No.
I’m just explaining why I think here the posting was in bad faith - i.e. a previously perma’d poster returning to post in a confrontational style/stir up drama.
There are lots of other ways to post in bad faith.
Who is permabanned right now? I thought it was just inso.
Again, besides inso, who do we have that is previously permabanned?
Anachronistic (Ray Horton from 2p2) and Basic (anachronistic from UP), though technically they are only banned until 3021 and 3022 respectively (not sure if this is how the software deals with permabans, or if the mod just banned for 1,000 years). Scylvendi (jdock/kelhus from 2p2) was banned for 6 months but that’ll be up in Sept
1 Like
Default permanent ban is 1000 years.
1 Like
RFC to make that the default temp ban
4 Likes
And we are sure that this poster we just banned is anachronistic? It could be Ron from Tucson for all we know.
No. Which is why I put up the the initial post. I don’t have a strong enough opinion to hold the ban as I don’t know the aforementioned people. They were obviously a returning user that wants to hide their initial name. They were getting under numerous peoples skin.
I can cofirm that the ignore function works ok. A few slip through, but seeing “Hidden reply” followed by 4 or 5 flames of said reply made it easy to not look and was strangely satisfying. My “lol, fuck you” wouldn’t have added anything the coversation anyway, whatever it may have been.
1 Like
We just ran a moderator off this site whose cardinal sin was banning obvious bad faith posters.
1 Like
ymmv but imo the post above is a good example
3 Likes
Unless you’re mistaking me for NMW, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I legit am unsure what someone means when they say “bad faith poster”. The proposed rule you posted is very close to how I personally define it, but I’ve come to learn that it’s basically just a bucket that people throw a wide variety of posting behaviors they don’t like. I’m also certain that sometime when someone writes of “bad faith posting” there are those who read that and interpret it in a very different way from what was intended.
I think it’s best we scrap the term all together and just describe the specific issue. It will make such discussions clearer.
1 Like
Sorry I meant the post above mine, not the quote of your post above my comment. I was answering your question by referring to jman’s post above mine
Did you try looking it up?
Guy showed up the day Roe vs Wade gets overturned to makes 500 posts, many riddled with factual errors, defending norms and ripping progressives.
You can argue what should happen to him ban/no ban, but lets not play dumb and pretend he was just dropping in for good faith discussion.
These kind of posters, btw, are absolutely the most toxic to the extent the goal is actual good discussion and not some weird absolute fairness doctrine. I wouldn’t have banned Churchill, but I’d absolutely ban this guy.
3 Likes
Ah, ok, yeah that makes sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
1 Like
Plenty of regs here have done all three of those things and I’ve personally made confrontational posts that have stirred up drama and got folks to react emotionally when it wasn’t an intent to do so.
What percentage of your posts would you characterize this way? For NMW it’s pretty high. Just look at what screenname he picked and try to tell me with a straight face it wasn’t chosen to get a rise out of people.
I bumped him up to level 2.
4 Likes
Please can you do the same for me?
2 Likes