an open letter to the mods from Whiney G. Weingarten

If "spend more time being civil than uncivil to other posters" is too much for you to bear, don't post here.

― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:45 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

whuuuuuuuut?

that excludes most of the board's a-list, past and present

― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:49 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I have never minded Whiney, but I really hate this sort of attitude. So someone like D0m P was, in your opinion, a more worthy poster than, say, Ned, or nabisco, or Abbs, or... well, pretty much the majority of posters here? Ilx, regardless of what you might think, is best when it's not full of snark or zing culture.

I do love how people nominations for mod are "let's have a mod who would never ban an awesome bro no matter what he said" -- great look, that

― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, November 4, 2010 11:39 AM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark

there's a guy in RI who runs for lieutenant governor and his sole position is "abolish the lieutenant governor post", I vote for him every time

I gotta say obv dan can do whatever he wants but the chances of anyone getting elected as new mod out of this clusterfuck is like 0%. no offense to some dude, but 10 hyped up peeps snapping at each other (myself included in that number btw) isnt the best way to find out who works as a site wide mod.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:09 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah i agree with this

when posters like k3v who generally play nice and don't argue a lot become combative about mod action, it's seen as "man, you're really losing your way, you used to be such a good kid." that's an interesting interpretation imo.

when the assholes stand up to the mods, they're assholes. when the nice guys stand up to the mods, they're taking things too seriously and need to take it down a notch. that's why we get the "paternalistic" vibe, guys.

I don't even care, man, I was tired of hearing that I personally was #1 fan of rape jokes and could not get enough of them.

― 17th Century Catholic Spain (Abbbottt), Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:00 PM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Like having to hear that, multiple days in a row, in all-caps...it was a bullshit argument and pretty mean too, imo.

― 17th Century Catholic Spain (Abbbottt), Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:01 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

most productive fucking thing that's been said all day

I'm still pretty upset about it! I didn't know what to say because I couldn't trust myself to not get really emotional about it though : /

Just this one thing, anything else it's ducks off my back, you know?

Lol darra taken for a brit. Did the heroes of '16 die for nothing?

yeah some dude thats not what i am saying at all so i think yer making the interpretation here not me

when the assholes stand up to the mods, they're assholes. when the nice guys stand up to the mods, they're taking things too seriously and need to take it down a notch. that's why we get the "paternalistic" vibe, guys.

feel for u abbott but also agree with this ^

I def got that feeling when I was unhappy w/ the way the sb system was designed

but maybe I shouldn't dig up old graves

btw if hi dere is no longer a mod, be prepared for even less transparency into mod decisions.

and that's not a snipe at the other mods, but ime he is usually the first one out there taking shit from the rest of us.

when posters like k3v who generally play nice and don't argue a lot become combative about mod action, it's seen as "man, you're really losing your way, you used to be such a good kid." that's an interesting interpretation imo.

Okay two things:

- I have no real issue with K3v but come on he's always been a pretty fractious poster.
- The reason the mods find arguments like this exasperating is because you insist on making the argument in such a loaded way and this is a case in point.

kev k is persistently needlessly antagonistic and wilfully dense in these threads. Nobody said 'u used b such a nice boy' lots of ppl said 'stfu ur full of it'.

That's not paternalism, that's callin a dude (who yeah is normally a good poster) on the same bullshit in every similar thread.

I mean, maybe tell us WHAT, IF ANYTHING, YOU ACTUALLY WANT DONE and maybe then some sort of a decision can be made as and when everyone's calmed down.

If you're just saying "we'd like the mods to stop banning people in the heat of the moment" then yes I think everyone's agreed on that. I personally veer very strongly towards yellow carding and warning people first and then going ahead with the ban if they ignore that, but that's a personal view.

i think moderation should be very much up to the individual churchgoer

I love lessons learned

this is just a suggestion, no agenda, but i think whiney should be permabanned but encouraged to frequently submit open letters to the mods to be published here.

man dont bring 'the church' into this

xp: ha

eventually to be collected into a handsomely bound volume

what about a handsomely bound whiney g. whinegarten?

dmac i'm sorry i called you british

i don't think my point that it's unfair how dan gets a mod pass for comparably frowned-upon behavior while whiney gets banned is particularly unreasonable tho. i washalf-trolling too which was my fault. that is all

k3v has "always been a fractious poster"? maybe it's just cause i don't read the politics threads much or wherever he starts shit, to me he's like the least controversial autogoon/77 dude.

top of the mornin kev, i respect ur passion even if shit gets heated

(new postin style is to always make up with ppl online before five pm)

dan decided that because he's a mod he got to have two or three SB's for the one time whiney pissed him off instead of one SB like everyone else on the site.

k3vin, did this happen or was this you half-trolling?

i don't read the politics threads much

ha yeah maybe this is key

tho i expect feuding with deej is sort of subject-agnostic

If you're just saying "we'd like the mods to stop banning people in the heat of the moment" then yes I think everyone's agreed on that. I personally veer very strongly towards yellow carding and warning people first and then going ahead with the ban if they ignore that, but that's a personal view.

i think this is what i want done

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=77&threadid=68974

btw i will cop to being both "nice guy" and "recalcitrant" depending on the type of thread i'm on, but i appreciate the backup some d and agree with your point and basically everything you've said itt

my new favorite mod

abbott otm

k3v, still would like to know what, if anything, you want done.

He already got what he wanted, namely me quitting as a mod.

Dan, goddamnit, don't quit as mod.

Why shouldn't I?

I mean, who in their right mind would put up with this unmitigated bullshit indefinitely?

take a day or two off and think about it

i vote for dan staying

subtle dig at jj imo

seriously, dude--shit got heated today and that's the worst time to make any decision.

if you came back tomorrow and said "yeah, i'm definitely done" it would make a lot more sense imo

If you're just saying "we'd like the mods to stop banning people in the heat of the moment" then yes I think everyone's agreed on that. I personally veer very strongly towards yellow carding and warning people first and then going ahead with the ban if they ignore that, but that's a personal view.

If we're still pretending like the suggest ban system has some kind of corrective effect on poster's behaviour whereby we're supposed to "learn something" from it (because trust me, from experience, it does not function that way, it just tends to make one more defensive and paranoid) rather than the crude popularity contest it actually functions as, then perhaps it would actually make more sense to have an automatic yellow card which tells you, privately, when you are approaching the 51 limit? (and maybe give you some clue what you're getting hit for? Like what post, what thread has acrued the most bans?)

Because my personal experience is that mod bans *do* have a behavioural effect (mainly because you are *told* what you are being banned for; and because the ban is effective immediately, the punishment is actually linked to the negative behaviour in a Pavolovian sense, rather than just being inflicted - seemingly randomly - hours, days or even months after the mysterious "thing" you are supposed to be being punished for, which is how SB functions.)

And Suggest Bans, as they function now, do not; in fact they actively functioned to make me *more* defensive, more prone to meta and sniping and thinking "I'm being persecuted for having unpopular *opinions*".

Anyway, that's my new rule of "no meta" broken already, but honestly, if you want to have some discussion of how banning is supposed to work as a "reforming" tactic you might actually bother asking the repeat offenders if it works like you think it does - and the answer is, it fucking well doesn't, for all the reasons above.

Why shouldn't I?

Because I'm imagining you being all goth about it right now.

automatic yellow card which tells you, privately, when you are approaching the 51 limit?

This is an EXTREMELY sensible suggestion, in my opinion.

"you have 8 SBs to comply"

lol

include a little ed-209 icon

http://gifarchive.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/robo1.gif?w=510

i have to think that any new mechanisms or code changes or board functions are just not going to happen

if people are arguing for changes they have to argue for either policy change or personnel change