What is recorded and stored about individual users, what are the security/encryption protocols used, and for which fields do they apply? E.g., IP addresses, browser info, access times, e-mail addresses, etc.? What is the site’s policy for responding to LEA requests for this info?
Only that’s not what happened. The first 24 hour ban was a few hours after the poll went up.
You issued the 48 hour ban today without considering what happened last time, which itself was a lol decision considering the reaction you got.
Lying and failing to consider anyone’s opinion but those who agree with you is the height of trumpiness. Look in the mirror before you throw that insult around.
I’m going to try to put this as de-escalatorily? as possible. I speak only for myself but I’m reasonably sure that many others agree with me that NBZ’s posts are a huge problem and worth banning him over, whether it’s for a day, a week, a month, or even a year. So no one told us life would be this way.
But given the poll that I made, it’s fair to start with the assumption that a majority, almost a supermajority, of the community does not want him banned over these posts. However, it is cuserounder’s position that as long as he is a mod he will tempban NBZ over posts which he thinks are too loose with violent rhetoric. If some of you feel strongly that given this stance he should not be a mod while we decide what the moderation rules are please start a poll asking something like “Cuserounder should not be a mod during the interregnum before moderation rules are proposed and voted on”. This is not a dare, this is probably the most constructive thing somebody who feels strongly about this to do. I’m guessing this vote passes (please make it public though, after all, we are not GOP Senators).
When the moderation rules are proposed and voted on and adopted, then if some people feel they are too strict or too loose, then they can stay or go or take a break or whatever.
1 Like
Oh I thought I was. I can see the admin panel, at least. I haven’t tried to do anything admin-related, but it is cool to see the pageviews and such.
Personally regarding requests to delete users I think the process should be to give them a few days to think about it, then do it. When it’s not done immediately, most end up resuming normal posting within a relatively short amount of time. But it doesn’t matter that much to me.
I just don’t think I should be getting rid of people who disagree with me and call me out, it’s a bad look.
For a separate matter. After a final warning was given, there had been numerous other calls for him to tone it down. And the poll was not mine.
I took everything into consideration. I’ve made myself very clear how I’d be proceeding.
The rest of your post is unworthy of a response. You’re repeatedly distorting what happened, I’ve explained it repeatedly.
Thx would have accepted “it’s in a thread at the bottom of the About forum.”
jlawoksure.gif
And therein lies the problem. Your failure to recognize it is the root of this entire mess.
Man, I get the whole “first they came for X, then they came for me!” aspect to this but NBZ seems like a weird hill to die on. The umpire post was whatever, but his body of work is full-on troll and he has shown no interest in changing.
1 Like
No, not really.
Thanks to the first part, it is with the community’s interest in mind. But while the community is deciding the long term position on this, it would be a mistake to quickly perma ban him. I’ll keep escalating the bans - probably either 96 hours or a week next time. Once the community decides we can move on accordingly. I don’t want to do something irreversible that may end up being against the community’s ultimate wishes once it’s all figured out.
I agree with this. This is why Rivaldo got a warning for his post about this and NBZ got a temp ban. You may disagree about the line, and it may be unclear, but go look at NBZ’s posts. He’s dancing around the line frequently and putting the mods in tough spots. People are going to disagree about some of them, which is why the pattern of behavior is key.
You legit should be banned for gaslighting
I don’t think the detractors are being honest about the import of the poorly worded polls re: two specific posts nor their true position.
Show me a poll where a majority says that the Unstuck modding policy should officially be “advocating for violence against Trump supporters is okay but against Ds is bannable” and I promise I’ll shut up about NotBruce for ever.
1 Like
Yeah I really don’t get it. Tribalism, I guess. If he was doing this from the right wing he would have been permabanned to a standing ovation a long time ago. But he’s doing it from the left, so some people are cheering it on and quite a few are indifferent.
Lol… You stopped making sense a long time ago. You should change your name to Court_Jester_of_Hoboken.
Then ban his ass. Your temp bans have demonstrated that his behavior is not tolerated and yet it hasn’t changed. Obviously they’re ineffective.
This is extremely weak. NBZ clearly sees you as a joke and rightfully so.
I mean, worst case he does it again and catches 4-7 days, does it again and catches a ban for, I don’t know, a month, and hopefully we get the rules figured out by then and he either catches a perma or he’s free to do his thing and I’m no longer a mod.
I guess if you’re being called a dictatorial fascist and Neville Chamberlain in the same thread, there’s a decent chance you’re actually doing the right thing.
But, maybe there are some other total assholes from WWII you guys want to compare me to?
I see you ninja-editing in real time over there, but I like my WWII joke.
Thought the comparison to Chamberlain was harsh and uncalled for. Hence the ninja-editing.
Perhaps, but if so I think he’s mistaken. Reasonable minds can disagree on what the best action/strategy is in my position.
I actually found it amusing, especially in the context of the rest of this thread.
Once again, the problem is not the rule about advocating violence.
The problem is interpretation. Many of the posts that have been used for evidence do not advocate violence. And at least a couple look worse out of context of the thread.
But yet here we are continuing to talk about rules. It’s a fucking joke.
2 Likes
And some look worse in context.
Like, it’s pretty simple. It’s pretty easy to remove mods around here. Go look up whatever people said about the threshold a mod should have. I think it was two-thirds approval, but I could be wrong. Have a vote to remove me, meet the threshold of one-third of voters plus one. No hard feelings however it turns out.
Or hop into the group discussing rules and get involved.
Or just keep complaining about it.
So far everyone who disagrees seems to be choosing option three.
1 Like
You bring up us voting you out so often it makes it look as though you want that to happen.
So this.