Forum Modding Feedback

[Puffy]

I haven't followed the thread that contains the episode in question so I don't have any comment on it.

From what I've seen in recent months, RB & Adaire are the only active members of the current staff team (though it was a genuinely pleasant surprise to see Kuu the other day.)

Most of the lively, fresh energy of the place seems to come from newer members - rebis, inex, marbles, etc. So I'd probably consider offering modship to 1+ of them. I'm broadly in favour of representative forum leadership and if the most active part of the community feels marginalised, then inviting them around the table seems the best way to heal that.

It seems likely (due to personal circumstance rather than anything else) that I'll likely increasingly spend less time here. But I do hope you stick around @Inexorable Username as you seem like a quality poster to me.

 

[scorpiomover]

Nice to see that I can post on this thread.

Was not aware of this until the other day.

For those of you who are not aware:

I joined in 2011. Soon got fed up. Felt like either I couldn't really contribute to discussions, or they were oriented in a way that made me feel excluded. Contributed to a few threads. Found out soon enough that I would get insulted.

Kormak was quite acerbic to me. But surprisingly, he was actually quite a jolly fellow to talk to. Quite enjoyed our little debates. Even came here repeatedly hoping to engage with him.

Then I saw all this about Kormak and got quite despondent. thought it was going to be back to the Dark Ages for me here.

So herein lies my problem....

Users here are subject to sensitive moderators with short fuses who have dictator-level authority over who is allowed to say what, when, based on their personal feelings.

The rules aren’t universal and they’re not objective. They seem to exist to be used against certain people.

What seems to be the underlying message here - ie: people should be censored, I don’t care about justice, freedom of speech doesn’t matter - is that if someone here has a philosophy that a moderator finds offensive, that person can will be banned the moment they slip up. And of course, they’re going to slip up - because nobody polices these forums in general, and saying things that are a bit extreme isn’t an uncommon thing. Nor has it ever really seemed to be an issue - at least since I’ve been here - because we’re all mature adults that are capable of handling a little bit of online unpleasantness.

That’s why this community isn’t really a safe place to be. It’s become something very similar to the extremist liberal culture

• Rules are black and white but selectively applied to people we don’t like.
• If you don’t agree with our philosophy, you shouldn’t be allowed to speak.
• If you don’t submit to our doctrine, we’ll banish you from the community.

I have a proposal as a solution. I don't care if you think it's rubbish. Just hear me out, because maybe it might solve the problems that I see:

The big problem I see with banning and the like, is the seeming unfairness of it. I've had temporary bans before on other sites which I thought was unfair. But then, maybe I was wrong.

Also, bans didn't really educate me on how to navigate posting without getting banned, which left me very uncertain about if something else I said might get me banned in the future, which in turn made me hold back a lot from posting.

I've been in this very situation in group therapy before.

However, in group, the therapist then turned to the group and let them give their opinion of me. Boy, was it an eye-opener. Turned out the therapist was going easy on me. Hearing my fellow group members say what they thought, made me realise that this wasn't just the opinion of one person in authority who might be abusing his power. This was the opinion of lots of people, all sorts of people, several of whom I had chatted to outside of group and had developed respect for.

Moreover, that gave me the opportunity to apologise to the group, and ask them how I could do better. Instead of getting just my therapist's idea of how I could change, I got his opinion, and 10 other people's solutions, which made it MUCH easier for me to find something that would work for me and everyone else, not just in the group, but also IRL.

So, here's my suggestion:

What if, when a ban or other punishment needs to take place, the ban is still put in place, but a thread is made specifically so that the mod can explain WHY the ban happened?

Then other posters can see the reason for the ban. If it's reasonable, then the entire community will support it. Then the poster being banned can see that 50 posters support and agree with the ban, and even post there to explain their views. Then he/she knows that it's not just the mod who thinks the poster deserved the ban.

If the community thinks thta the ban is unfair, then the entire community can post that it's an unreasonable ban and should be removed. Still up to the mods and the admin. But at least if they have 50 posters all saying that the ban is unreasonable, they're in a position to see that.

Maybe we could have a poll as well, to show numbers for and against.

Another option is to use a poll that lists usernames, so the poster can see that even his friends here support the ban. Likewise, the mod can also see if even the posters he/she respects that most, are against the ban.

Maybe the poster who gets banned might feel embarrassed? Then maybe the poster who gets banned has the right to refuse to make the thread public. But in that case, the poster must accept the decision of the mods without question, and everyone else should do the same. Fair is fair.

What about deleted posts? I suggest that we could do something similar with deleted posts. Maybe we could have a thread just about deleted threads. But surely that might mean that the offensive posts remain? Well, they could be on a time limit. Say, we could have a thread for posts that were deleted that week or that month. After the waiting period, the thread gets deleted. That gives time for anyone to complain, and for other posters to state approval.

Anything less than a week old gets bumped into the next week's thread.

Remember, this isn't there to undermine the authority of the mods. This is just an idea so that everyone gets a fair hearing, and so we get the rest of the community to show what we all think, so the mods and the posters get to realise who is in the right and who is out of order.

What does everyone think?

 

[Happy]

@scorpiomover it’s a good suggestion.

We used to have a closed thread for ban announcements only, but it seems it was abandoned in 2017.
I think this transparency is important and should be reintroduced.
Here’s the thread I refer to:

Bans

420munkey banned for 3 months for repeatedly failing to understand the difference between disagreement and aggression. Not the first time... ...but hopefully the last? it's been a long time coming. personal attacks on members continued after warnings and temp ban, so it's permanent this time...

www.intpforum.com

IMO open discussions about bans tend to devolve to chaos pretty quickly, so not good to be moderator-run. Anyone (who isn’t banned) can always make a thread to discuss though.
However, polls would be a bad idea. Especially if voters could be identified.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I haven't followed the thread that contains the episode in question so I don't have any comment on it.

From what I've seen in recent months, RB & Adaire are the only active members of the current staff team (though it was a genuinely pleasant surprise to see Kuu the other day.)

Most of the lively, fresh energy of the place seems to come from newer members - rebis, inex, marbles, etc. So I'd probably consider offering modship to 1+ of them. I'm broadly in favour of representative forum leadership and if the most active part of the community feels marginalised, then inviting them around the table seems the best way to heal that.

It seems likely (due to personal circumstance rather than anything else) that I'll likely increasingly spend less time here. But I do hope you stick around @Inexorable Username as you seem like a quality poster to me.

I really like this suggestion and I very much appreciate the compliment! It means a lot to me that you really listened to this issue and understood my point of view (and the views of those who agree with me) in regards to marginalizing the opinions of active members.

