Unban ParisParamus May 15, 2007 9:24 PM   Subscribe

ParisParamus made MetaFiler more interesting. He's been banned too long. Can ParisParamus be unbanned?
posted by orthogonality to Etiquette/Policy at 9:24 PM (122 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

Look, I never agreed with a thing ParisParamus said. And I didn't think his views were always logically self-consistent, regardless of whether I agreed with him.

But I always thought he was sincere in what he said.

I don't know why he was banned, but I do know I've missed his unique voice. It's been lon enough, can ParisParamus be unbanned, please?
posted by orthogonality at 9:26 PM on May 15, 2007


I didn't even know he was banned. And wasn't there another thread a while ago asking this same thing?
posted by puke & cry at 9:28 PM on May 15, 2007


I'd say no, unequivocally. He could come back under a new username just like anyone else if he really wanted to.

What gives you the idea that he's been out in the wilderness all this time pining for the group ass-sandpapering that was his Quality Metafilter Experience, anyway?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:32 PM on May 15, 2007 [1 favorite]


Ah, here it is.
posted by puke & cry at 9:32 PM on May 15, 2007


And for the record, I'm all for keeping him banned permanently. He can pay another 5 bucks to come back under a different name if he wants, not that it really matters since he'll just be banned again.
posted by puke & cry at 9:34 PM on May 15, 2007 [1 favorite]


But I always thought he was sincere in what he said.

But he wasn't. I've met him briefly in person and he's a nice guy and likes conservative issues, but he's also a jokester. Most of the posts he made were done to rile everyone up and he was very good at it. When I saw him acting up, I'd ask him to tone it down and his responses to me were always something like "aw, but I was having fun pushing their buttons!".

His participation had some ebb and flow, but I asked him to knock off the baiting comments in threads several times and he promised several times to keep things sincere but would also fall off the wagon and post a turd in a contentious thread just to watch the aftermath unfold.

He wasn't sincere, he was having a laugh and it was a constant mess here I didn't want to clean up anymore.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:48 PM on May 15, 2007 [15 favorites]


MeFi has enough new trolls. Do we really need to bring back an old one?

Most of his participation was not honest but crazy disagreement - it was trolling and nothing more.
posted by twiggy at 9:51 PM on May 15, 2007 [1 favorite]


What gives you the idea that he's been out in the wilderness all this time pining for the group ass-sandpapering that was his Quality Metafilter Experience, anyway?

He or his memory is up in #mefi now, eh?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 9:55 PM on May 15, 2007


I'd buy a Banned Asses of MeFi Action Figure Gift-Pak.
I'd buy accessories too.
Think outside the t-shirt, Matt!
posted by Dizzy at 9:55 PM on May 15, 2007 [1 favorite]


Metafilter works best as a deadly serious, self righteous circle jerk.

P.P. doesn't fit in.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:56 PM on May 15, 2007 [3 favorites]


mathowie writes "Most of the posts he made were done to rile everyone up and he was very good at it. When I saw him acting up, I'd ask him to tone it down and his responses to me were always something like 'aw, but I was having fun pushing their buttons!'. "

Problem solved then. You unban him, and if he does that again, someone can link to your comment here, and people will just say "oh, there he goes again" and get a chuckle out of it. It'l become performance art rather than incitement to anger.
posted by orthogonality at 9:58 PM on May 15, 2007 [1 favorite]


I miss Paris too, but frankly at the end he really was like Matt said. He stopped being a legitimate foil for the overwhelming liberal majority, but mostly just dropped turds into threads. Sometimes he made cogent arguments but often he just went on a button pushing spree. I am not sure I would act differently if LGF were my playground, although they have far less tolerance than Matt for trolling behavior, and free speech, or other American values. dios is a much more worthy opponent as he always uses well reasoned arguments, but he is no true conservative. The funny thing is that if you look at Paris's first year neither was he. I would like to see him come back, but act a little more responsible. While we are at it, where is the dark one? Even hama7 made a post the other day.
posted by caddis at 9:58 PM on May 15, 2007


Fuck that asshole. He always struck me as an ingenuous troll, just wandering threads to drop his artless scat.

Paris, if you're reading this, go fuck your hat.
posted by isopraxis at 9:58 PM on May 15, 2007 [2 favorites]


I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Paris is the only person to ever have 2 metatalk threads asking for him to be unbanned. I don't understand the fascination some people seem to have with him. I don't remember him adding anything that could ever be construed as "good" to metafilter.
posted by puke & cry at 9:59 PM on May 15, 2007


Dios, at least, has a certain joie de vivre and a grasp of the dialectic.
posted by isopraxis at 10:00 PM on May 15, 2007 [1 favorite]


I see Paris around in #mefi (and #tapes, and #bunnies) now and again. Mefi and the banning comes up sometimes. He's talked about how he'd be interested in coming back, but not in a different account, only this one, which strikes me as a mixed bag: "ParisParamus" is a watchword, now, a bit of history and cultishness that probably defeats in large part the possibility of a evenhanded and Brand New Day-ish reintroduction.

