Ideas linking to #5972

No. You’re polluting Veritula with incoherent ramblings. Veritula is meant for serious philosophical work, not navel-gazing.

We have a rule (#4460) against behavior that sabotages debate and progress. Your ramblings are derailing debate. The amount of posts in such a short amount of time is also borderline spammy.

Take a break for a day or two. Be selective about what you respond to. Keep your posts short. And stop rambling.

I see no perspective in communication with ones who found it discomfortable to retrospect frames of own perspective.

That isn’t what’s happening here. There are dozens of examples on V of me being self-critical.

You’re being passive aggressive, which further sabotages debate. You also ignored my request to take a break for a day or two, and to be less spammy (I just opened V to 16 new notifications from you after a short amount of time), contrary to your own statement that you see no point in discussing with me – which makes no sense.

I’m locking your account for a week. You may return in 7 days. If you then continue disregarding the forum rules, I will ban you permanently. Review them here: #4460

#4460 already bans persistent bad-faith argument, refusal to engage, and behaviour likely to sabotage discussion. If that covers the harmful cases, what does this new rule add? If it does not cover them, what other harm justifies a ban?

#4460 says that changes to the rules should be proposed by criticising that idea. This is attached beneath it but is not marked as a criticism. Should it have been submitted as a criticism of #4460? (Have I misunderstood that part of #4460?)

Should it have been submitted as a criticism of #4460?

I don’t think so, no, since it reads more like a suggestion/extension than anything wrong with #4460.

(Have I misunderstood that part of #4460?)

Slightly, yes. I had in mind a scenario where someone violates a rule and then submits a criticism of #4460 so he can claim to have disabled it with a pending criticism. As in: people can’t conveniently criticize #4460 only because they have reason to personally take issue with it.

#4460 says moderation aims to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion. Being free to avoid someone does not show that excluding them helps that goal. A valuable contributor might advocate elsewhere an idea that has pending criticisms on Veritula, without affecting Veritula or its members. Banning them would sacrifice useful contributions without protecting any discussion. Off-platform conduct should count only when it burdens Veritula or its members.

Please work on your tone. You’re mixing in personal accusations rather than just sticking with impersonal arguments. For example: “apparently insisting”, “pedantic”, and also a hidden accusation that I have an ulterior motive to punish women rather than save lives (“Regardless of whether your real concern here…”).

This kind of tone can derail and sabotage debate. Veritula has a policy against any behavior that sabotages debate. Please review our forum rules (#4460).

New accounts, especially anonymous ones, need to tread lightly and prove they’re worth engaging with.

I haven’t used Wispr Flow, but their site says it “turns speech into clear, polished writing.” Sounds like it’s not just plain speech-to-text, and the forum rules count AI polishing. Even if I misunderstand Wispr Flow, the forum rules make it your responsibility that AI detectors come back negative.

I’ve retroactively marked #6015 as AI-assisted. It won’t count toward badges. Any replies of yours below #6016 won’t either, since they only exist because of #6015. If it happens again, I’ll lock your account for a week.