He did. Please proceed.
1 Like
My POV is that what you describe is normal human behavior so interested in seeing if there is a better way to deal with it rather than just lamenting that people suck. I also see the divisions in the board not along good/bad, but comfort/discomfort w/ disorder which also seems like a very relevant thing in political preferences.
Like on this particular issue, it is âwhat the fuck is going on with all these gimmick accounts, this is chaos and needs to be reigned in!!!â vs. âomg, they are just gimmick accounts, who the f cares!â
So I do think a subforum would be useful in allowing the forum to have both environments w/ hopefully healthy cross pollination between the two.
1 Like
I get youâre grumpy here, but everyone is. I shouldnât speak for others, but personally when I said the only person Iâve ever lobbied to be banned I did it not because I âwantedâ them to be punished. I did because I think it makes this community worse if we are litigating the same things and people in threads like this and the same people are trolling for months or years. Then people like you, who have done great things for this community, get grumpy and worn down.
I dont think anyone involved in this current needless drama should be banned, but there are plenty of people as grumpy as you are for slightly different reasons. It isnât about revenge or being vindictive.
Iâll say the same thing I said earlier. This isnât a perma-ban heavy community and the entire narrative that everyone is out for blood seems very dubious to me. The only people I can think of who have been permaed here are:
RAIDS
Sabo
Maybe Ins0?
Who am I forgetting? Meanwhile I have been posting from the start of the Captains drama THAT I WANT ALL OF YOU TO STAY HERE IN ONE BIG FUCKING COMMUNITY and lets learn to get along bros rather than split the baby. I donât want anyone who is still posting here to leave. I donât want to split the community. I want to find a way to make all this work. Somehow that makes me a poster screeching for bans and blood to some of you.
Like I was here a year ago trying to advocate for rotating mods. I have certainly not been one crying for more and more moderation here. And you have just completely lost me with the way that this has been and continues to go on. There are some nuggets of truth in some of what the Captains say but the absolute vitriol, hatred and condescending way that it has been presented is terrible. Some of that is jmakins fault for making the PMs public. He shouldnât have done that and it certainly inflamed things. It inflamed me obviously.
So yes I have fought back against this and against some of you. Yes I have lashed out against the people plotting this and perpetuating this. Iâve been angry about all this. Not because I hate you and want to see you burn. Not because I want you banned or put in the time out box. Because I simply want all of us to fucking find some common ground and get along. Iâve said this all along but if we all self-moderated slightly more there would be absolutely zero need for mods at all. I agree with the captains there that a community with no mods would be best. But the way you convince people here of that is not to act like condescending assholes to the rest of the community and drag this drama into every thread. The way you convince people that is possible is to act in a way that doesnât need moderation. What has transpired over the last two weeks and long before is the opposite of that.
I also think the caricature that everyone who is against this is somehow a mod bootlicker out for blood is just totally misguided. Frankly Iâm just tired of the drama. Iâm tired of seeing the content here shrink to nothing and be replaced with 6ix playing student council and âIâm smarter than you, you fucking moronâ level posts. Itâs terribly banal. I could ignore it at first because it was a tiny fraction of the content. As it has turned into basically all the site is my anger and displeasure here has risen. How do you not expect me to blame people who have been progressively racheting that up for over a year?
11 Likes
Slow mode LOL
5 Likes
Wait why is this in slow mode?
2 Likes
I think the goal is to eventually have every thread on this site on a 4-hour throttle to make everyone think about what theyâve done.
(Serious answer: not sure, it would be nice to have a note in the Log of Moderator Actions thread.)
3 Likes
Hi JohnnyTruant, glad youâre back! You have my favorite avatar (though thatâs not why).
1 Like
Well, if anything, this thread is proving that the RFC process truly doesnât work.
Also, lol at the people who want us to enforce the ârules that are already in place.â
The entire reason I made this thread is because THERE IS NO RULE IN PLACE!
so yeah, iâm ready to excise about 100 posts from this thread.
How about talking about the proposed rule? Or better yet, offer your own rewrite?
1 Like
Proposed rule is not harsh enough IMO. If a poster is banned via moderator action and makes an account to post publicly then initial ban should be tripled and a second infraction should be IP ban. Otherwise itâs just whack a mole. I am ok with an exception for posters making an account to PM moderators to discuss their ban or reinstatement.
Posters who ask for a self ban and violate it via a second account should have their self ban reversed their second account deleted and lose any option to request a self ban since they are just wasting everyoneâs time and donât really want to be banned
1 Like
I just donât see what the big deal is here. Maybe Iâm misunderstanding how laborious a ban is for the moderator, maybe they can set me straight? Iâm assuming itâs like a ten second time investment. If it takes ten or fifteen minutes, sure, I can see where that might be objectionable, but isnât it literally mashing a button or something?
Can we set up some sort of self exclusion option for the individual poster to trigger himself without needing to put the moderator through the hassle of the act of banning?
1 Like
Itâs not the 10 second effort that wastes the time. Itâs the inevitable arguing and hundreds of posts all over About Unstuck that follows that is the time waster.
My goal with this proposal is twofold. One, to have something concrete, in writing, so there is no question or argument. Two, to prove or disprove the efficacy of this process in general.
If I put myself into the shoes of someone who has never been a mod, I can easily see the appeal of the âwe donât need concrete rules, letâs trust the modsâ perspective. I can. I truly, truly wish it worked that way. I want it to work that way.
Speaking as someone who has been a mod, I can tell you that it absolutely does not work that way.
When one builds a team, either online or in the real world, one of the very first things that needs to happen to ensure success is to devise and distribute a set of clear norms for how the team is going to operate. Here on UP, weâve only sort of half-heartedly done this. Sure, we have an RFC/vote process, and we have some nebulous unstated rules, but every group or forum Iâve been a part of that has been successful has had standard norms or guidelines, AND accountability for those members who stepped outside of those norms.
For example, itâs why parliamentary procedure exists. I mean, itâs very strict, but it is basically what I am talking about: a very standard and accepted set of rules for interactions that keeps things operating well.
I donât really get antipathy towards asking for or reversing self bans. I try to do as little work here as possible, but even I donât mind banning/unbanning someone; it literally takes 10 seconds. If someone wants to proactively remove themselves from the site for a while due to conflict, or to focus on irl commitments, or just to take a break, that seems pretty constructive. And if they want to return sooner than theyâd expected, thatâs great; the more active users the better.
11 Likes
Who is on that avatar?
This is more like people BSing at a local bar than a parliament. The other groups youâve been part of online, they are like organizing for something very specific, right? What rules would you have for people chatting at a local bar? What if it were a coop bar and all the people drinking and chatting were co-owners and there were no purpose other than to drink and chat?
1 Like
No. a skydiving forum and a couple of fan forums for different TV shows.
IMO, self-bans shouldnât be lumped in with other bans for this kind of discussion. Weâre talking about two different things and I think considering them together creates too much opportunity for confusion/derailing.
If mods find self-ban abusers tedious, I think there should be a separate discussion about how to avoid that.
Or, perhaps there should be a kind-hearted and prolific poster or two that volunteer to just be in charge of the self-ban thread.
One of the worldâs best actors.
(The film is Sorry to Bother You)
1 Like
Itâs also on an album cover I just discovered. I guess thatâs a sign that I should watch it tonight.
1 Like
Thatâs my question: why do you care if someone who requests a self ban comes back to post on another account? Thereâs nothing to argue about!
As for the rest of it, I donât see why you need a rule for posting on gimmick accounts. Is anyone objecting to banning posters who avoid actual bans? Like victor had six different accounts banned recently for that without a rule. There wasnât some great uproar. Who cares, I donât see how any of this needs a rule.
2 Likes
I am asking this sincerely but havenât these types of bans been lumped in when some are talking about mod overreach? I assumed this RFC was to try and come up with a rule so this wouldnât just be another mod action people could complain about.
1 Like