Fair ban? Re: @motel rooms

[YourNeighbor]

So, @motel rooms was recently banned. Not bringing this up as a popularity issue. Most of us here are probably not too likeable, let's be honest. That's not the point. Arbitrary use of banning authority, if that's what happened, may be another issue.

Does anyone see anything in his last 10 posts that is ban-worthy? I personally don't think so. What do you think?

 

[Al Cappella]

I tend to agree. Nothing I saw in those posts to FC read as offensive, or harassing to me. Now if he was into her dms, that's a different story, and there's a lot we don't know. But in terms of those threads, no.

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about the whole thing, it's a bad vibe. I'm not really interested in talking about another member a) it's not kosher, b) there is stuff going on with everyone here that they struggle with, including me.

What does piss me off, is the high school BS that's peppered through the suicide discussion side of things, meant to otherise anyone not in agreement with its dominant culture. I get people are in pain, but resorting to labeling folks "prolife" because they've asked a few questions, or suggested that wanting to stay alive is not delusional—that's ignorant, weak, and starts to stink of occultism.

The fact remains we can all get triggered here, and—unlike a proper therapeutic environment—there's no one to gently guide the fires. That's a problem. Should MR have let it go? Yes. He was never going to be able to get concession or acknowledgement. When you run into someone who globalises and avoids accountability to that extent, you've just got to let it be and move on. I dunno. Maybe HR was ready to move on, and this was the hill to serve as his blasting pad.

But in terms of the site, the optics aren't good…

 

[Fragile]

This is a ban that I definitely disagree with. I obviously have no access to his DMs, and I'm sure that the mods had their reasons. But there's nothing that indicates that he is this master manipulator that some delusional people claim he is. Those who attacked him are still around parading about being empathetic and what not, or pretending that their views are unquestionable.

Looks like the ignore button is broken for some people, apparently they don't know that they can use it to not interact with people they disagree with, or people who "harass" them.

It's funny, many people claim that this is the freest place on the internet, but I find that this is the place where I bite my tongue the most, by far. But I'll have to keep it that way until I leave.

Regardless, MR will be missed.

 

[Mixo]

This is a ban that I definitely disagree with. I obviously have no access to his DMs, and I'm sure that the mods had their reasons. But there's nothing that indicates that he is this master manipulator that some delusional people claim he is. Those who attacked him are still around parading about being empathetic and what not, or pretending that their views are unquestionable.

Looks like the ignore button is broken for some people, apparently they don't know that they can use it to not interact with people they disagree with, or people who "harass" them.

It's funny, many people claim that this is the freest place on the internet, but I find that this is the place where I bite my tongue the most, by far. But I'll have to keep it that way until I leave.

Regardless, MR will be missed.

So, who exactly is "parading around and talking about empathy and whatnot"? I'd be interested to know. If your objective with this comment was to cite me, among others, as "delusional" for viewing Motel's behaviour as harassment then let me assure you, you are deeply misinformed. The DMs would probably change your mind. Also, re: "some people don't use ignore" there's no "ignore" on your DMs that wouldn't wall off the majority of SS users from DMing you.

 

[Chinaski]

Regardless of my opinion on the individual he was a serial dm harrasser (evidenced elsewhere), would slander other users in poisonous dms (l have a screenshot of him telling people I'd called people "retards", a word I've never used on here or irl) , begin threads with the motivation of engineering forum-wide bad-feeling towards users he had personal beef with, has placed venomously abusive messages (now deleted sadly) on a profile page just for the heinous offence of someone faving a post, derailed at least one thread to hurl abuse at the op due to another personal beef (again evidenced elsewhere in another post) listed a collection of dsm diagnosis of a user he didn't like from behind the old two way block where this user could not see and utilise a right to reply (one of the very few times I've reported a post and it was again deleted as a result, l know a screenshot exists somewhere because it was posted afterwards and then deleted), and slagged users off regularly where he thinks they can't see (cba to find links now but l will if l have to).

I made clear l didn't like him, and there were reasons for it. Idgaf if he returns or not, but l am definitely not inclined to go out to bat for this person tbqh.

So, who exactly is "parading around and talking about empathy and whatnot"? I'd be interested to know. If your objective with this comment was to cite me, among others, as "delusional" for viewing Motel's behaviour as harassment then let me assure you, you are deeply misinformed. The DMs would probably change your mind. Also, re: "some people don't use ignore" there's no "ignore" on your DMs that wouldn't wall off the majority of SS users from DMing you.

You don't owe this person anything, there's actually a thread where he's told directly to stop with dm aggro after fifteen minutes of it and he's like REPORT IT IF U DON'T LIKE IT. I would also posit that having "please don't dm me" as your sig while spamming people with aggressive dms is fairly manipulative tbh.

 

[newave3]

In regards to MR, love him or hate him, at least he was never boring.

 

[YourNeighbor]

Regardless of my opinion on the individual he was a serial dm harrasser (evidenced elsewhere), would slander other users in poisonous dms (l have a screenshot of him telling people I'd called people "retards", a word I've never used on here or irl) , begin threads with the motivation of engineering forum-wide bad-feeling towards users he had personal beef with, has placed venomously abusive messages (now deleted sadly) on a profile page just for the heinous offence of someone faving a post, derailed at least one thread to hurl abuse at the op due to another personal beef (again evidenced elsewhere in another post) listed a collection of dsm diagnosis of a user he didn't like from behind the old two way block where this user could not see and utilise a right to reply (one of the very few times I've reported a post and it was again deleted as a result, l know a screenshot exists somewhere because it was posted afterwards and then deleted), and slagged users off regularly where he thinks they can't see (cba to find links now but l will if l have to).

I made clear l didn't like him, and there were reasons for it. Idgaf if he returns or not, but l am definitely not inclined to go out to bat for this person tbqh.

Fair enough I suppose. I'm very blissfully ignorant of the apparent drama that plays out behind the scenes of this place. The idea of DMing anyone for almost any reason here strikes me as a bit bizarre. Frankly, I'm ignorant of much of the drama that plays out in the open too. I really can't say much about his harassment via DMs, etc., it sucks that any of that was allowed if it was.

But the timing of the ban struck me as triggered by a handful of his responses on a thread that were perhaps not overly deferential to a certain member, but were also not vile or all that offensive. Perhaps there were some contemporaneous DMs the user was send to the OP, perhaps not. But I'm not sure I'd give the ban the benefit of rhe doubt, given what else passes through the censors (the latest gem of a thread, basically whether transexuals are real and have a right to exist) and how bans have been handed out in the past.

I also suspect that @motel rooms, fwiw, probably relied on this site more than most. Hope I'm wrong on that one at least.

 

[Niko66]

I am really not up to date with all that went on before I joined, or really anything before the past few weeks in which I've been more active here so that's that, but I certainly disagree on the stuff that made it happen finally in that last thread. Though I hardly care to criticize the moderating team in this place, considering their situations I think they already take on more than can be asked for and I think MR probably knew he was likely to get banned there... so about that I can't say I care to comment much, he was disruptive and drew a lot of attention for better or worse, it was bound to happen.

But I do find the whole issue aside of that a bit absurd. Someone presenting themselves as the victim-embodiment of goodness while displaying rather easy to miss behaviours of someone self absorbed and ironically self enamored, unwilling to truly consider others despite the virtues they tout, I can't take another one of those rehashed comments on every thread seriously again after seeing the whole thing unfold, I think someone empathethic could easily have put that whole thing to rest with a basic show of actual kindness (agreeing with people you already agree with and using every thread to reinforce your own life views is hardly it), I am more annoyed by the hypocrisy displayed than anything else. It really came down to one person unwilling to acknowledge their own words and another unwilling to let the issue go.

It was a far cry from the black and white fairy tale it's being painted as.

 

[Riddle]

It's funny, many people claim that this is the freest place on the internet, but I find that this is the place where I bite my tongue the most, by far. But I'll have to keep it that way until I leave.

