And I have no interest in responding to questions which are framed as “justify why we shouldn’t ban you”, so do as you see fit.
Nevertheless, I think the answer to your original question is somewhat covered in my response to kerowo above.
1 Like
We should make this the message you automatically receive if someone flags your post.
Only half joking. Once I get past the details I sometimes mistakenly think are the point of the argument, this is all I’m trying to say.
Consider this Unstuck’s first official copy/pasta I will be reusing in perpetuity. I assume royalties can be sent to the same address as before?
1 Like
I mean…the way that’s phrased…ugh. It’s straight out of the 2+2 mod handbook and not appropriate for a user-owned forum.
Your complaints are not much more helpful than Jman’s meme game.
3 Likes
This forum is a lot less enjoyable than it once was. It’s gone through periods. I assume it will again. Cycles.
Ban folks posting in bad faith, ban people trolling, ban people who can’t abide by the rules. Ban people who make personal attacks. I’d be fine if we just banned all profanity.
A serious discussion of forum rules is not the place to barge in and take over a thread with “neutral” intentions.
I don’t know what your personal definition of “bad faith” is, and you refuse to spell it out, but the mods are in uniform agreement that your posting crossed ours.
1 Like
Not until we exhaust every last permutation of the query: what indeed is bad faith?
1 Like
I’ve said my piece and you’ve said yours, and if we continue this, we’re just going to end up going round in circles. I’m not even posting in that thread any more (which, incidentally, is totally dead since I stopped posting in it).
I’m happy to let it go if you are.
1 Like
This is true.
And d2, your descriptions of your intentions give me even more pause. Wtf.
Please, let us end this topic or see it disappear into the ether of PMs. Shake hands (uhhhh…). I think we are quite clear on what each of you is trying to say.
I will try to keep this about ideas and not about specific posters. I don’t think the notion of this site needing to have some minimal types of rules and some system of enforcing those rules is inconsistent with the political viewpoint of the site or the proposition that the members are responsible adults and should be treated as such.
Nearly all of organizations that I been involved in (such as my workplace, my children’s school system, scout troops, former churches, etc.) have some form of rules and enforcement. Some have mentioned informal social groups as a counterexample. I don’t think that’s a great analogy to our forum for a few reasons. First, as has already been mentioned, the nature of real life interaction is very different than online interaction. Second, informal friend groups tend to be fairly small in size. This forum has roughly 100 active users and hundreds of other less frequent users. Third, even informal groups have informal enforcement mechanisms for their norms, such as ostracism.
I’m not advocating for heavy-handed moderation. In the spirit of brainstorming, I’ve made a few suggestions in this thread and others that probably aren’t the best ideas.
I would suggest two concrete proposals for the community to consider.
First, the forum guidelines posted here were ratified by the users. We should try to do a better job of living up to these ideals, and I think part of that will involve more active moderation, which is already happening.
Second, @spidercrab mentioned the rules from the SE forum at 2p2 as an example of lightweight moderation that has worked in the past. If the community thinks that those rules are consistent with our values and would provide some additional enforcement mechanisms they would be worth adopting.
3 Likes
My understanding of the community we are trying to build here is that none of the things you just mentioned are welcome here. Do you intend to continue posting in that manner?
And trying to take credit for keeping a thread alive because you’re purposefully pissing people off is not as good a look for you as you think.
No. As things stand right now, I don’t intend to continue posting here at all.
1 Like
Sometimes, it’s okay to let the other person have the last word.
I’ve called for one person to be banned for continually violating the rules. I defended you NOT to be banned until you all came back into the threads immediately to violate the rules you were just banned for. I’m regretting that defence now.
Obviously emulating 22 isn’t what we’re shooting for here. And I would argue it’s gone pretty well this far.
3 Likes
It really pretty much is or is trying to be. I understand message boards generally aren’t, but we’ve literally only imposed rules once they’ve been discussed and voted on, haven’t we? We’ve never undertaken any major action without it being discussed and voted on, as far as I know. In what sense is that not, functionally, democratic in operation?
We are simply disagreeing on the limit. Is there a limit for you? What would that be? 5 three day bans, 10?
To me, three in a short period of time tells me the community has said they don’t want that behaviour and he has responded he doesn’t care one bit. This is doubly true when the behaviour begins immediately following a return from a ban.
Clearly, based on the number of likes you got and the fact that I’ve been called a whiner by three posters, with several likes, I am in the very tiny minority. People do not see things how I do.
I hope he changes and I am wrong.
If whatevs was even a centrist he would have been perma’d a while ago. I would bet my hard earned money on that.
Maybe that’s a good thing that we value the content he’s attacking over the attacks itself, I honestly don’t know.
1 Like
Congrats on all of this - sounded like you were really hit with a lot at once after your move. It’s like the skies are finally parting
3 Likes
I don’t like this idea. I think it should be acceptable to make a personal attack on the understanding that the person can respond in kind and there it must end. After that, actions may be taken.
As people have mentioned, ‘no personal attacks’ just breeds a courtier-like culture where people find ways to be snide that can’t properly be called ‘personal attacks’ — or can at least be assiduously defended as not being personal attacks even if they definitely are. Then people are just lawyering it up trying to game ‘no personal attacks’.
What people should try to remember is that personal attacks are or should be frowned on because more than a tiny number of them make threads less enjoyable for everyone else, not just the person being attacked. Shitting up a thread with mutual vitriol is pissing on everyone’s cornflakes. Part of it is just how things are online, without in-person social cues to rein people in. Would it be possible to make this image (a GIS result for ‘reproachful look’) appear in the Reply panel? It would be interesting to see if it had any effect.
Nah, fuck that. Swearing is fun, cathartic and approximately never the part of a personal attack that causes problems, the one notable exception granted.
1 Like