Ban Discussion Megathread

Uggo Mongo

Uggo Mongo

L-S-T-E-R
-
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
3,182
I literally said that in my post, if you're gonna be retarded enough not to understand the content of the post at least say something original.
You compared the modding to reddit, I am saying that you want the culture and posters to be more like reddit's. You are "and in this moment I am euphoric" personified.
 
blickpall

blickpall

O T L
-
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
4,652
How is it even remotely reasonable that an actual user who isn't a caricature like half the top 100 users gets perma'd for essentially "goofing off too much", since I still haven't seen any evidence of egregious behavior from him? I follow his posts a lot and I've never seen these personal attacks you say are so common. His most terrible offences amount to light trolling, meanwhile there's 50 threads and 200 posts a day about how the Jews should be killed en masse, de Geso and others post the same thread over and over again, users like antipain and needsolution are still kicking despite being worse spammers than Ritalincel. This is totally unjustifiable, stop acting like it isn't.

I've seen the warnings, so the wool can't be pulled over my eyes on this one. The vast majority are for such petty shit. I wasn't being sarcastic in my original post, under your logic for banning him, 75% of this forum should be perma'd right now. It's a question of proportion. So many other users are such worse offenders. Some of the shit he's been warned for I've literally seen mods do, jfl.

The one-strike thing never made much sense to me anyway tbh. It's essentially a get out of jail free card for a mod to get rid of him whenever he chooses. Either give a second chance or don't, but when you include a condition like that it essentially guarantees this will happen when a mod gets pissed off.

If your argument really is that a prolific actual user with relationships here deserves perma because he posted a few joke threads in M&F while egregious rule breakers calling for genocide on a daily basis, talking about keeping women in cages in their basement as a serious idea, and spam relentlessly objectively garbage threads deserve to stay, okay then, but that just proves my point for me really.

You talk about such vague things as if they're black and white. i.e. "constantly skirted thr rules", "made banter in the bdmt," when really they're not, they're utterly subjective. I've been banned from the bdmt for "banter" when literally only seriously discussing a ban and I've experienced both personally and vicariously warnings that were objectively completely unjustified for vague things. In the end it's just a mechanism to to be used to get rid of someone not liked by the powers that be, not unlike Reddit.
Abusing the report function by submitting numerous false reports warrants a warning regardless of who does it. As he was on a one strike policy, that alone would have been enough.

Now, one can of course argue the merits of a one strike policy. I won't get into it because whether or not you believe the policy has merit is irrelevant to the fact that it was in place and the user was informed of it - and chose to do the things they did regardless of it. By intentionally abusing the report function, they basically requested a permanent ban in this scenario. An alternative would have been arguing those merits of a one strike policy without breaking the rules, or appealing the decision. Instead, they decided to be a drama queen and make extra work for moderators for no reason whatsoever. The outcome should come as no surprise to anyone given the circumstances.
 
speedtypingincel

speedtypingincel

height > x
-
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
2,445
You talk about such vague things as if they're black and white. i.e. "constantly skirted thr rules", "made banter in the bdmt," when really they're not, they're utterly subjective. I've been banned from the bdmt for "banter" when literally only seriously discussing a ban and I've experienced both personally and vicariously warnings that were objectively completely unjustified for vague things. In the end it's just a mechanism to to be used to get rid of someone not liked by the powers that be, not unlike Reddit.
I'm an advocate of having a separate thread where the vague and convoluted rules are explained and not just say "persecution" or "gay content". Seeing how I've also gotten a warning for a gay joke (which I didn't think was included in the "gay content" rule).
 
ScornedStoic

ScornedStoic

The Ghost of Christmas Past
-
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
10,710
I am saying that you want the culture and posters to be more like reddit's. You are "and in this moment I am euphoric" personified.
This is possibly the most retarded thing you've ever said, and that's saying something.
Abusing the report function by submitting numerous false reports warrants a warning regardless of who does it. As he was on a one strike policy, that alone would have been enough.

