And by the way, fuck you for your autism dig. That’s an absolute shit move and you should be ashamed.
Except that the post isn’t ambiguous. At all. And he knew he was pushing the lines when he made it, which is super relevant. Intention matters and intentionally fucking with mods has been known to have consequences. To be clear I’d have perma’d him without a huge thread to discuss if it I was the mod, so I guess be glad cuse is being so gentle about it?
1 Like
Cool opinion bro. Go make fun of autism some more.
Imo, a mod can do a temp ban. If anyone complains about it they are unbanned and there’s a vote about the ban and the vote stands. No having thirteen people argue for 3 months about rules.
Aw no man, we misunderstood, the post wasn’t making fun of autism, it was just pointing out how dumb autism makes people, like how retarded people are too dumb to know they’re retarded, that kind of totally acceptable thing to say.
Seems like an overreaction.
Like what do you, jmakin, and KingsOfNY expect? Everything to be perfect all the time?
1 Like
Fine. Everyone who claims NBZ hasn’t done anything wrong is just acting in bad faith. There are no other good faith explanations other than mild mental ‘disability’ (to be clear I think people on the spectrum are awesome at a lot of stuff because of their ‘disability’ and are themselves awesome, I literally mentioned it so that I didn’t accidentally accuse someone on the spectrum of acting in bad faith).
Please don’t lump me in with them. I haven’t offered an opinion on the banning.
My issue is, and always has been, cuse ignoring the opinion of the community.
Did you write this as a suggestion? It kinda happened once already and it was ignored.
Seems to have happened, yes. I don’t really care enough about nbz to make a big deal about it though.
Idk what this means. Are you suggesting this as a course of action or no? Bc cuse cared enough to start this thread and then ignored the opinion for his own reasons (which many in turn found laughable)
It’s possible to have a good faith discussion about the posts in question, but when the consensus is ignored, that’s how the forum ends up like this.
Imo, rules or not, voting or not, people will argue about, call each other assholes and threaten to quit over stuff like this.
About the second part, sorry. You guys may well come up with something well within 3 months, but that won’t be the end of arguing about site rules. And when you do publish the rules and there’s a vote, let’s say it is very prominent on everyone’s radar. It’s going to be acrimonious and people will call each other assholes and Stalinists and threaten to quit and the next time there’s a controversial banning there will be just as much fighting as ever.
Imo.
My suggestion about voting on any contested bans and leaving it at that is more about what I think we should actually do than what I think reduces arguing.
Agree with this. And this is pretty much what happened with the questionable twitter post yesterday.
Just need to be sure that all the mods are on board bc at least of of them isn’t
I’m not sure what you don’t understand. Voting on any controversial bans is what I’d like to see happen. I missed a few posts about this vote on nbz, but assuming that’s exactly what happened, I don’t care enough to make a big deal about it because nbz is probably just a troll. I don’t think nbz being banned is that big a deal - certainly it isn’t a big deal to nbz.
1 Like
I’m trying to learn some stuff from this experimental forum and one thing is that it’s never the case that everyone is on board with anything. There will always be battles. Be accommodating when you can and accept that you don’t get everything your way. Battle when you feel you must. Expect it to be a continuous project and not for everything to get settled in one stroke.
Yeah, I saw that sports post. Agree w a ban, seems clearly acting in bad faith.
1 Like
This entire thread is a mistake. Basically nobody would have noticed NBZ getting banned if he’d just been temp banned, temp banned again, and perma banned after that. If there’s anything cuse is doing wrong it’s soliciting too much input.
3 Likes
Theory met practice.
3 Likes
You’re doing good work. I haven’t quite followed through on everything, but I did a fair amount of work on politicking stuff, that I agree on to be sure, but partly in an effort to get somewhere that would satisfy some people (cough ScreaminAsian cough cough) and you’re taking on a rules committee for Cuse.
1 Like
You are missing the forest for the trees. Nobody gives a shit about NBZ or whether he is temp-banned or perma-banned or given a parade.
This site/forum was at least partly predicated upon precepts of community governance (including community modding). One of the unavoidable and messy aspects of community governance/modding is the solicitation of input into rules and modding. It seems as if cuse is the main mod making mod decisions at the moment. If he does not solicit feedback and take that feedback into account in his mod decisions, we have the opposite of community governance/modding.
I think cuse is undoubtedly a great guy and a wonderful asset to this site However, if I thought that cuse (or anybody else) was unilaterally making mod decisions based solely upon their own judgments and in direct opposition to the wishes of the community, I would either leave the site or drastically reduce my participation in the site.
We’re not the government or parents. We don’t have to be fair like that. I think we should try to support people who are unpopular and I’ve certainly done my share of that on various forums, but I’m not sure it’s so bad that having a bunch of people who want you sticking around makes it harder to ban you and having no one who wants you here makes it easy.
A problem in any system that those who care get the power. The people who feel strongly will have to work to get out the vote if it’s important enough to them. Still, that’s not a reason why mods deciding is better.
1 Like