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: 9111
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Simon Phearson on
-
No one was defending Vilda's use of the word "retard" or Vilda's subsequent goading of Michelle when Michelle called Vilda out on it.
The problem with Michelle's campaign was not its putative target or its ostensible motivation, but its method. Michelle responded (sometimes multiple times) to virtually every comment in which she could discern the slightest disagreement or irritation. She took offense at any suggestion that her technique wasn't going to convince Vilda to cease using the word, and she openly declared that she would make this place hell for anyone who refused to see things her way or condone her methods. Throughout, she made evidently clear by her actions that her campaign against "hate speech" and "slurs" was really about her, about what was said in her presence, and how she felt entitled both to cast all of us as moronic enablers of hate speech while also spending hours among us.
Vilda's actions were irresponsible, immature, and counterproductive. But Michelle's actions ground things to a halt. Removing Michelle, as we've by now been able to see, has quickly returned this community to its prior equilibrium. Vilda's continuing presence has shown no detrimental effect.
It's simply unfair to the members of this community, and wildly inaccurate, to portray Lee's banning of Michelle as establishing that the CL is a place where members will circle the wagons around bullies using "alienating language." If anything, we have just demonstrated our willingness to ban one such bully - which is exactly what Michelle was.
Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:
Well now we do know where we stand. We have established that we are an online community that will ban people who highlight the use of alienating language in order to protect people who bully them out of the community.
How do you feel about that.
Matt M. 18.5KM said:If we don't "push the limits" sometimes it's hard to know where we stand..... :-)
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on
-
Actually by not banning him for using the word 'retard' after she pointed out she found it offensive and goading her on The Chainlink is defending Gabes actions.
Simon Phearson said:No one was defending Vilda's use of the word "retard" or Vilda's subsequent goading of Michelle when Michelle called Vilda out on it.
The problem with Michelle's campaign was not its putative target or its ostensible motivation, but its method. Michelle responded (sometimes multiple times) to virtually every comment in which she could discern the slightest disagreement or irritation. She took offense at any suggestion that her technique wasn't going to convince Vilda to cease using the word, and she openly declared that she would make this place hell for anyone who refused to see things her way or condone her methods. Throughout, she made evidently clear by her actions that her campaign against "hate speech" and "slurs" was really about her, about what was said in her presence, and how she felt entitled both to cast all of us as moronic enablers of hate speech while also spending hours among us.
Vilda's actions were irresponsible, immature, and counterproductive. But Michelle's actions ground things to a halt. Removing Michelle, as we've by now been able to see, has quickly returned this community to its prior equilibrium. Vilda's continuing presence has shown no detrimental effect.
It's simply unfair to the members of this community, and wildly inaccurate, to portray Lee's banning of Michelle as establishing that the CL is a place where members will circle the wagons around bullies using "alienating language." If anything, we have just demonstrated our willingness to ban one such bully - which is exactly what Michelle was.
Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:
Well now we do know where we stand. We have established that we are an online community that will ban people who highlight the use of alienating language in order to protect people who bully them out of the community.
How do you feel about that.
Matt M. 18.5KM said:If we don't "push the limits" sometimes it's hard to know where we stand..... :-)
-
Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on
-
One side of this had the temerity to raise her concerns and mean it and not be pushed away by the immediate invective the mere suggestion will always, always provoke. The other side who responded with deliberate antagonism is: Just Fine.
The mod actions defended one over the other. Also there is literally no method of raising these concerns which won't go all shitshow and armchair quarterbacked after the fact.
Simon Phearson said:No one was defending Vilda's use of the word "retard" or Vilda's subsequent goading of Michelle when Michelle called Vilda out on it.
The problem with Michelle's campaign was not its putative target or its ostensible motivation, but its method. Michelle responded (sometimes multiple times) to virtually every comment in which she could discern the slightest disagreement or irritation.
-
-
Actually, it's not. If we're going to play the "insufficiently denouncing the actions of a person constitutes defending them" game, then anyone here casting Michelle's actions as merely calling out the use of inappropriate language is effectively "defending" the slash-and-burn approach she used.
Personally, I think it made perfect sense to ban Michelle but not Vilda. Their inappropriate actions were of two entirely different orders. Vilda's actions were childish and disruptive, but they did not bear the open malice for this community that Michelle repeatedly declaimed.
In terms of restoring the community's equilibrium, the moderators could have banned Michelle, Vilda, or both. If only Vilda were banned, Michelle would remain just to launch into another campaign if and when someone accidentally tripped her trigger - either by using the word "retard" or some other forbidden word, or by adopting some other unacceptable (in her view) attitude. It would again launch into a massive derail, the members of the CL would again futilely entreat her to channel her energies more productively, and again we would find the moderators invoked to do something about a poisonous exchange where Michelle features centrally. If both were banned, I suspect we would notice little difference from what we see now, with Vilda still a member. So banning Michelle and not Vilda strikes me as the minimal moderator action needed to restore order, and preferable for that reason - no "defense" of Vilda being needed or implied.
notoriousDUG said:Actually by not banning him for using the word 'retard' after she pointed out she found it offensive and goading her on The Chainlink is defending Gabes actions.
-
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on
-
For those who are defending Michelle's actions, do please realize that she turned around and wrote bozodawg immediately after her banning and gave him an exclusive interview.
Just sayin'
-
-
I don't fault Michelle for being outspoken or ardent. But when it became clear that Vilda was not going to be responsive to Michelle's criticism, it no longer was a matter of "raising concerns" or calling for them to be taken seriously. It instead became entirely about Michelle.
Again, no one disagreed with Michelle (save Vilda) that the word "retard" shouldn't be used in the way that Vilda used it. What that massive derail became was an argument over whether its use was so seriously harmful that the only acceptable approach to moderating its use was to ban it completely, through this site's moderation policy, and absent that, for Michelle to police its usage unilaterally, by derailing each and every thread in which it appears or its usage "accepted" (in her view), regardless of what other values or purposes such thread might serve.
So what Michelle was guilty of was not having the "temerity to raise her concerns," but of believing that she was alone entitled to dictate to this community how her concerns would be addressed and policed.
Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:One side of this had the temerity to raise her concerns and mean it and not be pushed away by the immediate invective the mere suggestion will always, always provoke. The other side who responded with deliberate antagonism is: Just Fine.
The mod actions defended one over the other. Also there is literally no method of raising these concerns which won't go all shitshow and armchair quarterbacked after the fact.
Simon Phearson said:No one was defending Vilda's use of the word "retard" or Vilda's subsequent goading of Michelle when Michelle called Vilda out on it.
The problem with Michelle's campaign was not its putative target or its ostensible motivation, but its method. Michelle responded (sometimes multiple times) to virtually every comment in which she could discern the slightest disagreement or irritation.
-
-
Yes - seeing his posts after he posted her endorsement, I have to wonder if she didn't come to regret her alignment.
Self-sealing Stembolt said:
For those who are defending Michelle's actions, do please realize that she turned around and wrote bozodawg immediately after her banning and gave him an exclusive interview.
Just sayin'
-
-
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.
Simon Phearson said:Actually, it's not. If we're going to play the "insufficiently denouncing the actions of a person constitutes defending them" game, then anyone here casting Michelle's actions as merely calling out the use of inappropriate language is effectively "defending" the slash-and-burn approach she used.
Personally, I think it made perfect sense to ban Michelle but not Vilda. Their inappropriate actions were of two entirely different orders. Vilda's actions were childish and disruptive, but they did not bear the open malice for this community that Michelle repeatedly declaimed.
In terms of restoring the community's equilibrium, the moderators could have banned Michelle, Vilda, or both. If only Vilda were banned, Michelle would remain just to launch into another campaign if and when someone accidentally tripped her trigger - either by using the word "retard" or some other forbidden word, or by adopting some other unacceptable (in her view) attitude. It would again launch into a massive derail, the members of the CL would again futilely entreat her to channel her energies more productively, and again we would find the moderators invoked to do something about a poisonous exchange where Michelle features centrally. If both were banned, I suspect we would notice little difference from what we see now, with Vilda still a member. So banning Michelle and not Vilda strikes me as the minimal moderator action needed to restore order, and preferable for that reason - no "defense" of Vilda being needed or implied.
notoriousDUG said:Actually by not banning him for using the word 'retard' after she pointed out she found it offensive and goading her on The Chainlink is defending Gabes actions.
-
-
If she is, in fact, a real person and not just another elaborate sock-pupped creation of his maybe.
Or maybe not, as she did say on numerous occasions that she wanted to bring this whole forum down if we didn't accede to her demands on how things here should must be run. So "burning down the house" would be exactly what her next move would be.
That is, if she is a real person.
-
-
Oh sorry did someone pull out the alex jones chalkboard
-
-
yes
-
-
Hhhhyup same shit as always. This'll go nicely alongside the insane graphs of associations a bunch of neckbeards are passing around to make Anita Sarkeesian's critiques of sexism in video games an elaborate conspiracy.
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