Now, one can of course argue the merits of a one strike policy. I won't get into it because whether or not you believe the policy has merit is irrelevant to the fact that it was in place and the user was informed of it - and chose to do the things they did regardless of it. By intentionally abusing the report function, they basically requested a permanent ban in this scenario. An alternative would have been arguing those merits of a one strike policy without breaking the rules, or appealing the decision. Instead, they decided to be a drama queen and make extra work for moderators for no reason whatsoever. The outcome should come as no surprise to anyone given the circumstances.
My point wasn't that those things aren't against the rules/shouldn't warrant a warning, but that the fact that that is being used as the justification for a ban versus more egregious rule breaking going unnoticed is suspect when it's only being applied to a user a mod dislikes, versus the rules being applied more evenly. The fact that AntiPain creates several threads that are literally "peepee poopoo" and is still around, yet Regi gets a perma for a pushy ban discussion post, just doesn't sit right, no matter how much it was against the rules. He already had his report function and bdmt posting privileges taken away for the things you mentioned, the perma's timing with lack of any catalyst action makes it all seem suspect.

As for the veracity of the one strike policy, your comment essentially amounted to "you don't like it, but it's there anyway". Like, okay, of course, I knew that, but that isn't an argument... If you don't want to defend it that's your prerogative, I wasn't saying you have to, but it's strange to write a whole paragraph as if it was an argument
I'm an advocate of having a separate thread where the vague and convoluted rules are explained and not just say "persecution" or "gay content". Seeing how I've also gotten a warning for a gay joke (which I didn't think was included in the "gay content" rule).
Yeah, it really should, but don't hold your breath. Every time this is requested they simply say "it's obvious".
 
Uggo Mongo

Uggo Mongo

L-S-T-E-R
-
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
3,182
-complains about people naming the jew
-complains about intolerance to fags and their prolapsed anuses
-complains about sensible solutions to female hypergamy

No I'd say I hit the nail on the head.
 
speedtypingincel

speedtypingincel

height > x
-
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
2,445
. The fact that AntiPain creates several threads that are literally "peepee poopoo" and is still around, yet Regi gets a perma for a pushy ban discussion post, just doesn't sit right, no matter how much it was against the rules.
AntiPain creates a different thread every 10 minutes and yet Regi gets banned for virtually nothing.
Yeah, it really should, but don't hold your breath. Every time this is requested they simply say "it's obvious".
I'm starting to believe that the rules are intentionally vague so the mods can twist the meaning of the rules and give warnings to whoever they want.
 
knajjd

knajjd

( o__o)‼
-
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
3,031
How is it even remotely reasonable that an actual user who isn't a caricature like half the top 100 users gets perma'd for essentially "goofing off too much", since I still haven't seen any evidence of egregious behavior from him? I follow his posts a lot and I've never seen these personal attacks you say are so common. His most terrible offences amount to light trolling, meanwhile there's 50 threads and 200 posts a day about how the Jews should be killed en masse, de Geso and others post the same thread over and over again, users like antipain and needsolution are still kicking despite being worse spammers than Ritalincel. This is totally unjustifiable, stop acting like it isn't.

I've seen the warnings, so the wool can't be pulled over my eyes on this one. The vast majority are for such petty shit. I wasn't being sarcastic in my original post, under your logic for banning him, 75% of this forum should be perma'd right now. It's a question of proportion. So many other users are such worse offenders. Some of the shit he's been warned for I've literally seen mods do, jfl.

The one-strike thing never made much sense to me anyway tbh. It's essentially a get out of jail free card for a mod to get rid of him whenever he chooses. Either give a second chance or don't, but when you include a condition like that it essentially guarantees this will happen when a mod gets pissed off.

If your argument really is that a prolific actual user with relationships here deserves perma because he posted a few joke threads in M&F while egregious rule breakers calling for genocide on a daily basis, talking about keeping women in cages in their basement as a serious idea, and spam relentlessly objectively garbage threads deserve to stay, okay then, but that just proves my point for me really.

