witch hunt wtf

[dannyboy]

Some just need to belong to something, even to a mob.

Though i don't consider TF members in the main to be a true representation of the general public. For every 100 that join, 50 will never return, another 30 will stay a month or so 10 will hang around a few months and of the 10 or so that remain, only 1 or 2 will become part of the "crowd". That 1 or 2 are relatively similar in thought and action to the rest and therefore have thoughts and opinions which are similar in many ways to the others that reside here, with some differences of course.

Of course I'm talking bollocks.

"We are the angry mob, we read the papers everyday.

We like who we like, we hate who we hate but we're also easily swayed!"

Kaiser Chiefs...The Angry Mob.

[OutOfOrder]

people who post absolute reams of pretentious crap w/out decent breaks to make it digestible and bite size annoy the piss out of me.

then i assume there's not much of the caramel coated almonds in this bowl of popcorn for you.

[zeusbheld]

When you were a kid Zues, did you used to disturb ants nests just to see how they all react?

i think the better question is not whether i did that as a kid (duh) but whether i still do.

[zeusbheld]

I meant sociable as in : marked by or conducive to friendliness or pleasant social relations (Webster)

I think you'll agree this doesn't apply to mob behavior.

ah but i think between members of the group it does. it's only with people outside the pack that it doesn't apply.

[zeusbheld]

people who post absolute reams of pretentious crap w/out decent breaks to make it digestible and bite size annoy the piss out of me.

yet strangely you log into TF regularly in spite of being massively busy. you must be one helluva masochist then.

[trocks69]

people who post absolute reams of pretentious crap w/out decent breaks to make it digestible and bite size annoy the piss out of me.

yet strangely you log into TF regularly in spite of being massively busy. you must be one helluva masochist then.

i think he knows you quite well ZB.....55555555555555555555

[trocks69]

i voted beer it seemed the most reasonable and doable specially since i know that people here will not recognize me as the supreme ruler of the world and all you bunch of people are just minions and serfs in my world. now get on your knees and bow down to your ruler. ok hell just fetch me a beer then.

[joefarang]

I honestly, sincerely and realistically believe that the team should more or less keep their eyes and ears on/open for the scums that are on here to con ppl money, to find themselves shag mates when they are already committed, here just to f*ck around and cause life damaging experiences to poor innocent victims, to prostitute themselves, etc etc. Stupid foul-mouthed comments or annoying comments are so MINOR compared to all those crimes.

It's almost like police men arresting ppl who throw their cigarette butts and not ever bothered about rapes and robberies.

I said i was being honest, sincere and realistic... I'm really not trying to cause myself any troubles here ...pardon me if i happen to have something to say :roll:

well said miss!!

[SiamHotel]

A bored human is a dangerous human

bingo!... to some extent

[SiamHotel]

actu#lly

.... jerry ja ;! 8)

[menospeakthai]

Man, some people love to complain. lol

It's all internet noise. You'll never know the truth until you meet the SOB in person.

Then the loudest are always the first to say; "ah, you know it's not personal. It's just talk." And they're like 5' 7" (170cm) and a 135 pounds (62kg) soaking wet with a ten pound weight in each hand.

Youre the hardest man ive ever met on the internet, im fearing for my life just responding to you.

[SiamHotel]

0r 3lse.........

[SiamHotel]

na

j

a

[SiamHotel]

i

sh

G

a

L

[SiamHotel]

b3llo :!:

[menospeakthai]

Ah, so you took off the threat. Did you lose your internet courage. lol

I said that you should be careful of 5'7 skinny guys with dumbbell bars in their hand, besides im only the 246th toughest on here i wouldnt mess.

[zeusbheld]

are Virtual Warriors the new Vote Whores? I don't wanna use VW in the wrong context!

can one do both?

it's good to see some good old fashioned male aggression at least, as a welcome contrast to "Mean Girls Syndrome": "ooh i hate your posts so i'll start a threat and anyone who agrees with me and says bad things about you can be cool like meeeeee."

[eagle]

Virtual Warrior ***** or Virtual vote Warrior ?

[LakeGeneve]

why is it exactly people need witch hunts?

it's true in the wider world but especially noticeable in an internet forum. someone gets annoyed at "poster x"'s posts. that someone imagines there must be other like minded individuals out there (and i use the term "individual" VERY loosely). that someone posts a "let's gang up on Poster X."

brilliant idea, guys. seems Lord of the Flies was too gentle a take on human nature. so now that simon's dead, when can we go for piggy?

Was it a witch hunt??? Does that word not constitute something much more intense than one thread? Perhaps, something like pursuing a member with aggressive language on multiple threads over a period of time?

Whilst upon reflection the posting of a thread about a TF member may be arguably inappropiate, a quick peruse of that thread finds that the overwhelming majority did not support the OPs general assertion/query to suggest action against the member (14 to 4 on my quick count).

So where is the mob mentality that people are referring too?

With due respect, there appears to be more of that dynamic occuring in this thread with most seemingly uncritically agreeing with the OP.

BTW, call me crazy but I perceive that SHs posts are today much more coherent? At least not so many multiple posts and even I can actually understand the content which also relates to the previous post or thread topic.

I f*cking LOVE SIAMHOTEL. The geezer is the funniest person posting on TF, 80% bollocks but the other 20% is pure genius. :roll:

Mate, I am not so smart and definately not a genius so I would really like to hear your view on exactly what that 20% is about? I do love the avatar so that could be the 20% or is it the modus operandi in general?

[zeusbheld]

Was it a witch hunt??? Does that word not constitute something much more intense than one thread? Perhaps, something like pursuing a member with aggressive language on multiple threads over a period of time?

no "witch hunt" distinctly implies pack mentality. what you describe would be, in equally histrionic terms, "cyber-stalking."

Whilst upon reflection the posting of a thread about a TF member may be arguably inappropiate, a quick peruse of that thread finds that the overwhelming majority did not support the OPs general assertion/query to suggest action against the member (14 to 4 on my quick count).

So where is the mob mentality that people are referring too?

what would be the point of posting such a thread if one was not hoping for a mob? what other motivation would there be? if it were just individual annoyance, wouldn't one be inclined to just have a go at the irritant in question right then, right there, rather than look for support?

With due respect, there appears to be more of that dynamic occuring in this thread with most seemingly uncritically agreeing with the OP.

well that's a mindfuck. i've used groupthink to agitate people into thinking for themselves, and acting solely on their own behalf without seeking backup?

BTW, call me crazy but I perceive that SHs posts are today much more coherent? At least not so many multiple posts and even I can actually understand the content which also relates to the previous post or thread topic.

the careful observer would note that the original poster *never* mentioned SiamHotel, although his case is obviously relevant. this has happened a number of times. some of the witches stoned in the town square deserved it (Afook for example) but whether they deserve it or not is beside the point. i'm more interested in the way that people post that sort of thread are hoping for backup.

also, it should be obvious that the original poster of *this* thread is far less interested having people agree with him than in winding up the sort of people who think group approval means they're somehow right. about anything. if group approval reflects quality the Macarena is one of the greatest songs ever.

[LakeGeneve]

Was it a witch hunt??? Does that word not constitute something much more intense than one thread? Perhaps, something like pursuing a member with aggressive language on multiple threads over a period of time?

no "witch hunt" distinctly implies pack mentality. what you describe would be, in equally histrionic terms, "cyber-stalking."

Humbly and with respect mate, I think witch hunt requires the element of intensity and/or systematic nature. Much like genocide can be committed aginst one person I would think that a witch hunt can be conducted by one person, it does not require a quantative factor. Terms like mob and gang may be more appropiate for pack mentality as you state. I was questioning that aspect. But I defer to your expertise in the field of definitions.

However, if the term witch hunt is about pack mentality, then does not the fact that most of the pack went against the OPs query for action against the member say otherwise?

