a specific complaint

So guys, unless you have a specific complaint, please do not start threads on this board.

Catch ya next meta discussion.

― as strikingly artificial and perfect as a wizard's cap (HI DERE), Tuesday, October 13, 2009 2:17 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I have a specific complaint, and I'm only starting a thread about because any thread on this board that it could have been posted to has been locked:

Isn't the Moderator Request Forum for specific mod-related complaints? Do people have to have a specific protest that fits a certain type to start a thread on I Must Protest? Just asking for future reference, but please don't give a snappy answer and immediately lock it until I or other people have had the chance to ask follow-up questions. Or y'know, do what you always do, it's not like you can't, I'm just asking for some clarity for once.

mod request is basically for stuff like title changes and WAU IMAGE IS HUEG or whatever, basic functional stuff. the thoughts behind making IMP were so the MRF didnt get cluttered up with all of the larger policy debate stuff that happens all the time on ilx.

not intended as a full on answer for you, but hey its a start.

yeah...I understand IMP is kind of designed as a catch-all for spillover, so it just seems odd to me that it would end up looking as controlled and narrowly defined as what it was made to be an alternative to.

some dude, the thread you quoted wasn't a specific complaint thread, it was just a lame parody thread, definitely not something for IMP. Not sure what your specific complaint is.

My way of thinking about things around here: in ILX Junior High School, Mod Req is janitorial and IMP is principals, assistant principals and school superintendants.

noize is detention

I think John has it correct; meta-discussions and policy questions are supposed to be over here while direct requests for moderator action are in MRF. The threads that were locked yesterday had run their course; a separate discussion about policy concerns can be started but it is really unnecessary to have a running "poster [x] got banned" thread, particularly when the people posting to it are all the same people posting to the "most of the admin log" thread on 77.

some dude, the thread you quoted wasn't a specific complaint thread, it was just a lame parody thread, definitely not something for IMP. Not sure what your specific complaint is.

it may have technically been a "lame parody thread" but it was started because the original thread, which had been considered valid enough to exist for 3 months, had been locked, which was in large part the origin of my complaint.

saying a thread had run its course when you said "enough of this" and locked it 2 minutes after someone else had posted is pretty disingenuous. even if you think after a point people were just using it for pointless meta posting, isn't it better to have it on this, a public board, than on 77?

actually pointless meta posting is pretty much a no go on any board. in a lot of ways you're just emphasizing why the best of the admin log thread is prob within a fingernail of getting locked as well.

you should probably make the moderator log inaccessible to users then

except for the part where that doesn't make any sense - got no problem with people wanting to list all the admin actions on a thread (although uh yawn boring, but to each their own), but dissecting the situations and the posters involved and sleuthing what they done to get got is kind of the def of meta crap

so uh we can talk about the fact that someone got banned but can't talk about why?

sorry that sounds snarky--just seems like a fine line and i want to understand where it lies.

it is a fine line, and it isn't necc something that is easy to demarcate (similar to the dont be a dick rule that gets bandied about every so often). id say there were def some times where that thread has veered into oncoming traffic when it comes to pointless meta circlejerking, but since pretty much everybody who gets in dust ups with mod policy is on 77, i tend to turn a blind eye. mostly i was just responding to some dude stating things in a way that implied that dan was somehow endorsing "most of the admin log" in preference to the IMP thread (which i dont think was his intention) and trying to clarify why i didnt see what bnw was getting at.

in a lot of ways you're just emphasizing why the best of the admin log thread is prob within a fingernail of getting locked as well.

I don't care about that, if you locked it I'd understand. A lot more than I understand most of the locks on this board, anyway.

"most of the locks"? How many threads on this board do you think have been locked?

I meant specifically the recent locks on IMP

One was a moderation request; a change was made to handle the autoplaying Youtubes.

The other two have been discussed here.

That's really all there is to it from my end.

jeez sorry i said "most" istead of "two out of three," boy is my face red that you caught me being so very unclear

I don't really know why you are getting touchy about this so I'm withdrawing from the conversation; all I was trying to do is point out that there isn't some draconian thread-locking policy on this board.

In other words, Dan will now be taking a Threadlock Holiday.

fwiw I posted on the whole "Missin U" thread like once 400 posts ago and barely read a lot of it so it's not like i have a personal investment in it -- it just seemed like a lock after that long at kind of an arbitrary point was really unnecessary, and things like that going unremarked upon the first time seems to set a precedent where it makes it very easy for mods to say "this is what we do, where have you been?" when it becomes a bigger issue later.

I asked about the Youtube vids autoplay disable on this board purely because I didn't think it was for the Moderators, but for the people who actually have access to the coding.

from the 'most of the admin log' thread in question (one of the few in question)-

is there a feeling that there's been a lot of meta snark lately matt? (from your comment above). i know there's been the usual shenanigans regarding the SB's, but isn't that par for the course?

― Brewer's Bitch (darraghmac), 14 October 2009 09:27 (2 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Not compared to 18 months or so ago, no way - there's a couple of threads (chiefly Posts Very Much In Character) that are getting into dodgy territory and maybe people are forgetting what is and isn't cool round here. Generally I think it's okay though.

― Matt DC, 14 October 2009 09:40 (2 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i don't think that 'meta' is a problem anywhere on the site anymore, particularly, as matt says, compared to a year ago. talking about sb's, sb'd posters and all that is very tiresome, i'm sure, but really i don't think mods even needed to respond to anything on the locked 'missing u <3 sb' thread anymore, as all of the relevant information is out there.

locking it seemed strange, kinda like it came out of nowhere, and again particularly with reference to where ILX was not too long back.

i mean, w/ever though, really. unban LJ.

I bumped into LJ and the M0unt4in G0ats gig on Saturday and he seemed to be taking his ban in good cheer and enjoying his time not-on-ILX. I told him we'd see him in a month.

huh, didn't know you guys were there!

well he wasn't going to tell you matt, was he. were you armed at the time?

LJ and the M0unt4in G0ats

ok, whA?

m zero unt foreign g zero ats. hot new band in london town, innit.

Wtf did Kate do to get suggest banned? Are we really gonna do this until every ILX regular with a noticeable personality gets SBed? Should the board be ruled by blandness?

http://991.com/newgallery/Aretha-Franklin-Here-We-Go-119295.jpg

hasn't it been established already that mods won't reveal what post(s) led to suggest bans?

I'll answer your questions in order Tuomas:

1. She made posts that annoyed/angered/offended 51 different ILXors.
2. This shows a sort of willful decision to ignore various aspects other than "noticable personalities" that all the SBed people have had.
3. This is really pretty elitist and insulting.

Tuomas - is that a rhetorical question, or is it meant to be answered by anyone who sb-ed Kate?

1. She made posts that annoyed/angered/offended 51 different ILXors.

why is 51 the magic number?

*sigh*

1. She made posts that annoyed/angered/offended 51 different ILXors.
2. This shows a sort of willful decision to ignore various aspects other than "noticable personalities" that all the SBed people have had.
3. This is really pretty elitist and insulting.

I get point 1, but the leap from that to point 2 is not obvious. If the posts that got someone SBed are never revealed (not even to the poster herself), no one will ever know what exactly made the 51 people annoyed: some assholish behaviour or annoying but ultimately harmless personality trait? The poster won't find out what exactly is "wrong" with him, and hence might not change his ways when he returns. So what was the point of this whole system again?

to drive you batshit

funny display names?

1. She made posts that annoyed/angered/offended 51 different ILXors.

^Presumption! Maybe 10 of those people just hate britishes. I know I do.

Yeah but those posts offended ILXors by being made by a British person.

tuomas, given that more mod hours have been spent explaining what's wrong with your first question than any other activity this past year, it's gotta be pretty vexing for them that you chosen to open with it.

Good god. Tuomas, you and all the other people who keep getting sb'ed know exactly what about you is so infuriating at this point. Stop faking.

tuomas, please i entreat you chill out about this, you are appreciated in these quarters and it would hurt me to see you SB'd again, also if you and kate were gone at once i'd have to volunteer myself for ILTMI adminship and who knows how that might turn out

You're being a giant babby.

Sorry, xp in this case.

xxp - roxy is still an ILTMI mod

I honestly don't know what was so infuriating about Kate that she got SBed. If it's so obvious, maybe someone can tell me?

Good god. Tuomas, you and all the other people who keep getting sb'ed know exactly what about you is so infuriating at this point. Stop faking.

― WHY DON'T YOU JUST LICK THE BUS DIRECTLY (Laurel), Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:25 PM (54 seconds ago) Bookmark

I really hope this is true because if Tuomas really doesn't get it at this point then I just . . . I don't even know.

51 people can tell you. the mods can't.

I promised myself I'd never do it again.

So you are sincerely asking people - presumably those that sb-ed her - why they did so?

Tuomas are you trying to turn this into a bash Kate thread? Why would you ask ppl to blatantly state what they don't like about someone?

x-post hahahaha exactly

it is the finnish way

I'm pretty sure I didn't SB kate, but I'll bet that most of kate's sbs were for the Pitchfork thread.

