Them posting into ‘the abyss of ignorance’ is significantly preferable to them getting banned and creating a new account IMO. I think things are working fine. Banning users can be an individual decision for each and every one of us.
At first I thought it could never work, but now I’ve banned an even dozen people from my own personal version of unstuck and I’m loving it.
I think we should have a new poster sticky thread that actively encourages them to ignore people early and often. It should also include a list of posters who have been ignored by 10+ people as recommended to ignore or something.
No. Once we make a decision to get rid of someone it stands.
When someone gets life without parole we do not have a new trial every four months. When you fire an employee you do not have to fire him again every four months. When you break up with someone you are not back together after four months and have to dump them again.
The commitment to read one more post from someone is pretty different than every other thing you posted there. Obviously anachronistic is going to eat another 4 month ban the instant he come off the 4 month ban he’s on now with me… Trolly will probably last a lot longer than one post. If I’d had the option to perma him when I gave him 4 months I’d never see him again.
If I could get a popup or a message in my inbox warning me that the parole hearing was imminent I wouldn’t mind it so much. I don’t like having to schlep over to their profile page and reconfirm a decision I made long ago, though.
Ymmv but personally I cannot think of a single person on the old site I blocked and ever remotely considered unblocking. But that might be a function of my high Initial tolerance for shitposting idk
I mean I think of that bahbah dude. He was somewhat tolerable most of the time on SE and the relatively little bit of time I spent in oot, but he’s an absolutely atrocious politics poaster. He’s not going to improve, not in four months or four days or four years. The politics mods observed this as well and eventually just perma’d him from politics because he obviously wasn’t salvageable. Imagine having a bunch of guys like that and having to rethink the (correct) decision to improve the board every four months in perpetuity. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I think this goes to the heart of the matter. We strive to be more than an assemblage of random anonymous internet folks. We strive to be a community. Doesn’t mean we all agree on everything or most things or even on anything in particular. But it does mean something.
So if a poster continues, after repeated warnings and other feedback, to be an asshole (for want of a better word), then the poster has chosen to be apart from the community.
Accordingly, I fully support the LouisCyphre approach detailed above which flows from the community moderation model.
Heh. I mean, turns out I have a brain tumor and I knew that bahbah was the nut low. I should have figured it out sooner.
I probably pretty far toward the conservative demographic here - I’m reasonably well off, hoping to live a bit longer, and sometimes shake my head about stuff I don’t get - but I think just being a basic douchbag insulates you from being a lot of the stuff. I don’t get into the weeds over, say, some topics say on universal health care because 1) it’s complicated 2) a lot of the posturing is going to have to wash out - what we’re doing isn’t strainable and 3) I’m not a true believer on some of the stuff like some of my peers - but I respect their opinions and often learn from them (and my current situation has perhaps concentrated my mind a bit, I suppose) - But yeah - people who get blocked (with one exception that at this time is probably irrelevant ) likely stay blocked.
Sorry bout my speech…it’s from time to time…creative.
Well to be clear his problem wasn’t that he was conservative, it was that his arguments were in bad faith close to 100% of the time, he’d ghost the thread when presented with something that countered whatever he was pushing at the time, and so on.
I’m unfamiliar with the poster in particular but as a comparison will point to a recent healthy debate we had at Unstuck a couple of weeks ago. I’ve already forgotten what it was about, but it was a delight to see such robust arguments for conflicting viewpoints without the conversation getting lost in a plea for participants to argue in good faith
