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

ends, means, justification

must try to catch this and report back, if possible. feel it might enlighten us as to what mod discussions are like once the 51 hammer drops on someone.

http://www.jeffreyweissman.com/images/current_events/51-flyer-front-300.jpg

The Crying of Lot 51

51 Angry Men

so, is the point of ilx so that ppl can make pynchon jks and everyone gets it?

The Taking Of Pelham 51-2-3

KNOW51NG

Congratulations, User: [Tiern@n]. You have now reached ILX: Level 2

Curtis' view is his view. It's entirely valid and I have plenty of respect for his view, I think I ideologically differ in that I don't think that 'freedom' means that anyone should always be able to do whatever they want, but that society rightly wants to put restraints on what people are and are not allowed to do. J0hn D describes it brilliantly upthread re: imagebombing. My view is that there needs to be a check on this sort of thing - that you should think before you post - that your rights don't eclipse the rights of others, which is quite different from your opinion, which you are entitled to. This is particularly difficult on the internet when you can pretty much get away with whatever you like, because it's so anonymous. However, this is not everyone's view. Some people's view is that freedom means that you ought to be able to do whatever you want, which is fine; that's their view, I just can't say I agree.

what gives me a kick is that this thread will be back to being a cluster when i wake up tomorrow, with this brief interval of crappy jokes based on an extremely thin premise hiding out somewhere in the skipping 13498 messages link

lol was just thinking that

51 Little Uncool Racist Epithets

can't remember who posted this above (maybe stet), but this is OTM-

I think it's one of the strengths of SB that you can't go all legitimacy-lawyer about it.

2051

although clearly the cluster rolls on. are these threads just inevitable around any form of enforcement (automatic or otherwise) on ILX ? they seem to have been a feature for as long as i can remember anyway, so perhaps any line of argument that says things ought to be changed to avoid them is missing the point.

ooh that's a good one IKR

I don't think SB has made anything better or worse re: clusterf***s. I didn't expect it to. But I think there is a bunch of better stuff as a result of it, nonetheless.

never mind that- fahrenheit 4 51

(5)1, robot

simpsons did it xp

I don't know who is and isn't American, but this thread is as good as a proof as anything of why there will never be a liberal party in the US.

"major" party of cawse

because of the gross displays of fundamentalist Christianity?

<3 u jesus!

i am american and i love the suggest ban

I am an American woman and I eat corn using the lathe method.

"To-morr-ow be-longs to meeeee...."

xp

Morbs reminding me that it's been too long since I listened to Siouxsie & the Banshees "The Lord's Prayer"

51 active users!

When I noticed the starting page now shows how many messages you've posted, that gave me an idea: the value of a suggest ban should be weighed according to how many posts the suggest banner has made. So, for example, a SB from a poster who's made 20000 posts should count for more than a SB from a poster with 20 posts. This would effectively cancel the possibility of sock puppets or lurkers getting someone banned, and the opinions of regular posters (who suffer more from trolling and dickery than some occasional poster who only reads, say, the techno bobbins threads on ILM) would be taken more seriously. For example, if Ned decides to click SB on someone, that person should be immediately banned.

would effectively cancel the possibility of sock puppets or lurkers getting someone banned

I think it was pretty clear in yesterdays discussion that this isn't happening anyway.

if that happens i'll just post 15,000 nonsense posts on the church or something so my sb's will be worth as much as tuomas's

I think it could be something like this:

100-500 posts = your suggest ban weighs 0,1 "objective" suggest bans

500-1000 posts = your suggest ban weighs 0,25 "objective" suggest bans

1000-2500 posts = 0,5 "objective" suggest bans

2500-10000 posts = 1 "objective" suggest ban

10000-20000 posts = 2 "objective" suggest bans

20000-30000 posts = 3 "objective" suggest bans

30000-40000 posts = 4 "objective" suggest bans

...and so on.

Maybe we can set up a market for sb power.

if that happens i'll just post 15,000 nonsense posts on the church or something so my sb's will be worth as much as tuomas's

If you actually bother to do that, then I think you deserve a rise in your SB total. It takes helluva lot more effort than registering a sock puppet anyway.

But registering a sock puppet wouldn't make your SBs worth anything!

the church would suddenly become compulsive reading if that happened to be fair

But registering a sock puppet wouldn't make your SBs worth anything!

Yes, my point was that with my system abusing SBs would be much more difficult. Now all it takes to get one full SB is to register a sock puppet, whereas in my system you would have to register one, and then make 2500 pointless posts, which takes much more effort.

what he's saying is it's already hard to abuse....

like, a sock puppet's sb is already worth 0

Also, this would put a stop to the argument about whether 51 SBs is a significant number compared to the number of active ILXors, because regular ILXors vote would count for more than that of occasional posters.

It's pretty obvious the mods are completely on top of this SB thing and that the SBs are not coming from socks!

like, a sock puppet's sb is already worth 0

What gives you this impression? Everyone with a registered account has the right to SB, and I'm sure even the mods can't tell all the sock puppets among thousands of registered users.

Yes they can.

Anway, the sock puppet thing is a side issue, the most important thing is that it would make the SB system more fair, as regular posters are the one who are most likely to be negatively affected by trolls and assholes.

if you don't recognize a name you can click the username and find other usernames with the same ip. if you are a mod. i never need to do this though, because sockpuppets are welcome on ask dr. freud.

i think more weight should be given to posters who are easily annoyed tbh

so, tuomas:

mods shouldn't have full ban power, as it's undemocratic.

users shouldn't have ban power, as it's mob rule.

some users should have more ban power than others, to reflect their worth to ILX.

is there any part of this that i've maybe misunderstood?

This would effectively cancel the possibility of sock puppets or lurkers getting someone banned

There are problems with SB, and this seems like it would be one in principle, but it turns out not to be in practice (see this thread and others).

For example, if Ned decides to click SB on someone, that person should be immediately banned.

Uh, no.