Can we ban the other commenter in private e-mail to you, or does it have to be public?
(Note that I will not be banning anyone in any context, and hereby publicly surrender such a right (anonymous banning) if ogged decides that such a right exists.)
I think this is yet anothertrick thread, where the plan in this one is to ban any commenter who shows his or her self to be unworthy by requesting to have another commenter banned.
Anyhow, is banning involutive, or idempotent? Are we talking negation or modality here? I would hate to perform an idempotent operation on myself, were I hoping for an involution.
I would like to ban psl, an arbitrary name that might or might not apply to a lurker in the audience (after all we shouldn't forget about the lurkers).
Probably would have been better to ban myself, but that's been tried already.
This means I was proposing something that I have not been authorized to do. So I suppose I should have just proposed banning myself and saved the trouble of writing up that comment.
I don't think 19 works, you can't ban lurkers. Ogged's specific grant of authority was to ban "other commenters." If he had granted wider authority, I would propose a ban of all people who have never commented.
But in the past ogged has taken a jocular, "what are you talking about?" approach to errors after they were fixed. And by in the past, I mean yesterday.
What is this? Big Brother?
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 1:45 PM
I hereby ban ogged in his capacity as commenter.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 1:46 PM
Ogged's just a living legacy
To the leader of the banned.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 1:52 PM
I ban myself, because it didn't take when ogged tried it.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 1:53 PM
now, now Standpipe. If only for the pleasant sound of your handle, I request you stay.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 1:56 PM
Can we ban the other commenter in private e-mail to you, or does it have to be public?
(Note that I will not be banning anyone in any context, and hereby publicly surrender such a right (anonymous banning) if ogged decides that such a right exists.)
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 1:59 PM
I would also like to note, as a recent member(-ish) of the community, that this makes me anxious in a way I haven't felt in quite a while.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:00 PM
Do I get extra banning powers through having been recently banned twice in quick succession? (And another time only a few months back?)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:04 PM
So err does being banned actually mean anything around here. Or is it a volutary code?
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:07 PM
voluntary... but you knew that, right?
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:08 PM
I think this is yet another trick thread, where the plan in this one is to ban any commenter who shows his or her self to be unworthy by requesting to have another commenter banned.
No, I'm not paranoid.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:14 PM
I ban everyone.
everyone?
EEEVVVERRRRYYYYONNNNNEE!!!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:14 PM
hey, it worked!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:18 PM
Thanks, text.
Anyhow, is banning involutive, or idempotent? Are we talking negation or modality here? I would hate to perform an idempotent operation on myself, were I hoping for an involution.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:18 PM
grrr.
Respect my authoritie!!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:19 PM
ben: did you just kill ogged?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:23 PM
Banning is totally idempotent.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:27 PM
It's all about cocks with us.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:32 PM
I would like to ban psl, an arbitrary name that might or might not apply to a lurker in the audience (after all we shouldn't forget about the lurkers).
Probably would have been better to ban myself, but that's been tried already.
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:36 PM
I hereby authorize any commenter to ban any other commenter.
This seems to rule out the possibility of banning oneself. Therefore I propose banning all IP addresses from which I could potentially comment.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:42 PM
18: I don't get it. Where do the cocks fit in?
20: Your exegesis pleases me. It's clear that self-banning is both idempotent and impotent.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:48 PM
Standpipe Bridgeplate: at the Mineshaft.
Somebody stop me!
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:50 PM
21: I was commenting on our fear of idempotence. Reminded me of this though I haven't actually seen it.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:51 PM
But those addresses are not commenters.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:54 PM
1. Wouldn't the post have been better entitled, "You are become Shiva"?
2. I take it that this means that the TiVo has not been reset yet.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 2:56 PM
24: true
This means I was proposing something that I have not been authorized to do. So I suppose I should have just proposed banning myself and saved the trouble of writing up that comment.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:00 PM
I don't think 19 works, you can't ban lurkers. Ogged's specific grant of authority was to ban "other commenters." If he had granted wider authority, I would propose a ban of all people who have never commented.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:01 PM
If x, then.... i ve seen this already this evening
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:03 PM
oh and banning all those who have never commented really would take the biscuit
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:04 PM
I knew a pirate named Shiva, once. He fell asleep smoking his pipe, and the next morning all that remained was Shiva meat embers.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:10 PM
Don't everyone ban Standpipe at once... me first.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:11 PM
re: below the update
A bold new attempt at blog design?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:33 PM
Just curious -- this post was, initially, meant as a joke, right?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:36 PM
I'll give odds that ogged is about to leave a comment asking what 32 is talking about.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:36 PM
WD: I'll take that bet.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:37 PM
Everything from "Well" to the bottom of the page was in bold type. It's been fixed.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:38 PM
LB yes, a joke, though I was curious about what would happen and who would do what.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:38 PM
But in the past ogged has taken a jocular, "what are you talking about?" approach to errors after they were fixed. And by in the past, I mean yesterday.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:42 PM
Now I understand your 34; I missed the joke. Does this mean I'm getting to be like Wolfson?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:44 PM
If he had granted wider authority, I would propose a ban of all people who have never commented.
I would have banned all people who would never comment in the future.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:49 PM
Which could be meaningful, given certain conditions.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:53 PM
I take issue with your update, sir.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:58 PM
You were rather quick on the trigger there, young Ben.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 3:59 PM
I take issue with your treating us as lab rats, life-hater.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 4:09 PM
Yeah, but it was joke authority.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 4:09 PM
Nothing is more serious than the abuse of joke authority.
I ban all those who use their power to ban. MAB!
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 05- 3-05 5:08 PM