BARBELITH underground
 

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


Expectations of Barbelith and Barbeloids

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Ganesh
00:58 / 04.03.06
Following the recent feminism-inspired discussions, one thing I noted was the repeated suggestion that Barbelith as a community and, perhaps, Barbelith posters as individuals had disappointed because they had failed to properly react to instances of alleged misogyny ("properly" obviously being something of a moveable feast here).

This is something that's jumping out at me more and more: individual posters becoming angry, ashamed or disappointed that 'Barbelith' fails to respond as they'd expect/like it to respond to examples of a given 'ism'. There was the instance of Stoatie getting pissed off about mention of social Darwinism passing without (a great deal of) challenge, and the "champions of obliterating sexual intolerance" thing. More distantly, I can recall Tom expressing "I'm ashamed of you" sentiments because posters had engaged with a Holocaust-questioning thread in a manner that apparently fell short of outright condemnation.

It seems to me that, more and more, certain of us are getting angry because 'Barbelith' hasn't met our expectations in terms of defending a certain viewpoint or challenging a certain 'ism' or reacting in the way one might hope/expect. I'm thinking maybe it behoves us, at this point, to talk about what we might realistically expect of our fellow Barbeloids and Barbelith as a community - and how we might reasonably express our dissatisfaction with unmet expectations.

So... go.
 
 
*
01:33 / 04.03.06
I'd like to say first that I think the recent threads indicate not increasing dissatisfaction with the boards, but higher hopes. I'm really pleased by the way these discussions are going, by and large.

My expectation of barbelith is that it will challenge me as a person, there will be people saying novel things about subjects of interest to me, and that as a whole we will continue to improve in challenging and dismantling racist, sexist, homobitransphobic, and other hateful doctrines on the boards and within ourselves. I don't expect that we'll all be perfect. That would be boring. I do expect to keep getting better, and I expect new posters to learn on their feet.

I do NOT expect everyone to agree with each other. Even in the areas of racism, sexism, etc. there is room for different interpretations. I do expect people to LISTEN to other people with an open mind, especially when these things are under discussion.

The board is not egalitarian. New posters can be treated like shit sometimes— not because they're treated more harshly than older posters, but because they make more of the kind of mistakes that we would flay an established poster for, and they don't know how to respond to that treatment. I don't necessarily like that. I remember going through periods where it seemed like I needed to never see the lith again. But every time I came back to it I felt a little more fluent, a little more thoughtful, and a little more culturally literate. Being willing to engage with this learning curve is something I expect of newer posters.

Another way in which the board is not egalitarian is that some people are accepted to have more expertise in certain areas than others. I certainly would not challenge Ganesh on matters of psychiatric disorders. But I'm sure there is some area of knowledge in which I am actually at an advantage. This doesn't mean that I recognize Ganesh as an authority figure on the board as a whole, but it does mean I recognize his authority in matters dealing with his field of study. I expect that people will not claim more and wider expertise than they have, nor abuse expertise that they do have.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
01:41 / 04.03.06
nice thread. saves me the trouble of starting one which I'd considered on what is barbelith culture?

Which I think is pretty much the same thing as this thread, phrased differently.

It's probably a good time for us to consider what Barbelith culture and society are, because that is what shapes expectations about the space and those who participate in it.
 
 
T Blixius
03:09 / 04.03.06
This place is an oasis on the internet as far as I'm concerned. Obviously not everyone is going to like what everyone else says, all the time, that's Utopia, and it's impossible, here or in any group.

I would like to point out that Barbelith seems pretty diverse, and with any group of diverse individuals certain schisms are surely to arise. I think it's definately okay to have expectations; but if they're not always met it doesn't have to be the end of the world.
 
 
*
03:31 / 04.03.06
I would like people here to be genuinely interested in becoming better people than they were before, rather than appearing to be better people than others, but that is pretty eutopian, I'll admit.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
03:53 / 04.03.06
Ha. I would like that too. I swing wildly these days as to how likely I think that is.
 
 
elene
16:13 / 04.03.06
The reason I first posted to Barbelith, rather than just following it, was a thread that questioned whether one might be better off dead than raped. That annoyed me a great deal, and deeply, so I think I do appreciate the issue here.

I've since concluded that it's best to allow all discussion, all opinions and, above all, all possible propositions in an environment like this one. I want a certain quality rather than a certain content. On the other hand I'd be saddened if, for example, we considered the Feminist 101 thread and did not become on average more aware of the misogyny on the board, but misogyny here doesn’t disturb me more than in society at large, and actually considerably less than in the workplace.

What I’m saying in no sense implies that I think a historian ought to permitted to lie about something as important and provocative as the Holocaust however.
 
 
iconoplast
17:00 / 04.03.06
I think I want Barbelith to have a certain level of theoretical agility. That the quality of the discussions, and an open-mindedness about first principles, combine to create all these wonderful and interesting threads. A byproduct of intense discussion and open-mindedness is positive change, as previously unexamined axioms get discarded.

But I'm feeling a bit alienated in the last couple of days, as my resolution to become a more productive member of this little society seems to have left me on a couple of occasions posting... orthogonally to the direction of some threads. Hence, what I expect of Barbelith may be a bit colored by recent experience.
 
 
sleazenation
19:34 / 04.03.06
I expect each poster to approach the board with a certain degree of intellectual vigour, self-analysis and honesty with regards to their own arguements and statements.

What do not expect and do not condone is any notion that Barbelith is or should be a 'safe space' for any particular group.
 
 
*
19:40 / 04.03.06
Can you unpack what you mean by "safe space," sleaze?
 
 
sleazenation
21:21 / 04.03.06
I was thinking something along the lines of this...

Now, I realise each group or community that feels the need for a 'safe space' has its own definitions of what a safe space entails, so 'safe spaces' vary.

I'm personally as opposed to safe spaces as I am to written constitutions.

It has been my experience that they are inherantly artificial and are by no means fully effective as a means of maintaining 'safety' (real or imagined) for the community they are intended to serve.

They can also attract both people who have a particular investment in what they might term their own disempowered, disenfranchised or victim status and/or people who have an investment in associating with and/or exploiting such people.
 
 
iconoplast
22:51 / 04.03.06
From the above link:
You have the right…
to feel safe being who you are.
to feel supported by the members of translife.net and to voice your thoughts, feelings, ideas, and opinions without the fear of being put down or disrespected.
to label yourself or not label yourself as you choose. You can even change your label everyday if you want to.
to feel wonderful, intelligent and beautiful when you are here for support and to learn and socialize.

You have the responsibility...
to refrain from saying hurtful things to or about other members, to listen to what others have to say and not put them down, even in humor.
to allow other people to label themselves as they choose.
to not “out” someone to other people.
to abide by these rules.


From The Barbelith Wiki:
Things that will get you into trouble pretty quickly


You can pretty much get away with arguing any position in the world on Barbelith, which is as it should be. What's more important is the spirit in which you do it. ... If you are going to espouse a position—any position—make sure that (a) you've really thought it through, and (b) you are ready and able to explain or defend it in a reasonable, articulate manner.

Our rule of thumb is that other members shouldn't feel harrassed, and aggressive statements about types of people who might be represented on the board may be considered direct harrassment of the individuals concerned; as a result, any comments which can be interpreted as hate speech are strongly frowned upon by the forum at large and will be dealt with. How they are dealt with tends to vary according to circumstances, but in extremity, where people repeatedly use offensive terms or make offensive statements and react with aggression to all attempts to get them to moderate their behaviour, people have been and will be banned.
...
A good rule to remember is that something being funny doesn't necessarily prevent it from causing offence, especially as other people might not find it funny. Likewise, what may seem to you obvious - that you belong to the group you are joking about, or indeed that some of your best friends do - is not immediately apparent over the Internet.
...
Agressive claiming of victim status, insults or strident accusations of political correctness, secret racism or censorship are likely to lead at best to a lot of mockery being aimed your way.



I'm not sure that Barbelith posters have a right "...to feel supported ... and to voice your thoughts, feelings, ideas, and opinions without the fear of being put down or disrespected." Instead, we are told we can ask whatever we want, and " if you do it openly and honestly and present the question fairly, then you'll generally get intelligent responses."

The other difference, of course, is that we do not have a responsibility "to refrain from saying hurtful things to or about other members, to listen to what others have to say and not put them down, even in humor." Instead, we are told "...other members shouldn't feel harrassed, and aggressive statements about types of people who might be represented on the board may be considered direct harrassment of the individuals concerned; as a result, any comments which can be interpreted as hate speech are strongly frowned upon by the forum at large and will be dealt with."

So yeah, I think, in fact, the two guidelines are very close in intent. Ours, to be sure, is wittier and less twee but so, as a board, are we. Is this bad? Should we not be a safe space? Are you saying this is why we get Trolls? Because we're attracting victims and victimizers?
 
 
Olulabelle
23:23 / 04.03.06
Okay.

But we are not translife.net. We are a place where people from very different backgrounds meet to discuss very diferent issues. That's not to say that Translife.net doesn't, but for them there is an assumed underlying link in their membership.

So in essence, Barbelith doesn't 'need' to be a safe space in the way that translife perhaps does. Our wiki is wittier and more cutting, but the board is wittier and more cutting, and we have no unilateral standpoint other than that of respecting people's right to be who they want to be. Although having said that, your opinion probably won't be welcome here if you're a card carrying member of the B.N.P, for example.

The point is, we should not expect Barbelith to be a 'safe space' because it is not, by definition a 'safe space' for any minority, or majority group.

It is a space for everyone.
 
 
iconoplast
23:30 / 04.03.06
This came up on the Fem101 thread, so I'll just repeat it here: I was using 'safe' space' in a, I guess, general sense. It doesn't have the same college-campus connotations for me that it seems to have for others.

In iconoplast's private lexicography, 'safe space' = 'no fuckwits club'
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:31 / 04.03.06
Crossposted from an inquiry by Sleaze (in italics):

So, is barbelith about making 'safe spaces'?

Well, yes, to an extent. For example, it is already a safe space where people can expect not to encounter sustained homophobic abuse, or have to read claims that the Holocaust did not happen, to take two recent examples of behaviour leading to banning. On the other hand, it is not at present a safe space where racism or misogyny are not (officially) tolerated. There are arguments to be had about what sort of safe space it should be and what sort of safe space it is. What I would, personally, like to see is Barbelith as an unsafe space - a space in which one cannot safely be an idiot, a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist. This may seem a bit odd, but take for example Shadowsax's regular complaints that he is suffering insults from moderators - he is essentially demanding that Barbelith should be a safe space for his issues. In those terms, the Venn diagram approach seems sensible and useful.

On the specific thread in the Policy - well, I don't think that is a safe space. I think it's a specific thread which has had a specific set of conditions applied to it - rather like the non-debate threads in the Head Shop. This has been done to try to create a greater sense of freedom for female-identifying posters to come forward and talk. It's not really a safe space so much as a _specific_ space. Barbelith in general is carrying along quite happily in the other x thousand threads available for addition.
 
 
sleazenation
00:37 / 05.03.06
Right striaght up here i'm going to add the caveat that I'm working from imperfect memory since i couldn't find the thread where stoatie first posted his venn diagram that is quoted above.

As I believe I stated the last time the wiki was updated to include these guidelines, I was, and still am, opposed to them becoming a written constitution. I believe I also outlined some of reasons why I was opposed to formally written constitutions something that I don't think we ever formally adopted or reached a consensus on, instead fudging together a compromise in the form of guidelines on the wiki.

I intended to go into greater depth on this post - but it is currently quite late... I might return to this in the morning...
 
 
Olulabelle
00:43 / 05.03.06
Iconoplast, I was using 'safe space' in relation to the description on Translife.net.
 
 
Ganesh
23:14 / 05.03.06
Nina's comment on never being "valorised" sort of taps into what I was trying to get at with my first post. It seems to me that, increasingly, dissatisfaction is expressed at how 'Barbelith' doesn't behave, how it doesn't react, what individual posters don't say or do. Rather than being unhappy with what's said, we're unhappy with what's not said. It would appear that we have particular expectations of how the board (and sometimes specific posters) should approach certain situations - and when those expectations aren't met, we feel disappointed.

What is it reasonable to expect from Barbelith and those who post upon it?
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
23:45 / 05.03.06
That I'll usually be able to figure out what thread I'm actually reading without having to check the topic & summary, because it hasn't just degenerated into the latest varient of the usual vicious thread as soon as I'm moderately interested. I seem to recall PMs being pushed as a more useful option at one point.
 
 
Olulabelle
23:52 / 05.03.06
I'm sad that the Feminism101 thread seems to have degenerated in the way you have described Papers, and I share Nina's concerns about it.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
23:59 / 05.03.06
Oh, I think it's doing better, but when I first started reading it there was a dodgy couple pages early on. Threads have ups and downs. I think my point is that if people went to PM earlier on (I swear, I always read that as prime minister) a thread undergoing lyncanthropy could be salvaged and excited back into useful discussion without having to sift through pages of whatever before someone says something interesting.

It should be noted that tangents and interesting sidebars are included in my definition of useful discussion.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:21 / 22.03.06
Bumping this, because I am seeing a fair bit of firefighting on the board, and a modicum of unhappy discussion outside it.

Concerns:

1) We've had a lot of very exciting discussion of attitudes to women on the board. I'm concerned, however, that they will ultimately go nowhere. This was counterpointed quite sharply by some of the more ghastly threadrot in the Feminism 101 thread, the boys piling in to woman-friendly Barbelith (although I admit that losing a $500 bet on that one did turn me against it) and the "male response" farrago. So, is there anything we can do apart from keep our eyes open to take this forwards? In particular in light of the reopened entrance policy.

2) About that entrance policy... it may be the shock of the new, but we're getting a lot of people through the door, and they seem to be reinforcing each other in some case and reinforcing bad behaviours.

3) More generally, we're talking a lot about what constitutes bannable behaviour, but right now it feels toothless - people can bascially do almost anything they want and it takes a very long time to get rid of them. Our policy is inconsistent and idiosyncratic, and there is no formal process in place, so we wait until somebody loses it completely before removing them, or try to exert social pressure on them to change their ways or depart. This often fails because people who are doing stuff that another board would ban are often not susceptible to peer pressure.

4) I see lots of lovely new people coming through the gates, but I'm wondering whether the place is, for want of a better word, sticky. Are people with stuff to say, as opposed to websites to plug or issues to advertise, getting the right signals and feeling the desire to stick around. In part this refers back to (3), because absence of clear rules (or anyone bothering to read the Wiki who is likely to infringe it seriously) means it's hard to deal with bad behaviour without visible confrontation.

Old members, new members - I'd like to hear your experiences. At some point we need to do some sort of state of the nation catch-up with Tom, and it would be good to hear people's thoughts beforehand.
 
 
Ganesh
00:50 / 15.04.06
Bumping this for Haus's third point:

3) More generally, we're talking a lot about what constitutes bannable behaviour, but right now it feels toothless - people can bascially do almost anything they want and it takes a very long time to get rid of them. Our policy is inconsistent and idiosyncratic, and there is no formal process in place, so we wait until somebody loses it completely before removing them, or try to exert social pressure on them to change their ways or depart. This often fails because people who are doing stuff that another board would ban are often not susceptible to peer pressure.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that it takes a long time to get rid of people - or, rather, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that it takes a long time for us to decide to get rid of people. I think, though, that it would be useful to firm up some sort of agreed working process: a sort of What To Do If You Think Someone Should Be Banned From The Board type of thing. As you say, there is no formal process and, as a result, the relevant discussion (and I hope it goes without saying that, in most cases, there should be discussion) takes place in dribs and drabs, in this or that Policy thread. Also, I think there's a tendency for individual frustrations to be expressed in a way which generalises to the whole board, in an "I'm fucking pissed off that this is tolerated/no-one else is taking this seriously" kind of way - and I'm not sure that's especially fair or constructive. In the case of the discussion currently (so-o-ort of) taking place about ShadowSax, for example, I have to say I'm resenting the implication that, in failing to come to the same conclusion (ban him) at the same time as other posters, I've somehow failed to "do the work". We don't all read the same threads; we don't all come to the same conclusions about them.

So. If we feel sufficiently strongly about someone's posting that we think they should be excluded from Barbelith, what should we do? It's perhaps a little more straightforward when it's a case of specific postings (such as the Holocaust thread) and the subsequent reaction to their criticism. In cases where the problem is more a cumulative drip-drip of lesser stuff and/or a less intensely but more persistently expressed 'ism', it can be difficult to know how best to proceed.

I'd argue that, in these cases, the person who feels strongly about Poster X needs to be explicit about wanting Poster X banned from the board. Ideally, I think there should be a separate thread started and the reasons for wanting Poster X banned should be laid out for more general discussion, preferably with reference to the relevant threads. Perhaps Poster X should be invited to contribute? Maybe it'd be worth time-limiting such threads eg. after a week, opinion should be sought and, if necessary, Tom contacted (it'd probably be helpful for Tom if he then had one index thread summarising and linking rather than having to comb through the forums in search of individual comments)?

What do people think?
 
 
Ganesh
01:11 / 15.04.06
I suppose I should add that, underpinning these suggestions, is my own opinion that banning people from Barbelith really ought to be a last-ditch option - and that if someone feels strongly enough about Poster X to want them gone, it is incumbent upon them to a) say so explicitly, b) make a reasoned, referenced case for this, and possibly even c) invite Poster X to argue the opposite case. I can see that the past tendency for such discussions to be interminable, repetitive and circular may have made people weary, which is why I think setting a time-limit might be useful.
 
 
Shrug
01:31 / 15.04.06
It's potentially a good idea and, at least, something we could try implementing to see how it succeeds. Would a member's status be decided at the end of the week period by voting (open to all barbelith's members with a vested interest/who wish to be involved rather than just moderators)?
 
 
Ganesh
01:33 / 15.04.06
I don't know. At the moment, I'm just suggesting a framework within which to have some sort of discussion - at least partly so that, if/when Tom's contacted (Tom being the only person with the power to ban posters), he's able to get a general sense of collective feeling regarding Poster X.
 
 
Shrug
01:56 / 15.04.06
Ah, yes, sorry, misconstrued something key to your post, I think. The decision is, of course, up to Tom in the end.

[troubleshooting]
The time limit would almost certainly sort out the some of the problems you've listed (at least tautological/repetitious argument) but in a case of repeated transgression would each argument be re-opened? I've noticed, as I'm sure everyone has, that repeated transgression is quite often an issue. And given a shorter time limit (let's say of a week, although, I know that's probably debatable) Tom may be called back to decide more often than would be necessary or repeatedly?
[/troubleshooting]

Don't get me wrong I think that this is a very good suggestion and the format, as it is, is far too nebulous, just that that could be a potential problem I could see arriving (possibly).
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
02:03 / 15.04.06
Also, I think there's a tendency for individual frustrations to be expressed in a way which generalises to the whole board, in an "I'm fucking pissed off that this is tolerated/no-one else is taking this seriously" kind of way - and I'm not sure that's especially fair on constructive. In the case of the discussion currently (so-o-ort of) taking place about ShadowSax, for example, I have to say I'm resenting the implication that, in failing to come to the same conclusion (ban him) at the same time as other posters, I've somehow failed to "do the work".

Agreed.

I suppose I should add that, underpinning these suggestions, is my own opinion that banning people from Barbelith really ought to be a last-ditch option - and that if someone feels strongly enough about Poster X to want them gone, it is incumbent upon them to a) say so explicitly, b) make a reasoned, referenced case for this, and possibly even c) invite Poster X to argue the opposite case.

Also agreed. To be truthful, I had thought this was standard OP for Barbelith (maybe not c), but whatever) until recently.

I can see that the past tendency for such discussions to be interminable, repetitive and circular may have made people weary, which is why I think setting a time-limit might be useful.

A time limit is a nice idea. My main concern is this: although the interminable, repetitive and circular discussions are wearying, that is no reason not to have them. I too feel that banning should be a last-ditch option, and that the decision to do so should come only after a serious discussion, not because the more vocal members of the board demand it (with or without a tone of righteous indignation). Strict (more strict, rather) guidelines on the discussion would, obviously, make this less wearying for everyone.
 
 
Ganesh
02:06 / 15.04.06
Ah, yes, sorry, misconstrued something key to your post, I think. The decision is, of course, up to Tom in the end.

Yeah. We ain't a democracy.

The time limit would almost certainly sort out the some of the problems you've listed (at least tautological/repetitious argument) but in a case of repeated transgression would each argument be re-opened? I've noticed, as I'm sure everyone has, that repeated transgression is quite often an issue. And given a shorter time limit (let's say of a week, although, I know that's probably debatable) Tom may be called back to decide more often than would be necessary or repeatedly?

Well, I guess I'm thinking Poster X is only really proposed for banning after "repeated transgression". I suppose if the end result of the discussion (including Tom's ultimate thumbs up/down) is that Poster X shouldn't be banned - but he then goes on to cause further concern - then yes, I don't see why that concern couldn't be noted in the same thread.

As you've grasped, I'm not trying to set anything in stone here. It's more that I'm soliciting opinion on a slightly more formalised way of flagging up and discussing concerns prior to getting Tom involved. I think that, at present, uncertainty about this is one factor contributing to (what I read as) a faintly passive-aggressive, sometimes snarksome tendency to resent Barbelith as a whole for not dealing with perceived offenders.
 
 
Ganesh
02:15 / 15.04.06
Also agreed. To be truthful, I had thought this was standard OP for Barbelith (maybe not c), but whatever) until recently.

I don't think there's any formal policy, possibly because banning people from the board has been a rare occurrence. Sometimes a specific thread is started, but more usually (I think) concerns are flagged up in some moderation thread or other, a discussion ensues and, at some point, Tom is or isn't contacted. He'll not infrequently ask, "what do people think?" and arguments are repeated.

A time limit is a nice idea. My main concern is this: although the interminable, repetitive and circular discussions are wearying, that is no reason not to have them.

I agree absolutely. My own concern is that those discussions, if they happen at all, are happening in a disjointed, disconnected manner, over several threads (Barbannoy, various Policy including - at the moment - the Woman-Friendly ones, etc.) and they're often more akin to individual, subjective expressions of annoyance (directed at Poster X and/or the board for not having dealt with Poster X) than explicit statements of "I think Poster X should be banned; here's why".

I too feel that banning should be a last-ditch option, and that the decision to do so should come only after a serious discussion, not because the more vocal members of the board demand it (with or without a tone of righteous indignation). Strict (more strict, rather) guidelines on the discussion would, obviously, make this less wearying for everyone.

Well, the aim would be for discussion to be sufficiently serious/inclusive for everyone with a point to make to be involved, but also framed so that a conclusion is reached, rather in terms of deciding whether or not to approach Tom.
 
 
Ganesh
03:13 / 15.04.06
Celane has summed up what I think a Poster X Should Be Banned thread should conceivably comprise:

Theoretical response to posters who need bannination:
1) Collect all the evidence we can (links will do fine) in one place.
2) Summarize evidence, complete with references to:
* pejorative statements on the part of the accused,
* discussion from other posters ("Hey, this is wrong!"),
* recurrent recalcitrance from the accused,
for Mr. Coates. Conclude with a "And this is why _____ needs to be banned."
3) Point Mr. Coates at evidence/summary thread.


I think it's worth opening a separate thread to do this because it makes discussion easier to locate, and therefore more inclusive for posters who don't regularly peruse the moderator threads in Policy. I think moderators ought to consider it their duty to read through the links and form an opinion - at the very least, moderators of Policy and those forums in which the allegedly offensive material has been posted.
 
 
Ganesh
08:38 / 15.04.06
With ShadowSax being the obvious recent example here, discussion has largely taken the form of a few angry posts (a couple of which suggest banning) on the Women-Friendly thread, and a longer dissection on the Women-Friendly Male Response thread - plus previous stuff in the Fathers 4 Justice and Barbannoy threads. Many of us, male and female, mods and non-mods, have not been following the situation sufficiently (before now) to form a solid opinion on whether or not ShadowSax's contributions merit his banning - and those who have reached a clear opinion are expressing anger at the failure/slowness of response of their fellow Barbeloids. Some have characterised this division in terms of gender, with female-identifying posters calling for ShadowSax's banning and male-identifying posters "trying to justify" not banning him outright. I think this is an unfair, unhelpful mischaracterisation of the situation.

If we'd had some sort of agreed way of proceeding, those who first came to the conclusion that ShadowSax ought to be banned could've started a Policy thread to that effect, stated their reasons, and linked and quoted as appropriate. Moderators could've been alerted to the fact that someone felt strongly enough about the situation to want another poster excluded, and could've then got up to speed with the threads in question - and formed an opinion on the specific question of banning. Non-moderators browsing the Policy could've easily located the discussion and put their views forward. Debate could've been contained in one place and, after a week or so, we'd hopefully have reached a decision en masse. Tom could then have been contacted, could've read over the index/discussion thread and decided yeah or nay.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:38 / 15.04.06
But what if Tom disagrees? Are we demanding that Tom is bound by those that decide to speak up? As he is the man with the vote I feel that the most important thing at the current time is that those that feel strongly should send him a PM with quotes and links. If he makes it a moderating issue or, better yet, starts a thread each time saying "I have received a request to ban poster x, what do you think, I'll make a decision in a weeks time" then I think your idea has merit.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
09:45 / 15.04.06
Part of the issue seems to be, though, that for various reasons - lack of time, distaste - not everyone has read all of Shadowsax's offensive posts and so has not gained an overall picture of him as a contributor. This is a poster, as I understand it, who rather than making any single explicitly repulsive and obviously-bannable remark, has an unacceptable world-view that inevitably comes through a drip-drip effect rather than the single drip of one post.

PMing Tom with quotations would leave that situation unchanged, with some people fully understanding all the context, and some not so well informed. (It has been argued that those people have a duty to inform themselves, not to wait for others to present them with evidence.) It also seems to imply that moderators, and discussion among moderators, is pointless as only one person has the power to ban.
 
 
Ganesh
09:52 / 15.04.06
But what if Tom disagrees? Are we demanding that Tom is bound by those that decide to speak up?

If Tom disagrees, Tom disagrees. It's his board. It would be ludicrous to suggest he's "bound by" anyone here - but I suspect he'd prefer to act on the basis of a well-made discussion involving as much of the community as possible.

As he is the man with the vote I feel that the most important thing at the current time is that those that feel strongly should send him a PM with quotes and links.

If you're talking about ShadowSax, then possibly the situation is too far gone to hope for a well-made case, as Celane and I have outlined. Possibly not, if the motivation's there. I know that, in the past, broadly similar situations have eventually resulted in someone (and there seems to be no real way of determining who) PMing and/or emailing him with quotes and links. Tom then has to go through those links and, more often than not, solicit opinion from Barbelith as a whole. I think it would make sense for the various opinions to be thrashed out before contacting Tom, in an easily-located index thread. This would also give non-moderators (or those who haven't lobbied Tom by PM/email) a chance to state their views, if they feel strongly enough about the proposed banning.

If he makes it a moderating issue or, better yet, starts a thread each time saying "I have received a request to ban poster x, what do you think, I'll make a decision in a weeks time" then I think your idea has merit.

I think it has merit anyway. At the very least, it would collect scattered (and often angry/unstructured) complaints within a single thread, in which everyone could at least have a say (including the proposed bannee) - rather than taking place over a number of threads or 'behind the scenes' as a moderating issue. Transparency.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply