ADMIN LOG WATCH 2

Stabbing fantasies and repellent imagery are not OK.

'Fantasy' and 'imagery' are notoriously vague concepts by design.

who watches the admin log watch hardmen

_ Calz says he's received no explanation or email and there is clearly no consensus on why he has been banned._


The Admin Log entry makes it pretty clear why he was tempbanned FWIW.

WATCH 2 MIN LOG AD

. The alleged silent meltjority of ilx has been unwilling or unable to contest calzino's politics but you occasionally hear grumbling about tankies or people tutting at the mention of gulags, and yet here we see calzino banished to the naughty step without consensus, coherent explanation or show trial.

you are fucking delusional if you think e.mily banned him in order to repress his political viewpoint

hi treesh I do not think that pls don't engage with my posts they're not for you

Repellent imagery is not OK

ilx posts with striking imagery

Remeltant imagoery on the other hand

i'm sorry. this is sick.

questioning the mods' decision makes sense. (in this case they laid out clearly why he was temp-banned). disagreeing with their thinking is of course, allowed. but dark insinuations that is is part of a larger conspiracy to repress the left, or else that this is some kind of arbitrary bullying, it's just nos upportable and it's not respectful of the mods, who are unpaid and do their best to keep the board a semi-civil space.

ok, i have no wish to join a mod pile-on - i, too, think that the mods have the right to moderate the board however they see fit. that said, it is clear that this specific use of mod power has caused widespread user dissatisfaction, and think it would be good if experiences like this were mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent possible. i do agree with idea that it would be good to be more transparency around banning, particularly to the person being banned (since as has been pointed out being banned from this board can be a highly unpleasant experience) but also to the board in general. the whole moderation infrastructure comes across to me as maybe a little kludge-y? for instance, every ban issued coming across as a permaban because the tempban feature is broken. that's not really good for transparency, i don't think.

Talking of respectful, how about choosing to bring up 'internet hardman' Thomas Mair when explaining why an ILXor was banned?

Folks moderate with such a light touch here it's like the world is ending whenever it happens

Folks generally moderate so well here that it really sticks out when they get one wrong.

Since we're discussing mod practices, was I the only one bothered by this?

I am giving you advice. you have nearly 40 fps. you are generally disliked. consider your approach.

― sound of scampo talk to me (El Tomboto), Sunday, August 2, 2020 12:24 AM (one week ago)

Yeah, that thoroughly sucked.

is he a mod again?

I'm not sure, but I don't know how else he would know a user's FP count

i agree that making that comment publicly was bad form

i do not agree that there is anything wrong with the temp ban. violent threats seem like a really good place to draw a line to me.

do temp bans normally get written warnings to accompany them? I thought they just....happened.

1) not everyone reads the admin log or even knows it’s there

nfn but you're posting this in the ADMIN LOG thread

who was Tom's post directed at?

silby

I brought up internet hardman Thomas Mair to explain why those kinds of posts (specific death threat-y posts against politicians) aren't ones I'm personally comfortable with here (to the extent I ever was). Didn't intend to imply he was like Mair, don't think I did, either. If you think I implied he was an internet hardman, well he's not coming down off cuddlestein mountain, is he? He was described by a friend as using ILX as his only place to "rage", like.

I'm pretty certain ogmor's talking about me in terms of grudge, but that doesn't stand up for me – the most I've done is edit out a death threat from his posts in the past (possibly two), and can't remember ever otherwise modding him. I didn't ban him or suggest it, but I did know about it ahead of it. It's trying to avoid how I get on with him as poster interfering with mod decisions that made me edit him in the first place rather than anything stronger.

Banings are unadultated facism, in my opion.

Bane-ings?

xp
It was silby. I didn't include that info as I don't think that matters really; on the other hand silby hasn't posted since then.

Banelings.

xp

when someone can't post to a message board for a couple of days using a particular email address, this is fascism, to me.

I'm just trying to figure out if we're getting up in arms about a change in procedure or if we're pissed off about something that is SOP.

I remember getting banned multiple times in my early 'troll' days, and I was not given any email explanation, other than the post in the thread which said "Banhammered", and the Admin Log.

Now, maybe it's different since then, but....I didn't think we got embroidered letters on ILX stationery with the reasoning on them.

who would generally dislike a silby

Did you resort to repellent imagery?

xp

Now, maybe it's different since then, but....I didn't think we got embroidered letters on ILX stationery with the reasoning on them.

― popeye's arse (Neanderthal), Monday, August 10, 2020 4:08 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

Getting an explanation for a ban has probably never been a thing, it’s just some new issue that is useful to stoke the flames of outrage.

I brought up internet hardman Thomas Mair to explain why those kinds of posts (specific death threat-y posts against politicians) aren't ones I'm personally comfortable with here (to the extent I ever was). Didn't intend to imply he was like Mair, don't think I did, either. If you think I implied he was an internet hardman, well he's not coming down off cuddlestein mountain, is he? He was described by a friend as using ILX as his only place to "rage", like.

You didn't have to bring up Thomas Mair at all, and what you personally find uncomfortable is neither here nor there if you weren't the one who banned him. You explicitly linked calzino to Thomas Mair by inventing the fact that Mair was an internet hardman - like calzino, in your opinion.

In the messageboard business we call this “moving goalposts”

I'm used to heavy-handed moderation because I post on a Celtic forum where they delete any provo posting

Self xp

Did you resort to repellent imagery?

xp

― pomenitul, Monday, August 10, 2020 4:09 PM bookmarkflaglink

let's just say 'yes' and move on *jedi handwave*

who would generally dislike a silby

― Steppin' RZA (sic), Monday, August 10, 2020 1:09 PM (four minutes ago)

I don't dislike them, I just found many of their posts smug, bullying, and stupid

jfc that tomboto post. fuck that shit.

I don't dislike them, I just found many of their posts smug, bullying, and stupid

New board description.

Getting an explanation for a ban has probably never been a thing, it’s just some new issue that is useful to stoke the flames of outrage.

Oh it's probably never been a thing, that's that cleared up then.

Got no issue w/ ppl finding calzino's posts wearying and/or taking umbrage w/ his style, but given there's still no clarity regarding what calz is being temp banned for it's hard not to think this has got into the vague "bad vibe" territory where personal dislike (and differences in circs, politics, culture etc.) are more likely to become a factor. We've had mods saying there was a death threat, that there wasn't a death threat but that it went over some sort of line, and now that some of his posts are "death threat-y". Doesn't really fill me with confidence and this attempt to send someone to the naughty step will result in nothing more than more bad feeling and distrust, so it seems counterproductive whatever the motive.

dark insinuations that is is part of a larger conspiracy to repress the left

what do you mean "dark" and how is saying a moderator's dislike of someone and how they express their politics might be a factor in them signing-off on their banning for nebulous reasons of offence equivalent to belief it's "part of a larger conspiracy to repress the left"? this is drivel, I'm done.

Is that your first ever dn?

I don’t disagree with the reasoning of deleting the post at all, btw, because it’s not me on the hook for any negative consequences as a result. But, as much as I hate to agree with Tom D, the Thomas Mair comparison is really out of order.

/Getting an explanation for a ban has probably never been a thing, it’s just some new issue that is useful to stoke the flames of outrage./

Oh it's probably never been a thing, that's that cleared up then.

Banff is a resort town in the province of Alberta, located within Banff National Park.

there was an explanation on the admin log. and the mods explained their thinking here. this is a pile-on.

there's still no clarity regarding what calz is being temp banned for

it seemed clear to me why the mods who temp-banned him did what they did ... it seems like the real issue is: was that the right decision?

also, as someone who has been temp-banned several times, I agree with Branwell and other posters re the stigma -- even though mods contacting the poster about it might not be a standard practice, it would be nice if that changed.

Is that your first ever dn?

Assuming that question was meant for me, nope, but I've used them sparingly so far.

it would be nice if that changed.

― sarahell, Monday, August 10, 2020 4:21 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

i agree with this but the way it was invoked here -- as a talking point to make Saint Calzino's ban seem like even more of an unbearable injustice -- was grating.