IJBM - is it in decline?

All Nines · 2011-12-20 21:51:38

Cygan was definitely in the wrong throughout this, and so was Schitzo, in that incident. Heck, my first post in there might have been too harsh, depending on how it's read.

But, again, if we had known who he was first, the application would have been rejected, most likely, and we'd have been done with it.

MillerCross · 2011-12-20 21:53:49

I actually think that besides that post, Cygan was in the right. She did not like the guy and she knew she wouldn't be at her best if he was around, so she asked for a ban just to avoid the obvious outcome.

In fact, it bothered me quite a bit that people called her out on this as if they preferred the other option.

ETA: I read it in a moderator voice and telling someone where they are supposed to post what they are going to post. Nothing wrong with that.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-12-20 21:56:32

I think that Cygan should have just requested a tempban and not made a big deal about how it was about CornucopianSocialist.

Waltzy · 2011-12-20 22:39:23

^ I'm inclined to agree with this. It felt sort of like she knew her presence is generally well-liked and that she was imposing the lack of it as a punishment to drum up bad feelings against Cornucopian Socialist.

MillerCross · 2011-12-20 23:24:47

For what it's worth, were it not because she had spoken up against him, I don't think any one of us would have guessed why she asked for a tempban. I mean, she certainly was not explicit.

Icalasari · 2011-12-20 23:47:41

She asked for a ban?

...God I am out of the loop

glennmagusharvey · 2011-12-20 23:49:03

Oh, perhaps I'm mixing up what she said publicly and what she said to us mods.

Icalasari · 2011-12-21 00:09:20

Oh, and the deed is done

Bet we get at most one new member from people clicking on the link in my signature

Stormtroper · 2011-12-21 22:54:41

^^ You aren't mixing anything up. The ban was publicly announced (by the banning mod) to have been requested, and she made it quite clear that it was about Love Happiness (see Juan's link above and Love Happiness' new user announcement on the activity page).

MillerCross · 2011-12-22 00:28:42

I maintain that bans per request should be kept secret.

DYRE · 2011-12-22 00:59:10

I don't see why bans per request should be allowed.

Or at least why they shouldn't be permanent.

Waltzy · 2011-12-22 01:08:50

Bans by request always feel a little off to me. I dunno why but they all just give me weird vibes for some reason.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-12-22 01:10:33

Me too, although I've kept on doing them since I haven't yet found a good reason to stop.

MillerCross · 2011-12-22 01:12:16

I don't see why they should be disallowed or see anything particularly wrong with them.

Forzare · 2011-12-22 01:13:32

I don't see why they should be disallowed or see anything particularly wrong with them.

All Nines · 2011-12-22 01:14:18

^^, ^ What they said.

Waltzy · 2011-12-22 01:14:34

I know, it's like one of those things that can't really be explained, but like...gosh. Hmm.

The word that is springing to mind is "insincere". But yeah, it's like one of those things that can't really be fingered for a good reason to keep or a good reason to get rid of.

The only thing I could maybe think of is that bans of any sort are a drama magnet, and I dislike the idea of people having a way to create some without a legitimately necessary reason.

DYRE · 2011-12-22 01:20:07

Because people should not need other people to keep them from coming to a site they don't want to go to.

Also because honestly I just think it was ridiculously immature of Cygan to do that, so I suppose it's not so much bans-on-request in general as that specific case, but I still think it's pretty silly and not something that mods should have to be responsible for.

Malkavian · 2011-12-22 01:27:16

It's also about helping people to keep from engaging in bad habits though.

I do wish there was a more graceful way to do it.

MillerCross · 2011-12-22 01:29:33

a moderator can say no if he doesn't want to ban someone. It's a request, you know. Not a responsibility, not a duty.

Nova · 2011-12-22 02:20:17

We claim to want new people here, but the way we treat new people is not exactly spectacular.

I don't see mst3kluv being treated very badly at all. Or, indeed, most new people at all.

I actually think that besides that post, Cygan was in the right. She did
not like the guy and she knew she wouldn't be at her best if he was
around, so she asked for a ban just to avoid the obvious outcome.

Well, the thing is, it was my comment on the guy's activity page that tipped me off myself. I regretted making it pretty soon after, but I can't find a delete button or anything, so I pretty much just left it at that.

After I realized that I was already being a dickhead to the guy, I knew that either way, I was gonna be banned. I chose the way that would cause the least drama, and the way that would let me come back one day.

I took the route that wouldn't end up causing a whole lot of trouble. INUH could have made it a permaban if he'd wanted, I can't say that I would have been too upset.

I'm inclined to agree with this. It felt sort of like she knew her
presence is generally well-liked and that she was imposing the lack of
it as a punishment to drum up bad feelings against Cornucopian
Socialist.

I didn't feel like lying to the mods about why I wanted the temp-ban, so
I told INUH straight-up why I wanted the ban. I didn't intend for anyone else to know, but I did realize that with my comment regarding his acceptance, people would likely guess why it happened. I didn't think it would influence anyone, because I thought that if it had any effect on anyone's opinion on me, it would be a lowering of people's opinions of me because I can't control myself well enough around people I dislike.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-12-22 02:38:02

The main potential problem that I see is that people will come to rely on us mods and our allowing tempban requests as a self-discipline measure.

...then again, I'm not sure if that's entirely a bad thing either. As long as people don't totally flagrantly abuse it.

MillerCross · 2011-12-22 02:43:05

I don't see mst3kluv being treated very badly at all. Or, indeed, most new people at all.

Admittedly, it was a bit of a gross generalization, but I still maintain that if anytime that someone we know to be an asshole is going to be admitted in the site, we're gonna try and bait him till he gets banned, then we're going to have to play a whole different game in terms of moderation from now.

Nova · 2011-12-22 03:27:43

The main potential problem that I see is that people will come to rely
on us mods and our allowing tempban requests as a self-discipline
measure.

Well, if people can't hold themselves without a tempban, would you prefer that they instead explode like they were trying to prevent?

Elbeem · 2011-12-22 07:43:39

@Cygan: My issue with your involvement was, whether you intended it or not (and I have no reason to doubt that you did not intend it), your comments in combination with the temp ban came off as a form of emotional black mail. "I, as a popular member of this community, will no longer participate while this less popular new member is around" gives incentive for ostracism from the rest of the community who value your continued presence.

As I said, I believe you when you say that you did not intend for this to happen, and in this particular case what's done is done. And I'm not saying this in an effort to beat you up or anything. I brought all this up in the first place as an opportunity for introspection, so that we can ask ourselves "how can we prevent this type of situation from happening in the future?"

captainbrass · 2011-12-22 11:44:07

^ I have to say, I didn't get the connection between the two at the time. I just assumed Cygan wanted to concentrate on her life/garden/personal demons/top score in some video game.

On the general issue, I don't think that we should deny people who don't think they can control themselves some assistance. It's like refusing to bar an alcoholic from a pub, when they actually ask you not to serve them.

MillerCross · 2011-12-22 11:51:57

The only thing I could maybe think of is that bans of any sort are a drama magnet, and I dislike the idea of people having a way to create some without a legitimately necessary reason.

I personally think that it's time that the forums here accepted that bans are part of the nature of a discussion environment. I know I know, in a more idealistical scenario, they wouldn't be. But they are. We see people get here and get out incredibly often.

That, and the concept of drama and referring to fallouts, discussion and so on as drama seems a bit too...minimalizing, I think?

Naas_Human · 2011-12-22 20:02:57

Minimalizing as in...?

MillerCross · 2011-12-22 20:07:53

How do I put this...?

I believe that taking people's feeling, indignity, etc and calling it after something which is normally used to say that people are overreacting is like taking someone's problems and reducing it to something that is wrong to be bothered about. Which is not. Mostly because people tend to assume that arguing in the internet involves a degree of emotional investment when...there is not. Posting long rants, in all caps or whatever does not mean the poster is angry. It just means that the poster wants to convey anger, if that makes sense.

Naas_Human · 2011-12-22 20:12:52

^ So, basically, you're telling me that calling things "drama" means that one thinks the people involved are just overreacting, and that's kind of belittling, yes?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

IJBM - is it in decline?

Comments