|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
On January 08 2021 12:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:
why wouldnt you want to ban him? as owners/mods of a private community why in the world would you want some lunatic spouting extreme delusion to be associated with your community? other than providing insight into the minds of the insane i dont think theres much contribution to be offered from someone like that. Because said mods profess to be rules based? Because we want to see some consistency? Is being a batshit insane gun nut against the rules now? If so, I look forward to banning half the people who ever post in the yet another mass shooting thread. Is showing your political view bannable in the US Pol thread? I sincerely hope not. Banned for insinuating that democrats are a scourge is reasonable. Banned for being insane not so much.
Was he expressing support for what appears to be a coup attempt? Possibly. Certainly unsavoury considering that we are discussing what appears to be an armed coup attempt.
Truth is, we have no idea what he was specifially banned for, worded as the reason was. Before anybody says it, yes mods can ban anybody they like. Not because they have moral and intellectual authority, but because they have the administrative power to do so. Acting upon that power does not infer to them as law and order bitches.
|
|
|
On January 09 2021 00:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2021 12:02 Nebuchad wrote:On January 08 2021 03:48 Danglars wrote:On January 08 2021 03:13 Jealous wrote:
What exactly was bannable about that post? Seems like he simply listed his beliefs and approached a question in a civil manner, I don't get it.
Oh, I guess the "anti-antifa" means he's fascist, right? Lol... Libertarian, anarcho-capitalist ban spree. Note at top of thread should warn people about long posts or responding in the manner of which you’re addressed. Political beliefs at the fringes of the average posters belief are treated differently; just look at the post he got banned for. I’m way closer to his views on second amendment protections that probably any other person posting, save for maybe 1-2, and I know it’s forbidden to passionately argue for how and why they should be preserved. But whatever, it’s already a waste of breath. If you're not posting cringe the moderation is going to be fine with fringe views ... I will give you that a centrist gets away with posting a ton more cringe than the "fringes" That seems like little more than a roundabout way of saying "you get a lot more leeway to post marginally/badly as long as you have the right opinions."
I think that statement is correct, yes. It's a different narrative from the one Danglars is going for.
|
What are you trying to say Nebuched? What do you think the right opinions are that give you more leeway?
Who determines the "cringe"? Who determines the "fringe"? What you may think is the cringe and the fringe is different from everyone else.
|
Between GreenHorizons and Danglars
|
They are both the two sides of the same coin. Might as well ban everyone then.
I'm going to hazard a guess that's not what Nebuchad intended to imply.
|
I started writing my post before you added the second line. If you funpost while presenting opinions to the right of GH and to the left of Danglars, you're safer.
|
Sorry, about that. Unfortunately, I will still have no clue what Nebuchad thinks since you are not Nebuchad. Nor legallord as the case may be. What's funpost btw? I am not in with your current internet lingo.
|
|
|
To give a slightly more detailed comment since it's starting to look like people are interested in that:
It looks like, at the very least, Neb and I agree on that "wrong opinions" are moderated more harshly than "right opinions" whatever those opinions may be. Without getting too far into the specifics, I would say that the closer you are to the mainstream, the less "wrong" your opinions are in the eyes of a moderation staff that is largely in the political mainstream (by virtue of the fact that most people are). You simply do get away with a lot worse if you post badly while providing a popular take than if your opinion itself is also seen as objectionable. I think that by now, this point has been well-established over time.
While I don't speak for his argument, Danglars is not wrong to note that being in the right-wing is a substantial ban hazard these days. You could justify banning BerserkSword based on the previous history or one of those famous "sum of the badness" evaluations, you could do the same with Wegandi, and so on. When it's all done in short order all together, whatever the individual justifications, the larger trend looks suspiciously like cleaning house. Certainly something to be wary of.
As to DMCD's point on "rules-based moderation," that is also an old problem. It seems that the moderation staff's favored approach is to profess to be rules-based, but to reserve the right to be unpredictable and whimsical whenever either the ban decision is difficult to outwardly justify, or whenever an old Starcraft buddy of the moderation staff starts acting out in a way that would be otherwise extremely bannable. Sure, it's always possible to take an "our house, our rules - if you don't like it then leave" stance about this, but that trend of whimsy really undermines the rules-based approach that is an important aspect of good moderation.
Nothing new here, though - I feel like all of the above has been discussed to death in the past.
|
I just think there's a difference between "You simply do get away with a lot worse if you post badly while providing a popular take" and "being in the right-wing is a substantial ban hazard these days". Those arguments appear to be treated as one in your post, but they aren't. In one case the result is that you're getting banned because you have rightwing views, in the other you're getting banned because your posting is bad, and on an unrelated note, some other posters also post badly and aren't getting banned for it.
|
On January 08 2021 03:13 Jealous wrote:
What exactly was bannable about that post? Seems like he simply listed his beliefs and approached a question in a civil manner, I don't get it.
Oh, I guess the "anti-antifa" means he's fascist, right? Lol...
I don't think my nation suffered damage yesterday.
I suspect this is the worst offense in his post. It implies he doesn't think there was anything wrong with the violence, at the minimum. Glorification of violence gets you banned on TL, especially against elected officials, (I think this is what got xdaunt finally banned?), and he was dancing right on the edge.
Combine that with moderation being a lot less tolerant of this sort of praise than they were in 2017, with BeserkSword apparently being a generally shitty poster all around (while xdaunt had at least contributed to the site at one point), and the anti-hate speech laws in most of europe and you can see why he had to go.
Note that the netherlands (where TL is based) literally has anti-hate speech laws against anything more explicit than what he said, and possibly that even fit what he already said.
(I'm more surprised Zeo only got two days, but he was just spreading a disproven conspiracy theory without praising violence).
