[ADMIN] Meta bitching - enough.

I approve - most posters (including myself) have been guilty of doing at least one of these on occasions in the past but it's got to a state where it's all over the place and pretty offputting now.

A 'look, enough is enough' post could help people to think twice about what they post and at least try and rein this stuff in. It's the behind-the-back snideness and the researching ur life stuff I object to, I'm not so bothered about what happens about when posters are in already in an exchange with one another. The 'is Alex in NYC fit to be a father?' thread just seemed totally OTT and unnecessary, this shouldn't be a forum where everything is fair game.

I'm also worried we're getting to a stage where there are several otherwise good posters who get involved in this as a matter of course, like the constant gossiping has got to the point where people maybe don't realise quite how creepy it can be, especially to someone who goes in cold and then looks at a long thread of bitching and mud-raking.

(Actually that's unfair, most posters probably don't move beyond occasional rote flippant zings, I include myself in that)

pash, where does a thread like staring into the mysteries of tuomas fit into this?

Tuomas and Mr. Snrub and Suzy are all apparently either thick-skinned or oblivious enough that they still post here and don't give a fuck. Unfortunately that's not a very good representative sample of all posters and "but that guy didn't seem to mind" is a very poor rule of thumb for deciding what is and isn't bullying or worthless ad hominem boorishness.

When I click through Site New Answers and see that probably about 50% of threads are either devoted to or infested with schoolyard c+p knee slappers and ad hominem trash as opposed to any sort of actual discussion then I have to admit to myself I'd rather just see it all go up in smoke. That's not even taking into account the fact that one type of activity negatively affects the other in a vicious cycle.

The way I see it, ILX is either going to stop being so meta and possibly die a slow death or continue becoming more meta and certainly die a slow death.

Various other communities that have lasted longer than ours have done so by harsh moderation of their open areas while maintaining a restricted repository for crapflooders and douchebags to have their fun in. I'm not against this route, but we've failed so far because 77 and Ask Chaki keep cross-pollinating and us mods haven't laid down the law consistently.

I hope we can repair that situation.

Tom is spot on and I fully support this.

I have little to immediately add at this point, beyond noticing that I too have heard from a variety of folks feeling that something has gone wrong with ILX in the same way that Pash has, for the reasons he's noted. This is strictly anecdotal on my part but I think it is not without reason, and many of the examples that have recently come up have been troubling.

I have constantly cautioned against complaints that 'it's all gone downhill' over the years -- I think that does a disservice to a lot of what has happened over all this time, and the frustrations of the present color our perceptions of the better state of the past. I think it's important to keep this in mind -- and yet it does seem that a newer clarity for ILX as a community would be of great assistance right now.

I will conclude on this note: based on his work since taking over from Andrew, Pash has shown in his time as moderator of the whole site that he has kept its best interests in mind as a whole -- not an easy thing to do for someone who has his own commitments elsewhere, something which should never be ignored. He could easily make any decision he pleases by fiat, but he has not done so. His proposal has been discussed in concert with a number of people and as this thread has already shown, there can and will be further discussions on it, as is appropriate. It may sound a bit restrained to simply say that he and the mods as a whole should be given the benefit of the doubt as a result, but I cannot put it more simply than that.

(I should clarify slightly that I meant to put 'better' in quotes in the second paragraph. The point can be argued, of course, but there have been plenty of moments of angst and anger in the past about the course of ILX -- this context should not be lost, but neither should it be used to simply explain away things as being 'like they've always been' or something similar.)

The way I see it, ILX is either going to stop being so meta and possibly die a slow death or continue becoming more meta and certainly die a slow death.
That's probably right, and I don't think it's much use to have this place just so it can stare into its navel -- there are too many other things it is good at.

and "but that guy didn't seem to mind" is a very poor rule of thumb
Yeh, and even if a particular poster doesn't mind something, I've had others tell me it makes them uncomfortable that we have areas where it's OK to just sit and scrutinise other posters. We might have to be all zero-tolerance for a while if cold turkey's gonna work.

there are too many other things it is good at.

And too many other things that our latter-day meta trolls are also good at, if they would stop obsessing over every other poster that annoys them.

I want to take a moment to mention that I personally am well aware that I'm not innocent in this respect, but at this point I don't know if anybody is; suffice to say we've all wasted some time "being all meta" and realizing when we ourselves have gotten swept up in the tide is part of the reason for this policy coming up.

pash, where does a thread like staring into the mysteries of tuomas fit into this?

-- stet, Thursday, 15 May 2008 17:00 (4 days ago) Bookmark Link

Tom has answered this better than I can, really.

To recap, all of this shit:

An obsessive interest in researching scandal/gossip that's happened on the boards in the past, manifesting itself as revivals of old threads to highlight some post or statement that's supposedly funny or o_0 or whatever.

Ad hominem snide at any other poster about IRL things that are not under discussion on that thread

Meta snidiness behind people's backs on one of the smaller boards or on board 77

Researching-ur-life shit about people who don't even post here anymore.

Using smaller boards or board 77 to plan pranks/raids on the main boards, as in here or here

Sharing logins to run multi-user sockpuppets for baiting people

Helping people who've been banned from the board to register new accounts

Tedious rote responses to certain posters, especially the use of repeated image "zings".

..is likely to get deleted from here on, and this is going to be a permanent change in the moderation style of the site.

perhaps the 'secret' boards should be visible eh?

Applaud all this. Snark levels hereabouts is CRAZY high. Schoolyard BS effectively renders a lot of topic off-limits, which is a shame.

This is the first time I have seen the thread; has it previously been transparent to non-mods on the site? I appreciate Pashmina's acknowledging that he is enforcing (or has begun to enforce) a change in community standards that are not (or not explicitly) set forth in the FAQ, or a change in the extent to which mods are willing to be proactive. Will the FAQ be rewritten to reflect the new standards? Are any of these standards to be presented for community review/discussion before they are enforced?

lol at 77 links that go nowhere for those of us not on 77

uh good luck with this

Have you considered locking the threads rather than deleting them?

Pash, is there going to be some general record of what's deleted that's viewable by non-mods?
This seems reasonable in principle, but it's necessarily arbitrary and something that I (and I imagine the average poster) would want to track to get a sense of http://image.listen.com/img/170x170/5/2/3/9/739325_170x170.jpg.

lol at 77 links that go nowhere for those of us not on 77

Yeah, that was funny.

what is board 77? that sounds kinda cool like area 51 or something.

The truth is out there...

This is the first time I have seen the thread; has it previously been transparent to non-mods on the site?

no. it's been on the moderator discussion forum for the past week and just got moved.

If these standards are going to be implemented across the site equally for everyone, I doubt anyone will have a problem with this. But the acid test will come when we get a new punchbag figure on site who isn't friends with/known to the mods, I mean will Pash treat them threads about the same as, say, Suzy, or will be return to his "lol look at the post this guy mad"/"lol look what i found out about this guy from googling" posts to a minor, not seen to the poster himself, board he adopted when it came to Tynan Delong on this thread: submitted for your consideration (TYNAN APPRECIATION THREAD)

I wish people would stop badmouthing 77 and making it seem like Ask Chaki?

Haha people are bound to think the worst if they can't see the board, Curtis.

FWIW, I'm glad for the change in policy.

anybody who has time to be up on who's talking shit about them and all this secret 77 guff needs to bounce for awhile anyway for their own good. like wtf i come here for the gallup polls.

The intention is to implement these standards across the board for everyone, Dom. Like Tom, I've been guilty of this to some extent in the past. In the case of Tynan, we actually managed to drive the guy away, which I regret. He was actually a pretty funny and cool guy, which I think a bunch of people realised after he'd blown. The hazing that Louis J got when he showed up comes to mind too. That was, and is an embarrasment.

I moved the 2 77 board threads linked to to the HTML playground.

I have said time and time again that anyone can post to 77 and I have offered to invite anyone who wants to and I think I have even tried to add 99% of the people who complain about not being invited

I should also point out, Dom, that I don't "know" suzy any better than you do. I've never met her, and I've probably exchanged more emails with you over the last few years than I have with her.

I'd make the meta laws a lot simpler. If the person it's directed towards objects then it gets deleted. Whether or not the offense warrants a ban is up to the mods discretion.

What about if some new jack starts an ILM thread with a title to the extent of, I dunno, "Why can't rappers stop talking about guns and bitches and be as socially concious as Bono?"? In that situation, what'd be allowed? Flaming him? Image posts? Zings? Or do we have to sit back and discuss his point?

Also this better not lead to the end of Luriqua's spazzouts.

I have said time and time again that anyone can post to 77 and I have offered to invite anyone who wants to and I think I have even tried to add 99% of the people who complain about not being invited

then maybe it should just be open like the rest of the boards

If the person it's directed towards objects then it gets deleted. Whether or not the offense warrants a ban is up to the mods discretion.

^^^ this

I'd make the meta laws a lot simpler. If the person it's directed towards objects then it gets deleted. Whether or not the offense warrants a ban is up to the mods discretion.

-- bnw, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 22:42 (6 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

To me, this is a fairer rule, but is the mod objection "Not everyone on ILx reads every board"?

Unless we make site new answers the default.

dom raises a good point

then maybe it should just be open like the rest of the boards

-- mookieproof, Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:43 PM (49 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

no. i like the idea of an ungoogleable board

real talk: there should be an Ask Luriqua board.

about luriqua xp

Curt1s, I don't care about not being on 77! I just thought it was funny.

i dont really get whats so offensive about the meta 77 threads. they werent really meanspirited in any way

im talking specifically about the ones linked, altho in gen. 77 has been pretty good about keepin it positive

What about if some new jack starts an ILM thread with a title to the extent of, I dunno, "Why can't rappers stop talking about guns and bitches and be as socially concious as Bono?"? In that situation, what'd be allowed? Flaming him? Image posts? Zings? Or do we have to sit back and discuss his point?

(Sooooo hard to reply to this without zinging...)

I would suggest not posting on that thread you deem unworthy of discussion.

Meta posts: Dahmeresque when they mix onions and man

I think the mod objection is people should be civil and try to not post anything that would MAKE somebody object to it and ask it to be deleted

BNW that's been the rule for years and it hasn't really stopped the escalation of meta nastiness at any point in ILX's history.

Dom I think the last thing people want is to lose the everyday cut and thrust of ILX exchanges, even heated ones. It's when the 'exchange' element gets removed and it just becomes bitching or mocking off to the side that the problems emerge.

Many people now use site new answers, Dom.

What about if some new jack starts an ILM thread with a title to the extent of, I dunno, "Why can't rappers stop talking about guns and bitches and be as socially concious as Bono?"? In that situation, what'd be allowed? Flaming him? Image posts? Zings? Or do we have to sit back and discuss his point?

Say what the fuck you want to this hypothetical person. Just don't start researching his life, C&Ping stuff he's posted on other fora, that kind of shit.

In an ideal world, such a thread would sink off the new answers board with 0 replies, but when is that ever going to happen, I know. It would be great if it did happen once though.

Just don't start researching his life

My life's work is over.

guys pashmina's statements were pretty clear, i thought that would be the end of it.

loool xp

i only got like 40 posts in to this thing.

all you need to know

THIS TYPE OF SHIT CAN HAVE IRL CONSEQUENCES

Wrinklepaws on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:47

I've been in pretty serious fucking physical agony for the past few weeks but I'm getting better

77 disappears mysteriously again...

ya gotta be logged in to see it

just figured that out. cool.

plus que ca change...

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y176/edwardiii/ilx.jpg

I have no mouth and I must zing.

ok i agree with the gist of all this and have two things to add

1) 'baiting random googlers' - why should they be fair game and regulars not? one thing that irks me about message boards in general is this assumption that n00bs are teh plague whereas 99 per cent of the time the poison comes from within;

2) surely off-board abuse is actionable too, provided it is 1) directly offensive to specific ilx0rz and 2) in the public domain, why shouldn't this be a bannable offense?

Braveclub, I absolutely agree with point 1. I think the thing with point 2 is not that they shouldn't be banned, just that there's nothing they can do about stuff that's happened offsite, e.g. removing some offensive page that's been highly indexed by Google.

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/2575/manwhogk3.jpg

Aw, man.

TH, haha, some things are impolitic for the object of discussion to bring up without looking like a pedant.

Mods are really only able to take action over stuff that appears on ILX; by registering here we all agree to submit to that authority no matter how much a poster wants to thcweam and thcweam otherwise. Harking back to the time someone wanted to publish threads in a book, our learned friends of ILX, Esq. noted there were IP rights issues involved in republishing contributors' comments/submissions elsewhere in the public domain without permission. We do not waive these rights when we post to ILX. Nor do we waive protection from the spectrum of defamation outside the boards if for some bizarre reason someone decides to engage in what any reasonable person would consider off-board abuse of a private figure. Only a handful of posters here would be considered past the 'public figure' threshhold for having to put up with this (hint: they're all musicians).

So mind how you go.

"thcweam"?

Fudd for "scream", cleverly implying that the discontented are of middling intelligence because of their speech "issues".

violet-elizabeth tombott

google "violet elizabeth bott", forks. It's a ref to a spoiled, priviledged character from a series of brit children's stories. I guess it's not that well-known a meme in the st8s, maybe?

Ah! Ever so clever!

nb was not implying anything about tom beyond the sound-matchup.

Well, I don't see anyone disagreeing with the substantive points in the post. Yet the night is young.

I don't feel protected enough from defamation on this board.

Suzy, I'd like to take this time to tell you that I like you and did not make that thread to try and annoy you or HARass you, and I respect your right to have it removed. I am not a (card-carrying) member of any (currently operative) zing crÜs. "I was just trying to be funny," but I understand your reaction to it.

aw

you always hurt the one you love

ok wtf

did that get deleted!?

??

great thread

^^ the post that had... oh fuck it.

this place is losing its edge

is chaki or a sockpuppet of his back yet?

chaki is banned ;_;

I really hate it when people wake up threads they don't think are great to very originally say "great thread."

great post

nu-'freedom to shut the fuck up' ilx at work, great stuff.

he's blunt but he has a point

haw haw!! good one

x-post -- No he doesn't.

I still think this thread was pointless. Should have been a closed thread so noone could comment on it. I mean, what did it do? An endless amount of comments and not that much difference in attitude, really. Not that it really should. I mean at the end of the day isn't it a bit DUH if you say that as a mod you have the power to delete/ban or whatever?

If "DON'T BE A DICK" policy refers to super-creepy liable stalker bullshit only, then how come Tombot keeps bringing it up on threads where dudes cry about people being mean and other dudes tell them to harden the fuck up?

because the "other dudes" in question are basically meta troll shitbags 99% of the time

and really tiresome besides

kind of like whatever schtick you're copping

aaaaaaannnnnd