I got the name wrong, because I’m a fool. But, this is exactly what I was getting at. This is fucked up. This is creating hierarchy. This is the 180 opposite of community modding. This is the root of the problem.
We are peers. An ad-hoc committee who presumes to sit in judgement of their peers is 100% illegitimate. Would ‘lynching’ be a better term?
Obviously @ -ing itself should be banned. And if there is any damn way I can just turn that stupid shit off … well I guess I’m too damn lazy to find it. But, I’d turn it off if I wasn’t so lazy.
But your point is a matter of due process, of course. Basically Unstuckers shouldn’t be tried in abstentia. Which is a cornerstone principle of any legitimate charges process. But these ad-hoc committees of trolls have -zero- legitimacy. No, giving ‘subpoena’ powers to illegitimate ad-hoc committees of trolls is like giving matches to pyros.
I’d say that this operates more like a standing quasi-committee of the whole than an ad-hoc committee.
What do you think community modding should look like?
How would you propose that community modding should deal with a troll who is so disruptive as to be ban-worthy? This assumes there can be such a thing as a ban-worthy troll.
This community is small enough that you have a decent shot of persuading people that your way is better, so this isn’t some idle exercise of asking you to come up with a target so that people can poke holes in it.
What mask and how is it slipping? What are you claiming is behind the mask?
Lynching is an analogy that people sometimes use when they believe that one person is being unfairly treated by a group of people that they think is analogous to a mob.
And historically in the US this term is exclusively tied to African Americans being killed for crimes a white mob believed they commit. Since there was just a for real life lynching in this country a matter of weeks ago, I find the use of this word dramatic at best, extremely problematic at worst. I could use less nice words here but I am restraining myself.
Plus his “Lynching” consisted of me making one post asking if his @ProxyOP was too much and here we are 7 days later still discussing it solely because he won’t let it die no matter how many times it seems to naturally wane. He jumps back in to revive it.
It would be reasonable to feel that lynching is such a serious thing that, like the Holocaust, it would be wrong to trivialize it by using it as an analogy for something less serious, especially if it isn’t a matter of life or death. Is that something we want to ban?
That people sometimes use problematic language doesn’t mean their viewpoint is discredited.
You know, instead of whining in open thread, you could just report my post. Just sayin… that’s how the system is supposed to work. Why don’t you show a little consideration for the lurkers? SMH.
I would like to know why I was not told about Better Call Saul starting season 5…I find this abhorrent that I was not informed immediately when it was uploaded to Netflix and will now sulk at all the peeps who should have not informed me going forward.
Although rape is often cited as a rationale, statistics now show that only about one-fourth of lynchings from 1880 to 1930 were prompted by an accusation of rape. In fact, most victims of lynching were political activists, labor organizers or black men and women who violated white expectations of black deference, and were deemed “uppity” or “insolent.”
Well, we’ve had a significant number of votes ITT (33), and it’s been about a week since anyone has voted, so what can we derive from the results?
Bad poster threads are not going to be banned. For better or for worse, 45% of those participating in this straw poll want them to continue to exist here at UnStuck.
So the chat needs to move on to (a) where us UnStuckers consider bad poster threads to be proper, and (b) what us UnStuckers consider to be proper use of these bad poster threads.
IMO bad poster threads should be banned from the About forum. My reasoning is this (i) bad poster threads are toxic to our aspirations to live in community, while the About forum is crucial to those aspirations, (ii) for whatever reasons, the bad poster thread that currently exists in About (aka “problem posters”) has caused more negative drama, and stressed our tribe more often, than anything else in our short history, and (iii) it’s unseemly airing our dirty laundry on the front lawn (or webpage, as the case may be).
This is the URP (Unstuck Recommended Practice) regarding all bad poster threads…
We currently have two bad poster threads. We have one in About, and we have one in France BBQ. There will surely be still others created in the future.
Posting badly in a bad posters thread is not a ‘crime’. It’s what bad poster threads are designed for.
Nobody has to read a bad poster thread. Everyone can ‘mute’/etc a bad poster thread. As @ ziczac has patiently explained several times, the bad poster thread in France BBQ should be the preferred bad poster thread (as opposed to the other bad poster thread in About) because France BBQ is ‘mute’/etc by default.
In other words, you have to aggressively go looking for this dribble. All you have to do to not see this dribble is to not to go aggressively looking for it. So… it’s logically impossible to ‘stir the pot’ in a bad posters thread.
Cliffs: As long as what happens in a bad poster thread stays in the bad poster threads no pots are being stirred… it’s only when some troll takes shit out of the bad poster threads and spews it into non-bad poster threads and forums that pots start to be stirred
