Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

To lock or not to lock?

Page: (1)2

We're The Great Old Ones Now

11:18 / 14.10.03

The Kobe Bryant thread has provoked a question about locking.

Flyboy is minded to close it down.

Anna and Illmatic seem to want to keep it open and keep arguing.

The worry, it appears, is that the thread is offensive, and that the poster of origin - nowthink - seems to be taking a fairly predictable 'she was no angel' line through the discussion.

The question is, what merits locking? When is it useful? Is the attempt to stifle this thread the best way to deal with whatever concerns there are?

Positions, views, courses of action here...

Tryphena Absent

11:26 / 14.10.03

Locking's a serious business. I think that if you're going to do it there should be a specific reason stemming from the thread. In other words you shouldn't lock it simply because you think someone's trolling and there words are at odds with the general board. Locking should be a response to 1)something offensive towards someone on the board 2)a threat 3)something you perceive to be explosive within the thread. Number 3) in particular is a real judgement call but I don't think it's one that's necessarily difficult to make.

While I've probably left some criteria out I think that locking a thread like the Kobe one is asking for trouble. You're giving someone who might be a troll a reason to step up their action instead of just letting the thread play out. The posters on this board are perfectly capable of dealing with people they disagree with and at the end of the day it can be locked later on if it gets awful. Why cut out the discourse whereby people can state that it's offensive?

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:05 / 14.10.03

I was originally of the mind that once someone starts saying all of the following together: a) bitches don't really mean no when they say no, b) I knew you self-righteous fucks wouldn't be able to cope with controversial me!, c) get a sense of humour, I'm just joking! - then they have strayed well into troll territory. A thread started for the purpose of trolling is not something we really want on the board, and locking it rather than deleting it means it can stay around briefly to serve as an example of the kind of thing we don't want on the board.

Note that enough people agreed with me to lock it originally: I've since been persuaded by Anna & Illmatic that it should be left open as a sort of 'containment' measure...

12:52 / 14.10.03

I think that, on the whole, I prefer offensive or trollsome threads to be rotted and mocked rather than locked. The only issue with that approach that I can see is in whether tolerating the threads to that extent is overly offensive to some. A judgement call, in the end, although I'd be interested to hear from a variety of posters to see if they'd prefer a hands off approach or not.

13:45 / 14.10.03

I generally agree with not locking trolling threads, excpet in certain situations. The problem with the Kobe thread is that it's pure Troll, and some people have been reacting to it like it's not. *That* encourages trolls as well as locking.

Why, why, why do people always have to feed them. The most effective way to deal with Trolls is to ignore them. You can try to argue with them yes, but they're *trolls* for godsake - they want you to react no matter what. Arguing with them, is just as bad as locking etc. If they're being offensive, it's for attention, they generally are not interested in starting a meaningful debate - so no amount of people attempting to engage them will work. As such please just ignore.

15:00 / 14.10.03

I'm suspicious of thread-locking. I think for the most part if something really deserves locking then it probably actually deserves deleting - the latter course of action actually removing some of the incentive for further argument from the board. The only exceptions I can really think of are when there are two parallel threads and you want to make sure someone posts in the right one. In the case of this guy, I'm borderline about whether I can be bothered to give him the benefit of the doubt anyway or whether he should just be chucked out on his ear. Getting bored of giving the barely-posted the benefit of the doubt. Can't help thinking they should demonstrate that they have some interest in the community before expecting to be given the benefit of the doubt when they act up.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

17:38 / 14.10.03

Lurid Archive I think that, on the whole, I prefer offensive or trollsome threads to be rotted and mocked rather than locked.

Except that, as we've found in the past, any response is good enough for the troll, even the response of locking the thread. While I can sort of see where Anna DeL is coming from, I'm a bit worried that this is overcompensating for the threads about the moderators stifling free speech on the board of the last month. Nowthink's motives aside, I don't think 'but it's in the conversation' or 'let us bewilder him with our clever put-downs and imaginative rhetoric' are good reasons for not locking a thread where nothing useful is being said. The top of page two onwards is all posted after we unlocked the thread and it's ugly. So much so that I was seriously thinking about putting it up for locking again as I read further and further down. Frankly, if we're not willing to lock a thread like that we might as well ask Tom to take the function away from the moderators...

18:39 / 14.10.03

Well, I just attempted a reasoned post and yeah, I think that failed, so I came here...

I'm with Lurid's suggestion in that I think that, on the whole, I prefer offensive or trollsome threads to be rotted and mocked rather than locked. I'm not a fan of thread locking, I have to say.

But another thought has come to me - why not just have a sensible discussion around any points raised in the thread, either ignoring the trolling or just answering parts of it relevant to a discussion on the topic in hand?

18:58 / 14.10.03

Actually, I changed my mind. I don't think that any purpose was being served by letting the thread continue to run. I would have opposed it the first time round, but if someone is unwilling or unable to meet the fairly reasonable demands to back away from offensive posting, then I see little reason to give them a platform.

