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 >

Bullying on Barbelith

  
  

Page: 1(2)34567

 
 
Ganesh
00:59 / 04.09.06
Cat Room, yeah, fair enough.
 
 
The Falcon
01:01 / 04.09.06
Read Ganesh again; certainly it was unusual procedure, and errors may very well have been made, but I do not think he is wholly against what I propose here. Refinement may well be required, and I'm not the one for that. Perhaps he should be asked. What do you think, Ganesh?

If you have been subject to similar unpleasantness I am very sorry to hear that, and would like to ensure it does not occur again and that whomever is responsible is warned about this sort of behaviour. Again, the alternative is detailed above.

p.s. I'm quite sure I'm thinking of Flyboy, shortly after DM's momentous arrival, suggesting it would be 'borderline impossible to spin him' as anything other than the aforementioned p.o.s.

p.p.s. Any further on with those vetoed requests? I'm really quite angry about that and would like it sorted.
 
 
Ganesh
01:03 / 04.09.06
What do you think, Ganesh?

Thoughts on the "mistake" clarified a post or two upthread, Falconator. Since Cat Room's quite reasonably requested that we split off the specific 'moderator decision' aspect, I'll stop talking about that here.
 
 
Char Aina
01:05 / 04.09.06
cat, do you have me on ignore?
perhaps someone else should ask?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:09 / 04.09.06
Yes. I have PMed you. I understand your anger. I was quite angry when you did it. I have been quite angry with your behaviour on a number of occasions. On none of those occasions, however, have I found it appropriate to move to delete your posts as a result of that personal reaction, in particular without keeping any record of what they said. I honestly hadn't realised that that was an option.
 
 
Ganesh
01:20 / 04.09.06
In order to respect Cat Room's plea, could we agree that failing to ensure post content was copied before mooting posts for deletion was indeed sub-standard moderation on the part of Falconator and myself, and continue that aspect of discussion in the Moderator Requests thread?
 
 
petunia
01:20 / 04.09.06
Sorry. Can I just step in here and ask:

Did any posts end up getting deleted?
If yes, which posts?

Reading this, I can't figure out exactly what happened, and I'd like to know please, because... well.. Just because, really.
 
 
Char Aina
01:20 / 04.09.06
i'd like some more information regarding duncan's having consistently vetoed [your] moderation proposals.
that seems a pretty hefty thing to say, dude, and i worry that you are exagerating for effect.

your last post seems to be taking the piss for effect as well, and i dont think it's useful.

i'm sorry if sharing this observation contributes to your desire to take a sabbatical from barbelith.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:22 / 04.09.06
In what sense, exactly, do you think it was taking the piss, toksik? I don't follow.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:25 / 04.09.06
Having said which - I revise "consistently". You did it once, and there was no conclusive decision on whether this was a one-off or a matter of Policy. So, sorry about that. I misremembered.

However. Could I also ask whether this is going to apply to hate speech as well, or only hate speech that you believe is addressed to a specific person? How does that feed into the idea that the use of hate speech is a personal attack on every member of the board who might have been subjected to it? There were some posts in the "Paddywhack" thread which featured some pretty spicy lingo. Should we be going back to that?

Also, could somebody sort out the question of Birthday threads? If I start a thread in which I mention that it is my birthday, does that thread have special protections? Am I entitled to expect posts negative in tone in that thread to be removed with particular speed? This is confusing me slightly. How about if I am mean about somebody in that thread? Or if somebody feels that I am being mean about them in that thread? Am I also protected from that, or is there a list of specific words that I will be all right as long as I don't use?

I don't disagree that the events of the past couple of days have been horrible and that we should do whatever we can to prevent a repeat. However, deciding to turn moderators in to arbiters of acceptably polite discourse, with a right to get rid of anything that they personally do not like strikes me as not so much a slippery slope as a satirical look at the insidious effects of Blairism on civilised structures. How about if somebody had written a thousand-word essay that a moderator decided was not of a tone he or she liked, and that, as happened here, another moderator mistakenly pushed the button in the belief that the proposal had been made by the post's originator?
 
 
The Falcon
01:26 / 04.09.06
Well, no, toksik - I have received a message and I did veto one request, some time ago, because the content was not abusive. I also suggested I would continue to do so, so long as the content was not abusive or offensive. On a post-by-post basis, I think this is entirely consistent. This may need clarifying, but as I recall there may be a special mandate to remove all of persistenttroll's work from here; whether this was in place when I made that decision, or if indeed such a thing exists I'm not wholly clear on. Furthermore, I don't believe that this work has been completed if so.
 
 
Char Aina
01:27 / 04.09.06
when you say I honestly hadn't realised that that was an option.
i'm not sure it has become any more or less an option.
i am quite sure you dont think it is an option now, and am quite sure you dont belive duncan is suggesting it should be.

have i misread you?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:28 / 04.09.06
I stand corrected, Ganesh.
 
 
Ganesh
01:28 / 04.09.06
Oh, fuck it. Sorry, Cat Room.

Off to sleep now.
 
 
The Falcon
01:30 / 04.09.06
Did any posts end up getting deleted?

No, they did not.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:36 / 04.09.06
There's no way this thread is not going to be about the moderation of this latest incident of bullying-or-not-bullying; I fear that Cat Room may have to wait for the winds to die down, because it is pretty much the key issue for discussions of bullying right now.

i am quite sure you dont think it is an option now, and am quite sure you dont belive duncan is suggesting it is.

No? It turns out that Duncan believes that as a moderator he has the power and the responsiblity to purge Barbelith of content he thinks is inappropriately rude, without consultation. I honestly don't understand how this cannot be considered a radical revision of the moderator's role.
 
 
Char Aina
01:37 / 04.09.06
ganesh;
i have given cat room a post with which to engage that isnt on this line of discussion and have been ignored.
i'm partly pointing this out because i dislike being ignored, clearly.
i'm also partly doing so because it strikes me that if ze wanted the thread to go a different way, the option was there for hir to direct it by example.
 
 
The Falcon
01:38 / 04.09.06
I'm quite willing to cop to the fact I ought have kept a record, had the deletions gone through. That was a mistake; my reaction may have been more visceral than was necessary in this regard - I wouldn't take, or even conceive of taking, a polaroid if a dog did a jobby on my carpet before I removed it either, though. I'd still remove the jobby, every day.

However, in the interests of transparency and action - such as it is, I realise Barbelith must show the photies of dog-jobby, and if faced with a similar situation in future, I would first record then (attempt to) remove abusive posts.
 
 
Shrug
01:52 / 04.09.06
There's no way this thread is not going to be about the moderation of this latest incident of bullying-or-not-bullying; I fear that Cat Room may have to wait for the winds to die down, because it is pretty much the key issue for discussions of bullying right now.

With all due respect Haus, it isn't, for me, and potentially other people which is why I started this thread. And previously this one (in a way) now I think of it. But anyway, if people are completely unwilling to adhere to that *meh*.

And:

Don't worry toksik, I don't have you on ignore (and actually quite like/value/etc you) but am exhausted and can't address your posts with anything approaching clarity at the minute (also've just back from the shop). Hope that clears things up.
 
 
The Falcon
01:54 / 04.09.06
No? It turns out that Duncan believes that as a moderator he has the power and the responsiblity to purge Barbelith of content he thinks is inappropriately rude, without consultation. I honestly don't understand how this cannot be considered a radical revision of the moderator's role.

I have the power to initiate such a manoeuvre without consultation (which I am now receiving, and which is proving quite helpful,) which I did, and discussed the action in consultation with Ganesh (who was initially surprised his own and Xoc's posts were to be removed.) When he saw the pattern of the action, to extend the above analogy - the shit and carpet around it needed cleaned up - he both understood and agreed my actions. (I sincerely apologise if this is a breach of p.m. etiquette, Ganesh.) The action was later disagreed by one of the perpetrators, which is pretty problematic, and the posts still stand, so clearly (and thankfully?) I have not had my way. You know how distributed moderation works. I am only a proponent.

I've framed this 'rudeness' fairly precisely, I feel, but perhaps you're going to tell me that I can just go into a thread in the Convo, call people 'dickhead fuckface', and continue onward as I have done beforehand? Is that acceptable for me to do so? What would you do in that situation?
 
 
petunia
02:10 / 04.09.06
Has Triplets made any kind of explanation, apology or even mention of hir 'abortionist' comment?

It seems a little unlikely that ze isn't aware of the effects of this post, and it seems a little odd that ze has not made any comment on it. Or am I missing something?

While I can understand the elements of embarassment etc that could ensue from TripleFlyTrongate, I agree that it would be better to leave such posts as-are.

As Haus points out, matters of 'nastiness' and 'meanness' and such are pretty subjective and if it became policy to ban posts on these grounds, the results could end up quite messy.

The problem with this is that we have an example (and I'm sure there are many, many more) of posting behaviour with obvious ill-intent. This has lead to some members of the board feeling angry, sad or annoyed. I'm one of them. I don't like that those posts were made. I think they're stinking verbal shits in an otherwise fragrant paddling pool. There was no need for such posting behaviour. It plain sucks.

So what to do? Is it a matter of keeping an eye on the posters in question? Do we add 'mean shittyness' to our list of 'isms'? Can we feasibly do such a thing?

I just feel really angry that such comments were made in somebody's birthday thread*. It makes me angry that there seems to be no action available to 'make this right'.

I guess that doesn't really help much, but I needed to get something out before it all ends up in the anger thread.

*I think the fact that the thread was a birthday thread does matter. Assuming that we use our board to reflect RL to some degree, I see a birthday thread as the Barbequivalent of a birthday party - a place where somebody celebrates their life, and people join in. To call someone an 'abortionist's failure' is a pretty ugly thing to do - to do it at their 'party' is just downright low.

To continue the board/RL analogy; it isn't against the law to slag someone off on their birthday, so it shouldn't be a matter for policy. But if one is subject to continued personal verbal attacks in real life, one can expect the law to intervene: if a person is subject to continued personal attacks on the board, they should be able to expect some sort of moderator intervention.

If TripleFlyTrongate were to become a case of 'continued personal attack' (I'm not sure if this is the case), I beleive that the fact that such comments were made inside a birthday thread should be a factor in the considerations.

Enough. Bed.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
02:19 / 04.09.06
Just to put things in perspective: all through the 33 disaster, and the ShadowSax disaster, the offending posts authored by these people were never deleted, and were never seriously put up for deletion. People suggested that they should be deleted, but no-one ever did it. Now in this instance, we have two separate people making derisive comments towards someone does tend to bring this shit upon himself at times, and who also contributes to fightin' Flyboy as some kind of macho badge of honour, however jokingly. So, sure, fight. Not in the nice birthday thread? Okay then, tell 'em to take it outside. But in this instance, at least three moderators moved to delete the posts. Without discussion, or transparency, it seems.

I'm sorry, did I miss something? That seems completely contradictory to me. I don't care if what Fly and Triplets said was ad hominem or not; I think that's clouding the issue. Actually, I am beginning to think that despite the tastelessness of the abortionist comment, this whole episode is an elaborate way for various folks to work out personal resentments against Flyboy, if not Triplets, as well as much more cloudy resentments around other issues. And I'm surprised that people are joining in. It's starting to look like a witch-hunt.

The whole thing does not give me much trust in some of the moderators. And I think it's quite insulting for some of the people who have been subject to politically charged harassment in the past to treat this like bullying.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
03:10 / 04.09.06
Mister Disco, in a sense, I agree. And that certainly does offer one perspective, and quite a good one, IMHO.

For the odd thing that also strikes me (and please forgive me for not going through the archives and finding an example to back this up), is that the following paragraphs I've selectively copied and pasted from your post could, with the subjects and names sreplaced accordingly, arguably be said to be feel remarkably similar to those of many members who in the past, at some time or another, have accused most of the people in this thread (and a few others) of acting like bullies and/or being some kind of Barb-elite:

I am beginning to think that despite the tastelessness of the abortionist comment, this whole episode is an elaborate way for various folks to work out personal resentments against Flyboy, if not Triplets, as well as much more cloudy resentments around other issues. And I'm surprised that people are joining in. It's starting to look like a witch-hunt.

The whole thing does not give me much trust in some of the moderators. And I think it's quite insulting for some of the people who have been subject to politically charged harassment in the past to treat this like bullying.

At the time of the "should we delete the posts" situation yesterday, I asked for the posts to be left on record. Indeed, I think since i joined Barbelith, I've consistently argued against the deletion of posts, for more transparency in moderation, and I am staunchly anti-banning, unless the person is completely beyond reasonable communication.

Thing is, I still think Flyboy and Triplets crossed the line (if there is "a line"). I understand why DM gets their goat, and I don't like it when he goads Flyboy and Haus, but I think coming from (say) a newbie the acerbic and spiteful comments which Flyboy and Triplets made would have been even more frowned upon by everyone, not just me, Ganesh, Xoc, toksik, Cat Room, .trampetunia, etc, etc, etc. (sorry, if I'm missing out or misrepresenting anyone; that starting list is from memory and collating all the names seems pointless.)

Please don't get annoyed with me. I'm not intending to be tricksy or anything, I genuinely and wholeheartedly understand why people can get frustrated with each other, say nasty things, and then feel guilty/bad/confused/ or even more angry. I've been there, I go there when I don't mean to, and I'll probably be there again, and again and... I was even there earlier today, briefly, but thankfully I didn't say anything nasty, personal, or targeted to anyone in particular, and I remembered to take a step back, laugh, shrug, think, and smile.

Thing is, if I'm out of order or I'm told by lots of people I'm being out of order, even if I don't like the person I'm supposed to be out of order to, I always ask myself why they feel that way, and eventually realise that I've actually hurt another being and offended them, whether I like it or not, or else all those usually nice and trustworthy people are lying or trying to screw me over then... . Then, I think some more, take a deep breath, realise I've been a big stinky arse, apologise properly and sincerely, and then try to not be such an smelly arse in future.

It's hard. But it helps everyone. So...*deep breath*...


Flyboy, Triplets: I'm really sorry for calling you "fuck-holes" in the 'Moderation Requests' thread. It was wrong of me. I was annoyed that you had been so surprisingly and blatantly nasty and offensive to a fellow member with little or barely justifiable "provocation"; but I should never have been so personally insulting about you and your behaviour. It's stinks of hypocrisy. Seriously, I'm sorry about that. I would still like you both to apologise to DM in due course... Well, maybe sooner rather than later. But that is, of course, your call. All the best, comrades. Sincerely.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:57 / 04.09.06
The action was later disagreed by one of the perpetrators, which is pretty problematic, and the posts still stand, so clearly (and thankfully?) I have not had my way.

Well, yeah - except that as you just said, it's pretty problematic. You put Flyboy in a position where, as a moderator, he could either uphold principle of moderation the first - not vote on moderation requests to his own posts - or principle of moderation the second - not allow what looks to me quite a lot like the abuse of moderator powers. Having put him in that position, I think that you're not in a great position to talk about how problematic it is.

I need to go away and talk to Tom about this, however, and then we'll see where we are. In the meantime, have a think about:

Just to put things in perspective: all through the 33 disaster, and the ShadowSax disaster, the offending posts authored by these people were never deleted, and were never seriously put up for deletion. People suggested that they should be deleted, but no-one ever did it.

See also Morpheus, Sensitive you-know-whoist, Daemon est Deus Inversus' gangbang gags in Feminism 101 ... I'd like to know what it is about these comments that makes them so extra-specially deletable, beyond who made them.
 
 
illmatic
07:12 / 04.09.06
I suspect part of the problem here is people looking a consistency between moderation decisions that doesn't exist. There's no "How to Moderate" handbook, and moderators are a diverse bunch of people who disagree with each other, as evidenced here, reacting differently at different times. It's run by people, rather than a set of rules*. In part, I suppose all these metathreads exists because of the way that distrubuted moderation works. People simply have to fight their corner. Most of the other boards I'm on don't have elaborate dialogues about decisions.

*Not a good thing IMO, and more argument for a set of Terms & Conditions.
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:15 / 04.09.06
Well, yeah - except that as you just said, it's pretty problematic. You put Flyboy in a position where, as a moderator, he could either uphold principle of moderation the first - not vote on moderation requests to his own posts - or principle of moderation the second - not allow what looks to me quite a lot like the abuse of moderator powers. Having put him in that position, I think that you're not in a great position to talk about how problematic it is.

This thread has cleared up the concerns that I had voiced regarding Flyboy's prevention of deletion over in Moderation Requests. It wasn't made clear (to me at least) that the attempted deletions weren't following standard moderation procedure. (Might it be an idea if some kind of ruling was brought in that all deletion requests and mod-voting/reasons for saying "Nay." on such things be duplictated by posts to a Policy thread specific for that purpose? Or is that a little too bureaucratic?).

It seems that this was a fairly unique situation and I hope that I didn't call anyone's integrity into doubt with my query.

I'm sorry, did I miss something? That seems completely contradictory to me. I don't care if what Fly and Triplets said was ad hominem or not; I think that's clouding the issue. Actually, I am beginning to think that despite the tastelessness of the abortionist comment, this whole episode is an elaborate way for various folks to work out personal resentments against Flyboy, if not Triplets, as well as much more cloudy resentments around other issues. And I'm surprised that people are joining in. It's starting to look like a witch-hunt.

I'm curious which folks you count among the pitchfork and flaming torches brigade, Disco?
 
 
Disco is My Class War
09:53 / 04.09.06
Is there really any point in asking me that, aside from distancing yourself from the 'pitchfork brigade'? I said 'starting to look like'. But I think it should be obvious who I'm talking about -- people who rushed to talk about bullying, for a start.
 
 
Shrug
09:56 / 04.09.06
Do you mean me then?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:00 / 04.09.06
Mr Disco: Just to put things in perspective: all through the 33 disaster, and the ShadowSax disaster, the offending posts authored by these people were never deleted, and were never seriously put up for deletion. People suggested that they should be deleted, but no-one ever did it.

Haus: See also Morpheus, Sensitive you-know-whoist, Daemon est Deus Inversus' gangbang gags in Feminism 101 ...

Well I have problems with loaded terms like 'witch-hunt' and I don't know that we can necessarily take the delete requests as a personal attack on the posters concerned, but aside from that--well, what they said, really.
 
 
Shrug
10:01 / 04.09.06
It seems like accusations of dog-pilling (which I've always found a litttle silly). Especially when I'm simply taking issue with obviously unsavory behaviour, not calling for a deletion or banniation, have admitted the term "bullying"/"bully" to be extremely problematic in this context and not terms I even really want to use, and am calling for some kind of mediation more so than anything else.
 
 
Shrug
10:14 / 04.09.06
Duncan:
I don't think it need be about 'sides' or winning and losing, either; if a(ny) poster's articulacy and decorum has failed them to the point that they are reduced to the sort of behaviour I've described above, I don't see they've earned any right to a 'mutual agreement', so much as a black mark.

Toksik:
why should it be a problem if folks abusing other folks are upset, or their victims relieved, by the removal of said abuse?

as i said, though, i dont think the model is accurate.

Frankly, because I think there's a lot more at play here than a simple dynamic like such and simple deletion doesn't even begin to mean anything in this context. If it was so simply analogous to victim/aggressor sure easy solution! But it isn't!
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:23 / 04.09.06
Is there really any point in asking me that, aside from distancing yourself from the 'pitchfork brigade'? I said 'starting to look like'. But I think it should be obvious who I'm tlaking about -- people who rushed to talk about bullying, for a start.

I feel there is a point other than that, yes. Without further clarification (ie actual names rather than the nebulous "various folks") I feel that you risk lumping everyone who has criticised the "failure of an abortionist" comment into the same mass as those who are simply getting involved to take potshots at Flyboy or Triplets.

I'm not saying that such people don't exist. I just feel that it would be preferable if you said exactly who it was you were talking about in order to prevent misunderstandings.

It may be obvious to you, it isn't to me.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
11:12 / 04.09.06
It should be clear that I found the comment tasteless also. However, I don't think moderation is the answer in this case. Beyond that, people know exactly what they said: they djo't need me to remind them.
 
 
The Falcon
12:10 / 04.09.06
Without discussion, or transparency, it seems.

If you actually follow paranoidwriter's link, where he called people 'fuckholes', and scroll up, you'll see that's quite inaccurate.

As regards a grudge, or - more emotively and excitingly - a witch-hunt, please. I normally like Flyboy, I normally like like Triplets. What I don't like is their using someone as Barbelith punching bag du jour. Ironically, if the request had gone through, we'd not need to be speaking about them specifically.

As for the other cases cited, shortly afterward each had their prospective banning mooted - no-one is seriously suggesting such a thing here. I've described two paradigms: one where posters can at will direct unpleasant invective at one another, without censure or recrimination - I do not consider this particularly conducive to either community-building or conversation - or one where they cannot.

Now, the actual procedure for dealing with this is presently up in the air, would anyone like to offer up information and reason in support of paradigm a) above?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:17 / 04.09.06
You know, I don't like the way Duncan phrased that. In particular, I thought that "please" was dismissive. So, I'm going to move to have that post deleted. I'll also move to have all the posts after it deleted, just to be sure. If any moderators disagree the deletion of their own posts, I will describe that as problematic. If any moderators agree with me, however, and agree to the deletion of their own posts, I will see absolutely nothing problematic in that.

Assuming that anybody has already seen Duncan's post and carries on wanting to talk about it - weirdly, vanishing posts often lead to more rather than less discussion of their contents - I suppose I will just have to move to delete their posts as well. Actually, since moderating requires fewer votes than deletion, it makes sense just to moderate their posts to take out the bits I don't like.

Please note that in doing this I am making Barbelith a better place, full of happier people and better discussion. I will know that the discussion is better, because I and those who agree with me will be controlling it.

That's your paradigm (b), Duncan. Faced with that, I'd rather have paradigm (a), which I would describe rather differently. Also, I don't think your paradigms actually make sense. F'r example, you say:

Ironically, if the request had gone through, we'd not need to be speaking about them specifically.

As for the other cases cited, shortly afterward each had their prospective banning mooted - no-one is seriously suggesting such a thing here. I've described two paradigms: one where posters can at will direct unpleasant invective at one another, without censure or recrimination - I do not consider this particularly conducive to either community-building or conversation

If your requests had been passed, we wouldn't have to talk about Flyboy and Triplets specifically. If your requests are in general passed, people will not be able to direct unpleasant invective at one another, without censure or recrimination. 'Splain, please?

As it is, you might have missed the bit where censure and recrimination are happening. People are talking about whether this behaviour is acceptable and how to cope with it, in this thread and others. Unless you have Barbelith on ignore, I don't quite see how paradigm (a) is related in any meaningful way to reality. I would go further, and say that you have in fact not described two paradigms at all. You've said stuff, indubitably. Paradigms? Not so much.

On bannination. Two people proposed a ban. Dead Megatron brought up the possibility of demanding a ban for hrrassment. You may not think that this is serious, but I suppose it depends on how seriously you take Dead Megatron. toksik said that he thought an apology that convincingly communicated that they understood what they had done and would not do it again was required. If this was not forthcoming, he mooted a charge of harrassment and subsequent banning. This may have been brilliant satire on Dead Megatron, or brilliant satire on the attempts to get 33 to apologise in a manner that suggested that he knew what he had done wrong, but it seemed to be straight and subsequent discussion centred largely and unproductively around the function of conditional clauses. Subsequently toksik clarified that he was not in favour of a ban, but I remain confused as to the process by which he got there from there. Point is, banning was mentioned and not in obviously humorous fashions.

You're a pleasant young man with a lot of good ideas, Duncan, but this was not one of them. I'd go so far, in fact, as to say that this was a very bad idea, badly executed and badly thought out.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34567

 
  
Add Your Reply