BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
This is an archived site closed to new users and posts
If you'd like to find out more read the FAQ


Topics of Concern- Banning

 
  

Page: 1 ... 23456(7)

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:19 / 24.09.07
Yeah - this doesn't work, but I think you'll find that, if this is how it is structured, having any moderator able to vote on it is going to be harder to code - because at present it functions just like a standard moderation request - you can vote on it if it's in a forum you moderate.

So, if it can be arranged so that any moderator can vote on it (8 votes), or moderators in the relevant forum (fewer than 8 votes), that could work, although the latter is gets into trickier water involving banning being a relatively minor amend. Another way to get round it would be to, if the functionality still exists, create some people who can vote on moderator requests in any forum, who would then, I imagine, also be able to vote on any banning proposition. That's what we did last time, although the ban button itself functioned differently (and also did not actually function).
 
 
Spaniel
09:28 / 24.09.07
That could well be most expeditious way of getting round the problem. Seems like a bit of a bodge, tho'.

Oh, for a board that works...
 
 
jentacular dreams
11:05 / 24.09.07
Would policy mods be willing to accept mod powers for all fora? Given that policy is in many ways our operational centre, it would in some ways ake sense to give them the swing votes.
 
 
Quantum
11:17 / 24.09.07
Following from the darkmatter thread, how banhappy are we for spammers? Does it differ between fora? I'm pro banning for asshats who clog up the board with drivel, but I'm often a hawk about the ban. Any doves want to talk me down to locking and deleting?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:50 / 24.09.07
Yeah - this doesn't work, but I think you'll find that, if this is how it is structured, having any moderator able to vote on it is going to be harder to code

That's the problem with my ideal workaround- (in which) a ban request can be put in by a moderator in a forum the "troll" (or whatever) is shitting in, mods from elsewhere can vote on it. We'd also have to trust mods from other fora to actually take the time to check out why the initial request was made, though, which is a whole different type of variable.
 
 
HCE
00:46 / 25.09.07
A few things:

1. Voting for a ban before there's been any discussion.

This is what happened with darkmatter. Why this happened makes a difference, I think. There is a precedent for Tom banning somebody out of hand for holocaust denial. Banning for use of an anti-semitic slur can credibly be seen as comparable. However, it was not described that way in the initial post in the darkmatter banning proposal thread. In fact, the early posts made it seem to me that he was up for banning for posting drivel. While it would delight my shriveled elitist heart if it ever became the case that we have a common understanding that being a moron is sufficient cause for banning, we do not currently have that understanding.

I suggest using a standardized format for all bannings that includes a standard thread title and first post. The title could read something like "Proposed Ban: [poster's current or most familiar name]". The summary could include other familiar names and the key problems, perhaps. The first post might contain links to offensive posts and a brief summary of what it is that makes them offensive. It would be ideal if it also contained anything in the poster's favor, with an explanation of why such factors are insufficient reason to prevent a ban. (For example, some people felt that shadowsax had experienced some bitter personal difficulties that highly colored his view of the family court system in the US, and that this should be taken into account when assessing his posts. I would have argued that the anger distress caused by his posts and behavior outweighed that.) Anything else that anybody can think of that would help make things clear and efficient?

2. Banning for drivel.

Are people coming around on the issue of post quality? I for one would fucking love to ban for drivel. Maybe banning for sexism will become easier! Dare I hope?
 
 
Alex's Grandma
02:07 / 25.09.07
While it would delight my shriveled elitist heart if it ever became the case that we have a common understanding that being a moron is sufficient cause for banning, we do not currently have that understanding.

It wouldn't necessarily delight mine (I'll admit I quite like having these characters around, if largely because the biting responses, rather than what's been said in the first place, often entertain my personal small lump of coal) 'we' do seem to be heading towards just such a place.

