Cassette was banned at 2+2 and had his account re-named “another loser”.
This feels similar to posters here being banned and having their accounts anonymized when they didn’t ask for it.
Stentorian (cs3) invaded Exiled to complain about post thievery.
The “Community Ownership” cries also kept us from having any real leadership so how the forum should be run just became a bunch of shouting matches. We didn’t have the tools to create a set of rules without a leader to push it through and we never figured out what do with disruptive posters because enough of the population was against bans for any reason that even Chezlaw didn’t stay banned. We never managed to separate the poster from the mod so every mod decision was seen as personal affront and we were never able to get to the mods to agree to transparency, or to figure out how to get mod actions overturned by popular vote without assuming the mod had ulterior motives for giving someone spewing shit a 1 day timeout.
Chezlaw was one of the posters on 2+2 most responsible for getting the politics forums shut down. He did this by constantly complaining to Mat over ridiculous decisions in the forums. I don’t think he was posting in politics in good faith and was just trying to stir shit up because his friend BruceZ committed forum suicide by circus music. So he was a known bad actor and his opinions and behavior were still fresh. No decisions had been made about autobans so I decided to push the conversation by auto banning a known-bad poster, the community disagreed and he was reinstated, that’s how the system should work.
I really do believe that this has political relevance to the wider world.
If community ownership is an impediment to getting things done on the forum, it’s probably not going to work in real life with any group or political unit unless there is near unanimity. How we deal with disruptive posters gives us a clue to how we should deal with disruptive people in the political world who exploit various freedoms to cause problems.
0 voters
Basically anyone who posts here unless you’re a fan of rampant alcohol and drug fueled posts, racist takes, graphic porn photoshops and shitposting. They had amazing emojis. I had fun there though in my younger days. Still have a ton of photoshops I made including some A+ ones featuring The Accountant
That’s all probably true but none of it answers the question of why should person A’s dislike of person B trump person C’s enjoyment from posting with person B, when person A can simply put person B on ignore?
What things are these?
Whatever the users wish to accomplish. It is left as an exercise for the reader to figure what those wishes are.
What if person B and person C enjoy posting together about about how bad they think person A is? Should friends of person A argue with person B (and C) or should they put their effort towards convincing person A to use the ignore button?
What are you talking about? My dislike of Chezlaw had nothing to do with his banning, Chezlaw’s behavior on 22 was why he was auto banned. Why does your wanting to chat with someone who is a known net negative to the community overrule the communities desire to not have that net negative poster around?
People are free to do either of those and there are merits to both, depending on the circumstances.
I’m talking about how, when you inserted yourself into a conversation between LG and me to talk about the history of one poster who I only used as an example of a wider question, the topic of my post became lost.
But re. your question, do you not think that a lot of people already put the same person on ignore because others want to chat with him? Do you think that’s the wrong approach?
LOL, you’re dodging the wider question. Why does your need to talk to net negative posters overrule the communities need to not have those posters around?
And no, ignoring a poster is not the panacea you think it is. Most of the posters here value the community they belong to and don’t want other members of the community to be presented with the net negative poster’s posts. Why should everyone else in the community be forced to change their actions if the net negative poster can’t be bothered to follow community guidelines?
Why does your need to ban posters you don’t want to see trump other people’s desire to chat with them when you have the ignore option. which works well (except in rare cases when someone’s posts attract so many replies the forum becomes unreadable when they are on ignore).
Stinks of fascism and one group deciding for others what they can and can’t see.
I don’t have a “need” to ban a poster. If a poster has broken the community standards multiple times eventually they will be banned. You can’t seem to separate the moderator from the rules they are enforcing and are trying to make everything personal. That’s fine, and you do you boo, but you aren’t right as often as you think you are.
Everything you don’t like stinks of fascism so I’m ok with it.
The point you’re missing is there aren’t any rules for mods here, so they’ve been able to make their own up, which has led to some truly bizarre bans.
Bizarre is a very kind way to describe them.
We aren’t talking about obviously egregious offences like racism, homophobia, sexism, personal threats etc.
Yeah, UP is fucked because of stuff brought up above. I’m not trying to fix a fucked up system, I’m telling you why Chezlaw was banned. My posts with you assumes there were rational rules in place. If there are none why would you expect to win any prizes that aren’t fucked up if you play fucked up games?
This is a discussion forum, so the implied judgment that inserting oneself into a conversation as if that might be a bad thing isn’t really a thing. If someone is not welcome to take part in the conversation, then it should be in PMs.
No problem with that of course but if you read back you’ll see I was asked wtf I was talking about when I was trying to undo the deflection that had happened.
Anyway, who cares.
