Locking topics and banning people

190 posts / 0 new
Last post
Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 1 2011 08:51
Arbeiten wrote:
Devrim, it is still a fucking lie, until proven otherwise it is a lie. Say what you want with your pathetic reference to CNN but you still reproduced a lie. Like the shitty right-wing populist media, your reproducing 'facts' that could be potentially untruths (lies, if you will).

I didn't 'reproduce a lie'. I said that somebody believed and had said something. In fact other things I wrote suggested that I didn't believe it was true.

Arbeiten wrote:
This thread is fucking pathetic, are you people not bored of your shit slinging yet?

I don't think that I am 'shit slinging'. I think that there is valid question, regardless of the actual incident being discussed, 'should things like this be publicly refuted or deleted?' Again I would refer you back to Martinh's refutation, which I personally find much more persuading than being sworn at.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 1 2011 08:55
lzbl wrote:
Everyone on this site is more than capable of making their point without resorting to insults that perpetuate oppression, so maybe we could all use a little more imagination when we're mud slinging, insulting each other, trolling, having a little cry about the mean mean admins and whatever else we're doing to create our ideal society wall

Perhaps if you had finished the sentence after insults, it would have been better. Of course people still get insulted anyway, and feel offended anyway. That can happen in discussion unfortunately too often without people "us[ing] a little more imagination when we're mud slinging, [and] insulting each other".

Devrim

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Dec 1 2011 08:59

I actually think Devrim has a point here. I don't even remember what the original post under discussion was, and I don't agree with most of the criticisms of Libcom and the mods. That said, having all the posts which people are getting banned for (I don't think I saw what post got Blasto banned, or lines, or other people) deleted means there is always going to be doubt among people that the banning was justified. While their intentions are good, it seems like the mods are making the problem worse by deleting everything, which leaves a space for people to genuinely or cynically assert they were banned out of bias or because they disagreed with the mods whereas leaving the post as is would show people it's a ban-worthy offense? Obviously if someone says something incredibly offensive it should be deleted but these posts weren't obscene, to my knowledge.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Dec 1 2011 10:00

LIBCOM IS A LIZARD-STALINOID DICTATORSHIP!!!!11!!!!!

Before i am sent to the digital gulag i will just say that i have concrete proof that libcom central committee is firmly under the control of the lizards, who also now control SolFed through the medium of Aufheben and that guy doing a PhD.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Dec 1 2011 10:08

serious post:
libcom admins wanted keep the forums tidy, and less filled with shit than forums normally are, so they deleted insane slurs they knew to be untrue. I don't really see any problem with this, considering it was only applied to nutty ideas about SF being controlled by a shadowy cabal, and not any kind of criticisms based in reality or theory.

lzbl's picture
lzbl
Offline
Joined: 19-09-11
Dec 1 2011 10:17

Devrim, are you seriously saying 'no-one should insult anyone but everything has the potential to be offensive'? Because the logical conclusion to that is for everyone to just stop typing anything, ever.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 1 2011 10:33
lzbl wrote:
Devrim, are you seriously saying 'no-one should insult anyone but everything has the potential to be offensive'? Because the logical conclusion to that is for everyone to just stop typing anything, ever.

No, not at all. I am saying that none should insult people, and even if they didn't deliberately do it, some things will offend people anyway. I certainly don't think people should be thinking of different ways to insult people.

Devrim

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Dec 1 2011 10:33
Harrison wrote:
serious post:
libcom admins wanted keep the forums tidy, and less filled with shit than forums normally are, so they deleted insane slurs they knew to be untrue. I don't really see any problem with this, considering it was only applied to nutty ideas about SF being controlled by a shadowy cabal, and not any kind of criticisms based in reality or theory.

Right, but its only a handful of posts we're talking about here. Obviously the mods don't delete every post that is non-essential to the discussion--you and I have both made flippant posts in this thread and they haven't been deleted. Leaving a single post by lines up which contained some wacky allegations against SolFed would hardly have brought down the discussion or caused any problems. As others have pointed out, Nate's post in the academics thread was far more offensive than what lines wrote and remains up.

The thing is, its hard for people who didn't see the original post before it was deleted to ascertain for themselves whether or not it was ban worthy. I personally think that the mods were probably in the right. Other posters have insinuated lines (we're talking about lines, right?) was banned for merely stating there were academics in SolFed. Since I can't see the post I can't be 100% sure, although as I said I think the mods probably were in the right.

This obviously leaves a gap for doubt and for people to accuse the mods of questionable behavior. I think absurd allegations about the mods acting in an unprincipled way would be better refuted by leaving the post up and simply arguing against it, as Devrim said. It just seems like deleting the posts is causing more suspicion and divisiveness, not less, although I don't doubt that the mods were doing what they thought was best in deleting the post.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Dec 1 2011 12:36

If you accept there is going to be moderation (and if you don't, then to be blunt, these aren't the forums for you!) then sometimes posts will be deleted/unpublished. By the very nature of this, you aren't going to be able to see them. This happens *incredibly* rarely - generally only if people are trolling, flaming, breaking privacy, or saying something that could have legal consequences. Honestly, with the exception of spam, the number of deleted/hidden posts is tiny.

And it's not even as if we're particularly harsh when applying this, even with people who are hostile to us or we disagree with - eg, TPTG didn't get banned for posting J's name after being explicitly told we felt it was against our posting rules (we didn't even delete the first post, just spent a significant amount of time redacting it!), same with Samotnaf. Nor do we accuse people of being trolls liberally - we're not saying Samotnaf, Wellclose, Blasto etc are trolls, just lines. Because he is, practically dictionary definition.

If you accept we're going to do this, then obviously if people repeatedly (and after warnings) repost them, then they are likely to get banned. Obviously. Otherwise, what's the point of moderating if someone can just post it up again. Honestly, this is the basics of moderating pretty much any site ever. Moderation here is incredibly soft - too soft, in fact. Despite a handful on this thread, the overwhelming demand over a prolonged period of time is to tighten up moderation.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 1 2011 12:41
Fall Back wrote:
the overwhelming demand over a prolonged period of time is to tighten up moderation.

Yes, but I think people want more moderation to get rid of swearing and abuse, not get rid of people the moderators disagree with.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Dec 1 2011 12:54

Banning people for repeatedly, deliberately and flagrantly breaking the posting guidelines is just "getting rid of people (we) disagree with"?

Can you show me any examples where we haven't banned people we agree with for repeatedly reposting stuff we have deleted and said not to?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 1 2011 12:56
tastybrain wrote:
I think absurd allegations about the mods acting in an unprincipled way would be better refuted by leaving the post up and simply arguing against it, as Devrim said.

The reason we have a rule against untrue allegations is precisely this. You can never disprove random made up claims, especially without divulging private personal information. Making up lies about people/groups is one of the prime gambits of any troll, because people find it hard to leave things uncontested, but if they dispute it they are then faced with demands to produce 'proof' of a negative, the allegations are embellished, and so on for multiple pages, while others chime in that we can't possibly know the truth, so it must be somewhere in the middle. libcom is not a debate club for fantasists, "untrue smears or allegations against other forum users or related individuals or organisations are not permitted".

The problem with leaving these kind of posts up is that it amounts to allowing trolling to continue. Nate and Lines were publicly warned, and a general warning was put on the thread against further derails (at your request, at this point the trolling began on your request thread). Nate desisted, lines escalated. lines was banned and Nate wasn't. It's absolutely routine moderation. If people want to make up random allegations and have them 'debated', then libcom is not the forum for them. The posting guidelines are now linked prominently on every single forum page, you have to try really quite hard to break them, ignore repeated warnings and get yourself banned.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Dec 1 2011 13:43

This is just a quick post to say that Blasto has been unbanned and can now post on the forums as before.

We have also unbanned Samotnaf and if he wants to use the site within the posting guidelines then that's fine. However, if he wants to make good on his threats to be nothing but "a very painful thorn in [libcom's] side" then he will be banned again, and probably permanently.

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Dec 1 2011 13:59
Joseph Kay wrote:
Nobody was banned for anything to do with Aufheben. Despite repeated claims of 'censorship', the Aufheben thread is not locked.

The only Aufheben thread that hasn't been locked isn't technically about Aufheben or JD, it is a 'feedback and content' thread with an OP asking why the original TPTG article had been deleted.

But have a look at this one "Aufheben's Crowd Controlling Cop Consultant: The Strange Case Of Dr. Who? And Mr. Bowdler"

Have a look at the conversation on page 3 and on, when Steven and Fall Back join in the conversation. Radprole and Steven discuss some of the basic points but radprole's arguments are much stronger than Steven's.

And then what happens? Joseph Kay posts the final post, making sure he has the last word, and then he locks the thread.

Nobody ever answers to radpole's very powerful post #85 on that thread, a post which is all documented with links.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Dec 1 2011 14:32
dinosavros wrote:
Nobody ever answers to radpole's very powerful post #85 on that thread, a post which is all documented with links.

Dinos, this isn't true, on two seperate levels.. firstly, the points in radprole's post were not new or powerful, they were the same accusations reiterated (incidentally by someone who seems to have registered especially for this spat). And secondly, in JK's post he posts links to all the places where he has written responses. There are six in total, now forgive me for not expecting him to write a seventh going over the same ground as before.

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Dec 1 2011 14:45

Thanks to martinh and Rob for responding broadly as I suggested in my post No 80 regarding academics in SolFed, which could however have been done whilst retaining the orginal lines post (which was deleted, though not, I'm informed by Fall Back a cause of his permanent banning).

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Dec 1 2011 16:47
dinosavros wrote:
But have a look at this one "Aufheben's Crowd Controlling Cop Consultant: The Strange Case Of Dr. Who? And Mr. Bowdler"

Have a look at the conversation on page 3 and on, when Steven and Fall Back join in the conversation.

ok i did

dinosavros wrote:
Radprole and Steven discuss some of the basic points but radprole's arguments are much stronger than Steven's.

no, they aren't. but that's my opinion. of course, your statement is an opinion too.

dinosavros wrote:
And then what happens? Joseph Kay posts the final post, making sure he has the last word, and then he locks the thread.

he's a mod so it's his call to do that, but also the content of that last post is a set of links supporting his contention about endless repetition:

Quote:
should anyone bother to read the 350+ post clusterfuck they'll see that [Samotnaf is] lying, and I and others have in fact made repeated, detailed responses totalling thousands of words (e.g. see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for some of the more substantive examples). And of course I'm not the only person arguing against you, but the fiction the people disagreeing with you are "dupes" or an some other unthinking, uncritical automatons is easier to sustain if you pretend it's just me.

again, i think the JD guy did aid and abet the police and should at the least be denied a platform within the milieu (proletarian. in a post that no-one followed up on addresses the idea of how this might work out), but i can't railroad anyone into agreeing with this, and neither can you.

bzfgt
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Dec 1 2011 18:31
tastybrain wrote:
bzfgt wrote:
gypsy wrote:
Devrim is no longer in the ICC

He did say this:

Quote:
Is he now, if not a member, an ICC free-lance statistician?

What is remarkable is not the actual sequence of events: an untruth or lie is told, said untruth or lie is deleted--it is the affective reaction, the vehemence with which the law was enforced, and is now defended. That some people arguing that academics have a middle class status that tends to be counter-revolutionary have so offended those who disagree with them by hurling the worst mud that can ever be slung--calling someone an academic. That those who are arguing that the involvement of academics in working class organizations is harmful have so offended those who disagree by suggesting that there are academics involved in their working class organization. It is completely inadequate to hide behind some mythological purity of the law, to continually point to the legal structure of the action as though some impersonal fate speaks through the hand of the administrators of the law, without hearing what people are saying about selectivity, circumstances, and affect, which can't just be scrubbed away to leave a shining white statue of justice, but actually constitute the heart of the matter, in the eyes of many on this thread.

Yes, a terrible miscarriage of justice has occurred roll eyes

I never invoked "justice" in any normative sense in my post.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Dec 1 2011 18:39

I apologize for the naughty words in my last post, I was pretty boozy when i wrote it! (though, your a big guy Dev, Im sure your can take wink). Martin's post is better than mine yes.

My mud slinging comment was about the associationism between SolFed and PhD's and I am still confused as to the relevance of one PhD to the whole organization.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Dec 1 2011 18:52

One fictional PhD at that.

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Dec 1 2011 19:03
Joseph Kay wrote:
tastybrain wrote:
I think absurd allegations about the mods acting in an unprincipled way would be better refuted by leaving the post up and simply arguing against it, as Devrim said.

The reason we have a rule against untrue allegations is precisely this. You can never disprove random made up claims, especially without divulging private personal information. Making up lies about people/groups is one of the prime gambits of any troll, because people find it hard to leave things uncontested, but if they dispute it they are then faced with demands to produce 'proof' of a negative, the allegations are embellished, and so on for multiple pages, while others chime in that we can't possibly know the truth, so it must be somewhere in the middle. libcom is not a debate club for fantasists, "untrue smears or allegations against other forum users or related individuals or organisations are not permitted".

The problem with leaving these kind of posts up is that it amounts to allowing trolling to continue. Nate and Lines were publicly warned, and a general warning was put on the thread against further derails (at your request, at this point the trolling began on your request thread). Nate desisted, lines escalated. lines was banned and Nate wasn't. It's absolutely routine moderation. If people want to make up random allegations and have them 'debated', then libcom is not the forum for them. The posting guidelines are now linked prominently on every single forum page, you have to try really quite hard to break them, ignore repeated warnings and get yourself banned.

JK, I realize I called for moderation so it might seem hypocritical for me to take issue with how its being done (in fact I'm not really taking issue with it, just pointing out that I think the purpose could be better served by leaving the post up). I appreciate you trying to keep the academics thread and the academics thread thread under control as they were both getting out of hand. I don't even disagree with lines being banned. I just think that deleting the post is fueling a sense of distrust--a distrust I don't believe is justified, but distrust nonetheless, and I think banning lines but leaving up his silly accusations would have allowed people to see he was wrong and not feel suspicious. I am very appreciative of the work you and the other mods put into this site (I use Libcom a lot, probably way too much for my own good), the voluntary contributions of time, money and effort you all put into the site. So please understand this is coming from a place of respect.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Dec 1 2011 19:10

Tastybrain - remember the ban and the deleted post were separate events. The post being deleted was it's own decision - there was no question of him being banned for making the 'accusation'. He then repeatedly reposted it, and was banned for that - flagrantly going against a moderation decision.

Given this, what all would you have suggested we do? It would would entirely undermine the whole moderation process if we'd then just republished the original post - I don't think it would be a good precident to set to say that if you want something posted that goes against the posting guidelines, you just need repeatedly post it up and get yourself banned!

bzfgt
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Dec 1 2011 19:22
Fall Back wrote:
One fictional PhD at that.

So now nobody is working on their PhD?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Dec 1 2011 20:57

Not in Brighton, we've got one PhD student in North London if that helps?

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Dec 1 2011 21:11
Rob Ray wrote:
Not in Brighton, we've got one PhD student in North London if that helps?

SACRILEGE

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Dec 1 2011 23:40
Ed wrote:
dinosavros wrote:
Nobody ever answers to radpole's very powerful post #85 on that thread, a post which is all documented with links.

Dinos, this isn't true, on two seperate levels.. firstly, the points in radprole's post were not new or powerful, they were the same accusations reiterated (incidentally by someone who seems to have registered especially for this spat). And secondly, in JK's post he posts links to all the places where he has written responses. There are six in total, now forgive me for not expecting him to write a seventh going over the same ground as before.

You are trying to frame the debate in the same terms. "The accusers are just saying the same unfounded things again and again". But it's not true. For anyone reading they can check by following the link. That post #85 by radprole in particular is very logical and backs up every point with quotes. The links on JK's post you refer to do not reply to these points.

The admins were participating in the discussion just a few posts before it got locked. Then their points were pretty much disproved by well-argued arguments with concrete evidence. There was no "trolling" or rule breaking. To me at least it is very obvious that they were losing the argument and so locked the topic. Don't take my or Ed's word for it, you can check for yourself.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 2 2011 08:18
Arbeiten wrote:
I apologize for the naughty words in my last post, I was pretty boozy when i wrote it! (though, your a big guy Dev, Im sure your can take wink). Martin's post is better than mine yes.

Apology accepted. I am not somebody who can't take being sworn at at all. I say it for you, not for me. As you agree Martin's post was much better. I don't think that losing you rag a little on the internet helps you to get your point across.

Sometimes I really wonder about how people behave on the internet. Is it an internet thing specifically? As revolutionaries people are going to tell all sort of lies and slanders about you, and accuse you of all sorts of real things. The first time I got accused of being a cop, I wasn't even old enough to be one*. I think that the way that we deal with these sort of things is important. If people fly off the handle on the internet at mild criticisms like mine, how are they going to react when faced with real slanders and abuse in the class struggle.

Arbeiten wrote:
My mud slinging comment was about the associationism between SolFed and PhD's and I am still confused as to the relevance of one PhD to the whole organization.

It wasn't a connection that I made anyway.

Devrim

*It was by Bill Freeman on a picket line, for those old enough to remember him. Fortunately for me, I knew the workers around us better than he did.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Dec 2 2011 15:10
dinosavros wrote:
You are trying to frame the debate in the same terms. "The accusers are just saying the same unfounded things again and again". But it's not true. For anyone reading they can check by following the link. That post #85 by radprole in particular is very logical and backs up every point with quotes. The links on JK's post you refer to do not reply to these points.

The admins were participating in the discussion just a few posts before it got locked. Then their points were pretty much disproved by well-argued arguments with concrete evidence. There was no "trolling" or rule breaking. To me at least it is very obvious that they were losing the argument and so locked the topic. Don't take my or Ed's word for it, you can check for yourself.

and i did, dinosavros, when you suggested this very same thing above in post 136 but - you're didn't address my points! you haven't responded! you're repeating things you said already!

so it seems then that the mods' contentions about repetition is confirmed by this very post.

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Dec 2 2011 15:30

petey maybe it was rude of me to ignore your post, but I didnt reply because I don't know what to say to you. Because on the one hand you're saying that on that specific post you don't agree with me and you think that the mods arguments are more sound than radprole's. But you also say "i think the JD guy did aid and abet the police and should at the least be denied a platform within the milieu" so your position goes against the mods' position. So this didn't make sense to me, what were you trying to say. If you want to indicate where you see errors in the post I linked to then please do and I promise to reply. I think that should take place on the same thread that was locked.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Dec 2 2011 22:32

Edit: actually never mind.