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

Underground > Policy & Help >

What exactly does get you banned on Barbelith?

Page: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38(39)40 41 42

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:15 / 03.09.06

Well, we'd need some checks and balances, clearly. The person or persons wielding the banhammer would be subject to review by Barbelith and by Tom, especially in light of some recent suggestions.

In practice, this probably means that the banning process would be just as slow, but at least on those occasions Tom did come in he would have somebody with a well-prepared brief. Arguably, though as a community we already have that in the banning threads, if we want to carry on with those.

I suppose it's the question of somebody coming in and e.g. spamming with porn links or hate speech that makes me think. At that point, having somebody who was not entitled to ban in cases like Shadowsax/khorosho/morpheus, but who did have the power to shut down suits, would be quite useful. And if they used it in another way, or a way that seemed inappropriate, Tom could be petitioned and asked to remove the hammer, restore the bannee, and so forth...

Less searchable M0rd4nt

18:20 / 03.09.06

I suppose I tend to think we should have a relatively high threshold for calling for people to be banned; I don't want to be actively looking at banning posters, if it can be avoided. Morpheus hasn't really impinged on my posting consciousness to such an extent that that discussion's become unavoidable.

Hmm. I guess that's a fair point. It could be argued that the overall obnoxiousness of a poster is ameliorated if that poster isn't around much. I guess I'm a bit twitchier about Morph and his ilk because they tend to gravitate towards the Temple, where their posts really do poke me in the eye.

18:23 / 03.09.06

Well, yeah, an interim 'suit-freezing' option would be good. We've had these discussions before, and inevitably butt up against technical limitations (at least I think that's the main reason Tom hasn't instituted something similar). If Morpheus, say, were a faster, more prolific contributor, we'd conceivably have real problems dealing with him.

18:28 / 03.09.06

Cross-posted widcha, Mordant.

I guess I'm a bit twitchier about Morph and his ilk because they tend to gravitate towards the Temple, where their posts really do poke me in the eye.

That's a reasonable point. I associate him more with vampire polar bears and the like, nonsense which has tended to amuse rather than irritate me. I can see that, if he were regularly fouling up serious discussions in a forum I frequented more often, I might well view Morpheus differently.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

19:19 / 03.09.06

Yeah, the vampire-polar-bear drivel was harmless enough, but there's the nasty stuff about terrorist attacks and so on. And there's posts like this, which I have a hard time seeing the funny side of (esp. the trivialising of violence and murder inflicted on women by men, which is the kind of thing you can rapidly have enough of if you hang around occult fora).

19:37 / 03.09.06

Mmm. I remember the terrorism thing, but I missed teh spooooky Goetia post. I suppose it comes down to how intrusive that sort of thing is - and I fully acknowledge that, if I were more of a Temple-goer, I might well find Morpheus more of a major-league banworthy irritant than I currently do.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:06 / 03.09.06

Well, yeah, an interim 'suit-freezing' option would be good. We've had these discussions before, and inevitably butt up against technical limitations (at least I think that's the main reason Tom hasn't instituted something similar). If Morpheus, say, were a faster, more prolific contributor, we'd conceivably have real problems dealing with him.

Ironically, that's the very reason it wouldn't work with Morpheus. He'd pop up, say something shitty, we'd freeze his suit for, what, a week? A fortnight? A month? and he wouldn't notice. He'd be back again weeks later to say something ELSE shitty.

I'm largely against banning unless in a case of last resort, but in his particular case he seems to have given up on Switchboard a while back, so Temple regulars like Mordant have a way more valid opinion than me.

21:35 / 03.09.06

I guess it depends on how shitty one finds those sporadic contributions, then. Maybe Mordant or one of the other Temple-goers in favour of banning him would like to put the case in more detail? Assuming Tom and his banhammer are actually available, which is another consideration.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:49 / 03.09.06

That's pretty much what I'm saying. I wouldn't be in favour of a ban, but I'm usually not one of the people affected. So their voices should naturally carry more weight.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

21:54 / 03.09.06

TBH, I'm not totally sold on the idea of banniation for Morph. I can't bloody stand him and I've made that clear (Hi, Morph! I still hate you!). But although I'm leaning towards a ban I could very easily be moved back the other way with the right nudge.

22:06 / 03.09.06

I do see what you mean Mordant, up to a point, but in my very 'umble, we'd doing ourselves down as a board if we went so far as to actually ban Mr Morph. It seems reasonably clear that the events described in his posts, at least when he chooses to share about his day-to-day existence have happened in a version of reality that would be frankly a little perplexing if ... well put it this way, I wouldn't really know what to think if I was confronted by them. I imagine I ... Ok, I wouldn't know what to do. But it's not as if any of this stuff has ever actually happened, surely?

And his views about world events such as the vampire polar bears are just funny, aren't they? Isn't there a danger that Barbelith be becoming a little too thin-skinned?

I maintain that the likes of Morph are the very lifeblood of this board - like vampires, we need fresh clownish blood to lunch on.

22:10 / 03.09.06

Although I always try to see the best in everyone.

22:11 / 03.09.06

I used 'blood' twice in the same paragraph. I am ashamed.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

23:56 / 03.09.06

No, Auntie, they're kind of not. I hate to say it but even if we needed our regular dose of clown juice as you suggest, the supply is inexhaustible. There is not a noticable moron shortage on the web, or an appreciable gap between the demand for woman-hating fuckwits with delusions of occult ability and the supply.

Like I say, I'm not 100% convinced that Morphie should be banned yet, but... well, you know.

14:41 / 04.09.06

Wow. I find myself disagreeing with MC, who'd've thunk it? I'd ban Morpheus at the drop of an asshat (hi Morph! I still hate your posts!) and I don't think it's thin skinned.
It's only because he doesn't irritate enough people for long enough at a time that he gets away with it. If he were here every day and in every forum he'd get banned quick IMO, the protests just never reach critical mass because we as a board are comparatively reluctant to ban.

18:43 / 04.09.06

It's only because he doesn't irritate enough people for long enough at a time that he gets away with it. If he were here every day and in every forum he'd get banned quick IMO

Sure, but I see that as a fairly big "if", really. Sometimes, I think it is about accumulating a volume of low-grade irritation, rather than a few high-intensity trollings. For me, it hasn't reached critical mass - although I understand that others may and will disagree.

Regrettable Juvenilia

21:16 / 04.09.06

I don't really understand your position on this, Ganesh. If a poster confines themselves to a forum you normally don't frequent, it's fair enough to say that you're not familiar with their behaviour. However, once someone else who does frequent said forum details that behaviour, with links, then surely you have to take a position as to whether that behaviour warrants banning, or something else. Maintaining that you weren't aware of it at the time and so you can't comment seems to me to be an oddly blinkered stance...

Regrettable Juvenilia

21:18 / 04.09.06

Or perhaps I'm misreading you - if so, apologies.

21:26 / 04.09.06

Will tackle this later, too. I'm in danger of overdosing on Policy, and need to go to bed.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

08:44 / 05.09.06

See, for me, there's two conflicting desires here: My very reasonable desire to sling Morph's sorry arse off the board, and my desire for Barbelith to remain a fairly non-banny place. Every time we give someone the boot, we risk setting a precedent; that's not necessarily a bad thing (won't miss the handwringing and howls of "but why can't ze have a second chaaaance?" I recall from certain banning decisions that would be a snap now--including one or two where the bannee actually threatened to go after board members IRL), but it does mean we have to keep half an eye on the precedents we set. I'm still undecided but I think there is possibly an argument for not banning obnoxious but low-volume posters. Revolting though I find Morph, he's just not around enough to really interfere with the running of the board and when he does pop up it's to a chorus of jeers which seems to me to destroy the possibility of tacit approval being assumed.

When I get a mo, I'll put together links to some more of his Temple posts so the non-Temply people can have a butcher's.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

10:11 / 05.09.06

Okay, in no particular order, here we go. I'll stick with the Temple, but bear in mind that there's lots of other bits in the Convo, Switchboard and Headshop.

I've already mentioned this, of course.

This thread, purportedly about Crowley's bio, where Morph compares the appalling institutional child abuse inflicted on the young Crowley with meen people saying meen fings to Morph on the internet.

This thread is littered with Morphisms. He's not (especially) abusive here, but he does demonstrate his trademark combination of arrogance and not having any discernable clue what he's on about.

This post is just rude rather than bannable, but it's an example of the pattern, as is
this.

The rudeness, the arrogance, the casual misogyny, the dark hints at superior knowledge which will not be shared with stinky Barbeliods (which he clearly doesn't actually possess)... still not sure about a ban but I really wish he'd go away.

11:58 / 05.09.06

Morph's pepper-tree perspective is intensely irritating. It's like a small child being patronising, or when 17 year olds decide they're actually atheists/christians/the opposite of their folks, and then tell everyone about their new discovery as if they'd discovered fire. Hmm, exactly like the 'God is Imaginary' stuff actually but bashing everyone who's not Morpheus rather than christians.

22:21 / 05.09.06

I don't really understand your position on this, Ganesh. If a poster confines themselves to a forum you normally don't frequent, it's fair enough to say that you're not familiar with their behaviour. However, once someone else who does frequent said forum details that behaviour, with links, then surely you have to take a position as to whether that behaviour warrants banning, or something else. Maintaining that you weren't aware of it at the time and so you can't comment seems to me to be an oddly blinkered stance...

Well, as far as I'm aware no-one has called definitively for Morpheus to be banned - not even Mordant, who's floated the possibility in a more equivocal way. So, while yes, I'm happy to check the links (which I have done), I don't yet have to take a position as to whether Morpheus's behaviour warrants banning. Do I? I suppose this is one reason for suggesting, pre-ShadowSax, that if a poster seriously wanted another poster banned, they ought to start a thread specifically for that purpose, make a case and set a time-limit - because that then alerts moderators and others that they do have to take a position on the matter by such-and-such date. I know that, since ShadowSax, there've been times we haven't stuck to the separate thread thing, but I don't know that it's a bad rule of thumb.

When that happens, I daresay we all have our different ways of reaching a particular position. I think I prefer, if possible, to find out what the proposed bannee thinks about the whole thing, and have some sort of dialogue with them - but I know other people have different ways and means of reaching a conclusion.

If you're hinting that I seem resistant to apply myself fully to the decision at this stage, then you're probably right. I'm still feeling a bit knackered with what seems like a very long run of mooted bannings and subsequent discussions. Perhaps it's lazy and/or selfish of me, but I'd really like an interregnum, so I suppose I'm deferring any formal decision-forming on any proposed ban of Morpheus until it's clear in my mind that someone is definitively proposing a ban.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

13:51 / 08.03.07

Bumping this as being of relevance to the discussion here, regarding the exclusion or otherwise of Netaungrot.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

10:47 / 01.05.07

I'm wondering how people feel about Dedi's posts in the BDSM thread, specifically here and here.

I'm not saying that what he's written necessarily takes us into bannination territory, but that second one could be read as a kind of implied attack on people who practice BDSM differently from Dedi. Specifically, he seems to imply that anyone reading the thread who practices BDSM and used safewords is not a "natural" Dom/me or a "real" sub. I find this unpleasant to read because it's YKINOK, basically; you don't do what I do so you're doing it wrong. I'd defnately say that constitutes a biased comment.

It's also a potentially very dangerous idea when expressed in real-world play. I'm not saying that everyone has to use safewords, but it's important to think had about the choice to jettison a major safety-net. I have first- and second-hand experience of the damage that the "safewords are for dilettantes" attitude can let people in for, and I think it's important to challenge it.

11:25 / 01.05.07

Surely that's best had out in that thread though? As someone unfamilar with SM practices., I don't, as you say, see that it's a ban thing.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

11:49 / 01.05.07

I kind of wanted to flag it here as well, though, not least because issues of ignorant and biased comments relating to BDSM have been a source of concern before. In this case, we're also dealing with a repeat offender so I think this becomes worth flagging.

13:30 / 01.05.07

I admittedly don't know much about the subject, but as DEDI seems to be an expressing an opinion, however misguided it may be, that's apparently got some currency in SM circles (at least if XK's post is anything to go by) I'm not sure if he's necessarily saying anything too out of line. His 'superman of the dungeon' antics might be a bit galling, but he has said worse in the past.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:34 / 01.05.07

Hoom. The reason why DEDI is always going to be hovering around people suggesting that he be banned is because he is often moved by strong opinions about political correctness, femninism, sex, the usual, but contributes little else of any actual value, less if you're not interested in ritual magic or conflict resolution. So, like Morpheus, whenever he gets on someone's wick with a post that is clearly not based on reading of or interest in the content of the thread, it is possible that that someone will find himself or herself thinking about whether there is anything to be gained from not banning him. To which the answer is, roughly, the image of Barbelith as a place where banning doesn't happen very often.

In this case, I don't think there would be a problem or any issue if he simply stopped universalising from his own real or imagined sexual experiences - that is, managed to say "I" rather than "you" - and was in any way open to interacting with the thread, in which case he might learn something. This may, however, not be his purpose.

