Why is a reversed suspension being used as a reason for a permanent banning?

About This Message Board
21

We have actually had discussions here with admitted pedophiles, which is about as controversial as you can get these days, that were civil and did NOT result in anyone getting banned. For those particular discussions (I’m not sure what happened to the posters in question long term).

You can have a vigorous, “disruptive” argument or dissenting opinion while continuing to follow the rules here and being respectful of others. That has been proven time and again.

So I see no need to keep people causing repeated negative disruption. I don’t always agree with moderation around here, but I’m satisfied enough with it that’s I’ve been a regular for 21 years despite everything less than wonderful about this forum.

22

And what if the victim was treated the same way as the victimizer?

23

I’ll disagree with you on that. UltraVires was one of the few members who regularly debates the legal (rather than moral) side of Supreme Court cases. He may have been the last regular participant in such debates that that toes the Republican line. I will greatly miss his contributions of substance.

That being said I do think the post in the Trump Indicted thread violated P&E rules. I filed a report for it with a fuller explanation of why but it has since been hidden and I can’t be bothered to rewrite it on a phone.

I make no judgement as to his overall worth to the board and have no complaints about the moderation process.

I remind the mods to guard against negativity bias, without accusing them of failing to do so.

~Max

24

i thought he could be a pain in the ass but there’s a couple of others that I thought would of went before him d’anconia being one of them

25

UV’s all-too-appealing and all-too-common conceit was in pretending as if there is such an obvious distinction between the moral side and the legal side of Supreme Court cases. And it just so happens that his particular morality has been increasingly in vogue lately, particularly with a 6/3 conservative super majority on the court. But willful blindness has never been particularly interesting to me.

26

This is the crux of the matter. The same behaviour from a member of the in-group is not ‘disruptive’ because no one complains about taking a shot at the out-group. But if a member of the minority takes the same attitude, all hell breaks loose and the person is flagged as being disruptive or being a hijacker.

For example, I posted in the Musk thread that he may have screwed up. I got this bit of snark in response:

Had I snarked at a member of the in-group like this, I likely would have raised a storm, and had a few dozen more comments about my character added to the giant pit thread dedicated to how horrible I am. Perhaps a mod warning for personal insults.

The only way you can survive on the SDMB as a conservative is to watch your words carefully, ignore provocations, stay out of certain subjects, and have the fortitude to not flame out and suicide by mod. It’s not a coincidence that almost all the bannings we’re seeing are members from the right - some who invested years or decades in the olace.

I don’t know what to do about it, but the goal of ‘fighting ignorance’ is not achieved by a monoculture chatting in a bubble.

27

Actually that very post drew flags from non-Conservatives and a moderator moderated it.

You probably should have flagged the post. I would have modnoted it if you had.

28

@Wrenching_Spanners : you may or may not be aware that, over the past decade or so, the board has lost a number of formerly-active members, who had interesting perspectives, and who contributed greatly to this being a vibrant and diverse place for discussion.

Those people left, not because they were banned, but because they were fed up with the behavior of other posters, who were argumentative, bullying, harassing, and trolling. In many cases, the now-departed board members were women, LGBT+, or members of other frequently marginalized groups.

My understanding is that, over time, the board leadership has chosen to tighten their moderation of unruly and abusive posters, due, in no small part, to these ongoing losses of once-active members, which had resulted from what was perceived, by many, as a toxic board culture.

It is true that some of the board’s strongly conservative members have been the ones who have been most loudly opposed to the mods’ approaches and decisions, but it also seems, at least to me, that they have also been the ones most willing to regularly break the board’s rules, and bring themselves under mod scrutiny – not because they are in the minority here in their politics and philosophies (which they might be), but because they choose to engage in negative disruption, bullying of other posters, and otherwise being a nuisance. And, of course, this has, in many cases, like this one, led to their banning.

29

Conservatives should drop that attitude that they can get away with things then cry “We are being persecuted and you are chasing us away!”

30

If UV is truly a visionary capable of influencing mankind, he doesn’t need the SDMB to do so. He’d be able to communicate effectively without pissing off his intended audience and stressing out the mods. “Pushing the rules” doesn’t have to result in chaos. Just because somebody posts an unpopular opinion and alienates other board members doesn’t mean he’s the next Picasso.

31

Many, many message boards with varying degrees of looser standards have dried up and withered away since the SDMB started back before the turn of the century, so I suspect it must be doing something right.

32

I disagree. Look, I plan on voting Republican first thing tomorrow morning, sure as I figure I’m about as far right as they come hereabouts on plenty of issues; and, AFAICT, I don’t watch my words particularly carefully, or ignore provocations; and while I don’t know which “subjects” you have in mind, AFAICT I just speak my mind when it comes to guns or affirmative action or illegal immigration and so on, and it’s taken no fortitude worth mentioning to rack up — actually, I’m not sure if I have any warnings.

33

A couple of mod notes, but no warnings.

34

Among the staff? As you did not let us members speak up.

And this rule seems to be ignored when it is about guns.

Well, yeah. Some mods have given a strong impression that a lot of flags means a bad poster. Maybe, but it also means a poster that people disagree with. SDMBers have likely figured this out and will throw a few flags out just to get a poster they do not like removed.

Reading the last few long winded ATMB threads, it seems just the opposite- that the ultra liberal are the loudest complainers here.

I am not sure UV should have been banned. Mind you, I am not a strong supporter, and usually the mods get it right.

35

Side-stepping the tired issue of whether people of unpopular opinions are treated unfairly, I just want to point back to the fact that according to the Ban Notice, UV pulled 4 (!) warnings in a year and a half. Unlike @Wrenching_Spanners, I’ve actually gone into the threads and looked, and 2 of the 4 were absolutely clean and unquestionable. The other two, there might have been some wiggle room, but in light of the poster’s history they were IMHO also equally clearly violations.

I want to point back to another line in the Ban Notice that doesn’t get enough credit:

This is based on the following formal warnings, together with numerous mod notes.

As repeatedly stated, the poster was consistently in violation of the board rules, and as a long time poster, they absolutely knew better. They were noted, warned, suspended, and YET continued the patterns.

Back to the ban notice closing again

This is a protracted course of conduct we seem unable to influence in a positive way despite many attempts. For these reasons, this permanent ban is imposed.

This isn’t about unpopular opinions, it is about a persistent style of behavior in violating the rules, over a long period of time, with zero efforts to correct it. If UV had continued to play the game as other posters in this thread and the board in general have, of avoiding breaking the rules while still being the holder of ‘unpopular’ ideas, he’d still be around.

36

Not that I’m disputing that, but many of the loudly-complaining conservative voices here in recent years – including the subject of this thread – have been shown the door already, and would not have weighed in on recent threads.

37

Good point, but that is why I stated "Reading the last few long winded ATMB threads, ". In the past, say a year or two? it was the more conservative posters, now it is the ultra liberals.

38

And, once again, it isn’t being long-winded or having unpopular opinions that is the problem here. It is continuously breaking the rules and apparently thinking that if you have a minority opinion the mods can be forced into treating you with kid gloves. BTW, if the “They do it too and get away with it!” is going to be made, I sure would like to see an example. I suspect that such comparisons are of the “They stole a candy bar and we robbed a bank, so it’s the same thing!” variety…l.but a solid example could change my mind.

39

Seriously. Reading it in that context, I have to ask: What Exit, knowing the history of violent terrorism against Republicans on this board–a history that will later be memorialized in projects such as the Lynching Memorial Project, that will be remembered for the heroes who fought against it, a history that will stain our nation for generations to come–how dare you? You sit in judgment of Ultravires, ready to send him off to a prison where he will be tormented and have his rights systematically violated for years, based on the color of his skin. How dare you?

@Wrenching_Spanners, perhaps I misunderstand your post. Maybe you were writing a clever parody of Ultravires and his incessant use of terrible and often offensive analogies to support his nonsensical positions. If so, first, bravo on the note-perfect parody, but don’t you think it’s in poor taste? He’s been banned, and it’s not nice to engage in such a razor-sharp satire.

If you weren’t satirizing him, then you should stop writing ridiculous and offensive analogies.

40

Nonsense. I’m pretty sure I’ve reported posts for violating that rule when it’s about guns, and I’m definitely not sympathetic to the “gun rights” stance, whose main arguments in my opinion range from cynical profiteering to deranged conspiratorial lunacy. If you think folks are posting “ammosexuals” and the like, outside of the Pit, and getting reported in a timely manner, and not getting noted for it, I would be interested in seeing the new thread you start with recent examples.

With @Ultravires, when I saw his final warning, I actually messaged the mods to argue that he wasn’t breaking that specific rule. They disagreed with me, but pointed out that it was a final straw. And @Ultravires, unlike @Sam_Stone or @The_Other_Waldo_Pepper or @Max_S or several other conservative posters, regularly broke rules around here. Even if he didn’t violate the “sexual gratification” rule here, banning him was the right thing to do, and it’s been the right thing to do for years. Keeping him around has been the wrong thing to do for years. I’d rather the mods do the right thing for the wrong reason than the wrong thing for the right reason.