When you feel marginalized as such, it definitely stings to have your feelings brushed aside as irrational, nonsensical, petty, or false. It’s especially obnoxious when those feelings are related to a fundamental belief or core moral value, and others feel they’re laughably unimportant, or worth mocking. So to hear this reasonable opinion from you is very therapeutic. Thanks!

I agree that having an active member who the community has fond feelings for, moderate, is a very good idea.

Has anyone considered instating temporary mod roles? Maybe moderators should be in effect for a year, and inactive moderators should be placed back to user status until such a time as they become re-engaged with the community?

I think having context and understanding character is a valuable trait for a moderator. It’s something you can’t really have without getting to know the people who are posting. With context, you can make proper judgement calls as to what is acceptable behavior - and you also have the priviledge of knowing when a member is not frequently active, or new, which may be a good reason to moderate opinions directed at them a little more sternly until they feel more welcome.

I think Marbles would be an excellent choice for a moderator. He’s pretty good at disarming high-tension discussions.

 

[Inexorable Username]

Nice to see that I can post on this thread.

Was not aware of this until the other day.

For those of you who are not aware:

I joined in 2011. Soon got fed up. Felt like either I couldn't really contribute to discussions, or they were oriented in a way that made me feel excluded. Contributed to a few threads. Found out soon enough that I would get insulted.

Kormak was quite acerbic to me. But surprisingly, he was actually quite a jolly fellow to talk to. Quite enjoyed our little debates. Even came here repeatedly hoping to engage with him.

Then I saw all this about Kormak and got quite despondent. thought it was going to be back to the Dark Ages for me here.

So herein lies my problem....

Users here are subject to sensitive moderators with short fuses who have dictator-level authority over who is allowed to say what, when, based on their personal feelings.

The rules aren’t universal and they’re not objective. They seem to exist to be used against certain people.

What seems to be the underlying message here - ie: people should be censored, I don’t care about justice, freedom of speech doesn’t matter - is that if someone here has a philosophy that a moderator finds offensive, that person can will be banned the moment they slip up. And of course, they’re going to slip up - because nobody polices these forums in general, and saying things that are a bit extreme isn’t an uncommon thing. Nor has it ever really seemed to be an issue - at least since I’ve been here - because we’re all mature adults that are capable of handling a little bit of online unpleasantness.

That’s why this community isn’t really a safe place to be. It’s become something very similar to the extremist liberal culture

• Rules are black and white but selectively applied to people we don’t like.
• If you don’t agree with our philosophy, you shouldn’t be allowed to speak.
• If you don’t submit to our doctrine, we’ll banish you from the community.

I have a proposal as a solution. I don't care if you think it's rubbish. Just hear me out, because maybe it might solve the problems that I see:

The big problem I see with banning and the like, is the seeming unfairness of it. I've had temporary bans before on other sites which I thought was unfair. But then, maybe I was wrong.

Also, bans didn't really educate me on how to navigate posting without getting banned, which left me very uncertain about if something else I said might get me banned in the future, which in turn made me hold back a lot from posting.

I've been in this very situation in group therapy before.

However, in group, the therapist then turned to the group and let them give their opinion of me. Boy, was it an eye-opener. Turned out the therapist was going easy on me. Hearing my fellow group members say what they thought, made me realise that this wasn't just the opinion of one person in authority who might be abusing his power. This was the opinion of lots of people, all sorts of people, several of whom I had chatted to outside of group and had developed respect for.

Moreover, that gave me the opportunity to apologise to the group, and ask them how I could do better. Instead of getting just my therapist's idea of how I could change, I got his opinion, and 10 other people's solutions, which made it MUCH easier for me to find something that would work for me and everyone else, not just in the group, but also IRL.

So, here's my suggestion:

What if, when a ban or other punishment needs to take place, the ban is still put in place, but a thread is made specifically so that the mod can explain WHY the ban happened?

Then other posters can see the reason for the ban. If it's reasonable, then the entire community will support it. Then the poster being banned can see that 50 posters support and agree with the ban, and even post there to explain their views. Then he/she knows that it's not just the mod who thinks the poster deserved the ban.

If the community thinks thta the ban is unfair, then the entire community can post that it's an unreasonable ban and should be removed. Still up to the mods and the admin. But at least if they have 50 posters all saying that the ban is unreasonable, they're in a position to see that.

Maybe we could have a poll as well, to show numbers for and against.

Another option is to use a poll that lists usernames, so the poster can see that even his friends here support the ban. Likewise, the mod can also see if even the posters he/she respects that most, are against the ban.

Maybe the poster who gets banned might feel embarrassed? Then maybe the poster who gets banned has the right to refuse to make the thread public. But in that case, the poster must accept the decision of the mods without question, and everyone else should do the same. Fair is fair.

What about deleted posts? I suggest that we could do something similar with deleted posts. Maybe we could have a thread just about deleted threads. But surely that might mean that the offensive posts remain? Well, they could be on a time limit. Say, we could have a thread for posts that were deleted that week or that month. After the waiting period, the thread gets deleted. That gives time for anyone to complain, and for other posters to state approval.

Anything less than a week old gets bumped into the next week's thread.

Remember, this isn't there to undermine the authority of the mods. This is just an idea so that everyone gets a fair hearing, and so we get the rest of the community to show what we all think, so the mods and the posters get to realise who is in the right and who is out of order.

What does everyone think?

Lots of good ideas here.

A system of voting could potentially spread discord, but I think that discussions regarding the ban really should take place. It’s important for people to have the chance to voice opinions about this - and honestly - if the proper protocol was followed (such as issuing a warning) I doubt that there would be much drama.

I would suggest that there should potentially be some structure to ban-based discussions.

Here’s a thought. We can have a forum for people to use when they post their complaint regarding the ban. An outline for them to express their stance.

Something to the effect of:

(1) Describe the situation from your personal perspective.

(2) Describe your stance on X getting banned, and the reasons for said stance.

(3) Summarize the problem, and the solution you propose.

You could even use a character limit to encourage people to be concise.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Spoiler: joke

Listen here uncle ben, I'm tired of hearing that great power comes great responsibility shit around here, if you fucking mention it one more time I'm pulling the fucking plug.

I really do like the extra transparency with staff decisions, it would probably make the forum more democratic, except not really cuz final decision is still in mods hands when it comes down to it. People that constant walk on that fine line should be warned and given the boot if they are so bold. I've only really run one forum before and I can't fake it and say I knew what I was doing, but the idea of people coming here and sharpening their words to go into the real world scares me. INTPs are weird and think about things that most people don't think matters if not flat out ignoring them.

I'm skeptical of engaging with Abe for example, even though @Rebis gives a good rationalization for "why not?". Someone like Abe isn't interested in learning and broadening their world view, and I see him as just strengthening his own. I'm still waiting for responses to, I think, 2 ideas that I posited, and heshe hasn't retorted with anything, and it's because he fucking can't, either the knowledge gap is too big or he's just going to say fuck it come up with some fallacious response to it, leave this bubble and poison some other discussion that was either already racist or not racist enough, causing a feedback loop and fucking up the world more than it already is.

I'm may just be overthinking it but I feel these are actual concerns that mods should be taking care of, not just banning someone for a basically harmless jab over the internet and closing, though I'm sure it did just turn into shitposting, a runaway thread that was not remedied correctly. We are all learning, we all have invested some amount of time and energy into this forum, iz all guud in da hood homies. As said already, if people aren't happy with the responses and state of affairs, their reaction will be leaving, and I don't wanna leave this place, this place is nice.

 

[redbaron]

the ban thread used to be around before i was a mod, and i see it around on other forums.

it really makes no real difference as to whether or not people accept the bans that occur, because there's always going to be two sides to an argument, and it has no impact on whether or not someone does or doesn't get banned either. happy to do it, doubtful that it makes any difference.

@Marbles just to clarify: your ban was not 'lifted' - once all the mods had a chance to review it, a decision was made regarding its length. the comment you were banned for was still deemed not appropriate, and in the context it was posted: "it was a joke" was not considered an acceptable defence.

 

[redbaron]

I'm may just be overthinking it but I feel these are actual concerns that mods should be taking care of, not just banning someone for a basically harmless jab over the internet and closing, though I'm sure it did just turn into shitposting, a runaway thread that was not remedied correctly. We are all learning, we all have invested some amount of time and energy into this forum, iz all guud in da hood homies. As said already, if people aren't happy with the responses and state of affairs, their reaction will be leaving, and I don't wanna leave this place, this place is nice.

here's the thing

- if there's contentious behaviour on the forum and you ban someone: people will get upset and potentially leave

- if there's contentious behaviour on the forum and you ban no one: people will get upset and potentially leave

it's all well and good to pretend that being really "accepting" of a whole lot of different people will create a healthier forum: and previous mods tried that for about 18 months. the forum ended up being dominated by the same handful of argumentative people with fringe beliefs and ideas. some that marginalised minorities (funny that basically all the minorities on this forum have opted to not visit or post here anymore, isn't it?)

at some point, it got to a juncture where they were basically the only active members on the forum and mods thought, "if we ban them, we have no forum, right?"

well, banning them actually freed up discussion space for other people, eventually leading to the kind of community where the newer users who've recently joined and found this place to their liking, are the beneficiaries of mods who ban: not mods who do nothing when contentious behaviour arises.

it's all well and good to defend the idea that "the community can sort itself out!" when it comes to these behaviours. if a trans or a gay member brings up that they don't feel comfortable posting in the forum environment because their existence is being likened to say, mental illness, a disease, or that they're a heathen: then a decision needs to be made.

unfortunately, this forum has lost many of its longstanding and historically quite active minority members that i wish would still post here, and it's of no surprise that they opted not to stick around. so when people make the argument, "hey c'mon, we're a small community and no one's really getting hurt right?!" it just strikes me as rather naive tbh. this very attitude has resulted in a huge loss of quality members in the past.

 

[Rebis]

I'm may just be overthinking it but I feel these are actual concerns that mods should be taking care of, not just banning someone for a basically harmless jab over the internet and closing, though I'm sure it did just turn into shitposting, a runaway thread that was not remedied correctly. We are all learning, we all have invested some amount of time and energy into this forum, iz all guud in da hood homies. As said already, if people aren't happy with the responses and state of affairs, their reaction will be leaving, and I don't wanna leave this place, this place is nice.

here's the thing

- if there's contentious behaviour on the forum and you ban someone: people will get upset and potentially leave

- if there's contentious behaviour on the forum and you ban no one: people will get upset and potentially leave

While both decisions lead to a lack of users on the forum, principally it seems better to go with the first remedy than the latter. Here's why:

People joining this forum, and the ones that stick around given a few factors of the modern age like social media use, progression from a forum template and so on, are likely ones that do not find their conversations commonplace on social media. That is not to say they're all controversial but rather they won't recieve feedback from their propositions. I doubt the intention of people to come here and then demand a safe space that only expresses ideas they support rather than people coming here to hear ideas that they are not subject to in the "REAL WORLD".

For the latter that person doesn't seem to respect the agency of another so much so that they would leave because they cannot accept another's presence. We have to really consider the severity an action is capable of when arguing with someone online. Can you hear the tonality of their voice, the anger, vehemence, the disgust?
How much of a bearing can a few words be on a forum where you can easily disassociate? If there was consistent insulting/infringement on a rule then I can see a reason for banning them, but otherwise it seems haphazard. Arguments are typically irrefutable when it comes to consistency: If someone consistently does an action irrespective of moderators telling them they're overstepping their boundaries then for the most part people will have a weak argument against the mods. That's what it boils down to essentially: justifying the action of an absolute, oftentimes irreversible decision. Some people can spend a lot of time here and to think this relationship they've built with expressing their ideas for months, 1,000s of posts can all be eradicated by a misinterpretation is quite worrying. Like stocks, no one invests all their money into a volatile stock. Wouldn't you agree?
[/QUOTE]

it's all well and good to pretend that being really "accepting" of a whole lot of different people will create a healthier forum: and previous mods tried that for about 18 months. the forum ended up being dominated by the same handful of argumentative people with fringe beliefs and ideas. some that marginalised minorities (funny that basically all the minorities on this forum have opted to not visit or post here anymore, isn't it?)

at some point, it got to a juncture where they were basically the only active members on the forum and mods thought, "if we ban them, we have no forum, right?"

This isn't an overarching principle applicable in all situations.Argumentative people tend to dominate all forms of conversations because they're assertive, willing to argue and typically have strong beliefs in their conviction. Naturally, people on the sidelines wouldn't have that strong of a belief. It is the choice of the people that didn't express their opinion to not discuss because they feared the argument. It's really their responsibility to express what they wish, it shouldn't be the responsibility for others to enable them like a child to not shy away. I believe that's Aristotle's story of the aggregate, right? Person x grow weary that person y dominates the conversation even when person x has not expressed their opinion on the topic. Over time, person x dislikes person y because person y gets their own way, when really it was person x that forfeited their ability in light of person y's.

well, banning them actually freed up discussion space for other people, eventually leading to the kind of community where the newer users who've recently joined and found this place to their liking, are the beneficiaries of mods who ban: not mods who do nothing when contentious behaviour arises.

All bans free up space, that space isn't always good and doesn't justify a ban in and of itself. If you were banned someone would fill as a moderator, if I was banned someone would post an idea that I thought about which I wasn't able to post. Simple process really.

it's all well and good to defend the idea that "the community can sort itself out!" when it comes to these behaviours. if a trans or a gay member brings up that they don't feel comfortable posting in the forum environment because their existence is being likened to say, mental illness, a disease, or that they're a heathen: then a decision needs to be made.

And what about the argumentative type that has a thirst for ideas, yet is treated with disdain in the community because they're an aggregate? What if they didn't feel comfortable in the environment for being treated like they're sub-human, "they're just argumentative, little pieces of shit that need to shut up". Would you ban the people that show them disdain? I'm sure if the forum generally agreed that would likely be the resolution. It seems to contrast your opinion above where you said banning these people actually freed up space. That same logic can apply to your exact point: Why don't we ban gays and trasngenders to free up forum space? Surely you see the flaw in this reasoning. We could just ban everybody that isn't racist so the racists feel comfortable.

unfortunately, this forum has lost many of its longstanding and historically quite active minority members that i wish would still post here, and it's of no surprise that they opted not to stick around. so when people make the argument, "hey c'mon, we're a small community and no one's really getting hurt right?!" it just strikes me as rather naive tbh. this very attitude has resulted in a huge loss of quality members in the past.

Easily opted to leave because they've been here so long. After being somewhere for a period of time there is two decisions people make: Settle or explore. Exploration occurs with the death of the present so they leave. And to be honest, if they were longstanding and active they must've had a good few years or so at the forum. That isn't anything to cough at. Forums of this nature would change over time.

See all this people getting hurt thing, what do you actually mean? What is the severity of their hurt? The only hostile argument I've seen on this forum was the censorship on kormak post. And the only hostile individuals I've seen outside of that would be you RB, Adaire and probably kormak in a third place. You're clearly quite ironic with most of your posts without expressing it's irony, so at the start it was a guessing game at least for me whether you just took the piss out of everyone's opinions or you couldn't give a fuck. Kind of both really, but yet you'd chime in with a few lines that seemed satirical and dismissive. This is basically you though, right? I've had to adjust, naturally to this understanding. I'm sure there'll be many others, and possible a few who exist that cannot read you at all, and left with interpretation see your comments as hostile because you're rarely genuine.

Adaire chimes in from time to time but he certainly appears confrontational when he doesn't agree with someone. It's not positional confrontation like "I disagree, here is my points" it's usually just an insulting demeanor. Sure, he doesn't have to repeat opinions he's heard 500 times, but maybe he should just refrain from insults if he doesn't want to invest in the discussion. Kormak would've been the less subtle antagonist. Even with Abe's discussion I sat there and waited, questioning him in all accounts to understand the perspective. I could see the opinion he expressed wasn't due to hate which would conjure feelings of disgust leading to white supremacy, he just thought archeologically and geographically there were differences that were ignored. Everybody looks for a missing puzzle in how the world works, that was his idealogue. The differences in his head were much more important than what they were seen as, that's all. He also thought interbreeding would be a problem with a reduction in isolated evolution, which would be true in a smaller sample but it's really anyone guess how that'd work in an interconnected world with some ridiculous number like 10B people. The math is hard to do, and is by no means necessary at this current moment, and honestly it's unsure if it ever will be, or if we'll even need to depend on biological evolution in 3,000 years (I'd say this whole gene reduction thing would require 100s of 1000s of years.

Regardless of this whole perfect system we're arguing over, ultimately all I've seen is one ban against marble by redbaron, for a joke that is quite commonplace and is really subject to cultural beliefs, like where I live it's really part and parcel to insult each other and I've heard the rusty-scissors/knife/butterknife joke so many times it is by default interpreted as a joke. I wouldn't say this is geographical either, I'm just saying words that can be interpreted in a culture as genuine threats can also be an expression of humour or friendship. He lives in norway, it isn't exactly a soft-spoken region is it compared to california, is it? So like all this theoretical groundwork doesn't match up to the practical experience, to that you could say we're naive but it's not by our choice.

 

[scorpiomover]

it’s a good suggestion.

Nice to know.

We used to have a closed thread for ban announcements only, but it seems it was abandoned in 2017.
I think this transparency is important and should be reintroduced.
Here’s the thread I refer to:

Bans

420munkey banned for 3 months for repeatedly failing to understand the difference between disagreement and aggression. Not the first time... ...but hopefully the last? it's been a long time coming. personal attacks on members continued after warnings and temp ban, so it's permanent this time...

www.intpforum.com

Yes. That's the sort of thing I was thinking of.

IMO open discussions about bans tend to devolve to chaos pretty quickly, so not good to be moderator-run. Anyone (who isn’t banned) can always make a thread to discuss though.

Think that someone ought to moderate the thread, though or it could devolve into chaos. Maybe someone who isn't the one(s) doing the banning.

However, polls would be a bad idea. Especially if voters could be identified.

Ne was just throwing out lots of ideas, to see which ones people might think had merit. Your feedback is appreciated.

 

[Rebis]

IMO open discussions about bans tend to devolve to chaos pretty quickly, so not good to be moderator-run. Anyone (who isn’t banned) can always make a thread to discuss though.

It delves into chaos probably because it's controversial, but if consistent warnings are given to the person in subject while mentioning this behaviour will not be tolerated there's going to be little arguments to that, compared to a volatile ban which produces controversies, leading to conspiracies and whatever else happens in those intense environments. No answer is probably going to have the same effect, at least it did in this case. Having said that they have produced reasons for bans in the past so this can be considered an experimentation. Even though kormak wasn't banned so whatevs.

Can't believe we wasted our time on these subjects over christmas holidays. Madness.

 

[scorpiomover]

(funny that basically all the minorities on this forum have opted to not visit or post here anymore, isn't it?)

Hey, I'm a member of three minorities!

unfortunately, this forum has lost many of its longstanding and historically quite active minority members that i wish would still post here, and it's of no surprise that they opted not to stick around. so when people make the argument, "hey c'mon, we're a small community and no one's really getting hurt right?!" it just strikes me as rather naive tbh. this very attitude has resulted in a huge loss of quality members in the past.

Yes, it's naive.

I'm not sure that you understand what it means to be a minority. If you don't understand the problems that minorities go through, you can't possibly expect to keep them around.

Likewise, if someone who says they are a minority, or is a minority, doesn't understand the problems that minorities go through, and acts abominably, and wants to leave because they are required to behave civilly with others, should they be allowed to behave abominably, just so they feel welcome?

There's a certain point at which, if you defend certain minorities no matter what they do, however offensive or repugnant, then all other minorities will be forced to leave.

 

[redbaron]

It delves into chaos probably because it's controversial, but if consistent warnings are given to the person in subject while mentioning this behaviour will not be tolerated there's going to be little arguments to that

if only it really did work like that

 

[Rebis]

It delves into chaos probably because it's controversial, but if consistent warnings are given to the person in subject while mentioning this behaviour will not be tolerated there's going to be little arguments to that

if only it really did work like that

It surely works in the sense you can justify your actions over a period of time instead of a sudden ban. If someone asks you can explain that it was consistently mentioned to the person in question.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

it's all well and good to defend the idea that "the community can sort itself out!" when it comes to these behaviours. if a trans or a gay member brings up that they don't feel comfortable posting in the forum environment because their existence is being likened to say, mental illness, a disease, or that they're a heathen: then a decision needs to be made.

Isn't that the subject mods have been decidedly most stringent about, yet membership has been dwindling?

I mean I've had had multiple people message me – people with standard right-learning views – that they felt the moderation here was too biased for them to stay around. These people are long gone. I still stand by my statement that I've not seen anyone getting banned for political views, but come to think of it one needs pretty thick skin to deal with the hostility one encounters here for certain political views.

 

[Minuend]

Generally, most people know they're being shits and in what way. When they get banned it's not a surprise to them, though a lot will play the "I had no idea" or "I'm a victim" card (not saying that's the case here, this is generally speaking). The idea that most often people getting banned because they don't understand how their opinion is harmful or it's a surprise they are causing problems for others is kinda naive. People with hateful beliefs and trolls aren't the naive, little innocent fellows who just want to belong and where a little patience and understanding will completely turn them around making them happy, go lucky little things. More often they have issues in their private life, they are spiteful and they know it, they've seen how their attitudes and beliefs ostracize them from other people in their life and often they blame other people for not accepting their beliefs, instead of questioning the validity of them. Some want to spout their nonsense because they enjoy the negative attention, some want others to feel like shit, some are just delusional and preachy. etc. People's motivations aren't always "just a bit damaged" or "just a bit misguided". Sometimes they are intentionally spiteful, and trying to reason with them will just give them a larger plattform to operate on.

When scorpio talks about how he changed; that's rare and intpf can't function like group therapy to all the individuals who come on here who have tragic backstories and what not. Also, having long discussions about bans have been done multiple times and it NEVER made anything better, it only created more drama and salty feelings, and people with agendas were able to poison the community with whatever bullshit they could think of. People are not always the nice, little things who want open and honest feedback and change. More often they are set in their beliefs, they've already decided what to think and how to behave and hours of talking about it wont change anything. People are not that rational and able to change, their world view and feelings dominate.

Being more open and accepting for shitty, hateful beliefs have been tried a lot on this forum, it never works. Less banning, more tolerance just attracts shitty posters who attracts even more shitty posters.

Even threads like these never change anything. The people who disagree will still disagree and haven't experienced how their way of doing things lead to a worse forum long term, so they will keep thinking they are right about more acceptance and tolerance. If you want less censorship and more freedom, look to 4chan, that's how forums turn out without more rigid ban hammers. Places like 4chan are good for their purposes, but it's not what most people would want intpf to be, and thus the forum will keep their rigid and strong ban hammers. Which is a good thing.

So yeah, I think forum mods should ban more and have their rules and don't really cater to forum users. Sure they can allow feedback and discuss it in their hidden mod forum, but threads like these are probably better left with a short mod reply and closed thread. Like most forums do.

 

[redbaron]

It delves into chaos probably because it's controversial, but if consistent warnings are given to the person in subject while mentioning this behaviour will not be tolerated there's going to be little arguments to that

if only it really did work like that

It surely works in the sense you can justify your actions over a period of time instead of a sudden ban. If someone asks you can explain that it was consistently mentioned to the person in question.

yeah, it's been done before

it doesn't help because people's problems usually just amount to whether or not they agree with the ban or the warning anyway. instead of the argument being over an unjust ban, it's over whether the warnings matter. or whether warnings were consistent enough etc.

you can move the goalposts as many times as you like: there's always going to be people that will disagree, and therefore complain about it :^)

 

[Rebis]

It delves into chaos probably because it's controversial, but if consistent warnings are given to the person in subject while mentioning this behaviour will not be tolerated there's going to be little arguments to that

if only it really did work like that

It surely works in the sense you can justify your actions over a period of time instead of a sudden ban. If someone asks you can explain that it was consistently mentioned to the person in question.

yeah, it's been done before

it doesn't help because people's problems usually just amount to whether or not they agree with the ban or the warning anyway. instead of the argument being over an unjust ban, it's over whether the warnings matter. or whether warnings were consistent enough etc.

you can move the goalposts as many times as you like: there's always going to be people that will disagree, and therefore complain about it :^)

So basically what you're saying is I'll do whatever I want, not explain myself, because people will complain regardless
Not moving goal posts because there's no such thing as improvement, right?

Not looking for perfect systems but clearly volatile bans are worse than bans that were predicted, expected and the behaviour was intercepted before repeating offences.

Cool smiley, cultivates the environment in rich hues of emotions.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[redbaron]

sure, you can strawman me if you like.

i've just seen many examples of people up in arms over moderation even when transparency exists and things are clear. there's always going to be disagreement over where exactly lines should be drawn.

warnings will be given if behaviour is deemed problematic. if someone's banned, it'll go in the bans thread as it previously did.

 

[Rebis]

Where the strawman? You suggested not moving goalposts when improvements in conducting bans have been suggested, so by reductionist logic there is no point in making any improvements because ultimately people will disagree with a ban.

That's quite clear reasoning.

If warnings are given you should use that to validate the case. I'm not sure where screenshot play a role if there's privacy complaints or something, but it'll cause you a lot less trouble if people aren't left to imagine banning procedures.



Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[redbaron]

yes, mods will be using the ban announcement thread again

keep in mind that since your join date there had been no bans prior to a heated topic (ironically about some invented problem with the mods doing something that they didn't actually do), and there's been all of 2 warnings to members privately for their behaviour.

the only ban that actually occurred, lasted a day

i'm not sure what sort of censorship or moderator oppression you think is going on here, because neither is happening.

 

[Rebis]

yes, mods will be using the ban announcement thread again

keep in mind that since your join date there had been no bans prior to a heated topic (ironically about some invented problem with the mods doing something that they didn't actually do), and there's been all of 2 warnings to members privately for their behaviour.

the only ban that actually occurred, lasted a day

i'm not sure what sort of censorship or moderator oppression you think is going on here, because neither is happening.

I don't think there's censorship, that's already been clarified. That ban wasn't initially intended to last a day though, and it was sudden without warning.

I'm only responding to what you're saying about banning argumentative people because people that were less argumentative/opinionated weren't stating their opinion and banning the argumentative ones "frees" others to express their opinion.

There's been no censorship as far as I can see but it seems like the world you're crafting on this forum will involve some ideal "greater good".

I've already addressed this opinion above around 2 hours ago
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[redbaron]

I don't think there's censorship, that's already been clarified. That ban wasn't initially intended to last a day though, and it was sudden without warning.

I'm only responding to what you're saying about banning argumentative people because people that were less argumentative/opinionated weren't stating their opinion and banning the argumentative ones "frees" others to express their opinion.

There's been no censorship as far as I can see but it seems like the world you're crafting on this forum will involve some ideal "greater good".

I've already addressed this opinion above around 2 hours ago

so, where's the problem?

or rather, what are you assuming will become a problem?

 

[redbaron]

also rebis you complain that i'm not taking your advice on board.

but maybe you should read Minuend's post?

she's been here for a decade, has been active throughout most of its existence and her opinions run in stark contrast to yours. it's quite clear that moderation can't happen both the way you want it to run, as well as the way Minuend wants it.

while this isn't a battle of 'forum longevity', i also know that she's not the only person who's been here for quite a long time, who happens to hold similar opinions to hers. it's not that i don't give a shit about your feedback, it's that there's been a lot more feedback about moderating on this forum over the years than you seem to realise: and a lot of it conflicts with the things you're saying not just in theory, but have failed in practice as well.

 

[Rebis]

I don't complain you're not taking my advice aboard I'm saying the reasoning of not moving the goal posts because it's inevitable people will be annoyed, is like saying that you won't take any questions/advice on board so I shouldn't move the goalpost.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Rebis]

yes, mods will be using the ban announcement thread again

keep in mind that since your join date there had been no bans prior to a heated topic (ironically about some invented problem with the mods doing something that they didn't actually do), and there's been all of 2 warnings to members privately for their behaviour.

the only ban that actually occurred, lasted a day

i'm not sure what sort of censorship or moderator oppression you think is going on here, because neither is happening.

I don't complain you're not taking my advice aboard I'm saying the reasoning of not moving the goal posts because it's inevitable people will be annoyed, is like saying that you won't take any questions/advice on board so I shouldn't move the goalpost.

You're inferring in a way that everything is absolute and we should not move goalposts i.e. Try to change/suggest how a ban is conducted because its all inevitable.
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[redbaron]

I don't complain you're not taking my advice aboard I'm saying the reasoning of not moving the goal posts because it's inevitable people will be annoyed

if something doesn't have better outcomes for the forum, and doesn't actually prevent drama or frustration over what people perceive as moderator problems: what use does it have?

 

[Rebis]

I don't complain you're not taking my advice aboard I'm saying the reasoning of not moving the goal posts because it's inevitable people will be annoyed

if something doesn't have better outcomes for the forum, and doesn't actually prevent drama or frustration over what people perceive as moderator problems: what use does it have?

Is the forum a substitute for the "Greater good" here? Are we chasing glory? It does produce a better outcome because people can be adjust their behavior accordingly. They do not feel at the subject of volatility from an immediate and semi-permanent response. It doesn't prevent, it mitigates the justification of their argument if you have taken precautions prior to suddenly banning them.

For example, my argument here about a sudden ban of Marbles would easily be derailed if Marbles was banned for repeated occurrences, which you had warned him about. If you were like "I sent him multiple warnings, he continued disregarding the rules" there's really nothing I could argue against the procedure, other than the rules themselves.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

some people here make the case that some people should be silenced because they are not open to alternative viewpoints. If you define their default viewpoint as "shitty" or whatever at the outset, that's obviously pretty handy because then you can say "they have a shitty opinion and they refuse to change opinion". However if one has correct opinion, one is not subject to measurements of openness, hell one is not even subject to measurements of civility.

 

[redbaron]

For example, my argument here about a sudden ban of Marbles would easily be derailed if Marbles was banned for repeated occurrences, which you had warned him about. If you were like "I sent him multiple warnings, he continued disregarding the rules" there's really nothing I could argue against the procedure, other than the rules themselves.

but people used to argue even when this happened like all the time. over heaps of bans

per Minuend's point:

Also, having long discussions about bans have been done multiple times and it NEVER made anything better, it only created more drama and salty feelings, and people with agendas were able to poison the community with whatever bullshit they could think of.

 

[redbaron]

the members who received repeated warnings and verbal explanations felt like, upon finally being banned, that they were entitled to "just one more" chance (regardless of how many had been given before)

moreover, the numerous discussions that had been had about these members simply ended up distracting from what behaviours are or are not tolerated on the forum, and the fact that if they're repeatedly displayed, you'll receive punishments that increase in severity over time.

which is, as you say: entirely fair.

did people still find every reason possible to complain about moderating processes and the ins and outs of rules? yup.

 

[Rebis]

For example, my argument here about a sudden ban of Marbles would easily be derailed if Marbles was banned for repeated occurrences, which you had warned him about. If you were like "I sent him multiple warnings, he continued disregarding the rules" there's really nothing I could argue against the procedure, other than the rules themselves.

but people used to argue even when this happened like all the time. over heaps of bans

per Minuend's point:

Also, having long discussions about bans have been done multiple times and it NEVER made anything better, it only created more drama and salty feelings, and people with agendas were able to poison the community with whatever bullshit they could think of.

Again I'm not saying it's a fundamental solution but it mitigates the potential of the argument, their validity in most cases given that the person in question was aware a ban can fall on them. It's kind of like telling people to go to class so they don't fail: if they don't and they do fail, they can't talk their way out of it as they did not heed the warning.


Agendas? I don't know about that dude. The forum has a practical use, I don't think much people see this as a Got-like dispute over land or whatever. The only one that could be rationally seen as having an agenda that's effectual is moderators because they have the power of banning someone.

Agendas sound silly.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Rebis]

the members who received repeated warnings and verbal explanations felt like, upon finally being banned, that they were entitled to "just one more" chance (regardless of how many had been given before)

moreover, the numerous discussions that had been had about these members simply ended up distracting from what behaviours are or are not tolerated on the forum, and the fact that if they're repeatedly displayed, you'll receive punishments that increase in severity over time.

which is, as you say: entirely fair.

did people still find every reason possible to complain about moderating processes and the ins and outs of rules? yup.

It's part and parcel of the role, people judge those in power. It just won't end for moderators in that respect, eternal acknowledgement for having to deal with ridiculous situations because you're supposed to be perfectly systemic beings representing all the perfect virtues of our Lord jesus christ.

So yeah you'll get complaints but you'll probably get less valid ones, less stronger judgements and a means to justify to others that this procedure was followed and they didn't listen after repeated occurrences.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[redbaron]

i think you're really misunderstanding the fundamental reason that most people's arguing about moderation occurs in the first place on a forum, or what spurs people to stir up trouble over it.

the judgements that have been brought up don't really bother me. and in this case i think you're also underestimating how poorly received that comment was. several people who'd simply been observing the thread messaged me about it. if i'd simply warned marbles not to make it: a lengthy debate as to whether or not he should be allowed to make it would still have ensued, i'm sure.

i could have warned him privately to avoid drama, and banned him after discussion with moderators, sure.

but this is contingent upon the fact that he agrees to not continue making this comment. suppose he takes it upon himself, as many people do when warned to stop a certain behaviour (again, reiterating Min's point that people are not and do not make decisions rationally in these situations) to actually do it more: because what they want is to draw more attention to the behaviour, or better yet, to continue doing it because they can confirm via them being warned that it's upset someone

these are all things moderators have tried in the past, and that people often do in response to moderation. when i'm taking action as a moderator, i'm probably not looking to open that potential can of worms, because it's worse for everyone involved.

 

[Gnurp]

When I ran a little atheist VB forum back in the day we wound up with a "christian" special person who kept coming back after he was banned. So, I let him stay, but edited all of his posts to be bland, boring comments. Including the posts complaining about what I was doing.

He'd start a thread about being "censored", and rather than spend energy arguing I'd make his post about whatever was on my mind at the moment - how to dial international calls or something way off topic like that.

I remember being disappointed he gave up so quickly.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Really you could put just about anything humans do in the context of war. I do not think bringing up agendas is a silly thing, saying so would be facetious.

Words are tools in nature and we use them to meet certain ends. Sure this isn't a war in the literal sense, we aren't making detailed campaigns, but social media clearly has a big impact on the individual, and especially on this forum where people are usually very open to opinions if not at least integrating them somehow. We turned man dude bro @peoplesuck into a fucking pimp for example, something that will undoubtedly have a ripple effect in many peoples lives. If we were an unsavory bunch we could've gave him a hard time, or just made him a decrepit being like a certain poster above me. Even if peoples agendas don't affect anyone outside of themselves, everyone has one.

All I will ask is that mods listen and give feedback much like the lovely rb is doing. If more mods did it, or at least made them clear, we would at least become comfortable with the agenda (mission?) of the forum and could ourselves warn people when they are overstepping bounds. I don't know it would just make everyone lives easier adding an element of self-moderation.

 

[scorpiomover]

When scorpio talks about how he changed; that's rare and intpf can't function like group therapy to all the individuals who come on here who have tragic backstories and what not.

Thinking about it, I've seen it happen lots of times outside of therapy.

But they only changed when:
(a) several of their peers, people that they knew well and whose views they respected, responded in a similar manner,

(b) they explicitly said they felt very strongly that the person's behaviour was wrong,

(c) they stated it in a very calm way.

When it doesn't work:

(i) If ONE person tells someone that he's being offensive, but no-one else does, that someone is liable to think that if it was really a problem, then lots of people would be saying it. So no reason to change.

(ii) If lots of people tell someone that he's being offensive, but they're not people whose opinion he respects, that someone is liable to think that he doesn't trust their opinions anyway and ignore it. So no reason to change.

(iii) If people start screaming at someone and generally acting like they are upset, that someone is liable to think that they're only saying it because they're getting emotional, and when they calm down and think about the situation rationally, they'll see it his way. So no reason to change.

(iii) If people start criticising someone but aren't that clear, and are vague and ambiguous, so there are multiple ways to understand what those people meant, that someone is liable to choose the interpretation most favourable to them, such as that they totally misunderstood him and thus if they did understand what he had said, they'd probably have agreed with him. So no reason to change.

When it finally hits them that people were saying it rationally, and it was coming from people whose views they respected, and it wasn't a lone opinion but the opinions of many, and that it's clear what the problem was and what to do about it to fix it, then it's clear that something has to change and how to change it.

But usually, it's a few people, whose opinions you don't respect anyway, posting as if they are gripped by fears and insecurities, and when they're being extremely vague, which is why it almost never works.

FYI, it usually doesn't work when therapists do it either, because it's usually one person (the therapist), whose opinion the patient doesn't completely trust, and usually in a rather vague manner, that doesn't make it precisely clear what the problem was or how to solve it without becoming mute and living in a cave underground for the rest of their lives.

 

[scorpiomover]

she's been here for a decade, has been active throughout most of its existence and her opinions run in stark contrast to yours. it's quite clear that moderation can't happen both the way you want it to run, as well as the way Minuend wants it.

Donald Trump is 70. He's way older than any of you. So he's right about everything?

while this isn't a battle of 'forum longevity', i also know that she's not the only person who's been here for quite a long time, who happens to hold similar opinions to hers.

Then stick to the few posters who were here since the beginning, and forget about new members.

Or...remember Darwin's dictum: ADAPT OR GO EXTINCT. Which is it to be?

 

[peoplesuck]

I dont care about this stuff.
RB acted like a child because he has something personal against marbles.
Not event the dumbest fucking retard would have taken that as an actual threat.
Sorry not sorry

 

[Marbles]

I dont care about this stuff.
RB acted like a child because he has something personal against marbles.
Not event the dumbest fucking retard would have taken that as an actual threat.
Sorry not sorry

Thanks, man. I really appreciate it. Im celebrating new year's and too drunk to continue this whole ordeal right now. I'll try to get back to all this, soon. Frankly, right now I'm of a mind to say f. it all and find another place to hang out. I've got most of the people who matter to me on discord, and Im sure I can get hold of the rest.

I made the most obvious joke in history. I thought everyone acknowledged that now, and that that was why my ban was lifted. Urgh.. I shouldn't be drunk posting.

 

[Rebis]

@peoplesuck by far your strangest profile picture, I have to rate it a 3/10

 

[Marbles]

@peoplesuck by far your strangest profile picture, I have to rate it a 3/10

I think it's my avatar, crushed on the curb. Strangeness 7/10, symbolism over 9000.

 

[Rebis]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[redbaron]

I dont care about this stuff.
RB acted like a child because he has something personal against marbles.
Not event the dumbest fucking retard would have taken that as an actual threat.
Sorry not sorry

no one has said anywhere that it was taken as a threat, or that the reason it's unacceptable is because of it being a threat.

 

[Daddy]

If you don't go to the Illuminati meetings and vote on issues of forum moderation, you have no right to complain.

Just saying.

 

[redbaron]

If you don't go to the Illuminati meetings and vote on issues of forum moderation, you have no right to complain.

Just saying.

oh no, secret's out

 

[peoplesuck]

If you don't go to the Illuminati meetings and vote on issues of forum moderation, you have no right to complain.

Just saying.

oh no, secret's out

Im gonna ban you rb. better make an account on esfp forum with the quickness

 

[Minuend]

some people here make the case that some people should be silenced because they are not open to alternative viewpoints. If you define their default viewpoint as "shitty" or whatever at the outset, that's obviously pretty handy because then you can say "they have a shitty opinion and they refuse to change opinion". However if one has correct opinion, one is not subject to measurements of openness, hell one is not even subject to measurements of civility.

Yeah, no. Shitty view = believing every new born baby should have their left foot cut off as a sacrifice to god and then go mention it in several unrelated threads, or proselytize about it endlessly. It has nothing to do with all """"alternative views"""" are bad. Unless all of them are cancer of that sort, then yeah I'd be pro just banning all that shit. Obviously someone who is against cutting of baby feet's opinion is gonna be tolerated more so than the guy who's for it.

There's also a difference between being open to viewpoints and being for or against certain rules on intpf. I read 4chan like anyone else, because I'm interested and fascinated by the humor, the opinions, the personalities and whatnot. But that doesn't mean I want the same for intpf. INTPf has a different function.

So yeah, disagreeing with you does not equal being unable to read differing view points or being against peeking into minds different from my own, it just means that I don't want more crazy shizoaffective, narcissists and abusers roaming the forums freely like they've done at certain points in the past. There's plenty of spaces online for that to wander whenever I feel like engaging in that type of spectacle. (In fact, I usually see more of what I dislike than like, when roaming the webbies, that's just daily life brah)

This type of post is trying to frame my post in a kind of "you're just triggered, bro" which is missing the nuance and point completely. But it's not surprising as that's how you usually interpret my posts

 

[Marbles]

tl;dr at the bottom

My ban was lifted, or shortened to the point that when I woke up - it was gone. Everyone can characterize that as a ban lift or ban shortening according to preference. Personally I'm done with the incident, and write it off as a misunderstanding due to little interaction between old members and new ones, which has resulted in us not knowing each other very well. I hope to stay around for a long time and demonstrate that I'm a tolerant guy with interest in exploring every part of the world, even the taboo ones. A stereotypical INTP, really. I try to always do this with respect, but sometimes I choose my words clumsily.

When it comes to the "conspiracy" of Kormak's connection issues and being consistently stopped by the spam filter... Well, I figured the connection problem was not caused by any moderator, but that the spam filter was probably Kormak being "put in the dog house". I just spoke to a programmer friend who used to run a XenForo forum (like this one), spillegal.no, and he says it used to be possible to manipulate users connection, and that he often used this capability to troll disruptive members. From what I understood, it might require a plugin.

I would appreciate a comment from the staff on whether Kormak's connection was manipulated, whether posts of his were deleted, and if the spam filter was used to censor him. I did not read Kormak's posts, so I do not have an opinion on whether this punishment was in order, but I do think any punishment should be dealt openly.

I have good reason to suspect a moderator can impose the spam filter on a user. When I was banned, it seemed to be permanently. I made a second user to contact friends, so I could get their discords. I made the user with a VPN and different mail, but it was made right after I was banned, so obviously the mod who banned me was suspicious. Long story short, I could neither send PMs or post in the forum for a long while, because I was consistently stopped by the spam filter. I know multi accounting is against the rules, and I am sorry for doing it, but I saw no other way to keep in touch with my friends.

In this debate of censorship, I'm a bit on the fence. I realize some moderation is necessary, but I think the pull of an INTP forum is to be able to explore the world relatively freely. IMO, censorship should be kept to a minimum. Since I joined this summer, the community has been nothing but pleasant. As things stand, I believe a hands off approach from the moderators is favorable. Indeed, until these incidents, it seems a hands off approach has been the policy of staff.

I suggest we regard this incident as a hiccup, and move on, preferably after having contacted Kormak and offered him a new account which functions properly. To me, this would be a great solution to the situation:

tl;dr

1: We postpone discussion on censorship until more issues arise. For half a year, this has not been a problem. A discussion might not be necessary.
2: I think Puffy and Inexorable Username's suggestion of making 1+ of the new members a moderator is a good one. We would feel represented, and the moderators would be less burdened with work if aided by an active member. If the relatively low post count and short membership of the new members are cause for concern, I would personally feel represented by Serac if he were made a mod.
3: I would really appreciate a comment from the staff on whether Kormak was ddos'ed and censored with the spam filter. I understand that this stuff happens, but it would be good to get it out in the open and deal with it as a community. I think there are better ways to deal with potentially disruptive members in the future, which would result in less paranoia and bad blood.
4: If no one considers Kormak a persona non grata, I think we should contact him and offer him a new, functioning account. He was an active member with a lot of insight, and personally I found him an energizing presence.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Last actual ban I'm aware of was a supposed POC, Pizzabeak, and that dude was a genius, idiot, or troll, no one was willing to defend, so I think none of this is really all that relevant atm. The following might as well try to settle disputes of censorship and free speech.

Let me say that I am 100% against censorship. I have never said that anyone should be silenced or censor themselves, all the better that we know where one's mind is truly at. I WILL, however, use MY free speech to discredit, attack and denounce anyone and anyone's ideas if they are trash, venom, ect. But hey, more power to them. I recognize how authoritarian and fascist I sound when I say that, after a certain point, if you fall on the wrong side of the antisocial personality spectrum, you need some "reeducation". There have been many times where I see people approach that direction, and I sometimes say something about it. Where that line is deserves its own discussion.

some people here make the case that some people should be silenced because they are not open to alternative viewpoints. If you define their default viewpoint as "shitty" or whatever at the outset, that's obviously pretty handy because then you can say "they have a shitty opinion and they refuse to change opinion". However if one has correct opinion, one is not subject to measurements of openness, hell one is not even subject to measurements of civility.

This is why I usually do not upfront tell someone "yo what the fuck?" I'm well aware of the constructivist philosophy. People hold strong opinions chances are there is a reason behind it, and it is worth investigating. I clashed with Kormak on certain things, but I began to see that he held beliefs with resolve and pride, linked with emotions, and backed by his boi Frederick. I was cozying up to him by the end of his time here, even though he belittled compassion as a useless trait. Unfortunately, I don't think he's coming back.

Someone like Abe however I do not see any way I can give him the benefits of the doubt. @Rebis himself said that he was not making emotional claims and what he sees that as a good thing, I see as the complete opposite. People that are bigots by proxy of some social construct within their lives usually don't investigate their assumptions/beliefs, and if they do so correctly they will usually start to turn around of at least subtly change. Either Abe is blinded by confirmation bias, is really fucking thick, or he's too fucking high on the ASPD spectrum to even bother converting to a more rational position.

So I will repeat again, everyone can say almost anything they want, and so can I. I've been told by people IRL that I can be intimidating and tyrannical, so I probably do have a tendency to be a bully, but when I see some absolute horseshit that cannot go unchallenged, Idegaf. No doubt there is toxic shit that goes on around everyone on a daily basis, least I can do is root out the vermin.