I don’t remember exactly how he put it, but he’s not going to be a mod and allow nbz’s posts to stand, so that’s a cake and eating it too situation for the community then.
I haven’t followed this that closely, but I thought Cuse was talking about a permaban at least some of the time. For temp bans, I really think the mods just doing it and if anyone wants to complain about it then undo and poll is fine. Is like a 1-3 day ban really that big a deal? And if you get temp-banned (and temp-bans should be announced) and zero people stick up for you, then you either really went over the line or you’re not really part of the community or something.
And if there’s some kind of system like: warning, 1 day, 3 day, 5 day, call for perma if the same poster keeps doing the same thing, I think that can just be worked out by the mods and doesn’t need site-wide approval because, after all, the plebs can revolt at any time.
2 Likes
The first call (if you read post 1 in that thread) was a call for a permanent ban. So I assumed the latest was the same. I’m not really complaining about 24 hours, although I think nothing was preferable.
Either start a poll to try to demod me or shut the hell up about it already. Obviously your lack of trying to have me removed is tacit acceptance of me continuing to be a mod, so quit running your mouth.
I’ve made it clear that as long as I’m a mod, violent rhetoric is a no go. So if you think that is disrespecting the wishes of the community, try to demod me. If not, it’s how I’m going to mod.
This is fine in theory, but clearly what we’re headed for is escalating bans if NBZ doesn’t tone it down (which seems unlikely), and sooner rather than later it’s going to be time to permaban him or admit we’re never going to do it, in which case I’ll be stepping down as a mod.
So that system is just leading to an even bigger confrontation in a few weeks/months, and I sort of resent being stuck in a position to be driving that conflict simply because nobody else really wants to deal with it right now.
Like the consensus of the community at this point seems to be, “Eh, whatever.”
But I’m not backing down on violent rhetoric being unacceptable, and NBZ doesn’t appear to be interested in toning down the rhetoric - and I guess why should he? He’s probably got the numbers on his side whenever the big conflict comes, so I assume what’s going to happen is that I’m going to dole out a few temp bans, the community will decide not to perma ban him, I’ll step down as a mod and he’ll have carte blanche to ramp up the rhetoric as much as he wants - at which point I’ll probably stop coming around as much because I’m not interested in being part of a community that condones that rhetoric. But, I guess if that’s the will of the community then it is what it is.
Right now the will of the community seems to be to kick the can down the road because most people want me to continue modding and want NBZ to be allowed to post whatever he wants.
Maybe the disconnect is that you seem to consider “violent rhetoric” to be equivalent to “advocating violence”. I and maybe others do not believe that equivalence. If you are using the term “rhetoric” as I do for meaning insincere, exaggerated, unrealistic inflammatory statements intended to be impressive/persuasive, then I cannot envision a politics forum in which “rhetoric” is not allowed and, quite candidly, is not part and parcel of most forum discussions.
If I say that the US won’t have meaningful gun control until the children of several republican senators are killed in school shootings, I am not advocating violence but I am engaging in violent rhetoric. That statement is a shorthand way of getting across a simple yet extreme view.
I am sure that everybody is aware of the phrase “The only good communist is a dead communist”. This phrase has been resurrected and used by the modern conservative movement. Again, it is violent rhetoric but, in my humble opinion, falls short of advocating violence. That statement is a shorthand way of getting across a simple yet extreme view.
Posts that I think warrant the temp-ban to perma-ban process include credible specific threats to specific named individuals. In contrast, I think that non-specific non-credible, insincere, exaggerated, unrealistic posts do not warrant the temp-ban to perma-ban process.
1 Like
You posed a question to the community then ignored the answer because reasons reasons. This blatant disrespect is going to get called out at every opportunity.
And repeatedly calling something violent rhetoric doesn’t actually mean it is violent rhetoric. You can take a closer look at the thread you started (or well named post above) for further clarification.
And no one is asking for you to be demodded for the inevitable “start a poll” comment.
