Note: banning

[marshwiggle]

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?

[Cheerful]

...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.

[Ruralguy]

"They" had me at "queering up your kids."

I can't defend that sort of talk.

[Cheerful]

"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.

[jimbogumbo]

+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.

[mamselle]

"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.

[Ruralguy]

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.

[secundem_artem]

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.

[Ruralguy]

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.

[Langue_doc]

The poster should have been banned a long time ago.

I do agree with cheerful and secundem_artem's comments below:

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.

Some 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.

[nebo113]

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. 

[mamselle]

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.

[Morden]

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.

[dismalist]

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! :-)

[Anselm]

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."