BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Policy & Help >

Shadowsax: discussion of possible disciplinary action

  
  

Page: 1 ... 678910(11)121314

 
 
Mourne Kransky
14:33 / 22.04.06
I like what Flowers said, a few posts upthread and, having been unsure how to respond and how to post here, I'll just say echo that. I come down reluctantly, and only just, on the 'kick him out' side. There are lots of reasons for that and others have expressed them well elsewhere already.

I doubt SS can learn from this thread and that's a problem he will have all his days. If we ban him then it's not our problem any more. The problem of how people may and may not debate contentious issues will remain. He's not a scapegoat whose banishment will remove sexist or blinkered thinking from our discussions.
 
 
eddie thirteen
16:26 / 22.04.06
One reason I suspect some people were wary of posting against the idea of banning (and, prior to this thread, I mentioned that some of this had come to me via PM) was the (I think, not unreasonable) supposition that they might be 'held to account' in some way, or tarred with the big, sticky Misogyny Brush.

Or just the big, sticky brush, period. The banning brush, I think, shouldn't have but two or three bristles. Our arguments for banning ShadowSax only seem to center around misogyny sporadically. Mostly, yes; exclusively, no; and indeed, some have argued that although SS is a misogynist, that's not why we should ban him. I understand what you're saying about "the moveable feast" -- generally, there is a sentiment among a lot of us that this person shouldn't be here, and hashing out why exactly that is should involve debate and discussion that is likely to touch on many subjects -- but the title of the thread implies that we've already decided what ShadowSax has done wrong, and now must move on to whether we're going to do anything about it. It's obvious most everyone thinks ShadowSax has done wrong, but we still kinda seem to be fumbling in the dark for just what he did.

I think we should have decided on a charge before we got to whether we should mete out a punishment. If we ban him, but each of us thinks he's being banned for a different reason, we will end up with a problem. Not in this case, because ShadowSax is gone -- problem solved! -- but the next time.

So far, the only person who has unequivacally said, "ShadowSax should be banned, and here is why that is the case," is Nina. I'm very, very cool with us now deciding whether ShadowSax is a troll, and banning if we determine that he is.
 
 
Ganesh
16:48 / 22.04.06
... but the title of the thread implies that we've already decided what ShadowSax has done wrong, and now must move on to whether we're going to do anything about it. It's obvious most everyone thinks ShadowSax has done wrong, but we still kinda seem to be fumbling in the dark for just what he did.

I don't think we're fumbling for "just what he did"; we're fumbling for whether what he did amounts to 'bannability'. That's likely to intersect with all manner of individual thoughts around banning in general, and the wider purpose and function of Barbelith.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
16:48 / 22.04.06
So far, the only person who has unequivacally said, "ShadowSax should be banned, and here is why that is the case," is Nina.

I genuinely hate having to ask this, but... Have you really read every post in this thread, eddie?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
16:50 / 22.04.06
I mean, Tom is right to say that Nina's last post summed it up extremely well, but do you genuinely think that no other poster has said that Shadowsax should be banned, and why?
 
 
Ganesh
16:54 / 22.04.06
I mean, Tom is right to say that Nina's last post summed it up extremely well

Yes, Nina's last post summed up the case for banning extremely well.
 
 
eddie thirteen
17:33 / 22.04.06
I mean, Tom is right to say that Nina's last post summed it up extremely well, but do you genuinely think that no other poster has said that Shadowsax should be banned, and why?

I wouldn't want to testify to that or anything, since this has gone on for now eleven pages and something like a week and I do occasionally go outside and whatnot. But in general, it's seemed to me that we've said he should be banned, and we've said why we don't like him, and we've largely demonstrated a hesitancy to join those ideas. And again, it's important to me that those ideas be joined not because I think we should retain ShadowSax (I don't), but because the less ambiguity there is behind a banning, the less likely it is that banning will be abused later on. So let me say that Nina at least crystallized why she wants SS banned; I'm not ruling out the possibility that it's been indirectly expressed before now, or previously expressed quite clearly but lost in the shuffle (at least by me).
 
 
eddie thirteen
17:43 / 22.04.06
I don't think we're fumbling for "just what he did"; we're fumbling for whether what he did amounts to 'bannability'.

Not trying to split hairs here, but it seems to me that what we should be fumbling for is what part of what he did constitutes bannability. I mean, he did a lot. And I'd rather we didn't all take a different set of lessons away from the banning, should a banning take place. This has been my concern all along.
 
 
Ganesh
17:57 / 22.04.06
Not trying to split hairs here, but it seems to me that what we should be fumbling for is what part of what he did constitutes bannability. I mean, he did a lot. And I'd rather we didn't all take a different set of lessons away from the banning, should a banning take place. This has been my concern all along.

Well, yes, if we're talking "should", then identifying the areas which some consider worthy of exclusion from the board is obviously key here - with a view to coming (with Tom's help) to some sort of conclusion in terms of Barbelith precedent.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
18:35 / 22.04.06
I kind of thought that was your reason for proposing this thread in the first place, Ganesh- and it's nice to see it's come back to it. A lot of this isn't just about Shadowsax- I thought the whole point of this endeavour was to help us come to some sort of, well, policy.
 
 
Ganesh
19:21 / 22.04.06
I thought the whole point of this endeavour was to help us come to some sort of, well, policy.

In a broad sense, yes. I'm not quite sure how to go about drawing things together, though, over the next 24, 48 hours. There's been a reasonable cross-section of views expressed, and I'm hoping Tom's able to come to a decision based on them. Tom, if you're around and reading this, is there anything else you'd like at this point?
 
 
illmatic
20:01 / 22.04.06
Thought I'd remind everybody that Shadowsax has sort of self-banned himself anyway (he may have gorn completely) - don't know if he be able to resist posting if something that really triggered him came up, but I thought it was worth restating.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:06 / 22.04.06
When did that happen? I must have missed something. His last post to date in this thread doesn't mention it, at any rate...
 
 
illmatic
20:32 / 22.04.06
Sorry Stoats, I meant "self-banning" in that he said he'd no longer post on political issues.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
21:13 / 22.04.06
That's not exactly banning. I don't post on political issues (except Purity Balls) and I'm still around a lot.

Personally, I came to this thread with enough doubt in my mind that I could have been convinced against a ban; ten pages later, I sort of feel like I'm sharing a board with, well, an enemy almost. An individual with profound prejudices against my gender and against feminism that are so deeply ingrained as to be invisible to him, but which frequently manifest though his writing.

I understand that a simple emotive response is insufficient and needs to be backed up with solid argument and evidence, but I kind of think that has happened here. I'd like to ask those who've come down against the idea of a ban what it might take to convince them--this is not a dig, it's a genuine enquiry. I'd like to know what the missing pieces are so that I can maybe refocus my arguments a little.

This post seems to suggest that if there remain people who are against a ban, they need to be better persuaded; they should lay out their reasoning so that the "missing pieces" that would, if filled in, convince them to ban ShadowSax, can be provided.

But why is it not OK for people to retain their doubt or their hesitancy towards banning? One might as well ask those who want ShadowSax banned to set out their reasons so that someone against or abstaining from the ban can refocus their argument and try to provide the "missing pieces" that would help them shift to a different decision.

The point is that for those who have come to a conclusion, they are not "missing pieces". They are holding another point of view that seems complete to them. I'm not sure about the wisdom of asking people who hold an abstention or anti-ban interpretation to spell out that interpretation in order that someone holding a pro-ban interpretation can persuade them why they're wrong.

Apart from anything else, there is no need for a 100% agreement here. Those who want ShadowSax banned presumably need only seek a majority vote.
 
 
Cherielabombe
21:37 / 22.04.06
OK, well, I've thought a lot about this issue, because like many in this thread have said, and as many of you do, I take the issue of banning someone from the Barb extremely seriously, and so I've been hesitant to post until I've had the time to fully enough read and re-read SS' post, and make it through the epic tome that this thread has become.

I'm very nervous about removing someone from the board simply because we disagree with hir views. Rather, I welcome a myriad of opinions to Barbelith and think that they make the board a richer place. It is clear that ShadowSax holds different opinions on feminism/misogyny/women than many of us Barbeloids, and that, I could live with.

However, in my opinion, ShadowSax' posts go beyond simply voicing a different opinion from the BarbeMajority or the Barbelite. Rather, he has repeatedly been consciously or unconsciously, offensive and disrespectful in his expression of those opinions, and to my mind many of his posts have quite clearly expressed misogynist views. (I'm happy to link to some examples if asked, but as plenty have been linked to in this thread already, for the moment I won't.)

The problem, as I see it, these views, coupled with many Barbeloids'(and I'm not even talking about the members who are so pissed off they're not contributing as they used to) impression of you, means that the effect of ShadowSax's presence in a thread tends to be some sort of derailment. The thread becomes more about ShadowSax (and Barbelith's collective opinion of hir) and less about what the thread was originally supposed to be about (thinking in particular of the Duke rape case thread). So to me, that's a negative to having ShadowSax remain on the board.

My opinion of ShadowSax's responses to this thread, with a view to the fact that approaching a thread which is about banning you in which many of the posters already want you gone could put you on the defensive, is that SS seems relatively unable to take these things on board. The most recent posts are promising, but taken with the "I was joking/haus is a dick/ganesh is uptight" response, coupled with his previous posting behavior (behavior that, judging from the Duke rape thread doesn't seem to be all that changed), I don't have much hope for a huge improvement.

And so, bearing these things in mind, I come down on the side of banning. BUT - banning forever?? I don't know about that. I am an optimist and I do believe people can grow and learn and change. So I would like to propose a ban with an opportunity to reapply after a certain period of time has passed (3 months? 6 months? 1 year?) - and the application would be subject to Barbelith approval.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:42 / 22.04.06
Every application is subject to barbelith approval.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:19 / 23.04.06
And, for that matter, there is nothing to stop Shadowsax reapplying with a new ID and new email address right now -it will take a while for the application to be processed, of course, but he can be back and posting. It would be necessary for him to conceal that he was Shadowsax, but capitalising his posts and avoiding rants about feminism would probably go a long way to achieving that.
 
 
Cherielabombe
07:15 / 23.04.06
I am aware that every application is subject to approval. I was just thinking that perhaps his IP could be blocked for a period of time mutually agreed on by Barbelith, and then at some time that blocking could be lifted. After this time, Barbelith as a whole could decide whether or not we would allow SS to return. I'm just thinking that with the benefit of time/distance/etc. we all may have a more well-rounded view of the situation (and we may well decide no we want to keep SS banned.)

I don't know how feasible it is. After really having a look at the threads SS has contributed to I tend to agree that the contributions that SS has made to Barbelith largely constitute trolling, yet at the same time I don't think it's a cut & dried case of malicious trolling, a la the Knodger. But I will now go visit the temporary suspension thread to see what people have to say there.
 
 
sleazenation
09:20 / 23.04.06
Right, a few pages back I asked if people really wanted my assessment of shadowsax - people said they did, so here it is...

After Shadowsax's failure to engage with, or even grasp, various points that were being put to him in the F4J thread I lost pretty much all respect for him as a poster. I avoided interacting with him and started skimming, and then entirely skipping his contributions to any thread more and more. He fell into an informal category in my head of 'not worth talking to'. Which is fine and dandy for me, but less so for barbelith as a whole.

And yes, I do think his presence and continued inability to engage fails to benefit barbelith. Further, I think there is a strong case to say that his presence damages barbelith in making such behaviour more acceptable.

So, yeah. While I am extremely wary of use of banning, I'm not really opposed to it in this case.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:53 / 23.04.06
I just wanted to quickly give my input...unfortunately I don't have time to go into much detail.

I think that Shadow Sax position here is untenable, Nina summarised the reasons for that well, and I think that Ganesh questions were illuminating, if in a rather negative way. I did, initially, favour a formal warning of some sort. But I think at this stage it would be just going through the motions and I don't see any chance of SS benefiting from it.
 
 
Tom Coates
11:06 / 23.04.06
I'm afraid baning an IP address doesn't really work enormously well for a whole range of reasons including, but not limited to, the fact that many ISPs assign a new IP address every time you log on - and of course you can use a different computer in a library or whatever if that doesn't serve.

I asked for people to send me their comments about what effect ShadowSax has had on the board, and I'm afraid the replies have been almost uniformly negative. I'm getting the sense that this has escalated to the extent that perhaps it's simply too late to try and work around the problem and bring things back to equilibrium. There still appears to be some dissent from the board, but it is limited. My thinking then is that we leave things open until Monday evening / Tuesday morning so that any final arguments can be made to try and persuade the board that a banning is inappropriate, but if nothing substantial comes out of that, I shall start the banning process.

I want to make it clear that obviously any banning is an unhappy event from the board, and that strong attempts should be made to resist it happening out of hand. I just think in these circumstances the groundswell of opinion that I've received from the board does appear to now be unreversable. Perhaps if we'd (I'd?) addressed this earlier, things would have turned out differently. Sorry to all concerned.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:17 / 23.04.06
If we're wanting yays or nays to a ban at this point, then I'd have to be a yay, really, though it pains me to say so. I still think it would be better for him to sort his shit out and become a more productive poster, but as has been pointed out that's not really our responsibility, and it's unlikely to happen without a lot of people making a lot of effort that, quite honestly, I really don't think anyone can be arsed with at this stage. Given that, the way I see it, that and banning are the only viable options, and that one's not gonna happen (for the many reasons outlined by others above), then that just leaves the airlock.

So yes, because I have been convinced by the arguments for why my "ideal solution" isn't workable. Which is a shame, cos it looked great in theory.
 
 
Ganesh
12:08 / 23.04.06
I want to make it clear that obviously any banning is an unhappy event from the board, and that strong attempts should be made to resist it happening out of hand. I just think in these circumstances the groundswell of opinion that I've received from the board does appear to now be unreversable. Perhaps if we'd (I'd?) addressed this earlier, things would have turned out differently. Sorry to all concerned.

I very much agree that banning is to be resisted generally - and I think that, in the case of ShadowSax, this is probably underpinning the feelings of those of us who aren't strongly advocating banning ie. it's because we're against banning people generally rather than because we're hugely supportive of ShadowSax staying. This is certainly the root of much of my own reluctance to get behind the idea. Having said which, if formally abstention were not an option and I had to come down on one side or the other, I'd be a very very reluctant yes.

I'm genuinely unsure whether earlier intervention would've helped the situation. I prefer to think yes, it would, than to suppose ShadowSax might never have managed to find a niche here. I think that, if he hadn't had time to exhaust all karmic credit at the Goodwill Bank of Barbelith, he might have succeeded in modifying his posting style and/or curbing his preoccupations sufficient to stick around. If there's anything to be learned from the whole episode it's this, the value of early intervention. I'm wondering whether this particular mode of discussion (separate thread, community-wide input, time-limited) might be adaptable to such intervention (ie. initiating broader discussion when a few posters feel that Poster X is making offensive comments, but it hasn't yet come to almost-banning point). Possibly not: I suspect that the defensiveness engendered by this sort of thread might work against the general aim of demonstrating to Poster X that significant numbers of posters would like him to modify his behaviour. I don't know: what do others think? Could threads like this one usefully serve a purpose other than at almost-banning point?

Finally, thanks to Lurid for the kind comments on my own questioning of ShadowSax. I agree that the replies I received were illuminating but rather depressing. They gave me cause to think about the concept of trolls and trolling in general, and I may revive the old Psychology of Trolling thread to explore these thoughts in more detail...
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
13:26 / 23.04.06
Well, I'm gonna come down on the side of not banning SS. And no matter what else is said to the contrary, I do believe that the majority of people who do want SS banned are saying so due to their dislike of SS, which I do not believe is a good enough reason for expulsion.

As for SS being a troll - I'm not to sure he is; the majority of his posts seem to be in response to others posts to him, and while it could be argued that he posts in feminist/women's issue threads the majority of the time, and while this can be viewed as trollish behavior, I'm not sure that is entirely true - we can see examples of him posting in threads that do not appear to have direct correlation with this suspected pattern of posting. Furthermore, I think if we look at the other people who have all posted in those threads, the same names will appear time and time again. I would also suggest that my name would appear in the majority (if not all) of the threads SS has posted in, and I do not consider myself or my actions to be those of a troll.

While I genuinely feel for the people who are upset by his actions enough to want him to leave, I find it difficult to agree with this response. I can't agree that his behavior is in line with other recent banned posters, and I do think that there is a chance that his behavior can be questioned and his responses can be reasonable. If this were achievable, wouldn't that be a more successful alternative to simply removing him?

Finally, and while this is not the case, there is a chance that by removing undesirable people with smaller odd (or wrong) ideas, we may cause an attitude among new and future posters that Barbelith is the type of place where dissenting voices are either not listened to or removed. While I don't think this is the case here, it could be viewed as such by others who are unaware of the entire story.
 
 
Ganesh
13:31 / 23.04.06
As for SS being a troll - I'm not to sure he is

I'm not sure either. It's an interesting side-discussion, I think. I'm going to revive a separate thread to explore it.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:46 / 23.04.06
If this were achievable, wouldn't that be a more successful alternative to simply removing him?

Totally. But IS IT ACHIEVABLE? I'm inclined to think not, otherwise my own reaction would be very different.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
13:47 / 23.04.06
So we don't ban him, because otherwise people who haven't bothered reading the board properly would get the wrong idea about why it was done? That's a ridiculous argument that could be applied to every single banning from a message board, anywhere, ever.

My feelings on the issue are mixed, to an extent, but not to the extent where I'm unable to come down on one side of the fence or the other. I think his suit should be locked and I've explained why elsewhere - he's clearly a troll in that he's only been posting to topics that allow him to keep on banging out the exact same single issue bullshit, apaprt from the one time when he decided to jump on a related topic purely so that he could insult everybody else. I just wish he'd been kicked sooner, frankly, because by dragging it out like this the entire issue's become blurred in a way that it never would have been before. It's allowed him extra space in which to try and slime his way out of what was previously obviously trollish behaviour by passing it off as something else - and it's worked, because there's a hell of a lot of people who've allowed themselves to become blinded by it.

The only qualm I have about the banning is that one of the things that'll inevitably be taken into consideration when deciding the issue is the whole "I'm not posting on Barbelith again until he's gone" thing, which strikes me as a pretty crappy form of emotional blackmail and should never even be considered as a reason for banning, as far as I'm concerned. It shouldn't even be brought up as a potential reason for booting something. Again, though, it's happened as a result of this having been dragged out in the way it has.

Fundamentally, though, I don't believe Barbelith can function properly with him present. Not now, not after this thread. Half the board will be chasing him through every thread he posts to - rightly, perhaps, but while that's probably a justifiable reaction it's also going to become a bloody tiresome one pretty quickly when it means that all those threads are derailed. And I really don't want to be stuck with every other Policy thread being about him.

There needed to be decisive action much sooner than this, either way. Anything that happens now is a fudge and will be seen as such.

Oh, and can I get some confirmation here about whether or not Vladimir's been banned? We're all having to presume that's the case at the moment.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
13:56 / 23.04.06
That's a ridiculous argument that could be applied to every single banning from a message board, anywhere, ever.


I'm not sure I agree. You see, in the case of the most recent ban - zoemancer - it is quite easy to view the problem he had caused, the reasoning behind it, etc. However, there are many shades of grey as to why people wish to ban him that it could be viewed that way. Not saying it will, just saying it could.

But IS IT ACHIEVABLE? I'm inclined to think not, otherwise my own reaction would be very different.

I'm inclined to agree. I've tried to find a response where it looked like SS might be reasonably assesing himself and his views, and the only one I could find was in response to Monk's post in the Duke Rape Case thread. First and second pages, bottom and top respectivly. Is this what we looking for, or something a whole lot more?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:57 / 23.04.06
And no matter what else is said to the contrary, I do believe that the majority of people who do want SS banned are saying so due to their dislike of SS, which I do not believe is a good enough reason for expulsion.

With respect, in that case it seems unprofitable to have spent the time reading the thread.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
14:16 / 23.04.06
And no matter what else is said to the contrary, I do believe that the majority of people who do want SS banned are saying so due to their dislike of SS, which I do not believe is a good enough reason for expulsion.

With respect, in that case it seems unprofitable to have spent the time reading the thread.

I may have mis-phrased this, so I'll take another stab at it. While it may be argued, successfully or unsuccessfully, as to whether SS is a misogynist, people who do think he is dislike him for it. To be honest, people who don't think he is probably don't like him much either. But while his being a misogynist is difficult to pin down entirely, the belief that he is has caused him to become unpopular, and as such this unpopularity is the main reason people are asking for him to be banned. So when I say that people don't like him, and this is why he's being banned, I'm not saying that these people will ask to ban everyone they don't like; as not everyone can agree if he is a misogynist (though the majority do believe this to be the case) I think this can be viewed as a major clash in personalities as opposed to a similar case which involved say, holocaust denial or racist posts.

Sorry, first day with the new tongue! Does this make my position clearer, or shall I take another stab at it?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:23 / 23.04.06
I do believe that the majority of people who do want SS banned are saying so due to their dislike of SS, which I do not believe is a good enough reason for expulsion.

I don't know ShadowSax personally, therefore it is impossible for me to say whether I would like him or not. It may that he has many sterling qualities and is a warm and wonderful human being. Here and now, though, he is a net negative on the board. He has serious prejudices against a particular group, is unable to examine those prejudices or even admit that they might exist, and this is affecting his ability to engage meaningfully and in a non-hostile manner with certain very important topics. Furthermore, the flavour of those prejudices tends to seep into much of what he writes and makes the board a far spikier place to be for a lot of people, FI and otherwise.

Personal dislike would be a shamefully bad reason to call for a member to be banned and so I find your implication insulting. I'll cop wholeheartedly to a fair degree of anger, but I think it's a valid and justifiable anger evoked by biased attitudes and the almost total resistance to examining same.

I can't agree that his behavior is in line with other recent banned posters, and I do think that there is a chance that his behavior can be questioned and his responses can be reasonable.

No, I agree that this case is different to other banned posters. It's less clear-cut and has been a lot harder to argue. I would point out, though, that alas, Ganesh and others have bent over backwards to get him to question his behaviour and evoke more reasonable responses. I don't see a whole lot of progress there myself.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
14:28 / 23.04.06
I would point out, though, that alas, Ganesh and others have bent over backwards to get him to question his behaviour and evoke more reasonable responses.

True, I think my I was suffering from a little hope over experience. He seems like he may be quite clever, and as such I hoped that as a quite clever person he might be able to view himself fairly, and make resonable responses.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:30 / 23.04.06
Sorry, x-posted.

as not everyone can agree if he is a misogynist (though the majority do believe this to be the case) I think this can be viewed as a major clash in personalities as opposed to a similar case which involved say, holocaust denial or racist posts.

Sorry, still confused. You seem to be saying that we would require an absolute 100% consensus from every poster who expressed an opinion on whether or not a poster was a misogyinst before banning waas acceptable, but racism or holocaust denial would not require such a consensus. I'm sure you're not trying to say that as it seems rather an odd position to espouse.
 
 
Ganesh
14:39 / 23.04.06
E Randy:
I just wish he'd been kicked sooner, frankly, because by dragging it out like this the entire issue's become blurred in a way that it never would have been before.

With respect, E Randy, it's been 'dragged out' for one week which, in terms of the amount of time ShadowSax has been posting stuff that some people have found offensive, seems a small price to pay for properly gauging community opinion. Also, the majority of ShadowSax's posting since this thread was started has been confined to this thread, where it's (arguably) been possible to usefully examine his posting behaviour.

I disagree with you that his behaviour is "obviously trollish" (although this rather hinges on how one personally defines trolling) and I don't think it's been nearly as straightforward as you suggest.

I don't feel that anything which was previously clear-cut has become "blurred" through discussion, except in the sense that encouraging a wider cross-section of posters to comment has resulted in a wider, more nuanced, continuum of opinion. Isn't that a Good Thing?
 
  

Page: 1 ... 678910(11)121314

 
  
Add Your Reply