BARBELITH underground
 

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


What exactly does get you banned on Barbelith?

 
  

Page: 1 ... 3637383940(41)42

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:34 / 02.05.07
Or one could simply cross-reference the timestamp and the grammar.

Now, I would normally suggest that we get back ontopic, but if we are not actually talking about whether or not DEDI should be banned - to which my response would probably be "not for this" - then we are not on topic _anyway_.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
15:30 / 02.05.07
Or one could simply cross-reference the timestamp and the grammar.

Not quite as simple as that, old chap. There are day drinkers in every time zone, and sober grammar-abusers, too.

Now, I would normally suggest that we get back ontopic, but if we are not actually talking about whether or not DEDI should be banned - to which my response would probably be "not for this" - then we are not on topic _anyway_.

Don't think he should be banned for this per se (as Haus pointed out, if DEDI avoids inferring the general from the particular, he'll be if not as safe as houses than at least as safe as a sordid little grief hole of a bedsit), but equally if he never posted another word to Barbelith I'd not miss him. Ignore button is, in DEDI's case, probably the best option.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
17:34 / 02.05.07
Well I'm not sure where to take this now. I realise that if we're not really talking about a ban, further discussion of the topic at hand is threadrot. The only thread I can think of where it would be ontopic to talk about how it sucks to have to listen to crass generalisations about sexualities that include yours from someone who called you a shit, called your mum a whore, called other peoples' mums whores, posted heelarious rape lyrics in a thread on feiminsm, has repeatedly used the Temple to plug his Only Proper HOGD PS This Is Real, makes offtopic posts, makes offtopic posts in "comedy" Italian accents, generally makes the board a more hostile and less worthwhile place by his chosen modes of interaction and only didn't get banned that time because he grudgingly apologised and made an undertaking to be less of a gitwizard in future upon which he could be truthfully said to have repeatedly renaged over the course of a year would be the How do you tell if something's unacceptable on Barbelith? thread, which I initially rejected because it had veered away into a discussion of the future of the board. However, if it comes to a choice between re-re-routing that thread, rotting this one, or choking down yet another icy draught of Shut The Fuck Up, I choose the re-route option.
 
 
Quantum
18:11 / 02.05.07
Please someone correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought this was the thread to discuss borderline behaviour and what is bannable. If it isn't, do we need a new thread called something like 'Skating on thin ice' or 'Asshattery 101'?

I, personally, would open the banning thread again, not for the content of DEDI's posts in the BDSM thread specifically but for his interaction with the board generally. Popping up every few months, spouting off something controversial, going away while everyone argues and not responding to any questions or engaging at all, he's not the only one but he is rather the poster child for the runny-bum-gunge-sniping tactic.
As it is, I intend to bookmark his most recent post and next time he pops up (mid-June by my reckoning) ask him to engage with the board about it or bugger off. I'm sick of all the people who avoid a ban by laying low for a few months and then merrily continuing their bannable behaviour (I know I'm not the first to say this).
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:15 / 02.05.07
It's also kind of an artefact. Not many people start their own bannination threads.
 
 
Quantum
18:26 / 02.05.07
If only more people did.
 
 
grant
18:48 / 02.05.07
do we need a new thread called something like 'Skating on thin ice' or 'Asshattery 101'?

Well, that's more or less what the "Unacceptable" thread started out as.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
00:17 / 03.05.07
I'm not really interested in having DEDI banned for his behaviour in the bdsm thread thus far. But XK, it's not possible for me to respond to a post independently of its author's vocalisations elsewhere. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that from everyone else, either. In the converse situation, using that guideline, Alex's Grandma would have to be read on the basis of hir posts to the bdsm thread alone. If I didn't already guess, based on past threads, posts etc, that AG was posting drunk, I would have found those comments stupid enough to respond to in far less genial terms than I did. (And so would everyone else, I think.)

Also, I read a lot of smutty novels; probably too many. And I've had many, many idealistic fantasies in the past about BDSM, how tops should behave, how submissives should behave, and so on. In fact, I'm sure that at one point in the history of my doing BDSM, I thought safewords were for pansies. It's precisely because of this history -- knowing DEDI's position intimately, and knowing how dangerous it is -- that I responded as I did. Although my fantasies never ran to natural Dominas, specifically. Thank Christ.
 
 
grant
00:22 / 03.05.07
But XK, it's not possible for me to respond to a post independently of its author's vocalisations elsewhere. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that from everyone else, either.

This is (if it needs pointing out) precisely why we don't have infinitely flexible usernames. We used to.
 
 
Katherine
07:08 / 03.05.07
The biggest problem I have seen with DEDI and the others of similar material, is the fact they pop up very so often then post a load of stuff up, argue with people then disappear leaving other posters to argue. Then as suggested in previous posts they wait a few months and come back and so the same again and again.

The problem I see is the fact because they do this, new people to this board do not realise this is serial behavour on that person's part and when they see them get pounced upon by other posters for what looks like a misunderstanding, do react. I can't think of any solutions to this problem other than to point old threads where they have done this, and I realise this has been done here.

But another idea may be a thread here in policy where it is named with the poster (for example the DEDI thread) and it is only available to updated by mods with the threads where this person has done their business. So people can see immediately what they have done before. And the mods if willing can change the title so it is the correct name that person is using at the point they come back so much the better.
 
 
grant
13:40 / 03.05.07
That's an interesting idea....
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:21 / 23.09.07
Just bumping this to note that Morpheus is back on the board. Not requesting a ban at this time, but he's been a problematic poster in the past and we should be keeping an eye on him.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:27 / 23.09.07
Oh, and The local Goth prototype has become a run-of-the-mill example of the apocalypse. is around again, posting gibberish in the Convo. Again not asking for a ban, but this could devolve into trolling if there's too much of it.
 
 
Spaniel
11:35 / 23.09.07
Eyes already peeled.

That must be the worst screen name ever.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:25 / 23.09.07
First time it showed up I thought it was Rage- wasn't it the result of her random phrase generator or something?
 
 
The Falcon
16:26 / 02.01.08
bacon is, iirc, a tremendously solid turd in general but does he merit the airlock? Certainly an infuriating effort at a thread.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:39 / 02.01.08
Failtroll is fail, certainly.

Name rings a bell- pretty sure there's past history there, but can't for the life of me remember what it is.
 
 
Tsuga
19:03 / 02.01.08
bacon is one of those consistently sporadic, persistently occasional troll-types that is so annoying in surfacing— yes, much like a turd— before sinking below the smudged paper in the murky liquids again. You can't talk with it, all you can do is ignore the stink or flush.

That is a disgusting analogue to draw out, sorry. It is that problem of someone who doesn't really interact with the board so much as show up sometimes to lob a grenade of annoyingness.
 
 
Char Aina
04:38 / 03.01.08
More here.
 
 
The Falcon
17:25 / 03.01.08
Yes, that is trolling and frankly connotes numerous racist ideologies - can we make it fuck off now plz?
 
 
The Falcon
17:27 / 03.01.08
Now it's posted in Convo, I can start trying 'ban user' if folk think it's apropos at this juncture but I don't know I can be arsed piling through the shite to do so.
 
 
The Falcon
17:35 / 03.01.08
Sorry, tired, to start piling through the rubbish to start a banning thread. Is what I meant.
 
 
jentacular dreams
18:29 / 03.01.08
There was a discussion of somewhat questionable behaviour here with some related chatter here.

From what I remember about his posts, most seem to have been isolated near-ramblings, though this was partly because people seem to usually (and wisely) avoid engaging with him. I'm not sure he's done enough to warrant a ban - though he does get closer with every post and is probably still what has previously been termed 'a net negative' (everyone loves a good pun). So I'd happily see him go if we could have a one in, one out policy...
 
 
jentacular dreams
18:35 / 03.01.08
Just re-read his "Kenya Burns" post. It changed my mind.

Door!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:05 / 03.01.08
So, we can't be bothered with banning threads anymore? Good to know. Could someone give me an actual, considered reason why bacon should be banned? Because if we are banning for stupidity now, that's fine, but it's going to take a while. If we're banning for stupid comments about Africans, then I have a couple of people I think should probably go as well. If it's specifically for posting in the Convo thread, then that's fine, but we've not really had posting irrelevant crap in the Convo as a banning offence before.
 
 
The Falcon
19:39 / 03.01.08
I'll take option b) If we're banning for stupid comments about Africans, then I have a couple of people I think should probably go as well but do tell of these others for the potential ceremonial bloodletting, why not?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:12 / 03.01.08
Well, if we count African-Americans, if I'd known we could have dead-headed Dead Megatron over bell hooks, and thus possibly also avoided birthdaygate, if my timeline is right, and saved a lot of hassle over Kay - in fact, he would have been bounced out after Sony, so there would have been no bell hooks for DM to get banned over.

It's hard, though, to make a case for bacon on the grounds of redeeming features. However, if we are going to start randomly and without warning booting people, or trying to, because they've done something we think is dickish, we're going to have some selectivity problems. I went to this thread to see if bacon had been bannably useless there, to find that whothehell@where was actually much more bannable, in those terms, than bacon, and at least as bannable as bacon has just been.

Hmmm.
 
 
The Falcon
20:51 / 03.01.08
It'd be hard to argue the second assessment, but I can't really see how germane birthdaygate* is - nor, from memory, DM's behaviour in that thread which did not iirc have any stem in racial or national (or well, continental) characteristics. It was, fairly inarguably, classist stuff but you're talking about someone who has at least I think made more than a modicum of effort to engage with and learn from people better-informed and more capable of reasoning than himself on the board and who doesn't have a record of posting, pretty much, solely tiresome non-witticisms in order to get a rise out of... whomever. Me, this time. Not a troll, then.

*Which, for the record - look, I love Flyboy, but balancing priorities with interpersonal/issue engagement is tricky, to me at least, and I still think his, and actually moreso Triplets' (regardless of his virtues, which I also feel are not singular) behaviour at that time was deeply fucking unnecessary and pretty poisonous. We can hash that out some more in that Policy thread or by pm or whatever if you feel anything's unaddressed still. Not here is all.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:24 / 03.01.08
i think we might be talking about different threads, althoug of course people _were_ talking about banning Flyboy and Triplets in birthdaygate (although they then claimed not to have been, I think). bell hooks? Hip-hop? That one? You can believe there was no racial component there, but if you do I'd love to share your crack.

If we'd banned him then, or indeed during weird gay stuff previously, or any one of a dozen high-power douche-outs, we might never have had the opportunity to see him open up up like a beautiful flower. Or indeed have had the same beautiful-flower chance with yourself, or with Life Critic, or with me, or with any number of people who might at some point have said or done something that five moderators could be induced to think was indefensible and did not need further discussion, at which point they would not have had a chance to develop the capital that would make such a casual banning difficult now.

So, have we decided for whatever reason either that bacon isn't ever going to improve, or that we're no longer in the business of providing room for improvement? If so, I could start with the banning requests, but then also what's to stop somebody deciding that any of us should be dirt-napped, getting a posse together and with a minimum of fuss killing our suit?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:41 / 03.01.08
In fact, ban?
 
 
The Falcon
22:03 / 03.01.08
Yes, I see bacon has just started his Barbelith voyage - actually fuck it, there's no point - you smearing, distorting bastard. I have never said, written nor held a belief remotely comparable to these prize shits.

You unbelievable bastard.

You are welcome to challenge the assertion, and I'd appreciate if you could pm me back what it was I sent you via pm on 24/2/06 if you intend on doing so - in order that I can maintain a full defence. Otherwise, I'd like a public apology this time about - not that this would have been necessary had the line of systematic edits (presumably primarily for each of your prior slurs on my character) you offered me in the last one been accepted.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:59 / 03.01.08
Don't be melodramatic, Duncan, or if you are going to be melodramatic be melodramtic based on the actual content of the post. As it is, I realised that I had phrased that badly, and have put in an edit. However, I never said that you had said, written (n)or held a belief remotely comparable to these prize shits. . I realise that I spend most of my time here now helping people out who do not or cannot read posts, so I'm not going to hold that against you. I said, in my pre-corrected post, that early on in your Barbelith journey there had been weird race shit which might have seen you banned out of hand if banning out of hand is what we do. That is quite true. You didn't actually even acknowledge that that weird race shit was at all off for three years.

That was way back in 2002 - reference here. I am quoting exactly what you said by providing a link to it. This is not a slur or "distorting". It was 2005 before you acknowledged that possibly making such a claim might act to normalise racist terminology - here. Again, I am identifying exactly what you said and when you sad it, and providing a link, and do not therefore believe that I am distorting.

If I had known that banning you was an option in 2002, I might have been very tempted to start that ball rolling right then.

Now, we can look back and see you as a beautiful, unfolding flower in the process of a journey towards selfhood. However, I would quite possibly have taken you off the board, if that had been a regularly-tabled option, on the grounds that the possibility of some happy time later when you were a valued member - and, gosh, a moderator - was massively outweighed by the damage treating that kind of language as acceptable did to the image and structure of the board. In fact, you know what? What you did,and then defended for three years, was _more shocking_ than anything bacon or wth@w have done - much more so, in fact. But at that point we just didn't ban people, so you got away with it - for three years, in fact, at which point you made that post of acknowledgement.

So, do they add anything to justify the poor quality of these posts? Not really. Are they either intentionally or unintentionally goading others with offensive behaviour? Pretty much. Are their contributions of low quality? Yep. I think some would have said the same of you in 2002.

However, can you start bouncing around the suggestion that a move to ban is made without a banning thread or any discussion - and indeed, stating quite clearly that you can't be bothered to find evidence of banworthy behaviour, because bacon's name is a common noun - without that coming across as more bad moderation? No, I don't think you can, and to do so is more bad moderation. If you want to ban bacon, start a banning thread. If you want to ban bacon but don't care to go to the effort to start a thread, ask other people to do it for you. A bit of discussion won't kill the board, especially given that he has posted 140 times in five years of membership. If you're genuinely so excited about the possibility of being able to ban people without consultation and just by gathering a banning mob of five here and waiting for a post in a forum you moderate - well, then we're basically looking at _actually_ justifying those claims about lynch mobs that we get every so often, and that seemed serious enough to me to justify pointing out that it was quite some time before you "got", even a little bit, what had been upsetting about your statements of several years previously.

I'm not a fan of bacon's contributions, or the PMs he has sent me when encouraged to improve his posting quality. However, he deserves due process, at the very least, and if being incoherent and borderline offensive every six months or so is behaviour bad enough to justify being picked off by a bansniper without discussion then I will draw up a list and we can go through. As it is, I am inclined to assign it to the pile of tits-awful moderation ideas and move on.

Now, since I didn't say that you had said, written nor held a belief remotely comparable to these prize shits., could I get an apology for the insults and abuse you used in your last post?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:06 / 04.01.08
(Oh, and I will reproduce the PM correspondence on the open board, if you insist, providing context. However, I'm not sure how far it would be useful, because what you describe in the absence of the actual messages as the line of systematic edits (presumably primarily for each of your prior slurs on my character) you offered me in the last one was an informal offer to delete some posts post your 2005 kinda-sorta-acknowledging, which I hadn't recalled, to be nice, because, although you've been a bit of a trial as a moderator, you're not generally a bad chap. However, you do keep pulling stuff like this, and I have no idea why.)
 
 
Saturn's nod
06:47 / 04.01.08
Tannhauser: In fact, ban?

What's your reasoning, Haus?

From my point of view I think it might be argued that bacon is/was trolling, in the sense of posting for attention and to cause distress rather than making any contribution to the discussion?

I'm not quite keen enough to start the banning thread right now as I am using 'ignore', but I'll see how it looks after work.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:24 / 04.01.08
Sorry, plutology - that was, I think, actually a link to whothehell@where's post, rather than bacon's, to draw attention to the fact that he was behaving at least as bannably (or not-bannably) as bacon, and also rather ruefully to note that whenever you make a case for limiting banning to a position of if not last then at least penultimate resort, somebody says something that makes you want them to go away.

There's an expression of Mordant Carnival's - "failtroll is fail", which I assume is a modification of a mathematical or scientific term, but means, as I understand it, that somebody who fails to troll, or to be a troll, should not be treated as a troll. Bacon, and for that matter whothehell@where, are not apparently able or currently sufficiently skilled to interact with threads at the level one usually hopes of Barbelith, and in part this lack of ability expresses itself through prejudiced opinions which are often offered without coherent substantiation. However, currently the tools available - ignoring, locking, deleting, discussing whether a ban is necessary if we feel so moved to do - seem perfectly adequate to dealing with either, and neither is so shockingly deleterious to good order that the banning process needs to be short-circuited by a sudden and silent ban.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 3637383940(41)42

 
  
Add Your Reply