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 >

That Roving Eye of Doom

  
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
09:29 / 02.10.06
An observation, and probably one that I need to work on phrasing properly, but I can't do that without external input. So I'll give you my ill-formed thought and we can maybe hammer it out into something more coherent. Sorry about the length.

I've noticed, since joining Barbelith, a bit of a "villain of the week" syndrome, where much of the board's attention and aggravation is focused on one particular poster, said poster gets excised/leaves/"goes silent" and the cycle repeats anew.

No point in naming names, but I don't think it takes a lot of imagination for people that read Policy lately to think of the last four or five people that have been the focus of lots of attention.

One way of looking at this is that while everyone is diverted by Poster A, Poster B is happily posting mildly questionable or somewhat eyebrow-raising stuff. But Poster A is creating such a firestorm that everyone is running around trying to extinguish it, and Poster B has very little inkling that their views aren't welcome.

But once the Poster A situation has been dealt with, people suddenly start noticing Poster B more, and suddenly Poster B finds hirself being taken to task for things that didn't attract nearly as much attention the week before.

This, in turn, leads to the persecution, "bullying" and "Barbeclique" memes that get perpetuated. Since Person B has stepped up to be the Big Problem Of The Moment, suddenly it seems as though everyone has turned on hir, and ze is getting soundly whaled on from several fronts.

Ze gets defensive and obstinate rather than calmly self-reflective (which isn't an appropriate response, necessarily, but a natural one when suddenly it looks like a half-dozen prominent posters are taking you to task).

Either of two things happen: 1. Poster B is banned/leaves; 2. Poster B pulls up hir socks and cooperatively works towards a mutual resolution.

With Poster B resolved, all is well.

Except that Poster C is now saying some stuff that people find less than kosher. Helmets on, skates laced, we're back on the ice.

The things that bother me are:

First, that the nature of this really does generate situations that "feel" like bullying and dogpiling. I have every confidence that every poster on here has their own mind and doesn't engage in secret PM conspiracies to git certain posters. But that doesn't mean that large groups of similarly-minded people (and any forum that has survived this long is bound to have a mass of old-school posters that tend to think similarly) won't all arrive at the same conclusions more or less simultaneously.

Second, there's a bit of my brain that worries that once Poster A is dealt with, those involved with dealing with hir are leaving that conflict in a combative mindset and are more prone to see Poster B as a Serious Problem than ze might be considered from a neutral perspective.

Third, or Second And A Half, this leads to a declining spiral of what constitutes a "problem," and we go from being vigilant about "stupidly offensive shit" that makes Barbelith a less safe environment, to banning discussions about people that aren't really that toxic, just horribly obstinate.

What do y'all think? I'm aware that this is a bit of a brutal summary of recent events that doesn't do justice to the nuances and interpersonal dynamics of individual posters, but in broad strokes, it's something I've noticed and that concerns me.
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:38 / 02.10.06
This is just blaming the victim, isn't it? At this level of generality, there isn't much to say really. If you have specific criticisms of bullying behaviour, an overly combative approach by moderators (or others) or some concrete suggestions about how to deal with particular posters then I'm all ears. If you disagree with a particular banning proposal then you can make that known, since we always (I think) have a lengthy discussion prior to banning. As it stands, though, I'm not sure how to proceed constructively from your post.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:05 / 02.10.06
Well, Matt, generally the reason why we have these flare-ups is because we can't ban people without executive intervention. Therefore, people who would normally simply be quietly removed from a board before their unacceptable behaviour curve peaked are instead allowed to burgeon into full-on flamepuppies. That's a bit of a pain, certainly.

The reason why the focus tends to be on one person at a time? Well, that's interesting and complex, and also not actually always the case, but one thing worth thinking about re: members who are likely to indulge in behaviour likely to get them banned is that they generally seek attention. If somebody else is currently demanding all the board's attention, and in particular the attention of moderators - that is, users of Barbelith perceived as high-value and high-status - then why make your play for attention then? It's counter-intuitive.

I agree absolutely, though, that the psychic damage this wave system does to the people who have to try to keep Barbelith usable is a definite cause for concern Perhaps we could organise a "thnak you" day, or something, where everyone gives thanks to those who regularly endanger their mental equilibrium in the pursuit of a functional board.

So, let's start somewhere.

Third, or Second And A Half, this leads to a declining spiral of what constitutes a "problem," and we go from being vigilant about "stupidly offensive shit" that makes Barbelith a less safe environment, to banning discussions about people that aren't really that toxic, just horribly obstinate.

You declined to name names above, Matt, but it might be useful to run through the lists of bannees and determine whether we are indeed now hanging people on commas. As far as I can tell, banning remains by some distance a last resort - you'll notice that while a fair few people have talked about it in recent days, nobody has actually started a banning thread yet. I certainly can't think of any bannings I would describe as trivial, either in reasoning or process.
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
11:07 / 02.10.06
@Lurid: I'm trying not to blame anybody, least of all the posters who take an active interest in the board and keeping it healthy, safe and productive. I don't think there is intentional bullying behaviour or dogpiling, I think it's easy to get that impression due to the "wave-like" nature of how these things arise. Totally didn't mean to imply that the process is unfair, just inherently, well, "wave-like" and that this, in turn, causes its own set of problems.

@Haus:

members who are likely to indulge in behaviour likely to get them banned is that they generally seek attention. If somebody else is currently demanding all the board's attention, and in particular the attention of moderators - that is, users of Barbelith perceived as high-value and high-status - then why make your play for attention then? It's counter-intuitive.

Snark-free, honest: do you think that people are deliberately abstaining from bad behaviour to wait until the moderators are more free to respond to it?

Trying to process this... I'm having a hard time with the idea that people will go through the lengthy application process, presumably knowing this is a reasonably "high-impact" board, intellectually, then bide their time to make inflammatory comments at an appropriate moment as a "play for attention." There are easier beehives to poke, y'know?

I think people come here with a sincere desire to engage in conversation, don't realize they have severe misapprehensions about things, and can't handle having their worldview challenged. Which isn't admirable, but doesn't equate to timing your objectionable ideas so that they raise maximum ruckus.

You declined to name names above, Matt, but it might be useful to run through the lists of bannees and determine whether, verily, we are now hanging people on commas.

Well, it was banning discussions (which includes in my head, and I should have been clearer about, dropping the B-bomb in a "regular" policy thread that never develops into its own banning thread), not actual bannees. Once the Big Gun is pulled out, even if the shot is never fired, it's an indicator of a serious issue that's generating a lot of mental stress, particularly for the posters who take on the challenges of dealing with it. I don't think we're at the "commas" stage, either, but that was probably just a turn of phrase.

I'm really torn here... I think it would be beneficial to do this rundown of various banning discussions and what instigated them, but I'm VERY not keen to have yet another thread that gets into analysis of various posters, their behaviour, and re-opens old wounds and re-ignites old battles.

So... shelve this for a later time? I may PM a few people to continue the conversation if they think it'd be of benefit, but I don't think continuing this thread publicly will lead to anything good.

Off to work!
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
11:37 / 02.10.06
I think part of it is that for several years the board was completely closed, other than the sockpuppets of one continual irritant we didn't have to worry about trolls.

The other part is that it is only since the start of this year, with Shadowsax, that discussion of whether to ban someone has been fully public. Before that, partly because Tom was able to more actively keep an eye on goings on, people PMing him with links to the relevent posts were normally enough.

That's not to say your post is without merit however. It does sometimes seem as though we are on a perpetual war footing but that is just my opinion and I'm sure others would disagree.
 
 
Tom Coates
14:31 / 02.10.06
I agree that the board has felt recently like a series of conflicts with individuals. This is clearly not the optimal experience. I'm unclear how we fix it though.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:50 / 02.10.06
There are some thoughts I need to compile from "barbewrong" - I was sidetracked by the ParanoidMeltdown this weekend, which is perhaps as good an example of the dangerous balance between building for the future and playing whack-a-mole that the youth of today have to strike. There are some proposals in there for trying either to stop people turning into trolls in the first place, or speeding up the process of dealing with them if and when they do.
 
 
rising and revolving
18:07 / 04.10.06
This rotating conflict between Haus/Flyboy/Nina on one side and the latest villain on the other is the reason I'm no longer present on Barbelith. I do lurk, if only to see if things have become quiet.

There are many reasons I adore the 'lith. Most of them are no longer relevant - it's not the best place to intelligently discuss the weird and wonderful anymore. It's not really holding it's own in informing me of new and wonderful musical movements I wouldn't have discovered on my own.

It feels like it's been a battlefield for a year or more. To be honest, I was sort-of kind-of okay with that for a time - at least in part because the Temple was insulated from the skirmishes for the most part. Then I hit a turning point, and I wasn't okay with it anymore.

Eternal conflict isn't really my idea of a great space. There are plenty of others, and I mostly spend my time there.

It seems every argument is phrased as "If we don't have this fight, right now, the board will die," and in so doing all the life has been sucked from the board. Which is a shame.

I know that Haus and Tom both feel they give a lot to the board. It's a shame, because I think between them they've been most explicit in draining it of the worth I used to find in it.

Tom, because he will not allow the software to change. This is bad. He's killing this thing, strangling it slowly beneath a bunch of social distractions that arise from the underlying software platform. The supposed democracy of Barbelith is a farce - it's a dictatorship with a mostly absentee dictator.

Haus, because he seems to need to fight, constantly and viciously. Because he's the most prolific poster on the board. Because he places people into positions where their responses are easily predictable. Because he is in a special position regards the board and it's history. I've ceased to engage in any thread he participates in because I cannot bear to feed his OCD - because it feels like his every act hear is a symptomatic of his condition and it makes me feel dirty and sad to watch it flood across threads.

I'm sad. I've been sad for a long time now. I've barely participated for ages.

I'm not the first or the last to say the things I'm saying. Nor will I be the last. Nor is this my last "now I'm going ah hah!"

I'm just exhausted, and this articulates the reasons why.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:39 / 04.10.06
You know, If I were E. Randy DuPre I'd feel a little left out at not having received my invitation to the Nazi snobtroll ball.

Still, lazy ad hominem doesn't need to be accurate, does it?
 
 
Ticker
21:05 / 04.10.06
I've ceased to engage in any thread he participates in because I cannot bear to feed his OCD - because it feels like his every act hear is a symptomatic of his condition and it makes me feel dirty and sad to watch it flood across threads.

Funny, I tend to prefer the atmosphere of quality exchange that happens when Haus is particpating in a thread. When I've been on the receiving end of hir questions my people are not oppressed rather I'm inspired to think a little faster and be more critical before I hit the post button. Feels more like sparing with a really good fellow student not like getting shaken down for my cranial milk money or shamed for wearing last year's mental fashions.

Whenever I've asked a question or asked specificly to have my POV on a topic critiqued Haus has always responded very politely. There are a handful of posters on here that can do that without talking down to other people and I most assuredly count Haus in that group.
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
21:39 / 04.10.06
There's a perfectly decent let's talk about Haus thread already out there, guys. I know replying to what Rising is talking about inthread is more immediately satisfying, but maybe we could cut n' paste over there if we want to keep going in this vein?

Similar with Tom/technical upgrades. I'm sure it's a legitimate grievance, but it doesn't address what this thread is hopefully about: whether or not there is some cycle, detailed accurately or wildy wrongly in the first post, that encourages Barbelith toward a state of perpetual combat.

My feeling right now, and now that the PW thing is reconciled I'm happy to talk about it, is that there's been a consistent state of "seek and destroy problem posters" since I joined in May.

I'd be thrilled to be wrong.

But I feel like PW was nowhere near as toxic a presence as ShadowSax, or 33, and it worries me that so many people were jumping on the banwagon* so fast. And that this tool seems to come to hand quicker and quicker as time goes by.

So I'll just ask this question:

I have the impression, and the further impression that some longer-term posters share this feeling, that there is a more combative atmosphere to Barbelith now than in times previous. Is that accurate?

*Yowza!
 
 
Tom Coates
21:40 / 04.10.06
Rising and revolving - inasmuch as I don't have the time to help the board develop in the way I would have liked, I completely agree. What do you think would have helped the place change and in what directions should it have changed?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:47 / 04.10.06
My feeling right now, and now that the PW thing is reconciled I'm happy to talk about it, is that there's been a consistent state of "seek and destroy problem posters" since I joined in May.

I'd be thrilled to be wrong.

Well, Matt - how about working out whether you're wrong? It shouldn't be too hard. There have been three bannings, I think, since you joined - is that about right? Sensitive Rapist, Shadowsax, 33 and Paranoidwriter. In each case, the actual banning process took about a week, give or take, if we assume that PW's "banning process" started with the discussion in the "Moderation Requests" thread, which I think is a reasonable assumption, with the exception of the first, who I think was out of there in about three days. Before that, there were periods of greater or lesser engagement:

1) SR - One thread.
2) Shadowsax - primarily the Fathers 4 Justice thread in Switchboard, also tangentially the Islamophobia thread in Switchboard, with a bit in the SR thread, and then Policy
3) 33 - primarily one thread in the Conversation, and a thread in Music, then Policy
4) PW- Did have a significant posting rate, but most of the stuff in the conversation was pretty benign - contributed frequently and at a fair clip to a good few Policy threads though, with varying levels of rage.

Among those, there have been people whose behaviour has been queried and/or challenged at various points, such as Kay or DEDI. In a way they are far more disruptive, because they are not as likely to be banned - Barbelith is actually pretty shit at banning people - and so often tend to go for attrition. One has to make one's personal peace with how much stupid and/or offensive crap one is prepared to let pass.

Generally, actual bannination cases get pinned down pretty quickly by our talented and hard-working members, although the price they pay is a terrible one indeed.
 
 
HCE
23:21 / 04.10.06
What is being suggested as the alternative to these bannings? Letting PW make every thread in Policy about him? Having to look at Sensitive Fucktard's name anyplace he chose to post? Don't even get me started on Shadowsax, as the leisure with which that ban proceeded, and fuck how the people most directly attacked by his sexist bullshit felt, is precisely why I quit when I did.

I'm sorry for the tone of this post, MattShepherd, but it is very distressing for me to hear these people's misbehavior all rolled together as part of some bad thing Barbelith does rather than the responsibility for those events being placed on the shoulders of the individuals who posted disruptively. Haus gets this crap all the time -- somebody says something idiotic, gets called it, and tehn Haus is somehow the bad guy. That's bad enough; please let's not blame all of Barbelith.
 
 
redtara
23:27 / 04.10.06
Thnak you Haus. (Oh fuck I made a spelling joke at someone else's expense, I've had it now)

Matt has expressed my impression of the conflict over the last months eloquently.

I do not wish to devalue the work put in by the oldies, not least by Haus. Sometimes the challenge to a post that deserves to be justified, examined or refuted comes fast and furious and at a level of tension that makes it hard for the examinee to self examine as they are too busy defending. I know how much work you put into policing the board Haus and i get the impression that you are tired having done all this before, but with respect there are 5599 potential lurkers who might step in apropriatly and if this is taxing you maybe you should leave off and see who turns up to deal with the initial 'What are you on about?' stage. May be your skills are better suited to those stages when bridges have been burnt and ultimatums need to be devised and set.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
23:38 / 04.10.06
If it would be OK for one of these notional lurkers to pull someone up on a dodgy post then why, precisely, is it not okay for Haus?

Also, can you give us detailed directions on how you pinpoint the exact moment when a poster has gone from "What are you on about" to burning bridges, because you know what, there seems to be a bit of disagreement on that point.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:41 / 04.10.06
I'm not entirely sure it's apropriat (keyboards: tricky little beasts) to turn this into another thread about me, redtara. There must be something more interesting to talk about, surely?
 
 
redtara
23:43 / 04.10.06
Yeh what was I thinking
 
 
Quantum
03:00 / 05.10.06
Sheesh. I've been making loads of new friends who've recently come to the board, having great conversations and fun times. Don't let the policy issues cloud your day, the rest of the board is right there.

Tom and Haus are killing the board? Please, what rubbish. A deadly posse of Londoners bully the rest of the board? Hah, that sounds familiar rubbish. Oldies persecute newbies? Tell that to my new friends, they don't seem too intimidated to me.

It seems to me the volume is turned way up on complaining voices (I notice Tom responding to r&r upthread) and the huggling and wit is taken for granted. Why does it take half a dozen people unhappy to rock the board when scores of people are having a good time unnoticed until a thread like the 'Is this place alive simply because I'm vain' gets everyone saying how great it is? We surely don't need a weekly Huggle The Lith thread to keep everybody's spirits up, it's not the Somme.
 
 
Quantum
03:03 / 05.10.06
This rotating conflict between Haus/Flyboy/Nina on one side and the latest villain on the other

So they're like the evil powerpuff girls, or perhaps the Furies?
 
 
redtara
07:43 / 05.10.06
Sorry Haus, but this is a thread about how the board is policed, rythms there of and their consequences. Is it too much to ask that you consider my perseption? A great many of us are happy to consider yours.

My comments about stepping back Haus were a reaction to your comment;

Generally, actual bannination cases get pinned down pretty quickly by our talented and hard-working members, although the price they pay is a terrible one indeed.

What i said Mordant was;

I know how much work you put into policing the board Haus and i get the impression that you are tired having done all this before.....maybe you should leave off and see who turns up to deal with the initial 'What are you on about?' stage

As you can see I did not sugest that it was not OK for Haus to engage in policing the boards. My concern was for the heavy price paid by those who do, of whom Haus appears to be the most prolific.

Also, can you give us detailed directions on how you pinpoint the exact moment when a poster has gone from "What are you on about" to burning bridges, because you know what, there seems to be a bit of disagreement on that point.

In the spirit of this not being the facetious post it apears to be I would like you to condsider that if someone who spends most of the day on the board has already engaged with a poster in a much 'firmer' tone than you are comfortable with it not only removes the necessity of your involvement, but it deters your engagement with the process of challenge as, to do so would create the dog piling i have seen here and elsewhere. Not everyone enjoys that particular form of aggression. Mine is more sarky and much more of a one on one affair.
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:55 / 05.10.06
Oldies persecute newbies? Tell that to my new friends, they don't seem too intimidated to me.

That's because you buy us booze.

This rotating conflict between Haus/Flyboy/Nina on one side and the latest villain on the other is the reason I'm no longer present on Barbelith. I do lurk, if only to see if things have become quiet.

It should be noted that there are plenty of other people who get involved in dealing with problematic posters. One only has to look at the threads involving any of the banned suits mentioned above to see that. It's something of an ongoing myth that it's only a handful of people who attempt to deal with trouble when it develops. It also ignores the unknown numbers of posters who try and sort out the situations using PMs rather than open posts.

I'm not too happy with the concept of a "villain of the week". That makes it sound like someone is getting chosen to be taken to task simply because it's Monday and we need someone to shout at. As far as I have seen the conflicts we've experienced over the past few months have been genuinely due to someone breaking policy and someone else rightfully pointing this out. I think what some people have a problem with is the way in which different people go about pointing this out.

if someone who spends most of the day on the board has already engaged with a poster in a much 'firmer' tone than you are comfortable with it not only removes the necessity of your involvement, but it deters your engagement with the process of challenge as, to do so would create the dog piling i have seen here and elsewhere. Not everyone enjoys that particular form of aggression. Mine is more sarky and much more of a one on one affair.

I'd don't think that applies to everyone though, I'm not likely to back off just because someone else is dealing with troublemakers in a firm/confronational way. The statement above does underline the Catch 22 situation that can sometimes develop where not getting involved means leaving it to someone else to clean up the mess, and getting involved looks (to some) like dog-piling.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:39 / 05.10.06
In the spirit of this not being the facetious post it apears to be I would like you to condsider that if someone who spends most of the day on the board has already engaged with a poster in a much 'firmer' tone than you are comfortable with it not only removes the necessity of your involvement, but it deters your engagement with the process of challenge as, to do so would create the dog piling i have seen here and elsewhere. Not everyone enjoys that particular form of aggression. Mine is more sarky and much more of a one on one affair.

Bonus points for taking the time and effort to spell that out, but a couple of demerits for the unironic use of the term 'dogpiling,' which would seem to imply a reflexive attack on the whipping-boy du jour.

If A. Poster Esq. decides that Barbelith is a good place to make a homophobic, racist, or otherwise offensive post then a lot of individual posters are, off their own individual bats, going to pop along and post variations on the theme of WTF. If A. Poster Esq. continues to post material in a similar vein, various individual posters are going to leave WTFville and hop on the 53 bus to Angrytown.

I'm sorry if your preferred mode of critical engagement is a one-on-one affair, but, you know, messageboard. With other people on. Who say stuff. If you really feel that a poster's tone has been firmer than you'd like, maybe you could adapt your criticism to reflect that? If you feel that Poster A needed pulling up on something but that Poster B. was unecessarily harsh in doing so, you could note that in your own post.
 
  
Add Your Reply