In the interest of transparency, I feel the need to announce that I have permanently banned mahagonny's account. I don't want to make a practice of announcing such things--it doesn't seem appropriate, in general--but at this point, their persistent bad behaviour on this board was just too much, and was clearly affecting too many other members.
We have a very open moderation policy here, and that actually makes it pretty hard to moderate effectively, since I'm constantly having to err against my better judgement. But at this point, policing mahagonny's contributions just wasn't feasible any more (especially for just me), and it's not like doing so over the last few months has helped much at all. Their continued participation here made our forum a distinctly unfriendly (even hateful) place, and their contributions to the discussion here amounted to little more than either offhand hate directed towards their groupe du jour, or a monomaniacal focus on Black people. I judged that enough was enough.
If you want to advocate for them, you may certainly do so (via PM, please), but at this point, I need to be given solid reasons to believe that mahagonny's continued presence here won't continue to be deleterious to the community. If you think I've overstepped myself, that's fine too, and you're welcome to say so as publicly or privately as you like.
As far as I'm concerned, no other bans are imminent. Nobody else's behaviour is a patch on mahagonny's.
As some say, "Tell us what you really feel."
Thanks, Para. The monomaniacal posts on so many threads were really becoming almost too much to bear, in my view, and overshadowing the rest of the board.
+1
Much appreciated.
M.
Unfortunately it was needed. BTW, how many moderators do these fora currently have active?
While I regret that it once again reached this point, and know it was a difficult decision for you, I am much relieved.
I had muted that poster's postings, so I mostly didn't see them. But seems like a reasonable decision, especially given the future of the website being somewhat uncertain. It needs to be a place people want to support.
You have my full support in this.
It was the right call-- thanks for making it!
Regrettable as the need was, I support this decision.
I really, really hope that mahagonny can get some help off-line.
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 19, 2022, 01:31:32 AM
BTW, how many moderators do these fora currently have active?
Pretty much just me, really.
Thank You.
Quote from: apl68 on November 19, 2022, 06:46:30 AM
Regrettable as the need was, I support this decision.
I really, really hope that mahagonny can get some help off-line.
Same.
Quote from: apl68 on November 19, 2022, 06:46:30 AM
Regrettable as the need was, I support this decision.
I really, really hope that mahagonny can get some help off-line.
Yep.
Thanks for all you do around here, Para, we appreciate it.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 18, 2022, 03:28:18 PM
As far as I'm concerned, no other bans are imminent. Nobody else's behaviour is a patch on mahagonny's.
I would be interested to know how frequently requests get made to ban people, and how many different posters are the originators and targets of those requests. (For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if someone, sometime had suggested I be banned, but if there are
several people who are
frequently the target of complaints, that would be more of a concern.)
Part of the problem in discussions of moderation is having no idea of how wide the range of opinion is on what things have "crossed a line" in the past.
Any way to get stats on that without damaging confidentiality?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 18, 2022, 03:28:18 PM
...their contributions to the discussion here amounted to little more than either offhand hate directed towards their groupe du jour, or a monomaniacal focus on Black people. I judged that enough was enough.
Para, you have expressed direct hate for your own, pet political enemies numerous times on these boards. I oppose censorship/bans based on politics. I support censorship of vulgar language. Don't like a poster or what they say? Scroll on by or block. Communities should have transparent standards for bans.
For all of the reported angst about the poster, why did so many engage with the person's posts? Over and over and over again. Plus, frequent nasty commentary in the usually mean-spirited "asides" thread. Seems hypocritical.
Sounds like these boards may not last much longer anyway. It hasn't felt friendly in a long time -- and, for me, it's not solely or mostly because of the poster in question. When trying to help and provide advice to the few that ask academic questions anymore, we often never hear back with even an acknowledgment.
"They" had me at "queering up your kids."
I can't defend that sort of talk.
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 19, 2022, 12:52:02 PM
"They" had me at "queering up your kids."
I can't defend that sort of talk.
So that is ban-worthy?
I'm not defending the poster. I don't know the person and did not see the post. I am standing against haphazard censorship based on politics. I oppose censorship based on politics.
+1. I sent my only "report this post to mods" on the last one. I was sick of it.
ETA: my +1 was meant for Ruralguy. I would spend lengthy periods trying NOT to interact with mahaggony. I'd give up as they posted more and more outrageous (and yes, often offensive to me) things. It was not a one-off post that resulted in this banning. I believe posters should be given multiple warnings and chances prior to banning, and that is precisely what occurred here.
Quote from: Cheerful on November 19, 2022, 12:56:48 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 19, 2022, 12:52:02 PM
"They" had me at "queering up your kids."
I can't defend that sort of talk.
So that is ban-worthy?
I'm not defending the poster. I don't know the person and did not see the post. I am standing against haphazard censorship based on politics. I oppose censorship based on politics.
We had four people declare they were leaving that I know of/saw, and I know I wasn't the only one to make multiple reports on Mahagonny....and I had them on "ignore" and only saw objectionable posts when they were reflected in replies, which I agree, were too frequent: few seem to have the "DNFTT" discipline needed to shut down what used to be called "flaming" the posts anymore.
Don't see how you see Para. as a source of hate, though.
I don't...but, de gustibus...
M.
Talking about how someone is going to "queer up your kids" is not politics. He could have given some
thought to how to present that idea in a reasonable manner, assuming it could have been presented so, but he didn't.
That being said, if someone wants to revoke the ban, then fine, but then we should just admit anyone can say anything.
Looks like the cool kids from Gryffindor finally managed to offload the nuisance from Hufflepuff.
When I was a kid (oldest of 3) I was constantly teased and annoyed by my younger brother (middle of 3). When we got to be adults, we were talking about this and I asked him why he was constantly being a pest. With his biggest merde eating grin he replied, "Because you ALWAYS went for the bait."
Some of you lot ALWAYS went for the bait.
I went for the bait when I did because, well, I just felt like it. Most of the time I actually didn't think he was so bad, so I engaged. But it was getting worse in the last few days. Maybe related to the election? Who knows.
The poster should have been banned a long time ago.
I do agree with cheerful and secundem_artem's comments below:
QuoteFor all of the reported angst about the poster, why did so many engage with the person's posts? Over and over and over again. Plus, frequent nasty commentary in the usually mean-spirited "asides" thread. Seems hypocritical.
QuoteSome of you lot ALWAYS went for the bait.
The now-banned poster's rants were reminiscent of those one occasionally hears in our subway system; no one ever engages with the ranters, but every single one of the riders assiduously refrains from even making eye contact with the ranters. I've often felt that at least some of those engaging with the forumite were knowingly baiting him/her because they knew that their comments would result in even more outrageous responses. The correct thing to do, in my opinion, is to report objectionable posts to the moderator. The posts were clearly outrageous on so many levels, but the baiting was even more outrageous because it was cruel.
From what I understand, THE FORA BELONGS TO PARA. PARA is the decider! I surmise that Para made the decision reluctantly, but had every right to do so.
Well, maybe not "belongs," per se, but I agree as to "is administered by" (per recent posts elsewhere), and I absolutely support this decision as within their purview.
M.
Para, I am sorry that you are coming under fire for this decision; I suspect, based on your previous posts, that it was very difficult for you to make it. I'm grateful you agreed to take on the role of moderator. I don't tend to post on the more controversial topics because it's not worth the emotional energy for me--and I doubt people can convince other people of much on an internet forum. But thank you for trying to keep the forum going.
Quote from: nebo113 on November 19, 2022, 02:13:08 PM
From what I understand, THE FORA BELONGS TO PARA. PARA is the decider! I surmise that Para made the decision reluctantly, but had every right to do so.
I have to agree with Nebo.
Look, there's no such thing as a free anything, including speech! A private organization can make whatever rules it pleases on speech. The
government is constrained to not infringe on free speech, and for good reason, but no one else is so constrained.
Mahagonny's substantive points were by no means always bad. His rhetoric, in my taste, amounted to pollution of the commons. Posters upthread have pointed out, too, I think correctly, that the poor man was also baited, in my terms more pollution!
Somebody has to decide which polluters are to be warned, or punished by temporary or permanent bans. I believe there is no way that many of us can agree on a contract specifying what behavior is ban worthy. Therefore, a democratic solution is infeasible. [My preference would be to charge for posting, but that's infeasible as well.]
We need a dictator.
I am not worried so long as I can exit freely, and not have to worry about getting shot as I scale the Berlin Wall! :-)
The drums ceased and the parade ground was as silent as an inland sea. At the other end of the parade ground, I heard Gauldin Grace's harsh, overextended voice screaming out the findings of the honor court. "Gentlemen, the honor court has met tonight and has found Pignetti, D. A., Company R, guilty of the honor code violation of stealing. His name will never be spoken by any man from Carolina Military Institute. He will never return to the campus so long as he may live. His name and memory are anathema to anyone who aspires to wear the ring. Let him go from us and never be heard from again. Let him begin the Walk of Shame."
Let's not romanticize this.
Someone who consistently flaunts boundaries is (in my experiences with abusive individuals) are actually seeking well-defined boundaries within which to abide--and which they can't set for and abide by themselves (I think Durkheim's discussion of 《anomie》might come into this.)
I hold with Langue'doc: those who baited were unkind, those who might have mistakenly thought they could enlighten or engage the individual would have to get past all their defenses, and without training and time, in this setting, one can't.
Prayers, yes, good wishes for the future, yes, but we weren't doing them any good, nor they us.
Some marriages just don't work.
M.
Thanks you, Para — I appreciate the decision.
As Ruralguy mentioned, that last comment went beyond trying to smile politely while silently eyeballing. It was a comment that most of us recoil at, and we'd actively try to ditch the person if hearing the comment in person.
While the poster mentioned some things about being contingent faculty, I can't help to think a lot that person's issues were self inflicted. Very few in academia want a colleague who would make such a comment.
What happened to all the rest of the moderators?
I also note that someone above noted that there are questions wrt the future of this website-- is this true? Are the fora on the endangered species list?
I can't say I have an opinion of mahoganny. Perhaps it's because I'm not frequently reading the politically hot topics. Either way, in doing a search on mahoganny's posts, it looks like a number of them had sections redacted and it seems that person liked to use sarcasm in their posts, but sarcasm is very difficult to convey via written word and more often just comes across as offensive. Much of what I did read was not unlike what I might hear from some of the professors I know who mean well but can be socially inept / insensitive. That being said, I do not have a moderator's perspective and there may have been much more to this case than what is seen at face value on the posts remaining by this person. I appreciate that Parasaurolophus has made this decision known and that it was done in good faith. But nothing is there to prevent this person from creating a new moniker and continuing to make posts in the same way.
It is clear that over the past few years that the forum has dwindled. Although there is still a good number of people coming here for conversation and the value of the forum remains high, we tend to be a smaller and smaller group of people interacting. I'm not sure if the substance of mohaganny's posts would have been banned on the old forum, with so many more people and interactions. With a smaller group, the forum seems more "tame" and, in some ways, more collegial too. But our tameness might not be due to a change in our patters of behavior, but a result of fewer newbies stumbling in here. Anyhow, I trust Parasaurolophus made this decision for the right reasons and that it was not an easy decision to make.
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 19, 2022, 09:00:22 PM
I also note that someone above noted that there are questions wrt the future of this website-- is this true? Are the fora on the endangered species list?
http://thefora.org/index.php?topic=3191.0
Better not to derail this thread. Future of the forum discussion should go on that thread.
I engaged with them a few times here and on CHE in response to their views on tenure and adjunct faculty. I also engaged with them under their previous moniker on CHE on at least one occasion. I even told them that in my opinion they would be welcome to make the move over to the new Fora, yet that was before they became obsessed with the topics and type of discourse we have witnessed in recent years. Having watched their persona develop over a period of more than a decade, I know that it changed significantly and don't doubt that it was shaped by their reception here and their life circumstances. Nonetheless, I have no problem with Para having exercised his judgment within the boundaries of his authority and banning them.
Quote from: Cheerful on November 19, 2022, 12:46:15 PM
Plus, frequent nasty commentary in the usually mean-spirited "asides" thread. Seems hypocritical.
While the "asides" thread does have mean-spirited posts, to say that it is usually mean-spirited is an overstatement.
Aside
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 19, 2022, 09:00:22 PM
What happened to all the rest of the moderators?
There were two others, one of whom stirred up her fair share of trouble. One resigned early on, the other left without saying anything (but remains on the books).
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 20, 2022, 08:07:49 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 19, 2022, 09:00:22 PM
What happened to all the rest of the moderators?
There were two others, one of whom stirred up her fair share of trouble. One resigned early on, the other left without saying anything (but remains on the books).
Oh, dear. The AWOL sounds quite unprofessional. Perhaps you could ask for some of the forumites to volunteer as moderators?
Quote from: dismalist on November 19, 2022, 02:40:04 PM
Somebody has to decide which polluters are to be warned, or punished by temporary or permanent bans. I believe there is no way that many of us can agree on a contract specifying what behavior is ban worthy. Therefore, a democratic solution is infeasible. [My preference would be to charge for posting, but that's infeasible as well.]
We need a dictator.
An honest dictatorship is certainly preferable to a pretense of consensus on "community standards" where it's not clear that it exists.
As you note, in a private organization, those in charge are perfectly entitled to impose whatever rules they want. Just ask Elon. :)
Quote from: mamselle on November 19, 2022, 01:10:32 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 19, 2022, 12:56:48 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 19, 2022, 12:52:02 PM
"They" had me at "queering up your kids."
I can't defend that sort of talk.
So that is ban-worthy?
I'm not defending the poster. I don't know the person and did not see the post. I am standing against haphazard censorship based on politics. I oppose censorship based on politics.
We had four people declare they were leaving that I know of/saw, and I know I wasn't the only one to make multiple reports on Mahagonny....and I had them on "ignore" and only saw objectionable posts when they were reflected in replies, which I agree, were too frequent: few seem to have the "DNFTT" discipline needed to shut down what used to be called "flaming" the posts anymore.
Don't see how you see Para. as a source of hate, though.
I don't...but, de gustibus...
M.
I have no complaints against Para's moderation. Para has occasionally expressed heated views. Many of us here have. Mahagonny had become a relentless, disruptive source of such views. The damage this was doing was fairly obvious. It's the same difference between peaceful but sometimes noisy activists carrying signs, and rioters throwing rocks and breaking windows. It's not censorship to arrest the latter and tell them to get out of town.
Thank you, Para!
I'd just like to note that I'm grateful for the attempt to reclaim the fora as a community of discourse. I made the mistake once or twice of trying to engage in good faith, and while I learned there was no point, it was frustrating to find so many threads in which I was interested derailed. And it wasn't just about ignoring. Instead of being able to talk about and post about the topics at hand, the thread either shut down or diverted. There were also more than a few non-sequiter posts on various threads in which I or others had posted something that had nothing to do with mahog and didn't even hit on their pet topics, but somehow they popped up and did their thing.
I'm willing to give it another try now that Para made this tough decision, I wonder how many posters who have left would be willing to try again if they knew that they could engage in conversation without the derailing. And I'm not talking about disagreements or arguments. There are other on the fora with whom I disagree pedagogically or politically, but they are not unkind and I feel like they are willing to engage in a good faith argument of back and forth. I also haven't seen outbursts of hate speech from them.
So, thanks Para. I hope that we are able to reset and re-engage as a Higher Education Community.
Maybe not entirely my fault? Back when the CHE forum closed, I posted to "M" that maybe he/she (was it GCF then?) should come over to the new forum for commentary. Well, we know where that went.
Personally, I skipped most posts by our former member. I didnt spend much time in that person's primary domain, but I supported the suspension and posted even then that a suspension may not have been sufficient.
Therefore, I am glad to lend my support for the decision that was a long time coming. I dont see that the ban was because of the banned poster's politics, but lack of civility. From what I have seen, anyone is free to post extreme political views (nicely), so I fail to see that this is about politics.
I am sorry to hear that the burden of running the boards has become more and more concentrated. Hopefully, one moderator is enough for us as long as we are indeed civil!