That's not entirely fair to Paris, if he really wants to come back and not (whether through hapless sincerity or mischief) cause shitstorms; but it's also a reality, and I feel like his complete disinterest in having a go under a new account to sidestep the existing cult isn't all that great either. Looking at it from a community perspective, what's his motivation, neh? But I realize that's not an argument without complications of it's own.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:01 PM on May 15, 2007


Some guy at the car wash told me Paris was responsible for that "GEICO caveman" pilot.
posted by Dizzy at 10:02 PM on May 15, 2007


FREE PARIS FREE PARIS FREE PARIS!!

We're talking about Paris Hilton, right?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:03 PM on May 15, 2007 [2 favorites]


Even if he were allowed to come back under a different name, he'd just continue to force people to respond to his posts and defend their views, and that gets messy and irritating.

Keep him banned, I say.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:08 PM on May 15, 2007 [2 favorites]


Perhaps if he signed at treaty accepting full responsibility for the banning, then we made him pay reparations to all the other members, and finally we could take away his air force. I'm sure that would prevent any future conflict.

Metafilter: Peace in our time!
posted by blue_beetle at 10:14 PM on May 15, 2007


Yes, but what about the yellowcake uranium?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:17 PM on May 15, 2007


Yup. Paris.
posted by Dizzy at 10:22 PM on May 15, 2007


I don't remember him adding anything that could ever be construed as "good" to metafilter.

It's an echo chamber here. A few voices on the other side, even more than a few, would be a good thing. Paris was brave enough to be that voice in a hostile land. That is no easy chore. I respect that and value it as you learn the most when your ideas are challenged. He should just drop five bucks on a new name. Hell, bunnyfire did it, and she is one of my very favorite mefites of all time. I am so glad she decided not to stay away.

We are blessed with an incredible diversity of people and opinion. Yet, weights pull hard to one side when an opposing point of view fails to appear. I think this is one reason why Matt put up with PP's antics for so long. PP was always ready to advocate his point of view, and I miss that as it keeps our discussions honest, and enlightens us. Having the opposing point of view improves the level of discussion, and here it actually works. While some discussions may seem heated here, by internet standards people remain quite reserved. Think Shields and Gigot - we need more Shields and Gigot. Unfortunately PP kept tending more towards Karl Rove and less like Paul Gigot. Now if we got Paul Gigot to post here, now that would be awesome.
posted by caddis at 10:23 PM on May 15, 2007


Paul Gigot does post here, but to protect his privacy, I can't reveal his MetaFilter pseudonym.
posted by orthogonality at 10:30 PM on May 15, 2007


We'll always have Paris.
posted by Wolof at 10:38 PM on May 15, 2007 [1 favorite]


I wish that we could give him an account that only worked for AskMe. He always seemed pretty well-behaved on the Green.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:44 PM on May 15, 2007


Let's let him in ... but the rest of us get to choose his username!

I propose NancyBoise.
posted by rob511 at 11:00 PM on May 15, 2007 [1 favorite]


Even if he were allowed to come back under a different name, he'd just continue to force people to respond to his posts and defend their views, and that gets messy and irritating.

Paris, is that you?
posted by mediareport at 11:05 PM on May 15, 2007


You unban him, and if he does that again, someone can link to your comment here, and people will just say "oh, there he goes again" and get a chuckle out of it. It'l become performance art rather than incitement to anger.

That is not how it works. In the reality-based world (which you can observe through past threads) regardless the quickness and language of the de-trolling response, aka "oh, there he goes again; please don't feed the troll", the discussion inevitably turns into a shitfest.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:12 PM on May 15, 2007


He was a "high maintenance kid", and Matt/Jess/Cortex already have too much to do.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:19 PM on May 15, 2007 [2 favorites]


In the reality-based world...the discussion inevitably turns into a shitfest.

Exactly. Even a tiny minority dissenting viewpoint can derail the uncritical agreement that is the hallmark of a good discussion.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:23 PM on May 15, 2007 [2 favorites]


I found Paris's stated beliefs to be repugnant, but that's not why I'd rather see him stay banned- in fact, if I were looking at it from a strictly partisan, political standpoint, I'd be calling for his reinstatement. And that's because, frankly, he came off as being stupid. Aggressively stupid. A perfect advertisement against his own political beliefs, in fact, or at least the ones he claimed to hold. The little nuggets he'd drop in every political thread felt inappropriate for Metafilter, not because they disagreed with the political ethos of the liberal majority here, but because they had the sort of intellectual heft one expects out of, say, the political message boards on AOL.

It's really this that baffles me most about people wanting to see him unbanned. I actually think political threads have been noticeably better since he got the boot- they feel less acrimonious and more intelligent without him, but no more of an echo chamber than they always were, as there are still some regular posters here who hold beliefs that go against the majority views here, who are not shy about expressing them, and who defend them intelligently and engage in the conversation. Having people who fill that role is definitely important for the health of the site, but that last part is crucial, and Paris failed at it. Epically.

Or, in short, what isopraxis said.
posted by a louis wain cat at 11:30 PM on May 15, 2007 [3 favorites]


You know who I really miss? 111. That guy was a laff riot, especially the way he considered Morissey to be his personal saviour and lord.
posted by Jimbob at 11:31 PM on May 15, 2007


Frankly, he came off as being stupid. Aggressively stupid.

That's hilarious, truly hilarious. The blue has always been shallow and stupid, but most people tend not to notice, because most people don't critically evaluate opinions they agree with.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:36 PM on May 15, 2007 [1 favorite]


a louis wain cat has it, for me at least.

Differences of opinion are not the enemy of vigourous debate, stupidity is.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:36 PM on May 15, 2007


Why, just last week I was clicking through the archives in wistful remembrance of the dogpiles of yore, where debate was sharp and teeth were gnashed, ah, yes...

No, wait, I've never, ever, ever done that.

They might serve as a useful counterpoint to those who think end-to-end diversity in viewpoints engenders worthwhile conversation, though! Unless they're just looking for a friend or something.
posted by furiousthought at 12:11 AM on May 16, 2007


WHAT?!
posted by shmegegge at 12:30 AM on May 16, 2007


But when will dhoyt and the sockmonkeys come back :-(
posted by cmonkey at 12:56 AM on May 16, 2007


LSD in the drinking water would make things more interesting, too.
posted by dreamsign at 1:53 AM on May 16, 2007


Oh, I thought this was a suggestion list.
posted by dreamsign at 1:53 AM on May 16, 2007


That's hilarious, truly hilarious. The blue has always been shallow and stupid, but most people tend not to notice, because most people don't critically evaluate opinions they agree with.

You know, I actually don't completely disagree with this, but, well- go read Democratic Underground (to use an example of a site that's politically in line with the Metafilter consensus) for a while, and then come back and read the political threads on the blue again, and you'll notice a considerable difference. Metafilter may not live up to what it could or should be, but it's light years away from what a real shallow, stupid echo chamber looks like. Speaking of which, Paris claimed to be a big fan of LGF, as I recall.

I can think of a couple examples of liberal posters here who were as dumb and belligerent as Paris, and got banned, and had very few defenders. Political discussions here often leave something to be desired, for sure, but the DU/LGF/Freeper brand of stupidity just doesn't go over well on Metafilter, and the site is much the better for that.
posted by a louis wain cat at 2:13 AM on May 16, 2007


I miss jonmc (;_;)
posted by public at 2:46 AM on May 16, 2007


I'd completely forgotten about the man.
posted by Abiezer at 2:47 AM on May 16, 2007


well, he was nice to me when we had to wait for signups and i asked him a wee question so why not bring him back ? perhaps he's had a road to damascus type conversion to left wing causes or something while he's been away.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:33 AM on May 16, 2007


we'll always have StrasburgSecaucus.
posted by quonsar at 4:05 AM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


It's an echo chamber here. A few voices on the other side, even more than a few, would be a good thing. Paris was brave enough to be that voice in a hostile land. That is no easy chore.

This is making me laugh.

"Brave enough to post anonymously on the internet."
posted by Greg Nog at 4:30 AM on May 16, 2007 [3 favorites]


FREE PARIS FREE PARIS FREE PARIS!!

We're talking about Paris Hilton, right?


No. Posts about her get deleted ;-)
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:44 AM on May 16, 2007


Make him pay five bucks and give him the Bunnyfire account.
posted by konolia at 4:46 AM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


Wha? Huh?

ParisParamus was perma-banned?

I know he got some time outs, didn't know this.
posted by bardic at 5:17 AM on May 16, 2007



Paris Hilton
has been banned?
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:21 AM on May 16, 2007


Paris was a terrible advocate of his views. We could use more honest and articulate conservatives here especially if they can remain cool under fire. That isn't Paris.
posted by LarryC at 5:27 AM on May 16, 2007


We could use more honest and articulate conservatives here especially if they can remain cool under fire.

unclefes! evanizer! MidasMulligan! where are you?
posted by jonmc at 5:37 AM on May 16, 2007


It'll become performance art rather than incitement to anger.

In a smaller community this might work. In a larger community where the members don't all know each other, come to MetaTalk, or read the sidebar, there's no way to have a member who you tolerate with a wink and a nod, because you can't expect everyone else to have gotten the memo. The flags pile up, the email comes in, and it becomes a weekly MetaTalk clusterfuck all, in this case, for a member who doesn't seem to be making a sincere effort to stay within the guidelines of the community.

He is welcome to get a new account and take his chances, but not as ParisParamus.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:37 AM on May 16, 2007


Paris was a terrible advocate of his views.

He was a sometimes humorous, but mostly obnoxious gadfly. And I'm all for that.

His views were your views LarryC, master of "ZOMG THIS IS POLITICAL I DON'T LIKE IT," and he brought attention to them. And he won some and lost some.

But the fact is, batshit is hard to wash off your clothing sometimes. It's funny to see you try and wash your hands of him.
posted by bardic at 5:40 AM on May 16, 2007


jessamyn writes The flags pile up, the email comes in, and it becomes a weekly MetaTalk clusterfuck all, in this case, for a member who doesn't seem to be making a sincere effort to stay within the guidelines of the community.

This sounds like a daily occurence from my limited perspective. PP got perma-banned, and you and no. 1 said nothing about it? I guess it's ok, but c'mon, he was a mefi bigwig. Inquiring minds want to know.

And if the unwashed are not worthy of being informed, well, close the thread.

Otherwise, take care PP, you bigot you. I hope you've found some peace with this occupation that is causing more problems that it solves, forever.

(I was referring to Iraq btw, not meta.)
posted by bardic at 5:48 AM on May 16, 2007


that = than
posted by bardic at 5:49 AM on May 16, 2007


This sounds like a daily occurence from my limited perspective. PP got perma-banned, and you and no. 1 said nothing about it? I guess it's ok, but c'mon, he was a mefi bigwig. Inquiring minds want to know.

That was my scenario if we let him back in with a "we know he's just a performance artist after all" wink.

you and no. 1 said nothing about it?

Unless there has been some massive disaster requiring clean-up and a community explanation, we don't usually make big announcements when we go through the "please stop doing this [time out] please stop doing this [time out] please stop doing this [time out] please stop doing this or we're going to ban your account [ban]" back and forth with users.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:55 AM on May 16, 2007


I don't particularly like the echo chamber effect. That's why I oppose reinstating Paris. By presenting his case so absolutely ineptly, he actually makes people even more collective. On a discussion of some issue, people might be in general agreement, but there will be little pockets of disagreement and discussion. When Paris Paramus posts, the little disagreements go away and it becomes a unified chorus of Everyone vs. Paris.
posted by Bugbread at 5:57 AM on May 16, 2007 [4 favorites]


We could use more honest and articulate conservatives here especially if they can remain cool under fire. That isn't Paris.

Perhaps that's because prior to 9/11, he was a standard-issue Bush-hating tree-hugging New York liberal.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:06 AM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


We could use more honest and articulate conservatives here especially if they can remain cool under fire. That isn't Paris.

I have to wonder why any Conservative would want to make this a political home, especially considering the non-liberals who have been run off this website by the angry mob (or at least tried to). I disagree with a lot of what's said here (which is also a good thing, but that's for another thread), but being one of the few voices of political opposition would require way too much time and energy to care. If you're leaning left, at least there's other people to pick up the argumentative slack and burn people at the stake for you. As a conservative, you're basically on your own in a vacuum with a horde of people attacking you and dragging your ass to MeTa to be further dissected and lambasted. No thank you.
posted by jmd82 at 6:44 AM on May 16, 2007


That's not entirely fair to Paris ...

Given what Matt said about repeated broken promises, I'd say it is entirely fair to him.



... but c'mon, he was a mefi bigwig.

If by 'mefi bigwig,' you mean 'boil on the ass of this place,' then OK.

We still have a few people who write stuff just to stir things up. That's more than enough.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:46 AM on May 16, 2007


Yeah. Being a conservative in MetaFilter doesn't seem like it would be a problem: there are tons of interesting posts about inventions, art, hobbies, discoveries, etc. But why, as a conservative, would you want to go into a political post? What kind of person would intentionally go into a debate where you're on one side, and 100 people are on the other? The only kind I can think of would be the people who enjoy the ruckus. Anyone who wanted reasoned, rational discussion would either avoid that kind of unconducive environment, or would perhaps try it out once or twice, learn their lesson, and stick to non-political threads after that.
posted by Bugbread at 6:49 AM on May 16, 2007


It's an echo chamber here.

No it isn't.

See.

And even if two or more persons share or do not share the same or similar point-of-view, that is entirely irrelevant to the PP issue. Jackassery, trolling, baiting and dishonest discourse are not welcome because user x and y happen to agree that music c is great and the French aren't evil.
posted by juiceCake at 6:49 AM on May 16, 2007


I don't particularly like the echo chamber effect. That's why I oppose reinstating Paris. By presenting his case so absolutely ineptly, he actually makes people even more collective. On a discussion of some issue, people might be in general agreement, but there will be little pockets of disagreement and discussion. When Paris Paramus posts, the little disagreements go away and it becomes a unified chorus of Everyone vs. Paris.

Yes, that did happen and not rarely.
posted by caddis at 6:56 AM on May 16, 2007


I have to wonder why any Conservative anyone would want to make this a political home

But I'm just one man.
posted by kosem at 7:12 AM on May 16, 2007


Lately, I've been spending some time at another community site, similar to MeFi but focused on Minneapolis. The thing is, even though it should be awesome (given how literate, tech-savvy, and generally cool people tend to be around here), it's fucking awful and painful to read because of the lack of moderation; a handful of argumentative blowhards are able to make every goddamned thread about them, debating all comers with knee-jerk contrarian political arguments. Just like Paris did.

The fact that attention whores who wrap themselves up in the cloak of political persecution* ("you're censoring me because you want to perpetuate your echo chamber!") are dealt with is what keeps this place good.

*And count me in the camp of people who want a wide spectrum of political beliefs here. My beef is only with people who claim persecution when they're really just being dicks. So, SCDB OK by me, 111 shitty.
posted by COBRA! at 7:16 AM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


Armitage Shanks-- I didn't know about PP's conversion. I just knew him as a liberal's caricature of a conservative.

I agree with bugbread's take-- PP increased the (undesirable) echo chamber effect by advancing his views in such an inept manner. Or, from mathowie's comment, in a manner calculated to piss people off rather than disagree. I wish we had a lot more conservatives here, but I don't miss PP.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:18 AM on May 16, 2007


I love how some people seek out drama for the sake of drama. Not everyone finds the sound of the haplessly troll-baited freaking out and flooding threads to attack one smug, insincere poster to be pleasant. That's all this guy brought to the site.

There are other smart conservatives on the internet, aren't there? Maybe some who are more honest about what they post? Perhaps Matt should institute an affirmative action program here at MetaFilter for conservative posters? Or maybe we should come to terms with the fact that while political diversity is nice, it isn't essential to the site's survival, and that the threads that are political in nature are usually the least of what the site has to offer anyhow.
posted by picea at 7:27 AM on May 16, 2007


There are other smart conservatives on the internet, aren't there?

Yes, and many of them post here, although many also avoid the political threads.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:28 AM on May 16, 2007


I didn't know about PP's conversion.

shrill tree-hugging francophile Bush hater
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:32 AM on May 16, 2007


Did he keep his promise "to be kinder and sweeter on Metafilter"? Did he ever recant his statement that Bush shoulld be impeached if WMDs weren't found in Iraq?
posted by kirkaracha at 7:36 AM on May 16, 2007


As a conservative, you're basically on your own in a vacuum with a horde of people attacking you and dragging your ass to MeTa to be further dissected and lambasted.

This happens mainly when one (a) doesn't admit to reality, or (b) espouses ideals that would, if implemented, cause harm to others.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:47 AM on May 16, 2007


five fresh fish writes "This happens mainly when one (a) doesn't admit to reality, or (b) espouses ideals that would, if implemented, cause harm to others."

Mainly, yes. But not exclusively. Considering that there are so few conservatives here, even if you say something which is conservative, admits reality, and doesn't espouse harmful ideas, you're still going to be on your own, and you're still going to be attacked by a horde of people. The only difference is that you probably won't get MeTa'ed for it.
posted by Bugbread at 8:03 AM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


Maybe he's bevets.
posted by oaf at 8:13 AM on May 16, 2007


ParisParasmus is like the breakdancer in this video and metafilter is the kid.

Interesting isn't always good.

(okay, to be completely honest, I just wanted to share this video but didn't want to fpp it)
posted by empath at 8:14 AM on May 16, 2007


That dudes ass was crazy. MetaFilter is better without him.
posted by chunking express at 8:15 AM on May 16, 2007


empath writes "okay, to be completely honest, I just wanted to share this video but didn't want to fpp it"

Ooooh......

So. Painful.

My kid is just that size, and just that fast, making imagining it happen to him just that much easier.
posted by Bugbread at 8:18 AM on May 16, 2007


okay, to be completely honest, I just wanted to share this video

You're not the only one.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:22 AM on May 16, 2007


unclefes! evanizer! MidasMulligan! where are you?

Fes, definitely. evanizer, yes. Midas, not so much.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:31 AM on May 16, 2007


cortex: I knew it would be deleted from the front page :)
posted by empath at 8:39 AM on May 16, 2007


Yes, and many of them post here, although many also avoid the political threads.

I should follow up on this. I consider myself pretty far to the right of the average MeFite, although I'm no member of the John Birch Society. Part of the reason I don't participate in—or at least don't engage in debate in—many of the political threads these days is that the threads are not about genuine political differences. Instead, the political threads, at least over the second half of the Bush administration's tenure, have been about the administration's know-nothingness and corruption. To that, I say, have at it. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, et al., should get what they deserve in that respect.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:43 AM on May 16, 2007 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I applaud your sensibility, empath. Heh.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:48 AM on May 16, 2007


I wonder about all this romanticization of PP. Were most of his defenders even on the site when he was in his heyday? I had a chat with him and monju_bosatsu at some point a couple years ago (when some news/chat site launched, I can't remember exactly), and he was exactly as mathowie described: a fairly genial guy who just loved pushing everyone's buttons. Which is fine for a bit, but it got unbelievably tiring to have to deal with his hand grenades on a regular basis.

Besides, we all know that quonsar is the only one alotted special treatment around here.
posted by mkultra at 9:06 AM on May 16, 2007

PP was always ready to advocate his point of view
But he didn't advocate it. He stated it, in as harsh as terms as possible, then sat back and watched what happened. He didn't actively engage anyone in a debate or argument.

I was surprised by mathowie's post above--I'd always assumed that ParisParamus was sincere, if not too bright. I even said so in a post I made contrasting him to dios (who, I must say, has been a pretty good citizen recently). Looks like I was wrong about ParisParamus. Wonder who else I've misjudged?
posted by MrMoonPie at 9:22 AM on May 16, 2007


Me. Sorry.
posted by COBRA! at 9:25 AM on May 16, 2007


PP sent me an e-mail once, and my self-esteem is low enough that I was flattered when he listed me as a cantact, so I say, hey, why not?

Or maybe we can set up some sort of trade, where he comes back and some current jackass gets his ban.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:28 AM on May 16, 2007


I'm not sure that echo chamber means what you think it means.
posted by [@I][:+:][@I] at 9:36 AM on May 16, 2007


Looks like I was wrong about ParisParamus. Wonder who else I've misjudged?
posted by MrMoonPie at 12:22 PM on May 16 [+] [!]


Me, you jerk.
posted by shmegegge at 9:36 AM on May 16, 2007


PP shows up in IRC every once in awhile. He trolls even there. Why, even yesterday, he tried to troll about Jerry Falwell and all the "leftists hate" in the Jerry Falwell thread. "I could never treat someone who died like that". It was very touching, moving, and I almost cared. ALMOST.

He did admit that Jerry was a huge dick and he had to 'side with the Left' on this one. I guess there's hope for everyone. And I do enjoy his stories about his canadian girlfriend.
posted by Stynxno at 9:38 AM on May 16, 2007


Bardic: His views were your views LarryC...

Where did you get that idea? I am a centrist Democrat with libertarian tendencies. I am a progressive who dislikes talking politics on the internet.
posted by LarryC at 9:54 AM on May 16, 2007


I'm not sure that echo chamber means what you think it means.

I bloody hate comments like this. If you're going to imply people are wrong, please, tell us how so.

He trolls even there. Why, even yesterday, he tried to troll about Jerry Falwell and all the "leftists hate" in the Jerry Falwell thread. "I could never treat someone who died like that". It was very touching, moving, and I almost cared. ALMOST.

Trolling all depends on the prism through which you see the world. Go to a righty message board, and they consider negative comments about Falwell in the obit threads trolling.
Then again, trolling in of itself doesn't bother me. It's the name-calling and some people's propensity to attack the person instead of the argument which cause me to avoid political threads (which is not precluded to just MeFi).
posted by jmd82 at 10:08 AM on May 16, 2007


I think, though I'm not sure, that that particular trolling accusation was based on PP decrying the opinions expressed in the thread, but then saying that in reality he thinks Falwell was a dick, and sides with those decrying him.

Kinda hard to tell, though, because it could also be interpreted as "He thinks Falwell is a dick, and agrees with the complaints folks had against him, but he wouldn't go into a thread right after someone has died just to say so". It's a bit of a tough call without knowing exactly what he said.

Based on PP's past, though, I'm more likely to suspect it's trolling than just having an unpopular opinion.
posted by Bugbread at 10:36 AM on May 16, 2007


I'm not sure that precluded means what you think it means.
posted by found missing at 10:52 AM on May 16, 2007


I'm not sure that echo chamber means what you think it means

I bloody hate comments like this. If you're going to imply people are wrong, please, tell us how so.


--

OK, sorry. 'Echo chamber' as metaphor implies a coordinated amplification of (suspect?) ideas through repetition, not simply a group of people that agree with each other without a troll to 'balance' them out.

According to wikipedia:

One purveyor of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again (often in an exaggerated or otherwise distorted form) until most people assume that some extreme variation of the story is true.

Thank you and have a pleasant rest of your day.
posted by [@I][:+:][@I] at 10:55 AM on May 16, 2007


Huh. I didn't know that's what echo chamber referred to. Thanks.
posted by Bugbread at 11:08 AM on May 16, 2007


Great, more trolling from an admitted(!) sockpuppet. Why do you hate Metafilter, [@I][:+:][@I]?
posted by thirteenkiller at 11:09 AM on May 16, 2007


thirteenkiller writes "Great, more trolling from an admitted(!) sockpuppet. Why do you hate Metafilter, [@I][:+:][@I]?"

Wait, now I'm confused. Is that being ironic, or did I miss the part where [@I][:+:][@I] is trolling?
posted by Bugbread at 11:26 AM on May 16, 2007


so wheres the chat these days ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 11:40 AM on May 16, 2007


Wait, now I'm confused. Is that being ironic, or did I miss the part where [@I][:+:][@I] is trolling?

Ironic #mefi linenoise.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:53 AM on May 16, 2007


Face it: every single member of the Bush Adminstration is guilty of multiple, impeachable offenses; violations of the Constitution. And if it doesn't happen, it's only because they've rigged the system with corrupt, immoral individuals.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:42 PM on January 16


I figured this was a pretty good confirmation that he was a troll, and after I read it, I never paid him any mind again.
posted by quin at 12:20 PM on May 16, 2007


What kind of person would intentionally go into a debate where you're on one side, and 100 people are on the other? The only kind I can think of would be the people who enjoy the ruckus. Anyone who wanted reasoned, rational discussion would either avoid that kind of unconducive environment, or would perhaps try it out once or twice, learn their lesson, and stick to non-political threads after that.

Someone who cares about the issue being discussed and has an opinion? It's pretty silly to suggest that reasoned, rational discussion can only happen when everyone more or less agrees.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:28 PM on May 16, 2007


Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America writes "It's pretty silly to suggest that reasoned, rational discussion can only happen when everyone more or less agrees."

Yes. It would be very silly to suggest that.

Good thing I didn't suggest it.

However, reasoned, rational discourse works best when the ratio of people taking part in the discussion on each side is close enough that neither side drowns out the other by sheer volume or numbers. It doesn't have to be 1:1, by any means, but once you're heading for 50:1 or 100:1, it would be really nice if reasoned discourse were possible, but in reality, it seldom happens. Nigh close to never.
posted by Bugbread at 12:48 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America writes "Someone who cares about the issue being discussed and has an opinion?"

Yes, and these are the people about which I've said "would perhaps try it out once or twice, learn their lesson, and stick to non-political threads after that". I think you're thinking in ideal terms: there is no reason why a person should be cowed by towering odds. However, looking at actual discussions here at MeFi, it becomes apparent that it's far from ideal, and the reality is that towering odds result in shitty discussion, which drives away reasoned discussers. This leaves trolls (in the old sense of "saying something you don't actually believe just to start shit), trolls (in the new sense of "saying something which you believe and which is unpopular because you enjoy shit") and folks like bevets.
posted by Bugbread at 12:52 PM on May 16, 2007


It's pretty silly to suggest that reasoned, rational discussion can only happen when everyone more or less agrees.

And in fact, I'd argue that our lack of political diversity actually can impede good conversation. I really wish that we had more vocal and rational people with divergent ideas. I think it would make for more interesting threads.

For example, we've had a number of really quality gun threads here lately. By and large they were civil and there was some lively debate. I think this is because guns are one of those topics that MeFi doesn't completely skew to one side on. There are people willing to do their best to defend both sides of the discussion.

However, I don't think that PP was one of the people who's agenda was to further civil discourse.
posted by quin at 12:53 PM on May 16, 2007


for all the reasons that one could easily see PP being a troll, I don't think the fact that he came here to talk politics at all is one of them. I don't think that a lop sided discussion (in terms of how many are on each side) causes problems around here. I think it's really just the assholes. you can have 100 reasonable people and one asshole on one side, and one reasonable person on the other, and there'll be a problem. likewise, you can have 100 reasonable people on one side and one asshole on the other, and there'll be a problem. likewise, you can have 100 reasonable people on one side, 99 reasonable people and one asshole on the other, and there'll be a problem. you see where I'm going. there are conservatives on the site who seem to look for trouble, and there are some that don't. but their mere presence here doesn't imply anything to me about whether they're a troll.
posted by shmegegge at 1:12 PM on May 16, 2007


shmegegge writes "I don't think that a lop sided discussion (in terms of how many are on each side) causes problems around here. I think it's really just the assholes."

Sorry, perhaps I was being unclear, but that's what I meant. It isn't that, ideally, this would be a problem. Just that, with the particular folks at MetaFilter, it's a problem. I can imagine a heavily adminned, or very selective (in terms of commenter screening, not intelligence/whathaveyou) site having a very good debate of 1 vs. 100. I just meant that MeFi has proven to not be that kind of place. We're good when the odds are evenish (not perfectly even, just evenish. I'd say 4:1 or 5:1 discussions still go well), but when they're radically skewed, the number of assholes goes up, and the resulting discussion is seldom good.
posted by Bugbread at 1:35 PM on May 16, 2007


I don't participate in—or at least don't engage in debate in—many of the political threads these days is that the threads are not about genuine political differences. Instead, the political threads, at least over the second half of the Bush administration's tenure, have been about the administration's know-nothingness and corruption.

/golf-clap
posted by bardic at 1:46 PM on May 16, 2007


He is strange and powerful, this ParisParamus. Still a factor from the great beyond.

btw, Matt, how's about auctioning off the handles of the notorious banninated for charity? I bet that somebody with cash and free time would like to become PP, not to mention some of the other illustrious banhammer victims. I mean, somebody out there wants to step inside the hall of robots

/ kidding

/ sort of

/ ok maybe not

posted by kosem at 1:48 PM on May 16, 2007


(Which is another way of saying, I guess I'd agree that it's tough to be a Republican and be taken seriously these days. But there's another side to that coin -- between roughly, oh, 9/11/2001 and last November, it was commonplace for Democrats and/or liberals to be labelled pro-terrorist, anti-American, etc. Thankfully, America woke up.

So, I guess I kind of see the dilemma of the "good" conservative on mefi. And yet, pardon me if I don't shed many tears. The silence of conscientious conservatives was tacit approval of the baiting, divide-and-conquer tactics of the contemporary GOP.