Whilst upon reflection the posting of a thread about a TF member may be arguably inappropiate, a quick peruse of that thread finds that the overwhelming majority did not support the OPs general assertion/query to suggest action against the member (14 to 4 on my quick count).

So where is the mob mentality that people are referring too?

what would be the point of posting such a thread if one was not hoping for a mob? what other motivation would there be? if it were just individual annoyance, wouldn't one be inclined to just have a go at the irritant in question right then, right there, rather than look for support?

I wasn't really concerned with the motivation of the OP in that thread. But yes I agree with you on dealing with it then and there, as I have done a few times in respect of the SHs posts.

With due respect, there appears to be more of that dynamic occuring in this thread with most seemingly uncritically agreeing with the OP.

well that's a mindfuck. i've used groupthink to agitate people into thinking for themselves, and acting solely on their own behalf without seeking backup?

well mate we may well be in a mindfuck (Aside to mod: how does that term get through the filter?) with each other tonight as I find your response a tad bizarre. The statement was an observation, rightly or wrongly, about the overall dynamical, content of this thread. Nothing about the you as the OP, save for the witchunt term.

BTW, call me crazy but I perceive that SHs posts are today much more coherent? At least not so many multiple posts and even I can actually understand the content which also relates to the previous post or thread topic.

the careful observer would note that the original poster *never* mentioned SiamHotel, although his case is obviously relevant. this has happened a number of times. some of the witches stoned in the town square deserved it (Afook for example) but whether they deserve it or not is beside the point. i'm more interested in the way that people post that sort of thread are hoping for backup. .

This not so careful observer noted that most posters explicity referred to SH as it was obvious who was being discussed in the thread. So there seems little point in not stating such. Ok, I missed your motivation about why the OP posted the thread but you have already taken a certain disposition in the OP so I guess it makes it hard to just ask him.

I see your interest but perhaps it could have been expressed differently. My interest in my previous post arises from the confusion of most posters in this thread agreeing that there was some gang or mob mentality going on in that thread when only 4 of the 18 posters concurred with the OP.

No criticism of anyones views in this thread but the ironic observation is still valid I suggest, insofar as there is more mob/gang/witchunt dynamic in this thread than the other one. But really, who gives a mindfuck?

also, it should be obvious that the original poster of *this* thread is far less interested having people agree with him than in winding up the sort of people who think group approval means they're somehow right. about anything. if group approval reflects quality the Macarena is one of the greatest songs ever.

Yes mate, I in no way thought, or ever think, that you were concerned with being the centre of a popular group hug.

Anyway, while we have our little discussion surely the more important issue is the appropriateness, or otherwise, of posting a thread querying sanctions against a member for annoying conduct? Obviously, the mod who closed the thread stated not and whilst upon reflection I possibly agree more than I did in replying in the thread, I don't know where the line is drawn that is applicable for all - most likely it is not possible.

But then we have a serious matter where a member is requested to make a public apology for obvious inappropiate, and potentially criminal, conduct at an event. Then others are allowed to make comments about the apology, the member in general and alleged previous conduct, and sanctions against the member. This is allowed by the mods even if some it borders on defamatory and seems self righteous (Any guy if he was honest with himself would own up to having acted inappropriately towards a women at some stage in his life, especially when he was younger). But the whole process of discussion on the thread makes me feel uncomfortable.

I admire the maturity of those who suffered from the conduct and have expressed forgiveness so quickly. I respect the courage of the member to make a public apology about something quite serious. If those that suffered the conduct are content with the outcome then this has to be an important aim. There seems to be more of a restorative justice going on in this case than a need for retribution. Given the wealth of human frailities this approach does seem more enlightened whilst still ensuring that inappropiate conduct is not condoned and the member takes some responsibility for his actions.

Finding the right balance to ensure fairness, consistency and most importantly respect for all parties in this wierd cyber space world is invidious. Each case has to be dealt with on its merits but I am unsure about the public nature of it all being that appropriate for all. The application of a yellow card against the transgressing member also provides an element approaching surreality.

