Is moderator misbehavior at all sanctionable?

...or are we stuck with y'all?

Seriously -- "this is not a democracy" LOCK THREAD is all very clear, but is this the way things are to be forever amen? If the group can SB, why can't the group suggest suspension of mod privileges?

its not misbehavior when moderators do it

If you people want to yell at each other, do it in email.

― the freakish wonder of nature that is "Beat Me" (HI DERE), Tuesday, 28 April 2009 13:32 (7 hours ago)

^^^ bit confused about this advice, wasn't that what dom got permabanned for?

who exactly are you asking have their moderator privileges suspended, and why?

isnt "i must protest" specifically for yelling

if a moderator moderates in the woods

Wait do these woods have wi-fi? Also where do I charge my Evil Nazi Smiting Stick?

the woods have wi-fi but there's nowhere to charge your stick.

so to speak

"who exactly are you asking have their moderator privileges suspended, and why?"

No-one. I am asking if there is a system in place where complaints about moderator behavior could be publicly and seriously discussed, and if there can be a parallel system to "suggest ban" in place for moderators.

I would have been sorely tempted, for example, to hit a "suggest suspend mod privileges" button on the mods involved in Dom poll bullshit, but I have been thinking about this for a while.

I would have been sorely tempted, for example, to hit a "suggest suspend mod privileges" button on the mods involved in Dom poll bullshit, but I have been thinking about this for a while.

if you hit the suggest ban button next to your name while thinking "i want to ban this certain mod, whom i do not like, and who is offending my internet time, forever," then what happens is, that mod gets a suggest ban. FYI.

...from which the mod, as the mods have repeatedly stated, are more-or-less immune. FYI.

bit confused about this advice, wasn't that what dom got permabanned for?

Dom got permabanned for actively and aggressively attempting to bully, intimidate, annoy, aggravate and drive away other posters via his actions on the board; the email he sent me came after he was banned and confirmed to me that the correct decision had been made.

People can scream at each other in email all they want; I don't care. When that spills over into the type of snipefest that was occurring on that poll thread, my stance will always be "take it to email".

For the record, the "mods involved in Dom poll bullshit" were exactly one, and it was me. If the posting community feels this was an egregious abuse of moderator power that renders me untrustworthy, I'll step down from being a moderator.

It was funny would vote again and again

And I'm also not talking about sb'ing mods, but an ability to suspend mod privileges. FYI.

x-post: I am asking whether it is makes sense for the posting community to be able to suggest a suspension of moderator privileges, not for Dan to step down forever.

...from which the mod, as the mods have repeatedly stated, are more-or-less immune. FYI.

yes, the mods have been immunized against the suggest bans, but there is a newer, stronger strain of suggest bans on the rise, coming from Mexico. . . beware

not that anyone listens to me since i got disbarred but three word username isnt really asking for anything bizarre

actually altho I am dead against SB on principle, a system whereby HOOS' SB choices count for 20 would be quite interesting imo

If the posting community feels this was an egregious abuse of moderator power that renders me untrustworthy, I'll step down from being a moderator.

― the freakish wonder of nature that is "Beat Me" (HI DERE), Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:53 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

almost changed my username to make this point, but yeah, do this. 154 people voted dom be allowed back.

unlock unlock dom p petition

There's no feature for it coded into the system, largely because as I understand it, the moderator who takes a particular action is not recorded in the database, so there is no effective technical way to link votes against a particular moderator to actions that have occurred which bother you.

There is an email address to contact the head moderators that I can't remember off the top of my head because I have never accessed the account; I wanna say it's ilxmoderators at gmail. Right now, this is the most effective way to register a complaint. There is also this forum.

xp: The Dom poll was meaningless from the beginning and you know it, Enrique.

http://www.willisms.com/archives/ivotedsticker.gif

I wanna say it's ilxmoderators at gmail. Right now, this is the most effective way to register a complaint. There is also this forum.

x-p

I would think that the mod suggest ban has always been a polite and reasonable e-mail to one or more of the other mods. Then they can sort it out themselves.

It's not public. There's no visible accountability. But if one had a serious beef with a mod that seemed outright unfair, that seems like the effective way to go.

Of course, it's hard to tell who's modding the site these days and who isn't. That's why I just write my complaints down on a sheet of paper and send them to a PO Box I found in Canada.

Except as you well know, Dan, threads on this board get called "shitstorm" and locked down whenever the mods have had enough. Again, I'm not calling for anyone's head here, but I do think the ability for the posting community to suggest a suspension of mod privileges based on what does appear in the threads, not based on logged actions -- the log as designed only really raises my blood pressure and makes me want to sb the motherlovin' lot of you, but that's another thread (which would get locked).

There is an email address to contact the head moderators that I can't remember off the top of my head because I have never accessed the account; I wanna say it's ilxmoderators at gmail. Right now, this is the most effective way to register a complaint.

ha ha

If the posting community feels this was an egregious abuse of moderator power that renders me untrustworthy, I'll step down from being a moderator.

― the freakish wonder of nature that is "Beat Me" (HI DERE), Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:53 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

almost changed my username to make this point, but yeah, do this. 154 people voted dom be allowed back.

― FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:59 PM (8 minutes ago)

thank you for continuing to bring the lols

omit finally period, insert " -- would be good."

x-post

i think dan should step down but not because of the dom poll - that was funny

mods can u retitle thread WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?!?!?!

If Suggest Remove Priveleges is ever implemented, I'd like to be the one to volunteer to start the thread where all the other mods (committed partisans pretending to be impartial, naturally) get passive-aggressive, tetchy, outright abusive and then try to get the original mod off on technicalities and loopholes. I'll then repeat the thread every week and see how long it takes everyone else to get exasperated by the whole thing.

and that is how you board lawyer folks

I'd like to be the one to volunteer to start the thread where all the other mods (committed partisans pretending to be impartial, naturally) get passive-aggressive, tetchy, outright abusive

hmm WHAT WOULD THAT BE LIKE, eh readers?

i for one would never be exasperated at mods doing that

i think we should all walk two moons in another mans shoes

i kind of want to read that thread, it sounds like a good one

lol n/a, the point to that was that other people monitor and respond to that account, not me.

Except as you well know, Dan, threads on this board get called "shitstorm" and locked down whenever the mods have had enough.

This one hasn't.

yay! a thread didnt get locked!

no thanks to you

The reason I, as a mod, ignore you is precisely because of your behavior on these threads. If you'd like to be taken seriously, try acting like you have a serious point and aren't just desperate for attention.

yay!

i dunno not to be "serious" abt internet joeks but i tried to be real and have a genuine conversation w/ mods about the og gershy banning and i essentially got laughed @ & told to fuck off so if my concerns arent going to be heard even when im making my points in a calm & rational manner why should bother being anything but a dick? im sure 3-wd username will learn this pretty soon if it hasnt already learned it from this thread

oops sorry was i being a "board lawyer"?????

I have been here longer than you, max. I just have been disappearing gradually over the course of 4 usernames.

just noticed that 'dom' is 'mod' backwards

http://www.math.yorku.ca/infinity/Images/newInfinity.jpg

marmot? xp

i dunno not to be "serious" abt internet joeks but i tried to be real and have a genuine conversation w/ mods about the og gershy banning and i essentially got laughed @ & told to fuck off so if my concerns arent going to be heard even when im making my points in a calm & rational manner why should bother being anything but a dick? im sure 3-wd username will learn this pretty soon if it hasnt already learned it from this thread

Your concerns were heard. The moderators disagreed. You didn't like that so you decided to become an annoying pest whenever you have moderation concerns. As a result, the moderators stopped taking you seriously.

How exactly did you not do this to yourself?

by contrast you take yourselves VERY SERIOUSLY INDEED.

Do you have anything worthwhile to say?

uh.jpg

thats not really how i remember it but...

CONCRETE PROPOSALS

- make the suggest ban system apply to mods and not let mods f with it
- unban dom passantino

wd also love to see all the places i was being a "pest" 2 the mods

i would rather see 1 gabbneb go free than allow 1000 doms to never brighten these pages again

With the proliferation of sock accounts and the ability to vote multiple times in polls, how can a mechanical "suggest revoke mod privs" function possibly work and convey anything close to reality? So to answer the thread question, yes -- but not by polls or "Suggest Whatever" button. If Three Word Username or any other poster has a specific beef about a specific perceived mod abuse (that doesn't boil down to "waaah you won't let me have my fun at someone else's expense"), the best way to deal with it has been, and remains, an IMP thread that lays out the complaint in detail.

PP, during one of the meta clusterfuck threads a few months ago, a rollcall of all the sitewide mods was listed.

Best of my memory:
Keith, Stet, Pashmina, Ned, Dan, John Justen, Matt DC, Electricsound Jim, Tehresa, me, Abbott...
Remy was a sitewide mod briefly but I guess doesn't come around much unless under a different name.
Tombot is Tombot (RIP).

roxy is mod of 1p3

i love that these threads always devolve into site developer fan fiction.

WHY DONT WE HAVE A SUGGEST CHEESEBURGER BUTTON? THEN I COULD SURF ILX AND EAT A DELICIOUS CHEESEBURGER!

Yeah, there are a zillion board mods that I can't remember the full list of. I was just trying to remember the sitewides.
xpost, mmmmm cheeseburgers

thats not really how i remember it but..

That's how I remember it; I was looking for the thread where this happened but couldn't find it. At any rate, it is certainly the moderator perception now. If you would like an example of being a pest to the mods, your behavior on this thread until your longer "why bother?" post is a great example.

- make the suggest ban system apply to mods and not let mods f with it

I don't know the feasibility of making suggest ban apply to moderators; logically speaking, a moderator needs to have more power over the site than a registered user and allowing registered users to boot moderators off of the site is completely counter to this. I can't think of a single messageboard or forum where there's a system in place to automatically allow posters to get rid of the moderators; all of them are, in essence, hostage to the people with the power.

The moderators are not manipulating anyone's suggest ban totals. I don't know of a way to make the list public, otherwise I would; even though I know you would find something else to complain about, you would at least shut up about this.

- unban dom passantino

Until all of the current moderators have turned over and the board is being run by an entirely different group of people, this is not going to happen.

at least gabbneb hasn't come back

To test whether moderators are really unaccountable, I'm going to start deleting boards and features and banning people at random until people send me Buffy DVDs, and see how long it takes before I'm stripped of my admin priveleges.

hey mods what up

actually, another concrete proposal i and many other posters have made, and which mods have applied selectively, is make s-bans temporary.

i can't now remember why dom got banned: pretty sure the original story was that he was suggest-banned.

but now it's "Dom got permabanned for actively and aggressively attempting to bully, intimidate, annoy, aggravate and drive away other posters via his actions on the board".

i think this is bullshit, mostly. on the level of language as much as anything.

let's unpack:

"Dom got permabanned for actively and aggressively attempting to"

ahhhhh, ok. can you "passively" "attempt to"? and if he only "attempted to" is even really a thing? "for actively and aggressively attempting to"

"bully, intimidate"

who and how and where was this discussed?

"annoy"

the horror! the horror!

"aggravate"

improper use of transitive verb imo

"and drive away other posters"

which ones? on a site with a suggest ban system i'm not seeing how this is breaking the rules exactly, but i'm not even sure who you mean, or how it's different from people ganging up on (e.g.) gabbneb.

"via his actions on the board"

actions meaning zings.

uh oh i think someones being a "board lawyer"!!!

Until all of the current moderators have turned over and the board is being run by an entirely different group of people, this is not going to happen.

― the freakish wonder of nature that is "Beat Me" (HI DERE), Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:49 PM (8 minutes ago)

dom was bannd cause he sent a mean email to dang perry fyi

dans being pretty mean to me on this thread

I don't make the who voted for who to be banned public (I don't let the mods can't see it either), nor will I ever, but I do check to make sure people don't get booted because of sockpuppets.

The system makes it look as though you can manipulate SB totals, but the intention was only down the way; however, because of a bug, it doesn't work anyway.

its true dan is mean is why he shouldnt be a mod

Until all of the current moderators have turned over and the board is being run by an entirely different group of people, this is not going to happen.

― the freakish wonder of nature that is "Beat Me" (HI DERE), Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:49 PM (8 minutes ago)

― WmC, Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:00 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

why? i have quite effectively board-lawyered dan's so-called explanation.

2 things - dom was not originally SB'd, ti was only after the fact that i brought up the fact that he had accrued enough SB's by using multiple accounts to have been SB'd, which is where i think some of this misrepresentation is stemming from.

also, max, i like you just fine when you arent lawyering up, but i dont think that thread you linked to really does a lot for your case of not being a dick on it.

xpost: are you even trying to make a decent argument here dude?

ahhhhh, ok. can you "passively" "attempt to"? and if he only "attempted to" is even really a thing? "for actively and aggressively attempting to"

I'm really, really trying not to be sarky here but I take issue with your putting the word 'passively' in quotation marks and therefore your entire post is bullshit on the level of language if nothing else.

fuckin' 'ell

that was @ this whole thread, not you matt.

Dom emailed me and told me that email he sent wasn't that mean, and dude overreacted.

I lost the email, but it sounded convincing.

dom was not originally SB'd, ti was only after the fact that i brought up the fact that he had accrued enough SB's by using multiple accounts to have been SB'd, which is where i think some of this misrepresentation is stemming from.

im just aksing you to get your story straight. according to dan he was banned for "actively attempting to aggravate people" or something?

I'm really, really trying not to be sarky here but I take issue with your putting the word 'passively' in quotation marks and therefore your entire post is bullshit on the level of language if nothing else.

― Enormous Epic (Matt DC), Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:10 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

you'll also note the lack of capitalization. but it is ok to scare-quote passively there im pretty sure, ie you know what it means.

how do you lose an email in this day and age

crucial evidence, here

i think we should revive the gershy-ban argument

also jw.

i actually got no idea why he was banned. was off sick that week.

i deleted it because i didn't think I was gonna bring it to the board. Bu here I am.

?? i wd have kept it for private lols, what the hell

out of everyone, jw deserved the ban the least

that was totally a mod grudge. the whole OMG he's making the site UNSAFE is just LOL to me.

jw haxord teh ilx fyi

lets bring back jw dom n chaki - we need these jerks :)

first offence. pretty harsh

xpost

otm

jw stole all our bank accounts and social security numbers that were hidden in our posts about M.I.A. and Killing Joke

he's a MENACE

i can understand the jw ban more than the rest but i still think he should be brought back

is there even a water cooler/tittwis scene on ilx anymore? where those the same thing? i never follow this faction shit very well

were those etc

the magnificent 8 were all voted off the island. jw was beaten on a rock Lord Of The Flies style and we all watched

the water cooler is tapped and tittwis turned into a pumpkin at midnight

rip mods paying attention to this thread

i think this is the longest post ive ever made on the board:

hey guys im glad that you all have become concerned with my "lawyer" schtick and my "legastic" inability to understand "dont be a dick."

so the thing is i am not a dick. ive never been banned, never started a thread that was deleted, never done revives or whatever. when ive had a problem with people with very few exceptions ive been measured and honest in my dealings with them. and id like to believe that my not being a dick would give me some kind of credibility with the mods. but apparently it doesnt--apparently even questioning gershy's ban makes you some kind of idiot stalker fukk, or worse, a "lawyer."

john, tom, matt, i dont know what in my posts isnt getting through to you but im going to try to make this as simple as possible:

gershy was banned for posting a smirking response (four weeks ago!) to a libelous post linked to by another poster. it was that month-old post that was the "straw that broke the camel's back."

lets recap:

- gershy did not make the libelous off-board post.
- gershy did not link to the libelous off-board post.
- GERSHY MADE HIS RESPONSE POST FOUR WEEKS BEFORE THE ONE-WEEK "DONT BE A DICK" GRACE PERIOD

AND LOOK i get that the dude has done objectionable things IN THE PAST but i think its really weak of you guys to see that you were wrong for banning him because of that and then change your reason for doing so! he was banned for a really specific reason--that post--and its fucking lame to change that reason when it turns out to be baseless! i mean for fucks sake no one has even seen the thread, and everyone thinks he was banned for stalking gabbneb (btw gabb i was hoping u could get my back on these legalistic insults, no worries about the feeling awesome thread it was a poor lol & im sorry).

i mean jesus christ im not like 'looking for loopholes' im pointing out that every reason people have given for gershy's ban has been bullshit--not "sort of" bullshit, not bullshit in my opinion, but straight-up BS

― max, Thursday, May 29, 2008 11:13 AM (10 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

maybe they hav all been self bannd

- gershy did not link to the libelous off-board post.

man the fucker who *did* should pay...

unban gershy

urban gunshy

Feel forced to suggest that whoever started this thread doesn't "get it".

i'm just heartbroken that the absence of noted poster dom passantino has apparently ruined the ilx experience for so many.

Well most of us haven't noticed cos of quality content-bringing like that.

http://www.imprint.co.uk/books/0907845517.jpg

In the absence of a public explanation fuck this btw. Bye.

lol

Who will I prolong VdGG threads with now Chakie AND NV have gone? :(

the magnificent 8 were all voted off the island. jw was beaten on a rock Lord Of The Flies style and we all watched

To be fair though, Jon had done the same thing (hacking ILX) before and gotten temp banned or yellow carded for it, so it's not like he didn't see that coming. In general, though, I think he'd become much a nicer poster during the last couple of years, so I do hope he's not gone forever.

As for Dom and Gershy, I'm not quite sure if they should be banned permanently, but I don't think there's much point in arguing what was the straw that broke the camel's back and lead to the actual banning, when anyone who visits these boards regularly could see they'd been making personal insults and generally nasty and pointless posts for quite some time before they got banned. Gershy's "schtick", for example, seemed to be reviving old threads to find some "dirt" on other posters, some of whom weren't even around anymore when Gershy revived those threads.

for the love of god people it's "shtick". it probably shouldn't be, but it is.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary "schtick" is a variant of "shtick". I use the former spelling because I've studied German so it seems more natural to me.

198?: before anyone had heard of him
1992: not gonna front, actually pretty dece
1993: the 'crimplene scene' rip
1994: still good
1995: not so much
1996: supernova
1997: curiously silent
1998: did 'champagne heroin addict' or something
1999: who knows?
2000: who cares?
2001: disinters scott walker iirc
2002: ?
2003: start of britpop revival
2004: grows a beard?
2005: got nuthin'
2006: possibly released solo album?
2007: maybe this was the year of the solo album?
2008: lives in paris by this point, said something snotty about kids today iirc
2009: he's baaaaaaaack
I am an American and thus still enjoy his increasingly tired schtick

― FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:16 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

i know not having dom around is tough and all but you gotta show some consistency dude

tuomas bringin the factual info.

ive studied german

great, another board translator

I'm pretty sure 'shtick' isn't a word there, champ.

just there?

it is, but its spelled differently. xpost.

your text

I've got a feeling that gershy is knocking around here somewhere

I don't think "schtick" is an actual German word, I just tend to write this particular German-looking word the way Germans would write it. And most of Yiddish does come from German, right?

I bet if I said "I don't think so" I could draw out an argument with Tuomas about whether Yiddish comes from German for over seventy posts before he Googled the matter

who wants action, I'm offering 3-1

i'll take that action

(i've just mailed tuomas offering him 50% of the proceeds if he co-operates, i sincerely hope he gets the concept)

According to Wikipedia Yiddish is a High German language, alongside standard German and Luxembourgish. I guess it's too simple to say that most of it comes from German, since it has developed alongside it, but I assume it's closer to German than to Hebrew or any other language. I haven't seen much Yiddish writing, but many of the words I have seen certainly seem to be quite close to their German counterparts, if not identical.

fuck's sake

Yeah but Tuomas Wikipedia can be edited by anybody. It's just not a reliable source of information - for sure you can't use it as a source if you're trying to argue language origins.

Darraghmac, I accept credit cards.

The Yiddish argument holds water. It looks lost without the 'c'. But then I like to use 'u's where they are supposed to go as well.

tbh j0hn, i can't see it getting to 70 posts w/out a mod lock.

schtick implies an incorrect pronunciation

tbh j0hn, i can't see it getting to 70 posts w/out a mod lock.

http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/11/judge.jpg

I'll allow it. Proceed, counselor.

ok now i need to be able to SB mods, bringing us back on point.

With the proliferation of sock accounts and the ability to vote multiple times in polls, how can a mechanical "suggest revoke mod privs" function possibly work and convey anything close to reality?

There is another currently implemented feature that does this to non-mods and they are cool with it...?

srsly doubt any mod on ILX would ever rack up 51 SBs fwiw

its worth 1 for you

;)

With the proliferation of sock accounts and the ability to vote multiple times in polls, how can a mechanical "suggest revoke mod privs" function possibly work and convey anything close to reality?

There is another currently implemented feature that does this to non-mods and they are cool with it...?

Yeah, I was kinda wondering about this too. How do the mods know whether suggest bans come from sock puppets or not?

how do the mods know who is a sock or not

I mean, this is what WMC said in a previous suggest ban thread:

There's no way to ID individual SBs by the poster flinging them.

― WmC, Sunday, March 1, 2009 4:41 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

If this is true, 5 posters with 10 sock puppets could get anyone banned.

or 1 poster with 51

3 with 17 each could do it too.

we need a prime number

According to Enrique someone used 10 sock puppets to get me suggest banned. If that's true, it seems no one noticed it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/9/5/39597c7038982b4817917d6361414630.png

haha xp

aww blueski beat me to math images

did you guys not read what keith posted

Yeah, but it seems to contradict with what WmC (who's also a mod) said. How do the mods know which SBs come from sock puppets, and which profiles are sock puppets in the first place?

If I told you it wouldn't work any more.

Stet Cheney

mods, i assume, can see IP addresses. obv there are ways to skirt this but it doesnt matter wrt SBing, because mods cannot see who suggests the bans, only keith

xxpost

Tuomas I need 68 more posts from you about the etymology of "schtick" or else I'm going to have to suggest ban you 51 times

it's just simple math

And how does Keith know which profiles are genuine and which ones are sock puppets?

(x-post)

he just knows,okay

mods have a built in sock puppet detector

The reason I'm asking this is because of what Enrique wrote:

i suspect some behind the scenes plotting, he was only halfway there a week ago iirc!

― 'event horizon' director paul WS anderson (omar little), Thursday, March 5, 2009 7:47 PM (40 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

a 'friend' of mine used about 10 socks to get tuomas so yeah.

― FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Thursday, March 5, 2009 8:49 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

So it seems someone did exploit this loophole. Or maybe I would've gotten 51 SBs even without those sock puppets, I don't know.

Keith and stet have access to the core of the site, including the database.

The rest of the mods have access to the mod interface.

There is information in the database that is not visible to the mod interface. This includes things like which user registered a suggest ban.

So, when you see someone like WmC or me saying "the mods can't see that", we are talking about ourselves and not the site supervisors/maintainers, neither of whom do much (if any) actual site moderation.

keith and stet can also see what any given poster is wearing

I understand this, but with thousands of registered users, how can anyone know which profiles are genuine?

(xx-post)

how do we know, in fact, if any of us are genuine

a 'friend' of mine used about 10 socks to get tuomas so yeah.

― FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Thursday, March 5, 2009 8:49 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

a 'special' friend?

does an SB implementation need approval from either Keith or Stet, given the setup?

sheesh!

Because I have no reason to believe Enrique was lying. And I did get suggest banned, so it would be nice to know there was no foul play involved in that.

(xxx-post)

keith and stet are keeping a list of who has been naughty and who has been nice

tuomas, i assume the code has a system in place that will alert the moderators if an IP address is using multiple usernames

what is reality

only keith and stet know

they have looked into the heart of ilx & seen the other side

is this just fantasy xxp

tuomas wants answers

http://curiouslee.typepad.com/weblog/images/the_architect.jpg " class="noborder">

http://curiouslee.typepad.com/weblog/images/the_architect.jpg

tl;dr but lol anyway

Tuomas,

It's for the most part easy to detect sockpuppets; however, it's not that - it's because the people in the list of SBs are well-known individuals whose usernames and login IDs are traceable to who they are. So for example, if you SB someone, I can be sure it's not a sockpuppet. If it's someone I've never heard of, then it's trickier

how many usrs hav i sbd

Why do you want to know that? To prove I can do it?

just curious - i think i may be the site leader in sbs doled out

keith can you tell us our true natures

what is my spirit animal

Maybe. It's a pain to get, since you have eight sockpuppets. You have SBd 16 people with your current user. Can't be bothered checking the rest right now - lot of typing.

Although you needn't have bothered SBing Chaki

only 16? thats an outrage! btw i dont hav any sockpuppets - just my old logins

Well, whatever you want to call them...

srsly i can only think of 3

who did icey sb?

What, users or SBs? Happy to paste them here if it's OK by you.

sure

Sorry, Carne, dunno who Icey is, plus if I start answering questions like that I will be here for ever and I need to go out to stock up on bacon.

lol, that's okay

p?nico, jh¤$I-I€@, awse, jhøshea, Dr Morbius Schefter, jh¤shea, jh0shea, jh?shea

awse

rip Dr Morbius Schefter

haha i got banned for that one

dont think i ever received the confirmation email for awse

thx keith!

not a sarcastic complaint abt missing confirmation email btw^ irl ty ;)

http://www.bitterwallet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/bullshit2.jpg

can you unblock my work and home ip addresses?

p?nico, jh¤$I-I€@, awse, jhøshea, Dr Morbius Schefter, jh¤shea, jh0shea, jh?shea

― Keith, Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:47 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark

poll

!!

harmonious family feast (Del Monte Young) is about the best username ever

harmonious family feast (Del Monte Young) has been banned permanently.

damn that was fast

already making great contributions with one post, and the moderators had to silence a hero

do we get to know which mod?

whiney tho that is the dude who shut down the entire board just for lols, you can rather see ppl's point can'tcha

http://rodneymullins.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/forgiveness.jpg

"shut down the entire board"

see what i did? i put the nonsensical part in scare quotes

"ppl's"

"J0hn D."

"Dr. Phil"

"'tcha"

""Dr. Phil""

"Wednesday"

"scare quotes"

I'm not a mod Dr. Phil. were you not here when we all got to enjoy a picture of some worm family thing instead of the board for a weekend, and later got to hear the old forum troll excuse that because he'd shown us a vulnerability in the system, we were supposed to be grateful?

"worm family thing"

cause like my v. naive & controversial position is "don't do shit like that"

i was here ; )

not as funny as the time he banned kate but didnt do anything else

i remember a mod shutting the board down. jw never did such a thing

wait that was u is what you're saying? cause that was some bullshit, although I did lol

worm family robinson

wait that was u is what you're saying? cause that was some bullshit, although I did lol

now i'm lost what are u referring to? worm? lol

mainly I'm just on this thread to cop new screen names

but there was one time when I guess there was a hole in the ilx code that (I thought) jw exploited to put the same animated image (I think it was a gif but it could have been something else I don't know) on every thread. if I remember right, you could still see text, but mainly just the image. I think the image's name is "happy family." pretty sure I did not hallucinate this.

happiness is a worm son

we're a happy family

it was a cat waving hello xxp

http://www.gfxcomments.com/media/20/Cat-waving-hi-X36R5H4OCE.gif

so jon is banned forever for wormcat?

xpost lol

that cat has worms too?

his hair flickers

every time you SB god kills a flickering kitten

so the thing is i am not a dick. ive never been banned, never started a thread that was deleted, never done revives or whatever. when ive had a problem with people with very few exceptions ive been measured and honest in my dealings with them. and id like to believe that my not being a dick would give me some kind of credibility with the mods. but apparently it doesnt--apparently even questioning gershy's ban makes you some kind of idiot stalker fukk, or worse, a "lawyer."

never saw max's original post of this last year because i was offline for a few weeks at that time, but man it really bums me out how much i identify with this part. maybe even moreso for me because i've been on this site for 7-8 years and now it just feels like oh you can be a conscientious poster (relatively speaking, i know i'm not always the most pleasant guy) around here forever but as long as someone else who was part of a certain clique a little longer has mod privs and you don't, trying to argue any mod-related point or have any effect at all on the system is about as good as banging your head against a wall. i mean i've been past the point of even wanting to post something like this for a while, just saying, it sucks.

I think the various username changes can also make people confused who's an old-time poster and who's not. For example, I had no idea you've posted here for 7-8 years, because I don't know what name you used previously.

I was going to say the same thing, but more crabbily, as is my wont.

Like, I cant take anyone seriously who looks like they're either a sockpuppet or have been here for 3 months, no offence to anyone specifically.

(and FWIW to get back on topic, I think the mods are fine and I have no beef with any of them - including Tom when he was still kicking butt)

a 'friend' of mine used about 10 socks to get tuomas so yeah.

― FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Thursday, March 5, 2009 8:49 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

So it seems someone did exploit this loophole. Or maybe I would've gotten 51 SBs even without those sock puppets, I don't know.

― Tuomas, Wednesday, 29 April 2009 16:10 (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

oh come on, of COURSE you would have

think the 10 sockpuppets thing is probably, y'know, a joke referring to the lengths people were prepared to go to to silence your warped genius trolling even temporarily; welcome back though!

maybe it wasn't really him, is what i'm hearing here

I don't think Enrique's comment was supposed to be a joke: he posted that when someone else wondered how Ethan could've gotten so many SBs in such a short time.

Of course Enrique himself can probably confirm whether what he said was true or not.

I guess I would feel secure with the SB system if everytime someone is about to get suggest banned an admin or mod would check all the SBs he's received to see if two or more of them came from the same IP address, before the user is actually banned. Though from what I've gathered it's even possible to use a fake IP address, so I guess the system wouldn't still be watertight.

I do check this, Tuomas, amongst lots of other things. It is watertight if you throw out anyone who could even potentially be a sockpuppet.

I don't think Enrique's comment was supposed to be a joke: he posted that when someone else wondered how Ethan could've gotten so many SBs in such a short time.

Of course Enrique himself can probably confirm whether what he said was true or not.

― Tuomas, Thursday, April 30, 2009 11:54 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i'm afraid i don't have any friends so yeah, it was bullshit. i think i was making a rhetorical point about ethan (or dom?) (or both) getting s-banned.

sounds like something you'd do

the clue is in the username

in a way, they are free, if you think about it

I thought the username was pointing out that they are in fact the only ones of our number who are free

I do check this, Tuomas, amongst lots of other things. It is watertight if you throw out anyone who could even potentially be a sockpuppet.

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for the answer.

i thought it was a reference to beloved 80s action-comedy "freedom 'n ethan"

that was the knockoff where everybody was just burnin doin the proton dance, right? fuckin awesome

Ethan gasps as slim pale buttocks come into view, not for the sight alone, though that is pretty enough, but for the mark inscribed upon them. Placed there for his eyes only, the twisted symbol of chaos written in magic so ancient it brings the frigid breath of eternal night closer on his heels.

This is the one then, the ‘Champion’ he was set to destroy, hiding, as he was told, behind a Watcher’s skirts. Hardly the slip of a girl Ethan expected when the infernal preacher offered him this contract with the devil. And why a vampire should require further corruption is beyond him. It seems almost a pity to destroy what little sense remains in those shadowed eyes, but this was the purchase price of freedom and Ethan knows the cost of disobedience. He shudders, pushing more recent memories from his mind, of white white walls and the all-American nightmare. He will not go back.

More for distraction than from any dire need, Ethan weaves his power around the pair and taps into the energy they create, pulling it from the air and using it to recharge his slowly depleting reserves. The vampire is in Ripper’s lap now, sun-bronzed hands stark against light-starved skin. It is a place Ethan knows better than his own soul and their movements leave nothing to the imagination. Not that Ethan needs to imagine; his body remembers even what his mind wishes to deny. The lack of Ripper is a continuous unanswered throb that permeates his existence as surely as magic, pursuing his dreams and tearing him into grasping wakefulness. The taste of them hangs heavy around him. Ripper’s searing flavours held fast, as always, by an iron will. The vampire strangely muted, though distinct in its coppery overtones, and through them both anger, denial and deep, bone weary sadness.

The vampire has a soul.

"mark bronson" if you continue to repost things from my blog to ilx i will ask to have you banned

maybe even moreso for me because i've been on this site for 7-8 years and now it just feels like oh you can be a conscientious poster (relatively speaking, i know i'm not always the most pleasant guy) around here forever but as long as someone else who was part of a certain clique a little longer has mod privs and you don't, trying to argue any mod-related point or have any effect at all on the system is about as good as banging your head against a wall. i mean i've been past the point of even wanting to post something like this for a while, just saying, it sucks.

― just being playful and friendly (some dude), Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:41 AM

its like asking a cop a question, instead of giving an answer it thinks you're talking out of turn. (max is the pro bono lawyer? :) )

ive been disbarred over fallout from the 'vichintarya x vs. millar" case

vichytravelputabutter x, please

I think the various username changes can also make people confused who's an old-time poster and who's not. For example, I had no idea you've posted here for 7-8 years, because I don't know what name you used previously.

― Tuomas, Thursday, April 30, 2009 2:19 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I was going to say the same thing, but more crabbily, as is my wont.

― 65daysofsugban (Trayce), Thursday, April 30, 2009 3:01 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Like, I cant take anyone seriously who looks like they're either a sockpuppet or have been here for 3 months, no offence to anyone specifically.

― 65daysofsugban (Trayce), Thursday, April 30, 2009 3:02 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I was "al" for 4 years, then I was "Alex In Baltimore" for 2 and a half years, then I've been "some dude" for the past year...I know, I move so fast it's like a blur and your eyes can't focus.

'old-time poster' is such a good term

is this where i spam the thread with GIS results for 'old time poster'?

i cant take anyone seriously whos been on ilx for more than 5 years

these are what old-timey posters look like
http://www.ecsmuseum.com/images2/highwater_jug_band.jpg

max you don't take yourself seriously

damn straight

but maybe you should, is what i'm saying, because you haven't been here that long

it's good to know suggest ban cannot be gamed. why does it exist again?

its like asking a cop a question, instead of giving an answer it thinks you're talking out of turn. (max is the pro bono lawyer? :) )

It's like I mentioned about going off-board to another mod to complain about a power-trippin' mod. But you gotta watch out or you might get SBed like Kevin Spacey in LA Confidential if you go to the wrong guy.

it's good to know keith thinks he knows who all the socks are

crypticneb

Dr. Phil

lol

http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/mm/tempest/1778/Image/dr.%20Phil.jpg

why does it exist again?

mods were sick of 'BAN X' threads

most of those were trolls/spammers, not the people who have been sb'd

i recall BAN TUOMAS and BAN GABBNEB threads on Mod Request Board for sure. actual trolls/spammers didn't tend to get threads before they were dealt with anyway?

It's like I mentioned about going off-board to another mod to complain about a power-trippin' mod. But you gotta watch out or you might get SBed like Kevin Spacey in LA Confidential if you go to the wrong guy.

― •--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:27 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

LOL

xpost

tuomas is the most actual troll of them all.

You can see them all here (x-post):

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/FullTextSearchControllerServlet?terms=%22ban+%22&offset=0&searchtype=text&startdate=&enddate=&artefact=threads&idtype=null&sortorder=Relevance&boardid=56

This isn't really why it was done though.

BAN BANNING

This isn't really why it was done though.

...

That isn't why it was developed. That is part of the reason why it was turned on (the other part being "how would this work in practice and would it be beneficial or detrimental to the site"; discussions like these make me think that it by and large doesn't have an impact on 85% of the posters, but the 15% who are impacted by it are incredibly vocal about it, pushing the balance towards being detrimental to the site).

what's your preferred system bnw?
no banning ever under any circumstances?
or banning only by mods after evident protests by enough different posters?

the 15% who are impacted by it are incredibly vocal about it, pushing the balance towards being detrimental to the site).

That makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy just because someone people can't shut the fuck up. No reason it has to be the necessary course of events.

yeah we could just keep having this conversation once a month

That makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy just because someone people can't shut the fuck up.

I agree wholeheartedly but unfortunately it doesn't change the user experience.

no banning ever under any circumstances?
or banning only by mods after evident protests by enough different posters?

― Hard House SugBanton (blueski), Thursday, April 30, 2009 2:43 PM

no banning + killfile/ignore user ability

no banning no killfile

see what happens when internet stops being polite

and starts being real

it would galvanize millions of posters to 'get real'

what if we all lived in the same loft in brooklyn

could you get the phone

hostage exchange program:

dom for tuomas
ethan for gabbneb

see what happens when internet stops being polite

and starts being real

I thought this was what youtube comment boxen were for.

to get back to the thread topic, what do mods think about starting a board called I Love Jurispriudence. Whenever someone has a beef with a mod, they start a thread there. i will be the fair, impartial judge and I will "sanction" those who deserve to be sanctions--be it mod or commoner.

no i think the result of the beef should be decided by 12 randomly selected posters who vote in a poll

ethan for gabbneb

ethan could come back if he wanted to you hapless goof

to get back to the thread topic, what do mods think about starting a board called I Love Jurispriudence. Whenever someone has a beef with a mod, they start a thread there. i will be the fair, impartial judge and I will "sanction" those who deserve to be sanctions--be it mod or commoner.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, April 30, 2009 3:36 PM

http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/nuremberg_trials.gif

cant wait till i seize control of the boards and enforce war crimes trials

well try tombot in absentia

i will name dr phil & velko co-chairs of the truth & reconciliation panel

man this thread is too real for me

KILLFILE 2.0

In case ppl forgot where the killfile script was.

blueski its up to you whether or not you'll be tried as a collaborator

Getting back to the thread topic does seem like a good idea.

The original poster's point is fine, and hasn't really been answered, and I think the noise that gets created by this sort of thing tends to drown out the reasonable points, which might explain the 'talking to a brick wall' point that some dude made. It would be nice to separate the people who have a genuine concern and those that are just annoyed because their friend got banned, but seen as the latter try to disguise themselves as the former, it makes this tricky.

However, I think just starting a thread about it seems fine. But I do think for it to have credibility, then it would want to be people who don't have high SB counts themselves that are doing the complaining, like Three Word Username, for example. I can see that it would be quite hard to take it seriously when a complaint is made by someone whose friend has just been banned and has also had 45 suggest bans.

You can also use ILXmail to contact mods directly; this also greatly increases the signal-to-noise ratio (but please remember to include a return email address if you're looking for a quick response!)

cool. so which mod should i direct my I Love Jurisprudence proposal to? (It's a 12 page word document.)

I can see that it would be quite hard to take it seriously when a complaint is made by someone whose friend has just been banned and has also had 45 suggest bans.

― Keith, Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:02 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Will definitely be quoting this next time Tuomas complains about anything.

Although opportunistically: it's a bullshit argument. The "genuine concern" is that quality posters are often also divisive posters, and on a long enough timeline will get 50+ suggest-bans. And it's easily open to sockpuppet abuse. How would you know, if I went to an internet cafe and set up a second account?

I don't even know who TWU is btw.

"on a long enough timeline will get 50+ suggest-bans"

this is one part of the sb system that has never been address afaik. Expiration dates for votes. And length of bans.

However, I think just starting a thread about it seems fine. But I do think for it to have credibility, then it would want to be people who don't have high SB counts themselves that are doing the complaining, like Three Word Username, for example. I can see that it would be quite hard to take it seriously when a complaint is made by someone whose friend has just been banned and has also had 45 suggest bans.

― Keith, Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:02 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark

I agree with that philosophy it really didn't help me here

can you please disable suggest ban now?

"but"

Edward, I didn't suggest that posting a thread automatically gets you what you want. I suggested that if people have a particular problem with a given moderator's action(s) (of course, not a moderator themselves), then starting a thread about it would seem fine.

yeah but there are exactly two posts by mods in that thread, one of which is dp weridly jumping on e3's use of "unamerican" and locking it.

the admin log's lack of names and explanations does not help transparency either.

i mean maybe there are perfectly good arguments about how the sb system is not broken and works totally fine and everyone's concerns have a reasonable counterpoint but no one has articulated them.

We went through that in excruciating detail about two years ago, bnw and ultimately people were fine with my reasoning for not revealing that information. It's in mod request board somewhere x-post.

Call all - we have discussed this, though it's probably hard to find. I'd be happy to have a polite discussion about it and what my own views are, though they don't necessarily represent everyone. To start with, what are your own views as to why it is broken (assuming that's what you think).

Bear in mind that the alternative (as I see it), is moderators deciding who gets banned.

the name part I can see, though other mods should be able to see it. the explanation part might help in quelling meta threads.

Bear in mind that the alternative (as I see it), is moderators deciding who gets banned.

This seems to be how it functions anyway w/r/t the length of the ban.

Yeah, I did debate whether I should reveal it at all. It is recorded and yes other mods don't see it at present. Not bothered if they see it, but not revealing it to the public. Explanation, yes that's probably right in some cases... People need to fill it in, I guess.

I agree with that re: how it works, but there is a difference; it's not just an arbitrary decision by a mod; it's a decision made by a community of people, so there are some checks and balances; the mods being able to revoke the ban is a sort of final check (i.e. making sure people weren't ganged up on or whatever).

Call all - we have discussed this, though it's probably hard to find. I'd be happy to have a polite discussion about it and what my own views are, though they don't necessarily represent everyone. To start with, what are your own views as to why it is broken (assuming that's what you think).

Bear in mind that the alternative (as I see it), is moderators deciding who gets banned.

― Keith, Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:47 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Keith there have been at least two fairly sensible suggestions that I think would probably make a lot of people stop complaining (not Tuomas, though...)

1) Have a sliding scale where a given number of suggest bans earns a poster a ban of X amount of time, where the more suggest bans a poster has earned, the longer they're banned for

2) Make the suggest bans "wear off" after a while--otherwise won't we all, eventually, get banned?

keith thanks for your response, i gotta run but i'll outline my basic issues:

no expiration on individual suggest bans after x days

when someone gets 51, mods have basically been treating it as a temp ban--take a month off, come back, try to be cool. this is good but right now moderators are deciding who gets unbanned and i think it should be automatic after 30, 60, whatever days.

what i see happening is over time lots of posters getting 51'd just because every sb is eternal. then it will be up to mods to let them back in. i would prefer this stuff be done systemically, and if there is no appetite for coding it then the current system should be abolished. if ppl have problems with a poster they can start an IMP or MRF thread, if they would prefer it done quietly they should take it up with a mod in e-mail.

basically i think we have half of an ok system, but imo given the sensitivity of this stuff we should really have all or none of a system.

this is my understanding of stuff, pls correct if any of my facts are wrong.

max summed up quicker than i could but yeah similar stuff

Max, it might make some level of sense, but to date, after a year, only a few people have been SBd, so I'm not sure it's solving a great problem that exists (and it's a bunch of work).

Still, it's not a bad idea. My fear is that after some time, we'd just be back here arguing about it, because some people don't want it, not because it is or isn't fair, but because they want immunity from moderator action. If I felt there were loads of people arbitrarily getting banned, then I would definitely change it, but for now, it's pretty much people that the moderators agree should've been banned anyway.

The second point is a possibility, but it's actually more complicated than that - whose SB would I make wear off? And do they then get to SB you again? etc. What I have noticed, is that posters that modify their behaviour (you for example!) pretty much immediately stall on the getting SBs, so maybe it doesn't matter.

"It's worked so far" is not great justification for a cumulative process.

If there's a concern about moderator bias, I'd suggest time limits on that as well. Mods aren't voted on but bans are. Maybe who's a mod should be a cycle? I don't know if there's enough of 'em to do that but it might be healthier for all involved.

Call all, yeah I guess it's similar concerns to Max's.

I actually think the solution might be less, rather than more technical. Formalising it all and getting a machine to calculate when you're banned is probably a bad thing; at least, on its own, and I think the misunderstanding about the way it works at the moment is that mods ignore it, people get banned and everyone's going to get it sooner or later.

The actual idea is that if someone gets SBd, the mods immediately look at it and revoke it if it is unfair; however, the problem with that is that some people don't trust that the mods will do this, which is understandable when they can't read the mods' discussions and so on.

I would say again that only a few people have actually been banned over a year now, and whether you agree or not, I doubt anyone is surprised as to who it has been.

I would also say that going with my assumption that the alternative is that mods decide who gets banned and there's no backup from the community then this seems like a worse solution.

Out of interest, less than 5% of ILXors have any suggest bans at all.

Does that answer the question to some degree, if not address everything? I think the problem is that there is not a perfect solution, just a least bad one.

"It's worked so far" is not great justification for a cumulative process.

Oh I agree with that, but it might be a reason not to change it until it is proven to become an issue. I think I'm speculating that it probably won't be, though I suspect that some of you think it probably will be.

Though I think the trouble with setting up something like you suggest to vote on removing bans would not only be a bunch of work, but rapidly become a clickfest between various people to ban and unban, so not so sure about that. Ultimately, there has to be some arbitration in any community, and it's the moderators that perform this function. I think SB just opens it up a bit wider; ultimately the mods are responsible.

Max, it might make some level of sense, but to date, after a year, only a few people have been SBd, so I'm not sure it's solving a great problem that exists (and it's a bunch of work).

Still, it's not a bad idea. My fear is that after some time, we'd just be back here arguing about it, because some people don't want it, not because it is or isn't fair, but because they want immunity from moderator action.

A sunset-date for a Suggest Ban makes sense, but only under certain situations. The strongest case is where someone Suggest Bans another poster as a joke, or in an angry flash. The weakest case is where someone feels harassed and/or threatened and/or stalked by the poster they've Suggest Banned. In that situation, I assume the banning party would want to reinstate their ban-vote once the prior vote expired, but it seems wrong to put the onus on the victim to calendar the date their Suggest Ban expires. Anyway, on-balance a sunset-date on Suggest Bans seems reasonable. Just being contrary, I guess.

Daniel, I think this is right, and I think that a situation as complicated for this is going to take more than a computer to make the decision, hence the SB system just flagging the thing up and moderators then acting. At the moment, it might mean someone is briefly banned and maybe one day I could change it to flag to mods and get them to do it if everything's above board.

well the "problem"--in certain ways--is that there are at least two competing ideas (and probably more) of what a message board community should be like and how it should regulate itself.

also fwiw i never modified my behavior! before or after i learned my total!! if anything i am more of a dick!

xxp

why not just make it a flagging system, then, and not an automatic ban system?

I would also say that going with my assumption that the alternative is that mods decide who gets banned and there's no backup from the community then this seems like a worse solution.

I mostly agree with this BUT it opens the board up for meta-discussions which drives mods understandably bonkers. You are making the process of judging posters more public and that's going to have repercussions.

Also for the user, sb should be considered voting on a permanent ban b/c they have no input on how long that ban lasts. I don't think people have been treating it as such.

if anything i am more of a dick!

Haha, well whatever, your SBs have stalled; you must be annoying fewer people. Totally agree with the first statement. Someone's got to make a call.

Agree with the last point (although in essence, the spirit of it is this anyway, it just works in reverse); however, I don't think that's going to stop the arguments.

One thing I have learned over the years is how easy it is for lots of people to agree on what is wrong, but far harder to get them all to agree on what's right.

bnw, if you have any suggestions that can get rid of the meta discussions I think the mods will be all ears! What used to happen is that people tried to find out which mod 'did it' and then have a 10,000 post thread having a go at them.

Second point I agree with. I should put some wording in.

Can a mod plz mail me my current total btw :)

(sorry for asking so regularly but it pays to be vigilant)

Edward, I didn't suggest that posting a thread automatically gets you what you want. I suggested that if people have a particular problem with a given moderator's action(s) (of course, not a moderator themselves), then starting a thread about it would seem fine.

― Keith, Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:39 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark

sorry I wasn't clear on this - I didn't expect anyone to jump up and execute my request, I just wanted some discussion on the topic. I'm not tuomas' buddy and I can't imagine I had many SBs before february turned me into #1 SB board solicitor. so I met the standard of "credible complaint" but that thread got shut down pretty quickly just the same.

I don't really want to reopen this whole can o' worms cuz dan + john + I worked it out, but yr post sparked a memory of my non-partisan attempt at debate getting stifled.

Sure. And discussion is fine. I haven't actually read that thread, but I'm guessing it got locked because it was turning into a slagging fest. There is a problem there for sure when some people are actually trying to have a sensible discussion, but not sure exactly what to do about that...

Anyway, better go and do some work!

I would say again that only a few people have actually been banned over a year now, and whether you agree or not, I doubt anyone is surprised as to who it has been.

dunno, I was pretty surprised about gabbneb and tuomas

ethan not surprising but very disappointing, still miss that guy

one of my issues w/ SB is that it turns ILX into horseville... only naysayers get a vote

can we have a suggest stay button

You are making the process of judging posters more public and that's going to have repercussions.

But making it less public would raise the screaming to insane levels!

1. There is no single solution that's going to suit everybody
2. There are posters who will scream bloody murder unless it's their solution that's implemented
3. Profit!

The current evolution of 51 SBs into an enforced cool-off, which can be lifted (and generally has been lifted) after a while, seems like a working system to me.

loads of xposts, I think Keith has beat me to all this.

thanks keith... :-/

yeah, I don't think you can get rid of meta-discussion on a message board. Some things are not possible on the internet.

I do like my "rotating mods" idea though. I leave it up to you guys to implement it.

xpost the when and can be lifted is worthy of discussion imo

the SYSTEM is WORKING

EVERYBODY is HAPPY

Haha, well whatever, your SBs have stalled; you must be annoying fewer people.

my guess is that the 25+ people on this board who REALLY hate me have already registered their displeasure and since no one else really cares im not accumulating anymore

You could still change that.

no accountability.

― JW, Saturday, March 3, 2007 1:19 AM (2 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Fwiw, the calm and reasonable way Keith regularly addresses this issue is a good reason why moderator threads that feature his appearance usually become a bit more rational and diplomatic by this point.

hmm isnt it weird that asshole hardman posturing begets irritating pests

http://leasingnews.org/items/HMMMM_cartoon.jpg

hmm isnt it weird that irritating pests beget asshole hardman posturing begets irritating pests beget asshole hardman posturing beget...

OUROBOROS.jpg

Chicken-egg

can Keith be the official mod spokesperson? it's so refreshing to have someone who doesn't come off like a scolding short-tempered schoolteacher handle these questions and complaints, seriously man, thank you.

xpost HI DERE

Keep reading this thread title as "Is moderate misbehavior at all sanctionable?" and finding myself in illicit agreement

one of my issues w/ SB is that it turns ILX into horseville... only naysayers get a vote

loving this folksy wisdom

can Keith be the official mod spokesperson? it's so refreshing to have someone who doesn't come off like a scolding short-tempered schoolteacher handle these questions and complaints, seriously man, thank you.

i agree that keith does this admirably, but speaking as the dude who used to try to do this same thing, most of the time a bunch of you peeps start getting snide, and then people call you a nazi, and then you just stop bothering to try to patiently and rationally respond.

if there's going to be this visible and unmovable line between mods and the rest of us, imo the haves should feel an obligation to take the high road even when the have-nots are taking the low road. you can't raise the level of discourse per se but you can certainly hasten the drop.

I didn't think I was hastening the drop but I think I made Edward III mad. Or maybe not! It's hard to tell.

the exchange between you and Edward is pretty tame as far as mod/non-mod relations go

nah im not saying that mods have the right to be abusive, i was just pointing out why they might turn unresponsive, so maybe if dudes like getting straight answers, it works better if you dont tell us what bastards we all are on the regular xpost

Thanks, but I do agree with John as I've watched it happen many times.

I think part of the issue here is that there are a bunch of people who tend to write on these type of threads; some of them have genuine questions, but some of them really just want to derail it into abusing mods and setting up an 'us and them' scenario, I think because that's how they get their ILX enjoyment - they do it really successfully, because it's like setting fire to something; after a while it perpetuates itself.

I'd love to see what we could all do to try and defuse this situation. It is pretty hard, because some people (and as I say, I think they're in the minority) try quite hard to continually stir things up and quite often people, be it mods or users don't notice the difference too much; it's just messages on a message board, so they get snippy at everyone.

Some dude, your point about being ignored kind of hit home, because I kind of had you as a stirrer, but in going back and having a look, I think (though not absolutely sure), that I think that because my brain had you as this purely because you're on a bunch of threads that the real stirrers are on. The armchair psychologist in me also thinks its the anonymity of your username helps to dehumanise! Maybe go back to Alex in Baltimore!

Regardless, it takes serious effort on all sides to keep things on the level.

the exchange between you and Edward is pretty tame as far as mod/non-mod relations go

ahhh cmon man 99.9% of mod/non-mod relations are totally copacetic - basically there is a group of about 10 non-mods and 3 mods that regularly go to war with each other on the same dumb threads about the same dumb stuff every time.

xpost

so basically what keith said

Fwiw, the calm and reasonable way Keith regularly addresses this issue is a good reason why moderator threads that feature his appearance usually become a bit more rational and diplomatic by this point.― •--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Thursday, April 30, 2009 5:46 PM (59 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

in my alternate history of ILX keith posted FUCK OFF and locked the thread at this point

That's not alternate history, that's Bizarro World.

the only reason im a dick on these threads is cuz im still butthurt from the original gershy thread

I wasn't meaning you, Max. You had a reasonable discussion about it above, but I do think you get carried along with the current sometimes.

I didn't think I was hastening the drop but I think I made Edward III mad. Or maybe not! It's hard to tell.

― WmC, Thursday, April 30, 2009 6:30 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

wait WAHT

I've never been mad at you, what did I miss?

I posted this,

The current evolution of 51 SBs into an enforced cool-off, which can be lifted (and generally has been lifted) after a while, seems like a working system to me.

and 2 minutes later you posted

the SYSTEM is WORKING

EVERYBODY is HAPPY

― 鬼の手 (Edward III), Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:31 PM (1 hour ago)

and I honestly didn't know if you were pissed off, or just being sarcastic, or what.

yeah that was sarcasm

nothing personal u are an awesome mod

you probly have a higher opinion of my moderating than I do actually

but if I have any point to make it's that interjections of sarcasm like that make it harder to make any real progress towards understanding and consensus on these threads. And now it looks like I'm singling you out, but I don't mean to be. I just wish everybody with a point to make would make it instead of bringing the lolz or the sarcasm or the anger. That's what the rest of ILX is for, but it would be so great if that was all left at the IMP door. My problem, I'm sure, is that I'm an old irony-deprived American who puts way too much faith in earnestness.

it is true that i fraternize with stirrers and participate in threads that involve stirring more than i myself stir, but i would like to think that's less mob mentality or piling on than just that i see persistent but ultimately reasonable guys like max or edward getting constantly told "you're the only person that cares about this, give it a rest" and i want to show solidarity with them. i really hate seeing the same ridiculous stalemate every time because supposedly an insignificant minority has an opinion about how the board is being moderated while any attempt to measure popular opinion with a poll is subjected to locking, moving, or is generally disregarded as manipulated by sockpuppets so we come back to the same argument a few weeks later with no way to quantify the claim that nobody cares.

cosign the last 2 some dude posts.

Any mod who finds himself being an asshole should step down. This is the reason I could never be a mod btw.

i dont think any of the current mods think they are being assholes tho, and unless you have someone in mind i dont really know what purpose saying that really serves?

when i mod is possibly the only time i am not an asshole

RIP tombot

we should have more mods that are girls, that might solve part of this "hardman" problem

uh tehresa and abbott are both sitewide mods, btw

i know, and everyone likes them

just a suggestion!!!!

actually, a conscious decision was made to do exactly that (although not for hardman deflection reasons). i think someone else was offered the option but declined IIRC.

was it ruth bader ginsburg?

she never returns my emails ;_;

and unless you have someone in mind i dont really know what purpose saying that really serves?

― ***OSCARBAITS FURIOUSLY*** (jjjusten), Thursday, April 30, 2009 8:34 PM (49 minutes ago) Bookmark

Why are you getting defensive?

oh lord here we go

Let me rephrase "being an asshole" as being like esoj taking things personally. When you get defensive it sounds like this is what you're doing.

heh

not speaking for anyone but myself but when there's such a relatively small number of mods it can be challenging to not take things directed at "mods" personally

I don't think John was taking anything personally, I think he was asking you to be specific if you have a particular mod and a particular instance in mind.
xpost

i think a couple of site mods are making things worse at the moment, and could use a year off. i can be specific, but my general point is that if you find it difficult or you don't enjoy it then take a break.

yeah...i don't know if mods feel any kind of pressure or obligation, whether internally or externally, to stay a mod for as long as they post, but more and more of them seem to act as if it's some cross to bear they can't control or they'd feel responsible for the chaos that would ensue if they ever stopped. i don't know if that mentality contributed to Tombot choosing to go completely off the board instead of just eating his mod privs and sticking around as a poster, but the thought had crossed my mind and if that's the case it's a damn shame and possibly a cautionary tale.

well be specific then! the whole point i keep raising on this thread is that people are making all of these vague mentions of problematic mod behavior, but seem unwilling to commit to pointing out what their complaint is. i mean, i could respond to what you are saying by saying that i dont find it difficult, and yeah when people make allusions to how the mods are all dicks it isnt enjoyable per se, but at the same time, that seems to be kind of par for the course on this site. xpost

this shouldnt be exactly a news flash to anyone, but being a mod sort of comes with the unfortunate rubric of people thinking that you are making the wrong decisions. i cant speak for everyone here, but i think that generally (controversial opinion) the right decisions have been made for the good of the site in general.

when we have threads like this after a particular incident of a mod being controversial or making controversial decisions, the thread becomes all about that person and how everyone feels about them, and ultimately it has no effect on board policy as a whole. when we have threads like this that are more general in addressing the state of things with mods, names and specific incidents are demanded to justify the conversation. honestly feels like kind of a catch 22 to me. i don't think we need to have some itemized list of offending people and actions before looking at what could be done to prevent, discourage, control or ensure some accountability for future mod assholery.

No way, I'm calling "pics or it didn't happen."

i mean srsly, getting back to the original question, there is obviously an ability to address concerns with modding, but vague references to unnamed mods doing unspecific things isnt going to get us there. no one has gotten banned for being direct and complaining about specific mod decisions. people have been banned for deciding to personally attack mods (far outside of board behaviour), but is that really suprising to anyone? and is it reasonable to expect otherwise, considering that the stated policy that involving IRL personal details of posters (mod or otherwise) in order to attack them is strictly off limits?

xposts

unnamed mods doing unspecific things

i.e. the admin log...

Where is that stated policy? Why do personal attacks on mods call for sitewide bannings? I'm not defending them but it sounds a lot like personal beef. When other users attack each other off board, no one gets banned.

im not talking about off board. i realize the elephant in the room here is dom getting banned, but he got banned prior to the email he sent dan. obv he didnt help his chances by sending an inflammatory email to a mod, but it wasnt what caused him to be banned in the first place.

re: unnamed mods doing unspecific things - when it comes to any major decision, i dont know of any controversial decisions that are still anonymous, but if anyone wants to mention one, i'll be glad to either point out where a mod said that they did it, or stand corrected.

and actually my mention of IRL personal attacks was a preemptive attempt to avoid people bringing up chaki.

since you've asked for specifics, pretty much every time i read a post by dan on a mod thread (e.g. the current one, the dom/ethan day, interactions with max and ice man) it makes me think he doesn't have the right temperament for the job. (neither have i, of course.)

it's much more the way he posts when debating mod policy or a particular incident than the decisions themselves he makes (which may be fine, i don't know what they are, lol admin log). but the point is, he makes things worse when he posts on these threads, and i've got no confidence in him as a mod. i realize it's difficult when you're being singled out personally (e.g. this post! sorry!) but he's singled out for a reason.

(i should add that i realize pretty much every non-mod who posts on these threads makes things worse too, but i think mods have to be held to a different standard to retain the confidence and continued benefit of the doubt of non-mods.)

I don't think it helps that you and Dan seem like tag-team partners a lot of the time. If there's been balkanization of the boards, it feels like your state is running the security council.

The current evolution of 51 SBs into an enforced cool-off, which can be lifted (and generally has been lifted) after a while, seems like a working system to me.

do the mods not see the problem with the "generally has been lifted" part of this? i think keith and other mods have made a lot of reasonable points here but the fact is at some point someone is going to get sb'd, the mods are going to be in no hurry to let said person back, and we're gonna have a shitshow on our hands.

The actual idea is that if someone gets SBd, the mods immediately look at it and revoke it if it is unfair; however, the problem with that is that some people don't trust that the mods will do this, which is understandable when they can't read the mods' discussions and so on.

exactly. this is why i would rather have the system decide who is banned and when they are unbanned than the mods. and i'm saying this as someone who hasn't necessarily disagreed with any of the decisions made re: specific users. but i'm not sure if having both SBs be secret AND mod discussion on SBs be secret is a good thing, given some of the aggressive modding that has gone on around here.

the fact is at some point someone is going to get sb'd, the mods are going to be in no hurry to let said person back, and we're gonna have a shitshow on our hands.

"FREE DOM AND ETHAN"

]also fwiw i never modified my behavior! before or after i learned my total!! if anything i am more of a dick!

SB'd max for this btw

do the mods not see the problem with the "generally has been lifted" part of this?

what problem is that? only one poster has not had their ban lifted after a month and that has been a deliberate choice on the part of the mods

the fact is at some point someone is going to get sb'd, the mods are going to be in no hurry to let said person back, and we're gonna have a shitshow on our hands.

why the assumption that the choice made about dom is definitely going to apply to other SB'd posters?

actually if you take into account new usernames, the only SB that hasnt been lifted is deeznuts.

re: dan and i being a tagteam modwise, i think that misperception is probably due to the fact that (full disclosure) we are both old IRL friends (sorry) and the fact that we tend to be fairly vocal about defending mod decisions, which are not ours alone.

xpost

whoops i always forget about deeznuts

up there in heaven jerking off to megan fox

xpost first point: the problem is that ppl don't fully trust the mods.

second point: because over time, posters more innocuous than dom (a group that includes all posters) are going to get sb'd. then, see first point.

i'm saying this as someone who generally thinks the mods do a good job. i just think this sb system kinda sucks. and what it's doing is resulting in the same couple hundred posts in some thread about once a month. and most of those posts are from people who like the site and mean well.

the sb thing needs to be worked out for sure, but dan and john have been pretty good mods - imo dom should be let back on board but just think back what it would be like if we had tombot handling this

and the fact the tombot was a mod is one reason ppl don't trust the mods

my main problem, which ship touched on earlier, is that all these discussions end up as like the top 10 or 15 posters (frequency-wise) arguing with the mods and the mods using the feelings of "the rest of ilx" as reasoning for some decisions, and yet, we can't quantify who these people are. and of course, no one trusts polls. there needs to be a way to remedy this i think.

i feel this thread is like the older kids' party that i wasn't invited to

my main problem, which ship touched on earlier, is that all these discussions end up as like the top 10 or 15 posters (frequency-wise) arguing with the mods and the mods using the feelings of "the rest of ilx" as reasoning for some decisions, and yet, we can't quantify who these people are. and of course, no one trusts polls. there needs to be a way to remedy this i think.

way otm

i think that misperception is probably due to the fact that (full disclosure) we are both old IRL friends (sorry) and the fact that we tend to be fairly vocal about defending mod decisions, which are not ours alone.

It doesn't really seem like a misconception then.

you seem to be missing the point.

if your issue is that we are old friends, i apologize for our lack of personal detachment? doesnt affect our mod decisions though, we have totally different TERRIBLE PERSONAL VENDETTAS.

first point: the problem is that ppl don't fully trust the mods.

Please don't speak for everyone by saying things like this.

(I dont agree with it)

doesnt affect our mod decisions though

So you are moderating yourself then.

i honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make here dude

like srsly not being a dick, i am unable to parse what you are trying to say

I feel as if a few people in this thread are arguing in a circle without much in the way of concrete points of complaint, apart perhaps from "you wont let Dom back in".

Do some people have a problem with the mods sticking to their guns and saying "decision's made, suck it up"? I mean isnt that what moderators DO?

deep thoughtssome things i think, by gabbneb:

1. a significant cause of complaints about mod activity here is the sometimes absence of a prominent notice of mod action and the justification for it - when a judge makes a ruling, there's often an opinion to go along with it, authority is rooted in part in transparency, etc.
2. another cause of complaints may be the absence of an appeal process
3. there are generally limits on appeals, though
4. not all, but many of the people who are complaining about bans or mod activity are engaging in just the sort of 'popularity contests' that some of these people apparently think they're objecting to; they'd admittedly be happy to have permabans for those they dislike but not for those they do, regardless of the justification for the ban; while none of us can be fully objective here, i'm guessing that mods try harder than non-mods
5. 50 posters and/or socks voted to ban dom and ethan because they objected to, for example, their negativity (and/or absence of positive contribution, at least in the former's case) and/or crudeness (maybe some people banned simply because D&E are about dumb 'lol's)
6. 50 posters and/or socks voted to ban me and tuomas at least in part because we're great at winding them up, in tuomas' case, largely unintentionally (though hilariously) afaic, in my case perhaps a little more intentionally (but also hilariously, obv)
7. 50 posters and/or socks voted to ban me and tuomas at least in part because of who we 'are' (respectively, 'scandinavian' 'feminist' dude and 'rich', 'upper east side' dude) and our love of letting you know it
8. being different, or archer, or prettier, or twisting the knife, is not 'trolling'. fyi.
9. both anti-gabbneb sentiment and my willingness in general to war with words here arise at least in part out of minor off-board beef that the average poster is likely clueless about (some of the same may be true wrt ethan?)
10. it should have been clear as i approached 51 that i didn't much care either way; personally, i treated 51 as challenge more than deterrent in a sense but it's not like i'm a not coming back ever drama queen or anything
11. 'suggest ban' is pretty dumb, btw - you're not suggesting that someone be banned, you're voting for their banning. challops.
12. personally, i wouldn't expect any new/beloved posters to be 'sb'd' off the board anytime soon
13. my ban lasted longer than tuomas', perhaps justifiably so (not that banning the best poster on ilx is justifiable in the first place, you understand), but without notice or explanation
14. the long-temp ban has some of the tension-cooling (on both sides) impact intended for it, but doesn't by itself address underlying issues/tensions that may specifically or generally be misunderstood by the moderators and other parties
15. it should be evident to most people here nevertheless that board administrators favor minimizing the work required of moderators and some time ago decided, with some public approval, to impose a fairly obtuse system of adjudication and punishment towards that end, and that even in the unlikely event that the specific approach is changed, the general principle will not, perhaps with reason
16. not that i don't nevertheless get into it with mods at least as much or more than the next poster in the interests of attacking the general principle or its specific applications (sometimes as means to attacking the general principle) or in trying to get what i understand/'boardlawyer' to be stated policies to be carried out fairly; that sort of reaction probably isn't going to change either
17. it's inappropriate for mods to be undiplomatic, as some have been, sometimes often, when posting in their official capacity
18. much of the response to mods has been equally if not more undiplomatic; that doesn't justify an undiplomatic mod response
19. nevertheless, i'm unaware of any moderator 'misbehavior', whatever that means (conspiratorial note - i went over 50 right after i intemperately posted 'bitch please' as retort to dan in a moderation beef)
20. i have no real problem with the identity of the current mods, some of whom i otherwise like as people/posters more than others, and don't necessarily see a present need for new mods or a policy of rotating mods
21. not to add to the in-absentia speculation, but i imagine that tom is not a mod or much of a poster anymore simply because he's devoting himself to work (personally i think ilx can be a productivity aid in some circumstances, but i certainly understand staying away in others or in general) and other elements of 'real life' (or maybe nursing his belief that he's smarter than all of us ;) - this place has gotten dumber, tho)

and yes, i am the scandinavian feminist

oh, and 51, not 50?

tl;drneb

otm

Out of interest, less than 5% of ILXors have any suggest bans at all.

this probably means "5% of registered ILXors" which isn't quite the same thing. it's the people who post on the reg that get into these shitstorms, and it's people who post on the reg who get s-banned. it's not hard to understand.

i realize the elephant in the room here is dom getting banned, but he got banned prior to the email he sent dan. obv he didnt help his chances by sending an inflammatory email to a mod, but it wasnt what caused him to be banned in the first place.

― ***OSCARBAITS FURIOUSLY*** (jjjusten), Friday, May 1, 2009 5:35 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

hate to return to this AGAIN but i went through dan's explanation of "why dom got permabanned" and showed it to be subliterate bullshit. he's a terrible person, obviously, but 95% of the board couldn't give a fuck, and you haven't articulated why the decision was made -- the only things i could see as real issues in dan's post were "bullying and intimidation" of posters, but no evidence of this was provided. otherwise "being a dick" doesn't cut it -- if he is, then the s-ban system takes care of it and he gets a month in the cooler.

let he who is without subliterate bullshit cast the first stone

LOL 421 new answers. assuming they're the same as usual i just want to reg support for the mods' actions of late, cuz i know that's often in short supply on these threads. no matter how badly you think they've behaved it's not been anywhere near as bad as the people who got banned. lol @ people defending dom!

Wait a minute, didnt Dom get about 100+ sugbans among his multiple logins or something? That doesnt sound like "no one gives a fuck" to me.

Wait a minute, didnt Dom get about 100+ sugbans among his multiple logins or something? That doesnt sound like "no one gives a fuck" to me.

― 65daysofsugban (Trayce), Friday, 1 May 2009 10:08 (38 minutes ago) Bookmark

But then how many of those bans were from the same people across the multiple logins? And if it was just about sugbans why wouldn't Dom be let back the same as everyone else? What makes him different?

Patrick, if this were true, it would of course be a problem; however, one of the difficulties I have in explaining this is that if I do explain the techniques I use to avoid people gaming the SB system, then it obviously allows people to start exploiting this knowledge. As I said to Tuomas, the ultimate check is if I am in any way unsure as to whether a vote is legit or not I get rid of it, which more the most part means that people getting to 51 in fact had more than 51 votes.

The chatter of voices you get here really doesn't help in terms of misconceptions and Chinese whispers and so forth, and I'm sure it's been pointed out before that Suggest Ban totals are irrelevant in Dom's case as it was a mod decision to ban him.

He should have been SB'ed a while before that, but due to spread out accounts he wasn't, and no one noticed. Whether or not he had accrued 51 SBs in total had no bearing on the mod decision to ban him. Whether he's treated in the same way as LJ or Gabbneb or Deeznuts or whoever is moot.

matt is otm: dom was not s-banned. he was "permabanned for actively and aggressively attempting to bully, intimidate, annoy, aggravate and drive away other posters via his actions on the board".

Yes and I only brought it up to counter enrique's 95% of ilx dont give a fuck argument I should point out.

well, no, it was keith's contention that 95% don't give a fuck.

I didn't say that.

can we maybe have a "Passantino: Do you give a fuck" poll?

ok.

xpost

100 out of 10,701 registered users is actually less than 5%.

Here is exactly what I said:

Out of interest, less than 5% of ILXors have any suggest bans at all.

estela that video is amazing

there are possibly many more people who were too timid or paralysed with rage to click suggest ban on Dom, though, we have to take them into account

true, keith, but the statement is part of your general flow of insinuations that only bad people get s-banned and only bad people protest about it, and that people who have high-ish s-ban counts should not be listened to because they are bad. after all, 95% of posters never get any, so there must be something wrong with the minority, right?

i would imagine that most high-frequency posters have attracted multiple s-bans, and as i've said before, over time even relatively mild posters (relative to dom lol) will get to 51.

If I can get SEVENTEEN then anyone can, frankly. I don't know what's wrong with these people.

12 of those were bronson socks

hate to return to this AGAIN but i went through dan's explanation of "why dom got permabanned" and showed it to be subliterate bullshit.

doesn't really help your case along, this kind of "this is only & exclusively about personal beef/clique and anything else I say is window-dressing" reveal

"only & exclusively" & solely too, why not?

balls.

I'm just telling you how it sounds, I get on well with Dom but to me you sound like "if Dom hadn't been banned, I would not give 1/2 of 1 shit about any of this & wouldn't be ad-hom'ing Dan every time I touched the keyboard"

The post in question that is being derided as bullshit is a paraphrase of grozat's post upthread, fwiw.

22. nrq's belief in his own objectivity, judgment and superior intelligence is hilarious

don't think i'm objective, g-dog.

I'm just telling you how it sounds, I get on well with Dom but to me you sound like "if Dom hadn't been banned, I would not give 1/2 of 1 shit about any of this & wouldn't be ad-hom'ing Dan every time I touched the keyboard"

― worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, May 1, 2009 2:51 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dude i've been beefing w/ mods since forever.

like, for your own personal entertainment?

http://www.whosyourchampion.com/pix/ChampionPrimary/images/109.jpg
dude i've been beefing w/ mods since forever.

http://www.ace-cafe-london.com/images/sce/acr-rockers.jpg

I'm just telling you how it sounds, I get on well with Dom but to me you sound like "if Dom hadn't been banned, I would not give 1/2 of 1 shit about any of this & wouldn't be ad-hom'ing Dan every time I touched the keyboard"

i have been trying to find the right way to say that since this goddamn thread started.

if there's one particular poster whose ban, both the conditions surrounding it and the policy regarding the future of it, is unique and controversial, then yeah the conversation is gonna keep coming back to that person, big shocker there.

"the conversation is gonna keep coming back"

hahahahahahahaha A+ redirect

i think suggest ban works great--it got rid of gabbneb forever. that's a plus, in my book

t would be nice to separate the people who have a genuine concern and those that are just annoyed because their friend got banned, but seen as the latter try to disguise themselves as the former, it makes this tricky.

iow u can't win. even when you're making cosgent-as-fuck arguments unrelated to fallen soldiers like gershy and dom, you still get accused of bias. (everyone else is totally disinterested, of course.)

i think suggest ban works great--it got rid of gabbneb forever. that's a plus, in my book

― Mr. Que, Friday, May 1, 2009 3:56 PM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah wonder what happened to that guy.

xp is that a joek i'm missing?

use of term "fallen soldiers" really sums it up

Okay I'm going to try and address as much of the particularly thorny stuff as possible. I'm sorry if the moderators haven't gone into the ins and outs of the sequence of events that caused patience to finally snap with Dom (who had been treated extraordinarily leniently for two or three years, since he decided to reinvent himself as ILX enfant terrible or whatever, including having one permaban rescinded in the past).

There are good reasons for this and it's not because of a desire to Stalinistically cover up mod mistakes, but because it would be unfair to offboard people that Dom bought in to the argument to try and rescind his ban, and in doing so made things worse for himself. There was some (pretty serious) personal stuff that was brought into the argument by Dom and deliberately misrepresented and it's wrong to drag that onboard in an attempt to win an essentially trivial online argument. I'm sorry if we disagree over that but we do.

The really frustrating thing about these threads is the way that these discussions tend to go round and round in circles, mostly because people quite reasonably don't read 400+ meta threads in their entirety and then repeat arguments that have been made and answered ages ago. It just feels like this entire thread and others like it just become an excuse for anyone on any side of the argument to vent any frustrations they have about ILX and it's not constructive or focussed or anything.

To get to the major points in here:

- Yes, mod misbehavior is sanctionable, moderators are accountable to other moderators. WmC covered this about 50 posts in. If you have a problem with a particular mod, email one of the other mods about it privately, rather than dragging us through another unnecessary 500 post thread. Threads like this with vague non-specific "who watches the Watchmen?" points are not really a way to endear admins to you. Outline your specific issue properly. I for one am going to make an effort to check the ILX Moderators Gmail every day as well. Whether the admins choose to act on that is up to them, I'm not going to speak for any of the others here.

- Dom is not being unbanned - as far as I can see there is unanimous consensus among the admins about this. You're going to just have to accept that and move on.

http://www.impawards.com/1984/posters/police_academy.jpg

I'm sure Dom said some pretty nutty shit and maybe it really was bad enough to warrant a longer ban than anyone else has gotten. But I really can't think of anything he could've done so severe that the mods shouldn't just say "he gets a 6 month/2 year/etc. ban" and then everyone would just shut up and wait out that period and if he comes back and screws around again he just getts banned again and there'd be a lot less sympathy for him the second time around.

And part of the reason that's an issue is that almost every other so-called 'permaban' in the past has eventually been lifted, so when mods say this one is really forever, noone's inclined to believe them, and so automatically the question becomes just exactly how not-permanent this one will be.

It was *already* the second time around - when Dom's initial permaban was lifted, it was on the understanding that if he started pulling particularly creepy or OTT-snarky stuff again then he'd be banned again. In between the two permabans he was given multiple warnings, yellow cards, and temp bans. He can't say he didn't know it was coming.

I think unbanning him on the basis of any assurances he might make about his future behaviour wouldn't mean anything. In fact it would pretty much account to carte blanche to be as obnoxious as he wants.

I'm not against obnoxiousness or argumentativeness or zinging or anything else and I'm not advocating turning the whole of ILX into Cuddlestein Mountain. I think ILX should have some bite and edge to it, but there's a line and he crossed it.

Account = amount.

no matter how badly you think they've behaved it's not been anywhere near as bad as the people who got banned. lol @ people defending dom!

lex, one major problem that keeps this retarded debate alive as far as I can tell is that people keep saying shit like "lol @ people defending dom!" as if everyone should OBVIOUSLY KNOW that Dom is some HORRIBLE PERSON (when apparently a lot of the antipathy happened offboard and nobody is supposed to know about it)

in other words everyone needs to stop intentionally pushing everyone else's buttons

Cosign that last post.

There are quite a few ILXers to have been handed permanent bans that have never been removed, but most of them don't have such vocal defenders.

lol i almost never talk to Dom offboard but i just got this e-mailed from him, if it's not cool to re-post his words even w/ his permission or if there's something that shouldn't be posted here, feel free to delete this:

OK, I agree with Matt DC that "Lex posted my ex-girlfriend's suicide note to ILX in a cheap pointscoring attempt once" is technically inaccurate, and could count as "misrepresented". The email to Dan should have read "Lex posted the note my ex-girlfriend wrote before attempting suicide to ILX in a cheap pointscoring attempt, she did survive". I appreciate Matt's desire for factual accuracy.

that's because Dom's banning is particularly shrouded in mystery. which explains why ppl like me who aren't particularly close to dom have been dicks to mods about the issue

the brit endquote-before-period thing still bugs me

xpost

ban dom?

There are quite a few ILXers to have been handed permanent bans that have never been removed, but most of them don't have such vocal defenders.

― Enormous Epic (Matt DC), Friday, May 1, 2009 10:19 AM

like gabbneb

exactly^^^^

For the record, I wanted to ban Lex for this; I was talked out of it.

congratulations, btw

― loaded forbear (gabbneb), Friday, May 1, 2009 8:26 AM (57 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

xpost good! lex shouldn't be banned

If there is anything that should get you banned, it's using an attempted suicide to hurt someone. The misrepresentation, as I understand it, is that Lex was not aware that the note he posted was a suicide note when he linked it, which moves the offense IMO from "outright bannable evil" to "dick move, should be watched". To my knowledge, he hasn't done anything similar since, ergo he has not received moderator attention.

i mean what sort of precedent would that set, lifting gabbneb's permaban when no one's requested it

just imagine if you will

there's a line and he crossed it.

― Enormous Epic (Matt DC), Friday, 1 May 2009 15:16 (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

by doing what though? reposting off-board comments (which were pretty innocuous) was a temp ban, as announced in the thread at the time. the emails we're told did not affect the decision. so what turned it into a permanent ban?

i mean what sort of precedent would that set, lifting gabbneb's permaban when no one's requested it

― nah rong (Dr. Phil), Friday, May 1, 2009 10:29 AM Bookmark

this is totally hypothetical; there's no evidence that gabbneb is coming back

right but just bear with me here

nah rong

a little thought experiment to show how cut n dry this is

http://jollypeople.com/files/2009/02/drphil.jpg

the mods should reveal the complete story of all the off board goings on what led to doms ban because:

a. wed have the information necessary to judge his bann on its merits
b. it would take this thread to the next level

or if someone just wants to webmail me i guess thatd be acceptable

coming at this from another angle, loaded forbear, what if gabbneb had one(1) vocal supporter we'll call him benbbag and benbbag contacts the mods and asks for gabbneb's ban to be lifted, he's better now, etc...

can you unblock my work and home ip addresses?

i think if the mods have to discuss and decide things offboard they should at least twitter about it. age of transparency and all.

i'm pretty sure i understand why dom was banned. and while i wouldnt choose for him to be banned, a ban of some sort certainly wasn't unwarranted, given the information we've got. my problem lies in the fact that it's been two months and it's clear that most of the board's most visible posters would like him back but the mods are still so butthurt over him that they won't allow it.

why was dom bannd

from what i can tell him and the lex were dating, and then the lex committed suicide? and dom wrote a tumblr post about it and sent it to dan perry

flagrant foul 2

apparently a mod has told a third party what my sb count is. wtf?

and yea, im not long for this world.

(realize keith thinks i'm arguing out of self-interest, but i was arguing that s-bans should be temporary when i had fewer than 20 -- even though i'd dearly love tuomas to be eternabanned.)

peace out, keep they heads rining zingtoners

guys i'm pretty sure he'll be back eventually--remember the story of nelson mandela

dom was being a little too real for ilx as always, stepped over some line on some fucking soccer thread i don't read or some shit, got temp'd, sent an ad hom e-mail to DP, mods realized that he technically should have been SBed a while ago anyway.

if this is straight, then i'm ok with a ban. but like i said he's done his time and it's time for him to be allowed back

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y176/edwardiii/vacation.jpg

what did he do in the soccer thread what did he email dang perry these are the things we need to know - the story otherwise is really quite meaningless amounting to dom did something the mods didnt like

it's clear that most of the board's most visible posters would like him back

it's funny that people believe this

gabbneb is a great poster and it seems like in all the hubbub and fooferaw around dom's banning weve forgotten about him - so im just posting to say i wish that hed get unbanned i have a thread about ascots i wanted to start and i wanted his opinions

most invisible posters plz step forward

http://ryanericsongcanlas.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/silent_majority.jpg

fwiw its pretty quiet here in my office

your office is full of ppl who support the dom ban but are afraid to speak up

but dude there's a certain difference of power that's got to be assumed when you have mods and non-mods. if the mods say he did something bad then they should be allowed to temp ban him if they want, i'm cool with that. and knowing dom im sure he deserved it. what's dumb is that apparently their little mod butts are so hurt that they cant let him come back after two fucking months

xp to craem

sorry im really confused, i thought dom was gabbnebs sock

pretty sure gabb's socks are cashmere

<3

gabbnebs socks are doms scarf is that clear

lol

a memo is circulating as we "speak"

i forgot that we had a system in which banning someone requires not just clicking "suggest ban" next to their name but also bitching and moaning a lot about them

^^^ forgot 2 # that one bro - j/k aside missed u tho

and it's clear that most of the board's most visible posters would like him back

jesus christ...

... rose again on the third day (gabbneb did too but the mods refuse to address that)

most of the board's most mosting mosters always wanting something the most

I would prefer if Dom never came back, just for the record. Am I visible enough?

it's not even as if anybody's just come out and said they don't want Dom to come back

you probly have a higher opinion of my moderating than I do actually

but if I have any point to make it's that interjections of sarcasm like that make it harder to make any real progress towards understanding and consensus on these threads. And now it looks like I'm singling you out, but I don't mean to be. I just wish everybody with a point to make would make it instead of bringing the lolz or the sarcasm or the anger. That's what the rest of ILX is for, but it would be so great if that was all left at the IMP door. My problem, I'm sure, is that I'm an old irony-deprived American who puts way too much faith in earnestness.

― WmC, Thursday, April 30, 2009 7:37 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

I see what yr saying, but a division between the general tenor of ILX and IMP ain't gonna happen. you guys aren't modding a scrapbooking forum, so y'know estela's gonna put up keyboard-playing cat videos, I'm gonna post sarcasm so dry yr screen desiccates, and it's guaranteed a picture of dr phil will appear every 30 posts.

I do occasionally try to have serious rational discussion on these topics but then I still see stuff like max getting labeled a "pest" when the guy's the furthest thing from, he's more of a "pet" and I wish he could live under my bed, so I just shrug and say oh well I guess it's back to the lulz mill for me.

understood that this makes the mod job harder when trying to sort out who has valid / constructive criticisms vs who's a random yucks jockey (and anybody who's an ilx mod should get a merit badge for patience). but there are some valid points made here on this thread by both mods and non-mods and hopefully some kind of progress is slumping toward bethlehem to be stillbirth'd.

thanks e3, i think

get back under the bed you

I'm comfortable believing that things went on offboard that are not our business to know about if we weren't involved

im uncomfortable w/the concept "not my business" so just might as well go ahead and tell me

wonder what Three Word Username's up to now (sorry i know it's none of my business really)

i honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make here dude

― ***OSCARBAITS FURIOUSLY*** (jjjusten), Friday, May 1, 2009 12:11 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

like srsly not being a dick, i am unable to parse what you are trying to say

― ***OSCARBAITS FURIOUSLY*** (jjjusten), Friday, May 1, 2009 12:12 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark

My point was that having you judge whether you and Dan are tag-teaming people is probably not the best review process.

Threads like this with vague non-specific "who watches the Watchmen?" points are not really a way to endear admins to you. Outline your specific issue properly. I for one am going to make an effort to check the ILX Moderators Gmail every day as well. Whether the admins choose to act on that is up to them, I'm not going to speak for any of the others here.

Yeah, obviously having it being a running joke that this account is never checked does not help. The address should probably be more prominent on the site. And even then, I'm not sure people will feel comfortable complaining about a mod when that mod has access to the complaint. Mods should have the right to defend themselves but I'm not sure they need to know who the complainer is to do that.

the idea that posters should try to endear themselves to the mods is about as moot as the idea that the mods should have to endear themselves to the posters

not saying "be a dick" but "who watches the watchmen" isn't being a dick

yeah that's why modding positions shouldn't be permanent (programmers aside).

hourly mod elections plz

that'd be fun, they should set-up one board w/ hourly mods and watch what happens. (when people start being real)

new modding position gave me erection

hourly

tbf dan and john have been doing the majority of the mod spokesman thing on threads like this which is totally admirable, but over time understandably results in tension/loss of patience on both sides.

there is probably a perception issue with them being irl friends but really it's just that they're putting themselves out there a lot.

i'm not sure it is an issue or that it requires anything be done; but when you bring it up and its met with a sort of "we don't do that. next!" it doesn't instill confidence that its being considered/looked at.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NGTgrdVoV8w/SZzWZvQCFnI/AAAAAAAAA0s/Z3IUfoFNbno/S180/conspiracyoftwocoverSM.jpg

and it's clear that most of the board's most visible posters would like him back

jesus christ...

― Hard House SugBanton (blueski), Friday, May 1, 2009 10:38 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

i got clowned on 3/5 for making this same point, and i said this up thread and it got lost in the shuffle, but we need a way to quantify "visible posters" - i.e. ppl who always come into these threads and, if there was still a stats page, would certainly make up most of the top 10/15 - vs "the rest of ilx". maybe these threads need to be on ile, or maybe the mods need to hold email polls or something, because these arguments always boil down to the same people vs the mods who say "this is what the mods are doing and that's it" (acceptable in the dom case) or "we represent the rest of ilx" but that doesn't mean anything unless mods are having various private communications w/ other posters, in which case those posters should be encouraged to voice their opinions among the rest of us

imo the biggest prob w these threads

we should hav an elite posters bord and dom chaki and jw should be allowed on there

i.e. ppl who always come into these threads and, if there was still a stats page, would certainly make up most of the top 10/15

and before ppl jump on me for this - iirc back when the stats page existed the top 10 or 15 posters always had at least 3 times(i think im being conservative) the amount of posts combined as the rest of the top 50

it's not even as if anybody's just come out and said they don't want Dom to come back

lol i'll come out and say this then

sigh

iirc back when the stats page existed the top 10 or 15 posters always had at least 3 times(i think im being conservative) the amount of posts combined as the rest of the top 50

I am not certain that heavy posting volume should give posters the right to say who should poster here and who shouldn't.

Conversely, I don't think you can adequately argue that it is not the moderators' job to decide who can post here and who can't without making them something besides "moderators".

Jordan I hear you but the number of times you post in a month doesn't really equate to any kind of automatic authority (especially when most of those posts come from massive meta clusterfucks lol). What constitutes a prominent poster? There are people who have only posted a handful of times a week consistently since 2001 - they have as valid a view as people who have been posting hundreds of times a month for a couple of years. I don't like the idea that a group of people should claim to speak for the majority of the boards because they are always the most vocal on meta threads and because they're high up on the Statscock.

I don't want to make ILX sound like some ancient family heirloom but the
stewardship of the site has been handed from one trusted person to another right from Tom Ew1ng onwards. Occasionally it's fucked up (lol Graham) and in those cases people have been stripped of admin rights. The vast majority of the time it's been fine. It's now in the hands of Keith and Stet and since it's down to them that ILX still exists at all, they can run it as they see fit as far as I'm concerned.

The alternative is we install Ned as benign dictator ;)

emperor of ilx, son of heavens!

i know it's a fine line, but basically my point is that in some situations we need a way to quantify what "all of ilx" feels, and right now there is no trustworthy way to find that out so it just comes down to the mods saying "trust us, it's what everyone wants"

I think what everyone really wants is to not be bothered with these conversations! The minutiae of who is banned and who isn't doesn't really matter, otherwise we'd see more than the same eight to ten people on these threads (half of whom are mods).

what i really think needs to happen is a thread to discuss this in detail and at great length

ahahaha

and with funny you tube clips

need a "why don't you join in clusterfucks" poll

i know it's a fine line, but basically my point is that in some situations we need a way to quantify what "all of ilx" feels, and right now there is no trustworthy way to find that out so it just comes down to the mods saying "trust us, it's what everyone wants"

Is that really what the moderators are saying? It seems to me they're saying "this is what we -- the moderators -- think is right and this decision is reserved to us," which is a very different point.

Maybe Dan's post a moment ago suggests I'm wrong, tho.

(At least in this one case)

their line has pretty consistently been "don't confuse a minority of vocal posters with the ilx consensus" and the issue with that is there's no way to determine the ilx consensus

a perpetual state of mod protest is what gets us through the day

im not referring to this specific dom situation

cad otm

what we need is a poll to determine if more people want dom back or more want him to stay gone

would a petition suffice

a petition, yes

Then I was wrong. I thought that, at least in Dom's case, the moderators' position was that they thought his actions justified a ban, and -- under those particular circumstances -- it was the moderators' right to do so, without surveying the feelings of the "ILX community."

I assumed that the moderators always reserve the right to ban someone if they think it appropriate, regardless of whether the poster has 50 or more "Suggest Bans." (Again, maybe I'm wrong).

(xp)

that's true daniel, and at the time they also said that dom had actually accumulated enough sb's under multiple accounts that essentially the community had sb'd him anyway. i wonder if they would have been better off saying "mod decision due to offboard shit, end of story."

Is that really what the moderators are saying? It seems to me they're saying "this is what we -- the moderators -- think is right and this decision is reserved to us," which is a very different point.

Maybe Dan's post a moment ago suggests I'm wrong, tho.

I don't know that my post suggests that you're wrong; I was positing a theory. I would expect that if the majority of posters were unhappy with a moderation decisions, many more would say so than what we usually get, largely because this is not a forum full of shrinking violets unafraid to voice unpopular (or CHALLENGING) opinions. I do honestly believe that if banning Dom was a burning issue for the majority of the board, more people than the meta thread regulars would complain, as per the Tuomas/Gabbneb bannings (and the moderator decision to revoke those bans aftera period of time). We would have to re-evaluate our decision re: Dom in that instance, otherwise we wouldn't be doing our jobs, which ultimately is to keep this place running as smoothly as possible. From my perspective, this hasn't happened. In my opinion, it won't happen, but I've made plenty of mistakes in my time and this may yet prove to be another one to add onto the list.

"moderator" backwards is "rotare dom," italian for "to rotate dom"

<3

Dom was a burning issue for the majority of the board, more people than the meta thread regulars would complain, as per the Tuomas/Gabbneb bannings

were there really more people lobbying for tuomas or gabbneb than dom? this is an honest question, i don't really have an agenda w/r/t any of these guys.

moderator to "rear-do tom"

tuomas is a great poster on messageboard ILX

"tom adorer"

in general, ppl need to act like adults and set aside whatever ridiculous beef they have with one another

sam ouT

screw you crutis

why? for being tolerant?

??

curtis actually making sense

the suggest banning of tuomas wasn't over a "ridiculous beef"

I was speaking "in general," not about tuomas specifically

tuomas has been here longer than you btw

I would not want to dream of an ILX without tuomas, geir, dom, lex, masonic kate, and deeznuts TBH.

grandfather clause

well we're like halfway there homie

curt!s taking a stand is making me happy

notice how quickly deeznuts joined the canon - truly astonishing. quality poster, unban plz

i agree on all points but that one

what about burt_stanton and cpt. lorax?

also did kate get banned?

naw kate's just mad at everyone i think

no just namedroppin some semi-to-majorly controversial posters off the top of my head

why? for being tolerant?

― bannable evil (Curt1s Stephens), Friday, May 1, 2009 1:21 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark

It was joke ><

curtis actually making sense

you sound surprised

not that he's making sense, just that sense is to be had on these threads

also did kate get banned?

― erudite e-scholar (harbl), Friday, 1 May 2009 18:38 (2 minutes ago) [] Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Delete Undelete Edit Ban/Thread Unban/Thread Ban User Info Yellow Card

No.

naw kate's just mad at everyone i think

― like clowns passing out candy wearing blindfolds (call all destroyer), Friday, 1 May 2009 18:39 (1 minute ago) [] Bookmark

I believe her current job is w/o interweb access (like mine).

oh my bad, tho i do remember her saying something about posting less frequently. don't know what thread/context.

"wonder what Three Word Username's up to now (sorry i know it's none of my business really)"

Personal life (anybody else on here have one of those?) exploded. Will comment at length soon if thread is still alive. I am no one's sock puppet, as URL reading all-powerfuls can attest.

I meant "IP reading". I am also no one's computer genius, and am very tired.

there's a line and he crossed it.

― Enormous Epic (Matt DC), Friday, 1 May 2009 15:16 (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

by doing what though? reposting off-board comments (which were pretty innocuous) was a temp ban, as announced in the thread at the time. the emails we're told did not affect the decision. so what turned it into a permanent ban?

― joe, Friday, 1 May 2009 15:32 (6 hours ago) Bookmark

these are genuine questions btw, if a mod could explain i'd be grateful.

Dom (I'm assuming this is Dom, a search on posts by username suggests so), I'm not really doing much moderating beyond basic housekeeping when I'm online in the evenings, and not much of that TBH. So, you know, this might not count for shit by means of an "explanation" - I haven't been following this much, beyond noting the same people coming out with the same arguments again, when I skim-read it. It did strike me over the last couple of years (maybe?) that you seemed to have ratcheted up your tendencies for vicious meta gossip, backbiting, "when did you stop beating your wife" type debating tactics and misrepresenting other people's viewpoints to score some kind of childish "victory" over them & projecting the views of other people entirely onto some sub-group of users of this board to the point where your qualities as a cultural critic* were being outweighed by your nuisance value to a whole bunch of people here. Take it from me, over the last few years, I received emails from people who stated that they were either quitting the board or scaling back, because you annoyed them so much with this sixth-form college debating society nonsense. And, I did notice that some of these people did actually quit posting, or scaled back as they said they would. I have received such emails about no other user of this board, past or present. These people do not "have thin skin and do not belong on the internet" to use the loaded/dishonest bullshit phrasing used in that poll a couple of days ago, they have every right to post here, to converse with other users in whatever manner they see fit w/o having someone repeatedly sniding at them in a tedious and bitchy manner.

I actually gave up defending you to the other moderators when you started using the changeable username feature to snide on nate patrin or who the fuck ever, the point when you descended into an embarrassing, pitiful self-parody. Around the same time, I go out of business and have to get a job, guess what, your only defender isn't around anymore, you get to face the consequences of years of this shit. Sorry man, but I did email you and ask you to stop after you got banhammered for poking fun at someone who IIRC had MS, and you sort-of said you would, but you didn't, or not for long anyway.

*I'm not actually kidding about this, I've never known such boosterish, uncritical times, where third-rate cultural shit gets propped in the papers and magazines, w/o a dissenting voice. I thought that you could have been that voice, maybe made some kind of positive cultural impact even, like, out in the "real world". Instead, you dedicate your creative energies to being "big dog" on some little internet message board & working on your beefs. That no-one really gives a shit about. It's pretty fucking sad.

And, I did notice that some of these people did actually quit posting, or scaled back as they said they would.

I'm more upset about these people not being here TBH.

out of curiosity, which posters quit?

(To the extent that I am upset about anything to do with ILX.)

xpost

omar, most of the people who posted here in the first couple of years have quit.

ps i'm pretty sure three word username's not dom.

out of curiosity, which posters quit?

― "Together we could rape the universe" (omar little),

Dude, I'm resolutely a web 1.0 guy and do not feel at all comfortable about posting the content of private emails.

(wasn't responding to 3wu, G00b)

fair enough! ^_^

sorry Pash (*backs away from thread*)

was that supposed to be a response to me, Pashmina? i'm not dom, i don't know where you got that impression from. i should probably sue. i started posting a few months ago before dom was banned, and i used to lurk for a while before that.

look, i'm sure there's a ton of history that i don't know anything about, but it seems like when someone gets banned permanently, mods should be able to point to a post or posts and say, don't do this kind of shit, it will get you banned. what i saw of dom's posts didn't seem to justify this level of special treatment so i'm just wondering what the rationale is.

If you are not Dom, then I apologise. I usually get somewhat suspicious when a new account (28th Jan '09 in your case) seems overly interested in moderation policy shit and seems knowledgeable about board history, who everybody is etc. Also, a search for posts by your username reveals striking similarities in both range of interests and posting style.

Substitute "he" for "you" in my other post.

really can't see dom posting this:

Three Word Username wrote this on thread Come anticipate "Michael Clayton" on board I Love Everything on Feb 24, 2008

Saw it on a plane -- catches the feel of big law firm life (including facing all those dawns in boring expensive suits) better than any other big movie I have ever seen.

Here is a post where a moderator kind of spelled out "don't do this shit, it will get you banned" btw.

I don't actually give that much of a shit, Enrique. by all means pick and choose whatever you want to make whatever point it is you're aiming at.

no need to be snippy, pash. i'm making the point that it isn't dom. and it isn't. twu is almost certainly american.

I'm not snippy I'm drunk.

Aha! I wasn't responding to 3wu, I was responding to "Joe".

no need to be snippy, pash. i'm making the point that it isn't dom. and it isn't. twu is almost certainly american.

(wasn't responding to 3wu, G00b)

― mroo (Pashmina), Friday, 1 May 2009 23:17

Yeah sorry NRQ actually that was a bit snippy wans't it.

i can't really believe dom would be surprised about being banned, unless it's a faux aggrieved surprise. i am personally sorry he is gone as he can be very funny, but he can also be malicious, so it's not too surprising if people who support banning in general want him banned. but i am not a banner by nature.

tailoring policy toward quitters is a bad idea imo. it sucks those people left but they made a choice to do so.

I think more of the outrage over bannings is the lack of transparency and consistency.

Pahmina, come on, it's probably my fault for picking up the arrows thing, but "striking similarities" in range of interests amount to getting annoyed with the guardian, which applies to 99 per cent of uk posters. i would rather have had an apology that wasn't a prelude to a list of reasons why i might be lying.

i don't think asking what prompted someone being banned permanently is being "overly interested" in moderation policy. it's not very welcoming to newcomers if they get accused of being a fraud for getting involved in these discussions because they're only supposed to be for "regulars".