Locking topics and banning people

190 posts / 0 new
Last post
lzbl's picture
lzbl
Offline
Joined: 19-09-11
Nov 26 2011 23:46

Personally I am so sick of aufheben-gate and the related whinge threads, conspiracy threads and thread threads that I'm beginning to wonder if anyone mentioning it should be banned immediately. Do we seriously not have anything better to do?

The permanent and temporary bans around aufheben-gate have come after repeated warnings and long after the whole thing became completely fucking ridiculous. Imo it should have been done much sooner, and that it wasn't is only evidence of how reasonable the mods have attempted to be.

As for other recent temp bans I'm aware of, they were a result of totally disgusting and inappropriate behaviour about gender and sexism. So I don't really see where the problem is there, but I doubt you're talking about them.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Nov 27 2011 00:32
lzbl wrote:
Personally I am so sick of aufheben-gate and the related whinge threads, conspiracy threads and thread threads that I'm beginning to wonder if anyone mentioning it should be banned immediately. Do we seriously not have anything better to do?

The permanent and temporary bans around aufheben-gate have come after repeated warnings and long after the whole thing became completely fucking ridiculous. Imo it should have been done much sooner, and that it wasn't is only evidence of how reasonable the mods have attempted to be.

As for other recent temp bans I'm aware of, they were a result of totally disgusting and inappropriate behaviour about gender and sexism. So I don't really see where the problem is there, but I doubt you're talking about them.

Admin: trolling removed.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Nov 27 2011 00:34

Admin: response to trolling snipped.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Nov 27 2011 01:30

Outside of the few left/nihilist communist personality disorders and the libcom mods with 0-2 degrees of separation from the person in question, who even cares about this anymore? I know I don't. It's a just a pissing match. There's no end goal. It's just bickering. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care anymore. Am I supposed to be moved to do something or think a certain way?

I don't even really have an opinion on the situation anymore. How could I? There are hundreds of posts with accusations from people I don't know, some seemingly not based on anything, with other accusations from people I don't know based on facts that are disputed by other people I don't know.

I think the discussion should be limited to one thread and threads made outside of that on the subject should be deleted and those who made them warned and the banned if necessary. The conversation seems destructive and I don't understand what's to be accomplished by allowing this to keep going without any limits or constraints.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Nov 27 2011 01:51

You obviously care enough to post about it Juan.

And do you really have to use the "left communist personality disorder" term?

Admin: no flaming, personal abuse removed

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Nov 27 2011 02:09
Peter wrote:
You obviously care enough to post about it Juan.

Honestly, it has more to do with getting back home from the holiday and looking on here and seeing this. I've, for the most part, stayed out of the larger threads, other than to express my disagreement with how this was initially handled by Sam and TPTG, the disagreement expressed, as I remember it, in a respectful way and based on my experience in dealing with a different situation that required exposing someone and confrontation.

Possibly 200-300 posts after my remarks (which seemed entirely ignored as if I was speaking some dead language), I am now expressing the opinion that this is a destructive and unhelpful conversation that is bringing out the worst 'old libcom' behavior from new users, some older users and even the admins. I don't like this at all, which is why I think that whatever stops this, is a good thing. Whoever thinks JD is what TPTG/Sam say he is are probably not going to change their minds and whoever thinks Aufheben/some of the libcom admin are right are probably not going to change theirs. To the vast majority of everyone else, we just see groups of angry, mean people talking to each other in the most bombastic, volume-turned-up, polemical way possible. The content of the posts have changed from citing articles to basically, who can write the most smart ass denunciations.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Nov 27 2011 19:08

I gave up on the aufheben thing a while back, nothing new was being added. As far as I could see one side was repeatedly raising the same points, most of which had been answered and the other side was insisting that all the points had been answered. It was a fucking mess and still is.
To be honest I would have banned samotnaf a long time ago, he is a controversialist who likes attention, whether he has a point or not he is so ridiculously hyperbolic that it is virtually impossible to agree with him.

I still think there are some qustions to answer and some clarifications I would like to see but to be honest I haven't had time to organise anything for the picket wednesday so I definitely can't be bothered to trawl through the internet to decide what I think of a largely irrelevant (though not pointless) argument.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Nov 28 2011 01:22
J Clarke @ #32 wrote:
Are you both serious?

Yes, I'm serious- Blasto had no history of trolling, just of very effectively making his case, inconvenient as that might be for some. Breaches of posting rules by others more 'onside' were happily overlooked and admins occasionally joined in calling people "mentals" etc (itself a dubious turn of phrase to be using). Add to that the "smear" smears, the Pinnochio pics etc. Add to that your journo pal who writes nationalistic anti-riot articles in the press (even while suspects are still being hunted and tried), but who is still always welcomed and protected here to play his wind-up games. Add to that the sudden concern for 'obeying the rules' when its convenient to use them in an argument you're not doing very well in.

