Why is it? In that thread StreetlightX insults several people, calling them stupid, fuck wits and such. Is that okay?

Clear case of one rule for mods and another for others - who’ve, as you noticed, been purposefully aggravated by the person who banned them (that is trolling).

Note: The irony is the thread is about provocation and people in positions of power violating that power. The person so emotional vocal about the situation - including comments relating to burning everything down - is so egotistical they cannot see how vile what they say and how they act on this forum is in relation to the problems faced in US culture.

Anyway, if that is how things are here I’m going to leave as I have before. I don’t believe in people banning others on personal whims, but if that is how things are here (the second occasion this has happened and the reason I went away last time) I’ll just talk with my feet.

Hello reddit :)

I'm sure @StreetlightX can speak for himself, but just to point out how clear it is to an outsider, Chester was banned for

being a low quality poster — StreetlightX

...not just for using insulting or derogatory terms. His posts were consistently nothing but unsourced speculation which told us nothing more than what he would like to be the case.

What matters is not the language we use to express our arguments, but the quality of them. Are they well-sourced? Are they thought through? Do they defer to experts or previous commentators with similar ideas?

To suggest that Streetlight's posts and Chester's are in any way the same just because they both have something of a brash turn of phrase is to completely miss the point.

As I think I might have mentioned before, I'd ban another score of posters for the same reason if I were a mod. Its a private discussion forum, not parliament.

I - nor any mod - don't simply ban people for insults or hostility alone. I would would be long gone were that the case. To be clear about the order of events, I warned Chester - in my capacity as a mod - that it was unacceptable to continue simply engaging in argument-by-label: 'leftists this; democrats that' and so on, when literally no one was even talking about that stuff. There was no question of addressing issues, only ever sticking a label on something, dragging discussion into wrangling about said labels. It was incredibly poor quality posting.

His expletive laden post was a response to that warning, and was effectively - as Un noted - suicide by mod. That'd probably be an auto-ban regardless of posting history. And as for the comparison of my posts with Cester's - it's a point beneath engagement. Sushi has had it out for me for a while now, and that's his problem to deal with.

Clear case of one rule for mods and another for others - . — I like sushi

It is. This is how they want to do it though. Vote with your feet.

I’ll just talk with my feet.

Hello reddit :) — I like sushi

:up:

Clear case of one rule for mods and another for others - .
— I like sushi

It is. This is how they want to do it though. Vote with your feet.

I’ll just talk with my feet.

Hello reddit :)
— I like sushi — frank

:up: :up:

To suggest that Streetlight's posts and Chester's are in any way the same just because they both have something of a brash turn of phrase is to completely miss the point. — Isaac

I'll second that. One can put up with a degree of rudeness if the philosophy is worth reading.

Personally, however, I would prefer a forum that was more strict about flames and rudeness, and that would require some moderation on the part of some moderators. But the mods are rude, and they don't ban just for rudeness. But when you get pulled up about low quality posts, and you respond with defiance, that has to get you banned whatever the language policy.

It would be a shame to lose good posters over this, but it doesn't look like hypocrisy to me at all. But even if it is not, it is worth considering that rudeness and aggression are off-putting and even intimidating to some people, and apart from those here who object, there may be others who lurk a while and retire without contributing because they find the atmosphere uncongenial. It wouldn't harm the philosophy to leave out the insults.

EMOTIONS: Each philosophy forum user is responsible for their own emotional experience of the forum. If you call me a nitwit and that causes me distress, the solution is for me to investigate why I've handed control of my mind over to some anonymous stranger on the Internet.

CONTENT: If the mods determine that a member is a consistently low quality contributor, the member can be limited to a section at the bottom of the forum called something like Purgatory. If the member raises their game, perhaps they can be given another chance. Every so often Purgatory can be purged of all posts and members.

brash turn of phrase — Isaac

I'd call this romanticizing rudeness. As soon as expletives and insults make an appearance reasonable discussion has ended and a reasonable party would abandon the conversation.

Why is it? In that thread StreetlightX insults several people, calling them stupid, fuck wits and such. Is that okay?

Clear case of one rule for mods and another for others — I like sushi

Low quality posts mean that you have no substance of relevance in the discussion at hand. If you call someone stupid or fuck wits while still providing a relevant argument and maybe even examples of why they are fuck wits, you have no real reason to be banned. Some people are really deserving of being called idiots and fuck wits, especially if they write propaganda and stuff that have no philosophical relevance whatsoever. Pushing ideological agendas for example, with no interest in a deep dive of those ideologies means that the only approach anyone can take against them is to call them fuck wits and idiots, since there's no room for discussion with such people.

So, there are no different rules for mods compared to others.

It's fair enough to complain. We mods get blind to our faults sometimes and can end up acting unfairly and intemperately. It's good to remind us when we do and keep us honest. As for @Chester, even if he had never flamed, he would have been banned. I also warned him for low quality (not flaming, which is well tolerated in the political discussions as you may have noticed). So, he was given a couple of warnings for low quality, ignored them, and got banned.

As soon as expletives and insults make an appearance reasonable discussion has ended and a reasonable party would abandon the conversation.

Unless we then investigate 1) why we are slinging insults, and 2) why we are offended by them.

Reasonable parties might use the occasion to change the topic to such issues, which are typically more useful areas of inquiry than whatever fancy philosophy we might have been previously discussing.

Vote with your feet. — frank

The gesture would seem much nobler if the high principled would at least wait for someone a bit better than Chester to be banned. Shouldn't have to wait long.

Why is it? In that thread StreetlightX insults several people, calling them stupid, fuck wits and such. Is that okay? — I like sushi

No. Reminding people, even mods and admins, of the present rules usually works.

This is a philosophy forum so people are indeed logical when following the rules.

I take the point that I get a bit sweary. I endeavour to couch my insults in higher degrees of innuendo and metaphor, with only the occasional direct one thrown in every now and then at select individuals.

The gesture would seem much nobler if the high principled would at least wait for someone a bit better than Chester to be banned. Shouldn't have to wait long. — praxis

It isn't about Chester, it's about the modding. He was baited. The warning for excessive use of labels was ridiculously out of place considering all the labels that had already been thrown around, including and especially by the mods. It was an obvious abuse of power. Chester knew it... and flipped. Yes that's poor impulse controle on his part and he should be banned for that... but that's not the point. The point is that it's probably not a good idea to have mods baiting people into suicide by mod.

Not sure about logic, but the secret to getting us to do what you want is just to complain about us publically. We hate that and will probably give in to make you stop.

(not flaming, which is well tolerated in the political discussions as you may have noticed). — Baden

I take the point that I get a bit sweary. I endeavour to couch my insults in higher degrees of innuendo and metaphor, with only the occasional direct one thrown in every now and then at select individuals. — StreetlightX

Whether there are distinctions in rank between moderators is more than I know. But the point here is that some things are tolerated, and at that not generally. So, Streetlight, dearest, is it your aspiration to be tolerated? And to test the limits of civil discourse to be reaffirmed in that toleration? There's no need to live in the pigpen, and certainly not gracious to be piggy-in-the-parlor. It's unnecessary, ungracious, and ignorant - maybe a little pathological. We don't take you for ignorant; are you claiming the rest?

The point is that it's probably not a good idea to have mods baiting people into suicide by mod. — ChatteringMonkey

A case for that can't be made, assuming the baiting posts involved were in the systematic racism topic. What am I missing?

Honestly, @Chester didn't need baiting. He was politically, ethnically, and personally insulting anyone who disagreed with him from day one. And all that got him was a warning for low quality until he jumped the shark. Hardly unfair.

I thought this was in poor taste as a response to my saying I had the virus.

↪unenlightened Lol, you're not too bright are you old fella! You're at higher risk because over half of deaths involve people over 80 and alcoholism can be seen as a chronic disease . Have you noticed that many people over 80 are already in a poor state of health, often due to over drinking? — Chester

And not just for being factually wrong about my risk factors. I had just called him a tosser, mind, so I didn't complain at the time.

Baden, probably true... it just seemed like the warning was out of place in a thread where everything seemed to be allowed. Now, I don't know what you actually already moderated out it of it, or what your history is with Chester, so maybe I don't have the full picture.

A case for that can't be made, assuming the baiting posts involved were in the systematic racism topic. What am I missing? — praxis

I think the warning pushed his buttons... not that he needed a lot of pushing probably, but still it seemed out of place to me in a thread that was not moderated at all it seems.

It wouldn't harm the philosophy to leave out the insults. — unenlightened

Yeah, I agree, and insult can come in the form of more than just foul language.

I tend to draw a distinction though, between philosophy and rhetoric. It's not always clear, in the more political threads, whether the imperative is to be collaborative or persuasive or just declarative and all three have their place from time-to-time. I find it bizarre (aside from just offensive) to find people using insulting language when we're talking about, say, constructivist or non-constructivist views of infinity, but I find it neither offensive nor strange to encounter strong language when we're supposed to be talking about a man who's just been murdered by his own community's police, and people want to discuss some broken windows. To everything there is a season...

Unless posts were deleted or are located somewhere else I don't see the baiting.

Clear case of one rule for mods and another for others - .
— I like sushi

It is. This is how they want to do it though. Vote with your feet.

I’ll just talk with my feet.

Hello reddit :)
— I like sushi

:up: — frank

This is a public gesture, Frank. You don't say anything about taking a break for reasons not directly related. Lie to yourself all you want. I don't like being lied to.

Well as gestures go its a pretty pathetic and meaningless one isn't it?

Geez

If it were I wouldn’t have mentioned it.

Baitin' trolls is not only fair game but hygienic triage. FTG. I applaud the mods for their restraint. A bouncer-bartender for almost a decade back in the crack'd '80s, I'm now temperamentally too trigger-happy for the mod job, so I welcome it especially when it's undertaken ... judiciously. When rodeo clowin' these trolltards ain't workin', name 'em & shame 'em & fuck 'em for hoggin' bandwidth and wasting everyone's time. 2 bits cashed :point: (back to 'the symposium' :party:) ...

Not sure about logic, but the secret to getting us to do what you want is just to complain about us publically. We hate that and will probably give in to make you stop. — Baden

The logic is that there are the site guidelines and people have to follow them. And I do presume when the admin bans someone he or she will look if these guidelines have been breached or not.

The simple fact is that a site left without moderation will sink very quickly to a very low level. Sounds bad, but that's the truth.

Of course, it goes without saying that not only do we consider the guidelines, we consult each other in most cases. Even with @Chester, I made a suggestion in the mod forum after he ignored my warning that someone else look at whether he merited keeping on. He didn't. But I didn't want to take a unilateral decision to ban him. Thing is, we know bans need to be justified, so we're not going to stick our necks out on them unless we're either super sure or we get a second and, in some cases, third opinion.

Of course, it goes without saying that not only do we look at the guidelines, we consult each other in most cases. Even with Chester, I made a suggestion in the mod forum after he ignored my warning that someone else look at whether he merited keeping on. He didn't. But I didn't want to take a unilateral decision to ban him. Thing is, we know bans need to be justified, so we're not going to stick our necks out on them unless we're either super sure or we get a second and, in some cases, third opinion. — Baden

I'd also point out that we typically act with unanimity, coming up with a solution that everyone is agreeable with, so it's not like we divide up into groups with one faction wanting one thing and another objecting. A single objector would typically sideline a banning for at least a while, and I really can't recall an instance where someone with a passionate position not to ban has been over-ruled. I say this just to let everyone know that by the time a banning has been decided, we've run out of other ideas.