Forum Discussion v5 - Imagine if you used Ignore List.

[.Ducky]

[QUOTE=postal;52894800]personally I'd consider any post going on about how they're against something like transgenderism period to be awful, but like I said before it's literally the goal of the thread. I think having some sorta "awfulness threshold" gets a bit much and just leads to a lot of bitching. it's easier to just say talk about whatever you want and debate endlessly amongst yourself, just try not to shitpost or start stabbing each other over your opinions.

that's probably something we could clarify on those mod guidelines or something since it's pretty much just always been a subjective thing. maybe a simple standard would be don't care if something happened over a year ago and the users baaarely had any bans since, and if it's over 2 years ago absolutely don't care period. but i'm just spit-balling.[/QUOTE]

Yea, I should've said "how awful it was in the context of the thread" which is a more difficult question

[Bazsil]

[QUOTE=kariko;52894768]What he did is way beyond simply saying "I don't like trans people" or "I don't agree with them".[/QUOTE]
Is it supposed to only be "I don't like trans people" or "I don't agree with them", poorly thought-out 'arguments' that are easily handwaveable/ignored?

The thread is there for people to explain why they're on the other side of the fence and he did so without flaming. If one finds it offensive nonetheless, then the onus is on them to avoid going in the thread. He shouldn't have to censor himself. Someone posts their take on it and it's actually something that they've obviously put a lot of thought into and now because they actually put thought into it, they need to go. Why? Did you only want opposing viewpoints as long as they're convenient to counter and "educate"?

[Chronitonity]

[QUOTE=Bazsil;52894842]Is it supposed to only be "I don't like trans people" or "I don't agree with them", poorly thought-out 'arguments' that are easily handwaveable/ignored?

The thread is there for people to explain why they're on the other side of the fence and he did so without flaming. If one finds it offensive nonetheless, then the onus is on them to avoid going in the thread. He shouldn't have to censor himself. Someone posts their take on it and it's actually something that they've obviously put a lot of thought into and now because they actually put thought into it, they need to go. Why? Did you only want opposing viewpoints as long as they're convenient to counter and "educate"?[/QUOTE]

opposing viewpoints are fine, whats not fine is bringing up personal drama and lacing your argument with barbs intending to hurt people you were close to and masquerading it as your opinion

[kariko]

[QUOTE=Bazsil;52894842]Is it supposed to only be "I don't like trans people" or "I don't agree with them", poorly thought-out 'arguments' that are easily handwaveable/ignored?

The thread is there for people to explain why they're on the other side of the fence and he did so without flaming. If one finds it offensive nonetheless, then the onus is on them to avoid going in the thread. He shouldn't have to censor himself. Someone posts their take on it and it's actually something that they've obviously put a lot of thought into and now because they actually put thought into it, they need to go. Why? Did you only want opposing viewpoints as long as they're convenient to counter and "educate"?[/QUOTE]

No? I didn't mention but I should have added it in my other post. If people discuss it and still dislike trans people then that's their deal. Even if they just say it without trying to learn then that's fine too. When I said earlier it's for educating people I meant how that is the most positive outcome of the thread, not that it should be restricted to it. It's not just for "I agree with you" or "I can be persuaded".

I just don't see how his post wasn't beyond this line of regular discussion.

[Amber902]

-fine-

[Crazy Ivan]

So, my two cents, for what it's worth.*

That thread was never going to end well, no matter what happened. Full stop, hard end. I hadn't read it because I genuinely couldn't imagine anything good happening in there.

There are a few reasons, but I'm just going to lance the big one in the face.

[B]This forum is fucking gay.[/B]

Or rather, a lot of people on it are. Or are bisexual. Or trans. There's a [I]really[/I] [B]really[/B] strong LGBT community here. [B]That's not a bad thing.[/B]

But it does mean that [I]any[/I] LGBT discussion is always loaded, going in to it. Anyone who doesn't agree with, accept or otherwise embrace pro-LGBT issues on this forum routinely gets the,

[quote] you're [I]literally[/I] a nazi that is destroying my life by expressing yourself! [/quote]

treatment. I don't really have to range very far to find like, any evidence of that.

