I think it’s turned into a major posting sink for good posters, all but ruined important threads, and generally made the forum a moderately worse product content wise. I think the people who want to keep him around need to do a better job of explaining why he should stay rather than criticizing those of us who are really sick of it for not turning the other cheek like good Christians.
The dude doesn’t have a right to post here. None of us have a right to post here. I think there should be a standard for how good your posting needs to be to have a long term home here.
I don’t think it’s an accident that jalfrezi and Vict0ar are the people most aggressively defending nunn. They think that if we ban/contain nunn they’ll be next. They would prefer this forum never had any moderation at all except perhaps to ban right wing trolls like anachronistic, although IIRC they were against that as well. These guys think that the problem with 2p2 politics was that we had moderators who would ban people, whereas I think the problem is that the right wing posters wanted special protection from that moderation.
If we want this place to stay special and grow hopefully much larger (and this is where I’m coming from) we have to have some degree of quality control. Posters who derail major threads with huge fights over their utterly worthless takes (thus shifting what the thread is about away from something useful/interesting/entertaining to something worthless/boring/annoying) are not in any way better than the right wing trolls. Sorry not sorry.
The reason why I am here is that the average quality of posting is very high. That, along with the excellent interface, is the reason why this site is awesome. I think that keeping the quality of the content high should be the primary objective of the people managing this site.
Yeah, but the above 100% describes what happened to the Landlord thread.
Are you calling for “quality control” for that thread too?
Or is your call to “quality control” just a back-door way of restating you really don’t like some poster and you just really want to get that poster banned?
I’m sorry but if you think that is what is going on after voluminous evidence supporting Bored’s argument has been posted over the last 24 hours I don’t know what to tell you. Obviously a lot of people don’t like nun. But that isn’t the issue. When slightly more than half the forum is saying that he has made their experience worse that isn’t just a few people singling him out. No one of the forum would likely bat above 20% besides him and most people would be in the 0-10% range.
He has a well documented 1.5 year pattern of abusive posting. He is dishonest. He projects all of that on anyone around him who disagrees. If that is allowed here it makes the forum worse. This is the best place on the internet to discuss a wide range of topics. I would prefer we strive to continue to make this a better place rather than accepting posting quality that even 22 doesn’t allow.
Well, thanks for telling me what I think. Wrong on all counts.
I’ve said til I’m blue in the face that if you want what you call QC it needs to be applied across the board, and the metrics not made up spuriously in order to rid yourself of a poster who’s a problem for you, cuse and not many others (because most posters are able to ignore him).
I’m not “aggressively defending” nunn. If you go back and read what I’ve said (the very thought of doing that!) you’ll see I suggested a warning for both him and cuse if the latter is unable to ignore nunn (unlike most other posters).
Saying I thought the problem with 22 politics was the moderators banning people is just risible and you should apologise for getting that so wrong considering the number of hours I put in in P8.8 forever trying to persuade chez and WN to ban wil, valdez, bundy and TS for personal attacks, constant bad faith posting and racism. Go back and check if you don’t believe me. Where were you then?
I don’t believe that if nunn, a poster who I’ve hardly read, is banned I’ll be next (why would I be?) and it’s a bad read on your part that’s apropos of nothing. I am worried about what may ensue if the containment/banning demand is met, though, and I don’t want to be part of a forum that incentivises bullying such as we’ve seen, and as a leftist or liberal (w/e you are) neither should you.
If somebody is talking about “quality control” they are talking about a subjective quality of the content itself. To do that, sure, we need some concrete examples to flesh out the what is getting alluded to because of the necessarily subjective nature of the ‘quality’ in this context.
For example, I feel we UnStuckers should change our ways, and stop tolerating these kinda drive by posts…
LOL no. Try harder
Herp Derp
Can’t you just stop
Which I’d characterize in general as (a) like the crap Ikes used to post on 2+2, and (b) mean spirited, and (c ) has no humor content, and (d) are 100% content free.
The above quote is an example of advocating for “quality control”. It chats about “quality”. It does reference obliquely some IRL posters as examples, but doesn’t call for those example posters to be banned, contained, or otherwise disciplined.
I’m not weighing in on the truth value of @ boredsocials’ complaints about the other poster. I’ve haven’t read the posts. So you are 100% missing my point if you think I am.
What I’m saying is again… a chat about “quality control” should be about the subjective nature of quality desired, and in general. Sure, examples are going to be needed. But… it should not just be a call to ban/etc some particular poster.
I’m not talking about the quality of his posts at all and agree that good faith posting should not be “quality controlled” in any meaningful way. I posted at least 40 examples of him being abusive to a wide range of other posters yesterday though. That is just from a few minutes of searching and literally the tip of the iceberg. If it is really acceptable to treat people like that over thousands of posts and a year+ here that is fine. I don’t think it should be though.
The reason there is a call to ban a specific poster (although I haven’t seen anyone actually call to ban him?) is literally no one else here behaves like that to the same voluminous extent.
Let’s unpack the ‘the rules should be the same for everyone’ point. I think Nunn’s posting is so much more destructive to the quality of the site than any other poster that there aren’t any other posters that are comparable.
I think a lot of people think that each individual incident of bad behavior should be judged in a vacuum, where I think that it should be judged in context. In a vacuum lots of people have done stuff that is similar to Nunn, some of it with Nunn as the target perhaps, but that viewpoint is almost totally invalidated by the context which is that approaching 100% of the time Nunn started it by posting some 1000 word tar baby of a post that all but invites all comers to personal forum combat. Then Nunn claims victory when he tires out the opposition, and then when it inevitably turns out he was entirely wrong the things reignite as the person he severely pissed off comes back to dunk on him again because the only way they convinced themselves to walk away initially was to tell themselves that a day would come when they’d be able to clobber him at showdown when events proved him horrifically wrong.
All of this is unique to Nunn. I don’t want there to be some code of conduct that people can game by walking up to the edge of, shitting all over the spirit of the code of conduct, and then claiming innocence when people get annoyed that they made a bunch of shit posts. I want people to post with the goal of contributing to the conversation, not with the goal of irritating their fellow posters. I’m not saying nunn is doing it on purpose, and I’m not in favor of a hard coded set of rules to deal with what amounts to pretty unique situations. I’m at least as concerned with a system that doesn’t ban people who are significant quality control problems because of rules as I am with a system that bans people unfairly because they pissed off the wrong person.
All of this theory of justice crap is just that with Nunn though. The guy is a terrible poster who should go post his drivel somewhere else honestly. The only reason I’m not calling for an outright ban is that I know for a fact that nobody is going to do that. Containment on the other hand shouldn’t be controversial at this point.
I wouldnt mind if you banned him. I don’t even read a lot of the politics threads anymore since he came back, and he’s a major reason.
Ignoring him doesn’t really help when for it to work, everyone else also has to ignore him. I don’t really understand why if the solution to a problem poster is “everybody just ignore him” that banning is not on the table.
He certainly posts far worse than any of the other banned posters did. He just happens to not be a right winger and I think that’s why he’s kept around.
I responded to your post only for continuity. I didn’t intend to imply that you were advocating a banning for reasons of quality. Again, my bad. I should have taken the trouble to prefix along the lines of “Continuing our chat regarding @ boredsocial’s calling to ban a poster for reasons of quality…”.
I guess I see that point and it is a valid one. It just seems very strange to me to have a poster who refuses to adhere to basic community standards over a very long period of time continue to be allowed to do it with literally zero consequence. Again it isn’t debatable that he has been abusive hundreds of times to a large number of forum members. It isn’t just cuse and I who have dueled with him. And yes most others have learned their lesson and ignore him. And yes maybe that makes us the dumb ones. But having someone here who is impossible to engage with doesn’t make sense. Having someone here who repeatedly calls other posters names when he is engaged with does not make sense. He has done it in this very thread.
This has to be one of the only places on earth that he could get away with it. Telling all of us to just suck it up and deal with it when a very large number of regs have told him to quit and worse over the existence of this place does not seem like good policy to me. I am all for limited moderation but this isn’t just one or two instances of this. It is a repeated pattern of behavior that shows no signs of ever ending. It makes this place extremely unpleasant to what appears to be more than half of us based on yesterday’s poll.
Again I don’t want him banned. I want him to adhere to the same norms the rest of us do. I want him contained until he shows he can do that. That way he can still post. The majority who don’t like it can avoid his posting and the people who do can still get their nun content. The people you guys complain about engaging with him would never engage with him. Let him out of containment if he can engage in good faith without calling names when challenged for once. Like BoredSocial said I have no idea why that is even controversial. Wouldn’t he be happier in a safe space? It sure seems like that is what he wants and expects here.
What other banned posters? I think we banned one poster maybe. I forget his name and not sure he got banned, but it certainly wasn’t just because he was a right winger.
I think you and I agree about relatively little for two people from the same side of the political spectrum, but I think your posts have value and we should have representation on the far left here. You make the forum more balanced and make it so that if I ever want to have a conversation with an honest to god far leftist I can. The only reason I don’t read your posts is that if I did we’d get into way more fights and I don’t have time for that. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect you.
Nunnehi on the other hand I have real contempt for and I hope that’s coming through loud and clear. The guy has nothing of value to add to this board and he should, at a minimum, be contained.
Every single word of this post applies to Vict0ar too. You guys are totally safe and should go on being yourselves.
Be fair… what was wrong with anachronistic that isn’t wrong with Nunnehi except for the fact that he was a right winger? I would actually argue that Nunnehi’s average post quality might be worse than anachronistic, because it’s provably great at baiting out best posters into worthless exchanges.
Anachronistic you could just laugh off. Nunnehi is the tar baby.
Well, fuck the mods. Start a thread. Make a poll. I don’t really care much one way or the other. I just tried to say that I think he might be fragile and people who I think are probably not that fragile should maybe consider that. Could be my reads on fragility are wrong and it’s more that I have no clue about nunn than having a good read on him.