I don’t care if you’re a mod or not. YOU said you can’t sit back and allow/ignore NBZ’s posts if you have mod powers. 50%+ of the posters who voted don’t think NBZ should be banned. Seems like you resigning as mod is the obvious resolution, not somebody making a poll about whether people want you demodded.
JFC, cause is doing a fine job, stop encouraging him to quit.
8 Likes
Honestly, I wonder if this isn’t the BruceZ Brigade carrying in their lifelong work of disrupting this community.
1 Like
And I’m not sitting back and ignoring them.
Yep. And I’m taking a stand, given the powers that have previously be entrusted to me.
I disagree. I’ve previously been entrusted with mod powers with the support of the community. I’m not resigning and allowing posting I think is morally reprehensible to continue because 3-5 people have called for me to be removed. If you want me out as a mod, make a poll. You only need to get my approval below two-thirds and I’ll be out. Hell, you could try to get the community to back an even stronger threshold of approval to keep mod powers, like 75 or 80%. Get the support and go for it.
Until then, I’m taking a stand on this issue based on the power the community has granted me and my personal convictions on the the rhetoric.
cuserounder mod > nbz’s right to post about cheering for cop murders, mass shootings, assassinations, and ethnic cleansing
C’mon, it’s not even close.
12 Likes
My post was poorly worded. Cuse, is doing the right thing.
2 Likes
In general, I have the position of a pacifist and non-interventionist, but that doesn’t mean I won’t in some way intervene if, say, you take a gun out and start threatening my friends and family.
Now intervening may simply mean a person is not allowed into my home again. Perhaps never, but certainly not when they assure me that if I let them back in, the same thing will happen.
I think a lot of us find our intuition more easily guides us to a similar conclusion when we’re talking about physical acts of violence. To me, the same intuition applies with verbal violence, as well.
I’m not saying don’t help Bruce. I’m not saying dehumanize him as he dehumanizes others. I’m saying that allowing Bruce to continue posting here does not seem to be helping him.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m open to helping Bruce in some other way, but to that point, my understanding is Bruce doesn’t want help. That our very idea of help isn’t compatible with who he is and what he wants. That we are in some sense insulting him if we tell him he needs help and the kind of help we would provide.
I think that in general, it’s condescending as fuck to assume he needs our help and we should give it to him. That somehow, allowing him to keep posting here will provide the care and a catalyst for his healing.
Even if we go that direction, sometimes, it’s boundaries, not permissiveness, that acts as a catalyst for the other person, though I would in general say that if our desire is to somehow be that catalyst, it’s us who needs help. We don’t have any control over that.
I’d also kindly suggest that a few ITT appear to be caught up in the equivalent to a Republican sinkhole. Banning Bruce would not be some slippery slope. He is an extreme case that warrants at least considering an option that we otherwise might never put on the table.
Now, if you’re reading this and you think limits and boundaries within a community are never justified, we’ll probably never agree. I reject that as a guiding premise. I don’t find it helpful, useful, or persuasive.
It would be significant to me if cuse is removed based on this situation. This is the first political forum I’ve felt comfortable posting in ever. It has brought great value to me and in many ways the very things jmakin is arguing we should let it provide to people like Bruce. But I’m starting to consider now that maybe me and a lot of posters agree, but that doesn’t mean we reach conclusions the same way.
2 Likes
Did you perma ban him? I mean I guess you can take on that power despite the polling and wait for people to complain but I didn’t think that’s what this place was supposed to be like.
No, I gave him a 24 hour ban last night at whatever time I posted. ~3am EST maybe?
otatop started flagging Trumpbot tweets, and I asked him to stop trolling the mods by flagging them. I have a feeling the other mods are not going to enjoy seeing notifications for that any more than I am.
There’s an obvious difference between tweets from the POTUS and posts from posters in this forum. If people want to argue otherwise, do so I guess.
2 Likes
Not really so sure. The one thing he’s chosen to moderate is something the members of the community (who have bothered to express an opinion) disagreed with him on. He then decided to ignore them, to exercise his own set of nebulous standards, and have him eat a useless 1-day ban anyway.
NBZ isn’t going to change after this and the community isn’t going to suddenly come around to cuses’ thinking that there was anything ban worthy about his posts when he does it again. The ban isn’t the issue. The problem lies in 1 person inflicting their own poorly worded sense of right and wrong on everyone else and refusing to stand down when they’re called on it.
1 Like
If you want me to stand down, start a poll to demod me. Get 34% to agree with you, and I’ll be out. Otherwise, I’ve made my views on this clear and I’ve made it clear that I intend to exercise the mod powers that the community has previously given me. I’ve made it clear that I am taking a stand on this, and that me continuing to mod while ignoring his violent rhetoric is not an option.
Weird…I didn’t see him on a user search. I guess the software removes temp banned posters from the user list? And do you have a road map for what is going to happen when he comes back and posts exactly like he was?
Here’s another context:
-
NotBruceZ posts that he thinks we should use ethnic cleansing language about Republicans.
-
I give him an official warning about his rhetoric.
-
He uses dehumanizing language.
He could have provided moral support and a response to the original poster that didn’t cross that line, but he chose not to. He chose to use that language. He probably knew that some people would not see it in the context that I would see it, because they wouldn’t have seen the other posts and the warning.
He thinks we should use violent rhetoric, and he wants to force the issue to a head. So far he’s succeeding, and it looks likely that he’s going to succeed in getting this community to condone it, which is a shame.
I guess so? I don’t know. I just know I banned him for 24 hours. It’s actually called a suspension in this software. I can’t find him in a search, but I can see him here: Profile - NotBruceZ - Unstuck Politics Forum
Nope, but I’ll continue to take a stand. If he does it again, I guess we’ll try 48 hours and go from there. Sooner or later either the community will agree that his rhetoric is not tolerable or the community will decide that violent rhetoric is condoned here and I’ll be demodded.
It’s not for me to decide which one happens. I’ll continue to make my views clear and my actions transparent until such a time as the community either agrees with me or demods me.
I will have to think on this more. I appreciate your point about potentially influencing Bruce as much as he influences someone else, both for good or for violence. I’ve had a similar thought whenever someone worries they are posting into a void, or they engage in yet another pointless argument with nunnehi (I keed). Lurkers as I once was derive tremendous value from your posts and these discussions, even if you never know.
I think I am far more accepting of a decision to ban someone from a community because I have been in Bruce’s position before and now look back with grace and humility on why those friends, families, and communities had to assert a boundary with me for their own health and well-being.
I’m okay discussing whether Bruce’s posts warrant a ban, but I get the sense the disagreement here is over whether Bruce could ever say anything that would warrant a ban. I say yes and see the merits to arguing that he already has. But if a person thinks he couldn’t ever say anything to warrant a ban, we aren’t having the same conversation.
1 Like
Mainly that POTUS might be just slightly more influential than a random poster on a site that gets ~0 traffic from outside sources.
You all seem fine seeing NBZ’s posts reported and letting them become hidden but it’s some huge burden if I report a tweet saying “What a disgraceful legal system for this guy to still be around after all of these years”
When/where was the last up-and-down vote for this?
IDK, I don’t find your argument to conflate the two to be persuasive.
2 Likes