In this thread, Spice Weasel says that the mods have decided to ban Shagnasty from starting threads on
.
I have no particular desire to discuss the merits Shaggy’s output regarding women; my opinion, its juvenile at best, outright misogynistic at worst.
What I do have a problem with is a blanket ban on one poster on one particular topic. If the guys posts are being disruptive over one post or topic (like Pjen on Scottish Indpenedance a few years ago) the remendy is to warn, suspend, ban them. Not restrict debate on one topic.
As someone who has unpopular opinions on certain topics, I find this discomforting. And consdiering in the decade here, the mods have shown themselves to be fairly parochial and provincial, this strikes me as being pretty open for abuse.
Addressing the concept of topic bans in general there are four or five of them out there. The idea is to establish limits on how disruptive a poster can be on a particular topic or to establish some sort of control on an obsessive poster on his topic of choice.
We don’t arrive at topic bans lightly and they can be a matter of much debate in the moderation loop. I hope you’ll understand that. It takes a lot for us to get there.
I don’t think it has anything to do with unpopular opinions. Even if Shagnasty were starting dozens of threads singing the praises of females it would soon grow tiresome. I think this is a sensible move.
I gave the mods all a +1 for that topic ban. Spicey gets a +2. But then, Spicy is the people’s mod. You got something bad to say about Spicy, you say it to us first, in the pit.
This isn’t restricting debate - it’s restricting a particular kind of blogging.
I think a topic ban is the opposite of parochial and provincial actually. It’s a recognition that while we value the contributions of a poster, a particular topic is likely to be viewed as violative of other rules and therefore we nip that in the bud.
We recognize the potential for abuse, but since topic bans are somewhat rare I think the concern is legitimate but manageable.
Also not speaking of any case in particular we take into account the overall contribution to the board that a poster makes. If the only thing they post about is their obsessive hatred of knitting there is no need for a topic ban. If they post on a wide variety of topics but only one topic causes disruption then one remedy might be a topic ban.
Yeah she does that. You gotta take the good with the bad.
Same thought from a different trail. Not this case in particular but as a general thought - in some ways it could actually help debate and the exchange of information since a wider range of people may (just may) start threads on a subject if one poster isn’t seen as having a monopoly. And if I am reading things right, they (at least in this case) can still participate in threads on the subject, just not start ones. It strikes me as a reasonable response to a specific case.
As someone who also has unpopular opinions on many topics, I disagree pretty strongly. Your “solution” of simply banning them (because by the time a topic ban comes into play, it’s almost a given that they can’t or won’t stop posting about their obsession without being forced) would leave this board even blander and more like a echo chamber.
Think of a topic ban as a sort of back-handed compliment. If the poster in question added nothing else to the board, they’d just ban them. A topic ban is not there to stifle debate. It’s there because some posters add to the board in some ways, while making the board a shittier place in others. In theory, a topic ban gets rid of the shitty behavior, while still allowing the poster in question to participate in other discussions.
Also, in this specific case, I applaud the fuck out of Shag’s topic ban.
Shagnasty’s claims and opinions about women are awful. He should be told to stop acting out that way. And if he refuses, a suspension or a banning would be appropriate.
So, who is next? Ramira being banned from speaking on Israel/Palestine? This board and its moderators have a well-attested bias there. Or Bricker on right of centre politics? Broomstick with regards to aviation?
That’s twice now you’ve accused the moderation staff of having some form of bias. Can you show some sort of pattern there? Something other than, “I disagree”?
Seriously, I’d like to know your thinking and what brought you to it.
Anyone arguing a ‘slippery slope’ here is barking up the wrong tree. There’s no slipping, there’s no slope. It is all solid ground here.
As stated and in my experience on this board, topic bans are extremely rare and only occur after a great deal of struggling with one person pounding a dead horse into dust, forming a horse statue out of the dust, then repeatedly beating that back into dust. They’re people who INSIST on talking about one subject in a manner that stirs up a lot of trouble and backlash on this board and they refuse to dial it back.
A topic ban is pretty much “Ok, we’ve heard enough about that from you, we know what you have to say, you know what everyone else thinks about it. Stop being a Jerk.”
If I, for example, suddenly started shit posting about how the Earth was flat, insisted on bringing it into other threads and continued to post “The Earth is flat and you can’t prove me wrong” threads month after month, there’d come a time where I would expect the moderators to tell me to knock it off. And if I refused and kept doing it over moderator instructions, I would expect them to ban me. A topic ban would be telling me that they see value in my other posts, just knock it off with the flat earth nonsense.
I read Spicy’s announcement of the topic ban, and what I take from it is this: it’s not that Shagnasty’s claims and opinions where unpopular or awful. It was how he posted about it, the mod’s evaluation of his intent in making such posts, and the pattern in this behavior.
Posting passionately or repeatedly about certain topics (popular or unpopular) is completely separate from the reason for this ban.