I never sb-ed Kate, but then I only sb people for over the top personal attacks on other posters or for being boring sockpuppet trolls.

a bowel-wrenching cry echoes across the darkling taiga

WHY U BAN K8

No, but Laurel was implying that it's somehow obvious why everyone who got suggest banned got 51 SBs. I can see why it happened to myself or Cankles, but with Kate and some other posters I have no idea.

(xxx-post)

i vote for mods locking a thread each time tuomas starts whining about SB's--just a suggestion

do you think ilx is some kind of democracy, Senor What?

What?

i wonder how many suggest bans tuomas racks up on threads discussing suggest bans

kate was hated by a lot of posters, many of them british. personally i didn't really have anything against her and am saddened by this because for all the ranty handwringing she is passionate about music and often brings good content to ilx, also her recent genderfuck WDYLL pic is truly one for the ages

tuomas doesn't do himself any favours, even if inwardly i applaud his anti-ban zeal

Laurel was implying

Pretty sure I didn't imply anything.

I am anti-SB but Tumoas you make me want to rip out my eyeballs every time I see you posting on one of these SB threads. At this point it's obv that the system isn't going to change so why even bother? Don't you find it exhausting?

keep fighting the good fight tuomas

suggest ban sucks

lol who is masonic boom?

sum british chick i guess? is this an ilm thing?

<3 Laurel

Tuomas, I think a lot of her SBs were for aggressive flame-outs at people - and I'm speaking as someone who gets on with Kate but she has been involved in a lot of pretty ugly fights here over the years, the rights and wrongs of which aren't really to be debated here. I like Kate a lot but I think even she'd admit she has an aggressive side.

The timing of this is really unfortunate given that Kate's actually been really quiet and a fun poster of late. It's a similar situation to Louis, she'd been sitting in the high 40s for a long time without accumulating any further SBs, and then it only took a couple to push her over the edge. I doubt she'll be treated any differently from the way LJ was.

You may now return to your 300-post clusterfuck of wilful misreading and stirring.

the system can change enbb dont lose heart - nothing will ever be right around here til my powers of sb count 10x

I liked her Sea Arches thread from yesterday.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/Images/candlelight-vigil.jpg

30 days, ppl

i wonder how many suggest bans tuomas racks up on threads discussing suggest bans

probably more than I did when I was being more annoying about the same topic!!

do mods keep suggest bans for things like posting about pubic hair on ILTMI, or are those suggest bans removed because it's ILTMI? not that anyone suggest banned kate for that, it was just something I was curious about; half the time when I read ILTMI threads I'm like "wtf, this is just begging for a suggest ban. oh wait, we were warned that this was TMI."

you know guys the important thing is that we all rally together to sb the multiplying faux naive style over posters what have flourished in this nu era of ilx niceness

lol Joe

Tuomas, I think a lot of her SBs were for aggressive flame-outs at people - and I'm speaking as someone who gets on with Kate but she has been involved in a lot of pretty ugly fights here over the years, the rights and wrongs of which aren't really to be debated here.

I know that, but as far as I know most of those fights took place long before the SB system was installed. That's why I'm baffled that she was banned now, when it looks like she hasn't been that aggressive for quite a while.

look when kate returns it will be as ilx's xmas present, think of it that way

xp - yeah, I hadn't noticed her post anything remotely aggravating in the past few weeks or so.

keep fighting the good fight tuomas

suggest ban sucks

― max, Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:36 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

^^^OTM, nobody is forcing you to click on the thread

u can sb people for old posts is one kink in the sb system

what's wrong with faux naivety? I don't know?

hey what do you know, tuomas is baffled by something

i know when im felled by the will of the tards im coming back w/an all new usrname

wait, what does icey mean?

do mods keep suggest bans for things like posting about pubic hair on ILTMI, or are those suggest bans removed because it's ILTMI? not that anyone suggest banned kate for that, it was just something I was curious about; half the time when I read ILTMI threads I'm like "wtf, this is just begging for a suggest ban. oh wait, we were warned that this was TMI."

