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

Underground > Policy & Help >

Moderation requests & discussion thereof

Page: 1 ... 84 85 86 87 88(89)90 91 92 93 94... 95

20:23 / 05.07.08

Would moderators toy? Are they not, after all, those who have earned the respect and trust of the community?

21:36 / 05.07.08

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

00:12 / 09.07.08

Should I be having a panic attack about the following;

Every time I come back and find a thread I might like to contribute to I see Alex has already been there depositing his thoughts like a bad dog in the middle of the pavement and it just makes me go away again.

Well, probably not, no. Equally though, if I'd gone as far that about the OP, if I'd compared hir, for example, to a rhino or something, an angry rhino, I doubt Barbelith would have heard the last of it before Christmas this year.

Which isn't to say that I mind very much; I don't. All I suppose I want to say is that the OP's antics seem, in context, to be a bit 'over the top.'

00:21 / 09.07.08

So, can this sort of hostility be discouraged in future, mderation-wise?

I've been guilty of it in the past, of course, but not to quite the same extent - what's the use of trying to match wits with a board member who would, quite clearly, like to re-paint hir bathroom with one's blood?

06:26 / 09.07.08

Alex, as ususal your post can be read as, 'Those silly Barbelith temple people, let's show them how misguided they are'.

You will say that's not what you meant I am sure. Go ahead. I don't know why I bothered coming back anyway when I knew you'd still be here taking the piss out of anyone who professes an interest in any sort of sprituality.

I just wish I got to post in the Temple without you running around mocking people all the time.

But I expect as usual I'll probably be told, like Mordant is, that you haven't done anything and we're over-reacting, because you're funny! So funny! So that's alright then, glad it's comedy central around here.

And I don't know what the OP is supposed to mean, but I expect it's more of you being funny isn't it? Ha ha ha.

07:15 / 09.07.08

Look, first of all, complaining about the way you respond to Temple posts is not 'antics', it's a point of view. Nor is it wanting to 'paint anything in your blood'. That;s very dramatic. Also can you please refer to me by my name and not some made up thing that begins with 'the'. I'm not a 'the', I'm a person who has a problem with some of the things you post.

To try and explain about this particular problem, a new poster made a perfectly valid and interesting thread asking for help with interpreting a dream, in a forum which welcomes and encourages discussion of dreaming, to which you replied,

"You could interpret it either way, but really, why bother? Tomorrrow night there'll be something else along."

If I was to rock up to the Comics forum and make comments about the pointlessness of talking about comics, you would probably question why I'd done that, and rightly so; the Comics forum being specifically designed for the discussion of comics.

If you don't believe in discussing dreams, why post in a thread about it in a forum which does believe in discussing dreams? Why not just leave that forum alone to contiune it's discussions, as I do with comics?

The only conclusion it's possible for me to come to is that you like to mock the Temple posters.

And for your info, I'm really not trying to be horrible, I'm about as far away from having mean thoughts about people as it's possible to get, what with being due to have a baby in three days. It just upsets me that you seem to think it's ok to constantly mock the Temple in various little ways. So please don't try and turn this into, "Oh she hates me so much, I'm being picked on." If you want to resolve it perhaps you could actually hear what I'm saying and answer why so often you feel the need to take the piss in the Temple, instead of just pretending I hate you, which I'm sure makes you feel better and validated, but doesn't actually address the issue at all.

08:30 / 09.07.08

I know you Temple peeps get it worse, but I'd like to point out that other places see their share of irritating and antagonistic Alex-posts too. See his response to grant's perfectly reasonable question about publishing ebooks in the Conversation as an example.

12:47 / 09.07.08

Maybe a massive "What are you Reading" merge?

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:01 / 09.07.08

See his response to grant's perfectly reasonable question about publishing ebooks in the Conversation as an example.

As an example of what? A perfectly valid response that someone - in this case you - is throwing a mardy about because they don't like it and would rather be spoonfed simpering platitudes?

13:26 / 09.07.08

The Convo thread in question.

Ms. Hurt, could you please explain why you feel Alex's response to that thread is "perfectly valid"? Because it seems to me that Alex stumbled into that thread and posted without really understanding what grant was asking or why he was asking it.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:40 / 09.07.08

It's a thread about publishing writing online and charging a fee. AG is putting forward the view that the whole approach is misguided and that traditional publishing is still preferable. You or I may not agree with him, but it's as valid as 90% of the crap that gets typed out here.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:27 / 09.07.08

It's all a bit of a scar on the conscience of Barbelith, sort of thing. As you know, I've moved away from the banning thread and towards the me-and-randy model of banning, for running with scissors reasons. It seems unlikely that AG is going to have the continence to stay in his own corner, so perhaps the best thing to do would be to ban him. However, there is a proviso, which is that if he is to be banned then I will also be asking Tom to ban, as a preliminary list and in no particular order:

Buk
bacon
Gipsy Lantern
Olulabelle
Qalyn
freektemple
charrelz
Triplets
Rex Feral
Mordant Carnival
He of Perpetual Beef
Dead Megatron
Dead Megatron _again_
iamus
Duncan Falconer
At least two of the Brighton posse
jhw3
Kristan
Alex Thoth
deja_vroom
E Randy Dupre
life critic
Jack Fear
grant
Flyboy
Myself

Randy and I will still be able to enact future bannings on request, but will no longer be able to tell anyone about them; such is life.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:38 / 09.07.08

Your thinking seems sound, but you should probably add "Everyone who's ever posted in a Late Shift thread" for good measure.

Going back to the original question, again, Olulabelle, I'm not saying AG has always been on the right side in these clashes, but I don't see what is so bad about AG's post even in that Temple thread. If someone posts about the meaning of a dream, is it verbotem to suggest that dreams can be very ephemeral things, often seeming of more significant import than they are? trouser the trousarian seems to think it's a valid point, as does the thread starter. Not only that, AG even has something to say about the dream's content.

16:14 / 09.07.08

I simply don't believe that you can't see anything wrong with the post in the Convo thread. It's drenched in the special AG brand of spiteful antagonism.

17:43 / 09.07.08

("OP" usually means "Original Post" or "Originating Poster" or similar. If that helps.)

19:59 / 09.07.08

I simply don't believe that you can't see anything wrong with the post in the Convo thread. It's drenched in the special AG brand of spiteful antagonism.

I thought we'd decided that spiteful atangonism was pretty much not a problem?

It is pretty clear that AG will continue as he has done, which some people will see as harrassment and others will see as a valued contribution. But nothing will happen, so I'd really advise everyone who has issues with him to put him on ignore.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:22 / 09.07.08

Well, nothing is going to happen on this kind of level, because his contribution in the threads cited is no more antagonistic than has been employed by any of those listed above at one point or another, and many others. I'd be OK with really cleaning this place up, but a bit of consistency is by no means a bad thing.

21:46 / 09.07.08

I feel like such a loser that I'm not on that list.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:53 / 09.07.08

Have you considered getting emotional about Dave Sim? That's wave two.

22:12 / 09.07.08

Well, nothing is going to happen on this kind of level, because his contribution in the threads cited is no more antagonistic than has been employed by any of those listed above at one point or another, and many others.

It's really about the fact that it's a constant, though, isn't it? Nobody on that list - well, almost nobody - has managed to make antagonistic bullshit such a regular feature of their posting. As a general rule, most other people on this board tend not to act like pricks without any justification whatsoever. AG, otoh, is continually blindfiring this shit into threads as and when the whim takes him, and it's a fair while since it became tiresome.

See also: doing that, then acting the injured party when it's picked up on. It really is yr classic troll behaviour: act like a turd in order to generate a specific response, then make out that you don't understand the reason for that response and claim that, actually, you're the person being wronged. Over and over and over and over and over.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:29 / 09.07.08

It's really about the fact that it's a constant, though, isn't it?

Is it, though, or is it just that certain contributions are picked up on particularly? Especially given that two out of three of the recently cited examples of same have been pretty robustly questioned.

The whole setup is dysfunctional, to be honest. Maybe banning is the only way to fix that, because this rigmarole is just disheartening.

22:49 / 09.07.08

You have a point. Unfortunately, if certain posters who've had issues with him in the past were to flag up future posts as being out of order, the personal history would now inevitably raise questions as to the validity of those complaints. And I do mean unfortunately, because it shouldn't have been allowed to get to this point, and I suspect that it wouldn't have been if the board were functioning as we'd like it to.

But the fact that it's not just those same people pointing to his posts on each occasion is fairly strong evidence that there is a valid complaint there, and that this is a genuine issue.

I also don't understand why AG's behaviour is defended by some of those who were happy to take Glenn to task for what was, in effect, exactly the same thing.

What I do know, as an absolute certainty, is that if there isn't a major turnabout one way or another, this will continue for as long as the board remains active. And if Alex is incapable of honestly looking at his posting behaviour, coming to an understanding as to why it garners the response that it does and then acting accordingly to stop that from being an issue, then I don't see any way forwards beyond a ban. Even if that's only a temp ban - which is, as far as I can tell, something that could be put into practice.

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:12 / 09.07.08

Theoretically. It's probably a bit of a moot point, though - if he wanted to get a suit back, he could just reapply. Incidentally, one significant difference between Glenn and Alex's G. is that AG tends not to shit in the Policy unless directly attacked there. Another is that he tends not to start threads specifically seeking negative attention, and another that he does not repetitiously post pictures. Certainly if there is any serious talk of banning AG, Glenn's suit should be banned as a precautionary measure at the same time.

01:25 / 10.07.08

Well I'm sorry, if what seemed like a fairly temperate set of remarks about the nature of dreams has led to all this.

It may be that the AG franchise has been so soiled by past antics that there's no way back for it. I'll be considering its future, over the next couple of days.

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

04:44 / 10.07.08

Certainly if there is any serious talk of banning AG, Glenn's suit should be banned as a precautionary measure at the same time.

Maybe we should just go ahead and ban Glenn. Y'know, just to...um...see if the E. Randy/Haus banning process functions properly, in case things with AG come to a head?

09:05 / 10.07.08

Going back to the original question, again, Olulabelle, I'm not saying AG has always been on the right side in these clashes, but I don't see what is so bad about AG's post even in that Temple thread. If someone posts about the meaning of a dream, is it verbotem to suggest that dreams can be very ephemeral things, often seeming of more significant import than they are? trouser the trousarian seems to think it's a valid point, as does the thread starter. Not only that, AG even has something to say about the dream's content.

The second post of Alex's is relevant and that's where Trouser's response came from. The first post just doesn't read with any sensitivity to the subject. You know, it could just be that so many times Alex is taking the piss even when he doesn't mean to it comes across that way, but I still keep coming back to the thing of, if you really don't believe dreams have any import then why bother visiting a forum where people clearly do?

09:41 / 10.07.08

And if Alex is incapable of honestly looking at his posting behaviour, coming to an understanding as to why it garners the response that it does and then acting accordingly to stop that from being an issue, then I don't see any way forwards beyond a ban.

I don't think that is true, really. As Haus says, banning is off the table and so there is little point discussing issues of behaviour and harrassment. In that climate, it is probably rather easier for people who are unhappy with AlexG to leave the board than to try to do something about AG himself - we are only talking about half a dozen people or so at most, I guess.

09:46 / 10.07.08

It may be that the AG franchise has been so soiled by past antics that there's no way back for it. I'll be considering its future, over the next couple of days.

Perhaps it is time to try some new material. The AG jokesuit's routines have become pretty stale of late (IMO of course).

Randy and I will still be able to enact future bannings on request, but will no longer be able to tell anyone about them; such is life.

Well no, seeing as you'd be banned, there wouldn't be any point contacting you or Randy when it'd be easier to go direct. Someone else'd have to take the role of Ban-Lord.

(Insert generic comment about functionality and lack there-of, death of Barbelith, what's the point of it all, etc)

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:56 / 10.07.08

Access to Barbelith has no relevance to the current banning process - Randy and I, if we felt so inclined, could submit and sign off random user numbers to Tom, although we probably wouldn't. Finding a new ban-lord, as you put it, would probably involve finding somebody who wanted to do it whom Tom knew and to some degree trusted, presuming that at that point he gave even a vestigial toss; the available options would be more or less disastrous, I think.

Lurid - it's not that banning is off the table, as such - it's just that banning for the kind of behaviour AG exhibits would also involve banning a number of other people. We could work on that list, but that's my basic position. Also, that expressing skepticism or cynicism about something - whether that something is a belief in the significance of dreams or the virtues of online publishing - is not bannable behaviour. It isn't really even _bad_ behaviour. Not understanding the issue under discussion and bowling into a thread anyway is not bannable behaviour, although it is profoundly annoying - otherwise that list swells by about a factor of eight and leaves this place almost entirely empty. Tempting, I admit.

One thing I would like to point out, to Mordant Carnival, AG and Olulabelle, is that this thread is supposed to be for people who are not moderators to draw the attention of moderators to things they would like to see moderated. It isn't really for moderators to cheerlead for moderator actions they have taken. Honestly, if the best way to minimise the impacts of this corrosive bogging-down is for Olulabelle and Mordant - both of whom are Temple moderators - just to delete everything he posts to the Temple. I wouldn't normally recommend it, but at this point nobody else would care particularly, and any damage to comprehensibility might be offset by the absence of a giant cloud of BAD BRAIN RAIN hanging over the Temple. In a forum where a measurable chunk of the moderators were basically OK with anti-Semitic propaganda, it hardly seems like this would occasion too much scandal.

11:00 / 10.07.08

Access to Barbelith has no relevance to the current banning process - Randy and I, if we felt so inclined, could submit and sign off random user numbers to Tom, although we probably wouldn't.

Probably?

Well as long as I know where I stand.

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:08 / 10.07.08

Well, you know, never say never!

11:12 / 10.07.08

(whispering) Do it Haus, they're all against you. Burn them all!

12:56 / 10.07.08

I'm pretty sure that the number of people significantly irked by Alex's posts is higher than "half a dozen people or so at most"; more than that have already made their thoughts known, of which at least four are on this page.

Like Randy and monk, I honestly find it impossible to believe that anyone could think that Alex's post in the ebooks thread was made in good faith, and not part of a long pattern of being antagonistic just for the sake of a rise. I can only comprehend Flyboy's stance - in which I include repeatedly defending Alex in these recurring discussions and being much less harsh than he would be towards others when disagreeing with him - as being connected to real-life friendship. I can see a bit more the "well, there are other people just as or more bannable line", and sure, there are plenty of people I'd be happy to see go, but none who have anything like 6,000 posts on the board, and very few who so blatantly fit the classic troll mould (as opposed to just being a bit dim, and/or prone to saying offensive things because they don't have a clue).

So yeah, that's me throwing a mardy, if you like. Still, whilst "no smoke without fire" is in itself blatantly complete rubbish, I'm not sure I can think of a case of smoke pointed out by several of Barbelith's most consistently respected members (such as Mordant and Olulabelle) where there haven't been flames to be found. And to me, the fire seems pretty obvious.

13:44 / 10.07.08

It's fortunate, then, that I have basically no desire to exist on an AG-less Barbelith.

13:47 / 10.07.08

Oh, what I meant to say was - I vetoed deleting this because I didn't understand the reason and it seemed part of an ongoing discussion. If it really wants deleting, comes up on my screen and/or is explained here with a complete rationale, then fine I guess.

Page: 1 ... 84 85 86 87 88(89)90 91 92 93 94... 95