19:01 / 14.10.03

Oh, I'm not arguing that we give anyone a platform to spout offensive bullshit per se; but if we close their thread, don't they usually start another one anyway? Without banning someone outright, whaddayagonnado?

19:06 / 14.10.03

Well, I think we should be prepared to deal with that eventuality. Otherwise we go round afraid to ask someone to stop being offensive for fear that they will be more so.

For future reference, I think that it might be good practice to issue some kind of warning before locking a thread. Politely ask the person(s) to pull back from whatever they are doing. If a person does not respond to a reasonable request of that form, then I think that that would absolve us of much of the responsibility toward them.

19:08 / 14.10.03

Moderator note: this post deleted as the suit belongs to a known troll.

19:14 / 14.10.03

Moderator note: this post deleted as the suit belongs to a known troll.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

19:26 / 14.10.03

nowthink moderators;don't lock threads.that seems to go against the philosophy of this website.

We don't. We lock threads where someone is confusing 'extremely offensive' with 'being individual' and/or the resultant thread degenerates into people tossing insults back and forth.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

19:32 / 14.10.03

nowthink I think it's pretty premature to start labeling me a troll.

Feel free to prove the haterz wrong through the use of well-thought out argument and wit, rather than the casual use of the words bitches and ho's. On the off chance that you're not actually him, we had a troll here in the past who did more or less the same as what you've been doing today and I'm sure you wouldn't want to be mistaken for him...

19:33 / 14.10.03

I'm sure you already have closed messageboards where only you and your well acquainted get together...

Well, no. Everything here is out in the open. Hence the existence of this thread and indeed the entire Policy section. Nobody's talking about you behind your back: don't flatter yourself.

I made some good points in the midst of all that irrelevant name calling.

You also dodged many serious direct questions and engaged in a lot of name-calling yourself.

You are the one who started the thread and made the assertions: it is therefore incumbent upon you to back up those assertions with well-reasoned debate. By any objective standard, you've failed pretty badly—maybe because your rhetorical powers aren't up to scratch, or maybe because your argument was lousy to begin with.

A little friendly advice: if you really want to prove your case, you've got to ignore the wisecracks and focus on the substance of the debate. You took the time to rebut very perceived personal slight, and avoided answering some serious questions that were asked in good faith.

In other words, you took an argument that should have been about ideas, and made it personal. That's where your argument fell apart.

And saying "But they started it!" is no excuse; that was bullshit when you pulled it on the playground, and it's bullshit now. If you want to be taken seriously, you've got to be big, as well as clever.

19:50 / 14.10.03

Moderator note: this post deleted as the suit belongs to a known troll.

19:54 / 14.10.03

Moderator note: this post deleted as the suit belongs to a known troll.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

20:02 / 14.10.03

Slightly off topic, but I'm really not impressed with the way that some posters have used ethnic slurs in that thread to make a point. Yeah, I get that the idea was to draw a parallel between the use of words like ho or bitch and other kinds of hate speech, and I applaud the intent. But the n-word is still the n-word, even if you put it in quote marks.

20:08 / 14.10.03

One thing you have to understand, nowthink, is that the board isn't actually totally open to the public (in fact at the moment the public are well and truly kept out). We do have some commonly understood and mostly agreed rules of thumbs about what kind of thing is cool here, and what really isn't (hint: bitches/hos etc. probably not going to go down too well).

The reason that there's not a lot of "bad language" on the board isn't accidental - and it isn't because we're all puritans either - it's just that we've very carefully developed this space as a place where we can actually have decent conversations. We don't want this to be a fast-moving fight-based who-can-shout-the-loudest "everyone look at me, aren't I a big man" kind of place. This community and many of the people in it have been here for over four years and aren't here for short explosive or ultimately unrewarding fights - and get pretty bored pretty quickly of people who undertake them. Calm down a bit, read a bit more slowly, consider your responses (and the fact that there are other people at the end of a lot of other computers who are reading them), and I'm sure you'll come to find the place as interesting as the rest of us do.

20:28 / 14.10.03

Wise words, Tom, as always.

Also, nowthink:

me insulting Kobe Bryant's accuser is not the equivalent of yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theatre.

No, it isn't. But it doesn't really advance your argument, either; in fact it makes you look like a bit of a jackass (it certainly invalidates any claim you might have to be an objective, disinterested source)—which in turn makes people less inclined to listen to whatver sensible points you might raise.

See how it works?

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:58 / 15.10.03

Is it time to lock the other one yet?

On a related note, do people in the USA really say 'knickers'? I thought that was mostly limited to people in England, Scotland and, crucially, Wales...

Tryphena Absent

12:04 / 15.10.03

I'd appreciate it if you did something about Controversy is Good actually. That last post of his has really got to me. Women facing their rapists is one of those things that makes me utterly irrational and one more post like that and I might actually put up what I've been writing (and believe me it would cause a shitstorm).

We're The Great Old Ones Now

12:11 / 15.10.03

Anna: put it up.

Flyboy: I wondered whether Californians used the word 'mate', actually.

13:20 / 15.10.03

Moderator note: this post deleted as the suit belongs to a known troll.

Tryphena Absent

13:23 / 15.10.03

Best not to. Unless you fancy reading a long list of insults strung together with irrational nonsense?

No seriously, I'm quite relieved to see this one inaccessible.

13:45 / 15.10.03

FWIW I don't think either of those threads need to be locked. I don't think misogynistic language is a reason to lock a thread - it should be challenged within the thread. Ditto people who disagree strongly with nowthink's points on rape etc. - those issues can be raised within the thread, and if people feel that they cannot post because the strength of their feelings would lead them to make posts that would cause problems, the solution is simple - go away and calm down before posting. Surely the angry feelings of one poster are not an adequate reason for locking a thread, unless that poster is actually being abused in said thread? I think we should be able to take responsibility for our own posts.

I suppose I just don't feel that there's enough justification for locking these threads. They might very well be unpleasant in terms of subject matter and tone, but I don't think that sort of thing can just be swept under the carpet.

Nowthink, old chap, the person responsible for the post which upset you has apologised and I don't believe anyone else has made a similar comparison, so could you consider accepting the apology and moving on, perhaps?

13:47 / 15.10.03

In my neighborhood this word [whore] can apply to men and women.Same as bitch.You can call a man a bitch where I come from.

Yeah, you can: but you can't expect to be taken seriously if you do.

The important point, though, is that the problem is not with the language per se: it's with your logic.

To wit (and this has been said over and over, by several people): an accuser's past sexual history has no relevance whatsoever to the truth of her accusation.

It's an invalid argument, and no matter how many times you repeat it, or try to change the subject, or try to make it about language or race, it will remain an invalid argument.

If you cannot understand that, then you don't understand what rape is, and frankly you've got no business talking about it.

Accept that and move on.

You again:
would it make you all feel better if you called me...

To repeat myself: it's not about you. It's about the quality of your argument.

You again:
that is the height of political correctness.

Ah, yes, political correctness gone maaaaaaad. We've heard this one before, and guess what? It's just another lame excuse for your inability to argue a sensible case.

I call bullshit on you.

13:48 / 15.10.03

Personlly, I didn't think it needed locking at that stage. I think me and NT were having something of a dialogue even if we were still pretty much disagreeing. I think he was being pretty obtuse, and didn't respond to some points, but on the other hand there was a lot of abuse and rot in those threads. I don't agree with saying he's a "troll" because he wasn't delibrately trying to fuck the board up a la Knodger. Maybe my understanding of what constitutes a trollis different I dunno. (NT - do a search on "The Knowledge FAQ" in this forum and you'll get an overview on what all the fuss is about, and why we're perhaps so jumpy)

I understand that other people may find some of his comments very offensive, (esp. the views on rape victims etc) but is this is now a reason for locking threads? I'd like to get a sense of other peoples opinions, and possibly a protocol for thread locking adn reasons - offence? Abuse? Going nowhere? As always, I bow to the consensus.

NT - with regard to sexist language, you may be able to get away with it where you are but why should the same standards apply here? This is an online community, and as such I think you've got to be extra-sensitive about what you say. I've seen several spaces on the Net I like fucked up because of Flame Wars, so I think the mutual respect principle is a good thing to adhere to. Barbelith evolved it's own norms over the last few years, and on first impression, you may regard it as over-sensitive, "politically correct" but, trust me, it works better that way. It lends itself to more interesting discussion rather than things degenerating into abuse and the fact that most people jump on sexist language is possibly a reason there are a lot of female posters, which is DAMN GOOD THING, IMO. See also Tom's post above.

13:48 / 15.10.03

Moderator note: this post deleted as the suit belongs to a known troll.

Tryphena Absent

13:54 / 15.10.03

The problem is that nowthink is not listening to anyone and clearly isn't going to. I think Illmatic's done his best and god knows everyone else has been rotting like crazy (and it's been fun). I think I'd lock it because I think it's clearly deliberately offensive now and the above post in this thread is a pretty clear example of where the poster's coming from. Generally people don't stick racist terminology in block capitals in a thread when they're being polite, even if it's directed towards the actions of other posters.

I understand why you don't think it should be locked but I don't agree anymore. I'm thoroughly sick of this shit and I'm sick of arguing with boring people who follow the same old pattern. It's okay when there's a gap but this is just too soon. There's not even any real fight you know. Boring!!!

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:56 / 15.10.03

Ah yes, the gay men and their funny gay self-love.

Illmatic, I think you may be putting a little too much faith in nowthink being who he says he is, if you catch my drift.

I'd also re-iterate my earlier point: no viewpoint is too offensive for Barbelith if it is explained reasonably.

14:03 / 15.10.03

Moderator note: this post deleted as the suit belongs to Andrew/'The Knowledge'.

14:07 / 15.10.03

Jack 'Babyface' Fear.

14:09 / 15.10.03

Well, I don't mind it being locked really, it's not going to "add value" to the board - sorry, I've actually being doing some work and have slipped into management speak - but I would like to see a clear consensus as to why we lock things in future.

NT/Jack - this really should be about locking threads or otherwise, not continuing the arguement.

Page: (1)2