If TPTB really relied on mob rule, how is it that you’re still here? Or doorhinge?
I’m not a moderator on this board (obviously) but I’ve been an admin on Wikipedia for 12+ years and a great deal of that time has been spent in fighting sockpuppets. Socks are socks wherever you are. Sometimes a sock is causing problems, and sometimes they’re doing nothing wrong aside from socking. Sometimes they’re awful people and sometimes they’re very nice. (I had a long-term friendship with a Wikipedia sock once who I chatted with via email for years; very nice guy but I didn’t hesitate to block every sock account he created and neither of us took it personally. He was basically addicted to the site and making socks was a compulsion, not done out of spite.)
The reason socks are bad is because a ban is generally the only real recourse for mitigating bad behavior on a web site. Limiting or removing access for a person is the only real stick you have. If a person can return in violation of a ban and get away with it, that stick is taken away and the people trying to keep order essentially have nothing left to work with. (To be honest, on Wikipedia we do have tools like page protection and the like but banning is still the Big Stick).
That’s why socks are bad regardless of their behavior while socking, and why banning someone for socking is important, and why it’s not an automatic indictment of what they did while socking. (Though yes, bad behavior and socking do often have a strong correlation.)
No, that’s not correct. One could argue against his banning while acknowledging that he was trolling and needed to be moderated. Just the normal warnings->suspension->banning moderation methodology that seems to be good enough for everyone else that isn’t a sock or spammer.
Most scenarios have more than one variable. That doesn’t mean the contribution of any one variable is 0 or that the variable is nonexistent.
Or one of them has it exactly right:
You think policy, what is moderated, and the general tone of the board is not influenced at all by what posters want?
And of course- the mods *should *listen to us. And Bone is likely correct also, that in general- Moderator action isn’t based on popularity or calls to action . But clearly *sometimes *it is. The staff was prodded into doing something about misogyny , altho i am certain they had that in mind all along. Same with the two recent bannings- in both cases, i expect the “mob” only added a straw to the “mods” back.
However to think that Moderator action is never based on calls to action would be doing the staff a disservice also. We are customers and they should listen to us. *Then- make up their own mind. *
No doubt it will be their turn soon enough.
Exactly. Hell, they should be proactive rather than wait for us to point out patterns of behavior to them.
So now your saying they should listen to the mob? :dubious:
They should listen to everyone and make up their own minds. Anyone who feels that they should not have been banned is perfectly welcome to state their case via email.
nm
No, he was trolling. But his trolling took the form of the things you guys specifically excused him for. The banning announcement said that all his hate speech and bigotry was allowable in the Pit. Your also excused going beyond all decency and attacking someone’s family or mental health.
So all of those posts are removed from consideration. What is left is nothing worse than what Elmore did or several other trolls have done who were not instabanned. Even some were Warned for trolling, so you knew they were trolls, but you didn’t ban them.
We can only compare the guy to the other instabanned posters. We have the Nazi who was harassing people in the Pit. And we have the rape apologist who kept saying things that were so disgusting you temp banned him while discussing it.
And, yes, I think Huey Freedman reaches that level. **But only the stuff you specifically said didn’t count were considered. ** Otherwise, the only stuff you have is when he would talk about being black, or how whiteness affected things. And some anti-racist posts where he wasn’t nice to a poster who posted something racist (i.e., something we all do.)
The stuff that makes Huey so bad that he deserved more than a Warning is all stuff that you specifically excluded from consideration in his ban announcement.
If you’d say those things–like how he treated Guin, how he attacked posters’ children, etc.–were beyond the pale and clearly indicated trolling of Nazi and rape apologist levels, then I’d be happy with his banning.
As is, poster can do all that stuff, as long as they make a token post outside the Pit that seems nice.
You misspelled this entire sentence. What you meant to write was “They should listen only to Fenris and then obey all his orders.”
Why would a lynch mob have pitchforks?
To stab people with? Do you think lynch mobs were generally unarmed?
Because “lynch” is not another word for “hang.”
Not a single instance of a pitchfork lynching in your cite.
“First they came for Huey, and I said nothing.” :eek::smack:
What the everloving cheese bags is the point of this diversion? Are we conducting a lynch mob, and therefore necessarily lack pitch forks? Ferchrissakes.