I only mention him because I think he is being unfairly lumped in with what is the far more egregious case.
1 Like
No, but heās the second most ignored poster on the site. Heās been very annoying in the primary threads lately and was an example discussed earlier regarding how temp bans can occasionally be useful.
1 Like
I donāt specifically want to keep him, but I think we should be very reluctant to ban people. If only because itās really not that effective, they can always come back if they really want.
2 Likes
I think if weāre going to ban him we need to set out exactly why weāre doing it to avoid future types causing a rift between posters, which is after all one of the chief aims of trolls.
1 Like
Everyone puts him on ignore, he gets bored, leaves. You can never seem to get people to do it, though.
1 Like
Is there a site-wide Ignore function that can be set globally by admin which doesnāt ban a poster, that we could try for a limited time to convince people that ignoring trolls is a good idea?
Then switch it off and people put him on ignore.
1 Like
Are there circumstances you would consider warrant a ban wherein a poster takes measures to circumvent the ignore function? I guess thatās the same way as them circumventing a ban, though with the ignore function, unless someone tells you, thereās no way to know for sure youāre on ignore.
Assume heās reading this thread so he will know.
Also I think we should all be proud that an essentially unmoderated forum on the internet can be this good. That is a major accomplishment even though it isnāt perfect.
It reflects well on almost all of us.
12 Likes
I dunno, maybe? I donāt think thereās anything particulary sacrosanct about the ignore feature.
1 Like
Yea, and an unmodded politics forum at that
I think itās time for a poll. Iām wondering if itās worth the effort to change anything around here in terms of moderation.
- Leave things as they are. I like basically zero moderation.
- Itās worth opening a thread to discuss ācommunity bansā via flagged posts, giving mods more power to hand out temp bans, or something else involving some small change.
0 voters
I selected āleave things where they areā primarily because I donāt see any problems within the community that require systematic change. Other than anachron, whom Iāve had on ignore for a while, I think peer pressure has done a good job of keeping the community in line. NBZ was considered for a ban a while back for good reasons, but Iām glad he wasnātāI appreciate his posts and think they contribute to the community.
I think posters should ignore more liberally, and I like that the software gives you the option to choose duration to include short-term. I think between the ignore function and peer pressure, weāre able to keep things going pretty well around hereāimpressive considering itās a political discussion.
Alright then. Long Live UnstuckUnchained!
Serious question, what would you guys do if someone like Luckbox joined and started posting his deplorable sandy hook trutherism? Because if the answer is anything other than ban him forever then this site is fucked.
3 Likes
lmao lb and his ānicole brown isnāt really deadā nonsense would be flagged out of existence in minutes until permaed. There is zero doubt of that.
Have you been following this thread? There is no mechanism for banning anyone. Iām pretty sure no one will ever be banned. Anachronistic is intentionally and self-consciously awful and there is no way to get rid of him.
You can put him on ignore. Then he is gone.
See thatās the problem. There is no āyou guys.ā
I already suggested you become a mod and ban him and you havenāt even tried that.