I have no stake in this thread but I think it is important to remember this community is made up of almost exclusively vulnerable people on the edge. We should be mindful of that when communicating with others and when that fails the mods have the difficult job to protect users from hurtful comments or harassment from other users. I don't think anybody should expect this to be the "freest place on the internet"

 

[Chinaski]

Fair enough I suppose. I'm very blissfully ignorant of the apparent drama that plays out behind the scenes of this place. Frankly, I'm ignorant of much of the drama that plays out in the open. And I can't say much about his harassment via DMs, etc.

But the timing of the ban struck me as triggered by a handful of his responses on a thread that were perhaps not overly deferential to a certain member, but were also not vile or all that offensive. Perhaps there were some contemporaneous DMs the user was send to the OP, perhaps not. But I'm not sure I'd give the ban the benefit of rhe doubt, given what else passes through the censors (the latest gem of a thread, basically whether transexuals are real and have a right to exist) and how bans have been handed out in the past.

I also suspect that @motel rooms, fwiw, probably relied on this site more than most. Hope I'm wrong on that one at least.

I agree with the first part of the second paragraph. He's offered to rub shit and vomit in my face at one point and gotten a pass on that, so yeah, but it doesn't change my initial position.

 

[OceanBlue]

Fairest of the fair. You don't see these posts bc the mods routinely wiped them.

Big thanks to Symbiote for finally seeing the big picture of what he was doing. He nearly got me too, so be careful with that kind of manipulative people.

 

[YourNeighbor]

I agree with the first part of the second paragraph. He's offered to rub shit and vomit in my face at one point and gotten a pass on that, so yeah, but it doesn't change my initial position.

That's absolutely vile. That kind of also calls into question this ban even more.

 

[Chinaski]

That's absolutely vile. That kind of also calls into question this ban even more.

Tbf we were in the middle of a set-to which got heated and apparently caused him to vomit on himself, idk, it didn't bother me particularly.

 

[Feeding Pigeons]

I have no stake in this thread but I think it is important to remember this community is made up of almost exclusively vulnerable people on the edge. We should be mindful of that when communicating with others and when that fails the mods have the difficult job to protect users from hurtful comments or harassment from other users. I don't think anybody should expect this to be the "freest place on the internet"

Absolutely right, but that cuts both ways. People should be protected, and people should be forgiven for stupid mistakes. Are there any other places to discuss the things we talk about on this forum? I don't think so. I think that makes banning someone permanently a very serious decision.

What does piss me off, is the high school BS that's peppered through the suicide discussion side of things, meant to otherise anyone not in agreement with its dominant culture. I get people are in pain, but resorting to labeling folks "prolife" because they've asked a few questions, or suggested that wanting to stay alive is not delusional—that's ignorant, weak, and starts to stink of occultism.

I've noticed this as well. There are a few hot button topics that people love to bring up, and it always ends poorly.

Tbf we were in the middle of a set-to which got heated and apparently caused him to vomit on himself, idk, it didn't bother me particularly.

Yeah cause you're a professional at dealing with shitflinging.

 

[Fragile]

So, who exactly is "parading around and talking about empathy and whatnot"? I'd be interested to know. If your objective with this comment was to cite me, among others, as "delusional" for viewing Motel's behaviour as harassment then let me assure you, you are deeply misinformed. The DMs would probably change your mind. Also, re: "some people don't use ignore" there's no "ignore" on your DMs that wouldn't wall off the majority of SS users from DMing you.

Indeed that's why I said that I have no access to his DMs. I'm just going by what I've seen in his comments which were met with a lot of the same dogpile behavior that's so common in here, there was quite a lot of animosity and provocation going towards him.

And, no, my comment was in no way directed at you or those who deem his behavior as a type of harassment. It's more about this image of a manipulative person that is so often weaponized by people who actually know how to be manipulative and get away with it. Many such cases.

Also, re: "some people don't use ignore" there's no "ignore" on your DMs that wouldn't wall off the majority of SS users from DMing you.

I think I'm not understanding what you are saying here. The ignore function doesn't work for DMs?

 

[MellowAvenue]

Absolutely right, but that cuts both ways. People should be protected, and people should be forgiven for stupid mistakes. Are there any other places to discuss the things we talk about on this forum? I don't think so. I think that makes banning someone permanently a very serious decision.

Not as tuned into the situation as others here but it does sound like the mods gave motel rooms A LOT of leeway and time to stop some of his more questionable behavior though. I don't think it was a decision they took lightly even if the timing may look suspect. A lot of other sites would have banned him over the alleged DM harassment a lot sooner assuming it was a recurring problem.

 

[Feeding Pigeons]

Not as tuned into the situation as others here but it does sound like the mods gave motel rooms A LOT of leeway and time to stop some of his more questionable behavior though. I don't think it was a decision they took lightly even if the timing may look suspect. A lot of other sites would have banned him over the alleged DM harassment a lot sooner assuming it was a recurring problem.

I agree with you. Let me state that I have no idea what was going on behind the scenes and the DMs and whatnot. I did not mean to imply that the decision was not taken seriously.

 

[Niko66]

I have no stake in this thread but I think it is important to remember this community is made up of almost exclusively vulnerable people on the edge. We should be mindful of that when communicating with others and when that fails the mods have the difficult job to protect users from hurtful comments or harassment from other users. I don't think anybody should expect this to be the "freest place on the internet"

Well I can at least whole heartedly agree with this. I think the reason why differing opinions shouldn't be presented harshly and apathetically is rather evident given the topic of the forum, they should be expressed with tact and understanding, even if you strongly disagree some etiquette is obviously ideal in a forum full of people bordering suicide, *especially* when you are bringing what can be taken as antagonizing.

Nonetheless that's not what I saw with him. Perhaps I am just missing the full picture, I know about 0 of the whole DM business, but what picture I got was not it. Things escalated through both parties, though it might not have been evident.

 

[Lullaby]

Please, just use the ignore function.

I like FC, and I also understand what MR was getting at, but you can't force anyone to see where you're coming. You can't force them to apologize to you, at some point you have to let it go.

There's people on here I don't agree with and so I put them on ignore, because I know it'll be to easy to get into an argument with someone. I know some view that as weak, but it's not. It helps you crate the environment you want.

This is a safe space for a lot of people, do not let anyone rile you up in any way. If you feel you can't resolve anything with someone, just put them on ignore and forget they even existed.

Some even feed off your frustrations and anger, it's just not worth it. No one is.

 

[Chinaski]

The ignore button does absolutely nothing when someone is harassing via, dm, spreading malicious rumours about a user, slagging users when they think they don't notice, pretty much all the conduct described in my earlier post is not aided by an ignore function.

I can't help but wonder wtf some of you are on if you think the answer to harassment etc is "the ignore button", it's not incumbent on the person harrassedto take responsibility, it's on the harrasser to stop behaving like that. I get that your fave has been banned but you're revealing a lot about yourselves with that attitude.

Yeah cause you're a professional at dealing with shitflinging.

Not really, l just thought he was bullshitting basically, l mean on the same day as he barged into a thread on buddhism to attack someone personally and had to again be told to please stop aggressively dming female users he started a separate thread about how uwu he loved this site, compassionate safe haven, hugs emoji, and enough people lined up to give him the cotton wool treatment. People who are defending him in the wake of what appeared to be the final straw are looking through the wrong prism imo, the problem here is that serial dm harrassers, malicious muckspreaders, manipulative cry bullies aren't dealt with quickly enough.

I think I'm not understanding what you are saying here. The ignore function doesn't work for DMs?

Are you seriously suggesting the responsibility for harassment lies with the person harrassed, who should simply allow harrassers to continue with their aggressive and objectionable conduct and ignore it?

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

Apparently he was given a bunch of warnings for a certain behaviors and didn't stop doing them. Guess that's about it.

 

[Weebster]

Ahhh I love good news.

