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 ... 6 7 8 9 10(11)12 13 14 15 16... 42

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:41 / 16.01.06

Having said which, the need for a decent set of terms and conditions has been pretty clear for a long time, and I'll get to work on that as soon as possible, but am a bit tied up at present - if anyone else wants to jump in, go for it.

19:35 / 16.01.06

...and the constitution can have inbuilt protocols for that evolution. we do everything by votes and discussion anyway, so why not leave it open to change in the same way?

i dont see it as a barrier to anything so much as an obstacle.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:43 / 16.01.06

WRT the trolls not paying attention to terms and conditions- I don't think that's really ever been the use of T&C. They'd be more useful in situations where "we" say "you've crossed a line", and troll/cock replies "but there isn't a line/it's PC gone mad/FIGHT TEH PC POWER" or whatever- because then we can say "yes there is, and it's right there in writing".

I disagree with a constitution, for the reasons toksik and others have already given, but terms and conditions I have no problem with.

To be honest, though, I don't think the Hawksmoor situation was THAT much of a problem, or went on MUCH longer than it needed to- it was, what, a day or two after he went into full-on fucktard meltdown before he was booted? At the time it seemed much longer, because there was so much back-and-forth (haven't seen the Policy that busy in AGES), but I think he was dealt with fairly quickly. If we're setting much shorter a time than that as the gold standard, we're risking insane responses to misunderstandings.

As a balance between a J*hn B*rn* instant banning and letting the trolls run free, I think it works fairly well, even though it's clearly not perfect.

22:04 / 16.01.06

I disagree with a constitution, for the reasons toksik and others have already given, but terms and conditions I have no problem with.

that's cool.
except i was suggesting a constitution(or TOS/T&C) rather than going against it.
i was suggesting a constitution that was open to change, something that could grow with the board but not change with the wind.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

22:14 / 16.01.06

Yeah, should have been more clear- the reasons you gave for allowing it to evolve are the reasons I would argue against having one.

An evolving constitution would be nice, yes, but I can't see it actually working- how many times have we locked threads on the grounds that "we can bring 'em back later if need be" and then completely forgotten about them?
Same principle.

If it could be proved to work, I'd change my stance- I'm dubious, though. (I am, actually. In general. A dubious kind of guy, that's me).

Tryphena Absent

14:15 / 17.01.06

A constitution would never work because this board is actually very hierachical. I think we should just bring administrators back instead of pretending we all have equal amounts of power. No one would ever really get the chance to act on a constitution anyway. Let the people who already have the power continue to have it since we're never going to get to the point where it devolves to others anyway.

18:47 / 19.01.06

Let the people who already have the power continue to have it since we're never going to get to the point where it devolves to others anyway.

I wouldn't say it was that heirarchical- it's a system that goes Tom-Mods-Posters, surely. What power are we talking about, locking and moving threads etc? Can't anyone be a mod already?

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:54 / 20.02.06

OK- next up, how do we feel about misogyny, the pernicious and constant downplaying of violence against women, and increasingly clear Islamophobia, coupled with no real interest in engaging with others? I'm flagging this one now to save time later...

Tryphena Absent

19:03 / 20.02.06

I think overt misogyny, the consistent denial of such coupled with no willingness to engage with the suggestion by other posters should be a banning offence.

19:30 / 20.02.06

I think a refusal to engage with objections or claims of offense makes it hard to argue that the poster is worth keeping on the board. I'd prefer to see people given a decent chance to defend or amend their comments, but if they are clearly unwilling to do so, then we have to be pragmatic and considerate of the membership as a whole.

I increasingly feel that members either approach the board as a community, or they approach it simply as a venue for self-expression. A willingness to consider and react to other members tends to indicate the former, not to do so the latter. And if you're in the second camp, being driven off Barbelith probably isn't as big a deal as if you belong to the first. It's a utilitarian judgement in the end, and I tend to judge that users switched to broadcast and not receive aren't really suffering much by losing this particular channel.

