Discussion thread for possible FP/moderation changes to ILX

there are no accidents. this is all pre-ordained.

you fuckin' Cylon

This seems to be moving into lulz territory now, but prior to that, it sounds like we’re coming close to a consensus that the proposed changes are OK. We can still hold a poll as xyzzz suggested to be double sure that most posters agree with moving the FP goalposts.

― sound of scampo talk to me (El Tomboto), Saturday, 29 August 2020 bookmarkflaglink

this is obvious, but xyzzz is one of the main reasons we would like to move said goalposts

― sleeve, Saturday, 29 August 2020 bookmarkflaglink

A 'troll' who gives the odd good suggestion, it me

Proposed poll options:

- 20 FPs in 30 days = 14 day ban; 50 FPs in 6 months = 90 day ban

- 20 FPs in 30 days = 7 day ban; 50 FPs in 6 months = 90 day ban

- 20 FPs in 30 days = 14 day ban; 50 FPs in 6 months = 30 day ban

- 20 FPs in 30 days = 7 day ban; 50 FPs in 6 months = 30 day ban

- No change (51 FPs in 6 months = 30 day ban)

I'd like to propose a rider to the bill which would bring back forksclovetofu-style comedy modding.

i will support "peace, man" if I can get board mod privileges for ILAFL

I guess I will chime in with my thoughts, fwiw.

Due to the contraction in the number of active participants and slow changes to the character of ILX over the past six or eight years, I'd be fine with alterations to the FP/moderation which lowered the 51 threshold and introduced some well-defined intermediate steps based on warnings and temp bans prior to permabanning. This sounds reasonable to me. Whatever we decide, we still need to be sparing with the ILX equivalent of the death penalty.

As for attempts to convert ILX into a safe space where anyone may enter secure in the knowledge that one will encounter no disturbing instances of racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, bullying, ad hominem attacks, or other similar ugliness, I think that any mechanism capable of ensuring such safety for everyone who opens an ILX thread and reads it would require such profound alterations to ILX that ultimately it would be reduced to a one-topic board. iow, trying to perfect ILX into an ideal society, while society at large is so deeply flawed and morally chaotic will eventually purge it of all but the most fervid moralists and that fervor will continue to narrow participation down to a precious few, as more and more energy is devoted to the finer points of who and how to conduct the purges, and everyone else loses interest and leaves.

Aimless, that strikes me as a rare instance of you being not OTM. The degree to which the community is moving in that direction is the degree to which the community is choosing to move itself in that direction. I think there's still plenty of room for people to slip up and misstep and misspeak even while, as a nebulous whole, we seem to be saying that it's not okay to intentionally overstep certain boundaries for the sake of provocation (or worse). And the mods are all fairly level-headed long-time ILXors who have avoided corruption from the great + heady powers they wield. Enough people have recently commented upon ILX as an oasis of sanity that I'm inclined to think we're on the right track and disinclined to worry about who we might lose because eg they can't sling transphobic pejoratives with impunity.

I think there's still plenty of room for people to slip up and misstep and misspeak even while, as a nebulous whole, we seem to be saying that it's not okay to intentionally overstep certain boundaries for the sake of provocation (or worse).

I agree that this is so.

I was speaking mainly to desires repeatedly expressed by [redacted], whose dissatisfaction with the present state of the community has been stated and restated over a period of more than a decade, and whose apparent objection is that instances of what they define as racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, bullying, ad hominem attacks have not been wholly eradicated from ILX, causing them emotional pain. To the best I can estimate, reforming ILX to this person's standards would require ILX to conform to criteria so demanding and narrowly defined that it would perforce recreate ILX as that person's personal domain.

That sounds like an issue for the individual in question. I think it’s good that this thread exists and we can discuss how we feel about the current system, but I also think of emily’s point above. Modding this place is a voluntary thing for everyone, expectations need to reflect that.

I like those poll options.

Wow, Aimless, you have some pretty bizarre and outlandish fantasies about what you believe other people want.