 

[WorthlessTrash]

He may not have been banned specifically for that. May have been a matter of the straw that broke the camel's back if you will.

 

[Someone123]

I agree with the first part of the second paragraph. He's offered to rub shit and vomit in my face at one point and gotten a pass on that, so yeah, but it doesn't change my initial position.

Well the comment to you seems like enough to be banned. This was a person who made some intersting comments but who made a lot of comments that were sexual in threads that had nothing to do with this, that was not too good at all, in my opinion.

 

[Chinaski]

Well the comment to you seems like enough to be banned. This was a person who made some intersting comments but who made a lot of comments that were sexual in threads that had nothing to do with this, that was not too good at all, in my opinion.

Tbf it was the usual crap, I'm unbothered by it but do note that personal insults directed at me do not carry the same weight as those directed at other users. Anyway, dm harrassers who derail threads with personal insults, spam profiles with abuse and seek to manipulate other forum users with poisonous dms and malicious lies are not worth defending, fuck that guy imo.

 

[Nolan96]

He was reasonably kind to me at times when others were not, and I always found his input amusing, so I'm biased in his favor.

This was a person who made some intersting comments but who made a lot of comments that were sexual in threads that had nothing to do with this, that was not too good at all, in my opinion.

He had trauma-induced sex addiction problems and so far as I could tell never sexualized or made advances on other users who were uncomfortable with it. I think the last thing he'd want to do is make someone feel sexually victimized.

As for what happened recently, I don't think what he said publicly to Funeral Cry was quite ban-worthy although he should have let it go. Of course I haven't seen DMs.

 

[YourNeighbor]

He may not have been banned specifically for that. May have been a matter of the straw that broke the camel's back if you will.

My concern, and that of some others, is that there really were no straws in his most recent public comments to break the camel's back. (Conceding that if there were some new DMs, those haven't been made public). If his disagreement with a favored forum member's flippant tossing about of the "pro-life" label is enough to warrant a ban for prior behavior that did not result in a ban, it is difficult to escape the notion the ban was imposed because @motel rooms simply disagreed with someone on this site.

It's like putting someone in jail for a parking ticket because that person was accused of robbery in the past.

The user, it appears here, had a troubled history on this site. I suspect many of the heated exchanges he was in were going in both directions (I know some were, have seen them), but he may have gone too far on other occasions. Fine, sanction him them, for that behavior.

If the ban comes later and is really due to the content of his latest posts, that is crap. Regardless of how likeable or dislikeable he was. At a minimum, if the mods have a list of pet users whose comments cannot be disagreed with, they should make that list public so everyone can be guided by it. There should be some process, regardless of whether we all like or dislike whoever is being banned. And there has not been much transparency on the back end, aside from a generalized statement that all sorts of factors were taken into account (which again raises the question, why are those factors relevant now, all of a sudden).

No one has shared any recent comment by @motel rooms that is ban-worthy, or even all that offensive. There may be more to this story, but it hasn't been shared with the forum.

 

[WorthlessTrash]

My concern, and that of some others, is that there really were no straws in his most recent public comments to break the camel's back. (Conceding that if there were some new DMs, those haven't been made public). If his disagreement with a favored forum member's flippant tossing about of the "pro-life" label is enough to warrant a ban for prior behavior that did not result in a ban, it is difficult to escape the notion the ban was imposed because @motel rooms simply disagreed with someone on this site.

It's like putting someone in jail for a parking ticket because that person was accused of robbery in the past.

The user, it appears here, had a troubled history on this site. I suspect many of the heated exchanges he was in were going in both directions (I know some were, have seen them), but he may have gone too far on other occasions. Fine, sanction him them, for that behavior.

If the ban comes later and is really due to the content of his latest posts, that is crap. Regardless of how likeable or dislikeable he was. At a minimum, if the mods have a list of pet users whose comments cannot be disagreed with, they should make that list public so everyone can be guided by it. There should be some process, regardless of whether we all like or dislike whoever is being banned. And there has not been much transparency on the back end, aside from a generalized statement that all sorts of factors were taken into account (which again raises the question, why are those factors relevant now, all of a sudden).