Good question. I think it's a bit suspicious that Kate got SBed soon after starting a pubic hair discussion on ILTMI. If she was SBed for that, then it's just plain wrong. But I guess we'll never know.

is the will of the tards a reference to swine flu?

you know guys the important thing is that we all rally together to sb the multiplying faux naive style over posters what have flourished in this nu era of ilx niceness

ppl shld do this imo still dont really no who this poster was tho who got sb'd

I'm gonna sb Lamp for posting from a teenager's cell phone in a second.

suggest banned Lamp for his faux naive style

another way of dealing w/the nu faux naive contingent is just to be mean - i never really trucked w/that but im starting to realize these posters such as chaki and tombot... they had a purpose

Here here

Miss the hell out of Tombot.

yep,joe otm

The poster won't find out what exactly is "wrong" with him, and hence might not change his ways when he returns.

lol

Don't you find it exhausting?

megalol!

51 / 4435 = 1.1%

yeah yeah tell it to max baucus, d-mt

xp ice cr?m: who are you referring to when you speak of this new faux naive contingent?

just u know people who ask questions abt every lil damn thing

like what? do you have an example?

its ok ilx will proscribe them a 3year course of abuse and bans and they will come out unscathed but for a weird/shitty username ~_~

LOL! <3 Mr Que

lol im sayin louis if you showed up here today w/yr original shtick everyone would just shrug

another way of dealing w/the nu faux naive contingent is just to be mean - i never really trucked w/that but im starting to realize these posters such as chaki and tombot... they had a purpose

― ice cr?m, Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:48 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

the sad thing is, u begin to see there is only one destination--either u are so mean that u end up flaming out and getting banned or leaving--or u are so annoyed u phase urself out--either way, ur done w/ ilx

r*i*p

I know that, but as far as I know most of those fights took place long before the SB system was installed. That's why I'm baffled that she was banned now, when it looks like she hasn't been that aggressive for quite a while.

I'm pretty sure I didn't SB kate, but I'll bet that most of kate's sbs were for the Pitchfork thread.

― kingkongvsgodzilla, Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:30 AM (28 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^

joe ice is right no1 really gets abused on ilx just maybe sb'd or whiney yells @ them

in a way, we are all crazy customers, ilx is the store, and IMP is the complaints department

suggest ban doesnt even seem that mean or exclusive anymore really more like temp parole

btw seriously people DON'T SB TUOMAS because the 80's thread is actually shaping up quite nicely

xp when are our overlords going to realise that life means life

its funny to think tombot was originally elevated to mod status cause he served kate in manner teh britishes couldnt bring themselves to

(plus, you shouldn't SB him anyway, he is great)

Wtf did Kate do to get suggest banned? Are we really gonna do this until every ILX regular with a noticeable personality gets SBed? Should the board be ruled by blandness?

― Tuomas, Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:02 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

pretty much touman is otm abt this

kate didnt get any sbs from the pubic hair thread manyxpost to tuomas

pretty soon sb's will be like an asbo, or the time you have to serve to get in with the mafia. everyone will want one.

nah every poster who has been SB'd so far has been totally bland (i.e. predictable)

in the sense that they could be replaced by a robot programmed to post the same 20 phrases ad nauseum

2 b fair u kinda h8 every1

itt: tuomas shocked, n/a jaded

http://rlv.zcache.com/im_getting_too_old_for_this_shit_mug-p1685143786413166582oqjw_210.jpg

must add to chorus--icey brutally otm in here.

this thread title sounds like a john grisham book

TBH I was suprised it took this long - not that it happened. And I say that as someone who hasnt SB her and wouldnt, but I can see why some of her posting style would infuritate people, and I'm completely flummoxed that Tuomas is insisting this isnt obvious.

and we've discussed it before on other threads - but perhaps Kate's banning seems incredible to Tuomas because there is definitely a disparity in people's thresholds for what constitutes a suggest-bannable offense.

it's fairly well covered that tuomas doesn't believe that any behaviour merits a suggest ban, which is fair enough from his point of view. it's his refusal to accept the inevitable results of other people feeling differently that's the killer.

That's When I Reach for My SB Button

We had an entire thread on this subject Sarahel. It was pretty constructive.

Matt DC - that's the thread I was referring to when I said that we had discussed this on other threads.

It was a very constructive thread, agreed.

in the sense that they could be replaced by a robot programmed to post the same 20 phrases ad nauseum

― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 05:13 (4 hours ago)

this is v true but could probably be said about many posters tbh

some phrases are more bearable than others

Fucking hell.

That's actually a very good post by Kate. Even if you disagree with her points it's worth to consider that this what people who have been part of this community for years may feel like when they're suddenly SBed. Also, this particular comment by her:

A suggest ban comes without warning, after 51 people have clicked that button. There's NOTHING in the system to say "you're getting close." There's no explanation of WHY you have been banned. Just a blank screen, saying "you have been barred."

If it's supposed to act as a punishment or deterrent, shouldn't it refer the person being punished to some reason *why* they are being punished? If it was a particular post or exchange that triggered the ban, wouldn't it be helpful to tell the person which one it was, rather than leave them hanging in the dark? The refusal to share this information seems perverse at best.

...it totally OTM. Even if mods/admins don't want to get rid of Suggest Bans, they should at least think about how to adress these issues.

The thing that's the most upsetting to me about it - is that there are people here who have serious mental health issues, like Kate, and that, in theory, it's no big thing to be given a 30 day time out, it's just a message board. But for someone who sees it as a lot more than that - as a form of emotional/social support network - which it seems to function as for her, I can understand how she can feel the way she does about being suggest banned and how she can paste all those other implications onto it.

I would feel horrible, as I imagine many other people would, if she were to engage in self-harm because of an ilx suggest ban, even though I had no role in it.

Tuomas, it is hard to sum up and identify a why when it comes to suggest bans tho. obv im not going to get into specifics w/r/t any particular posters, but some running themes (in order to be v v careful about not making kate or any poster feel like i am attacking them, i am going to reemphasise that these are not user specific):

1. insults/personal abuse (the more over the top, the more this contributes)
2. NSFWing a thread intentionally
3. argumentation styles that seem to be built on belittling the importance of others opinions
4. racist/sexist/etc.

the problem here is that #1 and #3 (and to a lesser extent 2 and 4) are very much in the eye of the beholder. also, the post that catches the SB often seems to be just the first instance of the users name that shows up - i see who sbs what posts and when - in other words call it a slow burn reaction, but a lot of the SBS will be in a concentrated period of time and probably more of a "oh hey that person was a real jerk on that thread i was reading and im still pissed about it" thing.

btw the number one SB garnering behavior is #1. in other words, if you go after someone all teeth and claws out of the blue, yer going to get SBed a bunch of times, often by people who rarely use the system. and honestly, im kind of ok with that.

xpost

haha I like this psychological sb breakdown

'a look inside the disturbed mind of a suggest banner'

Very true. The idea that a Suggest Ban is "just a cooling-off period" may be true to some people, but for others it might be a totally different experience. It wasn't particularly tough for me, but I wouldn't want to underestimate how it might feel for people for whom ILX is an essential part of their social life.

Also, Kate's points about paranoia should be taken into serious consideration. In the old system, when you got banned, at least you knew why you were banned. So it actually worked better as a "we punish you so you may learn" type of thing than a Suggest Ban, whe're you're left to ponder by yourself what exactly were your supposed transgressions and who were the people who dislike you enough to click SB. I can understand why that might raise some paranoid thoghts, and no way do I see it as beneficial to either ILX or the banned poster.

(x-post to Sarahel)

Other people started getting banned - not people who were particularly vicious or nasty, but simply posters who had "large" personalities

http://staynalive.com/files/2009/11/Kool-AidMan.jpeg

Tuomas, it is hard to sum up and identify a why when it comes to suggest bans tho.

Would it be impossible, when a person gets SBed, to email him/her a list of his posts that made people click SB? If a Suggest Ban is supposed to make you learn and maybe correct your ways, wouldn't that be an obvious way to help the banned person understand what he/she did wrong?

An early warning system is definitely something we've been talking about, but it'll take work. Can't just yellow card, because that'd show up in the admin log.

Giving a reason for the banning is harder to do. It's not always obvious why people have clicked SB, and there'd be a lot of judgement call involved. It also seems like in the majority of cases people know what's done it, or must have an inkling. Posters don't keep their problems with people quiet here, exactly.

Whiney - do you have a private competition w/KBP going for whom can appear to be the most callous about this?

i don't think that was being callous, it was making a joke about myself.

I sincerely hope masonic is doing ok.

xp If Y, can I join it?

people for whom ILX is an essential part of their social life.

anyone in this situation probably needs more than just a 30 day break

I am against the system fwiw and I think it's retarded but the amount of time and energy we have spent talking about what ends up now just being...a 30 day break from ilx? can't we argue about polls again?

sorry to accuse you Whiney.

maybe we should just hug it out.

hey guys we can talk about this, but i am 100% not comfortable with discussing someones specific mental health situation when they are unable to post, so please try to steer towards the general. Kate has every right to freely talk about her own feelings, but that is her choice, and its unfair for other people to step in and interpret them imo.

bunch o xposts

xpost :)

She DID put them on the internet, jj. I'm not saying I want to be all up in her mental health either, but she published.

hey guys we can talk about this, but i am 100% not comfortable with discussing someones specific mental health situation

when they are unable to post

FUCK, i meant that as a strikethrough

hey guys we can talk about this, but i am 100% not comfortable with discussing someones specific mental health situation when they are unable to post somewhere besides 77 borad

Sorry, Jjjusten, should've read your post better. Still, I think you're making bit of an assumption here:

also, the post that catches the SB often seems to be just the first instance of the users name that shows up - i see who sbs what posts and when - in other words call it a slow burn reaction, but a lot of the SBS will be in a concentrated period of time and probably more of a "oh hey that person was a real jerk on that thread i was reading and im still pissed about it" thing.

How do you know this how the people who click SB think? Maybe they just don't like the person in general, not necessarily for him being a jerk to them, so they click SB on a random message?

(xxx-post)

I only brought it up in the context of the blog post where she talks about it in relation to the sb. Obviously, she's discussed her mental health issues elsewhere on ilx, but since she's not able to respond, it probably isn't a good idea to discuss that without her input.

Kate's s-banning bothers me a lot, as did Tuomas' and Morbius' and gabbneb's...actually, I don't think any of the sbs have been for the best---for me, at least, and I get that others disagree. I dunno, maybe the old clusterfucky "ban XXX" threads were better, because at least they were public. Whatever nasty things were said on those threads, when you're sb'd you're still publicly shamed. I can see why the mods want to avoid having to decide who's a good poster and who's not, and that sb's are supposed to be a way of letting "the people" decide those things. But I think, for a place where your public identity, what you post, is all there is, it would be best to talk these things out, rather than have it be private and easy.

It is sort of Sarah Palin to be all "LOOK AT ME AND MY BAYBEEEE AND MY BEAUTIFUL PREGNANT CHILDREN/HOW DARE YOU REFER TO MY BABY/PREGNANT CHILDREN IN PRINT?"

I don't know whether Kate would have a problem, jjusten's saying that he has a problem with it.

i'd imagine she'll be thrilled that anyone cared enough to discuss it

Well exactly.

except for the woman-hating facists who want her silenced, i mean

I have an idea to actually lower the number of posts required for an sbann. That way, the behavior is more directly correlated with the time out. As i recall, 51 was the number arrived at when an SB meant banishment from the site forever. Now that it is more of a 30 day timeout to reassess your posting style, maybe it should be a smaller # sp shit you did in the past doesn't catch.up with you as easily. I dunno. Just an idea.

I take jjusten's comment as a warning that if we veer into that territory, this thread will be locked and end this discussion.

it's only a matter of time

should keep it open until momus can weigh in

I'm just starting to feel self-conscious about how many threads I end up being the last poster to that get locked, and having been banned before for being "too meta" I'm trying to be conscientious about not doing that again.

kiu

when an SB meant banishment from the site forever. Now that it is more of a 30 day timeout to reassess your posting style
It does still mean this fwiw, it just people need to have a chance or two before it's permanent. If people keep getting SBd and come back with more of the same, it's going to get permanent for them.

i personally invite this "thread lock" because we're going to accomplish fuck all talking about this.

Kate, I hope you're reading this before they lock it. Four important points from someone who was SB'd too.

• 30 days is not a long time.
• It's not really a big deal.
• Most people just click SB because its funny not because they hate you.
• See u in 29.

I mean, shit, J0rdan's probably gonna get SB'd soon, and everyone love J0rdan!

If people keep getting SBd and come back with more of the same, it's going to get permanent for them.

or until Louis comes back with a new screen name, which I always have trouble getting adjusted to

it's like an unexpected christmas when i come home in the afternoon, open the comp, and get to feast on a 150+ post suggest ban analyze buffet

Most people just click SB because its funny not because they hate you.

yeah riiiight

yall i'm goin down so soon - i'm gonna miss ilx over xmas - my favorite time of ilx - but such is life

xp - sb'd u for that

:-)

dont go gently into that good night etc

can't believe jordan is gone

if we all sb jordan today then he can rise again on christmas day, just like our lord & saviour senor jesus christ

do it do it

J3sus C.

rip

i took a month off recently and it was fine btw

also proxy + sock ?

that's assuming that a mod would have nothing else better to do than unban people on Christmas.

http://www.brycewalters.com/mobi/photos/Bryce-Tiny-Tim.jpg

that r his unbanning could be a "christmas miracle"

jokes tho, plz don't sb j0rdan

ehnh - I'm just still slightly bummed that LJ didn't get to return on my birthday.

J51dan

that doesn't work

sb'd u for that

Giving a reason for the banning is harder to do. It's not always obvious why people have clicked SB, and there'd be a lot of judgement call involved. It also seems like in the majority of cases people know what's done it, or must have an inkling. Posters don't keep their problems with people quiet here, exactly.

― stet, Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:20 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark

So we can rest assured all 51 sb's against kate were carefully vetted and aligned with posts the mods confirmed were objectionable and disruptive to the board. Sounds like a lot trouble vs having mods you know moderate.

MERRY SBs TO ALL, AND TO ALL A GOOD BAN

Twelve cankles swearing, eleven Jaggers jackin...

fiiiive deeeeez nuuuuts

i was in canada this weekend and was like "What's French Snoop Dogg's favorite number? Diiiiix neeeeeeuuuffff"

worth noting that according to kates blog she liked the sb system when it bannd people she agreed were deserving

don't blame the player

Blogging about a message board is to meta for me to wrap my brain around

fiiiive deeeeez nuuuuts

― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:57 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

looool

ten Whineys Whining
nine gabbnebs gabbing
eight Morbz a milking
seven heaves a ho-ing

pretty sure there's just 1 whiney whinin

and what in a pear tree

I take jjusten's comment as a warning that if we veer into that territory, this thread will be locked and end this discussion.

― sarahel, Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:29 PM (35 minutes ago)

yeah see actually it was just basically meant as "hey guys please dont be dicks" but hey, whatever.

thanks tho for keeping that discussion on track

wouldn't composing The 12 Days of Suggest Ban be a more productive activity?

and a pato in a pear tree

the 51 days of christmas

Blogging about a message board is to meta for me to wrap my brain around

― and Susan Gucci as Erica Mane (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, November 25, 2009 5:01 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

kinda appreciated how she just launched into it like it was a totally ordinary topic - intense post def

xxp - i prefer "and what in a pear tree" tbh

so sarahel, the next time you ask for a clarification on a mod policy, im just going to tell you that the question was answered but you probably missed it because you were to busy making up christmas songs about sbs

intense post def

Yeah seriously. I think it's made real evident that people get different things out of this board.

When I got SB'd my reaction was "Well, that's annoying."

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a98/CharRob/JoeCool.jpg

xp - maybe you should suggest that Tuomas makes up christmas songs about sbs rather than asking for clarification on a mod policy that's been clarified in about a dozen threads already. But I'm not a mod, so maybe you have better advice as far as that's concerned.

see ya j0rdan

D:

ok this really has gone too far now

i mean whos next? max? ME?

a: yes, prob in that order

lol

tbf now i wish id known who that chick was so i couldve sb'd her

peace out j0rdan 420 kill a hippie everyday

this has gone too lol

he was just here posting 55mins ago ;_;

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj122/DiegoM88/0500_eazy_e_a.jpg

oh jesus christ

oh ok jordan rip actually, this sucks, esp after my impassioned appeal

wouldn't composing The 12 Days of Suggest Ban be a more productive activity?

more like the 120 days

120 days of sbdom

I've always liked Kate and even when she's gotten really facepalm.jpg I've never SBed her b/c overall I think she adds a lot to ILM, but I totally woulda SBed that blog post.

XXXXXXpost bc of internet conx. - Looks like it'll be a very Sargent Xmas!

Things turned ugly around the end of July/beginning of August. A long-term ILX poster - Mark Craig, aka Bimble - committed suicide, while under a Suggest Ban. I was in contact with him via email through the whole period leading up to, and after his banning, up to a few days before his death. I was well aware of the other issues he was facing in his life, both emotional and physical, during the lead-up to this devastating decision, and despite the allegations of a former ILX0r with an obvious axe to grind, AT THE TIME, I honestly believed that the Suggest Ban had little or nothing to do with his death. If anything, he seemed happier, more engaged with life, without the constant drag of negativity that others' reactions to his particularly ebullient posting style and sexuality.

Now I've actually been dealt a suggest ban myself, and am dealing with the emotional fallout of it, I'm not so sure.

Oh FFS. This is really really not on, as much so as Momus's post on that issue. I'd say more but I'd frankly be too damn rude.

yah i gotta say accusing the mods of assisting in bimble's suicide is a bit much

J3sus C.

