|
ErectedZenith is a poster who spent a lot of his time (maybe even all of his time, he has only 325 posts) in the US Politics Thread. He was recently nuked for the following reason.
On March 19 2016 04:50 KwarK wrote:
Every fucking page that guy posts on devolves into this kind of stupid bullshit. I'm done with it. Hopefully those who find themselves to the right of me politically don't feel that this was done out of any partisan agenda. If any of you do please let me (or another moderator I guess if you don't trust me) know, either by PM or in the website feedback forum, and we'll see what we can do to fix that. I don't want to stifle debate in this topic but equally the debate can't keep being about shit like whether or not social democracy as a political ideology is basically just Lenin.
First, it's important to note that his posting was not obviously horrible. There were no long strings of incoherent swearwords shotgunned at everyone who disagreed with him, or indiscriminate flaming of race or religion or gender, or other similar clear indicators of terrible posting.
Instead, he was banned for these posts.
On March 19 2016 04:11 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2016 04:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 18 2016 10:01 SK.Testie wrote:Know who else was a social-democrat? The Bolsheviks. Socialism is just the precursor. Small Scandinavian countries made it work for a while until they didn't incentivize their own population growth and now it's under great strain and burden by illiterate migrants. Their foolish altruism and naiveté has doomed them unless they all get sick of the cold and go home. Sneaky rat bolsheviks promise you the world and sneak in with "democratic-socialism". Not until we have Star Trek replicators you dirty commies. Stop cleaning up the image of what you want. That Trump rally @ Chicago. Death threats and rampant hooliganism. Dirty communists below. + Show Spoiler + completely untrue post, there's pretty much not a single factual sentence aside from 'the trump rally @ chicago, as I don't have any reason for disputing that the picture indeed is from there. Shape up Testie, this thread has a higher standard this type of absurd posting. Any actual political point you might be trying to make is lost in the hyperbole of your statements - although the entire point about 'scandinavian countries' is factually wrong even without hyperbole. Make sure the words you use are actually the words you think most correctly depict reality, rather than the words that are the most incendiary and inflammatory, because right now you are directly responsible for creating a more aggravated environment and thus a worse arena for political discussion. I can feel it myself, because as much as I like you, the sheer continued hyperbolic ignorance you are displaying makes me want to post mean-spirited words directed at you - something you haven't made me want to do for what, 15 years? Well were The Bolsheviks social-democrat? Yes they were. So that is true.
On March 19 2016 04:39 ErectedZenith wrote:"Bolshevik, ( Russian: “One of the Majority”) , plural Bolsheviks, or Bolsheviki, member of a wing of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party, which, led by Lenin" http://www.britannica.com/topic/BolshevikIts the first sentence. Some of you guys are just ignoring history right and left, it is important to learn from history.
On March 19 2016 04:43 ErectedZenith wrote:
I'm not the one ignoring history here.
User was banned for this post.
Please tell me if I missed any posts that were also taken into consideration in banning him.
So why exactly was ErectedZenith banned?
It appears to me that ErectedZenith's ban was primarily based on ideological grounds. Some TL users/admins may feel that there are many different brands of socialism, and that it is obviously disingenuous or dishonest to equate Russian Marxism-Leninism with different forms of socialism. However, many do not share this viewpoint. Simply banning anyone who disagrees is not the way to create a fruitful discussion.
|
What makes you think that he was banned solely for those posts? If you are someone who follows the thread, it should be clear that the ban was predicated on a history of cursorily inflammatory posts that begged the question in clear violation of the thread's guidelines; the posts you've cited were merely the straw that broke the camel's back, to put it figuratively.
Furthermore, in the interest of addressing what may be seen as preferential treatment relative to other posters who may be seen to have posted in a similar fashion, ErectedZenith is not a poster who has contributed enough to the thread to warrant any sort of differential moderation. That is not to say that posters ought be encouraged to contribute enough to grant them leeway to shitpost, rather that the strictures and contours of fruitful political discussion, particularly in terms of US politics, have seemingly been recognized by the moderation staff as a sufficient basis with which to grant contributing posters some degree of leniency in favor of encouraging people to become involved in the discussion. ErectedZenith made it clear, through the brief and stilted manner in which he posted, that he was not interested in having a discussion so much as he was in firing out "gotcha" lines.
