Not so much talking about this thread in isolation, G, as the whole SS affair. Talk of banning was originally brought up a while ago.
Yes, but as I've said, it was part of a general expression of anger/frustration rather than an explicit "ShadowSax ought be be banned because..." statement. It was expressed in a thread to which only part of the community was welcome to post, and several posters felt unable to state their views on the subject because they feared getting into a flamefest. "Talk of banning" needed fleshing out, via wider discussion, into an actual plan.
And it's less about the period of time as the number of working hours that have been dedicated to the subject - there's a hell of a lot of pages devoted to SS's presence spread out through Policy, Switchboard and Conversation.
You may feel negative about the number of "working hours", but I personally feel it's concentrated the discussion in terms of timescale and number of threads. In seven days, we've gauged the prevailing opinion of a significantly wider cross-section of posters than before and we are now moving towards a plan of action. If we'd done something like this earlier, the various Policy/Switchboard/Conversation threads might've been avoided, and discussion contained and further concentrated into one thread and one week.
Purposefully disruptive, single-issue posting designed to provoke a negative reaction from the board as a whole and with little concern for sticking to the real subject of a thread when he can twist it into something more to do with his one favourite subject. Getting a kick out of causing a fuss one in of the few arenas where he can legitimately call himself an under-represented minority. This is why he's here. The weight of his posts is, I think, fairly clear evidence that there's been no other reason for him wanting to be a member of the board.
I don't think it's "purposefully disruptive" and I don't think he's "getting a kick out of causing a fuss". I don't think any of his motivations are especially "clear", and talk about my reasons for thinking this in the Psychology of Trolling thread. I take your point that what you and Mordant refer to as "single issue trolling" is still trolling, but I think that point's an arguable one. I think we also have to be careful about ascribing 'one size fits all' motivations to individuals whose motivations we cannot ever truly know.
The blurring is the way in which arguments that should not be a part of this discussion now are - the one that's foremost in my mind is the notion that we shouldn't allow one person to remain an active member of the board if their being here is driving certain other people away. I can't support that point of view at all, and yet by saying that I believe he should be banned, I can't help but be seen to be allying myself with it.
Why shouldn't those arguments be part of the discussion? If they aren't discussed, then we run the risk of their being tacitly accepted. I see this thread as a range of opinions rather than "allying" camps, and don't see the problem with those opinions being stated. I'd see more of a problem if decisions with strong precedent were made without them being stated. For what it's worth, I'm in entire agreement with you on the people-threatening-to-leave thing, and am happy to make the same point.
I'm also frustrated by what I see to be attempts to put some form of Barbelith Constitution together that defines not just acceptable posting behaviour, but also acceptable content - a formal set of policies which will include a list of things that can and cannot be talked about. Barbelith, imo, should not be a place where one set of political and social values is formally declared as the norm, or acceptable. Instead, that should be something that's made clear through the posts of its members. If somebody starts posting objectionable or offensive stuff, the community should take them to task *as* a community, not rely on a set of guidelines that it can point to without having to put any effort in. Banning should be something that's only done when the posts from the offending member
A) threaten the board's continued survival
B) are legally questionable
C) exhibit all the hallmarks of trollish behvaiour and continue to do so for a significant period of time.
That's fine, and broadly I agree with it. I think "all the hallmarks of trollish behaviour" is up for grabs, as well as "for a significant period of time". The latter, in particular, would seem to rub up against your earlier suggestion that this has all gone on too long, and should've been tackled long ago. Defining "trollish behaviour" and the length of time which is "significant" would appear to require discussion, if we're to avoid the sort of "Barbelith Constitution" to which you refer. Isn't that discussion what's happening here? I don't think we're trying to set out concrete rules on content - I'm not, anyway - but attempting to establish some sort of working framework for deciding, as a group, whether individuals who are perceived by some to exhibit "all the hallmarks of trollish behaviour" ought to be banned from the board.
If the community attacks those posts as it should, the offending member will end up falling foul of one of the above guidelines and can be kicked as a result. But to discuss kicking somebody *only* because their opinions are offensive to other people here... well, it suggests to me that the community doesn't trust its own ability to deal with these posts effectively without formal and authoritative intervention.
... which is why the community needs to have a discussion. I'm in agreement with you on all this, E Randy, but am finding myself confused as to why you seem to be saying this thread's added to the problem (apologies if this is not what you're saying). I think we share similar concerns about people being permanently banned on the grounds of some people finding their posts offensive; it's just that I rather see the problem being better addressed by having a wider discussion rather than not having that discussion. If we require a formal framework within which to have the discussion, so be it. I don't see that as threatening or especially problematic. Certainly no more problematic than the alternatives.
I think he should only be banned if we're clear that he has no interest in being a member of the community for any reason other than causing a stir and furthering his own cause, not just because his opinions are, to be blunt, fucking stupid. I believe we have that evidence.
I don't think we can be clear on those things, because we're not inside ShadowSax's head - and we're therefore obliged to infer the above from his posting. I don't think we are in any way certain of this, and I don't want to shoehorn his motivations, as I perceive them, into a conventional Attention-Seeking Troll box simply because it fits nicely with a general sense that he ought to be banned. |
