options for the offended 51

"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.

― NAKES HAVE THE STAPLES IN THEM (jjjusten), Thursday, November 26, 2009 1:00 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark

1) Ignore the offensive poster.
2) Exit the thread.
3) Exit ILX. (As the banned are told, ILX is not the end all of the internet after all.)
4) Address the poster through email.
5) Report the poster to a moderator.

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.

Again the huge flaw here is that whilethe board goes to great length to make sure to respect the offended 51, the unoffended are given no voting option whatsoever. It's almost like "their opinions/feelings/etc dont matter." Thousands of registered posters are not pressing the sb button. Why does that not count for anything?

"Again the huge flaw here is that while the board goes to great length to make sure to respect the offended 51, the unoffended are given no voting option whatsoever."

it's not the same 51 people every time, y'know? I get that 51 people is a small number out of however many thousand, but there's not been a huge amount of sbans, and it's not really been directed by any one clique against another or anything.

1) Not really a great option if, say, somebody in your community is attacking you personally among your friends.
2) Allow yourself to be bullied away, basically?
3) Allow yourself to be hounded out of town entirely
4) "Why don't you just hit that kid back?"
5) This isn't a million miles away from what SB is

This is all about people who can't get along together. But there's only one side who can really do anything positive about the situation. The options for the victim are pretty much "accept this behaviour or gtfo", while the options for the attacker are "stop doing this, or we'll throw you out". I'm not sure why the onus should be on the victim to change their behaviour to accommodate, especially if the reasons are "there's a silent majority who get lolz watching" or "yeah, but the rest of the time they're great!" If the attacker stops, on the other hand, then both can stay.

Thousands of registered posters are not pressing the sb button. Why does that not count for anything?
This reads to me just like the arguments saying "it's only a minority who care about racism/sexism/whatever-ism and thousands of people don't mind, why doesn't their opinion count?". I'm not sure it's true, either. There are very few posters who haven't given out any SBs, and that includes people who say "I haven't ever used SB".

I'm not sure why the onus should be on the victim

eh not sure that you can simply allocate 'victim' status on anyone who presses sb, though?

5) Report the poster to a moderator.

5) This isn't a million miles away from what SB is

but it is - reporting to a moderator means that someone gets to actually check out the behaviour and find out whether or not it is actually offensive. Of course that might be an onerous and task and involve tricky judgement calls. But SB seemingly involves no judgement, no enquiry, no discrimination.

True, you can't, but SBs are mostly given for people being dickish, and the majority of that is them being dicks to other posters. Behaviour that gets SB'd is mostly directed at other people or at the community in general. If someone is offended/hurt enough to SB, then I don't think the onus should be on them to suck it up.
xp

But SB seemingly involves no judgement, no enquiry, no discrimination.
It definitely did it in its first incarnation where it operated almost blindly, but now we see the posts that people are SBing on, and the ban doesn't happen automatically. We also expire old SBs by hand. There's mod intervention at virtually all points of it, now.

fair enough.

yeah, although still hard to see how some of the recent bans have gone through, given that. but then i don't know the posts in question, eh, what can y'do.

The options for the victim are pretty much "accept this behaviour or gtfo", while the options for the attacker are "stop doing this, or we'll throw you out". I'm not sure why the onus should be on the victim to change their behaviour to accommodate, especially if the reasons are "there's a silent majority who get lolz watching" or "yeah, but the rest of the time they're great!" If the attacker stops, on the other hand, then both can stay.

You are presenting the board as if moderators do not exist. The large majority of suggest banned posters have not been involved in bullying or personal attacks afaik.

If the suggest ban system is so thoroughly vetted then why not remove the automated action it takes? Why not make it purely a notification system? The attempt at self-moderation is admirable/cool but because of the amount of variables the system doesn't incorporate, it forces mods into more work then they would normally do (Assuming they carefully vet each vote as we are being told which is pretty hard to believe.)

The large majority of suggest banned posters have not been involved in bullying or personal attacks afaik

assuming that 'bannable' behaviour is limited to these traits.

That is the assumption stet is presenting; I've been here 8+ years and have seen that extreme what 2 or 3 times, maybe?

I think part of the problem is because they last for six months; so ppl get banned despite having been "good" for the previous few weeks (and this is sometimes tricky, like the last LJ situation was) or other posters only lash out viciously and occasionally, but that builds up.
xp

You are presenting the board as if moderators do not exist. The large majority of suggest banned posters have not been involved in bullying or personal attacks afaik.
I don't think the set of SB'd people so far is big enough to draw conclusions from, but it is definitely the case that the things they get banned for are things they can stop doing, and are things that upset other posters.

If the suggest ban system is so thoroughly vetted then why not remove the automated action it takes?
It doesn't take any automated action any longer. A mod manually puts each ban in place, when it hits 50, and after looking at the history. Not so much to make a judgement call, but to check for spuriousness. There's precious little evidence of it in any of the people SB'd so far.

Another thing is that the system has actually changed a lot since it started. I was saying to the mods earlier that it might be an idea if we actually let it run for a straight six months without meddling, so we can see if these changes have addressed any of the problems. For instance, the first really big crop of six-month-old SBs are about to expire, and I think we'll see a difference in counts and frequency after that. We won't learn much if we keep changing the rules mid-game.

i think we've already learnt that people are trigger-happy tbh.

I've been here 8+ years and have seen that extreme what 2 or 3 times, maybe?
Yeah, another thing is that SB gives a voice to posters who aren't strong enough or brave enough to speak out in public about attacks on them, so there's going to be more reported that doesn't come on the general radar xp

1) Press SB
2) Smoke a fat doob

whiney is why ilx can't have nice things

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images/kool-aid-man.jpg

SBs are mostly given for people being dickish, and the majority of that is them being dicks to other posters

how is this evenly remotely true - the poster who has accrued the most sbs so far is basically a mensch i mean i understand y dude picks up sbs but its not for the fabled "being a dick". mb like three or four counting gabbnebs deliberate flameout of the 51'd have been for them being dicks 2 others

its p obv that just being a dick doesnt get you sb'd & that u only get got for having opinions that a bunch of ppl dont like or being a weird dude or w/e

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/

6) nut up or shut up

i still say we should utilize a "suggest ban from thread" function instead. if kate had gotten, say, ten of those in the p4k thread or jordan had gotten ten of those in the G4 thread, they'd (1) be provided with a more instant and helpful feedback and (2) be spared a site-wide lengthy ban for something they did to piss off a few people over a relatively short peroid of time

either that or put in place some kind of SB density system in which you're warned once if you've gotten a certain number of SBs in the past week (or month), and the second time you pass that number you're banned for a certain amount of time (sort of like a ratio system on a torrent site)

1) Ignore the offensive poster.
2) Exit the thread.
3) Exit ILX. (As the banned are told, ILX is not the end all of the internet after all.)

Right. So, all somebody has to do is be a total dick to me and the onus is on me to "deal with it." They can piss in the pool all day; after all, I don't have to swim there if I don't like it! All power to everybody aggro enough to totally ignore their effect on the community & others! As to the "that's what mods are for," we used to have plenty flameouts over even the suggestion of unilateral mod activity. After all, shouldn't the community decide? By which anti-ban ppl seem to mean "shouldn't I be allowed to tell people to just take however much abuse I feel is funny?"

Fuck that imo. I dig Kate and frankly think ppl sb'ing her are being dicks but I hate this "cope with all destabilizing influences yourself, it's the right of anybody to turn as many threads as they like into personal 'but answer my question!'-fests" too. as for Lamp's "it's 'weird dudes' who get the SB" - you're kidding right?

thats not really what lamp said at all

its p obv that just being a dick doesnt get you sb'd & that u only get got for having opinions that a bunch of ppl dont like or being a weird dude or w/e

actually yes max it is.

the "unpopular opinions" thing is a fake-persecution canard too which is no more demonstrable than what I'd claim about use of the sb i.e. that ppl use it when they feel offended

"it's 'weird dudes' who get the SB"

versus

"having unpopular opinions or being a weird dude are far more likely to earn posters suggest bans than just being a dick"

you are missing the crucial 'or whatever'

so when i keep showing up and saying "the majority of suggest bans come from when people attack other posters out of the blue" over and over again, you dudes just think im lying to you or what

am willing to argue that "having unpopular opinions or being a weird dude" can comfortably, in the thread in which the assertion was made, be elided to "it's weird dudes who get the SB." if I end up at a press conference about this thread I will quote Lamp's post in full rather than referring to it.

xpost jjusten the anti-sb ppl don't believe you because they like the idea of sb as some evil villain striking down the creatives

this is just a natural progression--we worked our way thru all the ppl who were just dicks, we did ppl who register strong opinions in a less-than-graceful way, now we're just gonna do ppl who post a lot and aren't sweet and cheerful 100% of the time.

fuk u if u disagree or w/e

I have a hard time believing that j0rdan or kate were malicious to another poster out of the blue more than the majority of 51 times

"more than the majority" - excuse my english

anti-SB ppl need to come up with something better than "let the moderators moderate!" (since old-timers know that back when it was just mods making the call, the howling over the moderators not having the right to make choices that impact the community was just as loud, and would be again) as a solution imo

as for Lamp's "it's 'weird dudes' who get the SB" - you're kidding right?

deeznuts - annoying mb tried zinging ppl but more of punchingbag than some1 who attacked other posters
lou jagz - lol show your belly
t-dawg - lol sb debates
and what - sure, altho i think weve been told its for image bombing (rip dom passantino)
gabbneb 1.0 - lol yuppies
gabbneb 2.0 - yes, being a dick
cpt lorax - lol mental illness
cankles - racism; being a dick
doc morbius - lol leftist blogaments
bimble - well i mean
masonic boom - british chick
nrq - okay hes a dick but also one of the best posters
whiney - lol self-loathing
j0rdan - lol killing hippies

this is a list of ppl with difficult opinions and/or weird dudes (<3 but i mean) some of them could be dicks but realistically so can A LOT of posters including a # of our mods and u yourself

jj weve been told over and over that we dont deserve any transparency into what gets sb'd or by who because "it should be obv". and then u keep saying this "its about being a dick" stuff anytime someone gets banned - these two statements contradict each other imo

booming post

jj weve been told over and over that we dont deserve any transparency into what gets sb'd or by who because "it should be obv".

this is total bullshit, and if you don't stop making shit up to further some weird non-argument I'm going to ban you from this thread.

lamp breakin it down

uh lamp kinda otm imo but whatevs

xp - would it be more accurate to say that the people that have been sb-ed have all had a combination of dickishness/aggressiveness and an over the top posting style - in differing proportions, obviously.

i like sb as it is pretty much but it would be cool if there was a write-in thing where you could put a description of why you hit sb, which could eventually be made public or at least disclosed to the sb'ed while the sb'er remains anonymous. might also force people to think about it and maybe even change their mind about sb'ing that person

^^ heh, it could be like facebook's options for why you don't like an ad:

offensive
unintertesting
overly repetitive
irrelevant

yeah it could have radio buttons with common reasons and then maybe one for "other" like, i just think this person is a cockfarmer

this is total bullshit, and if you don't stop making shit up to further some weird non-argument I'm going to ban you from this thread.

dude i dont even no u but HI DERE and jjusten have said a couple of times that it should be clear to any posters getting 51'd what they do that annoys so many ppl w/o resorting to giving them specific examples - ive always agreed with that i just dont think that what say l.jagger does that gets under other poster's skin is "being a dick"

lol "making shit up" tho a+++ response v. constructive

Show me an example of either JJ or Dan telling anyone they don't "deserve" any transparency.

most schools don't give multiple plusses after an a u kno, u may want to revise that

xxp - i think more people sb-ed L0uis for having one - and going on about related issues, er, at length, than being one.

anti-SB ppl need to come up with something better than "let the moderators moderate!" (since old-timers know that back when it was just mods making the call, the howling over the moderators not having the right to make choices that impact the community was just as loud, and would be again) as a solution imo

howbout 'let the mods moderate but in a very laissez faire manner where banning is a last resort'? - I mean of the above posters, how many would have been banned on any msg board with traditional moderation? probably...cankles?

imo the sb system has been a pretty big failure and it seems like everyone but the mods is beginning to accept this.

this whole thing is just getting so patronizing. the poor silent majority can't protect itself? mods might let you back after 30 days and maybe even twice but maybe not it depends whether you learned your lesson? if somebody should be banned, they should be banned - if we really decide that 51 anonymous people is the best way to go about that, fine, but at least have consistency about it.

part of the reason there's no consistency is because we've wanted to make it work, and people have seen obvious flaws, so we've been chopping and changing as we go. that's why I'm saying we should leave it running unmeddled for a period till we can work out what's actually useful and unquestionably bust about it.

gd to see history mayne back from the land of monochrome, even if his 'white ribbon' review made me want to SB him

hell is other posters

lol that would be awesome!

xxp - that would be the opposite of no exit though - it would have to be two other posters chosen for you by a mod with a sick sense of humor.

your fellow posters are: Tuomas and Deeznuts

can you guys get working on this, should take about 10 minutes

Shd be an option like the "Random threads" -- you can get two random posters but you gotta keep it for...24 hrs? A week?

I wish there was a killfile that would hide all posters except yourself + two others of your choosing
just read aeon flux

oh that is way better than the convoluted "Thunderdome!" joke I was trying to construct

Maybe that could be what happens when you're sb-ed?

'suggest thunderdome'

this is the last great SB thread, RIP

that would basically be a poll where the prospective sb-ee is put up against another poster and the winner/loser actually gets sb-ed.

was there a first great SB thread

your fellow posters are: mayor jingleberries and harbl

your fellow posters are: Captain Lorax and Gabbneb

your fellow posters are: cankles and masonic boom

nah pretty sure it would involve me & j0rdan sargent annoying each other for all eternity.

Captain Lorax has sent you an ILX Chat invite. Do you accept?

asking ppl stop this now

mayor jingleberries! oh boy!

omg que

this is why we can't have nice things

not to take this back (lol yeah right) but i read jaymc's post as a response to john d.'s post but hey what do i know

code in "sb all" button plz should only take 10mins thx

It wasn't a response to anyone specific -- just throwing it out there as part of my general unease with the system.

this thread is still going?

nah pretty sure it would involve me & j0rdan sargent annoying each other for all eternity.

― sarahel, Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:23 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

^^ that post of mine could very well belong on posts very much in character thread.

no, but that one could

get a board you two

i have sb'd sarahel for her own good.

she needs a break

needin' some of this:
http://pagels.teamexpansion.org/sqjtaipei/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/ohyea3.gif

save it for your comeback

Haha, that nabisco post about Tristram Shandy and How I Met Your Mother is funny and insightful. I wonder if there are any other examples like that in contemporary pop culture.

This is a terrible time to be a mod, and I'm glad I'm not one. Not that any one poster is just completely insufferable, but the idea of reading so much of ilx is almost upsetting.

Not that I ever would be elected to be one or want to be one.

hint hint

As a mod you can post as different user names. I envy mods this ability.

lol

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Gr3uCNxPTu4/SuPOj5rPBII/AAAAAAAACaM/_p5K8kVLbzQ/s400/Sutherland-body-snatcher.jpg

Awesome!

No, not even for twatson, forks.

i cannot parse that?

Oh, I thought you meant - never mind.

"Deleting unused users and clearing old suggest bans"

ayo can i get a list of unused users?

needin' some of this:

COOL AIDMAN NEEDS YOU BABY

Kool Aids Man Day

cool aidman???

cool aidsylangston