Much to the chagrin of some on this board, the US politics thread definitely has a character all its own, though in its defense (as biased as it may be  ), prior to the creation of the mega thread, TL general was a significantly more volatile and, to be frank, hostile place. Because there was not a single thread in which to post US general news, new threads on news items were created frequently, and for whatever reason, shitposting was far more rampant. Though the reduction in shitposting overall can hardly be attributed solely to the creation of the US politics thread, I think moderation staff recognizes that maintaining singular threads in which the rules may be enforced slightly differently in the interest of consolidating poster hostility is a good idea that has been working thus far.
(Disclaimer: the above is merely the opinion of a devoted TLer with a love for the platform that this site provides in terms of bringing together nerds who like to talk about shit on the internet.)
|
I think it should take ideas that are in extreme contradiction with reality (9/11, Holocaust, moon landing conspiracy theories) to get moderated for being wrong.
The whole level of that thread is shit, and it's not Testie's fault, either. It comes from all sides. The thread serves a million different purposes and it's appropriate that posts are at different levels to match the subject - whether it's debate live reporting or or some abstract discussion about parliamentary systems, a heated argument or shared facetiousness. It fluctuates, and I think that's fair enough if you're going to have a megathread.
In this case it's as though EZ got banned because he was being snide coupled with apparently being wrong. I think that suggests a significant ideological element. There are people dumping snark all over the thread which, the way I see it, aren't approached by moderation either because of where they are ideologically or get excused because of their significant posting history. The other factor is it's just looser than the TL I grew up in. Like I said earlier, it's a really high volume thread and I don't think it warrants excessive moderation. Social forces for the most part "handle" the flow. People luckily are smart enough not to engage with every garbage one liner.
You have to really explain to a low post count guy when he's being held to a higher standard, because his posts fit in perfectly for what he's seeing from everyone else - in that thread.
Drone's post there, on another note, makes me think there is a risk of people getting emotionally involved at a level the subject shouldn't warrant.
Anyway, as far as questionable moderation, I also thought something similar about the dotcom guy who got banned (ignoring his multiaccounting, which is a different problem).
|
I think the ban was entirely warranted when you take into account his posting history. However, I think that entire thread is moderated very strangely when compared to other threads. Hitler-comparisons are common, strawmanning is the norm, and people are more interested in smearing their "opponents" than actually argue in good faith.
When you compare the moderation level in another political thread (EU thread) where WhiteDog got warned for "Your funny" (which was entirely warranted), to the US thread there is very clearly a different approach taken and the toxicity is tangible. The line taken is of course entirely up to the moderation team, however at least be consistent across the political spectrum. It is fairly obvious that some posters have a much longer leash than others to the point where they can literally call the other poster a neo-nazi and racist and if the other poster returns in kind he'll get banned (which he should - but it should be both that got banned).
|
Norway28621 Posts
As one of the more active moderators to participate in that thread, yet who virtually never moderates it (I would guess I have moderated less than one out of 10000 posts I have read there), allow me to try to explain what at least is my thought process relating to the moderation of the thread.
Firstly, me moderating less than one in 10000 posts does not mean the standard of posting in the thread is so high that I just have never found objectionable posts. Rather, it stems from a personal awareness of the situation you claim to observe; any moderating action in a political thread will inevitably be seen by some as an attempt at silencing the political opposition. Let me be clear: I hold this thread in very high regard. Even though sometimes the posting deteriorates for a while, invariably as a consequence of posters with 'extreme' viewpoints unwilling to concede any points going at each other, I love what the thread is all about, and I myself feel that having followed the thread since it was first created has been very educational. I really believe in the free exchange of ideas, and for the posters familiar with Habermas, I fully adhere to his thoughts and ideas around 'deliberation', how the best, most fruitful discussions arise when participants are willing to show respect for their opponents and the ideas and thoughts they are espousing. While I might certainly have slipped up at times (sometimes when you discuss issues and people are unable to understand your point of view, either through your own fault in explaining it or through their unwillingness to accept it, anger is a natural, albeit undesirable response), I try to embody these ideals in my posting.
