping into one another. This isn't just my reading of his famous quote, but also many Crowley scholars and Thelemites. It's too bad Crowley had only limted success following his own ideals.
 
The New Nonsense said:
Julian Karswell said:
It's easy to forget that democracy and freedom of speech often needs to be fought for and then defended. Personally I've become an advocate for light-touch censorship in response to a) the internet and b) becoming a parent. I disagree strongly with Aleister Crowley's selfish doctrine that 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'.
Click to expand...

Just a side note regarding Crowley's quote, as this is often a very misunderstood statement: I realize this is off topic, so I'll make it brief. From my understanding of Crowley and Thelemic beliefs, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" in no way means "Do whatever you want". It means follow your true Will, information only our 'higher self' is privy to. Crowley firmly believed that if everyone followed their true Will (which is far beyond material wants and needs), everyone's actions would work in perfect harmony to a higher order, much like a school of fish moving in concert and not bumping into one another. This isn't just my reading of his famous quote, but also many Crowley scholars and Thelemites. It's too bad Crowley had only limted success following his own ideals.
Click to expand...

Crowley was distracted from his true will by drugs and alcohol. Not only that but, he was as mortal and fallible as the rest of us.

I like his other quote: "Every Man and Every Woman is a Star".
 
Julian Karswell said:
Might I suggest a slight amendment to the rules (or at least a recommendation for good practise)?

I think it would be good form not to reference unpleasant or malicious comments posted elsewhere. This would minimise collateral damage to TLO in addition to sending out a clear signal that the TLO forum is independent.
Click to expand...

Better get this in while I can then. Thanks for alterting me to Ex Occidente Press via the whole tv group squabbles.

The New Nonsense said:
Just a side note regarding Crowley's quote, as this is often a very misunderstood statement: I realize this is off topic, so I'll make it brief. From my understanding of Crowley and Thelemic beliefs, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" in no way means "Do whatever you want". It means follow your true Will, information only our 'higher self' is privy to. Crowley firmly believed that if everyone followed their true Will (which is far beyond material wants and needs), everyone's actions would work in perfect harmony to a higher order, much like a school of fish moving in concert and not bumping into one another. This isn't just my reading of his famous quote, but also many Crowley scholars and Thelemites. It's too bad Crowley had only limted success following his own ideals.
Click to expand...

Completely wrong place to ask but you haven't came across a certain Crowley quote regarding Arthur Machen's fiction and mystic truth have you?
 
Didn't Crowley have a copy of Machen's House of Souls, which he'd annotated with all sorts of glowing praise? I don't know if some of these remarks have been published somewhere in the world of Crowleyiana.

Mark S.
 
mark_samuels said:
Didn't Crowley have a copy of Machen's House of Souls, which he'd annotated with all sorts of glowing praise? I don't know if some of these remarks have been published somewhere in the world of Crowleyiana.

Mark S.
Click to expand...

Wow - that copy sounds like a book collector's dream.
 
mark_samuels said:
Didn't Crowley have a copy of Machen's House of Souls, which he'd annotated with all sorts of glowing praise? I don't know if some of these remarks have been published somewhere in the world of Crowleyiana.

Mark S.
Click to expand...

You are going to hate me.

Yes he did. I've read it.

It was in the Courthauld Institute over 25 years ago. It holds a special collection once owned by a collector of occult books. You needed to make a special application, and you were not allowed to copy any passages. A librarian stayed in attendance and made sure you weren't copying it by frequently checking your notes. As I recall there were only about a dozen annotations, and Crowley's writing was difficult to read.

It detailed a series of Magickal experiments with Soror something or other and Soror Aegnis. Possibly coded sex-magic.

Just because Machen did not think highly of Magickal societies did not mean he didn't believe in Magick. He just thought that the societies had gotten it wrong. He, A E Waite and his two assistants however, had gotten it right.

He said.
 
MorganScorpion said:
It was in the Courthauld Institute over 25 years ago. It holds a special collection once owned by a collector of occult books. You needed to make a special application, and you were not allowed to copy any passages. A librarian stayed in attendance and made sure you weren't copying it by frequently checking your notes. As I recall there were only about a dozen annotations, and Crowley's writing was difficult to read.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Morgan, its really interesting.
Out of interest why were they so against any copying of certain passages? If there were so few annotations one would think several people could quite easily memorise a set number each and make copies later.
 
Evans said:
MorganScorpion said:
It was in the Courthauld Institute over 25 years ago. It holds a special collection once owned by a collector of occult books. You needed to make a special application, and you were not allowed to copy any passages. A librarian stayed in attendance and made sure you weren't copying it by frequently checking your notes. As I recall there were only about a dozen annotations, and Crowley's writing was difficult to read.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Morgan, its really interesting.
Out of interest why were they so against any copying of certain passages? If there were so few annotations one would think several people could quite easily memorise a set number each and make copies later.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why. It was one of the conditions that the original donor made when giving them this collection. I can't remember the name of the donor, sorry; but the collection was catalogued under his name.
 
@Julian: In slight contradiction to your post, I'm sorry if I offended you in that alt.cthulhu discussion thread. It certainly wasn't my intention.

MorganScorpion said:
Evans said:
MorganScorpion said:
It was in the Courthauld Institute over 25 years ago. It holds a special collection once owned by a collector of occult books. You needed to make a special application, and you were not allowed to copy any passages. A librarian stayed in attendance and made sure you weren't copying it by frequently checking your notes. As I recall there were only about a dozen annotations, and Crowley's writing was difficult to read.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Morgan, its really interesting.
Out of interest why were they so against any copying of certain passages? If there were so few annotations one would think several people could quite easily memorise a set number each and make copies later.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why. It was one of the conditions that the original donor made when giving them this collection. I can't remember the name of the donor, sorry; but the collection was catalogued under his name.
Click to expand...

Ahh ok thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top