Missin U <3 - lamentations for those felled by the SB

gotta be a bracket record for me

thanks for the explanation.

One thing that confuses me is that a couple of posters - at least according to the admin log - have been permabanned for making what seemed like somewhat joking posts of a racist nature, while other posters have done the same and not suffered that treatment.

― free jazz and mumia (sarahel), Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:47 PM (47 minutes ago)

can you give me any examples? if you are talking about pipecock a)he is tempbanned b)at this point any hotlinks to st00rmfro0nt are not going to be tolerated, and will result in post deletion and temp ban as far as i am concerned. hotlinking to a wh1te p0w3r site that is notorious for checking their referral logs is just never acceptable. if you are talking about inconsistencies re: the fact that i mentioned tuomas doing the same thing and not getting mod temped, i can guarantee that he (or anyone) will not get cut any slack if it were to happen in the future - this is not inconsistency, it is a permanent change in (my) modding policy.

he was one, and there was another one a couple months ago/last month - british poster - I think it was some sort of cankles backlash.

oh yeah, i remember that now. i think he was trying to make a point, but did it by using um TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE racial slurs. that shouldn't be a permaban though, even if the approach was pretty thickheaded and rong. let me go find out more and work on it.

btw, these sorts of concerns are what IMP is supposed to be all about, and mods are not infallible (oh hey look im one case in point), so in the future if something like this is bothering you plz bring it to our attention.

it only bothered me a little ... I thought there might have been some sort of zero-tolerance policy for stuff like that, or that it was a combination of the slurs and attacking another poster, though it was in response to that poster using misogynist language and attacking another poster, and that poster's modban was quickly reversed. I thought that was a bit unfair, but then there was some engrossing thread full of lols and I forget about the incident.

the sb system consists of too many arbitrary numbers made more problematic by its cumulative nature (a time limit is an improvement but still just a best guess). the fact that it was implemented by a single person without any input is more reason to question it. the "but it worked!" justification falls flat with me because the same actions/bans could have been made by moderators but for specific reasons without the guesswork of "well some people clicked the message here on this thread and some here on this other thread four days ago, etc." I also cannot think of a case where sb's as notifications for mods wouldn't have worked and allowed for a subjective review of the user's behavior including "history and context".

arguing against the sb system is arguing in favor of moderator judgment.

the fact that it was implemented by a single person without any input is more reason to question it.

are you missing the fact that this "single person" is also the one that implemented um nearly every other aspect of the current ilx code? this is basically a red herring of the highest degree.

i am going after the blue text next

oh also:

the "but it worked!" justification falls flat with me because the same actions/bans could have been made by moderators but for specific reasons without the guesswork of "well some people clicked the message here on this thread and some here on this other thread four days ago, etc." I also cannot think of a case where sb's as notifications for mods wouldn't have worked and allowed for a subjective review of the user's behavior including "history and context".

the difference is that, like i keep saying, there is an added level of input from the non-mods that post on the site. the only other difference between this and the current situation is the fact that the system is automated. every SB is vetted by mods.

arguing against the sb system is arguing in favor of moderator judgment.

yeah except several of the same people arguing against SB were the ones arguing for more democratic control of sitewide bans.

we can put all the layers of interpretation we want on this issue, but the truth is that nearly every way that users can be policed/banned/chided/whatever is going to be met with opposition by people that like that user, or people that only interact with that user on threads in which their behaviour is totally innocuous. SB or mod edict or random daily ban culls aren't going to change this fact.

xpost

btw nobody is ever fucking happy, these threads make me feel like a cranky mod who does not keep having to explain why they are kicking out somebody for offboard flaming or something as though it were part of their "quirky personality." Just so you know, all of you are filthy animals who do thinks like link to santorum gifs and white supremacist websites and you need someone to tempban you and maybe you should just like it. If you were civilized you wouldn't need to make all your friends on the internet.

the sb system consists of too many arbitrary numbers

are you proposing that we commission multiple studies to determine what the right # of sb's would be, or put it to a f**king vote, in either case what class of mentalism is this

the fact that it was implemented by a single person without any input
This isn't really how it happened. The idea came up during a long chat Keith and I were having about the situation where a vocal minority can claim their view is the dominant one just because they're the loudest, and how sometimes quieter posters just get drowned out. We were also talking about the "BAN X" problem, and also how mods could find it difficult to act because of the shitstorms that would result. I'd mentioned the idea earlier of favouriting posts, like an auto-excelsior, and then one of us -- I can't remember which, i think it might have been Keith -- came up with the idea of voting for bans.

