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

Underground > Policy & Help >

Banning Thread: DeDI

Glenn Close But No Cigar

19:39 / 02.05.07

There has been a fair amount of discussion, in Policy, Headshop and Conversation, on the behaviour of Daemon est Deus Inversus. Recent discussions were as a result of This comment by DeDI in the Headshop BDSM questions thread but it has continued elsewhere
and has resulted in Talks to Strangers calling for DeDI's self-started banning thread to be reopened

In a recent post, in the Policy 'What Exactly Does Get You Banned on Barbelith' thread, Talks to Strangers remarks that, regarding DeDI's posting history, that it sucks to have to listen to crass generalisations about sexualities that include yours from someone who called you a shit, called your mum a whore, called other peoples' mums whores, posted heelarious rape lyrics in a thread on feiminsm, has repeatedly used the Temple to plug his Only Proper HOGD PS This Is Real, makes offtopic posts, makes offtopic posts in "comedy" Italian accents, generally makes the board a more hostile and less worthwhile place by his chosen modes of interaction and only didn't get banned that time because he grudgingly apologised and made an undertaking to be less of a gitwizard in future upon which he could be truthfully said to have repeatedly renaged over the course of a year

This, clearly, is a serious charge, and if substantial (not, for moment, to suggest that it is or isn't), demands action, if that's possible in the present circumstances.

This thread, then, is offered up as a non-combative beginning of a banning discussion, and as a place where information can be collated from all parties, interested or not. It's posted with the thought in mind that it's better to have one place where this may take place rather than multiple locations across the board, and that linking to, rather than resurrecting, old threads (especially those created by DeDI some time ago) may be a more profitable approach.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:41 / 02.05.07

It seems perverse not to link to DEDI's thread, which was not a self-started banning thread, but a thread started by DEDI which mutated into a discussion of whether or not to ban him. That link is here.

Key questions:

1) Is it true that the discussion on banning DEDI was put on ice conditional upon him ceasing to behave in the ways that lead to the discussion of him being banned in the first place?
2) If this is true, has this condition been broken?

Glenn Close But No Cigar

21:47 / 02.05.07

Cheers for clearing that up, Haus. No perversity intended.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:57 / 02.05.07

Oh, no criticism implied - "a bit odd" would maybe be better than "perverse" above, actually.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

22:59 / 02.05.07

Well as long as this is here--and I still favour resurrecting the original because I know damn well that if we just offer a link hardly anyone is going to bother reading it--I'd like to repost this from the "what gets you banned?" thread:

Can we at least acknowledge that this is a poster who has in the past sent abusive PMs, posted lyrics from a comic song about gang-rape to a thread on feminism, referred to various people's mothers as whores and so on? Is calling someone a "little shit" not an attack on thir personhood?

Oh yeah and I put up with all that. I actually sucked it all up and laid aside any thought of asking for a ban because Dedi undertook to conduct himself more reasonably in future. Since then, he's popped up every couple of months, contributing virtually nothing of worth and much that is ignorant and infuriating. Random noise. Crass generalisations. Deliberate obfuscation.

How sick do I feel about that now? I feel ashamed. Ashamed. I feel ashamed because I let this man shit all over me and all over people I love, and all over a community I care about. I let him do it and I've now got to accept partial responsibility for putting the board in a position where he can keep pulling this just-under-the-radar stuff indefinately.

This represents an accurate statement of my current position. I do not see any cheap, thoughtless, phoney apologies changing my mind. The only thing that might make me rethink my position would be if the poster concerned were to

a) acknowledge that the way he's conducted himself is unacceptable and

b) (please pay attention because this is the important bit) actually make real, long-term changes in his conduct such that he is no longer--either deliberately or in effect--trolling; that is to say, posting in a hostile, abusive, harrassing or otherwise unacceptable manner principally or wholly to generate a response.

If I do not see either of these things, this poster cannot expect to recieve from me a generous or forgiving interpretation of what he writes. If I take a negative message from his posts, I'll be assuming that this is precisely what he intended and responding accordingly. I will also feel entirely justified in raising the issue of his past misconduct if it seems relevant.

Glenn Close But No Cigar

23:36 / 02.05.07

Great that you've made your position clear, TTS / Mordant.

Given this, perhaps it's now important to turn the matter over to the rest of the board. Banning is, after all, a serious thing, and should turn on more than one person's set of grievances, however substantial or not those grievances may be. If DeDI is to be banned (and, given what I can tell from Tom Coates' recent engagement with the board, this will if it is recommended be at best a long process), there should be a polyphany of voices calling for such an action.

Some points in relation to your above post, TTS / Mordant. If as you write:

the only thing that might make me rethink my position would be if the poster concerned were to [...]actually make real, long-term changes in his conduct such that he is no longer--either deliberately or in effect--trolling; that is to say, posting in a hostile, abusive, harrassing or otherwise unacceptable manner principally or wholly to generate a response.

then you would surely need to pull back a little to allow some time for those real, long-term changes you mention to make themselves visible. By definition, a long term change cannot happen over a short period of time, and so 'bringing it' to DeDI every time ze posts something that makes you uncomfortable / angry / eye-bleedy (replace with your preferred descriptor, if needs be) during the transition period you suggest is, by your own argument, unproductive.

To sum up, if you want DeDI out, it is perhaps best just to say so unreservedly, or else revise the set of conditions you've given under which he'd be an acceptable presence on Barbelith to you. It may be that the board feel that his dubious history here means that he should march, and personally I'd be not too sad about that. That said, these things are always, and always should be, about more than one person's opinion.

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:49 / 02.05.07

Banning is, after all, a serious thing, and should turn on more than one person's set of grievances, however substantial or not those grievances may be.

I lot of this spadework has already been done, Fable. We have already covered:

someone who called you a shit, called your mum a whore, called other peoples' mums whores, posted heelarious rape lyrics in a thread on feiminsm, has repeatedly used the Temple to plug his Only Proper HOGD PS This Is Real, makes offtopic posts

at some length in the previous thread. As such, I think it would be best, on reflection, to lock this thread and reopen the last one, unless somebody feels like copying and pasting all the instantiations of bad behaviour and proposals about banning from the previous thread.

(Although I would point out that strictly speaking he quoted a song about gang-banging rather than rape in the Feminism 101 thread.)

Less searchable M0rd4nt

23:52 / 02.05.07

True; however, I would point out that rape is one meaning that can be attributed to the term "gang-banging," and that Dedi has himself never seen fit to challenge this interpretation.

ONLY NICE THINGS

00:00 / 03.05.07

Well, there is that, yes.

However! How do we feel about this? It strikes me that a lot of the prior art, and the bannination arc so far, is located in the other thread. Does it make sense to reopen it, possibly retitled at this stage? Or to publish a digest? Should votes cast for bannination or unbannination have expired, or be assumed to remain valid if the conditions exist as described are violated - that is, they were simply suspended? This is a bit of a confusing one.

Glenn Close But No Cigar

00:04 / 03.05.07

I think it would be best, on reflection, to lock this thread and reopen the last one, unless somebody feels like copying and pasting all the instantiations of bad behaviour and proposals about banning from the previous thread.

As the mods like. The intention was only to create a clearly sign-posted and, by title/abtract at least, impartial space to discuss the DeDI banning issue. I fear that reopening the last thread would be a touch confusing to the layperson / new-ish poster because of its author and, especially, its title.

ONLY NICE THINGS

00:06 / 03.05.07

True, but this approach is a touch dismissive of the hard work that went into wrangling the first instance of this...

Hmm. Let's see what happens.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

00:59 / 03.05.07

True, but this approach is a touch dismissive of the hard work that went into wrangling the first instance of this...

Well yeah but what do you expect, I mean, really? Anyhow, given that no-one is going to bother reading 5 pages of that or howevermany pages there end up being of this, it hardly matters. I'd quite like to see Dedi banned, but I realise that's going to be hard to swing so I'm prepared to settle for taking a quietly vigilant approach, dealing with Dedi's unacceptable posts in an appropriate way: that is to say, without undue aggression, but with an eye on the sensibilities of people who may feel quite severely attacked and oppressed by this abusive poster.

As previously stated I do not expect meaningful communication with Dedi to occur; I'm more interested in mitigating the damage he can do by challenging his biased and ignorant comments.

05:17 / 03.05.07

I'm kinda surprised that he hasn't been banned before, and anyone wondering why missed all the Mordant-bashing 'clownboy' and 'mother whore' business. I'm trying not to make connections between the whore-mother and his true domina jazz, and as far as I know, very few have even approached it, of late. People are being very polite about it, and he's not really reciprocating.

Behaviour from before his apology and staying-on-the-board, I'll try to ignore as to whether I think he should be banned. Behaviour since? He's consistently condescending, not apparently interested in engaging in discussions, so much as dropping statements usually couched in frustratingly rude language, and... well, I don't like it, but I unless I've missed something recently - and I probably have - I don't see a recent bannable offense.

Disagreements of a religious, sexual, or sociopolitical nature are not necessarily ban-worthy, but should a lack of willingness to discuss be? There's something wrong with just dropping a statement about natural domina here or not being hamstrung by Vatican 2, in another thread. But not ban-worthy.

Any links to anything post-absolution that's really hideous? (That sounds somewhat unfortunately so, so salavious.)