Also, Faruko getting banned for 2 weeks was pretty funny due to the ban note - he mostly posts in a thread where 1 line shitposts are explicitly allowed lol (OOTGD on liquiddota). Didn't realize he had a long mod history aside from that though.
|
On January 09 2021 01:46 LegalLord wrote:
To give a slightly more detailed comment since it's starting to look like people are interested in that:
It looks like, at the very least, Neb and I agree on that "wrong opinions" are moderated more harshly than "right opinions" whatever those opinions may be. Without getting too far into the specifics, I would say that the closer you are to the mainstream, the less "wrong" your opinions are in the eyes of a moderation staff that is largely in the political mainstream (by virtue of the fact that most people are). You simply do get away with a lot worse if you post badly while providing a popular take than if your opinion itself is also seen as objectionable. I think that by now, this point has been well-established over time.
While I don't speak for his argument, Danglars is not wrong to note that being in the right-wing is a substantial ban hazard these days. You could justify banning BerserkSword based on the previous history or one of those famous "sum of the badness" evaluations, you could do the same with Wegandi, and so on. When it's all done in short order all together, whatever the individual justifications, the larger trend looks suspiciously like cleaning house. Certainly something to be wary of.
As to DMCD's point on "rules-based moderation," that is also an old problem. It seems that the moderation staff's favored approach is to profess to be rules-based, but to reserve the right to be unpredictable and whimsical whenever either the ban decision is difficult to outwardly justify, or whenever an old Starcraft buddy of the moderation staff starts acting out in a way that would be otherwise extremely bannable. Sure, it's always possible to take an "our house, our rules - if you don't like it then leave" stance about this, but that trend of whimsy really undermines the rules-based approach that is an important aspect of good moderation.
Nothing new here, though - I feel like all of the above has been discussed to death in the past.
I couldn't have said it better myself. And it has been discussed to death already, which is why breaking out the minutiae of relevant examples from both sides is like beating a dead horse.
|
United States44191 Posts
On January 09 2021 03:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2021 01:46 LegalLord wrote:
To give a slightly more detailed comment since it's starting to look like people are interested in that:
It looks like, at the very least, Neb and I agree on that "wrong opinions" are moderated more harshly than "right opinions" whatever those opinions may be. Without getting too far into the specifics, I would say that the closer you are to the mainstream, the less "wrong" your opinions are in the eyes of a moderation staff that is largely in the political mainstream (by virtue of the fact that most people are). You simply do get away with a lot worse if you post badly while providing a popular take than if your opinion itself is also seen as objectionable. I think that by now, this point has been well-established over time.
While I don't speak for his argument, Danglars is not wrong to note that being in the right-wing is a substantial ban hazard these days. You could justify banning BerserkSword based on the previous history or one of those famous "sum of the badness" evaluations, you could do the same with Wegandi, and so on. When it's all done in short order all together, whatever the individual justifications, the larger trend looks suspiciously like cleaning house. Certainly something to be wary of.
As to DMCD's point on "rules-based moderation," that is also an old problem. It seems that the moderation staff's favored approach is to profess to be rules-based, but to reserve the right to be unpredictable and whimsical whenever either the ban decision is difficult to outwardly justify, or whenever an old Starcraft buddy of the moderation staff starts acting out in a way that would be otherwise extremely bannable. Sure, it's always possible to take an "our house, our rules - if you don't like it then leave" stance about this, but that trend of whimsy really undermines the rules-based approach that is an important aspect of good moderation.
Nothing new here, though - I feel like all of the above has been discussed to death in the past. I couldn't have said it better myself. And it has been discussed to death already, which is why breaking out the minutiae of relevant examples from both sides is like beating a dead horse.
There are two possible explanations:
1. Right wing people aren't worse than the general population, the greater rate of moderation actions implies moderation bias.
2. Right wing people are worse than the general population, the greater rate of moderation implies even handed treatment applied to a disproportionately awful group.
It's 2.
|
Calling someone a lesser human because of their political affiliation isn't cool. Especially when it's something as broad as right wing.
|
United States44191 Posts
On January 09 2021 03:26 Oukka wrote:
Calling someone a lesser human because of their political affiliation isn't cool. Especially when it's something as broad as right wing.
I'm not saying they're any less human. I didn't call them vermin or say that they should be put into camps. They're just not, morally speaking, good people. The values that they subscribe to aren't good values. That's nothing about what they are, it's entirely about how they choose to act. If they want to escape negative judgement from their fellow man then they should make better choices.
|
On January 09 2021 03:26 Oukka wrote:
Calling someone a lesser human because of their political affiliation isn't cool. Especially when it's something as broad as right wing.
You can imagine the kind of friction against a moderation team that has some fraction that believe standards must be adjusted for the less morally right side in the political debate. Hell, if it’s part of what’s wrong with politics generally, why is it even surprising to be happening in a specific case? But the main thread on this with all the outcry at every new unjust temp ban and perma ban is in the website feedback forum; mostly along the lines that people with correct opinions are allowed more latitude in expressing them in an derogatory or insulting manner. And we kinda work around it because other forums have even worse manifestations of the same problem.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
On January 09 2021 03:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2021 03:26 Oukka wrote:
Calling someone a lesser human because of their political affiliation isn't cool. Especially when it's something as broad as right wing. I'm not saying they're any less human. I didn't call them vermin or say that they should be put into camps. They're just not, morally speaking, good people. The values that they subscribe to aren't good values. That's nothing about what they are, it's entirely about how they choose to act. If they want to escape negative judgement from their fellow man then they should make better choices.
And some, I would assume are good people.
|
Wow, did not expect someone from the left to make this comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
