First off: Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond Kitsune.
Now on to this bit of the post you addressed to me. I would lie if i wouldn't say that this didnt disappoint me a little bit. The way i see it, is that multiple people jump on your opinion. Myself, i have told before that we should welcome people with views that contrarian to our own. In that sense, its why i say i find it a bit disappointing that my post, which you percieved as
feigned civility, was not worthy of answer. I ponder, why were the others worthy then, when they would fall under the
usual name-calling, zero-effort posts? I don't know you, so i went by with good faith and addressing your comment thoroughly. To then not answer to that by way of
''I didn't think that anything in particular warranted a response from me'' is in that sense a bit uncalled for.
There is a reason why i use my own terminology instead of using direct names, the predominant reason being to distinguish these users from the rest of ERA, amongwhich are fine people. And no, that implies nothing else.
As for the secret agenda: I literally yesterday just posted a clear cut case where this is the case, where a rare ban reversal was performed. You can't honestly tell me you looked at that and thought that this is not
user-protection. Especially when its around a user who baits the living daylights out of others to get people banned. Even if you would find that theory
conspiracy-like, then ill just hover some facts.
This is just one user. I can highlight you another one who is subject to these same two variables, and more even. Please, can you tell me why this is a conspiracy theory, when data suggests otherwise? If i really would go into conspiracy theory, i would throw some wildly odd stories around - Which is why i don't do that. These conclusions are made by own review, by looking at both sides of the coin, and by looking for more context before arriving at said conclusion. If the above example is a conspiracy theory, then why is there verifiable data? Why is it documented? Why do you think the comparisons with OldGAF get made, if all of it is
just a conspiracy theory?
Just because the staff is different does not mean that
The Names operate on a very
similar playbook as some of OldGAF's moderation. I don't think that needs further emphasis, but if you want, ill provide. You speak of
transparent moderation. In a way i agree, some of the things that happen there are very transparent indeed. But is it really transparent when every concern has to be addressed
privately and word goes out that this is completely ineffective and the real issues aren't addressed? If you think this was not a problem, then why does that word go out? And why do you think
The Names close these threads instantly? (I can source this if you want to.)
Alright, can you explain
this ban? This one got a
permanent ban for
''User Banned (Permanent): Repeated arguing in bad faith, antagonising other members, long history of infractions.''. This is what the user said:
If that is arguing in bad faith,
then why is this post saying very similar things, but without the line
''Are you just daft?'' not an offense? Hey look, its also by that user i just linked to who got verifiable protection.
But right, lets just zoom out a little bit more and look at the
prior posts of the banned user, for
context. After all, i would want to know why that particular post was worth a permban. Perhaps the user said something that was uncalled for?
The user
starts replying to another user's reply. The other responds in a rather aggressive manner. The first user then addresses this with
''Are you just daft?'' which got him permbanned. Before this happened,
the user calls it quits because clearly, not a normal discussion was to be had, and even agrees with the other poster who said something very similar to his.
So, what does this tell me?
- Do these posts correlate to the accusation ''Repeated arguing in bad faith''? I don't think that's the case here.
- Do these posts correlate to the accusation ''Antagonizing other members''? Is calling someone daft (Which really is just one of the more friendlier ways to describe someone) that provocative? Especially in relation to the The Little Helper who got ban reversed before.
- Does this user have such a long history of infractions? This reason is consistently given, to the point where you can ask yourself if it is true, as these days you can verify that with the banbot. Prior to this, this user served a one month ban, with the reasoning: ''Member has been banned (1 month): thread derail + thread whining. You do not get to dictate what people from the US should care about - especially when it comes to a US TV show. History of multiple warnings and bans.'' - Notice how again it references the history bit. Tell me, does that post justify a month ban? Now, we can only assume this user has had prior warnings that aren't covered by the banbot yet, so we just have to assume this out of good faith.
To me, it reads that he got the perm for the ''
Are you just daft?'' line. Tell me, is that line really that much over the line to justify such a heavy tool like a permban, given the (verifiable) history of this user? It suggests that the ban history of users is playing a big part in how users are
actioned. And whilst this isn't absolutely a bad thing, it makes little sense to serve a perm over
that post, with
this prior history and with a rather big difference in timeframe (Two months). By comparison, one ex-mod had a
day ban, then did a self requested ban for a week, (This isn't covered by the bot)
then barely 2 days later got banned again a week, then changed her name, and
got a 2 week ban. This user does not get warnings apparently. Now is
on a month ban. Sure, this user gets banned, but even here,
protection is at play, and who else is allowed a name change to start
anew?
It was born out of an ERA user who
did come by to criticize my words.
In return, i replied with a rather extensive post, to which said user never has replied to. This is the part i find problematic: These users have strong opinions over others or even sites in general (Much like how it happens here) but they never
source their statements and, when addressed, simply refuse to take part in the discussion.
Is it obsessive? Well, ill have to agree with you. Its why i am slowly backing out of these things. I only cover what interests me, and per my own words,
have opinionated on other places aswell. But alas, i agree that the other place is pre-dominant here. Be as it may for various reasonings. It also serves as a place to vent, a place to welcome differing opinions such as yours (And yes, i am well aware that it is
disagreed upon but it is
allowed to be voiced, which is yet another thing you won't easily see happening elsewhere) and i welcome these posters back. And, yes, i agree that eventually, this thread (For me atleast) will be enough. I can't speak for others, ofcourse.
Again, the original
story was a rebuttal to a user that actually came here to make a post. And if you would post these detailed comments over there, what do you think will happen with the current list of
The Names and The Little Helpers? Its partially also
why this thread exists aswell - Because such
analytic commentary is allowed here.