You talk about such vague things as if they're black and white. i.e. "constantly skirted thr rules", "made banter in the bdmt," when really they're not, they're utterly subjective. I've been banned from the bdmt for "banter" when literally only seriously discussing a ban and I've experienced both personally and vicariously warnings that were objectively completely unjustified for vague things. In the end it's just a mechanism to to be used to get rid of someone not liked by the powers that be, not unlike Reddit.
because we delete the posts that break the rules after warning for them, and you also have no access to the report queue to see all his posts that were reported. duh? he even addresses his harassment posts himself in his ban appeal, if i recall correctly.

no offense, but i'm going to stop reading after the "it's unjustifiable to ban someone for breaking the rules because other people do it too" line. go report the people whom you think break the rules and get away with it so that we can punish them (provided the reports are valid,) instead of going with the impossibly vague and meaningless "but teacher he does it too" argument.
 
ScornedStoic

ScornedStoic

The Ghost of Christmas Past
-
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
10,710
-complains about people naming the jew
-complains about intolerance to fags and their prolapsed anuses
-complains about sensible solutions to female hypergamy

No I'd say I hit the nail on the head.
1489427630_wheeze-gif.171899

no offense, but i'm going to stop reading after the "it's unjustifiable to ban someone for breaking the rules because other people do it too" line.
There was way more nuance to it than that, but seeing as you just laughably disregard comments in a thread dedicated to this topic like that I guess there's no point in aaddressing all the stunning faults in your short comment regardless.
 
Last edited:
IamJacksBrokenHeart

IamJacksBrokenHeart

over for me
-
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
3,584
im starting to think that registerUserName wanted to get banned tbh
with the type of shit he posted in the last days/weeks , it seems like he got tired of this forum and wanted to go out with a bang .
But im just reading between the lines here .
 
blickpall

blickpall

O T L
-
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
4,652
My point wasn't that those things aren't against the rules/shouldn't warrant a warning, but that the fact that that is being used as the justification for a ban versus more egregious rule breaking going unnoticed is suspect when it's only being applied to a user a mod dislikes, versus the rules being applied more evenly. The fact that AntiPain creates several threads that are literally "peepee poopoo" and is still around, yet Regi gets a perma for a pushy ban discussion post, just doesn't sit right, no matter how much it was against the rules. He already had his report function and bdmt posting privileges taken away for the things you mentioned, the perma's timing with lack of any catalyst action makes it all seem suspect.
I will speak for myself since I don't know exactly what other mods do, but I suspect they, much like me, action mostly reports and once in a while an offending post they run into naturally as a user of the site. If people aren't reporting the posts, then they are much less likely to get punished. Additionally, and this is an argument I've had to reiterate a couple of times over PM when warned users use the same "but he's doing it too" defense, you don't know who we action unless they get temp banned/perm banned, you don't know what gets reported or does not, etc. Posters like the ones you've brought up DO have a lot of warnings already - but they still don't have nearly the history as RegisterUserName. Also, as knajjd said, you don't get to see all of the offending posts a user makes because they get deleted. Even if RegisterUserName shared his list of warnings with you in detail, that still wouldn't account for all of the deleted posts. As such, seeing him as somehow significantly better of a user than the ones you mentioned may make subjective, qualitative sense but is factually incorrect in a quantitative and evidential sense.

As for the veracity of the one strike policy, your comment essentially amounted to "you don't like it, but it's there anyway". Like, okay, of course, I knew that, but that isn't an argument... If you don't want to defend it that's your prerogative, I wasn't saying you have to, but it's strange to write a whole paragraph as if it was an argument
I think you may have misunderstood me. My point wasn't "you don't like it, but it's there anyway," but rather "you don't like it, but it (was) there anyway, and this user willingly ignored it when there were more productive ways of going about things." It isn't an argument, it's a statement of fact.

