Are there circumstances you would consider warrant a ban wherein a poster takes measures to circumvent the ignore function? I guess that’s the same way as them circumventing a ban, though with the ignore function, unless someone tells you, there’s no way to know for sure you’re on ignore.
Assume he’s 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 isn’t perfect.
It reflects well on almost all of us.
12 Likes
I dunno, maybe? I don’t think there’s anything particulary sacrosanct about the ignore feature.
1 Like
Yea, and an unmodded politics forum at that
I think it’s time for a poll. I’m wondering if it’s worth the effort to change anything around here in terms of moderation.
- Leave things as they are. I like basically zero moderation.
- It’s worth opening a thread to discuss “community bans” via flagged posts, giving mods more power to hand out temp bans, or something else involving some small change.
0 voters
I selected “leave things where they are” primarily because I don’t see any problems within the community that require systematic change. Other than anachron, whom I’ve 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 I’m glad he wasn’t–I 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, we’re able to keep things going pretty well around here–impressive considering it’s 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 “nicole brown isn’t really dead” 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. I’m 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 that’s the problem. There is no “you guys.”
I already suggested you become a mod and ban him and you haven’t even tried that.
I don’t know why people keep saying this. It’s obviously not true. Fragments of conversations remain, long derails remain, the mood of the room changes when some dumbass is calling people “bitch”, and so on.
2 Likes
I don’t get this. Why do you oppose the current mods doing this but think that I should?
I don’t care if the mods ban that guy. If they ban Victor I would protest. If some mod wants to ban anachronistic, then they should ban them and if someone complains then we could have a vote. If no one complains, then he’s gone.
Where is all this even happening? I don’t have him on ignore and haven’t noticed anything ban worthy other than having some dumb takes that I don’t agree with.
1 Like
And Cassette, I think you should be a mod, and if you want this thing done I think you should just make it happen. We don’t need more voting in discussing around here we need more initiative.
How about this:
Have a panel of 3 or 5 (I think 5 is perfect) moderators. They can even be elected by the community, so we do this democratic republic style. Ideally they will be from a variety of different viewpoints. At any time a community member can put up a vote to demod a mod if things are not going well.
This panel decides by simple majority vote to take action on a poster. What triggers this action? Could be a moderator recommendation or say, multiple posts flagged by the community.
1st action: PM warning
2nd action: deletion of posts and/or temp ban and/or containment (whatever is appropriate and decided by majority vote)
Multiple repeat offenses: perma, which must be a unanimous vote.
I think that’s a good and simple system that’s not easy to exploit. It shouldnt take a lot of work, but would be a good safety measure if anyone comes here with bad intentions (which I believe will happen if it has not already).
It doesnt have to be super complicated.