IJBM - is it in decline?

All Nines · 2011-12-20 08:06:41

For what it's worth, my worse reactions to him came from when he already decided to be rude/ignorant/instigative. And I agree that we ought to have banned him as soon as he admitted who he was on TVTropes (we didn't recognize the name CornucopianSocialist), but I didn't figure that would meet with approval.

Elbeem · 2011-12-20 08:07:41

@InsanityAddict: The mod warnings alone may not have been that bad, but when combined with everything else that went on they just served to add to the problem of "Here, we're going to publicly humiliate you from the very beginning, then expect you to act on your very best behavior afterwards. Enjoy your stay!"

I'm with Juan, I'm not mentioning this as a retroactive defense of LH, I'm saying this in the hopes that we won't repeat this kind of behavior in the future.

edit: I think that a combination of a better screening process (if we truly are going to start pre-emptively banning people based on their activity on other forums), plus reinforcing the idea that "0. The basic rule: Don't be a jerk or an idiot. Keep an open mind" applies to everyone, both in the forum proper and activity pages, would help in that regard.

Nyktos · 2011-12-20 11:33:42

I don't think it's fair to pretend we don't know someone when we do. Most of us here, including all the mods, are current or former tropers and probably knew LH at least by reputation. I don't think we should be pretending we didn't. I know we want to detach our community from TVT, but the fact of the matter is that that hasn't happened (yet), and we can't just pretend that it has.

I agree the situation could be handled better, but perhaps if LH knew his own reputation he could've made a point of saying he'll try to be less of a problem than he was on TVT.

Elbeem · 2011-12-20 11:45:53

I wasn't suggesting that anyone forget their past experiences with users on TV Tropes. I'm saying that if we can't be welcoming, we should at least make an effort to give a mature, neutral treatment to new members, and not treat them as bans waiting to happen.

If the user in question lives up to their previous reputation, they will provide more than enough reason to ban them later on. Treating them poorly before they've even had a chance to do that reflects negatively on us as a community.

captainbrass · 2011-12-20 11:57:50

I will admit to being a bit uncomfortable about the Love Happiness/Cornucopian Socialist situation, although I understand INUH's point that until he became a member, his identity was uncertain.

With someone with a bad reputation from TVT (or elsewhere), perhaps from the start they should be put on a probationary membership where they can post but not start threads, until they've shown that their behaviour has improved. If they're not prepared to accept that - well, that says enough about their attitude in itself.

MillerCross · 2011-12-20 12:03:12

Really? You'd like to be told from the very beginning "Hey, we're gonna treat you as if you had just broken the rules. You can still hang out, though."

The thing is, it's fine to warn him and be preemptive. I mean, this is a guy who had advocated suicide and thrown around shitfits for the simplest things. It's when the whole userbase's attitude is "Lol, when does he get banned? A week? A month" when it becomes rather questionable.

Elbeem · 2011-12-20 12:11:34

I don't know, it might be a good idea if all new users were introduced on a type of probationary basis, to give them a chance to ease into the community. You'd get the same benefits that way without singling anyone out, and it would catch people who fit just as poorly but have up until then flown under the IJBM radar.

MillerCross · 2011-12-20 12:15:07

I'd approve if we did it with all new users. But proposing to do this to a new user just because he has a high chance of being an asshole reeks of...well, a lot of things, really.

Personally, I have low tolerance for idiocy. But I prefer to judge someone for something they've done than for something they might or might not do.

ClockworkUniverse · 2011-12-20 12:15:45

If he'd shown any respect for anyone here at any point in his time here, I think I'd have entertained the notion of letting him back a little more thoroughly. Instead, all his posts that I saw were along the lines of "here's a link to some controversial thing, and you're all idiots for disagreeing with it." And then a penis.

Elbeem · 2011-12-20 12:18:13

I just want to clarify that I'm not saying these things in an effort to convince anyone that he should be allowed to come back.

MillerCross · 2011-12-20 12:26:31

Again, we're not saying that LH didn't deserve to be banned. Or that his attitude was the best. Or that I even like him. What I am saying is that treating him as if he had already done those things from the very beginning was not only wrong, but it might have even exarcebated the problem.

ClockworkUniverse · 2011-12-20 12:30:13

Could be true, I suppose. That said, here's his first post outside the introduction thread. My reaction to that post wasn't because he was known for being stupid, but because he was being stupid.

MillerCross · 2011-12-20 12:34:06

I think we all agreed that was buttfuck retarded, yeah.

Icalasari · 2011-12-20 12:37:25

^^ I thought he was just joking about that

Guh. Too used to people exaggerating/being sarcastic to be funny...

All Nines · 2011-12-20 12:43:20

I don't think it would be right to allow someone in, despite their history, but then give them something to reflect that bad reputation; I don't want new users brought in under probationary periods as a principle. I'd rather we just keep people out if we know they've caused trouble in recent memory and let legitimate newbies be newbies.

