thoughts about getting "banned" from a community for failing to follow rules

[Jay Sea]

In light of recent events I am inspired to discuss a few things that may have philosophical implications, as many are aware, a prominent user was recently banned from the forum, purportedly for repeated violations of rules of the forum.

Internet forums is a digital community where many chose to spend our time, effort, attention and energy. Much like communities we find in the physical offline world, there are rules that operate here, which can be defined to be a set of principles, guidelines, or directions that regulates, controls or limits behaviour.

Rules are often made with the best of intentions in mind, think for example, of traffic rules, how would a high volume of traffic composed of pedestrians, bicycles, cars, buses and heavy transport trucks possibly navigate through a multi-laned highway intersection in a safe and efficient manner if no one knew when to stop, when to go, or who had the right of way? If there were no traffic rules at all, where the road becames a complete free-for-all, would that be something you would personally prefer?

It was determined that the user in question has violated the rules of the forum. From the very beginning of her digital existence on this forum, and much like how it is in the physical world, the person was never free to simply do whatever she wanted, instead, her behaviours were subjected to controls and regulations, in accordance with the established rules of this forum, her violations of these rules have resulted in the sanctions imposed upon her: her digital existence is exiled from the forum for the time being.

The violations of rules in the physical, offline world similarly attracts sanctions and punishments if discovered. As a simple example, in some countries the possession and trafficking of drugs may result in the death penalty, but in others, it may simply carry a prison sentence or community service, these are laws established by the nation states to govern its citizens within its national borders. But in human societies, there are all kinds of rules in the forms of social norms and conventions, cultural customs and traditions that controls and limits each person's behaviour. Social groups and communities can be said to exist, each with its own set of rules.

If rules are created for the good of the community, the violations of which result in sanctions, is it possible for there to exist communities from which we are exiled due to our violation of its rules? In other words, is it possible that we may in fact, at the very present moment, be excluded from certain communities out there, because we have failed to observe its rules?

 

[avoid]

Do you mean the exclusion or exile from communities due to a violation of rules before you involve yourself with one of such communities? Yes, I think so. If you see the American citizens who are eligible to vote as a community [group of people] then being a convicted felon excludes you from being part of this community. Other examples would probably involve religious groups or closed communities with stringent conditioned on new group members.

I assumed you meant a collective 'we'. But if you meant 'we' as in the Sanctioned Suicide community, people with a pro-choice mindset when it comes to euthenasia, who may already be exiled from certain communities for having this mindset, then I don't know. It's certainly possible that a community rejects us for being a member of this forum without giving it a second consideration/chance. But whether such a community exists, I haven't heard of one.

And if such communities exist then who's not to say that they might give us a second chance anyway. People change and (bad) decisions taken many years ago don't necessarily define you as the person you are today.

 

[Jay Sea]

Do you mean the exclusion or exile from communities due to a violation of rules before you involve yourself with one of such communities? Yes, I think so. If you see the American citizens who are eligible to vote as a community [group of people] then being a convicted felon excludes you from being part of this community. Other examples would probably involve religious groups or closed communities with stringent conditioned on new group members.

Yes these are excellent points of clarifications,

In a general sense, when I mentioned exclusion or exile from a community in the OP I was implying that the individual in question has already had some degree of affiliation with a community/group. To follow up with your example, I may attempt to construct two different groups, the first of which is the voting group, the second of which is the felon group, based on what you said, then an individual (lets call person A) cannot be a member of both the voting and the felon group simultaneously. Person A was a member of the voting group, but due to their violation of the rules of this group, they are then excluded/exiled from this group and subsequently became a member of the felon group. This was my initial assumptions.

But your point about being excluded from a group before such an individual is even involved with such a group raises a really interesting point, in these cases, is the reason for their exclusion due to a violation of the the rules of the group? But how does the rules of the group apply to those who are not even a part of the group?

I assumed you meant a collective 'we'. But if you meant 'we' as in the Sanctioned Suicide community, people with a pro-choice mindset when it comes to euthenasia, who may already be exiled from certain communities for having this mindset, then I don't know. It's certainly possible that a community rejects us for being a member of this forum without giving it a second consideration/chance. But whether such a community exists, I haven't heard of one.

Yes the first assumption was more inline with my intended use of "we",

and your observation about the SS community is really on point, does there exist people out in the world who rejects those with a pro-choice mindset about euthenasia? I don't know for sure but I would certainly bet money on it, can we put these anti-choice people into a hypothetical group even if these anti-choice people may not be formally organized into a community? I don't see why not.

 

[Jay Sea]

Rules are often made with the best of intentions in mind, think for example, of traffic rules, how would a high volume of traffic composed of pedestrians, bicycles, cars, buses and heavy transport trucks possibly navigate through a multi-laned highway intersection in a safe and efficient manner if no one knew when to stop, when to go, or who had the right of way? If there were no traffic rules at all, where the road becames a complete free-for-all, would that be something you would personally prefer?

It is also the case the rules can be made to oppress, to subjugate and to abuse.

Think for example, of the Nuremberg laws enacted by Nazi Germany against the Jews, or the set of laws made by the United States prior to the American Civil War that enabled slavery.

Perhaps rules are merely a means to an end, a tool to be wielded by those with the power to enforce them against those to be controlled. Therefore, it could be dangerous in blindly yielding to rules without thinking.

To me one of the most interesting question anyone could ask is: Is it even possible to find a rule, or set of rules that will find universal accord among intelligent beings to ensure peaceful co-existence?

 

[Forever Sleep]

A lot of the time, rules are there to stop us infringing the rights of other people. Pedestrians are more vulnerable than cyclists who are more vulnerable than motorists so- rules are there to try to protect the most at risk a lot of the time.

That said, I remember watching a programme about a place that had next to no road signage. No crossings etc. It was a case of- whoever got there first had priority- be it a pedestrian or driver and amazingly- they had very few accidents because apparently, people looked out for each other more... Kind of interesting.

I do actually agree with having rules but I think we also need to be wary that they aren't being taken too far. You have to wonder- when we are informed of new security risks and the greater need for surveillance on everyone- is it really in response to a threat or- is it a cover to allow corporations to spy on us and sell the information to companies that will try and get us to buy stuff from them? So- is it really for our own good or is it just more tools for capitalism/ consumerism?

Places like here though. Yes, I think there need to be rules. I'm glad there is an age limit of 18. Not that it can't be infringed but I'd prefer not to discuss detailed suicide methods with a 12 year old. None of us can be entirely sure the person we are talking to is out of all other options and even whether they are of completely sound mind. Still, talking to a child about it, I'd feel even less sure that suicide was their best option. Really though, I try to avoid method talk a lot anyway.

I'm not entirely sure which rules FC violated. In all honesty, I've nothing against her as a person. In fact, I feel awful for her suffering. Still, I found her posts used to bring out the worst in me. They used to trigger me to argue. I always tried to be civil but in the end, I found I didn't like myself for being like that and it was pointless anyway because she was posting to vent rather than debate. Which of course- she has a right to.

It's a fine line I guess though. Freedom of speech is so important but, it works both ways. This forum has been and continues to be set up (I believe) as a very welcome open board to discuss the most controversial things in life. It's pro-choice so- it kind of has to respect and represent multiple viewpoints. Including ones that question whether suicide is always the best option and the alternative of recovery. FC, I got the impression wanted this place to be more promortalist and became annoyed when it wasn't.

Really though- in relation to the above examples of protecting the most vulnerable. Let's play devil's advocate and say a 15 year old broke the rules and managed to create an account here. They tell us they are struggling but there are some things on the horizon for them that they don't know whether they should keep trying for.

I don't think I ever saw FC encourage someone to suicide. She would more likely sympathise with their situation, agree how unfair and cruel it was they were also burdened with existence and end by saying- 'but anyway, all the best' type of thing. Nothing really wrong in that...

However- if other members seemed to pick up on how young the person seemed. That maybe there was still hope for them, maybe they would express that. And it's FC's response to that that I would say could be a problem. She would make multiple posts on how the forum had changed and been infiltrated by 'disgusting' pro lifers. That I would say can be seen to be putting pressure on people to respond in a certain way- ie. don't mention recovery, therapy, etc. That isn't really in keeping with an open forum.

Fair enough if it pisses the original poster off and they tell the person who suggested all that recovery guff to take a hike but to kind of police the whole forum for things that appear too positive (in my view) takes it too far. This forum doesn't belong to any one person's ideology. That's what makes it special in my view.

In a way, I'd argue that it was likely FC trying to impose her own rules/ preferences here that may have gor her in to trouble. Again though I don't know and I want to re- emphasize that I have nothing against her personally. I wonder how she's doing without it in fact. I don't think it's fair to demonize her but, for the overall 'good' of the forum- honestly- I'm glad she doesn't make the rules. I think it would actually be nearer a death cult if she did!

So- in a nutshell, I think places like this are so important for people to be able to express their views- even the more extreme ones but- no one member should be able to dictate how everyone else behaves. That contravenes their right to freedom of speech and expression.

As for things we would be excluded from. Yeah- there would be loads. Everytime we get rejected from a job, it's because we either had something in our history they really didn't get a good impression of. We didn't have the necessary attributes or- they had better options. Same goes for relationships/ friendships. And some clubs/ religions/ courses will be very particular in who they accept. I expect a lot of doors are firmly closed to a lot of things for us. Not that we may even want to try for many of them of course.

 

[sserafim]

It's not that deep lol

 

[Jay Sea]

But How deep is too deep?

 

[sserafim]

But How deep is too deep?

How deep is your love @Rocinante

 

[Rocinante]

How deep is your love @Rocinante

River deep, mountain high

 

[Dot]

If rules are created for the good of the community, the violations of which result in sanctions, is it possible for there to exist communities from which we are exiled due to our violation of its rules?

Yh = calld 8-Chn

 

[Jay Sea]

To purge oneself of all emotions is to become a void, and I am it's disciple

There is no emotion, there is peace.

 

[GhostShell]

Damn FC is banned? Havent seen any of their cool posts in a while :(

 

[Edpal247]

Rules is rule. I've received a message from mod that my post was being deleted. I am learning as I go along here. Hope to never get banned. That would suck.

 

[Jay Sea]

Indeed, rules that effectively control our behaviours are generally tied to various types of incentives and/or punishments

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I've seen this type of discourse before from the Smash Bros Community. After 2020, lots of beloved yet controversial members were cast out and forced to get real jobs or just to have their own insular side community. I personally agree that communities of any kind have the right to not have people they don't want in it, especially if there's nothing stopping anyone from making your own community that doesn't exclude you.

 

[amaluuk]

It's not that deep, she just wasn't a very good poster. Didn't have the follow through to commit to any plans for her future, whether through recovery or CTB and just took it out on people instead of trying to work through it in any tangible way.

Ignoring that, rules are just simply an inevitable necessity of having an organized community of any size. I feel like there are some interesting angles of conversation in this thread like felons and voting rights but are ultimately obscured by the non-sequitur of rules philosophizing, too vague to really mean anything tangible, which is really my issue with a lot of metaphysics.