I am a bizarre and outlandish kind of person, so it comes naturally.

instances of what they define as racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, bullying, ad hominem attacks have not been wholly eradicated from ILX, causing them emotional pain

I mean, this is the case for me (though I don't think that Aimless is referring to me). I hate to see this stuff, and it hurts that a community I've been part of for so long still falls into it, and more frequently than you might imagine. You're right, though, Aimless, that the insidious/covert parts of these can't be moderated in any real way without tyranny, but to me the overt instances of these *should absolutely* be moderated, and I think/hope most board members would agree with that?

agree

I also agree that overt instances are not hard to recognize and they should be dealt with summarily by mods. afaics, overt racism, misogyny, transphobia, ableism and the like are now exceedingly rare on ILX. what I see being called out in recent times are such things as insufficient deference to minority experience or opinions, or uninclusive normative language. These can be corrected, but they're going to happen and they are slips, not micro-aggressions.

Compared to overt racism or misogyny, I see far more garden-variety aggressive name-calling and bullying on ILX, on the order of calling another poster a shitbag or telling them to go fuck themselves. This comes of having such a strong tilt toward male posters and may never get fixed. I do generally FP it when I see it.

they are slips, not micro-aggressions

Unfortunately, these two things aren't mutually exclusive. What may be a slip to the person who says it or the casual viewer can be the hundredth "slip" the person who receives it has seen that week, underscoring how systematic and ingrained such bigotry is. Which is why people blow up. I totally get that, y'know, yelling about it isn't the most productive thing, but when you're faced with a monolith that to other people looks like a pebble, sometimes you just want to scream.

But yeah, moderating such situations is an absolute minefield, for definite.

underscoring how systematic and ingrained such bigotry is.

During a dust storm, you can't keep the dust from seeping into your space. however much you try to seal it out there's going to be some grit between your teeth.

Aimless it sounds like you need to familiarize yourself with the theories behind "intent vs. impact" and realize that impact is what matters

The person making a slip that causes a person to blow up doesn't have to also blow up.

Aimless it sounds like you need to familiarize yourself with the theories behind "intent vs. impact" and realize that impact is what matters

Uh, I came to this conclusion independently, without the aid of theories, based solely on observing people interacting, back in the 1970s.

The point I have been trying to develop and communicate is that even if the impact of perceived 'micro-aggressions' or any one individual's emotional pain is what is weighted as most important and then becomes the controlling factor in moderating ILX, so that those who give pain regardless of intent are soonest banned, will inevitably result in ILX being regulated according to the standards of the most vulnerable to emotional pain, most easily triggered by memories of pain inflicted outside ILX, or most likely to recognize this as a source of power over other ILXors.

In whatever way such a principle is elevated to dominance, it would quickly drive ILX moderation to reflect the pain inflicted upon whoever is the least able to bear the slightest provocation. This would not make that person guilty of some sin for being so sensitive to slight provocations. Most likely it would be because they have suffered some egregious wound. But making the impact upon that person the standard that the whole ILX community must invariably meet would certainly kill ILX.

My own conclusion is that, if the ILX community is to survive in a meaningful form, there must be a community standard that allows some measure of unintended pain to be inflicted without causing serious repercussions to the person who unwittingly causes such pain. I think ILX is doing a decent job in that regard already. I do not want the principle that when "intent vs. impact" are weighed impact is all that matters to be the guiding light for banning or ostracism. Societies do not thrive in catering exclusively to the needs of their most extreme case.

moderating such situations is an absolute minefield, for definite.

emil.y is otm.

[video of masturbating orangutan REDACTED. Thanks for your contribution, burrito - mod]

ah, right on cue.

hey, give burrito a break. it's a Saturday night, they're bored, and under the circumstances what video could be more appropriate to their situation?

Uh, I came to this conclusion independently, without the aid of theories, based solely on observing people interacting, back in the 1970s.

Wait, how are you not in your early twenties?

Poll options:

Theory Reader
Observing people interacting, back in the 1970s.
I grew up in the 80s

just want to say what an incredible job the mods do. i am blissfully unaware of their machinations 99% of the time which feels like a good hit rate for the amount of monitoring and engagement and consideration that’s actually going behind the scenes. it’s quite a privilege for the rest of us.

Seconded.

Quite right.

how are you not in your early twenties?

It is a mystery. Let me know if you find out.

hey now, we're all in early twenties right now

/dad joke

the modding is indeed very good here.

i've had bad modding experiences elsewhere.

the worst being in #metal on DalNet (IRC), where there was a group of American AOPs and Swedish AOPs who went to war and kept removing each others Op access in retaliation.

they were dark times.

I have a question:

Is the board's prevailing opinion that people should be getting banned who aren't? Are these changes being discussed because the current rules are not addressing the behavior they are meant to curtail to the satisfaction of the posters?

i thought it was the opposite (people getting banned for too long for offenses)

there's definitely an element of "people should be getting banned who aren't" - i'm not sure why else you'd drop the threshold from 51 to 30.

i thought it was the opposite (people getting banned for too long for offenses)

― pass the cur's dossier (Neanderthal)

Who do you think was banned for too long?

but there's also an element of people getting banned for too long, too - tomboto was floating a few options with shorter ban lengths, i think

Who do you think was banned for too long?

― Scampos Runamuck (WmC), Sunday, August 30, 2020 2:56 PM bookmarkflaglink

Me, personally? nobody, really. I honestly have no dog in the fight and am fine with what everybody else wants.

I'm just trying to think of somebody we wanted banned that wasn't getting banned in recent memory and drawing blanks. almost everybody who needed to be was banned, either through our FPing, or mods doing a good job of catching it and taking care of it on the spot.

My actual question is "What is spurring the desire to change the banning threshold?" I'm don't feel I understand what problem is being solved, or even if there is a problem other than "people aren't getting banned as much as they used to," which might not actually be a problem.

from OP:

(The mods...) have been discussing possible changes in the Flag Post threshold that result in temporary site bans.

From this I take it that the mods are not particularly focused on permabans, but feel that tempbans should be better regulated by the FP system. I suspect that allowing FPs to drive more of the tempban decision-making would lighten the load on mods, since tempbans more often require moderator intervention.

I am happy for any mod to correct this impression with better information.

I think "we" is not a monolithic entity -- there are definite factions regarding a lot of posters -- we have not had a unifying ban candidate since Raccoon Tanuki

haha, yeah that was kind of like the alien in the watchmen

xp Harsh on Turrican imo

As Matt said upthread "FWIW people have been using the FP function significantly more over the past couple of months", and there has been clear dissatisfaction from ppl that only god-tier posting can get you over the 51 barrier, as the numbers aren't there. Only Fred has managed to antagonise enough ppl, and it took him hours and hours, day after day, to manage it.

My own desire is for, yes, more bannings. I would like time-outs to be triggered by outpourings of crude and content-free verbal violence, just spewing "cunts" and such. They can be short 3-day time-outs, that's fine with me. I've occasionally wished and thought out loud they should be longer, but short is fine.

I have FP'd people who've posted "go fuck yourself" and declined to FP others who've done the same thing, depending on how that "gfy" sits in the poster's larger body of work.

I want an additional FP threshold so it will take a lot of the guesswork away from me in my role as a mod, because I doubt my own guesswork 24/7 and I'm paralyzed by fear of getting it wrong, and find myself not taking any action against actionable posts/posters, then regretting my inaction.

Dan, it's a worthwhile question. I'm not sure that I've got much more than I said upthread, though:

One of the things we're aiming for is for posters who don't use FP much but do feel uncomfortable with posts/modes of discussion to feel like it's worth using the FP button. We're not looking to fill Increased Ban Quotas or anything like that, but there are definitely times when shit is going down on the boards and the FP system is miles away from representing the posters who are unhappy.

I don't know for sure that changing the FP system will have major benefits, so if you think it won't, that's perfectly reasonable imo. Personally, I think it's at least worth trying out.

xp with WmC, who also has good points.

When enough FPs are accumulated it should trigger an automatic seven-day temp ban and a poll featuring the flagged posts, the names of the users who flagged them, and options to either ban permanently or not ban permanently the offending poster while they wait in seven-day purgatory.

During the seven days, message board users would discuss whether or not the offending poster should be banned, explain their rationale, challenge others' opinions, call into question the applicability of precedent, etc. Much dramas and entertainments would unfold. Once the poll has closed and a verdict has been reached, the names of the users who voted and their votes would be disclosed. Users would then have the opportunity to spend many more weeks celebrating or agonizing over the decision while discussing the interpersonal politics among board users and their votes (and hopefully resulting in even more new flagged posts reaching the threshold and resetting the process all over again, much to everyone's bemusement).

This progressive reform approach to the ILX FP/ban moderation mechanism would be fun and entertaining and highly democratic, and once these changes are implemented we can all finally get back to discussing the important things we've been trying to discuss without the bad people stopping us like they have been for years.

is this related to the masturbating orangutan thing ???

Absolutely! Our genomes are 97% identical, after all.