So do we even have any form of moderation here?
So after the amazing shit show that was Gabe and Michelle crapping all over the message board here I think it is a good time to ask this question.
What happened here is ridiculous, two people were allowed to run wild like a couple of monkeys flinging shit everywhere. Regardless of who you want to see as wrong or right there the fact remains that they were allowed to carry on completely unchecked.
Why? Light moderation is one thing but why should two defective people be allowed to run wild like that? Especially when others have been kicked off for doing the same?
Didn’t we kick off Beezodog for hijacking threads and not letting an argument die?
Of course that leads to another thing; we have some loose rules but they never seem to be enforced, why?
So what is it, do we have an enforce rules or can people just do whatever they like? Because it mostly looks like people can just act however they want…
Views: 9114
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Simon Phearson on
-
The order I'm describing is one where moderator action is taken only in order to protect the community's functioning as an open forum in which people of diverse backgrounds can discuss whatever is of interest of them, primarily of a cycling-related nature.
Vilda's doxing of Michelle crossed a line, I felt, but that line ultimately is a matter of e-etiquette - a generally observed standard of behavior which respects the degrees to which we try to keep our real lives separate from our internet personae. Vilda's goading of Michelle was disruptive, but it was targeted at Michelle and not at the community more generally. It might make sense to "punish" Vilda, if "punishment" is what moderation is all about.
But if moderation is (or should be) just about maintaining a space in which participants can adjudicate conflicts on their own, then it's less clear what purpose banning Vilda would serve, while it's more clear how Michelle's actions were distinguishable.
Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:If it is her method, and not her content which is the problem, then what does it say that the methods of deliberately antagonizing someone and posting her pictures are considered just fine. What order are you maintaining.
-
Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on
-
Protecting the use of slurs and exiling people who have a problem with it, while sanctioning the doxxing of the people who raise those concerns, is in fact the opposite of maintaining an open forum for people of diverse backgrounds.
Simon Phearson said:The order I'm describing is one where moderator action is taken only in order to protect the community's functioning as an open forum in which people of diverse backgrounds can discuss whatever is of interest of them, primarily of a cycling-related nature.
-
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on
-
-
Dang dude is your skull literally shaped like a fedora
-
-
It's a good thing no one is doing that, then.
Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:Protecting the use of slurs and exiling people who have a problem with it, while sanctioning the doxxing of the people who raise those concerns, is in fact the opposite of maintaining an open forum for people of diverse backgrounds.
-
-
It's called noble-cause corruption.
Simon Phearson said:It's a good thing no one is doing that, then.
Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:Protecting the use of slurs and exiling people who have a problem with it, while sanctioning the doxxing of the people who raise those concerns, is in fact the opposite of maintaining an open forum for people of diverse backgrounds.
-
-
Except you are, because you kicked out the person complaining about it and kept the person who doxxed her for it.
This is conveying clearly what behavior is regarded as appropriate vs what is inappropriate.
Simon Phearson said:It's a good thing no one is doing that, then.
Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:Protecting the use of slurs and exiling people who have a problem with it, while sanctioning the doxxing of the people who raise those concerns, is in fact the opposite of maintaining an open forum for people of diverse backgrounds.
-
-
Since this exchange is clearly going nowhere, I'm going to stop engaging you. You can repeat yourself ad nauseam in responses to others. Perhaps while you're at it, you can threaten to derail the community until moderator policy matches your preference.
Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:Except you are, because you kicked out the person complaining about it and kept the person who doxxed her for it.
This is conveying clearly what behavior is regarded as appropriate vs what is inappropriate.
Simon Phearson said:It's a good thing no one is doing that, then.
Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:Protecting the use of slurs and exiling people who have a problem with it, while sanctioning the doxxing of the people who raise those concerns, is in fact the opposite of maintaining an open forum for people of diverse backgrounds.
-
-
So we can see the threshold of incorrect method of engagement is "continuing to disagree with you."
Gettin' doxxed without consequence kinda justifies her regard for the forum to boot.
Simon Phearson said:Since this exchange is clearly going nowhere, I'm going to stop engaging you. You can repeat yourself ad nauseam in responses to others. Perhaps while you're at it, you can threaten to derail the community until moderator policy matches your preference.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Michael Ignacio on
-
Dang. Nice knowing ya, Peenworm. You must realize by now that expulsion is the next step. We can't have you bullying the rest of us and disrupting the precious 'equilibrium' of our smug little boys' club now, can we?
-
-
I mean it seems like it's already covered here but doowhutchyalike:
First and most important rule: IF you can’t be polite, don’t say it. We recognize that many topics will be controversial and the nature of a discussion or online posting is that people will bring to it their own opinions, ideas and background. The general idea is that you can disagree with someone without being disagreeable. The rules of debate help the site function better, and will help keep discussions from deteriorating into attacks. Focus your topics on cycling, and your comments on the topic and position, not on the people making them. This means no personal attacks, name calling, hate speech, aspersions about someone’s mother or background, comparisons to notorious dictators… you get the idea. Under no circumstance should a member post anything that might be considered threatening, harassing, bullying, obscene, pornographic, sexist or racist.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on
-
It amazes me that nobody has noticed that in all the defences and justifications of what went down pretty much everybody agrees that Gabe antagonized her and that doxxing her was crossing a line. In spite of that nobody seems able to make the connection that his behavior drive hers.
Didn't we all learn in like grade school that it. 'takes two to tango?'
I did not defend Michelle's behavior, I do not disagree that something had to be done about her. My issue is that he behaved as poorly if not worse and nothing happened to him.
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Wednesday Night for Mort…
1 member
-
Great Lakes Ultra Cycling
270 members
-
Major Taylor Internation…
1 member
-
Critical Mass discussion
261 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
