Because it’s easier to relígate and bicker over who did what instead of workshopping policies that might reduce the drama.
We did workshop ways to reduce the drama:. Stop trying to perma ban regs who don’t blatantly break forum rules, and ignore people you don’t want to engage with.
There were multiple threads created suggesting those solutions today.
You just want to ignore those easy solutions to cut the drama.
So what’s your workshop solution to create a better community for all (not just you)? I don’t see this call for banning thread as an example of cutting drama, do you? Seems like drama goes way up each time this kind of thing happens.
1 Like
Just don’t ban anyone. Lock all the KFCs and a lashing for each OP.
3 Likes
Did you like it when Jal used this same line to call you a right-winger?
Start an RFC for voter eligibility, then.
The irony is that UP is exactly to 2p2 what you claim the other forum is to UP.
And yet how many of the leading UP regs post or lurk 2p2. There’s nothing wrong with posting in two forums. The OP of this very thread is a reg at the forum he “left”, no?
Many here posted at 2p2 Politics for 15 years… And somehow you all have the takeaway that heavy forum moderation is the solution to reducing drama.
That theory seems problematic. I thought when I joined here that this place was intended to be different than that model.
2 Likes
If you believe men and women are cattle to be driven under the lash and have time to volunteer, we here at Unstuck errrr
3 Likes
Hmm
1 Like
but some high school clique/ victim squad can sequester at the Branch Vic Idiom compound and be eternally aggrieved at a great guy: Wookie
activities available
I think they are actually saying without irony that half a dozen different mods banning the same poster 20+ times shows that the current system is working.
People loudly wanted to go against that model, wielded power and took actions against that model, and so the people who liked that model said “jeez this sucks” and that means the latter group is the baddies. Got it.
Also, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT but you’re mad that people left it. And then when they pop back in to see if there’s anything left they can do, at the place they were supposed to have equal ownership of, to try to make things more like the original model, you’re mad at THAT, too
Basically I’m sensing a theme
OK I went back and looked. I was wrong, it was not about the Council of Captains stuff. It was as you said about mental health.
But it appears the poll was open a minimum of five days, possibly more. I can only see that it opened on June 26 and closed sometime in July. The community voted 60% to have the permaban stand. I can also see Keeed, who started that thread for Sabo, referencing that the permaban happened around a week prior.
It appears the Council of Captains stuff happened in between the opening of that poll and the closing of that poll, and thus likely weighed into the community’s vote. Six’s OP asking what happened with the PM thread was on June 28, 2021.
So, I believe the timeline is:
June 19ish: Sabo makes some comment about someone’s mental health and is permabanned.
June 26th: A poll is started on whether to uphold the permaban.
Somewhere in Between June 26 and Early July: Mod undoes the permaban.
June 28: Council of Captains thread is leaked, shows Sabo’s involvement in an ongoing effort of a handful of posters to troll the forum.
Early July: That poll is closed, the result is 60-40 to uphold the permaban.
So I guess one could argue in good faith that he was banned for a comment on someone’s mental health, that he was banned for his roll in the Council of Captains, that he was banned because the poll he orchestrated to unban him was poorly done, or some combination of the above.
Alright. I mean, I personally think Sabo was a terrible poster here and primarily a troll here, but I also think he validly holds progressive/leftist views and I assume he’s probably a very good person in real life, at least most of the time. I’ve never met him obviously, so it’s hard for me to say more than that. When I say “at least most of the time,” I’m not assuming he’s bad some of the time, I’m allowing for the fact that we are all imperfect and most of us make mistakes or do bad things sometimes, even if we’re good people.
Anyway, I don’t think the way someone behaves on a message board necessarily says much about how they are in real life, with some rare exceptions.
Can you point to any place in the history of the internet where zero to no moderation has worked? Grue nailed this like 100 posts ago.
5 Likes
Like if you can get 60% of the forum to support a “no perma bans ever unless you post horse porn or Nazi-esque stuff” rule, then you’ll be able to get it. You’re acting like that proposal has widespread support when it does not appear to.
This is what a sizeable minority of the forum claims will stop the drama, but there is evidence to the contrary.
-
Ratify some basic rules. I tried very hard to get this done 2-3 years ago, we couldn’t get the effort across the finish line.
-
Enforce those rules, IMO ideally with an escalating series of temp-silencings.
-
Create a mechanism for repeat offenders to be dealt with. I’m open to numerous ideas on this, and have a few myself, but unless we can get 60% behind #1 and #2 then arguing over #3 is pointless.
Thing is, every time this comes up, the same people who are against permabans are against all of this. They want no rules, no enforcement mechanisms, and no accountability. That system led to knock-down, drag-out, multi-thread spillover fights that got extremely personal and aggressive.
While not everyone opposed to rules and enforcement was trolling, it’s certainly no coincidence that the worst offenders have always been against all of this, while claiming to not be the cause of any of the drama.
My read is that some people thought the problem on 2+2 was Mason not allowing certain posters to be banned and those same people think UP’s problem is not being able to ban posters permanently.
Pretty much the whole internet is unmoderated or lightly moderated except for racism, porn, copyright, violence, etc.
Like no major social media platforms moderate for “trolling”, bad faith, lack of citations, etc.
A better question is why don’t you show me where moderating for highly subjective post qualities has worked well to avoid drama. Certainly wasn’t 2p2 or any forum I’ve ever visited, including here.
1 Like
I’m not sure which of the many times Jal attacked me on many things you’re specifically referring to. I don’t recall him using this same line.
Either way, the difference is that I don’t mean it as an attack on iron, wheatrich, bobman, or anyone else. While I disagree with them on a variety of topics, I don’t think they’re bad people, I don’t question their morality, and I don’t begrudge them center-right, center-left, center, or whatever views.
As long as an individual’s views don’t include any of the isms, or intentional and willful ignorance of facts to screw over the vulnerable, I don’t really have a problem with them having those views at any given moment nor do I judge them for it, beyond judging their political takes as being inaccurate.
1 Like
The people that created this site were essentially the Council of 2p2 Captains.
So, you can stop using that as a slur already.