The Transgender topic then is [I]the[/I] most sensitive topic. Not just in terms of how it has to be talked about, but the fact that there's a lot of defensive energy around it. It's not necessarily undeserved energy, I mean, people have right to be secure in who they or who they feel they ought to be.

We have a weird thing going on though, with identity. Ultimately it would be just as mawkish and distasteful for people to talk about why they're against Muslims or Jews or Blacks or Women.

Conceptualize that thread for a minute.

[quote] [B]Why do you hate Jews?[/B] [/quote]

Is that going to be a good thread? Is anyone really going to come forward with an argument in the affirmative that will be treated respectfully? Are people going to let-it-lie if someone comes forward and say, "while I see nothing wrong with the individual Jew, I think [B][dot] [dot] [dot][/B]" (fill in the blank with whatever floats your boat for Anti-Semitism. I get enough accusations of being too-far-right to bother making up a Nazi strawman.)

So then we come to this thing that, in my opinion was inevitable in that thread. That someone would lose their shit, say something really nasty about Transgender people, that someone would lose their shit back, and it'd just fuck everything up.

Do you really think that thread's going to be productive going forward, now? People are just going to hard on the "destruction of self" nonsense, and anyone who tries to argue that they dislike the Transgender movement for one reason or another will be sharing plankspace with that post. That's really, really, [B]really[/B] hard to sell to anyone who isn't unaware or genuinely bigoted.

So, let's move on. Nothing good went in to that thread, itself, and nothing good is coming out.

So about Sobotnik in specific. Zillamaster got their request one-month vacation, and Sobotnik got a day.

Sobotnik's ban history is... not bad. Not great. It's just there. Two years of relatively sanctioned posting is not y'know, I think worthy of any notice or discussion. Dredging in to the past like that invites weird reprisal-oriented witch hunting.

But Sobotnik is a pretty rough poster. They say stuff that people that people don't like, and they don't desist. That's in some respect admirable, and in some respect garners a lot of negative attention. It's Tuddposting. It's not shitposting, it's not intentionally counter-productive or trolling or low-effort, but it's consciously and persistently unpopular.

The post in question though? It's fucked up. [B]It's really fucked up[/B].[I] But it is on topic[/I]. It is, well, real and genuine. It's a really inappropriate way to air dirty laundry. It's a really bad way to express how unhappy you are with something. But it's genuine. And it's not... evil? It's not calling for an end to Transgendered people, a stripping of their rights, it's... a view. A view a person has.

But it's a view loaded with a personal attack.

The view itself? A bad view. A stupid view. A view borne from some thoughts that probably aren't healthy? But it's a... legitimate? view. It's articulate. It exists, freestanding.

[B]Would you ban a flat-earther or an anti-vaxxer?[/B] Just, on the basis that they are. Not because they're clearly wrong, but on the basis that they're, somehow, in your opinion, stupid? I would say misguided, or emotional, but let's just use stupid.

It's not WickedPlayer "she should've known" stupid. It's not AgentFazeX, "my wife ran in to a car while texting," stupid.

It's just point of view that sucks, and is bad. But if we're going to start purging people for that, we may as well remod Max, and roll out l'funny Guillotine, and look closely for people that are [I]sniggering.[/I]

[B]What Sobotnik should be banned for is being confrontational and creating drama. For being overtly personal and attacking another user.[/B]

In my opinion, that at least deserves a week. A perma would be understandable. [I]But a day isn't enough, no matter what. [/I]We ban people who call out or attack Tudd for a week or a month. Why not someone who clearly went out of their way to jab another in such an inappropriate fashion? Why not tell them in no unclear language to [I]never[/I] do that again? That seems fair. That seems reasonable.

But it won't sate the bloodlust. People want a "bigot" turned out. They want someone to be strung up for expressing themselves in a place where they were, simply, invited to. Which I don't think is fair. I think that's how you get a lot of self-righteous people who slowly take over a community, and force out anyone who doesn't agree with them or like their ideas.

Which is really not what this forum is about.

This forum is Seinfeld. It's a forum about Nothing. It's a community of people who persist in sharing things, talking to eachother, and coexisting. Sobotnik acted in a way that is not in line with how we'd want people to behave in any community. That's punishable. What they believe, probably shouldn't be.

I'm aware I'll probably get a lot of boxes for this post.

*Wordcount will lead to inflation, so really this is more like one cent.

[butre]

[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;52894643]Sobotniks post was pretty fuckin disgustin, along with his "transsexualism is the annihilation of self" shit he posted[/QUOTE]

sobotnik is a disgusting person in general tbh. if it were up to me he'd have been gone years ago

also that whole thread is a cesspit

[Pascall]

So I was out all day but sort of caught up on the nonsense, and here's the way I see it:

There was a mistake made on the initial ban length, yes. It was a bit too quick and we didn't have a whole lot of time or moderators on to discuss it entirely before it happened. While Sobotnik is responsible for espousing some pretty heinous views, it's not inherently against the rules, especially not in the context of the thread itself. Because his more recent bans have not been specifically for this type of behavior, the ban was lowered while Zilla's was a month because it was [I]requested.[/I] The disparity only seemed like a disparity because this wasn't publicly mentioned until the ban reason was fixed earlier.

While we are still discussing the intent of Sobotnik's original post (and the subsequent appropriate action), we don't have every moderator online at the moment, and some things may go back and forth before we discern more rules as to what flies and what doesn't, as well as what we expect out of these sorts of heavily controversial threads.

That being said, we don't accept personal drama of any sort in any section on this forum and anyone participating in it will be banned. That's been a rule forever. Handle things like that through PM or off-site.

You guys can ask questions but I can't guarantee a solid answer until we get majority input regarding what happened.

[The Adjudicator]

[QUOTE=postal;52894800]always been a subjective thing. maybe a simple standard would be don't care if something happened over a year ago and the users baaarely had any bans since, and if it's over 2 years ago absolutely don't care period. but i'm just spit-balling.[/QUOTE]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/bUVZGVZ.png[/img]

This is how I've done it, and some of it is pass downs from what I've been told from my mod mentors. RIP dragon

[Pascall]

Crazy Ivan, I'm gonna be real with you, I am not reading that unless you fix the formatting.

You're hurting my eyes.

[MissingGlitch]

I want some clarity on how intolerance rules work around here. Because I know if a post was made to that extent and was about not liking Muslims or black people. It would have been slapped with a heavy racism ban. It always seemed like being maliciously intolerant towards LGBT people isn't banned as often.

In all reality the thread should have been locked from the start. We ALL knew how it was gonna end up and here we are complaining about how it ended out.

[Crazy Ivan]

[QUOTE=Pascall;52894900]Crazy Ivan, I'm gonna be real with you, I am not reading that unless you fix the formatting.

You're hurting my eyes.[/QUOTE]

I'll put it through Word, apply comic sans, then email it to you if you want.

Long and short though for people who hate words;

Lots of gays
It's not bannable to be stupid
-unless it's [I]really[/I] stupid
Sobotnik wasn't stupid
Sobotnik was mean
-very mean
--it is bannable to be mean
---it is extra bannable to be very mean
Not liking gays isn't really mean but it isn't nice
Sobotnik should be banned for being very mean
-but not for being not-mean and not-nice

the end

[Pascall]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;52894911]I'll put it through Word, apply comic sans, then email it to you if you want.

Long and short though for people who hate words;

Lots of gays
It's not bannable to be stupid
-unless it's [I]really[/I] stupid
Sobotnik wasn't stupid
Sobotnik was mean
-very mean
--it is bannable to be mean
---it is extra bannable to be very mean
Not liking gays isn't really mean but it isn't nice
Sobotnik should be banned for being very mean
-but not for being not-mean and not-nice

the end[/QUOTE]

I don't hate words, I just wish you didn't have a space between each sentence. :( It's hard to read.

But thanks for the summary.

[kariko]

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;52894909]I want some clarity on how intolerance rules work around here. Because I know if a post was made to that extent and was about not liking Muslims or black people. It would have been slapped with a heavy racism ban. It always seemed like being intolerant towards LGBT people is easier to pass by without being banned.

In all reality the thread should have been locked from the start. we ALL know how it was gonna end up. And here we are complaining about how it ended out.[/QUOTE]

This is actually a question I was wondering. If it said "are you against black people?" and someone came in being incredibly racist, how would that work? From what's happened with all of this, it seems like they'd be let off the hook because that's what should be expected from a thread like that.

I guess I'm curious about when the line is crossed. Not trying to be snarky or rude also. Sort of a genuine question about context and what's good/not good in those cases.

[Exooodus]

It's easier to comprehend if you read it in the voice of a lofty speaking noir film detective.

[Crazy Ivan]

[QUOTE=Pascall;52894916]I don't hate words, I just wish you didn't have a space between each sentence. :( It's hard to read.

But thanks for the summary.[/QUOTE]

Real-talk back, I have no idea how I'd made it more consumable for you without making it harder on someone else. Or, at least, for me. If I collapse the paragraphs together in to giant chunks, it starts to turn in to a big, gloopy wall of text and personally I think that [I]really[/I] unreadable, and really boring to boot.

Sorry. It's hard to write an essay off the cuff and make it fit well on a forum. I try, I know I can't put it in the way everyone wants it, but I try. For value, you can get the same idea out of anything I write by [I]just skimming the sillier looking text.[/I] [B]Most of the time.

[/B][QUOTE=Exooodus;52894927]It's easier to comprehend if you read it in the voice of a lofty speaking noir film detective.[/QUOTE]

Code cracked.

[Jetamo]

:snip:

And then the quotebox broke it all anyway. Your post is cursed, Crazy Ivan.

[Zethin]

[QUOTE=Kiwi;52895061]Hey so I'd like to confirm some things and be transparent about this.
So I jumped the gun but I was under the impression(my own might I add) that Sobotnik was under last chance and/or bad ban history. On top of that I myself kind of forgotten what the thread(this will be VERY important later on) actually was and at a glance it looked like a shitshow that needed to end fast. However I was under some guidance that maybe the perma was jumping the gun and we agreed internally that we should just reduce it to 1 day instead. Of course I wasn't so sure either that this wouldn't be the correct one either so we just reduced it and gave ourselves time to think.

The thread context and Zilla's ban is very important here.
Thread context.

Sobotnik did JUST that (tho granted in a really awful way) and Zillamaster started some drama afterwards due to it (which resulted in her needing to take a break for personal reasons mind due) which led to some personal drama that had no place in the thread, and I should have cleared that up in that ban reason.

This isn't something we do every day to be frank and what I should have done is just wait however under the circumstances I did what I thought was the best. We'll be looking to clear this up better in both our mod guidelines and in the future. We should get it right first time not have to change bans 3 times.

Final sentence. 3 days Dumb derailing (ALL mods agree with this)[/QUOTE]

Is there a general guideline that dictates when ban lengths begin to be influenced by ban history?

For example I've come across a user or two who'll have 20+ bans but a lot of them are just for a few days to a week (maybe some month long bans spaced here and there).

Then you'll come across other users who are either perma'd or on last-chance with <10 bans.

What exactly determines the length of bans? Is it the frequency between infractions or the severity, or is it kinda just up to mod discretion as somewhat mentioned in Craptasket's post? Are these people with dozens of bans just happening to space their bans perfectly (i.e. slap bans don't count like in that picture)?

[Snickerdoodle]

Could someone fix [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1585989"]this thread[/URL] title
This seems a tad less sensationalist:
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;52895189]"Colorodo Doctors suspect Marajuana in cause of death of 11 month old"[/QUOTE]

[343N]

firefox seems to render titles really thickly as well as making character-spacing smaller, making it annoying to read,
example (left is chrome, right is ff)
[img]https://i.imgur.com/BTNf35d.png[/img]

seems to only happen with FP

[RoboChimp]

If someone's on your ignore list, It'd be nice if they could no longer see posts from you. Perhaps with mod approval or if the interaction between users was causing conflict, a mod could just stop those 2 users from being able to interact with each other, no PMs, no VMs, no quotes.

Just a thought, because not everyone's personality is compatible.

[Nookyava]

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52895244]If someone's on your ignore list, It'd be nice if they could no longer see posts from you. Perhaps with mod approval or if the interaction between users was causing conflict, a mod could just stop those 2 users from being able to interact with each other, no PMs, no VMs, no quotes.

Just a thought, because not everyone's personality is compatible.[/QUOTE]

I don't think this is that great an idea because then it just leads to them crying to mods to remove the ignore.

[Pascall]

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52895244]If someone's on your ignore list, It'd be nice if they could no longer see posts from you. Perhaps with mod approval or if the interaction between users was causing conflict, a mod could just stop those 2 users from being able to interact with each other, no PMs, no VMs, no quotes.

Just a thought, because not everyone's personality is compatible.[/QUOTE]

This is where a manner of self control comes in. We're not babysitters and we're not parents. It's up to you to control what you respond to on this forum. If someone makes you angry and you don't think you can interact with them properly, then don't.

Aside from that, that probably isn't something that vB will let us do.

[The Adjudicator]

[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;52895191]Is there a general guideline that dictates when ban lengths begin to be influenced by ban history?

For example I've come across a user or two who'll have 20+ bans but a lot of them are just for a few days to a week (maybe some month long bans spaced here and there).

Then you'll come across other users who are either perma'd or on last-chance with <10 bans.

What exactly determines the length of bans? Is it the frequency between infractions or the severity, or is it kinda just up to mod discretion as somewhat mentioned in Craptasket's post? Are these people with dozens of bans just happening to space their bans perfectly (i.e. slap bans don't count like in that picture)?[/QUOTE]

Yeah as mentioned Frequency and past severity play roles in nailing a justifiable ban length. Keep in mind this is how I do things:

For determining exact length for any ban?
slaps/warnings/petty stuff -> 12HR-1day, Actual bans -> 1-7 days, 1-month and permas for the big stuff.

I'll admit I don't really check peoples ban histories all the time anymore, I do anther method considered lazy. For instance if someone was banned several times by several mods for flaming, his next ban (or while banned) gets the ban history warning and extend.
Then I get to yell at all the previous mods for not checking ban history and take the credit

Something like this should be reference only and allowing a bunch of mods to follow this more or less would give you discrepancies you'd expect with ban histories between multiple users.

[Snickerdoodle]

[QUOTE=Kiwi;52895257]Done and there was some off topic bans and a tudd call out in there.[/QUOTE]

Thanx bby

[343N]

[QUOTE=Kiwi;52895266]Have you touched ClearType at all? Also what's your resolution/are you using high DPI?[/QUOTE]

no idea about cleartype, and on a 23' 1080p monitor

[SuperPlamz]

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52895244]If someone's on your ignore list, It'd be nice if they could no longer see posts from you. Perhaps with mod approval or if the interaction between users was causing conflict, a mod could just stop those 2 users from being able to interact with each other, no PMs, no VMs, no quotes.

Just a thought, because not everyone's personality is compatible.[/QUOTE]
With or without mod approval, that sounds awful. People [I]choose[/I] to respond and fight with other users, they [I]choose[/I] to take things incredibly personally and show that they have. It's not something that users just can't control. If someone's personality is just incompatible with someone else, it's their own personal problem and other people shouldn't be shut out from seeing what they have to say.

[Spacewolf]

[QUOTE=postal;52895274]just wanted to take a moment and add to this very serious discussion and say HEY we're gonna test out some more facepuncher maps on HL1DM [url="steam://connect/45.77.93.15:27015/fuck"]CLICK HERE TO JOIN[/url][/QUOTE]

Can I play from my work register computer

[343N]

[QUOTE=Kiwi;52895266]Have you touched ClearType at all? Also what's your resolution/are you using high DPI?[/QUOTE]

so i turned off cleartype and it looks atrocious so i'm not keepign it off, but with it on it's still too thick (even after adjusting cleartype)
[img]https://i.imgur.com/v3he2Dt.png[/img]

it's literally just the titles though, everything else is fine

[Snickerdoodle]

Have we discussed possibly giving SH the same treatment Polidicks gets in terms of reliable sources? It seems to work marvelously well in Polidicks. Should those rules extend site wide or would that cause issues?