Sucks to be you.)
posted by bardic at 1:50 PM on May 16, 2007


bardic writes "So, I guess I kind of see the dilemma of the 'good' conservative on mefi. And yet, pardon me if I don't shed many tears. The silence of conscientious conservatives was tacit approval of the baiting, divide-and-conquer tactics of the contemporary GOP."

Any evidence that monju_bosatsu is one of these silent conscientious conservatives (besides being silent in MetaFilter, because, honestly, if a vocal conscientious conservative would be useful anywhere, it wouldn't be here, where people already agree)? If not, you're lacking sympathy for someone not because they don't deserve sympathy, but because someone else doesn't.
posted by Bugbread at 1:59 PM on May 16, 2007


Not in the mood to play linky-linky with you today bugbread. Monju_bosatsu is a bright guy, but methinks he protesteth a bit much is all.

I do understand why a smart Republican wouldn't want to post in political threads these days, because basically they're all scandal threads. (Not because zomg we're too librul, but because there are multiple freakin' scandals and disasters going on now, all of them created by the GOP.)
posted by bardic at 2:12 PM on May 16, 2007


I not offended, because I'm not asking for sympathy. I stopped voting for or giving money to Republicans years ago, and I actively attempt to convince my conservative friends to do the same. Frankly, it's not that hard these days.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:18 PM on May 16, 2007


I'm not offended...
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:30 PM on May 16, 2007


I do understand why a smart Republican wouldn't want to post in political threads these days, because basically they're all scandal threads. (Not because zomg we're too librul, but because there are multiple freakin' scandals and disasters going on now, all of them created by the GOP.)
What's been really interesting is that even explicitly GOP blogs have been noting all the scandals and attacking the GOP lately.
posted by amberglow at 5:29 PM on May 16, 2007


It doesn't have to be 1:1, by any means, but once you're heading for 50:1 or 100:1, it would be really nice if reasoned discourse were possible, but in reality, it seldom happens. Nigh close to never.

You're basically just making up numbers at this point. I don't see any evidence that contentious threads with more evenly matched "teams" on each side do any better than ones with more disproportionate teams. Discussions go well when people aren't stupid, and this really doesn't have much of anything to do with how much diversity of viewpoint is represented.

Instead, I just see an attempt to cast dissenting posters in a bad light, and I think it's unwarranted.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 5:54 PM on May 16, 2007


PARIS
KNOW
YOUR LIMITS

posted by flabdablet at 5:56 PM on May 16, 2007


Dear AskMe: I wrote a song for Paris called "Crazy Motherfucker," sung to the tune of "Davy Crockett;" I folded it up and was using it today as a pocket protector, but there was a rainstorm and it melted and the ink from my several pens ran and now my Brooks Brothers shirt has a streak of blue ballpoint ink from my left nipple to my belt. I think I'll tie-dye the shirt instead of trying to get the stain out. Will this void BB's liberal return policy if the tie-dying isn't to my liking?
posted by breezeway at 6:22 PM on May 16, 2007


There is nothing stopping him from returning here as "the user formerly known as ParisParamus" or any other use name he cares to choose that would ensure everyone knew who they were dealing with. The fact that he doesn't indicates a low level of care about the whole thing, apart from wanting to be infamous.

It takes so much bad behaviour here to be permanently banned that I can't imagine there ever being a real case for undoing it.

Also, I miss evanizer.
posted by dg at 6:25 PM on May 16, 2007


If PP can't come back, can we give dios two accounts?

(I'm just kidding.Sorta.)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:50 PM on May 16, 2007


Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America : "You're basically just making up numbers at this point."

I was making them up from the start, just giving a general idea. I never meant them to be numerical Bible.

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America : "I don't see any evidence that contentious threads with more evenly matched 'teams' on each side do any better than ones with more disproportionate teams."

I'm a little surprised at that. You haven't? I see your startup date is Dec. 2006, but I'm assuming you lurked for quite a while before. How many of the threads you've seen with good discussion feature giant gaps in numbers, compared to the amount that feature small gaps in numbers? (No exact numbers, of course).

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America : "Instead, I just see an attempt to cast dissenting posters in a bad light, and I think it's unwarranted."

I don't know which side you are referring to by "dissenting", but if you mean "posters on the highly-populated side of a discussion with a drastic difference in population between sides", then yes, you're seeing my attempt correctly, and in my experience it's largely warranted. If you mean "posters on the sparsely-populated side", then you're seeing the opposite of what I'm saying.
posted by Bugbread at 7:44 PM on May 16, 2007


I miss evanizer too.
posted by languagehat at 12:58 PM on May 17, 2007


Speaking of folks we miss. Has anyone heard from raedyn? I am pretty sure she wasn't banned or anything, way too nice for that. Yet she hasn't posted in a long time.
posted by caddis at 3:46 PM on May 17, 2007


« Older mathowie's community tips   |   Buggy thing. Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments