I mean I did just ban him with no pushback from anyone so far. I just asked for opinions since I didn’t have history with a few of the aliases mentioned.
Every single one of us has at least several other users who think we blow chunks.
2 Likes
I would argue the results of that poll doesn’t mean that individual posters can’t be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Had that proposal passed, that would have allowed Inso to post here. I definitely wouldn’t want that, but would have no problem if NMW were unbanned.
Why is having a different opinion from the consensus “bad faith”? He/she seems to mostly be arguing “vote blue and vote hard” which actually used to be the forum consensus. I remember being told what an asshole child I was when I planned on skipping the last election, for example.
2 Likes
How exactly are we defining “bad faith poster”?
I’m a licensed clergyman of the church of Dudeism (big lebowski character) and have married people with it. One could say I’m always in bad faith.
1 Like
“New” user popping up on a dying community raises some flags, idk.
dying seems a bit melodramatic. if we’re concerned about growth and retaining users, probably best not to subject every new volume poster to an arbitrary purity test. there’s at least one very high volume political poster at this moment that’s far worse that has the honor of being my only ignore, and I’d still be reluctant to ban him.
2 Likes
Perhaps, but that still doesn’t tell me what “bad faith poster” is supposed to mean.
To me the bad faith is previously permabanned poster returning on a new account and hiding who he is.
I’m glad I asked, that’s not what I would have guessed.
So, it’s got nothing to do with content of posts?
I’m only speaking for myself and why I supported the ban. Otatop may have meant something different.
I do think the content of the posting supports the “bad faith” determination - in that NMW has been pretty confrontational and mixing in some personal attacks. I wouldn’t deem the content alone to be bad faith (or moderation worthy), but think combined with being a “new” poster, it’s a red flag.
OK, but as far as you are concerned, if NMH posted like Tilted (for example) but doesn’t reveal prior user name, then he is still a bad faith poster and still should be banned.
Maybe? Probably depends on prior poster and their sins.
Also, if a prior banned poster came back and changed their posting such that you couldn’t tell who they had been they might not get noticed. I don’t think in general new posters are being checked to see if they are a former banned poster - it’s only when stuff starts getting flagged/people complain that it’s done.
“Someone who posts in bad faith” is a good starting point. Examples of bad faith are posting in a manner that is meant to stir up drama, looking for confrontation or getting other posters to react emotionally.
Well, that’s quite different from the JonnyA definition. I’m beginning to think that “bad faith” is not a great term to use in these types of discussions. Better would be to post something specific like what you have done above.
1 Like
OK, and I assume that as far as you are concerned, then if a poster is brand new or if they disclose all prior accts, then, by definition, they cannot be posting in bad faith.
I don’t think NMW was bad for the posting ecosystem like a Churchill was. I don’t think he deserved it karmically despite being obvious trolling because there’s differing levels of it.
I’m in favor of mods ruling arbitrarily though so I have no problem with any ban or silence though. Shit happens.
3 Likes