As for the LH situation, pretty much his first post beyond his basic introduction was rather idiotic, I think, and then nothing he said changed that opinion. I didn't actually know the guy save for reputation, but every post he made (in fact, outing himself as LH in his first post was arguably a moronic thing to do) left me with a worse taste in my mouth. So I honestly don't feel that bad about how we handled him.

LouieW · 2011-12-20 14:40:05

Juan_Carlos,
What I am saying is that treating him as if he had already done those things from the very beginning was not only wrong, but it might have even exacerbated the problem.

I think this and what Meeble has been saying in this thread both bring up good points.

I mean, I admit that I am not really a fan of IJBM II looking like a banned tropers hangout, partially because I believe it can encourage importing/exporting drama between this site and TVTropes.

Still, I think that the best rules to have here are impartial ones and in general I dislike the idea of banning people or putting people on probation for stuff they did not actually do on IJBM II. Maybe I am a bit too lenient, but I believe that pretty much everyone deserves a second chance when it comes to something relatively minor like forum behavior.

I guess putting every new user through a probationary period would be less partial in some ways, but I feel like that could get pretty elitist and I do not want so-called "regulars" and "newbies" being subject to different rules.

Nyarly · 2011-12-20 14:51:19

I thought he was just joking about that

Guh. Too used to people
exaggerating/being sarcastic to be funny...

Me too. I even thought it was slightly amusing because of that. I didn't know that he was LH at first, though.

Stormtroper · 2011-12-20 17:48:01

I thought it was a joke at first, too.

Curiously, nobody has brought Shichibukai up.

InsanityAddict · 2011-12-20 18:11:33

We're suckers for people who argue ~~well~~ ~~polite~~ wordy and quote articles.

RedEyedAbyss · 2011-12-20 18:13:05

I for one wasn't familiar with the extent of his racist views until he outed himself and thus didn't pay much attention to him. On the other hand, I have seen some of Love Happiness's infamous posts.

All Nines · 2011-12-20 20:11:43

^ What he said; I'd have passed off his comments prior to his ban as ignorance.

Nyktos · 2011-12-20 20:20:48

@Juan_Carlos:

What I am saying is that treating him as if he had already done those
things from the very beginning was not only wrong, but it might have
even exarcebated the problem.

I just don't see why we should pretend he didn't do those things just because they happened on another site.

I'm not advocating banning people because they were idiots on random forums when they were ten or something (else I'd have been gone long ago) but if I were a mod and someone joined who I recognized as someone who'd been a problem user on another forum I frequent, I might suggest that user be kept on a short leash.

MillerCross · 2011-12-20 20:31:22

And there's nothing wrong with that. I mean, if moderation knew he was going to be trouble, then preparing themselves for it and keeping him underwatch is good. Telling him so, even better, as he then has a chance to prove to others that he can behave.

but, and here's the problem comes: Look at this and tell me what you see wrong.

Answers:

*Cygan announcing her leave because of the guy, immediately implying that she both does not like him and that she wants him out

*Schitzo being snide and asking why did he post that in a most obnoxious fashion

*Abyss_Worm preemptively telling him to "Stay out of trouble"

I'm not saying "Don't watch out and take care" so much as "Be careful of what you say to the guy behind you, he might stab you"

or cause drama

that was a horrible metaphor, but I think you get my point.

RedEyedAbyss · 2011-12-20 20:34:51

A bad reputation gives off the feeling of a ticking time bomb. It's why Chagen was banned after that infamous incident on another site; if he thinks in such a repulsive way, it's only a matter of time before it spills out here. Though I guess I see your point about not provoking the bomb off early.

Waltzy · 2011-12-20 20:39:39

I agree with big bro. There's certain bits of it that just feel fishy to me.

In addition, Cygan's "why would you do that" comment on the membership application approved message seemed terribly unnecessary.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-12-20 20:59:59

I agree with @Juan_Carlos and @Waltzy in that the highly negative shunning (or one might even call it "pre-emptive gravedancing") wasn't called for, and it annoyed me greatly as well, though I wasn't sure what to do with it at the time.

Nyktos · 2011-12-20 21:16:09

Honestly, Cygan was the only one who seemed remotely in the wrong there to me.

MillerCross · 2011-12-20 21:22:12

Then I dunno, man.

Honestly, I admit that may not be the best example, and I was looking for an specific post I did not find, so whatever.

Point is, it's understandable that we kept a watch over him. It's not understandable that we went out of our way to make him feel as unwelcome as we could.

Nyktos · 2011-12-20 21:27:59

Eh, maybe. But really, if nobody wanted me here I'd prefer they be honest about it.

MillerCross · 2011-12-20 21:31:53

I think I said early that I advocate honesty when it refers to how we feel about other people. I have no shame in admitting I dislike some of you. I won't say who, as it is irrelevant, and personally, I prefer to not talk about stuff like this for the sake of talking about it.

But my point is, that there's a difference between telling someone "Man, sorry, don't like you, hang out somewhere else" than acting like a total douche whenever said person posts.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

IJBM - is it in decline?

Comments