Let me make an analogy. If you think that marijuana should be legalized in your city/state/country/whatever, the appropriate way to handle that is by petitioning the local government, garnering support from the voting population, etc. It isn't blazing up a bleezy at the local police station and shouting "fuck the police" then wondering why you got arrested. As such, if RegisterUserName thought that the policy was unfair, then he could have 1. shown signs of reform 2. appealed the decision, just like how he appealed his ban, which was overturned 3. perhaps tried to find support by making a thread in Meta/Feedback and presented his arguments for why the policy wasn't just. Instead, he decided to abuse site features and continue breaking rules - just like the pothead in the police station.

im starting to think that registerUserName wanted to get banned tbh
with the type of shit he posted in the last days/weeks , it seems like he got tired of this forum and wanted to go out with a bang .
But im just reading between the lines here .
Basically.
 
SergeantIncel

SergeantIncel

Admin
-
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
2,014
I'm an advocate of having a separate thread where the vague and convoluted rules are explained and not just say "persecution" or "gay content". Seeing how I've also gotten a warning for a gay joke (which I didn't think was included in the "gay content" rule).
You advocate a separate thread to do what you should have done when you registered or were warned for the first time. I've seen zero questions from you regarding the rules.
Parrotlord similarly had doubts regarding the female worship rule, and he sadly waited until his ban appeal to point it out in detail. However, once he did I did update the rules to make them more clear. If a valid issue is pointed out we do act in response.
In short, if you don't get the rules and complain about them you're akin to a child not raising his hand to ask questions in class and then saying the teacher does a poor job explaining. If you want clarification on something either make a feedback thread or PM me and be specific about what it is you don't understand.

AntiPain creates a different thread every 10 minutes and yet Regi gets banned for virtually nothing.
Red herring. You're dragging a user to a discussion he isn't involved in.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, we warn based on reports. If a user is breaking the rules, report him and you'll see results.

I would continue answering, but I see blickpall has just written himself in response to the topic.
The Register drama can end here, no one is a mod but the mods, and thus they alone can understand all the nuances and details of the issue. This doesn't mean users can't complain or ask for clarification, it means users shouldn't act as if they know the full story, because they can't by definition.
 
speedtypingincel

speedtypingincel

height > x
-
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
2,445
You advocate a separate thread to do what you should have done when you registered or were warned for the first time. I've seen zero questions from you regarding the rules.
Parrotlord similarly had doubts regarding the female worship rule, and he sadly waited until his ban appeal to point it out in detail. However, once he did I did update the rules to make them more clear. If a valid issue is pointed out we do act in response.
In short, if you don't get the rules and complain about them you're akin to a child not raising his hand to ask questions in class and then saying the teacher does a poor job explaining. If you want clarification on something either make a feedback thread or PM me and be specific about what it is you don't understand.
Why should people have to ask for clarifications because the original thread doesn't elaborate on the vague rules?

Not everyone has been here for 2 years (and a mod on top of that) so it makes sense that not everyone understands every aspect of the rules.
 
SergeantIncel

SergeantIncel

Admin
-
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
2,014
Why should people have to ask for clarifications because the original thread doesn't elaborate on the vague rules?

Not everyone has been here for 2 years (and a mod on top of that) so it makes sense that not everyone understands every aspect of the rules.
You probably were the kind of person who blamed the teacher, huh.
So be it, you don't want to ask, you'll never know what the rules mean. The warnings will come regardless, if you break them.
 
speedtypingincel

speedtypingincel

height > x
-
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
2,445
You probably were the kind of person who blamed the teacher, huh.
So be it, you don't want to ask, you'll never know what the rules mean. The warnings will come regardless, if you break them.
This isn't just about me, it's about every single person that is and will be on this forum. People shouldn't be expected to ask question because the teacher gave vague guidance.

When the teacher points towards the north people shouldn't have to repeat themselves and ask where. It's the teacher who should elaborate where the travellers should go.
 
CursedCel

CursedCel

Push it to the limit
-
Joined
Jun 17, 2019
Messages
1,367
This shitty permaban discussion shows exactly that status is everything everywhere.so many of you say spam to free a famous user(take ritalin,reggie,needsolution) generally if any of the top 5% of high posters gets banned so many users spam to free them,BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST FAMOUS,95% OF THE GUYS WHO SAY FREE THIS AND FREE THAT DO IT BECAUSE EVERYONE IS DOING IT
literally some guys have over 20fucking warnings you idiots should understand that they keep doing this shit because they feel that with the fame they have they will get away with it,ITS LIKE THOSE USERS HAVE MORE RIGHTS AND MORE VALUE THAN A TYPICAL USER HERE
shitposting is funny but most of the spammers u want to be freed are retarded no sense idiots
Also i am not defending any mods,the fact that those users have so many warnings mean the statuspill did work for a period of time,i cant imagine that anyone with my kind of status here wouldnt get banned after a single number of warnings
 
SergeantIncel

SergeantIncel

Admin
-
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
2,014
for what?
Spam.