13:41 / 21.02.06

I'm a little confused by this; did Barbelith used to be neither a community or a venue for self-expression? Surely, at best, it is both?

I think this proposed hardening of membership rules, while understandable in the above case, could prove enormously counterproductive: who'll be the judge? who'll pull the trigger?

14:42 / 21.02.06

I'm a little confused by this; did Barbelith used to be neither a community or a venue for self-expression? Surely, at best, it is both?

I was talking about people who approach it "*simply* as a venue for self-expression", rather than a community space where expression is part of a dialogue. A forum rather than a soap-box, if you like. My point being that if you're acting on Barbelith like it's Speakers Corner, you are probably losing less in being driven away than if you are *inter*acting as a member of a community. We are all losing less, in fact. Basically, I think it's better all round to lose a misogynist who refuses to engage (for example) than lose a person who would continue to engage were it not for all the misogyny.

who'll be the judge? who'll pull the trigger?

The membership as a whole can be the judge; moderators/Tom can pull the triggers.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

18:21 / 21.02.06

I think it's dodgy to complain about SS's attitude towards violence against women when we have an enthusiastic taking part in a 'face punching' thread in Conversation. Unless violence in Conversation is funny while violence in Switchboard is bad.

18:34 / 21.02.06

i think it's dodgy to imply that objections made derisively are as valid as those made respectfully. i think it's ok for someone to walk away from a person picking a fight, even tho the person picking the fight may have a point. having a disagreement should not give members carte blanche to act in a manner that makes people have to seriously weigh the benefits of responding against the benefits of leaving the discussion altogether.

to wit: not talking about violence against women does not condone it, and having to respond to accusations of misogyny as a way of justifying opinions about custody and, apparently, near-death experiences, leaves a pretty big grey area.

just thought it fun to use the word "dodgy".

18:52 / 21.02.06

I think it's dodgy to complain about SS's attitude towards violence against women when we have an enthusiastic taking part in a 'face punching' thread in Conversation. Unless violence in Conversation is funny while violence in Switchboard is bad.

Well, the Conversation and the Switchboard are different environments with different contexts. In the former, violence is frequently evoked in a faintly Tom & Jerryesque manner (off the top of my head, the Headsick & Rage thread) So... while 'funniness' is presumably in the eye of the beholder, yes, the different settings mean that "X needs a punch in the neck" type statements are arguably more likely to be taken as non-serious in the Conversation than in the Switchboard.

That's not a difficult concept, is it?

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:40 / 08.03.06

So, in our new spirit of woman-friendly self-examination...

Less searchable M0rd4nt

13:45 / 08.03.06

Airlock?

13:48 / 08.03.06

You know what? I swear - we could have a one-line constitution. It could just read,

"We don't care if you were joking."

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

13:49 / 08.03.06

I'd say see how he responds to the "overwhelming" response first. If we don't get a proper apology after that, I have no problems with any action deemed necessary.

(Incidentally, when things have calmed down a bit, remind me to tell you just why I'm finding the airlock analogy quite so amusing at the moment. Don't want to muddy the water right now, as it were).

15:53 / 08.03.06

Out of interest, what do people think about deleting posts made by Z on an ad hoc basis?

Regrettable Juvenilia

16:07 / 08.03.06

And is it time to reassess our response to ShadowSax?

16:10 / 08.03.06

I'd say so, yeah.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

16:38 / 08.03.06

I agree. Though I wonder if Tom asked us to justify our decision whether he's actually said enough unpleasant things to warrant him being banned?

17:02 / 08.03.06

It's not so much what he's said (bad enough I'm guessing, but it's often quite hard to make sense of what he's actually on about - he's obviously extremely angry with the way he's been treated by the US family court system, and one could hazard a guess as to why, but that's about it,) as the tone of his posts, which appear to come from a place of such ingrained hostility towards teh 'PC/Femi-Nazis' in general, and those he perceives to exist on Barbelith in particular, that he seems unlikely to ever change. So it seems a bit pointless to continue the dialogue, really.

17:04 / 08.03.06

if not taking certain people here nearly as seriously as they take themselves warrants my being banned, then ban away.

other than that, i'd have to respond with the numerous times i was called names in threads, including the "c" word, and i'd have to respond with people making offtopic comments towards me, and basically trolling for me in other threads.

sorry i stepped on your tea party.

17:05 / 08.03.06

'PC/Femi-Nazis'

two terms i've never used.

17:08 / 08.03.06

Of course, it all of that really bothered him to any great extent, he'd of pissed off of his own accord by now.

The lure of all the attention is too much for him to take that step, though. Pretty close to a definition of trolling.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

17:43 / 08.03.06

i'd have to respond with the numerous times i was called names in threads, including the "c" word

Cretin?

17:46 / 08.03.06

carny.

18:37 / 08.03.06

Other things that should be taken into consideration when determining his status as a troll are the single issue posting, the inability to acknowledge points of argument that don't fit into his skewed worldview and the determination to try and paint himself as a revolutionary figure on the board, by taking note of things that are currently real concerns here and making sure that he crosses those lines. See all the "chick" bullshit that just happens to coincide with the feminism/sexism threads. At the very least, dismissing posters based on their gender should be considered something worth banning for.

18:49 / 08.03.06

Other things that should be taken into consideration when determining his status as a troll are the single issue posting, the inability to acknowledge points of argument that don't fit into his skewed worldview and the determination to try and paint himself as a revolutionary figure on the board, by taking note of things that are currently real concerns here and making sure that he crosses those lines. See all the "chick" bullshit that just happens to coincide with the feminism/sexism threads. At the very least, dismissing posters based on their gender should be considered something worth banning for.

ALL the "chick" bullshit? every instance of that was in direct response to baiting from self-determined self-defined female posters. they antagonized me, i did so back.

"single issue posting"? i've posted to many threads that had nothing to do with one another without expressing a common theme between my posts. the only thread in which i was the lone voice was the F4J thread. any other thread where i appeared and there was mention of others' interpretations of my attitudes based on the F4J thread was rotted by others, not by me. on more than one occasion my presence was called out in unrelated threads for no reason other than to antagonize me, and i consistently ignored those posts.

you dont know my worldview, so you cant say it's skewed. you dont know my motives, so you cantspeak to them. the only thing that can be defined as a "real concern" that i've gone against here is the female-centric attitudes, which i've apparently violated simply by having opinions unlike those of some others.

miss wonderstarr

18:58 / 08.03.06

By saying "lady, chicks like you bore me, too" to Mordant Carnival, you were dismissing her based on her (perceived/presented) gender, using a word that does carry derogatory overtones to some women.

By calling you a moron and expressing a wish that you be sucked into an airlock, I don't think Mordant Carnival was attacking you based on your gender. Perhaps she made other comments I've missed, but I don't think she was using your gender irrelevantly against you, as you were by saying "lady, chicks like you bore me."

19:01 / 08.03.06

when i said "lady," i wasnt talking to mordant carnival. i was talking to lady who called me boring.

see how we cant go off on assumptions?

miss wonderstarr

19:02 / 08.03.06

Well, I apologise for misreading that, but I don't know if Lady made any comments that used your gender irrelevantly against you? If so, then it makes a difference. If not, then my comment stands.

19:16 / 08.03.06

most importantly, it's not your battle to battle. we're nitpicking about name calling and both of the objects of my namecalling response in that thread were the result of my being called a moron and boring. so if i took something one step further, then i'm at fault for that. but that is nothing if not nitpicking. i've been called a misogynist numerous times and i find that offensive. so it's funny to me to call lady a chick. i'm not posting in a a vaccuum here. stereotyping spreads like a fever around here. really, some of you should try meditation or something. you really shouldnt be getting this pissed off about things. i'm getting responses about my character from people who havent ever spoken to me at all, asked me any questions or used pm to try to clear things up. settle the hell down. nobody's on fire.

Page: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10(11)12 13 14 15 16... 42