No one has shared any recent comment by @motel rooms that is ban-worthy, or even all that offensive. There may be more to this story, but it hasn't been shared with the forum.

Well, if all of the previous offenses were severe, then the straw was definitely enough to break the camel's back. Only the moderators and people who have observed past events know how severe they are. Also, I'd more compare this to the 3 strikes law in the US. Where if you broke the law in a severe way too many times, you are prone to a mandatory life sentence.

Like the guy or not, Motel rooms did cross boundaries and as such, he took a risk doing whatever he did. Was it as severe on FC's thread as his other offenses? Perhaps not. In the end though, the moderators and the admins get the final say. Users get warnings. I got a warning recently myself and rightfully so. I am going to be careful not to instigate things and give the staff to ban me.

I don't like nor dislike Motel rooms as I have rarely interacted with him myself so I am neutral on this.

No one has shared any recent comment by @motel rooms that is ban-worthy, or even all that offensive. There may be more to this story, but it hasn't been shared with the forum.

I believe chinaski made note of his constant harassment in DMs in the past.

 

[Chinaski]

My concern, and that of some others, is that there really were no straws in his most recent public comments to break the camel's back. (Conceding that if there were some new DMs, those haven't been made public). If his disagreement with a favored forum member's flippant tossing about of the "pro-life" label is enough to warrant a ban for prior behavior that did not result in a ban, it is difficult to escape the notion the ban was imposed because @motel rooms simply disagreed with someone on this site.

It's like putting someone in jail for a parking ticket because that person was accused of robbery in the past.

The user, it appears here, had a troubled history on this site. I suspect many of the heated exchanges he was in were going in both directions (I know some were, have seen them), but he may have gone too far on other occasions. Fine, sanction him them, for that behavior.

If the ban comes later and is really due to the content of his latest posts, that is crap. Regardless of how likeable or dislikeable he was. At a minimum, if the mods have a list of pet users whose comments cannot be disagreed with, they should make that list public so everyone can be guided by it. There should be some process, regardless of whether we all like or dislike whoever is being banned. And there has not been much transparency on the back end, aside from a generalized statement that all sorts of factors were taken into account (which again raises the question, why are those factors relevant now, all of a sudden).

No one has shared any recent comment by @motel rooms that is ban-worthy, or even all that offensive. There may be more to this story, but it hasn't been shared with the forum.

Yeah it does have big "Al Capone Tax Evasion" energy and l fully agree that some members seemingly have an extra layer of protected status, I've alluded to this previously. The percentage points thing is arbitrary, mod decision making is not transparent, there is little communication between staff and members on housekeeping issues beyond wishy washy blanketed stuff like "free speech also don't invalidate", there is high tolerance for seriously offensive, bigoted output as we've previously discussed. The thing is, the lax moderation gave motel rooms more space, tacit encouragement even, which l doubt he'd be afforded otherwise. The below thread, which I've linked elsewhere, is absolutely warranting a ban. The criticisms of the moderation on this site are ones l can share, and in this instance motel rooms' ban can appear unfair at first glance, but frankly if you're going to send abusive PMs to members (and this was not an uncommon occurrence), you should expect to be banned, and l wonder why it wasn't done before now on that basis

Post in thread 'Buddha quotes on depression' https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/buddha-quotes-on-depression.89197/post-1583133

 

[YourNeighbor]

Yeah it does have big "Al Capone Tax Evasion" energy

Your points are well taken. The guy clearly had issues (why would he keep DMing someone who reported him "a million times?" as he described the situation). I guess my only point was that if he did banworthy stuff in the past, he should've been banned for that. Maybe suspended first if there is progressive discipline.

Love the Al Capone analogy, but heck, even Capone *did* evade taxes before being convicted for doing so. I've not seen anything egregious in MR's last comment series to warrant discipline, unless his sin was to disagree with an Untouchable (to get back to the Capone analogy).