XK is, of course, utterly incorrect in suggesting that DEDI is being unintentionally offensive, but we do need our starry-eyed optimists around here, I imagine, to function as a counterbalance.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

14:37 / 01.05.07

Well it's not clear to me that the concept "using safewords = topping from the bottom" does have a great deal of currency in BDSM circles. As XK points out, there are other modes of communication and there are certainly modes of play in which safewords have less relevance or no relevance, but that statement is very different from what Dedi actually says in his post. I've certainly encountered people who subscribed wholeheartedly and uncritically to the idea that there was something wrong with safewords in every case or that the use of safewords indictated inferior play or inferior commitment; I have to say that this group included a lot of fantasists, inexperienced players, or outright abusive tops.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:09 / 01.05.07

Well, then. One can explain that. If DEDI returns to being abusive, or even if he holds firm to his current tack of just dropping in with a second-personalised tale of his real or imagined sexual experiences, that becomes an issue of trolling (which we have previously taken action over) or, failing that, involuntary threadrot (which ended up being one of the contributing factors in a previous banning or two).

This then becomes a question of where we want to set the resistance level on the trebuchet. Flyboy said elsewhere:

Meh. It would probably save time and effort in the long run to airlock anyone who came out with that tired old passive aggressive "oh I suppose I'm not ALLOWED to say that, am I?" schtick - apart from anything else, think how much briefer and yet also more entertaining these discussions would be if as soon as someone said that, the answer was a swift "nope!" and a ban. Great comic timing! It would never get old.

That's one setting. The other, which is where we are now, is only banning people when they are harrassing members of the board, individually or collectively, and making it clear that they have no plans to stop doing so, or otherwise acting in such a way that they are interfering with a noticeable amount of the board or its members in an thoroughly negative way. People who are generally purposeless or irritating and occasionally raise their game to be actively irksome we don't really have a line on.

15:36 / 01.05.07

I want things to be clear in the BDSM thread and I think it is going in that direction as TTS is doing a great job of pulling out the problematic aspects of DEDI's posts and addressing those.

What many people seem to be overlooking is how many people are reading the BDSM thread and are feeling scared shitless of posting because of how DEDI is being treated not because of what he is saying in thread but some off screen history.
His posts in thread carry enough baggage not to need an off screen history lesson.

The contempt of DEDI needs to grounded in either what he is stating in thread or taken here, not splattered around on the topic.

XK is, of course, utterly incorrect in suggesting that DEDI is being unintentionally offensive, but we do need our starry-eyed optimists around here, I imagine, to function as a counterbalance.

Haus it maybe possible that you have no idea how condescending this reads to me.

It may also be that you have not encountered other people stating what DEDI is saying in the BDSM thread and yes often they do not realize it is offensive until it is pointed out to them.

15:43 / 01.05.07

Well it's not clear to me that the concept "using safewords = topping from the bottom" does have a great deal of currency in BDSM circles. As XK points out, there are other modes of communication and there are certainly modes of play in which safewords have less relevance or no relevance, but that statement is very different from what Dedi actually says in his post. I've certainly encountered people who subscribed wholeheartedly and uncritically to the idea that there was something wrong with safewords in every case or that the use of safewords indictated inferior play or inferior commitment; I have to say that this group included a lot of fantasists, inexperienced players, or outright abusive tops.

I'd like to take this back to the thread but just to chuck it out there:

I have to say that this group included a lot of fantasists, inexperienced players, or outright abusive tops.

Well IME all of BDSM has those people in it. The no safe word crowd has just as many issues as the safe word crowd but it isn't automatically worse.

Unequal power exchanges are rightfully scary things unless they are simply a layer on top of an equal power exchange. Some people can do it with a handful of safe words, others a dictionary, and another set without any at all.

*

15:53 / 01.05.07

When I first read his post I got really angry. Then I went back through the thread and realized I was confusing DEDI with Morpheus. I certainly think DEDI has said some problematic and wrong things about BDSM. There are other things that have led us to discuss banning of this suit before. Practicing BDSM differently from me while being arrogant about it isn't really on the same level as those things, I think. I do also think that TTS and Disco were justified in their responses, which rather matched his or escalated slightly.

I will say that seeing DEDI discussing BDSM made me not want to post in that thread, but I did anyway.

*

16:01 / 01.05.07

What many people seem to be overlooking is how many people are reading the BDSM thread and are feeling scared shitless of posting because of how DEDI is being treated not because of what he is saying in thread but some off screen history.

Actually, I was nearly scared off posting in the BDSM thread by the fact that what he was saying was being received by you with seriousness, and that you were admonishing the other people in the thread for their honest reactions. It was upsetting for me to deal with the fact that my reactions to his arrogance wouldn't be tolerated as much as his arrogance was being tolerated. Just a different perspective.

Page: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38(39)40 41 42