― max, Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:43 PM (1 hour ago)

looool i texted j this exact thing, did not see u beat me to it

suffering from severe mental health issues is a horrible thing for anyone to have to go through, but there is an aspect of responsibility that ppl need to address if they're in this situation: MB talks about how she's been part of the ilx community for 9yrs, but from what i can gather it's been a pretty tumultuous 9yrs, and it has always been her choice to keep participating. it's not like 2 days ago she got the shock of her life that ppl here aren't all sunshine and roses.

if participating on a msg board can impact your life to the extent that you feel suicidal, then i really think you need to stop participating. several thousand ppl posting to a msg board just cannot be expected to be responsible for the mental well-being of one particular poster.

the real issue - imo - is not suggestban or ppl being mean or personality issues, it's just doing what's best for your own mental health, and if that means not posting here, then don't. this is not THE WHOLE INTERNET - there are plenty of other ways to communicate with the friends you make here, ilx isn't the be-all-and-end-all (as my mum would say).

100% OTM

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l171/sicklesdawg/33cqarojpg.gif

xp Justin3 and darraghmac: the thing for me is just being a party to something where the person might not make the best choices for their mental health. I mean, it's not like we're responsible - the choice rests with the person with the issues - and I'm talking in general, not specifically about Kate - but it's hard not to feel somewhat complicit.

"if participating on a msg board can impact your life to the extent that you feel suicidal, then i really think you need to stop participating."

i think her point in that paragraph was that although it doesn't seem like an sb should be such a heavy trip, when it's you, it hurts way more than you would have guessed. if you read that as "ILM MODS ASSIST IN BOARDER SUICIDE" i think that is "a bit much."

that said, i usually enjoyed reading her pov, hope she comes back.

also, i see i conflated two different posts there. sorry to misrepresent your positions, deej and just1n3.

to clarify then:

deej, i dont read her comment quite the same way you did.

just1n3, i think her point was that people, mentally ill included, might not foresee how severely an sb could affect them.

honestly i'm just sorta shocked to hear about bimble, that's really terrible news

but part of my point is that she's been here long enough to know what effect this board, and its ppl, have on her. she has accused ilx and it many of its members of being malicious etc many times before. it's not like any of this has come out of the blue. she's also left for extended periods before.

youre a hard woman beth, whatever her issues she clearly found real solace and comfort in ilx and for someone to lose that for no good reason is fucking shitty.

"no good reason" = the whole problem with these clusterfucks. i get that for x number of posters, these people are banned for "no good reason". the problem is that for a whole bunch (uh 51 to be specific) of other posters, there is plenty of good reason for them to be banned. its fine to say that you disagree with them, but reducing it to no good reason just means that you think that their opinions/feelings/etc dont matter.

very noble John I just have a slightly less optimistic view of human nature/group dynamics!

exactly! how many of these 51 posters are just hitting the button for the lols? as a typical dick move? 100%? prob not. 0%? prob not.

i can't imagine clicking it with anything less than complete seriousness

is that sarcasm or...

If the guiding policy of ilx is "don't be a dick", how do you control for dicks dickishly hitting the SB button?

you get 1 sb for every sb you give.

ouroboros.jpg

totally agree with just1n3, i have major issues with the abdication of responsibility thing personally but to get into that would just be a needless mess.

initially with SB i didn't know if it was really gonna start affecting people i thought would be vulnerable to it but in time pretty much all of them have racked up 51 (the idea is that over a long enough period most regular posters would, but over a long enough period of time a single month is fuck all so for me it was never a problem). tbh this was re-assuring to me that i've generally not been unreasonable wrt the people i think go too far (not in 'being a dick' but by 'being annoying') on the board in different ways. seems its as difficult for some of us to understand the outrage and hurt over most s-bans as it is for others to understand how they could've occurred.

over a long enough period most regular posters would, but over a long enough period of time a single month is fuck all

never considered it like that but fair point.

(although from the other perspective probably doesn't seem like that tbf)

yes, also it would be silly if s-bans given 3 years ago or whatever were to still count against someone (obv s-ban hasn't been in place that long).

I thought someone did say that they expired after a certain period of time.

not sure that has ever been addressed, tbh- can't remember seeing a specific time mentioned.

don't think the expiration is automatic but I'm sure I've read a mod mention about spending some time manually erasing old sbs.

Could be wrong tho.

Six months.

The six-month expiration of SBs hasn't come into force yet, for the simple reason that we couldn't actually timestamp SBs until five months ago, so it would introduce as many inaccuracies at is solved. A couple of months down the line it should be easier to tell.

I've got an email from Kate saying she's uncomfortable with this discussion going on here without her being able to contribute to it, which is fair enough, so I'm going to lock this thread now. If people want to continue talking about SBs in the abstract then fine* but any further Kate-centric threads will be either locked or deleted. I think we've covered all we can here without things drifting into either unfounded speculation or bitching.

*Although it's still very tiresome.