I've just been banned

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

That's fair. I shouldn't be considered a troll just because of the way I ask my questions. That's just the way I've always been. I know it comes off as blunt and maybe abrupt but it's what I'm used to. I can imagine it being annoying but I don't really know any other way. Sometimes I'm not even aware of it.

I empathise to a point: I can be blunt and insensitive too. Part of it is a character flaw; I refuse to suffer fools.Plus, I have the social skills of a Mac truck.

However, I've never actually been banned. I was threatened once, told them to go fuck themselves and left.


I belong to five forums. This is my second favourite. BUT all are only internet forums. If I get really upset, I just leave (usually) without comment. You can't win with snide or angry parting shots. Takes me all of 30 minutes to find a new forum,but a lot longer to find a good one. This is one of best around in my opinion. Translation :there are very few people here who really get on my nerves. I like and respect most people here. In return, most are very tolerant of me, something I deeply appreciate.

[Cinjin]

A self confessed troll is garmston. Not a particularly entertaining one at that.

I'm not a troll. Why do you say that?

I'd like to direct you to a thread you started entitled 'I'm a troll'

http://atheistforums.org/thread-6656.html

If you are not in fact a troll then this is a bizare thing to do.

Garmston, how come you never answered this post by downbeatplumb??

[Aletheia]

That's fair. I shouldn't be considered a troll just because of the way I ask my questions. That's just the way I've always been. I know it comes off as blunt and maybe abrupt but it's what I'm used to. I can imagine it being annoying but I don't really know any other way. Sometimes I'm not even aware of it.

---

From the posts I've read on this forum, as well as AF, I don't think it is because you are blunt that people seem to have a problem with you. Rather, your questions are often vague and not really useful for the means in which you supposedly intend to use them for. If you are curious about atheism, you would conduct your research and then go to an atheist forum in order to ascertain the validity of your research based on the views atheists have of their lack of belief. It is incredibly odd to conduct yourself in the manner that you have and to ask questions which would provide answers that barely relate to your stated goal. This raises suspicions since trolls can use a similar tactic and it is difficult to distinguish this from someone who is particularly inept.

What really troubled me the most was how quickly you were to rise to retaliatory action. Yes, noreligion was a particularly crude person. I had sense enough to leave him alone. If he was unacceptable to the forum, then I left it to the mods to dispose of him as they saw fit. Your attempt at pacification through pm's could've been misguided but ultimately based on good intentions. However, knowing his ill-temperament from your initial contact it seems rather foolish you would make the gesture at all. Once again, this could be interpreted as troll-like behavior - inciting an already easily excitable character, or, it could be attributed to simple foolishness.

This one bad occurrence lend you to make harsh generalizations of the forum. Even if these assumptions turned out true or false in the end, it does not excuse the manner in which you were quick to jump to conclusions. It would've been more logical to take the occurrence as it was - a single occurrence. You were accosted by a troll (apparently), and then you further prodded this troll (some said you sent dozens of messages, but I know how Chinese Whispers plays out, it is more likely you sent 2 or 3 messages to noreligion). This was a particularly bad experience, and rather than view it like that, you made the assumption this was a common occurrence and asserted the forum was incompetent. Even at this point, you could've stopped and people merely assume you were caught in the midst of anger or frustration. However, you continued on and on about the issue, further insulting the mods and admins. This again resembled troll-like behavior - inciting in disruptive behavior in an effort to keep the drama going. It is difficult to distinguish this behavior from one is simply prone to emotional outbursts but really means no harm.

Then you start the posts about how you are not a troll or asking others why they would think you are. This is yet another tactic trolls use - martyrdom, Sisyphus Syndrome. Essentially a manner in which to either elicit sympathy or incite further emotional responses from others. It is very difficult to tell this manner of conduct apart from a particularly poor manner of resolving an issue. The best method (and quickest way) in which to prove you are not a troll is to start contributing to other posts. Enough time goes by and people can see you are not a troll (the reason you are viewed as "guilty till proven innocent" is because of all the above mentioned ambiguous behavior) and you can start to form credibility. After enough time has passed, you can start to ask what had happened and why people came to the conclusions they did about you.

Now, I had made a post on the other forum stating the opinion I had that you were ill-equipped to handle interaction with others. You are welcome to disagree as you see fit. Unlike some of the others you've encountered on the other forum, I am much slower to anger or frustration. I would've liked to have heard your side of the issue, but by the time I returned to the forum, you were banned. So based on the evidence I could find, I drew the only conclusion that I could - you handled the situation poorly. Now, whether that is because you were doing so intentionally or if that was because the harshness of the forum caught you by surprise, I really don't know.

I won't lie, atheistforums.com is a very harsh forum. There have been times I had wanted to spend more time talking with theists - to dissect their arguments and show specifically where we disagreed, but found emotions were flaring long before I arrived. However, when you dig a little deeper, there are redeemable qualities in the forum. It just takes a little time to seek out those who are slow to anger.

My only complaint is I wish they would talk about biology more often, since discussing what evolution actually is could save so much time in debates. The harshness I can handle - filter out what pertains to the debate and disregard the rest. Personal attacks on the internet are laughable at best - either way.

---