Karnal Isolde sharing Apples

Greetings agent.

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Zeezsh and Gwydion

I have hidden some replies on the 'Conspiracy theory' article by Anton by Zeezsh and Gwydion. I have also issued Zeezsh a warning for bullying authoritarian behaviour and placed him under moderation in the main part of the site.

I've also installed a system for reporting problem comments to the blog author, so they can review them. I also get notified of this. But bullying behaviour should be reported with a direct PM to me.


  • The aim here is to work by consensus (-1). So whilst I felt the need to act quickly here, if the consensus is that I acted wrongly here we can discuss and review my decision and reach a conclusion acceptable to us all.

  • Hmm... this whole situation actually seems like a paradox to me. what strikes me here is the fact that you gave yourself (and others)an authority to censor one another's posts and you claim this to be the way of promoting anti-authoritarian behaviour

    this is why i don't believe that real anarchy could ever exist- every world's society, even tribal communities always follow sets of rules regarding norms of behaviour, definitions of good and evil etc. individuals who don't stick to these rules get punished or kicked out. this happens even in animal societies. actual bullying is an attempt to make an individual conform to the group.

    So here on Kia we can stand against the religious norms, or government propaganda but we have to conform to the rules of being polite and eloquent. if someone doesn't fit in, they get banned. This is not an anarchy, this is just another sub-culture

    i personally don't think that zeezsh meant to offend anyone. possibly he sounds a bit impolite. and here is another thing. referring to recent forum discussion on myth of mental illness- few people complained that living as an introvert in highly extroverted society is hard. everyone agreed that people should learn tolerance. my question is- "can you be tolerant towards someone who is naturally impolite?" and if not, then why not? where do you set the border line of what can and can not be accepted?

    i don't mean to aim this post at Anton, it is meant for everyone here, including myself as the whole situation got me thinking

  • It's an interesting issue you raise here Hippi, but I find it a subject for an alternative discussion - as it is far broader than my little disagreement with zeezsh.

    Mind posting another topic on that matter so we can discuss it?

  • @Hippi: This depends on what you mean by anarchy. The word as used by authoritarians means 'lawlessness' or 'disorder', but this isn't what anarchists themselves mean by the word. Indeed Proudhon equated anarchy with 'Order'. I personally see the anarchist order as the natural order of bottom up emergent systems. To an anarchist, authoritarianism means the powerful placing themselves above the law, thus ultimately they see authoritarians as representing disorder. Disorder in this sense means against the natural order of bottom-up emergent systems.

    An anarchist order then means a community that organises itself without a leader. It may well be that by its current nature with me as the only one with access to KIABot, the website admin, KIA hasn't quite achieved this. As a result I could be defined as the government of the site, using the definition of government as the one with a monopoly on the use of force. Force in this sense being the means to ban, moderate, and so on. I also have the sole means to extend, build and develop the website itself, which to some extent shapes the way members can interact. For example, the site was once just a simple forum, with no features for 'adding friends'.

    So I see what you mean. And maybe it was wrong of me to hide some comments on my blog, however much I saw them as vandalism, or posted in the wrong place, because of their deviation from the subject the article was supposed to be discussing, which was about focusing on dismantling authoritarian power structures so that hidden conspiracies became powerless, rather than becoming paranoid and fuelling a feeling of powerlessness by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. Arguing that I was wrong would have been fine. But simply ignoring me and using the thread to change the subject and start ranting about pet theories just seemed incredibly rude to me.

    In some ways Gwydion was right to point out that zeezshes reply was inappropriate, although I would have preferred if he didn't post that as a comment on the thread either. This 'issues' forum is a more appropriate place to raise and discuss such things.

    However, as I may have overstepped my privileges, I have restored all the comments until a consensus can be reached on what to do about this.

    Consensus is a means of decision making used by some anarchist groups. I would like KIA to move towards a consensus model. Consensus means 'feel together'.


    This might be difficult and a large jump from the "de-facto benevolent dictator with anarchist sympathies" model KIA has found itself in, but I think we should try. I do not want, nor ever desired, the position of making these kinds of decisions, and it really would be best if KIA can move to this kind of model.

    Personally I still feel that certain comments on the conspiracy thread should be deleted, but I will wait and see if consensus can be reached on that. I propose that we first reach a consensus on whether any posts should be deleted at all, and if we reach a consensus that some should, we can then discuss which ones.

  • @Gwydion, feel free to start a new topic on the subjects you wish to discuss. Reference or quote Hippi's post from here if you need to.

  • For now I have removed the 'Report this comment as inappropriate' feature and replaced it with a means of showing approval or disapproval of a comment. If a comment gains an excessive amount of down votes, we may decide in future if hiding the comment might prove a good idea. I've seem this work on some sites where especially bad comments are initially hidden from view with a message saying 'view comment' so you have to click to view them.

    For the moment though, bad posts just get highlighted in a different colour.

  • Very well then, let's discuss this matter here.

    I suggest all the comments in the zeezsh vs myself branch should be removed except for my first one, which should be rephrased.

    Reason for this being - my comment has spawned an aggressive behaviour from zeezsh because it was poorly written. The original intention of myself was to suggest, that zeezsh is posting an off-topic, spamming with his agenda and completely missing the point of the article posted. Hence, the 'moderation' part, as well as 'babbling', as some might have found it offensive, should be deleted. I agree that it might as well be posted in forums, as a discussion starter.

    All other comments in that branch, especially those, in which zeezsh calls me a "cheeky bitch", "suck up conformist", "hypocrite", etc. all of which are unrelated to the subject of conversation (in fact they are not even related to anything anyone has said in that or any other subject, but that's a different story), should be deleted.

    In general, I believe every comment that doesn't provide value added to the discussion or is not a statement relative to the subject should be voted 'thumbs down' and trashed or hidden.

  • Here is my post that both Anton and Gwydion deem off topic:

    "also I am interested in Free Energy. I have known about it for quite a while but the events at Fukushima has sobered my seriousness about it. A way ‘conspiracy theory’ can hinder actual acition regarding free energy is that it puts it into that category, and thus people do not take it seriously. But it is VERY serious

    So like nigga, and madness, I think we should HELL YA CONSPIRACY THEORY YEAH YEAH YEAH!!! Feel me? To defuse the purpose of that trigger of shame propaganda we say YES to it. of COURSE it is that. the Manhattan PRoject was a conspiracy–noone–not in the know, which was MILLIONS, BILLIONS— knew about something as BIG as that that……..!!! Which was intended to vapourize life and did–IMAGINE! Hiroshima atomic bomb Cartoon

    So now with Free Energy–it is very hidden in plain sight it is claimed. Does exist? What do you think?"

    Now only in your worldviews about conspiracy is that off topic , not mine. I am in effect trying to answer Anton's emphasis on the actual doing/activism (ohh god do i have to go and quote exactly what you say?)--you said something like we need to actually do shit and not just get sucked into the whorrlygig of 'consp. theory',,,didn't you? And THAT is why I mention about Free Energy, because if you mention it in most forums they move it to the 'conspiracy theory' forums!

    And that is why i mentioned Fukushima because when i fukin talk i am not playing a game of intellectual chess, i am very serious, and wanting to explore with other adults about serious shit.

