Suspension of User

moderationdecisions
moderation

#42

What part of “quit talking to me” is unclear? In front of mods even.

Update for mods: This is for forever.


#43

It is generally counterproductive to give someone a counter statement (“you’re not describing actual usenet”) and then tell them to stop talking to you. That can come off as an attempt to get the last word in and shut down the other side.


#44

It is also counterproductive to describe your interpretation of someone’s behavior as if it is fact while using it as a springboard to attack them. Nothing in this whole thread requires someone to make it about me, my actions, or my emotional state since we are discussing mod decisions for someone else.

It comes across as attacking someone for daring to question decisions. This is also not the first time I’ve gone back and forth with this person.

If they hadn’t kept making it personal, I wouldn’t have ended it.


#45

That’s fine. I’m not discussing your reasons for wanting to stop communicating to anyone. I’m merely saying that the way you did it was counterproductive.

And now you’re continuing to attack that other person’s actions, after having told them to stop talking to you. If you want the conversation to end, then DROP IT, don’t continue it.


#47

I am not drunk enough to be dealing with this bullshit. We’re adults. We should act like it.


#48

It’s rather concerning to me that there seems to be this idea that in our eagerness to avoid being a ‘carbon copy’ of the BBS and all its shortcomings, we should just arbitrarily ignore ‘missing stairs’ or members who have been displaying troublesome behavior, even after being contacted repeatedly by the mods.

This isn’t akin to Jason ‘scorching the earth’ just because someone made a joke he didn’t like; or because he was having a bad day and then decided to take it out on the community, abusing his authority in the process.

No matter how passive-aggressive in nature, repeated unwanted contact of any sort does constitute a form of harassment.

And while that may seem like ‘no big deal’ to some folks, it’s the tolerance of such perpetual micro-aggressions that can lead to a toxic atmosphere of complicity.

I don’t know about anyone else, but that’s not the kind of community I want to foster.

A bare modicum of mutual respect must be maintained, otherwise, there’s no point to any of this.

It’s not hard to just leave someone the fuck alone, especially once they’ve made it clear that they don’t want to be bothered.

A refusal to do so indicates not only a lack of respect for others’ boundaries and the rules we set forth as a community, but also a sense of entitlement that is highly problematic.


#49

My personal feelings are not germane to the topic at hand.

The community standards are there to facilitate conversation. When conversation breaks, it requires me - hungover me - to step in and act as a social filter. And right now, my eyes aren’t working well, hackles are up, so I’m tempted to close the topic so I can get some goddamn sleep.

Once, is an accident. Twice, a coincidence, three times a pattern, and four needs an intervention.

So here’s wot I will do: pour a glass, reheat lasagna, and if this shit is still going on, I’ll close the topic.

Please: be civil. I don’t want to be drunk this early.


#50

In theory I agree with you, but please don’t forget we are a relatively new group being run part time by volunteers. It’s like we’re experiencing growing pains. It may take time to get everything right. It reminds me of science fiction conventions, all run part-time by volunteers. I’ve seen them be very well run, and all screwed up, and anything in between.

I can’t comment on other sites, because I don’t participate in any of them except this one. Before that was the dreaded Other Site. Now I lurk there but don’t participate.

And I really appreciate all of you.


#51

Drink some water too; hydration matters.


#52

Yes. There should be rules. For now we are using common sense. This should have been acted on more quickly but in the absence of rules we were more cautious. When every day you sit down to your favorite site to find yet another set of flags in the same user from multiple other users, it’s time to act.


#53

11th-doc-this

And that is against the stated rules, of course.


#54

It should also be noted that muting a member and disabling notifications for them does nothing to prevent auto-notifications of likes and mentions; therefore, it’s totally possible to game the interface, even if one has been muted.

It’s kinda like the cyber-equivalent to this:


#55

How about we take all the energy in this thread that has been spent talking about some bad actors, and turn it in to a thread about what the rules should be, without going all ad hominem in abstentia.

I propose threadlock on this. Actually in light of this conversation I’d suggest that bannings not be up for public discussion, only for @staff to debate. We can be transparent in thought process but debate seems to bring out the worst in people, and that has only led to more bannings.


#56

/S

2bb4b0a3a5c5286af881efed5100b77413bbf1464777132acfe4c78f0f46368f


#57

E5EC728A-5E19-42EC-A8B7-A96BC3F53920


#58

I was concerned about this at first, since I personally have had only pleasant interactions with this user, but after seeing the exact behavior spelled out, it seems proportionate. I will still welcome their return when the time has expired.


#59

Totally agree. That’s why I’m glad it’s a five-day ban and not some of the ridiculously long bans seen at The Other Place.


#60

Ok. Good idea. I’m locking the thread an opening one to discuss proposed rules.


#61