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 >

Darkmatter

  
  

Page: 1(2)34567

 
 
Tryphena Absent
08:36 / 24.09.07
Darkmatter is kind of middle ground- clearly trollish, exemplifying the behaviour we want to exclude from the Temple, but not obviously troll enough for the out-of-hand ban.

Bullshit. Darkmatter is a case of someone who would be banned from 70% of internet message boards. The posts have no actual, discernible content, it's spam.
 
 
Spaniel
08:48 / 24.09.07
This is Quimper? Well, based on previous experience of the suit, and a quick Google for Darkmatter, I'm struggling to formulate a case for why the guy should be allowed stick around. He doesn't appear to have done anything but troll this board for years with his silly nonsense posts and juvenile attempts at offending (baby rape? Er, please to grow up).

I am a bit worried, however, that if we start a banning thread for every tom, dick or harry who attempts this kind of of silliness (and it is silliness, as far as I'm concerned), then we could get rather clogged up once the board is reopened, hence my reluctance to move for a ban* in this instance, and just hope that a simple thread deletion will do the trick. Of course, new moderator powers - to freeze posters or ban newbies - may make my concerns moot.

*Although I actually couldn't because I don't mod the Temple: is it just me or does this situation really worry anyone else, particularly as we need so many moderators to enact a ban in the first place
 
 
Spaniel
08:50 / 24.09.07
When I say reluctance in this instance, what I meant was initial reluctance in this instance.

I move for bannination
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:51 / 24.09.07
Uh yeah, it kind of does. Worry me, that is.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:03 / 24.09.07
Thanks, Seth. I would actually disagree somewhat with your identification of darkmatter as a troll. It's possible, but by no means certain. "Troll" is a tricky term, as it ascribes a specific motivation to somebody's actions - to attract attention by causing upset. I'm not personally convinced that darkmatter is sufficiently aware of his interactions and their effects to make that sort of connection. Also, given that he has actually not posted very much, and never in a sustained fashion, over the last three years, if he is a troll he is not a hugely successful one.

What we can take from his threads is that he is not willing or able to engage in a structured conversation, or at least not for any length of time, and that in the totality of his time on Barbelith his thinking has not advanced beyond the original point - incoherent references to Grant Morrison and Robert Anton Wilson, incomprehensible rhetoric about sexual assault which I think is probably inspired by the treatment of similar material in The Invisibles, but which is amenable neither to elucidation nor emendation, and likewise anti-semitic quotation that is incomprehensible in its motivation but indubitably present.

So, is his current thread banworthy? I'd say probably not. However, I'd agree that it does not seem that contact with Barbelith is doing anything for darkmatter, nor anything for Barbelith, and if this situation has changed not one iota in three years, it is unlikely to change now. He appears not to be getting anytihng out of the place, and the place seems to be pretty unhappy with his behaviour, which has not changed in each of his encounters.

As a best guess, every so often he gets wasted, forgets that Grant Morrison doesn't own/run/read Barbelith and seeks to get onto his Christmas card list with his Chaos knowledge. In any case, it seems like the best argument for banning is that he appears to get nothing out of Barbelith and contributes not only nothing but a net negative. Thus, to protect him from the abuse he gets on Barbelith and Barbelith from the unpleasantness it gets from him, a ban. I don't see a problem with having, say, a three-day space for discussing this, though (especially since it looks like it will be functionally impossible to ban in Temple anyway without unanimity in the current setup) - he is not flaming out, so I don't see an overriding need for haste.
 
 
Quantum
09:40 / 24.09.07
Bullshit. Darkmatter is a case of someone who would be banned from 70% of internet message boards. The posts have no actual, discernible content, it's spam.

70% of message boards have a banhammer and no tradition of careful consideration before excluding wankers. We don't ban for spam on the 'lith, it seems.

Just to be clear, I voted to ban, I want to ban him, I'm all about the ban, I don't think it's hasty. I'm happy to wait a few days just to make sure everyone's OK with it, but I think this sort of toss is damaging and harms the Temple.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:11 / 24.09.07
What's that statistic about 99% of statistics on the Internet?

I think we're calibrating the bantrap here. If we decide that we can propose to ban, without discussion, or with discussion in real time along with the banning votes, for spamming, then that's fine, but it needs to be agreed. Likewsie if it is all right just to point to the links rather than explaining what it is about the links that you find offensive. Again, though, it's not how we currently roll. Maybe it should be.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:17 / 24.09.07
It seems daft that we have a conversation about whether we ban poster x then if a consensus builds that leans slightly more towards banination than not, we put in a mod request which, should it come across the desktop of a mod in the 'no' camp, could still be vetoed?

I feel this could make the process just as slow as what before, with just a chance that things might be slightly quicker once the consensus is finally agreed to have been eventually reached. At last. With finality. And made of END. In it's entirety. And finito.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:29 / 24.09.07
Well, the aim of the discussion would be to get through the issues beforehand, so that if it is made clear that there is a genuine desire to ban any moderator who might generally veto can take that into account. Also, to flag up that somebody feels that a banning is an appropriate response and to give people who are not moderators (in that forum, as it turns out) a chance to talk about that.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:07 / 24.09.07
I think that's a good idea in the case of trolls and posters who are behaving in ways we don't understand but in the case of spam it makes sense to simply discuss these things in the moderation/ban request. It's difficult to explain why you would ban for spam beyond 'here is what this person posted and that is all they have done'. At that point it becomes a discussion of whether we ban people who only post spam and frankly I don't see any argument except for the old fashioned slippery slope.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:38 / 24.09.07
Are you describing darkmatter as spam, Tryphena? Boy in a Suitcase is clearly spamming, or more precisely merchanting, by putting up a link to an ebay auction of his copy of the Invisibles 3:1, or his video with him and Alex Gray - he is trying to sell something, or get clickthroughs. Darkmatter I wouldn't say is spamming - he doesn't appear to be selling anything, or at least if he is he is going about it in a singularly inept way. Incomprehensible, annoying, resistant to reason and offensive, absolutely, and potentially bannable on those grounds, but spam? Not so sure.

Mind you, if somebody had decided that he, or for that matter BiaS, was spamming, we wouldn't be having this discussion about whether or not he was spamming, because a Temple mod could have proposed the ban - or were you thinking that oone might propose the ban and then post in Policy to flag that you had done it, a la Charrelz?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:43 / 24.09.07
Bullshit. Darkmatter is a case of someone who would be banned from 70% of internet message boards.

That's almost certainly true, as is your previous point about not everyone needing to be involved. However, given that the banhammer has only just come into being, doesn't anyone think that, as far as the wider perception of the rest of the board is concerned, there should be a little transparency for at least a while? Otherwise the usual suspects will start getting arsey about "teh facists", and we'll end up with more trollish posts.

Darkmatter's clearly not doing anyone any favours by staying here (least of all, I'd imagine, himself) and on this and past form I'd say we'd definitely be better off without him. I'm a little leery, however, of saying "now we can KILL you! Let's start killing right away" when we haven't actually finished the discussion on what is and isn't acceptable yet. As I say, I'm firmly of the opinion that he falls on the side that starts with "un-", but that's not really the point. "Blatant" and "obvious"- yes, to some of us. I just think we should maybe show our working a little. Not a protracted, PW-type soul-baring fiasco, by any means, but maybe a couple of doodles in the margin wouldn't go amiss.

I'm also getting a sense (it's kind of vague and I could be wrong, and I'm not referring to you, Tryphena) that some people are seeing this as an opportunity rather than a useful tool. (I'm thinking partly of Princess's "banhammer comes soon" mantra, as well as my reading of Pingles yesterday, though I'm not sure I read hir right). Banning people shouldn't be something to be relished, imho. If it has to be done, then yes, the quicker the better, but it's the same as my argument against fox-hunting- if it's pest control, it's not a sport.

So yes, I'm a little incoherent on this one. Were I a Temple mod, I'd agree he should go. But I'd like there to have been a tiny bit of discussion, or maybe even just an announcement or two first, so people who may wonder why poster x has vanished have something to refer to. (Edited to add- we did get an anouncement on this one... sorry, following a godzillion different threads at once is hurting my brane).
 
 
Char Aina
15:34 / 24.09.07
Be advised that it had better be good, and that I personally will hate you

I know you've apologised for the general unhelpfulness of your opening salvo, but I wanted to highlight this particular sentence. I'm not well versed in the issues surrouding darkmatter, but I can imagine your expression of hatred for anyone attempting to see his side might well ward of potential contributors. I certainly thought twice before posting this, worrying that you might decide I was with the terrorists.
 
 
grant
18:27 / 24.09.07
For the record, the reference to "babies being raped" was enough to make me clicky click the "for" button, since that seemed close enough to some priors for me. Stupid, offensive, unpleasant and repeated.

If we decide that we can propose to ban, without discussion, or with discussion in real time along with the banning votes, for spamming, then that's fine, but it needs to be agreed.

I kind of like this idea - discussion in real time - if only because the number of mods currently mean banning is still a pretty slow process.

Then again, I kind of view the "Reason for…" box as a kind of discussion in itself. I realize others prefer more of a two-way exchange.

since two Temple moderators - that is, enough to prevent a banning -

This observation should probably go in the "Topics of concern: banning" thread, but did any other mods notice that the "Vetoes" box said "1 of 3" in it?
 
 
Olulabelle
19:09 / 24.09.07
I haven't voted yet, primarily because I wanted to come here first and see if there was anymore discussion on the matter, but also because it felt a bit, well, quick really. I was surprised to see the Ban User request. I thought it might be a trial run because it was so soon after getting the facility.

To be clear, it's not that I don't think we should ban Quimper because actually I don't think he contributes anything of value at all. If we agree to ban posts which consist mainly of random gibberish and occasional offence then this poster certainly falls into that category.

Certainly I think posts about babyraping make quite a good reason for a ban, but perhaps we should do that actually at the time.

I too am worried that only moderators from the relevant forum get to vote because like Stoatie said, sometimes there aren't even 8 active mods in a forum. I think if it remains just the relevant forum then perhaps we should get the number of mods needed reduced to something more like 5 or 6. But if we do want to change it we'd better do it quickly because as far as I understand it we're only at 88 mph for a limited period.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:24 / 24.09.07
If we decide that we can propose to ban, without discussion, or with discussion in real time along with the banning votes, for spamming, then that's fine, but it needs to be agreed.

It's that last bit that's key, I think. I seem to remember years ago being a bit dubious about deleting an in itself inoffensive post by Kn*dg* post-banning, because nobody had actually told me that it was now standard procedure to delete them all (I don't think it was just me, either). It had been mooted, but there had never to my knowledge been a hard-and-fast agreement. It'd be better for that kind of confusion not to arise again, surely?
 
 
HCE
00:24 / 25.09.07
First post in the Meta-rape thread, here, makes use of an anti-semitic slur (rather than, for example, mentioning it in the context of a discussion of slurs). There is no subsequent explanation of, let alone apology for, this use. If somebody else knows where an explanation can be found, please let me know.

There is no requirement (yet) that people have to use such slurs more than once to qualify for banning. I view that post as a significant mark in the 'against' column. In the absence of anything else at all positive in the 'for' column (such as: attempts to engage with other discussions, coherent if not persuasive responses to other posters, suggestions that poster may have been doing his best while operating under some kind of constraint), let alone anything compelling, I believe it is appropriate to ban this poster.

I am going to take my part of the discussion of how this was handled, as an example of new-style banning, to the banning procedures thread here.
 
 
Lurid Archive
05:39 / 25.09.07
I just wanted to say that I'm with Olulabelle on this - I wanted to come here before voting to see if there was a consensus forming about the issue. Certainly, I'm pretty convinced that Darkmatter contributes nothing of value, and has a pretty dodgy posting history. The question to me is whether we consider this bad enough for a ban, given the relatively low volume of the output.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
07:45 / 25.09.07
I think we're going to need more people who intensively post in fora to moderate them.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:33 / 25.09.07
I know you've apologised for the general unhelpfulness of your opening salvo, but I wanted to highlight this particular sentence. I'm not well versed in the issues surrouding darkmatter, but I can imagine your expression of hatred for anyone attempting to see his side might well ward of potential contributors. I certainly thought twice before posting this, worrying that you might decide I was with the terrorists.

Really, man? Why do you think that ze might decide you are a terrorist? Do you worry that we are going to put you in Gu-wa-ta-na-mo Ba-ey? Could you post links to examples of the posts that make you feel that we feel that you are a terrorist? Do you think that darkmatter is teh Muslim commentator, Barbelith is America, as you thought of the Fetch? Would you be happy if Aunt Beast wore sackcloth and ashes and a dunce's cap for a week? What else could ze do to make you feel that ze had apologised and been shamed enough?
 
 
Janean Patience
08:36 / 25.09.07
Could you post links to examples of the posts that make you feel that we feel that you are a terrorist?

Is it possible that Life Critic was using the word terrorist as a metaphor here, and didn't mean it to be taken entirely literally?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:40 / 25.09.07
Seems unlikely - we are talking about someone who thought it was a cause for concern when I said "pass the ammunition" during a conversation about banning the Fetch. Because he thought I might shoot people for sympathising with Holocaust-deniers.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
10:24 / 25.09.07
I'm really not understanding why we need a two-page discussion to decide whether someone who starts a thread entitled "meta-rape" should be banned or not. I know that thread was posted a long time ago, but show me *one* example of that poster contributing anything other than hugely offensive and/or inane rambling anywhere on barbelith? Show me an example of this poster actaully interacting with the board or contributing to any sort of dialogue with other posters, as opposed to using this space as a dumping ground for his stupid and offensive ideas. The fact that his terribly transgressive recurrent "baby raping" theme has also come up in this recent thread, should be reason enough to get rid of him. I don't want to have to look at this shit, and I do not want barbelith to be a space where it appears to be fair game to talk about the magical implications of sexually assaulting babies. Get rid of this horrible wanker.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:35 / 25.09.07
Actually, he has engaged with Barbelith twice - once asking for reading material, once asking people with magical powers to intercede to "stop Bush". In neither case did he show a lot of _ability_ to interact, and his responses were very brief, but he did read what people had written and write responses to it. However, it seemed to be quite an effortful process and was fairly shortly abandoned.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:48 / 25.09.07
On Life Critic, I think we can compromise on "metaphor, but potentially unhelpful one". In any case, Aunt Beast has already acknowledged that her tone and approach in the opening exchanges was not appropriate to a banning thread. Hopefully the responses she garnered will encourage people not to take a similar approach in subsequent banning threads, by Aunt Beast and others.

In among the discussions of the process of bannign in this brave new world, we are reaching the 3-day period I suggested elsewhere for a banning pre-motion discussion, incidentally. As such - although, to be honest, the tiny numbers of moderators able to vote on this ban means that it may well come to asking Tom, through the me/Randy method or the conventional channels anyway - are we closer to a conclusion? I think for me the key issues here are:

1) Quimper's main mode of engagement is posting topics which are made up of the repetition of a few key concepts and unattributed quotes from other people.
2) He is unable or unwilling to support or discuss these topics in a satisfactory fashion.
3) Combined with that, some of the things he posts are offensive to the sensibilities of other readers, most obviously his comments about babies and to a lesser degree his anti-semitic quotation (a lesser degree because done in the Temple, alas) from the film "Max".
4) In mitigation, at least in terms of the reaction he engenders, is the sporadic nature of his appearances - there is no sustained behaviour - and the fact that he usually sticks to the Temple.
5) However - and for me this is the kicker - there is no value whatever that he contributes to compel me to spend much time thinking about whether he should be preserved despite his peccadilloes. This came up in the banning thread for Mathlete, which had if anything an even worse start - people whose contributions appear to be of generally low value are likely to get less credit extended for their failings.
6) So, personally, I have no compunctions about saying that, whether he is intentionally trolling or in some way dealing with substance or mental health issues, having him pop up, do what he does and then get roundly mocked and abused is doing him and us no good, and I think he should be banned. However, I am also glad of the opportunity to discuss this banning in the absence of any immediate threat or damage to the board.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:10 / 25.09.07
I think the references to the Temple in 3 and 4 there could do with rewording. I know that the people who post there regularly who have their shit together would be the first to acknowledge that the Temple attracts a lot of... well, challenging and challenged people. But for the sake of those people (the ones who have their shit together), I don't think we should start somehow expecting there to be lower standards for what's acceptable in the Temple.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:25 / 25.09.07
Of those currently moderating the Temple, two actively spoke out against the banning of the Fetch. A third has subsequently explained his non-action regarding the Fetch as due to incomprehension. A number of regular posters to the Temple also came out in defence not only of the Fetch but of the importance of preserving the right of posters to the Temple to cite documents such as the Protocols as representations of fact, in pursuit of global conspiracies.

I certainly don't think the Temple should have different standards from the rest of the board on what's acceptable. However, I also think that it quite frequently has. Correcting that is one of the things it might be worth trying to do with threads like this.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:46 / 25.09.07
Given that we've now HAD the discussion, and the general consenus is kick him, I'm not really sure what we're waiting for.

I'd have been up for kicking him to start with, as I said, but I think at least SOME discussion is necessary. Which we've had, pretty much.
 
 
electric monk
11:52 / 25.09.07
CHaus, could you provide some links to Temple threads where these different standards are applied, preferably in "Moderating the Temple"? Thanks.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:56 / 25.09.07
Given that we've now HAD the discussion, and the general consenus is kick him, I'm not really sure what we're waiting for.

Yeah, agreed. I was mostly waiting for the consensus to be completely apparent. It is, and I'm voting for a ban.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:22 / 25.09.07
Electric Monk - sure. The main reference point is topic 17394 - "Censorship among Occult Practitioners". That's where the first real attempt to draw a line was made, on both sides. Before that, the absence of such a line meant that the approach in, say, topic 17394 - "May Warning" was not backed by an understanding that this kind of statement, in the context of a discussion in the Temple, was banworthy. It is my hope that in future this will not be a matter of such uncertainty - this thread being a part of that.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:40 / 25.09.07
One reason I increasingly find myself having to really fight not to lose it completely with these guys is partly because I do not see why the Temple should have the kind of low or shoddy standards that would allow them to post unhindered. If "Meta-Rape" turned up as a topic anywhere else on the board, I really fucking hope there'd be a hue and cry. We should not have a situation where people think this kind of thing is okay coz it's in a magic forum. It's not, it's shit, and it shouldn't be on the board.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:42 / 25.09.07
I further hope that yeah, we've got some standards in place now where shit like "Hitler had the right idea" (in the May Warning thread) or Fetcho's use of arithmancy to prove that the PofZ = all true would get you banned in very short order. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who thinks this should not be the case, esp. Temple mods.
 
 
electric monk
12:44 / 25.09.07
Thanks, CHaus. Reading now, and I see your point.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
12:57 / 25.09.07
I'm really not understanding why we need a two-page discussion to decide whether someone who starts a thread entitled "meta-rape" should be banned or not.

Well, no, when reading dude's material many would come to the same conclusion. Two pages may be more than is needed, but (and maybe this is the whiskey talking) I think we needed to specifically state the right reasons early on in the thread, seeing as how this is sort of a precedent for Barbelith (what with having the banning option so much closer to hand and all). I didn't really see that happen.

But it did happen eventually, and I'm actually sort of pleased that Barbelith came to what seems to be a consensus in only two pages.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34567

 
  
Add Your Reply