    I then mentioned that the very term 'con theory' can act as a psychological trigger to shame the person so labelled, and this is a big reason that forums put subjects in that basement WITHOUT the thread starters permission--it is a power move. There is no discussion. THEY decide. And that sucks. many of these forums are litle little worlds in the big shitty world --is all, playing by the same rules. I have seen it time and time again. I cannot even GET the owner of ATS forums to have the guts to talk with me by email. This would be the micro equivalent of try to get the head of Monsanto to asnwer a personal protest. I dont give a shit of being banned from ATS, I am just making a point

    I ended my post with a cartoon that very much is important to see, and is connected with a real conspiracy--the Manhattan Project. I think all this relevant to a thread/blog being called 'conspiracy theory'. But to be quite honest also--for people who are familiar with chaos magick to try and push people itnot SET-topics that dont naturally bleed into the interconnectedness of reality is quite ironic--i thought things were a bit wilder in this neck of the woods

    It was NOT Gwiddions place to talk to me like that either public of private (which s/he has done, with the same attitude), but I took the bait and started a flame war which wasn't cool and am sorry for that. Not fair on others. I should have either flagged the post or ignored it or both...OR addressed her points in a more cooler manner, but i am human and sometimes can feel pissed the fuck off lol. Sometimes I am as sweet as pie and will put up with shit --you would be amazed!

  • I have read all these comments, only just now.. as I was not sure it was a good idea. I can see everyones point of veiw. And everyone is certainly making a good point. but I gotta say that Anton is in a very difficult position here, anarchy.. In the true sense of the word, can only work if the parties involved have an inbuilt consensus of their own! Ok... Some folks like to tell it how they perceive it, and why not? Not everyone has the inner need to moderate what they say, and not everyone Will accept anothers view, without agreeing with it. You can't be an antagonist and a catalyst at the same tiem! (at least, not at the kore.)

  • since Zeezsh decided to quit, i guess the problem is over. however it would be useful to make some plans for future as such things can happen again. between my classmates we had the rule that if someone offends you during an online discussion, leave yourself at least 24 hours before you write a reply. during this time you can re-read their post as it is possible that you misunderstood. you also have an option of not replying at all.

    to me it seemed that problem with Zeezsh was his constant swearing and excess of capital letters, what made his posts seem very aggressive. as he mentioned himself being banned from other forums, i wonder how long it will take him to get the lesson... looking forward to the quiet, peaceful times on kia

  • @trace: I understand what you mean about inbuilt consensus. I've been meaning to get hold of a book called 'Zenarchy' by Kerry Thornley. Apparently it argues that illumination is a prerequisite of anarchy.

    Actually I think there is an online copy here: http://www.impropaganda.net/1997/zenarchy.html

    I must get around to reading it.

    I kind of understand this in the context of your comment, as if we exist as a multitude of 'selves', then we can either arrive at a situation where those selves compete for dominance, or can work something out so each get a chance at expression. Illumination in this sense means arriving at a 'consensus of selves' so that we achieve an inner harmony without one self dominating and controlling, and each self gets a chance to express itself without detriment to the others.

    So unless we can do this internally, how can we work together in this way in our external relationships?

  • @Zeezsh: You say in another thread that you've left now so I don't if its worth me replying to your points here, but I will anyway because you raise some good points. The 'flag' feature wasn't present at the time, I added it in response to your argument. But I agree with you that blog comments are not the place to call for other comments to be moderated. And 'flagging them' to the blog author and KIABot probably isn't the right call either in my opinion. Seems too much of an authoritarian solution.

    This is why I added the up and down vote system. So users can express agreement or displeasure with a post quickly and painlessly but also anonymously.

    @Hippi we still need to reach a consensus about whether to delete certain posts. I agree with Gwydion that the name calling and calls for moderation should be deleted. Does anyone disagree?

    I agree that its a good idea to let time pass before responding to internet posts that make you angry, regardless of where those posts were made.

  • @Hippi

    'this is why i don't believe that real anarchy could ever exist- every world's society, even tribal communities always follow sets of rules regarding norms of behavior, definitions of good and evil etc. individuals who don't stick to these rules get punished or kicked out. this happens even in animal societies. actual bullying is an attempt to make an individual conform to the group.'

    I know what you mean. It is difficult to be tolerant to someone who isn't tolerant to others. The way I feel about it is that people should always treat each other with respect and what this means obviously depends on their culture. Society in some ways must be conformist, I guess. It doesn't mean that's wrong, though. Being able to compromise is important. What is wrong however is if the boundaries are placed in an unjust manner. What you didn't mention above is that bullying can work the other way round. A great example of this is portrayed in 'Lord of the flies' (film or book), which portrays how the brutal actions of an individual can turn people against each other and lead to formation of a dictatorship.


    I agree to the posts being deleted and I very much like the idea of the dislike button. I think in the future it will help to make consensual decisions on kia.

  • @anton, @hippi, @trace

    all your points are valid.

    First of all, the deletion should take place, but I have already stated that.

    As for the voting system - it is for now the best solution we got. It will inform members of others' views on certain comments and possibly, be enough for people to stop trying spread their agenda when it's uncalled for.

    I think there is some legitimacy in the blog author's right to moderate posts. It might seem a bit authoritarian, but the tools on the website allow us to have a proper discussion even when the author is being disagreed with. The worst that can happen if someone's post is deleted from the comments section in the blog, is moving the discussion to forums.Hence, I think the blog author has the right to remove comments he thinks are off-topic (provided he will include an explanation either in form of a comment or personal message).

    Thirdly, as for the general idea of anarchy - I firmly believe a certain level of illumination within the community must be achieved in order for anarchy to be possible. Let's face it - anarchy is very idealistic. Unenlightened community will always have individuals, which will try to abuse others' consideration and altruism.

    Finally, I am sorry to see zeezsh go, regardless of what has happened. I am aware, that it is probably for the better - his presence around would probably cause more weirdness, but such events test moral spines of communities and allow means for progress. I believe, that given patience and some open mindedness on both sides - we could have had more than a single interesting conversation. However, personal flaws rendered such discussions impossible, which, as being partly my fault, I am sorry for.

  • Anton- thanks for the link, I think we both should read it. I was trying to explain how it Feels to me right now, and .. You have said perfectly what I was trying to get over, I have not read anything about that way of looking at things, (yet) But I would recommend it to anyone who wants to get anywhere. Hippi- that seems like a very good course of action, a 'cooling off' time often helps. It will be interesting to me what happens now, as I don't really know what the site is 'usually like'

  • i support your decision to delete some posts. there is no point in keeping the posts that contain only swearing and no useful information...

  • I also support that decision, for the same reason as Hippi stated.

  • I have finally got around to reading the first chapter of Zenarchy. If you haven't already, I would give it a peruse when you have tiem. So far, it's interesting, delightful and funny.

  • I've been a little busy on holiday but it seems we have a consensus here to delete the name calling and calls for moderation.

    This whole situation has also raised some other issues for me that I will raise when I have a moment...

  • Okay. I'll take this as consensus to remove, so I've hidden the offending comments.

    Note: Other comments, for which no consensus to remove was received, are showing as 'Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.' This apparently happens due to the comment rating. The threshold for hiding in this way is currently set to -3. If anyone feels this is too sensitive, they will need to raise an issue.

    Also, I didn't understand what zeezsh was going on about saying his thread was moved to the 'conspiracy theory' board without his permission. There is no 'conspiracy theory' board on this site. I think he means the tagging system. Tags can get added by anyone that makes a reply in the forum, and threads accumulate tags from all contributors to that thread. This is not a feature of administrative control to my mind, so I think that was just a misunderstanding. It seems zeezsh wanted absolute control over the tags of the thread he started. I think this is just a result of different expectations over how websites operate, and jumping to (wrong) conclusions on zeezsh's part.

    On the other hand in the past I have tried to keep the site well organised by move posts to (what I saw as) appropriate boards, splitting replies when they went off topic to create new threads, and all the usual tedium associated with forum management. Maybe zeezsh has a point that I shouldn't really do that without some kind of group consensus.

    Anyway, I'm going to close this issue as resolved. If anyone wants to reopen this issue, or discuss any of the side issues mentioned here, they need to start a new issue topic and a new consensus needs to be reached before any action will be taken.

Leave a Comment