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 ... 24 25 26 27 28(29)30 31 32 33 34... 42

paranoidwriter waves hello

11:30 / 01.08.06

Erm...quick question: has the thread summary been changed for 33's music thread?

It's just that I can't find a reference anywhere that states the thread summary was going to be changed, or indeed why it has been changed. Can somebody humour me and explain who changed it, when it was changed, and why? Cheers.

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:36 / 01.08.06

The thread was started without a summary, I proposed one, it was approved.

paranoidwriter waves hello

11:42 / 01.08.06

Merci Monsieur. Is that standard practice then: that if there's no summary and the person who started the thread is being a dick, then a new summary will be provided which might contain sarcasm, etc?

Not that I'm complaining, it's just that it feels a bit odd, a way to have a dig at 33 (who's probably asing for it, anyway) without him having any say in the matter. i.e. did anyone PM him and ask him to provide a summary?

Sorry if this is threadrot.

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:45 / 01.08.06

It's not standard practise as far as I'm aware. If anyone wants to suggest a different, more impartial summary, they can go right ahead and I'll approve the change. Takes about 2 days to get anything passed in the Music forum though.

paranoidwriter waves hello

11:51 / 01.08.06

Cool. May I suggest we just delete the final sentence?

Hands up if you've seen this thread 300 times before and it got "better" each time?

The rest of the summary (although still sarcastic and, I admit, funny) seems (IMHO) OK.

12:07 / 01.08.06

Can we get rid of the twerp? 33 is a troll- he has refused to engage or to listen to others, even those that offered up suggestions of bands to listen to or even mixtapes were rebuffed- why on earth we need someone like that on Barbelith i don't know.

12:27 / 01.08.06

I've had a read of the offending threads and I'm not sure 33 counts as a troll...yet.

Ve's refusing to listen to anyone else though, and appears to have limited posting skills. Neither of which tend to stimulate my mercy-gland.

I'm generally supportive of stamping on hatespeech sooner rather than later. But I would suggest that, if those having to interact with vir can stomach it, ve's left for a little longer. If only to give vir enough rope to (metaphorically speaking) hang virself.

PW, I thought I saw a post by you in the Music thread drawing 33's attention to and linking to this thread didn't I? That's more than enough warning in my book. But, as someone who isn't involved in the threads in question, I'll PM him and see if that makes a difference.

12:28 / 01.08.06

What's going on in the Music is a classic Men Are From Mars, Women Are From venus thing. Seriously.

paranoidwriter waves hello

12:43 / 01.08.06

ES, I get what you mean, but my warning was about how he's posting and to give him a heads up that this conversation was taking place. The thread summary issue is (IMHO) somthing which needed to be addressed as (although I dislike 33's posts), I feel it's unfair to add a sarcastic summary without informing him that this is going to take place. It just adds to his persecution/messiah complex.

For example, I let out a little yelp every time I read Dragon's summary for hir Immigration thread in Head Shop, and I (and others) asked for this to be changed in the Moderations Requests thread. Of course, as Haus pointed out in the Moderations Request thread, changing Dragon's summary may be problematic due to the fact that it (albeit offensively) addresses the topic. However, I still think Haus' alternative summary is much better than Dragon's. That typed, if we were to change it, I believe we should be open, fair, and transparent in how we go about it.

But I'm straying off-topic. Apologies. I just wanted to clarify.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

12:43 / 01.08.06

Has it been locked yet? 33 is now expressing through a kind of free-form poetry a complete unwillingness to engage with everybody for fear of the surrounding female voids contaminating his masculine light through music.

13:18 / 01.08.06

I'm not convinced that 33 is homophobic (sorry, pillockish) in the generally accepted sense as much as credulous and isolated. If he shows any willingness to look at his statements in a manner reflecting the slightest familiarty with the cooling taste of grown-up juice, then we can go from there. Alternatively, we have to try to work out how we deal with people who might be considered in a sense ... conceptually less able?

It's certainly the case that, as individuals, we differ in terms of how we approach this situation. For me, what's perhaps most important is the extent to which the poster in question might conceivably be able to reflect on the (implications of the) comments they've made - and, by extension, whether they're able to concede, compromise or revise their views. I don't think it's necessarily terribly easy to gauge 'future posting potential' in this way - particularly once we've risen above a particular snark level - and sometimes I'm a liiittle concerned at the speed with which others decide that so-and-so "obviously" has no interest in any other mode of interaction, or attribute "just wants to troll" style motives...

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:35 / 01.08.06

The thread has now been locked, annoyingly ending with John the Exploding Boy's post in which he claims that I "don't like 33 and will use just about anything to put him down right now". For the record, this is untrue. I would not, for instance, use anything that 33 had not posted on the board. Nor is my primary motivation personal dislike of 33, nor my primary aim to "put him down". John's suggestion is that we "just mock his lack of erudition", which seems far more in line with "putting him down" than my attempt to unpack just what it is about women that so offends 33...

13:46 / 01.08.06

So you mean that apart from jumping in with the homophobia comment straight away and that 33 is 'offended' by women, you haven't been putting him down. Now, there's enough ammo in that thread alone to critise 33 for eternity based on his dodgy ideas about popular music, I just felt that labeling him a misogynist to boot was unnecessary, based on the amount of evidence he was providing us with.

TBH, my comment about just mock his lack of erudition was a half serious jab both at myself for what I said to 33 earlier throughout the post, and also because in that thread, the main things that 33 was messing up on were gross generalisations and a poor handling of language. Can about you unpack how/why you think 33 is offended by women? Because, as I said in my annoying post, I disagree with your assessment of 33's character on this point.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:58 / 01.08.06

Well, there's this:

And this from some woman too calling my ban amongst other things while supporting justin timberlake?

...Which I quoted in the thread, John. Did you miss that, or do you think 33 just innocently got confused about my gender identity?

13:59 / 01.08.06

Of course, you can argue that 33 has been putting himself down, and you've just been drawing attention to it. Which is fair enough, I guess.

14:03 / 01.08.06

Yes, JohnTEB's post is largely unhelpful, I feel.

Something that's worried at me in the past is whether or not our approach to this sort of situation ought at all be influenced by the suspicion that a given poster suffers from a psychiatric illness, a degree of learning disability or some other sort of... I dunno, 'damage'. On the one hand, this being the Internet, where anyone can claim anything and nothing can be verified, there's probably no reason why it should; on the other, as a psychiatrist, I find it difficult to disregard this altogether. There have certainly been situations where I strongly suspect that someone is posting in a particular way as a result of what might be loosely termed 'psychological limitation' (if not specifically illness) ie. in a very real sense they don't possess the capacity to post in any other way. Usually this makes it hard for them to remain on the board. I think it's important to bear this possibility in mind; even if the long-term prognosis isn't good, personally I prefer to cut a little more slack for those I genuinely feel might fit into Sad/Mad rather than Bad...

14:06 / 01.08.06

I'm pretty sure I'm the 'some woman' both calling for his ban and co-signing JT. I think it's pretty clear the phrasing is misogynistic, and I assume I would find it even more offensive if I was, you know, actually a woman.

14:11 / 01.08.06

Fair enough, colour me wrong. Carry on.

14:12 / 01.08.06

Ganesh, what do you think is an appropriate way to engage with people who are effecting the board in a negative way, who may have some kind of psychological problem? This is meant as a serious question, I hope it doesn't come across snarky - I am kind of drunk and having trouble judging my own tone.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:12 / 01.08.06

Yeah, I meant to add the caveat that it's not clear who he's talking about, but since the majority of the people who've posted in the Timberlake thread are male-id, it's pretty telling. Whether 33 thinks that only a woman could possibly think X and listen to Y (shades of Shadowsax), or thinks it's an insult to call a male-id poster a woman, makes no odds really.

14:26 / 01.08.06

Ganesh, what do you think is an appropriate way to engage with people who are effecting the board in a negative way, who may have some kind of psychological problem?

I don't think there is a single way, and I'm not really proposing one. "Psychological problem" covers all bases from psychotic illness to personality disorder to degrees of autism - and beyond. If I'm suggesting anything, it's that it's perhaps worth bearing this axis in mind, at least initially, when dealing with the negative way the board's being affected, and being open to possibilities other than simply the poster in question being Bad. The "psychological problem" in question may well lead to someone being excluded because it limits them in such a way that they can't interact in a more constructive manner, but if we strongly suspect such a possibility, it may influence how we manage the situation.

I'm probably not explaining this well. I think I need to go off, think about it, then start a new thread.

paranoidwriter waves hello

14:44 / 01.08.06

Speaking as someone with issues of their own, I've got to say that Ganesh makes a damn good point, and I for one would appreciate such a thread being started. Maybe we can find a way to avoid some of the unnecessary ugliness that can happen when new members are challenged? -- although I'm not for a second placing the blame on Barbelith for the behaviour of some posters (mine included).

Our Lady Has Left the Building

15:47 / 01.08.06

Barbelith's most determined troll did claim psychological reasons to excuse his behaviour.

15:50 / 01.08.06

Sure - which is why this is hardly a cut-and-dried subject. I've sort of posted before thinking about how best to articulate myself. Will start a new thread sooooon.

21:36 / 01.08.06

This is pretty much threadrot, but I'm pretty sure he was talking about me, because a) I use a female screen name, b) I started the Timberlake thread (so he'd see my name their without opening it), and c) I'd PMed him about this banning discussion, specifying (among other things) that I had personally asked to have him banned.

The exchange, if you can call it that, gave me unexpected insight into just how dismissive the phrase 'some woman' feels when it's directed your way (all other circumstances, and possession of actual male privilege notwithstanding).

14:39 / 02.08.06

ganesh's point is interesting

the thing is out there in the rest of the world people struggling with whatever stuff makes social interaction difficult for them get all sorts of reponses and feedback from the world at large,

and unless you want barbelith to become a therapuetic online community then i think it is altogether healthier for people to react in an honest and genuine way to whatever people post, with all the caveats of expected good manners and reasonableness that barbelith posters generally show

also i work all day with people struggling with this sort of stuff and i quite like not having to think about it when i am worrying about continuity issues in back issues of the New Gods

Less searchable M0rd4nt

14:47 / 02.08.06

Hmm. I know this isn't in any way cut-and-dried, but don't we already make some allowance for posters with mental health needs or other problems likely to affect communication? What tends to happen is that their ability to engage with the board most of the time is balanced against their more problematic input. If a poster is generally fairly reasonable, intelligable, and doesn't normally go out of hir way to create offence, then spells of aggressive or otherwise inappropriate posting are less of an issue--provided that the person recognises that what ze did was not okay and takes steps to make amends.

If someone comes here and contributes nothing but hostility and confusion, then it's difficult to see how the ze or the board can be of any use to each other.

MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!

19:36 / 03.08.06

Following up on something I just posted in the Switchboard. The B-Word was just tossed out relating to Dragon, who seems to be, er, wholly committed to a one-track line of thought regarding the current Israel/Lebanon conflict.

As somebody fairly ignorant of the Middle East, however, I got a lot more out of that thread than I would have if Dragon hadn't been part of it, as most of the other posters seem to be on more or less on the same page. As somebody that reflects a more Western-mass-media-influenced view of the world, Dragon's giving me some essential context for the argument.

I'm not as gifted at analysis as a lot of posters, and it's hard for me to take "Barbelith information" and then take in "Fox News information" and slot the two together intelligently, because often they're approaching things on different levels and from different angles, and I can't quite work out how Barbelith Fact A fits in with CNN Fact H.

Having somebody like Dragon in the mix really gives me some crucial context, because then I'm exposed to direct discussion of the same points.

I'm not saying somebody that's deliberately obnoxious -- 33 crosses that line, for me, personally -- should be welcome, but there's a lot of potential-to-teach in responding to bad ideas, rather than shutting them down.

I recognize that I'm saying this as a happy-go-lucky beneficiary that doesn't have to do any of the hard work of actually (and repeatedly) engaging in these debates with the Dragons of the board, but there is SOME worth to them.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

19:58 / 03.08.06

Oh, I agree. (Sorry for using you as a piece in an argumentative chess-game AGAIN, Slim, but you are the best example I can think of of somebody who often disagrees with the consensus view here but does it REASONABLY...) Slim, for example, is someone I (and many other SB posters) disagree with on many issues. I have, however, found hir contributions to be very useful. I come here (especially Switchboard) to discuss things... if everyone agrees, there's little point in discussion. We could just as easily email ourselves with messages saying "yeah" and cut out Barbelith entirely.

Disagreement is GOOD. It's necessary, if we're not all gonna be wasting our time patting each other's backs. Perhaps both sides can learn something.

I disagree with a lot (well, pretty much all) of what Dragon is saying- but ze seems to be trying to raise hir game as far as discussion goes. I don't think there's been much in the way of "bullying" recently.

20:36 / 03.08.06

Um, guys I think Grime was seriously suggesting that Dragon should be banned in the tread in question...

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

20:46 / 03.08.06

OK, yeah. I didn't think it was a serious suggestion, though- the way I read grime's post was "shit or get off the pot". Personally I didn't think any shitting or toilet-leaving was necessary. tokisk had argued that people weren't being mean to Dragon, hence my probably wrong assumption about the B word. I'd tend to agree. Even Dragon hadn't been claiming that.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:25 / 03.08.06

I don't think anyone is or has been arguing for banning Dragon, or censuring Dragon, because he's right-wing, or even because he is dim, although I'd be fascinated to know what stoatie sees as raising his game - offtopic qote from right-wing site, offtopic quote from right-wing site, incomprehensible justification of barely-uunderstood American foreign policy, wild generalisation about Muslims/Mexicans/other.

Dragon is objectionable not because he is disagreeing, but because his disagrement is based on racist and Islamophobic rubbish, to which he appears pretty wedded. However, Barbelith has enormous problems with people who espouse racist views while claiming not to be racist, since many of Barbelith's members are either social utopians or rather credulous, or are cautiious of decanal precedents being set that might interfere with their own freedom to skip homework.

However, as a result of that we are probably stuck with him, at least for now. Who knows? Perhaps some goood might come of it.

21:29 / 03.08.06

I think the point is that at least zhe's kind of listening, even if the signalisn't getting through, there does seem to be some kind of context to the posts. It's mildly annoying but the posts are at least on-topic.

ONLY NICE THINGS

05:46 / 04.08.06

Oh, absolutely - but so was Shadowsax. He's also comparatively friendly and not impolite, whcih count in his favour, and his mispprehensions are getting a decent amount of challenging and discussion, which means at least that Barbelith is not coming across as overly tolerant of Islamophobia. Might be quite a good thing, if contained...

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

06:50 / 04.08.06

I'd be fascinated to know what stoatie sees as raising his game

I did say "trying"... ze stays on-topic more these days, but yeah, that's about it, really.

Page: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28(29)30 31 32 33 34... 42