This isn't just about me, it's about every single person that is and will be on this forum. People shouldn't be expected to ask question because the teacher gave vague guidance.

When the teacher points towards the north people shouldn't have to repeat themselves and ask where. It's the teacher who should elaborate where the travellers should go.
My explanation on the topic was thorough, I suggest you reread what I typed above. Let the megathread be used for its intended purpose.
 
Vermilioncore

Vermilioncore

permavirgin failure
-
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
11,514
Over for averagejoecels
 
Colvin76

Colvin76

5'8" Autistic Gymcel
-
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
3,528
This shitty permaban discussion shows exactly that status is everything everywhere.so many of you say spam to free a famous user(take ritalin,reggie,needsolution) generally if any of the top 5% of high posters gets banned so many users spam to free them,BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST FAMOUS,95% OF THE GUYS WHO SAY FREE THIS AND FREE THAT DO IT BECAUSE EVERYONE IS DOING IT
literally some guys have over 20fucking warnings you idiots should understand that they keep doing this shit because they feel that with the fame they have they will get away with it,ITS LIKE THOSE USERS HAVE MORE RIGHTS AND MORE VALUE THAN A TYPICAL USER HERE
shitposting is funny but most of the spammers u want to be freed are retarded no sense idiots
Also i am not defending any mods,the fact that those users have so many warnings mean the statuspill did work for a period of time,i cant imagine that anyone with my kind of status here wouldnt get banned after a single number of warnings
Brutal blackpill ngl
Over for averagejoecels
 
Newbie17

Newbie17

Relative of Fyodor Dostoevsky; Marko Perković irl
-
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Messages
8,137
@Gamblord just brag theory
 
ScornedStoic

ScornedStoic

The Ghost of Christmas Past
-
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
10,710
im starting to think that registerUserName wanted to get banned tbh
with the type of shit he posted in the last days/weeks , it seems like he got tired of this forum and wanted to go out with a bang .
But im just reading between the lines here .
He definitely didn't want to be banned.
I will speak for myself since I don't know exactly what other mods do, but I suspect they, much like me, action mostly reports and once in a while an offending post they run into naturally as a user of the site. If people aren't reporting the posts, then they are much less likely to get punished.
I've heard this a lot, and I get it (no sarcasm). I'll be honest and say I don't report nearly as often as I should, but it often feels like an effort in futility when 80% of the community supports those kinds of posts, including some mods.
Additionally, and this is an argument I've had to reiterate a couple of times over PM when warned users use the same "but he's doing it too" defense,
I still think this is missing the forest for the trees, I think the argument is less "he's doing it too" and more "everyone else is doing it more and worse." It's like getting pulled over for going 5 over the speed limit and someone goes by pushing 30 over and the cop doesn't even phone it in. I get mods are human and aren't omnipresent, but that still will always leave a sour taste in everyone's mouth because it looks like (and can be) uneven application of the rules.
you don't know who we action unless they get temp banned/perm banned, you don't know what gets reported or does not, etc. Posters like the ones you've brought up DO have a lot of warnings already - but they still don't have nearly the history as RegisterUserName. Also, as knajjd said, you don't get to see all of the offending posts a user makes because they get deleted. Even if RegisterUserName shared his list of warnings with you in detail, that still wouldn't account for all of the deleted posts. As such, seeing him as somehow significantly better of a user than the ones you mentioned may make subjective, qualitative sense but is factually incorrect in a quantitative and evidential sense.
But this is exactly the problem. I'm going off of what is available to me. The mods have made it clear they don't like sharing details of bans, and that's their right. However that will inevitably lead to speculation based on available evidence, because "you don't have all the information, and we do, so stop thinking about it" is never going to be satisfying to anyone. It's never going to be enough. I've heard Serge's argument that caving to every request like this would lead to real problems, and I even agree with him on that, but I don't think it's so black and white. I think there can be a middle ground, especially when it's a top-tier controversial case. Maybe lock the final-straw thread and leave it up (assuming it's nothing egregious like bragging) in extreme cases to put down dissent. You don't have to do it every time, but when there's reasonable doubt, this would help quell people's anger, or at the very least, prove them wrong. As it stands you're just (not just you, I don't mean this to come off as a personal attack) making an appeal to authority. You can see why incels genuinely wouldn't like that.
I think you may have misunderstood me. My point wasn't "you don't like it, but it's there anyway," but rather "you don't like it, but it (was) there anyway,
With all due respect, how is this any different, regardless of what follows?
Let me make an analogy. If you think that marijuana should be legalized in your city/state/country/whatever, the appropriate way to handle that is by petitioning the local government, garnering support from the voting population, etc. It isn't blazing up a bleezy at the local police station and shouting "fuck the police" then wondering why you got arrested. As such, if RegisterUserName thought that the policy was unfair, then he could have 1. shown signs of reform 2. appealed the decision, just like how he appealed his ban, which was overturned 3. perhaps tried to find support by making a thread in Meta/Feedback and presented his arguments for why the policy wasn't just. Instead, he decided to abuse site features and continue breaking rules - just like the pothead in the police station.
Okay, fair analogy, but I guess using that analogy it's just how like people are mad at the government for prosecuting weed smokers for having a gram instead of going after crimes that actually matter. Your point still stands, but as does mine about why people are frustrated with the inconsistency.

I want to genuinely thank you for taking the time to actually respond to my comment in full and arguing in good faith. I don't get a lot of that around here. (I'm not being sarcastic, I appreciate it)
 
Dregster666

Dregster666

Wizard
-
Joined
Aug 26, 2018
Messages
4,329
because we delete the posts that break the rules after warning for them, and you also have no access to the report queue to see all his posts that were reported. duh? he even addresses his harassment posts himself in his ban appeal, if i recall correctly.

no offense, but i'm going to stop reading after the "it's unjustifiable to ban someone for breaking the rules because other people do it too" line. go report the people whom you think break the rules and get away with it so that we can punish them (provided the reports are valid,) instead of going with the impossibly vague and meaningless "but teacher he does it too" argument.
Free @GoyimWithAttitude
 
ScornedStoic

ScornedStoic

The Ghost of Christmas Past
-
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
10,710
Don't do this to him. He needs a place to cope. He's a kind soul.
Honestly I don't understand how he wasn't perma'd like three bans ago. I've never seen someone so flagrantly spam gibberish, not even de Geso.
 
blickpall

blickpall

O T L
-
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
4,652
I've heard this a lot, and I get it (no sarcasm). I'll be honest and say I don't report nearly as often as I should, but it often feels like an effort in futility when 80% of the community supports those kinds of posts, including some mods.
I guess the differentiation then is whether silent acceptance is equivalent to support, and whether vocal support is representative of greater group inclinations. I can't speak definitively on the matter since I have not been active for quite some time, but I am willing to bet that what we are discussing is only the apparent support/lack of interest in reforming behaviors. As you said yourself, you feel it is futile to report things, presumably because you feel that you are going against the grain - but keep in mind that you are potentially only going against the vocal minority. The unilateral "Free X" crowd is mostly the same handful of names, for example.

I still think this is missing the forest for the trees, I think the argument is less "he's doing it too" and more "everyone else is doing it more and worse." It's like getting pulled over for going 5 over the speed limit and someone goes by pushing 30 over and the cop doesn't even phone it in. I get mods are human and aren't omnipresent, but that still will always leave a sour taste in everyone's mouth because it looks like (and can be) uneven application of the rules.
Sure - just as with the cop, this inevitably happens in any manual system of authority IMO. The cop can only pull over so many people at once, and if the car speeds by on a parallel street that is out of sight, then can the cop really be blamed for the oversight? Similarly, and to bring back the aforementioned point, we can't action what we don't see or what isn't brought directly to our attention. You've already said this, though, so I guess it's just a matter of expectations not meeting reality. You may expect that we should see more, I expect that users report offending behavior more, when neither meets the mark then this is the gray area we inhabit.

However that will inevitably lead to speculation based on available evidence, because "you don't have all the information, and we do, so stop thinking about it" is never going to be satisfying to anyone. It's never going to be enough. I've heard Serge's argument that caving to every request like this would lead to real problems, and I even agree with him on that, but I don't think it's so black and white. I think there can be a middle ground, especially when it's a top-tier controversial case. Maybe lock the final-straw thread and leave it up (assuming it's nothing egregious like bragging) in extreme cases to put down dissent.
The cost-benefit analysis on our end, if I can so liberally speak for the whole team, is that it is better to remove offending posts and have people doubt our choices (which the vocal minority always will no matter what we do or don't do) than it is to facilitate martyrdom, grandstanding, drama queenery, and all of that. If it was policy to leave offending posts up, then this would encourage that kind of behavior. Making an exception for high profile cases would, in my opinion, be even worse because it would continue to drive the idea that some people are above the "law" and that they "deserve" to have a last say - when they are usually the ones that cause the biggest problems/unrest through the cult of personality, post count halo, whatever you want to call it.

If we can bring it back to this case in particular, there would be no way to do that with what I personally feel is the most clear-cut violation of forum etiquette, namely the false reports. I firmly believe that users' reports should never be publicized and they aren't public at all as it is, which means that to provide evidence of wrongdoing would necessitate actively exposing internal workings of the site. That's too much to ask for IMO.

Knajjd listed other reasons that the user was in violation of the rules, so I can't speak for his experience. I had also submitted a few posts for consideration in mod chat myself, but because of my previous involvement with the user in question, I felt that it would be genuinely unfair for me to action them without referring to the team as a whole. Those posts were not deleted and they were not deemed serious enough of an offense to be actionable, even though I believe they were definitely spam/low effort, personal attacks, etc. This is all to say that even on a "one strike" policy, the team as a whole erred on the side of lenience for a while with this user even when individual moderators thought that a post could be actionable. I know this isn't as good as providing "evidence" of wrongdoing, but I hope it counts for something - the fact that we DO discuss these cases and we do generally have differing opinions, that we as a whole try to pass cases off to other mods when we feel we may be biased, etc. That's about the best I can offer in this case.

With all due respect, how is this any different, regardless of what follows?
What follows is the crux of the statement IMO - that it was deliberate non-compliance or disregard for what was told to that user, who had a lengthy moderation history going into all of this mess. That is entirely their choice, but that does not free them from the consequences. If there were issues with the merit of that decision/status, then those could and should have been discussed - not directly violated like in the stoner at the cop station analogy.

I want to genuinely thank you for taking the time to actually respond to my comment in full and arguing in good faith. I don't get a lot of that around here. (I'm not being sarcastic, I appreciate it)
No problem.
 
FinnCel

FinnCel

Alcoholcel
-
Joined
Dec 13, 2018
Messages
16,815
@AntiPain stop spamming please, I don't want you to get permaban :cryfeels:
 
Vermilioncore

Vermilioncore

permavirgin failure
-
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
11,514
Free @Dindu_Nuffin! He dindu nuffin, mods
 
ScornedStoic

ScornedStoic

The Ghost of Christmas Past
-
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
10,710
I guess the differentiation then is whether silent acceptance is equivalent to support, and whether vocal support is representative of greater group inclinations. I can't speak definitively on the matter since I have not been active for quite some time, but I am willing to bet that what we are discussing is only the apparent support/lack of interest in reforming behaviors. As you said yourself, you feel it is futile to report things, presumably because you feel that you are going against the grain - but keep in mind that you are potentially only going against the vocal minority. The unilateral "Free X" crowd is mostly the same handful of names, for example.


Sure - just as with the cop, this inevitably happens in any manual system of authority IMO. The cop can only pull over so many people at once, and if the car speeds by on a parallel street that is out of sight, then can the cop really be blamed for the oversight? Similarly, and to bring back the aforementioned point, we can't action what we don't see or what isn't brought directly to our attention. You've already said this, though, so I guess it's just a matter of expectations not meeting reality. You may expect that we should see more, I expect that users report offending behavior more, when neither meets the mark then this is the gray area we inhabit.



The cost-benefit analysis on our end, if I can so liberally speak for the whole team, is that it is better to remove offending posts and have people doubt our choices (which the vocal minority always will no matter what we do or don't do) than it is to facilitate martyrdom, grandstanding, drama queenery, and all of that. If it was policy to leave offending posts up, then this would encourage that kind of behavior. Making an exception for high profile cases would, in my opinion, be even worse because it would continue to drive the idea that some people are above the "law" and that they "deserve" to have a last say - when they are usually the ones that cause the biggest problems/unrest through the cult of personality, post count halo, whatever you want to call it.

If we can bring it back to this case in particular, there would be no way to do that with what I personally feel is the most clear-cut violation of forum etiquette, namely the false reports. I firmly believe that users' reports should never be publicized and they aren't public at all as it is, which means that to provide evidence of wrongdoing would necessitate actively exposing internal workings of the site. That's too much to ask for IMO.

Knajjd listed other reasons that the user was in violation of the rules, so I can't speak for his experience. I had also submitted a few posts for consideration in mod chat myself, but because of my previous involvement with the user in question, I felt that it would be genuinely unfair for me to action them without referring to the team as a whole. Those posts were not deleted and they were not deemed serious enough of an offense to be actionable, even though I believe they were definitely spam/low effort, personal attacks, etc. This is all to say that even on a "one strike" policy, the team as a whole erred on the side of lenience for a while with this user even when individual moderators thought that a post could be actionable. I know this isn't as good as providing "evidence" of wrongdoing, but I hope it counts for something - the fact that we DO discuss these cases and we do generally have differing opinions, that we as a whole try to pass cases off to other mods when we feel we may be biased, etc. That's about the best I can offer in this case.



What follows is the crux of the statement IMO - that it was deliberate non-compliance or disregard for what was told to that user, who had a lengthy moderation history going into all of this mess. That is entirely their choice, but that does not free them from the consequences. If there were issues with the merit of that decision/status, then those could and should have been discussed - not directly violated like in the stoner at the cop station analogy.



No problem.
You've been very helpful with your explanation. It's given me some things to think about. I still don't 100% agree with the ban, but I much better see where you're coming from now. You made some good points.
 
Saudade

Saudade

The Blackpill Marches On!
-
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
2,487
Can't you mods give @Eskimocel a second chance? The forum is not the same without him :feelsbadman:
 
ScornedStoic

ScornedStoic

The Ghost of Christmas Past
-
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
10,710
whatever. "This forum provides a safe place for incels to talk to others who are going through the same challenges."
That has nothing to do with the slavpill being bullshit
 
SergeantIncel

SergeantIncel

Admin
-
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
2,014
Serge, please permaban this fucker. He's a complete shitposter. Adds no value to any conversation.
I mentioned later that he requested a ban after he was given the warning.
 
T

tooth monster

monstre des dents
-
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Messages
3,611
-complains about people naming the jew
-complains about intolerance to fags and their prolapsed anuses
-complains about sensible solutions to female hypergamy

No I'd say I hit the nail on the head.
He's a jew.

@Ibuprofen 600mg ??
 
AlexanderTheGreat11

AlexanderTheGreat11

youngcel
-
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Messages
5,471
Oh thanks , I didn't saw his comment
 
FinnCel

FinnCel

Alcoholcel
-
Joined
Dec 13, 2018
Messages
16,815
WTF DID YOU DID TO MY BRO @IamJacksBrokenHeart :cryfeels: :cryfeels: :cryfeels: :cryfeels: :cryfeels: :cryfeels:
 
Top