The post where you are calling people self-righteous that I quoted specifically, the slightly older one where you conflate people leaving with people specifically requesting bans (a smaller subset of the first group that the thread is titled after) or an older post that I missed from earlier then that?G.O.A.T. said:
I disagree. It is a public request from the site for acknowledgement. The core principle of "Look at what I am doing" is true throughout, as is the similarity of seeking negative attention in response to not getting one's way. The reason I call it a temper tantrum is the very core of what this thread was started on, people requesting the ban. This separates them from people who are just leaving or even leaving with a good-bye post, as it addresses, specifically, those that push the staff to take action in acknowledgement of their displeasure and decision to leave.
Making one's voice heard is not the same as forcing the moderation staff to acknowledge their displease by negative reinforcement. This was why I made the distinction between those who leave or leave with a good-by post, and those who specifically, as per the title of the thread itself, request a ban. As for why I "smear them with the same brush", that is because yes, the act of requesting a ban is at its heart one of putting on a spectacle. While they may not always be as dramatically over the top as some, they are all seeking the attention of the moderation staff and negative response in the same way a toddler does when they do not get their way. When you leave a store, what else do you call it if you demand the store have security escort you from the premise to never return, other then a tantrum? Does it make it less so if you are more polite about forcing them to pay attention to your individually inconsequential leaving?
Who says I need to read minds? The act itself is one that is defined by a plea for attention. Requesting a ban is literally REQUESTING moderator attention and acknowledgement. Motivations may be different based on case, but the action itself is still what it is.
You want me to find examples of people not upset about people leaving peacefully and without requesting a ban, in a thread specifically about people who request a ban, after I defined, a few times now, that the very act of requesting a ban is itself seeking attention by its very design? I... don't understand what you are asking here. Are you asking for examples of people who left without requesting a ban being treated civilly when they left?
That is fine. Would you at least agree that the behavior off specifically requesting a ban is an honest attempt to obtain negative attention from the moderation team as a means to have their protest acknowledged?
The public seeking of negative attention of the staff as acknowledgement of their protest? The inability to leave without spectacle or declaration of contempt by forcing the moderators to work as a final farewell? Hell, I could even go so far as to argue that the individual insignificance of any given act of requesting a ban in a forum who's moderation has little ability to impact the direction of the site, highlighting a lack of grasp of suitable avenue to protest whatever reason they have for leaving the site and instead reaching for the simplest, public display for the sake of being noticed instead of being effective on the stated motivation for the protest in the first place?
Making a scene is a public display seeking moderation acknowledgment of them leaving the site and forcing them to engage with them individually as a special case to get negative attention. The reason I keep using "temper tantrum" is the reasoning is the same at heart: do something bad to get punished as a sign of disagreement or being upset. The elevation of it from protest at not getting a toy to protest at the direction of the site still doesn't change the behavior as seeking negative attention.
So, no, according to my standard, I am NOT making a scene, as I am not seeking negative attention from the site, I am interacting with a fellow poster. Though I think "hurtful" is a bit silly to use to describe my stance thus far, especially given your own use of words like "self-righteous" and intentionally misrepresenting arguments as you have. I will happy call those tactics out (indeed, they are part of why I called it farcical after all) but hurtful? No, not unless skins are too thin to be posting online in the first place.
Your post still comes off as taking pot-shots at people for looking down at people publicly requesting bans, using a judgmental tone of your own from a place of your own "self-righteousness" in condemning those who mock the ones leaving. I read that as a distinction entirely relevant on where you stand on the particular issue, but otherwise entirely arbitrary. So, since I obvious don't see the distinction you were trying to make when you were calling people here self-righteous and berating them for calling people intentionally seeking negative attention "ATENSHUN HOR", please explain it to me.
Boycotting? That is fine. Demanding that the manage of the restaurant call the cops to forcibly eject you because you want to make your displeasure known to them, that seems a bit childish to me.
And that is indeed the difference. A post saying "I am leaving and here is why" is polite. A post requesting moderator action because someone wants their displeasure acknowledged is not.
The nature of the sentences you dissected there was entirely about how it doesn't matter if done politely or with a curse filled rant, the nature of requesting a ban is inherently a childish one by nature of what it is. So your lack of fear of words is noted but entirely useless to the overall discussion, sadly. You are right about that last bit though, you can make a point without being a jackass about it. The problem is, requesting a ban is still being a jackass about it, with or without swearing.
I figured this line of thought would have to be explored, and it may surprise you, but no, the people in the civil rights movement were not doing the same thing as people requesting a ban, for a few reasons. First and foremost because the reason people were being arrested was because they were breaking laws or civil ordinances, or were being arrested because of the broken system lashing out at them for not towing the line. It was a display of what was wrong with those laws and such, a price people were willing to pay in response to doing what they felt was right. They were not seeking to be arrested but understood it was a price they may have to pay. Protesting a lack of civil rights carried risks of imprisonment and worse, but I doubt people just walked up to the police and went "hey, arrest me" to show the street-level police they were protesting something those police had no authority to change. Civil disobedience was just that, civilly disobeying what they thought was unfair, and accepting the consequences of that behavior as a price worth risking in hopes that others saw what was wrong with the system and would push to change it.
Compare that to people requesting a ban here. Well, for one they are requesting the ban, so the idea of civil disobedience as protest of the rules sort of doesn't apply, since they are not disobeying a rule they dislike or even a site direction. Instead they demanding specific negative attention because they dislike it. There is no attempt to protest the changes via action, instead, there is a seeking of the instant acknowledgment that their opinions have been heard. What is worse is that they are protesting one aspect of the site by interacting and putting the responsibility to change it on another. The forums and the moderators have precious little ability to change things, so demanding a ban from the forums is just worthless as a protest, even if that is the most noble of intent behind it. Someone protesting being told to not use a drinking fountain by using it and getting arrested is different then someone upset with what chik-fil-a's corporate office is doing so demands the small town manager call the cops to have them removed from the property. The first addresses the complaint, even if the way they do has negative consequences, the second demands consequences for merely expressing disagreement instead of actually working towards protesting it.
Now, if you been following along, you might get the opinion I respect people who got themselves banned for posting stuff more then those who requested a ban. That is entirely correct. If someone got banned for talking bad about the people on the site they disliked, or the direction the site was going (but without breaking the other rules, sort of a hard line to walk I suppose, but possible) then I could at least see that as an act of civil disobedience. That to me shows a intentional disregard for the rules as a sign of protest, and even if I disagree, I can respect that behavior because it is aimed at what part of the issue is (in this case, calling attention to the rule you can't talk badly about content makers) and it isn't seeking a ban so much as acknowledging it is a very real risk for the protest, a price paid for protesting something unfair in their eyes. Just requesting a ban though, I suppose that just comes off as lazy and ill-aimed. A lack of effort or understanding and a vein pursuit of moderator acknowledgement that they are dissatisfied. Saying "I don't like the way the site is going" should be enough if that is the message they want to get across. Requesting the ban however is intentionally demanding attention, demanding special consideration and acknowledgement by behaving like a brat.