But yes, enough has been said and enough evidence provided for all to have made up their minds - about the issue and about each other.

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Nov 28 2011 01:45

I found the ongoing discussion about Aufheben and the case of JD to be highly illuminating and have followed it quite closely, so I'm pretty annoyed that admins have locked threads and banned posters such Blasto who explained themselves quite clearly and relatively politely. Compare Blasto's posts with the often rather pathetic and patronising retorts from others and the bias coming from admins seems pretty obvious.

What has become quite clear to me is that the conflict around JD's research comes down to political differences more than anything else. All of the information is publicly available, if there is more information then I certainly didn't get it when Aufheben finally responded to an email from me. If others have looked at the info provided in Blasto's thread and still do not feel that JD's research is completely messed up then the only conclusion I can draw is that apparently none of us should feel any need to act with integrity and loyalty to our comrades and our class.

From when I first started visiting libcom some years back one basic principle which always appealed to me was the need for revolutionaries to base their activities within their own everyday lives. Well it seems that when push comes to shove the libcom team are far more capable of talking the talk than they are of walking the walk.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 28 2011 01:57

Nobody was banned for anything to do with Aufheben. Despite repeated claims of 'censorship', the Aufheben thread is not locked. Several posters trolled another thread, and then trolled the thread requesting moderation of said thread (started by someone critical of Aufheben, fwiw). Having ignored warnings, they were banned. People who heeded the warnings, like Nate, weren't banned.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 28 2011 02:23
Red Marriott wrote:
Add to that your journo pal who writes nationalistic anti-riot articles in the press (even while suspects are still being hunted and tried), but who is still always welcomed and protected here to play his wind-up games.

This is the second time you've brought this up, and neither time have you bothered to mention that the article was roundly criticized both on libcom and twitter. Yet to read your posts on the matter, one might think he'd gotten kudos and high-fives from the boys for it instead. For someone trying to make a point about disingenuity, it might help your argument if it didn't appear you were trying to twist half-truths to fit your position.

*from someone who generally appreciates most of your posts

ETA: Plus, I'm pretty sure he hasn't been back since. Additionally, it looks like the account has been taken down.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Nov 28 2011 12:36
jesuithitsquad wrote:
I'm pretty sure he hasn't been back since.

he hasn't. he was also slammed by the people who are said to be his buddies.

Red Marriott wrote:
Blasto had no history of trolling, just of very effectively making his case, inconvenient as that might be for some.

the (few) ones i saw contained a good deal of speculation and imputation. i always find that inconvenient.

JK wrote:
Despite repeated claims of 'censorship', the Aufheben thread is not locked.

how often will this have to be repeated?

the issue seems to be that one side has come to a conclusion, which they DEMAND that the other side accept, but the other side won't accept it, which is found to be unacceptable. rinse, repeat. full disclosure: insofar as i followed the issue i think that professor guy is helping the cops, and that aufheben should boot him.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Nov 28 2011 12:41
petey wrote:
the issue seems to be that one side has come to a conclusion, which they DEMAND that the other side accept, but the other side won't accept it, which is found to be unacceptable. rinse, repeat.

I think this was my problem with the whole thing (a problem I mentioned a week or so back). It seemed like people were getting frustrated that the other 'side' (I actually think there should be more than 2 positions on this whole thing) was not accepting their line....

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 28 2011 12:57
Quote:
full disclosure: insofar as i followed the issue i think that professor guy is helping the cops, and that aufheben should boot him.

I'm ambivalent about it as frankly I've not had time or inclination to go through the book-length denunciations/replies, and as a result I don't have a problem with people coming to that conclusion. But afaics, all that would mean if I came to the definitive decision that J was working with cops is being a bit careful not to pass on information which could benefit cops to J himself (in fact I already do this in practice given that I've never worked with the guy before and am unlikely to in the immediate future) and maybe other Aufheben members if I was being really careful.

What bemuses me is that some folks (and it's interesting that not one of these people appear to actually have anything to do with J or even Aufheben directly) then take libcom's admins having the opposite opinion (ie. that J's basically alright and made a few mistakes which he won't make again) as evidence that they're basically fascists in communists' clothing and then try their hardest to find "dirt" to back said opinion up - up to and including repeating untrue rumours about censorship when literally five seconds clicking on a link would dispel. I mean fine, don't talk to J, but what's up with this tarring by association?

Edit: And frankly it's hilarious that the most oft repeated thing is about how libcom's admins have used childish language and slurs to shout down opposition by people who manifestly haven't had a go at their own "side" for using exactly the same approach and actively defend their right to do so even when they repeatedly and deliberately break guidelines.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Nov 28 2011 14:48
jesuithitsquad wrote:
This is the second time you've brought this up, and neither time have you bothered to mention that the article was roundly criticized both on libcom and twitter. Yet to read your posts on the matter, one might think he'd gotten kudos and high-fives from the boys for it instead. For someone trying to make a point about disingenuity, it might help your argument if it didn't appear you were trying to twist half-truths to fit your position.

roll eyes It might help for accuracy if you noticed - or didn't fail to mention - that both times I brought it up I also deliberately linked to the thread about it where those criticisms are made. But, regardless, those mild criticisms don't invalidate or refute my comments about the cosy association.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 28 2011 15:05

Sorry not sure what you're getting at then Red, they told him he was out of order and he left the site, how's that protecting him? Also, that particular poster has been temp-banned for being a dick more times than I care to remember (ie. the same as Blasto and Samotnaf who got 72-hour bans, not permanent ones).

The harder line on posting is also not out of the blue, don't know if you read the macho posting thread, but they're in direct response to that because women posters were saying their lack of participation and that of many others was down to dick-wavers not being pulled up on bad behaviour - the guidelines were put up on the right hand side of the page around that time, the policy change (aside from discussion on how good or bad that implementation has been) had nothing to do with the stuff about J and iirc pre-dates the J thread.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Nov 28 2011 15:30
Rob Ray wrote:

The harder line on posting is also not out of the blue.

To be fair other posters like weeler and revol would have been permanently banned from here years ago if youse had stuck to the 'hard line' on posting. Seems like it is recently being used to get rid of people who keep bringing up the 'J scandal'.

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 28 2011 15:29
gypsy wrote:
Rob Ray wrote:

The harder line on posting is also not out of the blue.

To be fair other posters like weeler and revol would have been permanently banned from here years ago if youse had stuck to the 'hard line' on posting. Seems like it is recently being used to get rid of people who keep bringing up the 'J scandal'.

To be fairer the reasons for the harder line on posting (see the macho posting thread Rob Ray mentions) are more recent than any posts I've seen from weeler or revol.

In other words Rob Ray is not saying admins have been "sticking to" a hard line on posting, he's saying it's new and he's said exactly why.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Nov 28 2011 15:32
Pikel wrote:
gypsy wrote:
Rob Ray wrote:

The harder line on posting is also not out of the blue.

To be fair other posters like weeler and revol would have been permanently banned from here years ago if youse had stuck to the 'hard line' on posting. Seems like it is recently being used to get rid of people who keep bringing up the 'J scandal'.

To be fairer the reasons for the harder line on posting (see the macho posting thread Rob Ray mentions) are more recent than any posts I've seen from weeler or revol.

In other words Rob Ray is not saying admins have been "sticking to" a hard line on posting, he's saying it's new and he's said exactly why.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Still this still stands-

Quote:
Seems like it is recently being used to get rid of people who keep bringing up the 'J scandal'

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 28 2011 15:43
gypsy wrote:
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Still this still stands-
Quote:
Seems like it is recently being used to get rid of people who keep bringing up the 'J scandal'

It kind of stands, it so happens the people who have kept bringing up the 'J scandal' have been making discussion unpleasant for people who don't give a fuck about it, like me. Perfectionists annoy me cos they're never happy (and I have a perfectionist tendency, I just recognise it's counter productive - especially when the subject of your perfectionism is a flawed-by-nature and flawed-by-circumstance human being. Edit - to be more accurate I can forgive the perfectionist, if they will recognise the flaw in their own behaviour, it's the perfectionism that needs addressed!).

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 28 2011 16:37
Quote:
youse

I'm not an admin or a mod. Or particularly a friend of revol or weeler (unless having them on facebook and very occasionally running into each other at anarcho-events counts).

And yes, the hard(er, it's still not exactly Rambo in here) line is new to the site. Despite this, the only permanent ban has been handed to lines, who got it not for talking about J but for hitting the "report" function on basically every post he could find. Sam and Blasto got 72 hours for spamming and repeating gossip, so while I disagree with the second ban (of Blasto, Sam's last comment on the J thread was pretty cut and dried) they're hardly "getting rid" of people, nor are they censoring discussion about J in the relevant thread.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Nov 28 2011 18:24
Rob Ray wrote:
Sorry not sure what you're getting at then Red, they told him he was out of order and he left the site, how's that protecting him? Also, that particular poster has been temp-banned for being a dick more times than I care to remember (ie. the same as Blasto and Samotnaf who got 72-hour bans, not permanent ones).

He's chosen to stop using the site at present - he may be back under another new name, he wasn't banned. So it's apparently considered tolerable to write such press articles in the midst of harsh sentences and witchhunts and still post here; nice 'solidarity'. I acknowledged from the start (though it's been ignored in most responses) that there was poor behaviour on both sides - but imo the admin disciplinary responses were blatantly biased.

It's not like with like, but the contrast with the toleration of their journo pal and his state propaganda role is clearly relevant to the whole topic. And illustrates the points I made elsewhere; http://libcom.org/forums/theory/pro-revolutionaries-academia-15102011?page=4#comment-455073

Quote:
The harder line on posting is also not out of the blue, don't know if you read the macho posting thread, ...

Even if that's true, it's still been conveniently and partially applied on this topic. Enough.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Nov 28 2011 19:54
Rob Ray wrote:
Quote:
youse

I'm not an admin or a mod. Or particularly a friend of revol or weeler (unless having them on facebook and very occasionally running into each other at anarcho-events counts).

And yes, the hard(er, it's still not exactly Rambo in here) line is new to the site. Despite this, the only permanent ban has been handed to lines, who got it not for talking about J but for hitting the "report" function on basically every post he could find. Sam and Blasto got 72 hours for spamming and repeating gossip, so while I disagree with the second ban (of Blasto, Sam's last comment on the J thread was pretty cut and dried) they're hardly "getting rid" of people, nor are they censoring discussion about J in the relevant thread.

Sorry Rob. I thought you were a mod.

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Nov 28 2011 21:21

Pity about the 'lines' banning over the report button 'misuse' as I think this was an IT 'cock-up' rather than some kind of deliberate cyber attack!

I've always found lines arguments usefully challenging but of course his critique is against more-or-less the whole milieu that makes up libcom so it was bound to end in tears at some point.

The libcom admins are entitled to enforce their rules on their site which I'm sure lines understands as do I.

I still find the site useful in a number of ways despite strongly disagreeing with the admins approach to the Aufheben and JD issue and the poor responses in debate to Wellclose Square, Blasto, Samotnaf and some others (perhaps because I'm not a perfectionist in this area). I will even admit to finding Samotnaf's 'please sir' posting a real hoot though a bit shouty! and I suppose inevitably resulting in at least a temporary ban.

The issues raised firstly with Aufheben and then more generally around 'academia', 'professionalism' and the 'middle class' and their relationship to fault lines in the pro-revolutionary milieu, will of course keep comming up again and again even if current threads wear themselves out.

Hopefully some of those banned or otherwise worn out by this particular battleground will return in the future to post further challenges.

PS: And showing my age - isn't Rob a rocker rather than a mod?

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 28 2011 21:36
Spikymike wrote:
Hopefully some of those banned or otherwise worn out by this particular battleground will return in the future to post further challenges.

PS: And showing my age - isn't Rob a rocker rather than a mod?

I hope so, Samotnaf has contributed loads of good stuff to the site, for one.

I was going to make the rocker quip but I thought it might fall on deaf ears!

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 28 2011 23:43
Red Marriott wrote:
He's chosen to stop using the site at present - he may be back under another new name, he wasn't banned. So it's apparently considered tolerable to write such press articles in the midst of harsh sentences and witchhunts and still post here; nice 'solidarity'. I acknowledged from the start (though it's been ignored in most responses) that there was poor behaviour on both sides - but imo the admin disciplinary responses were blatantly biased.

It's not like with like, but the contrast with the toleration of their journo pal and his state propaganda role is clearly relevant to the whole topic. And illustrates the points I made elsewhere; http://libcom.org/forums/theory/pro-revolutionaries-academia-15102011?page=4#comment-455073

Quote:
The harder line on posting is also not out of the blue, don't know if you read the macho posting thread, ...

Even if that's true, it's still been conveniently and partially applied on this topic. Enough.

God, you're really grasping for straws here Red. To sum up, even though he was called out on the article here and on twitter, hasn't been back since, the account was deleted and all posts scrubbed (OMG!!! was he disappeared too?!!!??!!!) it's not quite enough for you because he wasn't banned, for something he didn't write here?

For someone making accusations about ideological bannings, I'm really surprised you'd support such a ban. But if the site does go down the path of banning people for bad ideas can I just put in my application now for mod privileges? I would do good work.

Quote:
But, regardless, those mild criticisms don't invalidate or refute my comments about the cosy association.

a few examples of 'mild criticisms':

Quote:
another shit article

.

Quote:
The article *is* shit tho.

.

Quote:
shameless

.

Quote:
cynical opportunism

.

Quote:
That is a terrible article

.

Quote:
The most laughable bit is

.

Quote:
know it to be bullshit

.

Quote:
he'd been pretty much universally taken down elsewhere

.

Quote:
I'm surprised he wrote that shit.

Now I know you've put your weight behind Samatanof and all, and maybe his bombastic style of denunciation has numbed you to what you consider adequate levels of criticism to be, but where I come if this is what a 'cozy association' buys you, well . .

Though, now that I think about it maybe he should've been compared to Stalin. wall

I sincerely appreciate your substantive contributions to the site, but this vendetta you seem to have against the way the site is run is really unbecoming. It seems like anytime anyone has a beef, you're right there to pile on.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Nov 29 2011 00:34

jesuit; your weak sarcasm should be saved for a more deserving target.

To criticise with a handful of posts on one topic is now a "vendetta"?! What planet are you on? As for the rest, you fail to adequately understand my points made, so fail to address them and merely repeat yourself, so I won't waste time replying.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 29 2011 03:09

But it's not one topic though is it? On this thread alone there's the lines/Blasto/Samatanof issue and then there's the Xander issue which even if you want to try to connect the two (doesn't really work), you've raised issues about his relationship to libcom before. Recently, you were all over the "celebrity" pieces even after they changed the title, said it was for fun and it was explained it drew visitors to the site. You've also gone off on admins about something you wrote that they used without permission or attribution (probably a legit beef) which you've then brought up on multiple occasions over multiple threads. I think you've taken a pretty strong anti-libcommunity stance in the past as well. I also seem to remember you piling on about several other issues, but I don't care enough about it and don't have the time to dig back through old posts.

I'm not saying you have to agree with everything that goes on on libcom, but these are just the things I remember. That said, if I just have a bizarre memory and this is the sum of your complaints (or I'm remembering incorrectly), I'll back off the vendetta comment and move it down to the level of a blood feud. wink

Lemert
Offline
Joined: 28-11-11
Nov 29 2011 04:00

Banning me (CRUD) was pretty absurd, I'm well aware I've not been on the "favorites" list of the SolFed crew but in case you weren't aware I've brought quite a few new American posters around and the thread where you banned me, the "Identity issues" thread, speaks volume to the ineffectiveness of the socialist movement in general.

You either tote the politically correct line or are shunned by an ever growing ineffective "moral" vanguard on the left (in my case, on this site, it's more complex than that- I treat people how they treat me).

The thread where some poster was justifiably complaining about rape at occupy events (the first 'temp" ban that was handed out my way) was also a strange thing. Mods putting words in my mouth, deleting posts I made defending myself etc. Orwellian indeed....down the memory hole you go!

Even my posts regarding childish 'blac bloc' tactics at Occupy Oakland were met with hostility from mods. People who weren't even there and had no understanding of the negative impact those actions had. Pretty much anything I say/type at this point needs to be screened by the (less than honest/sincere) mods on this site. From day one about 4 or 5 of you have thrown insults at me...non stop.

The "macho" posting thread wasn't concerning me it was concerning the people who are now banning people left and right, the 4 or 5 regular posters and mods who are involved in the struggle in the same area who gang up on people calling them "mental" and such. As if A: thats going to attract people to the site and as if B: people wont react to that in a way that won't get them banned. Can you say groupthinking power trip? It's something I'd expect to encounter on a kids school yard. Fuck all that. Get your shit together kids. Not liking me is no reason to ban me. I could give a shit if you like me or not.

lzbl's picture
lzbl
Offline
Joined: 19-09-11
Nov 29 2011 07:24

Dude, your comments on the rape thread were totally out of line and exactly what people were complaining about on the macho posting thread. I'm glad you got temp banned for them.

The macho posting thread was about the forums attitude in general, which I actually didn't think was too bad. This was probably something to do with posters rarely talking about feminist issues which seems to be some kind of showcase for peoples idiocy. Between that and the aufheben threads (and my comments on that apply to everyone who carried on talking about it after the conversation became circular and ridiculous not just samotnaf etc) the forums have not been wonderful places to be in the past few months. Again, EXACTLY WHAT WAS TALKED ABOUT ON THE MACHO POSTING THREAD.

So actually, yeah, I support the mods on this one. They have responded to requests to make the forum more accessible to people who find dickwaving tiresome and offputting. I'm not saying those are all women but the large majority were, so if your revolution thinks it's more important to keep trolls on board than half the fucking population you can go somewhere and have it by yourself.