Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
JKER Banned Discussion Thread
-
k I’m a dork, I didn’t respond to this earlier and I keep feeling bad about not, so I’m just gonna post AGAIN.
It’s OK. I accept your apology, but it’s not needed. I appreciate that y’all let me have my initial reaction without ire, and I appreciate that you took the time to decide and discuss as a group. I also appreciate that @Pavel abstained. This was handled appropriately, and if I’m ever on the receiving end of these deliberations, I would absolutely want it handled this way. It’s all good.
eta: once the light of day hit, this made me feel safer, not less safe. Thank you.
the entity previously known as Sunny
-
@IoleRae said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
I also appreciate that @Pavel abstained.
I should abstain from decisions more often.
-
@STD said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
@Polk said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
Bad faith posting is generally worthy of some sort of administrative action.
I’ve no dog in this hunt (and haven’t even read the thread in question), and this might be a slight tangent, but…
The impression I had was that folk here generally assume bad faith unless they personally know the person making the post. At the very least, people sure to seem to assume bad faith about anyone who comes here to defend whatever game is currently being castigated. Many times that attitude ends up being warranted, I concede that, but it is still something about this forum that really bothers me. There are accusations of bad faith in this very thread discussing bad faith! It’s recursive bad faith! Bad faith all the way down!
I don’t know most of y’all. For me, my read on ‘bad faith’ is not from how well I know you, but my finely-honed troll radar from years moderating political comments sections.
Yeah.
I know how to spot the guy ‘just asking questions’ but is really pushing some unpleasant political view.
I know how to spot the guy who is looking to be disruptive.
I know how to spot the guy who is looking to provoke things to use against the community.
You learn how to distinguish someone who’s here to discuss, from someone who’s here with an agenda. That’s bad faith posting, in my view. If you’re not joining a community to engage with the community, but rather you’re here to use the community in some way, or attack it, or damage it, you’re not engaging in good faith.
JKER was not posting here to join here. JKER was posting here to get revenge for a perceived grievance elsewhere, hence the crazy DMs.
-
@Polk said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
I know how to spot the guy ‘just asking questions’ but is really pushing some unpleasant political view.
I know how to spot the guy who is looking to be disruptive.
I know how to spot the guy who is looking to provoke things to use against the community.
I’m trying so fucking hard to not make a Tucker Carlson joke right now because of the no politics rule, but goddamn this is not making it easy.
-
@Polk said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
JKER was not posting here to join here. JKER was posting here to get revenge for a perceived grievance elsewhere, hence the crazy DMs.
If you want to fine hone your troll radar, I can provide you with some non-speculative information.
JKER was a mostly inactive poster who had a pre-existing disagreement from years back and seeing the topic raised again they ended up posting about it. The one(1) of two(2) DM’s they sent was a link to the previous time the topic was discussed. The other DM was a suggestion that the best thing to tell/teach problematic players is to let things go.
Since they were inactive outside of rehashing ancient arguments, they being banned shouldn’t be much of a loss to anyone even them.
-
@Pyrephox said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
Honestly, I don’t think we can give that to you. I really wish we could; I’d love to be able to quantify every threshold so we didn’t have to discuss it, but could just say, “There’s the rule, you broke it, good bye.”
But the truth is that there’s a large degree of subjective feeling in these decisions. That’s why we have multiple people who discuss it before we make the final call, but even so - three other moderators would draw the line in different places than we do, in at least some of these cases. And in most cases, I’m not sure there IS an objectively right answer on when to pull that trigger: it’s more of a sliding scale of ‘what does this voice contribute to the community’ vs. ‘what would this community gain by not having to deal with this voice’s bullshit’, and where you feel one person or incident tips the scales will vary.
Well, that’s certainly fair enough. As I said earlier, a lot of this is judgement calls and trying to legislate a hard-and-fast rule is probably an exercise in futility.
I do appreciate you taking the time to explain why, for you, this particular instance crossed the line. And the simple fact that this thread even exists at all is heartening if nothing else.
@KarmaBum said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
I don’t disagree in the slightest. I absolutely assume all new accounts are just sock-puppets. My default assumption is they’re Derp here to keep tabs on us because we all know that mofo is here somewhere and will eventually be unable to NOT post but I digress.
That’s understandable. And not even wrong, necessarily. Once bitten, twice shy and all that.
But it does make having any sort of conversation or discussion rather pointless, doesn’t it? If one or all parties aren’t even willing to give the benefit of doubt, then anything said (especially if it goes against the grain) will just be dismissed as trolling. No argument will ever be accepted, no matter how well put. It’s just them using tricksy sophistry!
The point is: If people show up with no reputation to back them up and start accusing a long-time member of this community of discrimination after like three posts? Yeah, we’re gonna call that person a troll. If they had a back-log of posts that we could look through and see otherwise, this would be a totally different conversation.
If that’s what happened in this specific case, then yeah, I can see why there was reason to doubt. I’m more concerned with opinions that don’t match the majority being shouted down and/or discarded with accusations of bad faith. There’s a big difference between an ad hominem from out of the blue by new account and actual argument, even if that argument is bad or misinformed.
@Polk said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
If you’re not joining a community to engage with the community, but rather you’re here to use the community in some way, or attack it, or damage it, you’re not engaging in good faith.
Agreed. Agenda-driven ‘discussion’ is not.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t defending or agreeing with this JKER person. Like I said, I’ve not read the thread in question so I can’t really comment. I am speaking in more general terms.
So maybe that is outside the scope of the discussion? I did say it was a bit of a tangent.
-
I’ll say that I recused myself from official judgement because I was furious. I didn’t care to take the time to make those carefully thought out “community need vs personal need” distinctions and internal discussions. This person violated the only unwritten rule I really hold myself to: If you’re going to talk shit, do it to their face.
ETA: And IoleRae is a long-standing friend, so my opinion was going to be biased regardless.
This is different to giving evidence of malfeasance, to my mind, because I believe that this person was involved in the conversation they linked (linked without pointing out any actual posts, just a thread in which conversations happened), “lost” that fight, and then came here trying to start another one in the background.
On the topic of assuming bad faith, it really does depend on what people are here for. In my view, if you don’t get into discussions and debates/arguments/fights with a mind open to being wrong, and learning, then you’re coming from a place of bad faith, even if you don’t act like a dick.
Everyone enters a discussion with an agenda. It’s often “I’m right, you’re wrong” and that’s fine. But if you don’t entertain the possibility that your agenda is not exactly correct, then you’re arguing in bad faith.
-
@shit-piss-love said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
I would unironically play a an incredibly meta MU* set in an absurdist reality where the staff and darlings of an insular forum are the world’s last line of defense against a horde of anonymous grudge-bearers from their pasts.
-
@STD said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
But it does make having any sort of conversation or discussion rather pointless, doesn’t it?
No, but it does make sweeping generalizations pointless.
Conversations in good faith happen all the time around here. That highly active Star Wars thread is a good example, including “new” members who showed up specifically to post in that thread.
@STD said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
If that’s what happened in this specific case
It is.
-
@Pyrephox said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
I will say, speaking for myself, in this particular case, the things that tipped the scales for me towards a permanent ban were that the poster used DMs to try and target a specific other player for harassment/accusations of bigotry by involving a third party who did not solicit the contact and was made vocally uncomfortable about it. The chances that similar contacts would continue and cause distress to people who just want to post on an internet games forum was high enough that I, personally, wasn’t comfortable with allowing that poster to continue to engage with the forum.
I have an administrative question which is; How is linking an old forum thread targeting a third party for harassment?
As a point of order, I feel the need to point out that the way this forum is currently configured nothing prevents a banned posted from continuing to DM people if they feel inclined to as registrations are fully open.
-
@tmp wow you’re not sus at all are you
-
@tmp said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
@Pyrephox said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
I will say, speaking for myself, in this particular case, the things that tipped the scales for me towards a permanent ban were that the poster used DMs to try and target a specific other player for harassment/accusations of bigotry by involving a third party who did not solicit the contact and was made vocally uncomfortable about it. The chances that similar contacts would continue and cause distress to people who just want to post on an internet games forum was high enough that I, personally, wasn’t comfortable with allowing that poster to continue to engage with the forum.
I have an administrative question which is; How is linking an old forum thread targeting a third party for harassment?
As a point of order, I feel the need to point out that the way this forum is currently configured nothing prevents a banned posted from continuing to DM people if they feel inclined to as registrations are fully open.
Those running this forum don’t necessarily have to explain why they think something is bannable. From what I can tell, the offense was going to someone, unasked, to DM them ‘This is why X is a horrible person’ and linking a different forum thread. /My/ impression is the backhanded method is more the issue than anything else. Does it really need to be more indepth than that? It is their forum and what they consider is bannable is their choice. We, as the guests, can decide if that is something we can look passed or not. IF we can’t, we can leave.
None of them are being jerks about their reasoning and are listening to feedback. So, I’ve no reason to doubt they feel they are taking what steps they need to for the over all group.
-
@tmp said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
@Pyrephox said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
I will say, speaking for myself, in this particular case, the things that tipped the scales for me towards a permanent ban were that the poster used DMs to try and target a specific other player for harassment/accusations of bigotry by involving a third party who did not solicit the contact and was made vocally uncomfortable about it. The chances that similar contacts would continue and cause distress to people who just want to post on an internet games forum was high enough that I, personally, wasn’t comfortable with allowing that poster to continue to engage with the forum.
I have an administrative question which is; How is linking an old forum thread targeting a third party for harassment?
Here, I got this for you:
https://www.unicef.org/end-violence/how-to-stop-cyberbullyingWhat is cyberbullying?
Cyberbullying is bullying with the use of digital technologies. It can take place on social media, messaging platforms, gaming platforms and mobile phones. It is repeated behaviour, aimed at scaring, angering or shaming those who are targeted. Examples include:- spreading lies about or posting embarrassing photos or videos of someone on social media
- sending hurtful, abusive or threatening messages, images or videos via messaging platforms
There are other resources online as well.
As a point of order, I feel the need to point out that the way this forum is currently configured nothing prevents a banned posted from continuing to DM people if they feel inclined to as registrations are fully open.
Yes. That’s correct. Other forums made the choice to shut registrations down because of this. We have not done so. As users are reported they will be dealt with on a case by case basis.
-
I would add, just as a member-voice, that DMing someone “blah blah blah but don’t DM me back!!” is also shitty. Reference: Macha.
-
@icanbeyourmuse said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
Those running this forum don’t necessarily have to explain why they think something is bannable.
We do, just not necessarily to the banned party. To the rest of you? We absolutely do have to explain why we think what we did was right. Every time.
-
We’ve defined creep. We’ve defined cyberbullying. What else must we google?
-
@helvetica said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:
We’ve defined creep. We’ve defined cyberbullying. What else must we google?
Iris by the Goo Goo Dolls.
-
Oh look the guy who was clearly posting in bad faith, came back, registered a new account, and made another bad faith post.
You guys were right to ban. 100%.