Darkmatter hasn't really been sustained enough in his antics to count as a troll, IMVHO, nor has he said anything all that offensive (if he'd been posting in Conversation I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid) but on the other hand, seeing as most of the people who favoured the 'banish with laughter' option don't seem to be around much anymore, or at all, and seeing as the mood in general is a lot more, erm, bloodthirsty, perhaps, than it was, then maybe it could be policy that board members are banned simply for posting bollox/taking the piss/being assholes etc.

If that is going to happen though, shouldn't there be a longer discussion about it?
 
 
HCE
02:56 / 25.09.07
If it ever comes to that, there will be, don't worry. 'We' are not there yet, though. I think that the initial arguments put forth weren't the strongest ones because people were upset, so they focussed on what was most immediately upsetting. They have since addressed the initial shortcomings and others have supplied a variety of more traditional reasons. Whether these reasons will be found persuasive by 'we' remains to be seen. If you find drivel thrilling, of course, I will as ever be happy to provide you with links to some.
 
 
Char Aina
13:45 / 26.09.07
[+] [-] This is for M. Shaftoe


What concerns do you have? What are the causes?

Well, you, Life Critic, formerly toksik, and ---, formerly Te, formerly the Cosmic Fireman. You both took the view that banning the Fetch for his anti-semitism was a mistake, as seen in a thread recently linked to elsewhere in the policy.


I did wonder out loud if it were a mistake, yeah. I don't think I was convinced either way so much as uncertain.
I gave my reasons for wondering, and I didn't at any point suggest my opinion should be considered as anything other than one of many opinions. I was, as always, willing to be convinced.
Surely we want mods who will examine issues from as many angles as posible? Surely the fact that some of us think differently helps stop barbelith from becoming staid?

Genuinely, I don't understand why I was wrong to talk about the benefits of conflictin a thread discussing conflict.
Further, I don't see the point of distributed moderation without people whose opinions sometimes differ.


You also thought I wanted to shoot you for being a dissident.

Well, to be honest I didn't really believe you would shoot me. I mean, you appeared to be a dude threatening people over the internet, and experience tells me that threats to stab people in the face, set fire to them or drown their kittens are rarely real, and can be taken as expressions of vehement dislike.
It is a bit intimidating to have threats(albeit unconvincing threats) of violence made and i objected on those grounds.
It didn't literally make me fear for my life, or those of the other folks in your virtual sights.





Since then, I have not been convinced that either you [...]have really demonstrated that you are responsible enough to be involved in banning moderations.

And I don't think you demonstrate the necessary will to understand. I do value some of your other traits, however, and I feel that distributed moderation ensures that where you lack others take up the slack.
I disagree that I am not responsible enough, but then of course I do. I'm sure you think you are understanding enough.

For some time now, you have only seemed to rear your head to "ask questions" in a way that turns threads into teeth-grindingly wrong-end-of-sticktastic wrangles between yourself and other moderators.

This is unfair, and suggests(as do some of your other comments) that you are reading selectively. When my questions to Randy were taken as insincere there was some misunderstanding, sure. I'm not sure how that was entirely my fault, however.



Most recently, your claims (that the biggest problem Barbelith has is established posters being too mean when people want to discuss The Invisibles) do not suggest a level head or clarity of perception.

Again, I feel you are misrepresenting my opinion. I didn't say that this was the biggest problem. I said it was something I had noticed and that it was not conduicive to enticing new members.



Basically?
I accept that I am not a perfect moderator, either in your eyes or in a more general sense.
I don't feel anyone is, but I think that distributed moderation seems a system that was designed to take exactly that human fallibbility into account.

On a related note, I think your stated unwillingness to read PMs sent to you by posters you have decided are unworthy of your correspondence seems unlike good moderation practice. It certainly caused problems between us, as i'm sure you recall.
It isn't something I would require you to hand in your badge over, because your flaws are balnced of by your strengths and further taken care of by those of the other members to whom moderation is distributed.


On a more tenuously related point, I suggest that your decision to ignore my messages suggests that the sentiment of your statement elsewhere;
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when I meet them in person, but your subsequent persistent amateur contrarianism has exhausted the patience of myself

(In response to this)
 
  

Page: 1 ... 23456(7)