Perhaps somehow the evolution of a thread moves towards a resolution as members of the community contribute and the matter eventually provides closure in some way for those involved?

[zeusbheld]

Was it a witch hunt??? Does that word not constitute something much more intense than one thread? Perhaps, something like pursuing a member with aggressive language on multiple threads over a period of time?

no "witch hunt" distinctly implies pack mentality. what you describe would be, in equally histrionic terms, "cyber-stalking."

Humbly and with respect mate, I think witch hunt requires the element of intensity and/or systematic nature. Much like genocide can be committed aginst one person I would think that a witch hunt can be conducted by one person, it does not require a quantative factor. Terms like mob and gang may be more appropiate for pack mentality as you state. I was questioning that aspect. But I defer to your expertise in the field of definitions.

i'd say historically witch hunts were much more typically a matter of groupthink and the norms of a given society. salem, massachusetts WAS a mob/gang thing, for example. or on a larger scale, the spanish inquisition. that said, the point of invoking such histrionic terms is satirical--a **** you to the IMPORTANCE people place on their storm-in-a-teacup internet spats.

However, if the term witch hunt is about pack mentality, then does not the fact that most of the pack went against the OPs query for action against the member say otherwise?

i only read the first four or five posts tbh, and i was more interested in apparent intent--why post a thread like that unless you're looking for support in handing out Ostrakons? it's an in group / out group thing, at least to the people making drama about it, much more "mean girls" than witch hunt. and Eagle gets to be Lindsay Lohan. but eagle's hotter IMO.

Whilst upon reflection the posting of a thread about a TF member may be arguably inappropiate, a quick peruse of that thread finds that the overwhelming majority did not support the OPs general assertion/query to suggest action against the member (14 to 4 on my quick count).

So where is the mob mentality that people are referring too?

what would be the point of posting such a thread if one was not hoping for a mob? what other motivation would there be? if it were just individual annoyance, wouldn't one be inclined to just have a go at the irritant in question right then, right there, rather than look for support?

I wasn't really concerned with the motivation of the OP in that thread. But yes I agree with you on dealing with it then and there, as I have done a few times in respect of the SHs posts.

i didn't react to anything BUT The OP's apparent intention, the subtext of his post, as expressed through words on the (virtual) page.

With due respect, there appears to be more of that dynamic occuring in this thread with most seemingly uncritically agreeing with the OP.

well that's a mindfuck. i've used groupthink to agitate people into thinking for themselves, and acting solely on their own behalf without seeking backup?

well mate we may well be in a mindfuck (Aside to mod: how does that term get through the filter?) with each other tonight as I find your response a tad bizarre. The statement was an observation, rightly or wrongly, about the overall dynamical, content of this thread. Nothing about the you as the OP, save for the witchunt term.

well i think the response to this thread was surprisingly predictable if that makes any sense. NOBODY was pro-"mean girls", EVERYONE picked a 'let it go' option. yet i've been on this site a while and people behave much more along the lines of "mean girls" than they'll admit IMO.

BTW, call me crazy but I perceive that SHs posts are today much more coherent? At least not so many multiple posts and even I can actually understand the content which also relates to the previous post or thread topic.

the careful observer would note that the original poster *never* mentioned SiamHotel, although his case is obviously relevant. this has happened a number of times. some of the witches stoned in the town square deserved it (Afook for example) but whether they deserve it or not is beside the point. i'm more interested in the way that people post that sort of thread are hoping for backup. .

This not so careful observer noted that most posters explicity referred to SH as it was obvious who was being discussed in the thread. So there seems little point in not stating such. Ok, I missed your motivation about why the OP posted the thread but you have already taken a certain disposition in the OP so I guess it makes it hard to just ask him.

I see your interest but perhaps it could have been expressed differently. My interest in my previous post arises from the confusion of most posters in this thread agreeing that there was some gang or mob mentality going on in that thread when only 4 of the 18 posters concurred with the OP.

i think the OP in that thread was clearly trying to rally allies around him by defining the 'in' group by excluding someone from it.

No criticism of anyones views in this thread but the ironic observation is still valid I suggest, insofar as there is more mob/gang/witchunt dynamic in this thread than the other one. But really, who gives a mindfuck?

nah i'd say ppl's reactions in this thread--especialy the poll--are much more of an example of people trying to convince themselves of their own benefectance. i havent' read that carefully but IMO i'm the only one having a go at the OP of that thread.

Yes mate, I in no way thought, or ever think, that you were concerned with being the centre of a popular group hug.

well thank God i don't have to learn the words to "kumbaya."

Anyway, while we have our little discussion surely the more important issue is the appropriateness, or otherwise, of posting a thread querying sanctions against a member for annoying conduct?

i think what was notable about that particular thread is that it wasn't like, say with 419 scammers, where they are examples of a larger, malignant phenomenon, but rather it was focused on one eccentric and affirming that he is excluded from the "in group."

But then we have a serious matter where a member is requested to make a public apology for obvious inappropiate, and potentially criminal, conduct at an event. Then others are allowed to make comments about the apology, the member in general and alleged previous conduct, and sanctions against the member. This is allowed by the mods even if some it borders on defamatory and seems self righteous (Any guy if he was honest with himself would own up to having acted inappropriately towards a women at some stage in his life, especially when he was younger). But the whole process of discussion on the thread makes me feel uncomfortable.

now that's another thing entirely. a whole new can of worms so to speak. although when it comes to punishment

i have no sympathy for the perp but

I admire the maturity of those who suffered from the conduct and have expressed forgiveness so quickly.

i have no opinion as i'm not convinced that i have any idea WHY they are expressing forgiveness. i've known quite a few thais to be rather more interested in avoiding conflict than avoiding suffering for themselves and/or others. so it could be heroic, it could simply be that they don't like making waves. i think it dangerous to assume it is one or the other out of hand.

Ghee is NOT gary glitter. Ghee deserves another chance, whereas Gary Glitter's crimes are not only more heinous but he's proven he can't control his urges and deserves no slack.

however, imagine this is a class of 8 year olds and the touchy-feely person IS gary glitter. are the parents heroic in forgiviing, or are they enablers?

so for that reason i work on the assumption that their forgiveness is their business and i am neither inclined to admire it nor be suspicious of it as i consider either approach to be mere sentimentality.

I respect the courage of the member to make a public apology about something quite serious.

i suspect he had to apologize publicly or risk being banned from the site, which he values. so i don't see it as courage so much as sorting his priorities. just doing what he has to do in order to get what he wants. that doesn't take much in the way of strength of courage, just strength of drive. the courage will come in if he keeps his promise and resists the urge to do it again.

If those that suffered the conduct are content with the outcome then this has to be an important aim. There seems to be more of a restorative justice going on in this case than a need for retribution.

imo retribution is almost always a bad idea (i did say almost). punishment should be about a) deterring other potential perps and effectively neutralizing the perp in question as a future threat. it is and should be more like dog training than retribution.

Given the wealth of human frailities this approach does seem more enlightened whilst still ensuring that inappropiate conduct is not condoned and the member takes some responsibility for his actions.

Finding the right balance to ensure fairness, consistency and most importantly respect for all parties in this wierd cyber space world is invidious. Each case has to be dealt with on its merits but I am unsure about the public nature of it all being that appropriate for all. The application of a yellow card against the transgressing member also provides an element approaching surreality.

Perhaps somehow the evolution of a thread moves towards a resolution as members of the community contribute and the matter eventually provides closure in some way for those involved?

i see it as simple deterrence. not necessarily noble but effective.

[weszaq]

Burn! Burn! Burn! Burn! Burn! Burn! Burn! Burn! Burn! Burn! Burn! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: