I honestly don’t remember. A lot of people stood up for me, a lot of people didn’t, and that’s fine. My posting on 2p2 has morphed into a myth that is known. Way back when some weirdo on twitter sent some really weird messages about posts here and I looked around for a bit. The myth is impressive. No reason to change that by diving back into it.
For the rest of your post, that’s not something specific, but like I said, I’ll try.
Isn’t Simplicitis or whoever really the sole owner of this place? Seems like a really tortured metaphor.
Simplicitus owns the domain, but I’m not sure he has access to the server. The account that hosts the site was originally zikzak’s name. It’s probably in o-link’s now or maybe spidercrab’s.
I didn’t understand the last sentence in your post.
I don’t really get your point either. If you’re an equity partner in a law firm and you get voted out on a 59-41 vote and immediately stripped of all your rights in the place (including, in our case, access to your PMs for example) then it’s very obviously wrong. Which is why Micro wrote that it should take a near total consensus to do such a thing.
Now I voted for Sabo’s ban (I’ve changed my mind since discussing it further, but only on the particular case, not as a general perspective). I can still see Microbet’s point and your analogy proves it to a degree. Your real point should be “lol internet forums who cares”, which is def a reasonable take, although I don’t personally share that sentiment, I do think that micro’s view is a bit hyperbolic.
The connection to the new forum and whether or not a “constitution” is relevant in this case seems to be an afterthought to your point as it has no connection whatsoever with Micro’s stance on sabo’s equity nor does it have any connection to Trolly’s take on Micro’s stance which is the conversation you were responding to.
I apologize if this reply is somehow perceived as scrutiny. I genuinely believe that your analogy helps show micro’s point and cannot be contributed in anyway to the later explanation regarding the new forum.
Not going to lie, I do not totally understand how prebanning EVERYONE then selectively letting people in is morally superior, or even functionally superior to allowing EVERYONE in and banning people for transgression.
Certainly these two things are not all that different, and an argument could be made the former is much more bancentric than the later.
That being said, I am glad everyone has their place where they can do their thing.
Maybe. I think it is theft though and I don’t think that’s going out of the way to make it worse and I think it can be taken in the same vein as ‘property is theft’ (I think owning land is theft) ‘meat is murder’ (yep) ‘owning Exxon stock is being an owner of Exxon and sharing more responsibility for what they do’ and things like that. I would it to cause people to think about what it means for the site to be community owned and what rights that confers to members (ownership is exactly by definition a bundle of rights).
But, I will try to express this as "I think Sabo was an accepted owner of the site and he has a right to post here and it’s wrong to strip it so easily.
All this said, I don’t want to make like this is a negotiation. I’m not heading a delegation or anything.
So people who voted to permaban sabo are permabanned from the forum?
The community ownership model was diluted the minute we collectively passed a minimal set of rules of behavior and moderation guidelines. Temp bans were always a thing here. So that cannot really be an issue at this late date (of course, a possible bias in issuing temp-bans would be a legitimate concern).
So that brings us to perma-bans. A good argument can be made that perma-bans are anathema to community ownership. I would agree with that point. One of those two “approaches” necessarily has to transcend the other. Once perma-bans were contemplated and a semi-process for perma-bans was put in place, it seems to me that we collectively decided for perma-bans over community ownership.
Of course, the tyranny of the majority can come into play here. But perma-bans have been very, very, very infrequent and only contemplated in what was judged to be an extreme circumstance. I personally am against the idea of a perma-ban and I don’t think I have ever advocated or voted for a perma-ban.
I would be happy if the perma-ban in question was rescinded, but I fear we may be way past that point since that person may not want to post here anymore.
Scroll up and read oreo’s last post. Your takes are a day or so old.
You’re kind of grunching. No one is pre-banned but anyone can be veto anyone else and Sabo is one of those people who gets a veto and he does think that voting him off this island was pretty shitty. And not to lay it all on him. Several other people think the perma votes are the most important factor.
There is one poster there who voted to perma Sabo though. I think that person was in the PM thread and that was the seed. Everyone there was automatically invited.
I voted for Sabo ban, I don’t think i was in the PM thread and I was invited. But i probably slipped through the cracks somehow. I did take the time to explain my reasonings to Sabo as he was genuinely offended by getting perma and I respect that. While I don’t oppose perma-bans, I did neglect to think that people don’t necessarily see themselves as “troublemakers” and getting booted off a community you were a part of stings.
People who wanted Sabo permabanned: “Don’t you think it’s hypocritical not to invite me to the space you created to board with Sabo? It is I, me who is logically consistent.”
Imo they are an ominous presence that is felt every time anyone says something like “do we really have to put up with this?” or similar and that happens often. And, no, the circumstances were not extreme. Sabo didn’t even really have much history of temps. Fidget was trolling no worse than lots of other people, but fell to “He admits it! Look he admits it!” and Church didn’t do anything.
Not at all.
Micro can you at least admit churchill trolled people about getting their children vaccinated?
No, not only do I have no interest in going there, I think you have every right to kick or keep me out. I only think it’s ridiculous to call that moderation free or anti-ban.
My children are vaccinated, boosters pre-booked for two weeks’ time.
Maybe a little. I don’t really read that closely, but I think that was taken the wrong way at least to some extent. I think he was making fun of something about Wookie, consistency or something, but not making fun of his for wanting to get his kids vaccinated. I guess I could check.
I am logically consistent. I don’t think it’s an outrage that I’m pre-permabanned from their secret space and I don’t think it’s an outrage that Sabo was permabanned.
I do find some of their logical inconsistency amusing, though.
Not being invited is different from getting banned. Being banned is different from perma. Why would you wanna post with say Sabo when he was permaed?