And in general, I feel that I get much better responses from my opposition through showcasing respect and admitting that while I disagree with their point of view, they are not immoral idiots for holding them (although at my discretion I might sometimes personally feel that way ), than the response I would get from swinging the banhammer at posters or warning posts that are not 'up to standards'.
In addition to this, I am well aware of my political bias. I openly identify as part of the political left. I also know that the way how I function, I am much more aware of, and annoyed by, factual inaccuracies that help establish an opposing political view than I am aware of factual inaccuracies purported by people I am in political agreement with - I might not even be aware that such statements are inaccurate.
Looking at these factors combined ; wanting this thread to be an arena for the free exchange of ideas, experiencing that moderating is not the best way to moderate, and knowing that even if I genuinely made the best of efforts, my personal bias would make me a poor arbiter of attempting to uphold a set of rules dictating how respectful you have to be or how factually inaccurate we can permit someone to be, it should be easy to see why I avoid pulling any triggers. And yet, I can only support the ban of ErectedZenith.
It's not that his decision to define contemporary social democracy in an obviously fraudulent way through equivocating it with the bolshevik movement in isolation would be a bannable offense. It's that this is how his posting history was and there was no willingness to reform, no willingness to engage in serious argument when pressed to do so. No matter how thoughtful and elaborate of a post he was confronted by, he would focus on one singular sentence and argue a tangential point, dodging the main argument. And for the pages where his presence was felt, the discussion would be more angry and antagonistic and less about the mutual exchange of political ideas and philosophies.
Now, it is very possible that posters whom I identify with politically are guilty of the same transgressions. One of the consequences of adhering to these Habermasian ideals is that I must accept that my side is not necessarily 'better' (it's just more correct ), but the honest truth is, it's much less visible to me when some leftist makes a statement exaggerating Trump's fascist tendencies or drawing nazi-parallels that hurt the discussion than when someone makes a completely ridiculous and ignorant statement about what Scandinavian social democracies are like - especially seeing how I live in one. But I greatly prefer if we manage to keep moderation of the thread to a minimum - that does however require a greater standard of posting than what ErectedZenith represented. I also have to stress that we strive to never moderate an opinion, merely how an opinion is expressed, but some expressions are not opinions. This thread is above discussing blatant conspiracies, and it is above the sort of 'nazis were actually socialists, look at their name, national socialists' type of argument which either stems from ignorance of the highest order or a desire to troll. I'm not sure which ErectedZenith was, possibly both, but either way, I perceived it as impossible to have a fruitful discussion with him. The reason why I myself never pulled any trigger was precisely because I don't wish to use moderation powers while being involved in a discussion, as that would kill any incentive political opponents have to engage with me. And there's actually very little I love more than seeing such a well constructed argument from people I don't initially agree with that I have no choice but to alter my understanding of the world based on it.
|
Norway28621 Posts
I will also concede that we don't really have a unified moderation policy for political threads in place, and thus you are bound to find inconsistencies if you look for them, but I would argue that this largely stems from exactly the issue you are addressing; how difficult they are to moderate without seemingly stifling political opinions. If there IS one unified moderation policy, 'avoid stifling political opinions' would probably be it - but we all come from slightly different backgrounds, thus we all have slightly different world views, and thus we all sometimes experience statements as more or less fact-based than how other moderators might feel about them. I will also concede that I think most of the moderators are 'left-of-american-centre' politically, and that we, despite trying our hardest not to, might sometimes unconsciously miss actionable offenses by leftists that we would not miss from a right-wing poster, but I just have to stress that we try our hardest not to have this be the case, arguably to the degree where we are too negligent.
|
I'm from Denmark, I think it's fair to say that I'm going to be on the left of everyone in the US politics thread - even the most staunch Sanders supporters (GreenHorizons).
I applaud both yours and Kwarks decisions to participate and not use your banhammers, however I think the echo-chamber effect is obvious - there is probably a reason why only 2 obvious right-wingers post (and one of them even just requested to be banned). I admire their tenacity to deal with all the shit that is flung at them, I would personally have quit a long time ago, which is sad, because what makes such a thread interesting is the exposure to world views that are vastly different.
The current environment in that thread is not conducive to achieving such a well constructed argument that you (and I) would like - the argument which persuades us that there are nuances we hadn't considered.
EDIT: And thank you for the answer 
|
Clutz, oblade, xDaunt, wei2coolman, Danglars, Sermokala, and to a lesser extent, fiwifaki, Solar, ghanburighan, Introvert, and Iplay.nettles are all right-leaning posters who continue (save for Danglars temporarily, bless his heart) to post in the thread with about the same amount of regularity as the lefties, so I'm not sure you're being accurate in your characterization of the thread. That said, there is always room to further fight the echo-chamber effect, so don't mistake the above as a suggestion that your complaint is without merit (though I might further challenge you in terms of your suggestion that being from Denmark automatically makes you more left-wing than the most staunch of Sanders supporters )
(Disclaimer: If I've put you into a category you don't feel you belong in, I apologize. Such is the problem with trying to fit people into neat little boxes!)
|
Well admittedly the more staunch are probably to the left of me. I'm not sure they are in the thread though 
|
Canada11340 Posts
I, actually, am right of centre.. but I don't regularly find myself in agreement with farv's list of posters, likely the function of the Canadian spectrum being further left of the States, yet considerably to right of the Scandinavian countries.
But the problem of EZ was not holding too closely to ideology of the right. He didn't fall victim of being not left enough. Rather he was not nuanced enough. His argumentation style was really, really bad, lending towards contentiousness, creating more heat than light.
Having said that, I feel like there are a lot of people in that thread on both sides that have gotten sick of each others arguments and are no longer arguing in good faith- like a whole lot of them have become sick and tired of each other and are no longer listening. It's a little depressing sometimes, and I don't read it as often anymore.
|
I feel, as I've said before; that the thread does need some clamping down on against all sides. That'd help cut down on the escalating poor argumenting back and forth which tends to lead to someone going too far (or at least getting in trouble for it)
As always I volunteer to moderate it myself :D
|
all topics need to be more like the US one else people forget with whom they share this world; besides, isolationism leads to inbreeding and pussyness + Show Spoiler +you know, it's when you get soft inside then develop a furry fandom thingie
|
|
|
On March 20 2016 04:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:It's that this is how his posting history was and there was no willingness to reform, no willingness to engage in serious argument when pressed to do so. No matter how thoughtful and elaborate of a post he was confronted by, he would focus on one singular sentence and argue a tangential point, dodging the main argument. And for the pages where his presence was felt, the discussion would be more angry and antagonistic and less about the mutual exchange of political ideas and philosophies.
On March 22 2016 22:26 xM(Z wrote:all topics need to be more like the US one else people forget with whom they share this world; besides, isolationism leads to inbreeding and pussyness + Show Spoiler +you know, it's when you get soft inside then develop a furry fandom thingie
No suprise that a person also guilty of such, would be defending of such. Exchange of ideas? More like neverending unrelated posting.
|
even so, you'd still want me Christianized, sucking on your truths and what not 'cause you can't resist the urge, the need to get more followers; it empowers you. it makes you a manly-man!.
preach me on the right path father.
|
so is the official position of the moderation team that The Bolsheviks were not social-democrat?
|
On March 28 2016 00:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
so is the official position of the moderation team that The Bolsheviks were not social-democrat?
If you read the two mod posts in this thread, the answer to your question is obviously no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aqZ67cc7-d4/hqdefault.jpg)
