post here if you favor replacing our Suggest Ban system with a Killfile system

wait, what did i do a 180 on

http://www.styleceo.com/images/stores/46/1/180s-earmuffs-urban-2125321

I'm curious about who Dom slandered.

I mean in this case banning Whiney and Deej from ILM would only relocate their beef to another board. And most posters who are SB'ed get it from across a range of boards.

http://www.everythinginmoderation.org/2003/10/on_building_killfiles_into_your_communities.shtml

But while they seem like an obvious solution to user-on-user fighting and troll-avoidance, killfiles (and other forms of 'ignore user' functionality) have considerable problems and by themselves are not particularly effective ways of helping a community self-manage. For a start they immediately and inevitably start fracturing the ways in which individuals see the community around them. If every user has a different killfile (or even if a substantial minority do) then each has a different view of the community around them, who has spoken, who is silent and what the gist of the current conversation might be. The consequences may not be catastrophic, but they are irritating - people start talking at cross purposes, individuals talk over one another, repeating suggestions, misinterpreting cues. In fact the only circumstances where killfiles work is where pretty much everyone on the community decides to killfile precisely the same people - or when the culture is strong enough that they simply won't be abused. These circumstances are ... rare ...

The consequences may not be catastrophic, but they are irritating - people start talking at cross purposes, individuals talk over one another, repeating suggestions, misinterpreting cues.

^most threads

people start talking at cross purposes, individuals talk over one another, repeating suggestions, misinterpreting cues.

Yes, God help us if that ever happens to ILX.

haha

wait, what did i do a 180 on

― some dude, Tuesday, February 8, 2011 11:49 AM (11 minutes ago)

idk maybe i'm misremembering your stance on SB

The primary rule is don't be a dick.

― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, February 8, 2011 3:02 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this kind of wheaton's law/google prime directive stuff is glib verging on content free imo (and is not accurate descrption of ilx)

i think you might be! although i'm not sure what i may or may have not said about it early on when the policy was more of a theory or a threat than an existing thing that has had very plain and clear effects. (xpost)

be a dick, but don't be an annoying or psychotic dick

hahaha

be a big dick, but don't be a fully erect Ron Jeremy or anything

just keep whatever you're spewing out of my eye.

oook

i try to approach ilxspeak the same way as i would a conversation in a bar. It's cool to get heated if you're among friends or even to crash another conversation if you have something pertinent to say but when you start randomly screaming obscenities or being hateful or stupid or start spilling beers on people that's when you get 86'd/51'd

btw i've never heard you describe the circumstances of dom's ban in this way before, i probably wouldn't have made as much noise about how an indefinite ban is unreasonable if i didn't have the impression he just said something rude and personal to you in an e-mail.

I thought I had said this before but I just went back and looked and I hadn't. That is obviously my fault. Dom's treatment of other posters on the boards also factored into the decision; probably a decision was made to only communicate that side of things to the public at large but I honestly don't remember.

Tuomas before I say anything here I need to be clear on how you feel about the suggest ban system

hey there!!

sucked back in by meta

there are a lot of things I can resist in this world but explaining the moral imperative of suggest ban to Tuomas is not one of them

i recall hearing abt the legal aspect of doms bann - ircc the guy other guy was being somewhat unreasonable - obs not that dom wasnt too - tho tbh i dont really remember too clearly and im sure i never had all the infos - would be curious to hear details

:D aerosmith!

sucked back in by meta

― zvookster, Tuesday, February 8, 2011 12:08 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

http://www.fullcardreports.com/images208/SilvioDante.jpg

to be honest people who share my love of SB lols should rush to SB me before I can really get going on this subject...51'd while speaking in defense of 51-ing would be like the purple heart of suggest ban

Do you need someone to explain what happened to you, or do you pretty much understand what's going on?

Perhaps he should print this entire thread and read it in a large leather chair while smoking a pipe.

the only thing I need to know is that my colleague Tuomas still labors in the endless darkness of opposition to SB, and I feel that I am the man best equipped to liberate him from illusion on this question - for example, he writes:

But my point exactly was that a majority decision is more objective.

but here, see: yes, one majority, the one Tuomas proposes, would be a majority of active posters on the board. but the majority Tuomas chooses to ignore is the % of the 51 who clicked, which is 100. One hundred percent! That's not just a majority, it's an overwhelming majority. That can't really be offset by the proposed competing majority, which is a lot messier. 51 out of 51 is not just democracy, it's the most successful experiment in democracy anybody can recall. I honestly don't see how anybody can argue with this

Remove Bookmark from this Thread

51 out of 51 is not just democracy, it's the most successful experiment in democracy anybody can recall. I honestly don't see how anybody can argue with this

I'm not terribly passionate on the subject but it would be easy to argue that this could be abused as a kind of tyranny. An organized coterie of 51 sb ninjas could, drunk on their own power, ban anybody they pleased regardless of the poster's popularity or innocuousness to the board as a whole.

http://www.motivatorscompanyblog.com/image.axd?picture=Mannequin+on+the+LIE.jpg

right, I get that, and I see how it would be a drag, but at the same time, I don't see how anybody can argue that it's unfair or undemocratic, since it requires not just simple majority but unanimity: if you're against that, and yet you're invoking ideas of fairness and majorities and so on, I'm unclear as to how you don't see the essential disconnect

I just realized I already work on a sort of killfile system; if I don't like someone in a thread or don't care for a derail or ven just a convo that bores me, I skip it. If it takes over the thread, I go elsewhere. If ILX is dull, I go somewhere else.

I can see the need for banning certain ppl, but I'm inclined to think the threshold should be somewhat high, not only because of a certain decent regard for diverse ways of thinking and expressing oneself and a respect for circumspection above passion, but also because a certain person can be banned for misbehavior on one thread on one board only for his correspondents on another thread on another board to be completely in the dark as to why he's suddenly gone and to feel that thread impoverished for it. Maybe 51 is high enough wrt the average traffic on the board. I have no idea.

I'm so incredibly happy aerosmith resurfaced to take down Tuomas' No-SB crusade. Its like Superman returning to fight Zod.

On second thought, Tuomas is more like Nuclear Man...

ilx would be a total site of free play where the line btw author and utterance would be oblitarated

we would all be each others' socks, it would be so amazing.

― goole, Monday, 7 February 2011 17:26 (Yesterday)

there should be at least one board where this is possible

― ice cr?m, Monday, 7 February 2011 17:28 (Yesterday)

http://www.yourworldoftext.com/77

a) I completely forgot about that
b) I can't believe it still exists

Also, I don't care but are ppl going to yell at you because that was from a 77 thread?

yelling is undemocratic, they should simply ban

ha!

WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING?

i recall hearing abt the legal aspect of doms bann - ircc the guy other guy was being somewhat unreasonable - obs not that dom wasnt too - tho tbh i dont really remember too clearly and im sure i never had all the infos - would be curious to hear details

― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 18:09 (2 hours ago)

The incident you're thinking of is the one he (briefly) boasted about on 77, some lamer political bloggers. There was some kind of legal threat from these guys, I forget the specifics. They asked to have some post that dom had made removed, and even though I thought they were assholes, their request was quite reasonable, so I removed it. I fired him an email asking him to keep this off ilxor, which he did, although he later claimed I'd sent him a strongarm email about the matter, which I hadn't.

There was another incident, much more serious. His habit of constantly making out that this or that person is racist, antisemitic, homophobic etc, always based on the most specious school debating society logic came very close to getting us in serious legal trouble with a british publication, one of who's writers he slandered as...errrr....actually I can't even remember, one of the above anyway. There may be other incidents that I do not know about. I will note that under one of his sockpuppet attempts at reregistering, he posted that IIRC some major grime act was antisemitic, based on evidence that was questionable at best.

This isn't why dom got banned - he got banned for being a consistently poisonous, backbiting bitchy asshole on the boards. This is why he isn't welcome here anymore though.

NEW SUGGESTION

for every new SB, ilx has to let back one of its permanently banned posters. like in the bible

I just realized I already work on a sort of killfile system; if I don't like someone in a thread or don't care for a derail or ven just a convo that bores me, I skip it. If it takes over the thread, I go elsewhere. If ILX is dull, I go somewhere else.

this is the kind of thing that was endlessly hashed out back in the day, but it's always posters who've never actually been singled out or targeted or creeped on who say this.

so wait did the Dom getting some paper mad about things he posted on ilx happen before he was banned, at the same time, or while he was under a tempban that became permanent because of that?

yes.

Dom did not "get some paper mad about things he posted on ilx", he knowingly posted a libelous statement about a notable UK journalist.

It was made known to us after he got banned.

i have no idea why ilx would be liable for that but i mean w/e its not like im tryna get him unbanned

because uk libel laws are nuts