1 Like
Get over yourself. I put in a lot of time and effort to give us a place to crash land when we got nuked on 2p2 and to try to set up a community run forum. You don’t like my stance on one thing, get over it. I could have tried to set up a privately owned forum and ushered everyone over to it in order to make some money off it myself. I could have tried to make up all the rules myself and enforce them. Instead I stepped back repeatedly and advocated for a community run process.
Then you don’t like my take on one thing, that I think is for the good of the community (and was very transparent about), and suddenly I’m blatantly disrespecting the community. You can fuck right off with that, because the community entrusted me as a mod and the community can easily remove me as a mod. You’d rather just troll me about it, which means that you’re accepting me as a mod. Your lack of any substantial objection means you support me as a mod going forward.
So thank you for your continued support!
3 Likes
Yeah I have a problem with “The only good communist is a dead communist,” too. The community is welcome to disagree with me on where the line is, I’m just not going to be in a position to enforce a line I think is in the wrong place that doesn’t jive with my views and beliefs on what makes up good public discourse.
1 Like
Deflecting, swearing and trying to make this about anything other than the issue at hand is unproductive, unprofessional and just sad.
You, as a mod, asked the community if a poster should be banned. They answered no. You did it anyway.
This is not about you being a mod, you being demodded, starting another poll asking you to be demodded, how much time you put into this place, how appreciative I am or we all are for the effort you put into getting us here, or my stance on NBZ’s posts which you seem to think I’m defending. (I haven’t really offered an opinion btw and didn’t vote in any of the polls bc I’m not sure what the right answer is).
This issue is you, as a mod, asked the community if a poster should be banned. They answered no. You did it anyway.
Then you ignored it. That’s not advocacy. And not good for the community.
It was an attempt at a good idea that turned out poorly, imo. As @Trolly points out, Twitter loves to ban liberal accounts for stuff life this.
This doesn’t seem like the sort of post we want here, generally; that it was tweeted out, however, tells me that sentiment is not shared.
I agree completely, but given how controversial this has all been I was just trying to say we can avoid the whole conversation about what’s allowed to be posted here and argue that everyone should agree it is something that shouldn’t be tweeted, even if on purely pragmatic grounds.
Advocating? No.
Contributing to? Yes.
Recent episode of ON THE MEDIA “Sticks and Stones” might be relevant to our conversation.
Verbal violence is violence. It has an emotional and mental toll on the person inflicting it and the people being harmed. It has a physical toll, too, such that even if we were to somehow distinguish verbal violence from physical violence because the verbal violence isn’t touching you, the objection still falls apart fast if we’re concerned about whether our actions cause harm.
1 Like
Yeah, I don’t like this one bit.
4 Likes
It’s almost as if there’s been a small handful of us that’s been telling you guys that posting violent fantasies IS A BAD FUCKING IDEA for a week now. I flagged another NBZ oh so deeply clever edgelord post today, but now we’re tweeting this trash too? And jman has to proactively tell you, uh morons I don’t want my handle anywhere near this fucking idiocy, take it down asap?
Mods, site elders, people who give a shit, whoever, get a grip on it. I realize it’s not as important as whether placing ads was a Stalinist coup or whatever; or otherwise just give a guy a heads up. I’ll take a break, re-access, maybe I’ll come back with a VPN and a gimmick? I do not want my handle anywhere near a tweet/post like that either.
3 Likes
Jesus it’s a metaphor for the political situation we are in. It also wasn’t intended for Twitter.
And seriously if the shoe fits. The guy is just blubbering straight nonsense now like a someone who is definitely about to get shot in a gangster movie.
Obviously there was no intention of him actually getting whacked lol. And thinking of him as being totally helpless and out of control of his circumstances (and knowing it every second!) is how I’m coping with the presidents twitter bot making posts that would get him banned if he were an actual poster.
I agree as a post it’s totally fine, but whoever decided to tweet it from the unstuck handle wasn’t very bright.
2 Likes
Metaphor Seminar: if the vehicle of your metaphor involves the head of state being killed or possibly killed, think of a new metaphor!
1 Like