Go to footer

Skip to content


Proposal for a new moderation policy

No-particular-theme discussion board.

Moderators: Yarrow, Yuda, Canteloupe


Proposal for a new moderation policy

Postby Zazaban » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:17 pm

I deleted this after I had a little neurotic outburst, but here it is again:

1). In very extreme cases, bans may be given out in the case that the offending user is (a), posting only advertisements and spam, or (b), posting only incoherent or nonsensical posts. In less than extreme cases, however, boycotting is appropriate, and upon consensus an offending user's name should be added to the boycotting thread. Ideological difference is NOT IN ANY CASE grounds for a ban or boycott. All participation in boycotts is voluntary, of course.

2). All bans should be brought up for discussion in a thread (or board, whatever it ends up being) dedicated to such matters before anything is done. If no objections are raised, wait to see if it's going to go away on its own, then go ahead. As a general rule, guest objections will not be counted unless a rational justification is given. This is because it's very easy for somebody to go on a proxy IP and object to their own ban.

3). All regular members of the forum community will be given the power of admins. Generally, if a person seems sane and capable of avoiding the doing rash things, and have active on the forum for a couple weeks, they should be promoted. Me, Y, thelastindividual and coup etat are a few examples. IK is an example of who not to promote. If you're sure somebody is going to be fine, just go ahead and promote them. If you aren't totally sure, make a post about it first.

4). Any extreme actions (such as bans) uncalled for by the parameters of these guidelines will lead to the offending user having their actions undone and the removal of the admin powers, not necessarily permanently.

5). Ideas for any changes or additions to this forum, these guidelines included, can and should be presented at any time. This is a dynamic community.

6). Censorship is strictly prohibited.
Last edited by Zazaban on Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:57 pm, edited 6 times in total.
"I am but too conscious of the fact that we are born in an age when only the dull are treated seriously, and I live in terror of not being misunderstood."
~ Oscar Wilde
"Greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society."
~ The Right to Be Greedy
User avatar
Zazaban
Zen Master
 
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 6:00 pm


Re: Draft for a new moderation policy.

Postby whatnotery » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:22 pm

I'm not a regularly posting member but I quite like this idea
“War is when the government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.”
User avatar
whatnotery
Swivel-Hips
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:48 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky,US


Re: Draft for a new moderation policy.

Postby patrickhenry » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:29 pm

Ideological difference is NOT IN ANY CASE grounds for a ban, unless it is accompanied by violent hostility and disruption


what do you consider disruption? or violent hostility?
." It was all right to accept books from the students, but when they begin to teach you nonsense you must knock them down. They should be made to understand that the workers cause ought to be placed entirely in the hands of the workers themselves"http://www.mutualistde.webs.com
User avatar
patrickhenry
Denizen
 
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: DE


Re: Draft for a new moderation policy.

Postby Zazaban » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:33 pm

patrickhenry wrote:
Ideological difference is NOT IN ANY CASE grounds for a ban, unless it is accompanied by violent hostility and disruption


what do you consider disruption? or violent hostility?

Somebody going around and posting curse filled taunting in every other thread.
"I am but too conscious of the fact that we are born in an age when only the dull are treated seriously, and I live in terror of not being misunderstood."
~ Oscar Wilde
"Greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society."
~ The Right to Be Greedy
User avatar
Zazaban
Zen Master
 
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 6:00 pm


Re: Draft for a new moderation policy.

Postby patrickhenry » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:36 pm

Somebody going around and posting curse filled taunting in every other thread.


Well, I for one curse often in some of my posts. People like howard509 will set me off at times. So under your forum I would be banned?
." It was all right to accept books from the students, but when they begin to teach you nonsense you must knock them down. They should be made to understand that the workers cause ought to be placed entirely in the hands of the workers themselves"http://www.mutualistde.webs.com
User avatar
patrickhenry
Denizen
 
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: DE


Re: Draft for a new moderation policy.

Postby Zazaban » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:48 pm

patrickhenry wrote:
Somebody going around and posting curse filled taunting in every other thread.


Well, I for one curse often in some of my posts. People like howard509 will set me off at times. So under your forum I would be banned?

You're clearly not going to be banned. I mean somebody who does nothing but. The language I used was euphemistic for intolerance of other beliefs and unrelenting trolls. But since it's too vague, I shall remove it.
"I am but too conscious of the fact that we are born in an age when only the dull are treated seriously, and I live in terror of not being misunderstood."
~ Oscar Wilde
"Greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society."
~ The Right to Be Greedy
User avatar
Zazaban
Zen Master
 
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 6:00 pm


Re: Draft for a new moderation policy.

Postby patrickhenry » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:56 pm

it is vague. an I know some members like to vent :lol:
." It was all right to accept books from the students, but when they begin to teach you nonsense you must knock them down. They should be made to understand that the workers cause ought to be placed entirely in the hands of the workers themselves"http://www.mutualistde.webs.com
User avatar
patrickhenry
Denizen
 
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: DE


Re: Draft for a new moderation policy.

Postby Zazaban » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:57 pm

patrickhenry wrote:it is vague. an I know some members like to vent :lol:

I'm aware, and venting is healthy, lord knows I do it. It was meant to refer to people who don't do anything else but get angry at people and act hostile in any disagreement. There have been people like that here, and they have caused nothing but pain. But after a bit of thought, I figure they probably shouldn't be banned.

Other than that bit, which is no longer there, what is your opinion on the thing?
"I am but too conscious of the fact that we are born in an age when only the dull are treated seriously, and I live in terror of not being misunderstood."
~ Oscar Wilde
"Greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society."
~ The Right to Be Greedy
User avatar
Zazaban
Zen Master
 
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 6:00 pm


Re: Draft for a new moderation policy.

Postby patrickhenry » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:00 pm

yeah. like IK. He can be a pest but he's flags pest :lol:
." It was all right to accept books from the students, but when they begin to teach you nonsense you must knock them down. They should be made to understand that the workers cause ought to be placed entirely in the hands of the workers themselves"http://www.mutualistde.webs.com
User avatar
patrickhenry
Denizen
 
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: DE


Re: Draft for a new moderation policy.

Postby Guest » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:26 pm

rule of thumb for these things ought to be to structure them according to broadly anarchist principles (that is, those points where most anarchists agree), and then back off from those principles as necessary given the medium (forums aren't the real world, they require special considerations).

you seem to be attempting to do that, but backing off too much from anarchist principles i think.

1). Bans may be given out in the case that the offending user is (a), posting only advertisements and spam, or (b), posting only incoherent or nonsensical posts. Ideological difference is NOT IN ANY CASE grounds for a ban.


the word "ban" immediately makes me uneasy. point (a) is fine for transparent spambots (or humans who might as well be bots), but i suspect you've also got czechwizard in mind. much as i loath his posts, they seem to occupy a gray area. i believe he's here first and foremost to peddle his ridiculous "gospel," but he's going about it in such a unique way that i can't honestly class him along with the blatant spammers. so that would be a subjective evaluation, and that should make any anarchist uneasy. point (b) seems crafted for variagil, who i would definitely consider incoherent and nonsensical, but it seems to be largely due to a language barrier. i think variagil is not quite comfortable with english. so why post here? good question, but i'm still opposed to banning people for babbling in pig-latin.

2). All bans should be brought up for discussion in a thread (or board, whatever it ends up being) dedicated to such matters before anything is done. If no objections are raised, wait to see if it's going to go away on its own, then go ahead. As a general rule, guest objections will not be counted unless a rational justification is given. This is because it's very easy for somebody to go on a proxy IP and object to their own ban.


ew, i smell the nomenklatura! this just solidifies my feeling that the power to ban is just a really bad idea. tribunals to discuss banning? seriously? why not simply ignore them until they get the message and leave? if they never do, then use your iggy bin. i just don't see how it's ever necessary to ban anyone when you have the means to "ban" them from your own view. blocking an ip for ddossing the server is one thing, but that's a matter for the benevolent dictator with their hand on the plug, not for us.

3). All regular members of the forum community will be given the power of admins. Generally, if a person seems sane and capable of avoiding the doing rash things, and have active on the forum for a couple weeks, they should be promoted. Me, Y, thelastindividual and coup etat are a few examples. IK is an example of who not to promote. If you're sure somebody is going to be fine, just go ahead and promote them. If you aren't totally sure, make a post about it first.


again, this reasoning seems backwards. why make everyone admins, when we could make nobody admins. you'll say, because we're having problems lately and need to solve them. and i'll say, iggy them and problem is solved. making everyone an admin is inviting trouble. i don't think of anarchy as everyone being a ruler; i think of it as no rulers. and why single out IK? you said above that ideological differences are not grounds for ban - why make them grounds for denying equal adminship? i think IK is a racist pig, but i can iggy him if it bothers me enough. and as the circle of people responding to him gets smaller, he'll go look for a bigger audience. this "promotion" business smacks of elitism. i don't like it.

4). Any extreme actions (such as bans) uncalled for by the parameters of these guidelines will lead to the offending user having their actions undone and the removal of the admin powers, not necessarily permanently.


more tribunal/nomenklatura elitism. people gathering to decide the fate of others - even if done at a round table - stinks and should be considered a vile option to be avoided if at all possible. i don't see the present situation as dire enough for this, honestly. it's just a few annoying asshats (and perhaps you include me among them, but the point stands; altho in my case you'd have to ip-ban me, which i assume can only be done by the benevolent dictator anyway).

5). Ideas for any changes or additions to this forum, these guidelines included, can and should be presented at any time. This is a dynamic community.


but not dynamic enough to be tolerant of it's most quirky outliers?

6). Censorship is strictly prohibited.


but isn't that what this is all about, really? silencing those deemed annoying? and isn't that exactly backwards from how a libertarian society would work? if you annoy me, i've got 2 options: cover your mouth (ban you) or plug my ears (iggy you). authoritarian vs libertarian.

bottom line: seems to me the elegant response to annoyances like czechwizard, etc, would be to start a thread arguing for an organized boycott. present your case as to why so and so is an asshat, and try to convince others to join you in iggying him. if enough agree, that's effectively a ban. if not, then you'll have to accept the tradeoff of not being able to follow conversations involving that person. if they're just here to game google, well, in some ways we're all gaming google, since the things we say here are high on anarchist search results.

anyway those are the thoughts of a lowly guest, fwiw
Guest
 


Re: Draft for a new moderation policy.

Postby Zazaban » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:43 pm

The main reason I thought everybody should be admins was so ideas for new forum sections, or features, could be implemented by anyone. Your view of anarchism is that those with more should be dragged down, mine is that those with less should be pulled up. Similar ultimate goal, but very different reasoning.

I said nothing about a tribunal. I was thinking more of a quick, easy consensus check just to make sure somebody's not just banning somebody they don't like. They don't need to do it, either. It's essentially the same as what is now, to be honest.
"I am but too conscious of the fact that we are born in an age when only the dull are treated seriously, and I live in terror of not being misunderstood."
~ Oscar Wilde
"Greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society."
~ The Right to Be Greedy
User avatar
Zazaban
Zen Master
 
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 6:00 pm


Re: Draft for a new moderation policy.

Postby Guest » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:00 pm

Your view of anarchism is that those with more should be dragged down, mine is that those with less should be pulled up.


wtf?! not only is that completely wrong, it's also insulting. it's the same bullshit arguments i get when i argue for socialism against capitalists. i don't need that shit from a comrade.

the situation we have now is that there are no admins, effectively. so you're wanting to lift others up to a level that doesn't really exist in practice. having no admins is the same as having all admins, except it avoids potential vandalism.

and did you even read this: "if you annoy me, i've got 2 options: cover your mouth (ban you) or plug my ears (iggy you). authoritarian vs libertarian."

or any of my other points? like this: "the elegant response to annoyances like czechwizard, etc, would be to start a thread arguing for an organized boycott".

i responded in earnest because you asked us to. then you get indignant over my use of "tribunal". well isn't that what you're really talking about when you say "bans should be brought up for discussion"? that's bringing a grievance before a tribunal to get approval before banning someone.

It's essentially the same as what is now, to be honest.


then why bother? the difference between iggying them (either alone or in solidarity with others to shun the problem poster) vs banning them is libertarian vs authoritarian. a forum full of admins is a recipe for disaster. this isn't about "keeping people down", it's about recognizing that such power is unnecessary.

not looking to argue here, but you shouldn't have asked for input if you didn't really want it. i'm trying to give sincere constructive criticism but if you're not interested then just say so and i'll fuck off.

in all candor, you've been a bit obsessed lately with the administration of the forum, and i haven't agreed with your assessment that we're in the midst of a crisis.
Guest
 


Re: Draft for a new moderation policy.

Postby Zazaban » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:02 pm

I'm sorry you took it so personally, but it was meant to be a friendly reply. I didn't mean to insult you.
"I am but too conscious of the fact that we are born in an age when only the dull are treated seriously, and I live in terror of not being misunderstood."
~ Oscar Wilde
"Greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society."
~ The Right to Be Greedy
User avatar
Zazaban
Zen Master
 
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 6:00 pm


Re: Draft for a new moderation policy.

Postby Guest » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:05 pm

well aren't you going to address my points? :?
Guest
 


Re: nevermind

Postby Zazaban » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:09 pm

I don't want to enflame the situation further, so I'm just going to concede. This strikes me as a very bad thing to ever suggest.
"I am but too conscious of the fact that we are born in an age when only the dull are treated seriously, and I live in terror of not being misunderstood."
~ Oscar Wilde
"Greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society."
~ The Right to Be Greedy
User avatar
Zazaban
Zen Master
 
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 6:00 pm

Next

Return to Board index

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests