One of the things I tried and failed to do at the very beginning of this site (or maybe it was exiled) was to determine who was and wasn’t a member. There was concern that people like toothsayer or others would be trying to get in and they were not wanted. I would have been fine not allowing toothsayer and company and then having this place be without moderation or bans for members. And, yeah, if people decided that Sabo couldn’t be a member I might then have decided that I didn’t want to be a member either. And that would be very different than anything involving kicking out people who were already members.
Can we agree that it’s appropriate to either ban or pre-ban obvious troublemakers? It seems like everyone fundamentally believes there should be some kind of community moderation.
Your entire crew has called for my ban at some point or another. Victor spent half the day yesterday complaining about a ban that was reversed. Funny how literally none of you said shit!
i went one, showing how calling the opposite opinion ‘bad faith’ is not constructive for a discussion. He misunderstood my intentions so i explained it. It appears he now understand it’s a bad way to approach a conversation.
yesterday AO brought up his poor shaming as a way to show that Jal deserved a ban and he did nothing wrong ever. I showed my opinion that he did. He proceed to admit he did.
I think my contributions here has helped the forum and those individuals immensely. I request nothing for my services for this community.
You claimed I called for your perma. I’ve never done that. I just asked who called for your ban (maybe someone has) and you reply about something else. A number of people at the other site are mostly mad about unfair modding and not just modding per se. Several of them (like Yuv as he has said here) are not against banning. Victor is mad that he gets a week for something and you get banned, people complain about it, and you are unbanned in minutes. I know you didn’t complain about it. Victor is mostly mad about what he sees as unfair moderation. That is not the same as calling for your ban.
And also, I’m not pro 24-hour silencing either, but that’s not what this is about.
I think part of the tension here is that you have a special interest in how these kinds of online spaces can operate on a pseudo-anarchy kind of way, whereas most posters want to keep on funposting like we were on 22.
Maybe it’s not a bad idea for you to set up some kind of experimental community-owned co-op forum? That’s a serious question.
Again i’m in no position to defend or explain the team anti-ban position, but there is a vast difference between calling for equal moderation when it come to temp bans and being pro perma-bans.
(edited because structuring sentences in English is hard)
They don’t set up an rfc because they now they lose. They have all, at one point or another, called for me to be banned for some period of time for my posting. Not a single one of them ever stood up for me when I got banned.
I had thought this was a community-owned co-op forum. I get that that entails democracy, but I don’t think this perpetual judging about who will have their property taken away with a 60/40 vote is really ownership by community members.
I think it was probably a mistake to take all of the governance so seriously.