A few code bumps later, Keith had put it in, and there was a lot of mod discussion about it, with both pro and anti views, some quite strong. After it had been running a while -- and it has evolved with poster input too, it hasn't just been left exactly as it was -- there was a much more positive view of it, because it had helped in a number of areas.

the "but it worked!" justification falls flat with me because the same actions/bans could have been made by moderators
I don't think the same bans could have been made by mods, a) because SB gives the bans a legitimacy that a single mod action doesn't necessarily have, and b) SB handles the BAN X case where a lot of posters are getting a bit pissed off but the poster hasn't done a single thing bad enough to earn a clear ban.

but for specific reasons without the guesswork
Who is doing the guessing? If it's that other posters don't know why a person was banned, I think this problem is the same however the ban was dished out and the way we deal with it is the same.

I also cannot think of a case where sb's as notifications for mods wouldn't have worked
SBs do still act as notifications for mods. If you're arguing against the auto-51, I don't think that's a huge deal -- even if it wasn't auto, I imagine the mods would set a similar cut-off and take action against a poster who hit that cut-off. The auto-ban is just a convenience thing to my mind, it doesn't mean that this is a hands-off process: mods scrutinise SBs pretty closely, especially as a user gets closer to the limit. It's totally not an unexamined process.

arguing against the sb system is arguing in favor of moderator judgment.
That's a bit catch-22, because a whole host of people used to argue very strongly against moderator judgement, some even against the whole idea of mods on ILX having any power at all, except maybe to fix broken HTML, regardless of who the mods at the time were. SB is one answer to that. But if you can't have ban by mod or by popular vote the argument just becomes "ILX should never have bans", and that's not realistic.

zillions of xp

are you proposing that we commission multiple studies to determine what the right # of sb's would be, or put it to a f**king vote, in either case what class of mentalism is this

― the evil genius of Zaiger Genetics (J0hn D.), Wednesday, August 5, 2009 6:20 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

all of those ideas pale in comparison to one guy picking the number out of nowhere

just curious where we are now in terms of SB count statistics. How many posters are close to the magic number?

The number isn't hard-coded, it's a variable in the site setup. Keith guessed at the initial value, but he was pretty clear that he expected a bit of trial and error to find the best place for it. That 50 worked out to be a pretty good guess of too-high-for-a-clique-to-hit but not so high as to be unrealistic was good luck.
xp

sarahel: not really sure why this is all that germane to the discussion at hand, but factoring in both the speed at which the sbs have been coming and the totals um basically none?

which is really how its supposed to work, so im not actually surprised.

I don't think the same bans could have been made by mods, a) because SB gives the bans a legitimacy that a single mod action doesn't necessarily have, and b) SB handles the BAN X case where a lot of posters are getting a bit pissed off but the poster hasn't done a single thing bad enough to earn a clear ban.

Notfications could be used in the same way in both of these instances. And in this case "the poster hasn't done a single thing bad enough to earn a clear ban" you've got to wonder if gabbnebb the poster deserved the banning then? honestly I don't know how you deal with that ... it is the genius of the undercover troll.

SBs do still act as notifications for mods. If you're arguing against the auto-51, I don't think that's a huge deal -- even if it wasn't auto, I imagine the mods would set a similar cut-off and take action against a poster who hit that cut-off.

to me, that would be more fair and allow mods to dish out admin actions that fit the situation. (I know, they do this anyway, but it aint the same.)

xp JJ: It's germane in the sense that there seems to be this recurring theory/feeling that the SB system would result in lower tolerance for dickery: that there would be a constant rate of SB-ing with posters that were relatively less offensive becoming more offensive in the community's eyes once the worst offenders were gone. This is as opposed to the theory/feeling that the standards of dickery would remain the same, and that lesser offenders would not be SB-ed any more than when the worst offenders were still posting.

wouldn't that happen more with just mod bans? mod bans are supposed to be based on community standards, suggest bans are based on the standards of 51 individuals, whose levels of tolerance probably stay the same on average

which would happen more with just mod bans?

(I know, they do this anyway, but it aint the same.)
How is it different, though? (Genuine Q) Nobody gets *near* an auto-ban with a mod knowing about it, and if there are other actions that could be taken to head it off, they are (like JJ's timeout of Ethan, or ppl getting banned from one thread). The automatic-ness of it is in practice little more than a safety -- I suppose it could catch some sheepfuxor going nuts while Jim's in the pub and the rest of us are sleeping.

progressively lowering tolerance, if mods are supposed to just ban outliers rather than people who are annoying to a large number of individuals. i dunno. xp

sarahel: i think there's the same tolerance for dickishness. There's definitely not a consistent rate of SBing, and the trigger level isn't getting any lower. ILX by and large lets a whole lot of stuff slide that other wetter forums would be all metatalkin' about, which is how it should be, and that doesn't seem to be changing.

what's the highest number of SB's one individual has given out, if it's easily available?

xp harbl - I agree.
xp stet - that's what jjusten's stats seem to imply

huh i thought i disagreed with you!? oh well! good enough.

No, I'm pretty much ok with SB over mod ban, as long as people are given proper warning and made aware of what triggered the SB's and that the number required is a reasonably large percentage of active ilxors, which sounds like more or less how it's being handled.

Also the "b" key on my laptop has been sticky today.

sb

alot of sb clearing up by jj has made it clear that the sb method is pretty good imo.

extra effort to not keep typing suggest an

SB arms race ITT

How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy?
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the SugBanners love their children too

what does ITT stand for?

"in this thread"

I thought it was this for a long time:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/images/reports/81337.jpg

I was confused why there were so many threads devoted to International Telephone & Telegraph, personally.

How is it different, though? (Genuine Q) Nobody gets *near* an auto-ban with a mod knowing about it, and if there are other actions that could be taken to head it off, they are (like JJ's timeout of Ethan, or ppl getting banned from one thread). The automatic-ness of it is in practice little more than a safety -- I suppose it could catch some sheepfuxor going nuts while Jim's in the pub and the rest of us are sleeping.

If its so secondary then why is it necessary? as much as we're told that auto-bans are vetted, it appears that these are judgments made after the system acts. a mod shouldn't be temp banning ethan in an effort to save him from an sb, the mod should decide the ban. the auto-ban is too under-developed to play a part in the admin role of the board. if its meant to work as a hive-mind representative, then it needs to be adapting to a host of different features that make up the hive.

It's not necessary, though --without it the whole SB system would work exactly the way it does now, except occasionally someone would sit past 50 longer than they otherwise would.

a mod shouldn't be temp banning ethan in an effort to save him from an sb, the mod should decide the ban.
i don't think he was taking action to "save" him, but rather do what you wanted -- take appropriate action.

In the other case, where someone hits 50 and just now the autoban kicks in but you'd prefer a mod took action, there's not really a lot of room for manoeuvre, by mod or ILX System. There's only a limited amount of tools in the mod arsenal. It really is just automation of what would happen anyway.

i think once someone hits 51 there should be a poll... mostly lol but kinda serious!

I can't help but think people opposed to the SB system are just opposed to board moderation in general, don't want anyone to tell anyone else to civilize their discourse, and would rather have one person to yell at than 51 people in the case of any one particular banning.

actually I strongly oppose the SB system but appreciate the effect it's had on my own posting and general awareness of others, if that makes any sense

stockholm syndrome

xp in other words, you're a masochist.

I would like to understand that Louis having obviously seen the effect.

you love the sb's, you dirty bastard. beg for one. beg.

uh, xpost?

51 Active Users

I think I mean, having seen the effect it's has on you in an obvious way. I think it's been really positive.