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: 12(3)4567

 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:04 / 25.09.07
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.

To get to the crux of the matter do you actually have an argument to keep darkmatter here?
 
 
Seth
13:19 / 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.

Because the banning button is new, and people want to ease their way into it. There was some legitimate concern over whether raising the moderation action without a policy thread was a good precedent to set for the first use of the new functionality. It might have alarmed a few people if there had been a ban without a discussion first, and prejudging how long the resulting thread should or shouldn't be is a bit like asking how long a piece of string should or shouldn't be.

Having said that I broadly agree that I found it quick and easy to make up my mind in this instance, hence agreeing to the moderation action.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
13:37 / 25.09.07
That's alright then. Procedure and transparency I can understand. Tolerating that stupid shit about babies for any length of time, I can't understand.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:53 / 25.09.07
Well, we _did_ tolerate it, when it happened, or at least we didn't ban for it. I'm quite up for not tolerating it. If I had a qualm, it might be that, having gotten away with it the first time, quimper is being penalised for having done effectively the same thing by being banned (by the looks of it) without an official warning. But, y'know. This isn't a court of law. It's an Internet message board. We can be inconsistent if we feel that a new way of doing things is better, and in this case demanding a clear demonstration of changed behaviour would not only prolong the issue but would also be somewhat unfair. So, yes. I'm for a ban.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
14:11 / 25.09.07
I think the debate around more robust banning functionality and the plans to open up the board to new members, both create a situation where we have to make certain decisions about the sort of space we want certain forums (such as the temple) to be, what we are prepared to tolerate, what is acceptable and what is not. I agree that clear decisions on what we want to encourage and discourage *now* are more important than the need to be absolutely consistent with what we may have done in the past. I was actually really surprised that Quimper guy was still around, and didn't get banned ages ago. I think the fact that he's just popped up again with more of the same offensive nonsense should be taken more as an opportunity to decide where we collectively stand on this sort of poster and this sort of posting. I've posted something in the "moderating the temple" forum to try and kick off a wider debate about the culture of the temple and what we want from it.
 
 
Olulabelle
19:32 / 25.09.07
Ok, I have just voted and I voted for banning. I was vote number 6 of 8. Underneath that it said vetoes: 1 of 3.

I am slightly confused about what this means. Do three people have to disagree to a ban in order for it not to go through? I thought it was two.

There are nine mods in the Temple. Currently only seven have voted,(one of those votes being against banning)so in order to get a result one way or the other the last two mods have to vote and cannot abstain.
 
 
grant
19:44 / 25.09.07
I am slightly confused about what this means. Do three people have to disagree to a ban in order for it not to go through? I thought it was two.

I'm wondering about that myself.

cusm, by the way, isn't really around much any more.
 
 
Olulabelle
19:55 / 25.09.07
Well if he's not then we will have an incomplete ban vote which cannot be cleared.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:02 / 25.09.07
This goes back to what I was saying earlier, in one or other of these threads- we're fucked if we get problems in AF&D.

I imagined the idea was that mods in a forum get to PROPOSE a ban, mods from anywhere can vote on it (assuming we're trusting mods to look at references as to why a ban was proposed).

Otherwise it's silly- we get a boardwide troll; four mods in Head Shop agree it, four other mods in Switchboard agree it; fuck it, let's add in four each from Temple and G&G... we still ain't got our eight, if they all have to be from the forum in which the ban was proposed.
 
 
Seth
21:32 / 25.09.07
Yeah. We need more moderators, or the same moderators willing to take on more forums.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:47 / 25.09.07
OR the "ban" vote being open to moderators boardwide, once alerted to it by a forum-specific mod.

But more mods would also work.

Either way, we have to do something. We've been saying for ages that the lack of banning functionality is the reason things are so fucked. Now we have it, we should be able to come up with a way of making it workable. No solution will be ideal for everyone. Which means we have to figure out what's the least worst one.

Otherwise T&C (that's Tom and Cal, rather than the T&C we still don't have) will either decide it's not worth the time and effort, or won't HAVE the time.

Someone set a deadline. I'd suggest 24 hours, but then I'm drunk, so someone SOBER suggest one. Between now and said deadline we come to a conclusion as to how we want this shit to work and present it to Tom.

Because at the moment we've been given the tools to do the job, which is what we've been begging for for ages, but have so far (a week and counting) been unable to figure out what the job actually IS, or who should have the tools.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:20 / 25.09.07
No we haven't, Stoatie. We have been given a tool that does not work, or the function of which is dependent on the number of moderators in a given forum.

Solution? Either more moderators (and we just don't have the competent personpower, certainly not at 24 hours' notice), moderators from any forum able to vote on any bannning thread (possible, but probably requires coding), creation of a small number of balancing admins able to vote on any banning (probably still left over from last time) or reducing the number of moderators required to ban (possible, but increases power of individual moderators, who have been in some cases selected by nothing more exacting than ability to locate own user number).
 
 
Proinsias
23:09 / 25.09.07
I attempt to refrain from posting in policy as I don't contribute to the rest of the board but would it not work if all policy mods were mods for all other forums as well. I'm assuming it took more than a user and forum number to become a policy mod.
This seems like something that Tom could implement without the help of Cal, mods could skip on duties concerning forums they do not wish to moderate.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:33 / 25.09.07
moderators from any forum able to vote on any bannning thread (possible, but probably requires coding)

See, that's how I thought it worked at first, until the first ban was proposed.

We DO have the tool (the banhammer) but yeah, you're right, the fact that it doesn't work properly kind of shades into the fact that we don't know how to use it because both come down to the moderator problem.

When Tom first told us about it, I was in full agreement, and thought eight was a reasonable number, because I thought those eight could come from anywhwere, and because, that said, we could have a discussion about who should or should not be mods. That discussion seems to have died on its ass, and the eight can't come from anywhere anyway.

I was under the impression that EVERYONE assumed the eight could come from anywhere, given that people seemed surprised when it turned out that only mods in a forum the troll (or whatever) had posted in could propose a ban. I like the idea that (assuming the mods are all actually trusted) only a mod in a forum the troll has posted in can propose it, but that given the information necessary all other mods can vote on it. Of course, this makes a lot of assumptions, not least of which being that mods can be trusted to read up on links they're given of trollish behaviour in fora they may not necessarily even read most of the time. But we/they kind of should be- which again brings us back to your question of who should actually be mods. Sorry this is rambling- I'm typing as I think, so it's not particularly well-formulated.

We should probably have the modding/demodding conversation sooner, rather than later, shouldn't we? THEN when we've figured it out, sort out the banning shit. Because right now, we've got someone who pretty much everyone who can be arsed to actually read and post in Policy agrees should be banned, who as yet hasn't been, unless I've missed something. We don't have the eight in Temple, but that's not because anyone's actually disagreed, as far as I can tell. Which means, yes, it doesn't work.
 
 
Tsuga
23:46 / 25.09.07
Okay. So, with finality, can someone tell me: it it now known that only moderators within a forum that the proposed ban comes from can vote on the proposed ban? Is that the deal? If so, that is a pickle. It seems the only other thing to do (besides getting Tom to fix this, if he can or will) would be for moderators from a larger forum re-propose a ban and have the mods from that forum vote on it, right? This is if there are not enough mods to functionally carry out the voting.
 
 
electric monk
04:03 / 26.09.07
I was under the impression that EVERYONE assumed the eight could come from anywhere, given that people seemed surprised when it turned out that only mods in a forum the troll (or whatever) had posted in could propose a ban.

I'm still surprised this is the case.

Is it easy to add mods? Tom seems to be able to do that fairly quickly if he has forum and user numbers. See, the way I'm reading the situation, I think a possible workaround might be to add all existing moderators on in the Convo. When the time comes to propose a vote on a ban, we boot the thread with the offending poster's post/s into Convo (maybe tag the title with [Evidence-(forum name)] or something) and call the vote from there. Then there's a large pool of potential votes from across the spectrum. This is after discussion has taken place in a Policy thread, of course. It's kludgy and may be an undesireable devolution of power in some way that I'm missing, but it seems like a solution that is not intrusive or time-consuming for Tom, and one that would get the Ban-voting pool open to all existing mods in a decent amount of time.

All this labors under the assumptions that changing the Ban parameters and adding Admins are deep code-y things that might not happen for a while, that adding new mods just to plug holes may be undesirable at this juncture, and that there will be some discussion in the near future regarding who should be a mod and who should not.

This should probably be in another thread.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:22 / 26.09.07
I think admins, in the sense of people who can vote on any moderator action made in any forum rather than people who can ban unilaterally, is already coded in - we used to have them in what was I think this incarnation of the board software, so it should be a switch-flick.

I think we should also have people who can in emergency ban unilaterally, myself, but Tom appears to feel other concerns overrule the benefits of that.
 
 
Spaniel
10:29 / 26.09.07
Ahh fuckerduckery, I've just put through a banning request based on Darkmatter's presence in comics - apparently he started a thread back in '04 - hoping that, as he has posted in comics, I would be able to join in the ban session. I'd been thinking that perhaps moderators from across the board might be able to contribute if they could find a post in the forum they mod.

It would seem that they can't.

Sorry if this was totally apparent to others. I knew it was a possibility but I didn't know for sure, and now I've created a situation where there are two separate banning actions moving through the system. Does anyone object to this? Should I ask my fellow Comics mods to veto this action? Or are two actions better than one when you've got a situation as fucked as ours?

Somebody, please, email Tom, if is hasn't happened already.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:38 / 26.09.07
I've emailed Tom. I think the quickest fix would be to get some admins in to push through the Temple bannination, which I imagine will also close the Comics bannination (which, yes, sorry, was obviously going to be a separate action, but no harm trying it out). Or the Comics bannination might go through, in which case problem temporarily solved, although the underlying issue is still there.
 
 
Spaniel
10:53 / 26.09.07
You see, quite obvious sure, but not entirely, which is a problem in and of itself. I mean, we have to work out how our functionality works now? The situation is that screwed up?
 
 
Spaniel
10:58 / 26.09.07
Perhaps Convo mods would like to start proceedings. Here's a post to get the ball rolling
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
10:59 / 26.09.07
FWIW, Boboss, I saw your comics ban request and thought "how clever, this will possibly get us to eight overall." I thought the ban requests might accrue as well.
 
 
Spaniel
11:09 / 26.09.07
FWIW

Thanks, Matt. Judging by all the confusion around here I think it's worth a lot.
 
 
Char Aina
12:14 / 26.09.07
Why do you think that ze might decide you are a terrorist?

I apologise for my part in your misunderstanding of my intended meaning. I was drawing on what I felt was a common enough reference point, a speech made by george bush suggesting that one could either be a part of the problem or the solution, and that there was no grey in between.

M. Beast is saying 'with me or my enemy'. I think it is unhelpful to do so.


Do you worry that we are going to put you in Gu-wa-ta-na-mo Ba-ey?

Not really, no. Going by the baby speak I reckon you do not think I do, but are attempting to make fun of me. Would it help if I pretend to cry?


Could you post links to examples of the posts that make you feel that we feel that you are a terrorist?

Sure, that's super-easy. The links are below:

here
here
and
here


Do you think that darkmatter is teh Muslim commentator, Barbelith is America, as you thought of the Fetch?

No.
Primarily because I don't realy know the current problem poster well enough to comment, but also because I didn't think fetch was anything of the sort. I read an article which discussed the mechanics of conflict with regard to ideology, and mapped it onto the conflict of ideology we were having.
The Fetch was no more an imam than I am, and the comparison was only intended to refer to the lessons of that article regarding how such conflict works.
Unfortunately the article has since disappeared from that link, so I can't be more specific.
There may be useful ideas in it that could be applied to the current problem poster, but without reading it again I wouldn't know.

Your overly simplistic reading, and your subsequent attempt to ridicule my posted opinion in this thread based on your overly simplistic reading is childish.
I think your attempt to ridicule my opinion (without addressing the point I made, choosing instead to attack my choice of reference point) says more about your consitent attitude towards me on this site than it does about my thinking.
For one thing, i didn't make the 'Teh' mistake in thepost you allude to, and yet you are back on the 'but he can't spell!' trip.

Can I take it you still want to shoot me? Metaphorically, of course.

You have yet to answer my question over in the other policy thread, incidentally, a question that stoatie seconded. Perhaps you could attend to that now?


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?


Why on earth would I wish someone I respect and admire to be shamed for merely saying something I found unhelpful? That maybe how you roll, dude, but not me. I'd like to think that M. Beast will take my opinion under advisement and then discard or retain whatever ze decides to retain or discard from it. I'd like to, and I also have faith that ze will.
I consider M. Beast to be one of the more discerning members of this site and I rate hir opinion and hir critical faculties pretty highly. On many occasions I find myself agreeing with hir(or at least finding hir opinion informs and shapes my own), and have on occasion asked hir for advice. I have valued hir as a poster, and am more than happy to count hir as a friend.

The perception you have of my desire to have hir paraded or crushed or whatever is erroneous, and based on something in your head, not mine.

You said you were sorry for the way you deal with me on barbelith when I was at your night in London. Was that cowardice that drove you to say sorry in my presence, or have you had a change of heart since then?
 
 
Char Aina
12:21 / 26.09.07
do you actually have an argument to keep darkmatter here?

No, I do not. As I mentioned earlier, I don't know the situation well enough to go either way with any confidence. At this point I would be going by the opinions of other members rather than my own understanding, and I don't feel that would add much that hasn't already been added.
I don't have time to research the threads properly, so I'm not offering an opinion.
If I had one, I would have stated it.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:26 / 26.09.07
So should one of us start ANOTHER banning action in Convo, or will that further complicate matters?
 
 
Char Aina
12:33 / 26.09.07
Are you thinking that a convo ban is more go-through-ish, and therefore might be a good way to enact the will of the too-few temple mods?

If so, what are you worried might go wrong?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:50 / 26.09.07
Okay. I refuse to be involved in another toksik/Life Critic attempt to spin-off a pointless self-perpetuating argument from a discussion to which you are unable or unwilling to actually contribute. To be helpful, I'd just like to point out a) that none of those links you've provided work, b) that I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when I meet them in person, but your subsequent persistent amateur contrarianism has exhausted the patience of myself and several other posters, and c) that I'm not sure which "question over in the other policy thread... that stoatie seconded" you mean, unless it's the one I answered here.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:55 / 26.09.07
I'm just wondering, as per Boboss' suggestion, if, given that as far as I can tell it's pretty much decided that we're moving to ban, it'll be easier to get eight people in Convo, as it has more active mods. My only worry is that having loads of banning actions simultaneously on one poster might lead to complications. I know nothing about coding or how BBs work, so I'm asking if anyone else does, really.
 
 
Olulabelle
13:12 / 26.09.07
The actual solution to the problems we're currently discussing doesn't lie in making another convo ban, but it would immediately get a result on the banning of Quimper.

Is it an automatic process if the ban goes through, or what happens? How do we know the end result?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:25 / 26.09.07
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.

To get to the crux of the matter do you actually have an argument to keep darkmatter here?

No, I do not. As I mentioned earlier, I don't know the situation well enough to go either way with any confidence.

I'm not sure whether to say this since you're engaged in an argument with Fly and I don't want you to feel like everyone's pushing you around but if you can't construct an argument not to ban than I don't think you can hazard a guess at other people finding it difficult to speak up about this. Speaking up for people is good but as far as I'm aware you're not actually doing that. Rather a lot of people had already pointed out that the start of this thread wasn't sexeh so you're rubbing the salt in a little.
 
 
Char Aina
13:40 / 26.09.07
a)
No, and they don't even have URLs in them, because I don't feel that any posts make me feel like a terrorist.

b)
I assure you i disagree when i disagree and i agree when i agree. Contrarianism is not at the root of it, and I think you would have to be reading selectively to think so.

c)
I did, thank you.


I refuse to be involved in another toksik/Life Critic attempt to spin-off a pointless self-perpetuating argument from a discussion to which you are unable or unwilling to actually contribute.

I am attempting nothing of the sort. I criticised one of my fellow member's posts, and you sought to criticise my world view as a result. I have answered your attack.
I'd be more than happy to be left alone, but I am also often unwilling to allow attacks upon my person or my posts to go unaddressed.

I have contributed to this discussion, and I have done so within the limits of my ability to do so. I have clearly stated why I am not voting on the banning of darkmatter, and I don't see why that should be a problem.
 
 
Char Aina
13:59 / 26.09.07
if you can't construct an argument not to ban than I don't think you can hazard a guess at other people finding it difficult to speak up about this.

I disagree. I can extrapolate from my own concerns(that M. Beast would find me to be her enemy in this)that others might feel similarly concerned, perhaps more strongly if their disagreement was more in line with what she had actually outlined as cause for hatred.

Generally and in my experience, threats to those holding differing views are not conducive to good discussion, as it can intimidate those who might add something informative.

Speaking up for people is good but as far as I'm aware you're not actually doing that.

Not specifically, no. Not unless you count me, and my worrying that M. Beast might hate me for criticising her expression of anger.

Rather a lot of people had already pointed out that the start of this thread wasn't sexeh so you're rubbing the salt in a little.

They had, and I said so. Because the specific sentence I referred to had not been referred to I decided to comment.
I thought my post had made that clear, and I apologise if this was not the case.
 
 
Spaniel
14:06 / 26.09.07
Yes, can we stop this now.

So, I'm thinking some Convo mods should get moving, if they haven't already. I don't imagine the board is going to explode.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:12 / 26.09.07
They had, and I said so. Because the specific sentence I referred to had not been referred to I decided to comment.
I thought my post had made that clear, and I apologise if this was not the case.

But the point is that the case had already been made. Why did you need to say it? To claim that you wanted to emphasise that the particular sentence sat badly is a little peculiar when AB had already admitted she felt she had kicked the whole thread off in the wrong way. If you want people to have a care for you and not rub your mistakes in than you need to direct the same philosophy towards others and question the worth of pointing things out, even when you have a specific gripe.
 
  

Page: 12(3)4567

 
  
Add Your Reply