Fair ban? Re: @motel rooms

[Chinaski]

I'm assuming his warning level was such that he was already creeping towards the line, imo that thread wasn't ban-worthy in itself but he was *enjoying himself* a little too much. How the points are awarded, on what basis and how they potentially differ between staff is another issue, similarly the lack of staff input when he *was* acting in a bannable way, for example in the linked thread the mods were tagged in more than once (by him at one point, as he typically sought assistance in a flame war he had needlessly instigated whilst acknowledging his own dm conduct with indifference) would perhaps have been more helpful, moderation with a light touch is fair enough but sometimes an intervention is required, it's noticeable that there are staff interventions when incel output is challenged but not when a user publicly asks another to stop persistently dming so they can pick a fight without scrutiny.

All this could have been avoided if the conduct described earlier in this thread was appropriately dealt with in the first instance rather than his posts being simply deleted and his reputation laundered, tbh (this is why l don't report fwiw) - but then enough people in this thread seem to think such conduct and abusive dms are okay and harrassers should simply be allowed to continue on the forum, so l guess we've got the forum we deserve.

 

[WorthlessTrash]

All this could have been avoided if the conduct described earlier in this thread was appropriately dealt with in the first instance rather than his posts being simply deleted and his reputation laundered, tbh (this is why l don't report fwiw) - but then enough people in this thread seem to think such conduct and abusive dms are okay and harrassers should simply be allowed to continue on the forum, so l guess we've got the forum we deserve.

Who thinks that??

 

[whatevs]

I confirm that I witnessed some harassing from motel rooms directed to Mixolydian. From what I saw motel rooms, poor thing, had a pathetic need for validation from leftist radicals that would never tolerate some of his views.

Prior to that I also saw him going back and forth with Ch(in)aski, basically doing the same slimy routine of trying to get him to like him, so I believed what Mixolydian said about unwanted DMs.

Basically I dislike or are disliked by both of these users, which are part of the progressive brigade, and liked motel rooms more and still I was able to recognize he was in the wrong and tried to give him advice which he ignored.

 

[Chinaski]

I confirm that I witnessed some harassing from motel rooms directed to Mixolydian. From what I saw motel rooms, poor thing, had a pathetic need for validation from leftist radicals that would never tolerate some of his views.

Prior to that I also saw him going back and forth with Ch(in)aski, basically doing the same slimy routine of trying to get him to like him, so I believed what Mixolydian said about unwanted DMs.

Basically I dislike or are disliked by both of these users, which are part of the progressive brigade, and liked motel rooms more and still I was able to recognize he was in the wrong and tried to give him advice which he ignored.

Post in thread 'Buddha quotes on depression' https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/buddha-quotes-on-depression.89197/post-1583188

You literally faved this post where he's doubling down on the harassment, l think you're revising events a little bit here considering you've omitted the fact that this was another example of motel hijacking a thread to dispense personal insults and politics had absolutely nothing to do with it, it was a thread on Buddhism ffs - also your thoughts on me, mixolydian or anyone else as individuals is utterly irrelevant and worthless in the context of this thread, absolutely unnecessary addendum which, again, says more about your weird obsession with me on here than it does about the topic being discussed.

 

[whatevs]

Post in thread 'Buddha quotes on depression' https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/buddha-quotes-on-depression.89197/post-1583188

You literally faved this post where he's doubling down on the harassment, l think you're revising events a little bit here considering you've omitted the fact that this was another example of motel hijacking a thread to dispense personal insults and politics had absolutely nothing to do with it, it was a thread on Buddhism ffs - also your thoughts on me, mixolydian or anyone else as individuals is utterly irrelevant and worthless in the context of this thread, absolutely unnecessary addendum which, again, says more about your weird obsession with me on here than it does about the topic being discussed.

It's actually important to point out that I dislike you both since it makes my opinion more robust. Despite thinking that YOU should be banned as well, and that the other user spouts political drivel I loathe, I could see that motel rooms was being pushy, persecutory, etc.

And to drive the point home. I think you should get banned for sure, you haven't changed one bit. I don't read your bullshit often but when I do you keep attacking people shamelessly.

 

[Chinaski]

It's actually important to point out that I dislike you both since it makes my opinion more robust. Despite thinking that YOU should be banned as well, and that the other user spouts political drivel I loathe, I could see that motel rooms was being pushy, persecutory, etc.

And to drive the point home. I think you should get banned for sure, you haven't changed one bit. I don't read your bullshit often but when I do you keep attacking people shamelessly.

Changed how? Was my ban supposed to teach me some kind of lesson, mould me in to something more to your liking, or further emphasise the fact that this forum is a natural home for you but not me? Same goes for you as it did for motel btw, if you stop dropping my name into every third post you make as if I'm the head of some "woke" conspiracy and therefore your natural enemy, l wouldn't feel so inclined to exercise a right to reply.

Anyway no it doesn't drive any point home. Your replies in that thread are there to see. Your "advice" had nothing to do with him harassing users via aggressive dms, at no point have you suggested he stop, you approved of his doubling down, and your opinion on me is irrelevant in this context. It is quite easy to say "yeah l saw him admit to harassing another user" without having to say "btw l dislike chinaski and woke brigades!!!", this does not add to your point but does again reveal your unhealthy obsession.

 

[CrossroadsCurious]

Overreaction + Favoritism

 

[ormaybeyoucouldchill]

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.

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).

If disagreeing with @FuneralCry gets you banned, then shouldn't you have been banned for this post:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...l-world-must-be-delusional.90272/post-1601388

and shouldn't I have been banned for this one? :

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/i-see-life-as-being-very-horrible.81387/post-1456931

 

[Sakura94]

I don't really pay potential to a lot of the drama here. He seemed to get a lot out of being on this forum so I hope he can find another active site he can post his mind on.

 

[RainAndSadness]

I don't understand this thread. His behaviour was inappropiate and we warned him repeatedly, Symbiote already explained why we banned him. And I do think intentionally going into other members threads and basically throwing shit at them crosses the line, it's harassing behavior - you can't see behind the curtain and maybe that's why you don't see an issue with his recent behavior but we do. That's also not the first time it happened. We ususally consider past behaviour when we moderate members, it helps us figure out intend and motivation behind someones action and these decisions are never made in a vaccum. The history of someones behaviour is much more relevant than popularity.

And here is the deal. We treat everyone equally regardless of their position in the community. I understand why people are curious when a popular member gets banned but these threads are unfair to everyone who gets banned that doesn't have a lot of support from the community. Because nobody asks for them. We can't treat someone differently just because the community asks us to do that. That would give members that have a high popularity an unfair advantage and that's why moderating the forum shouldn't be a democratic process in my opinion. We have to remain as neutral and objective as possible.

 

[WorthlessTrash]

Overreaction + Favoritism

You really should read through this thread thoroughly. You'll see that MR has been doing worse things even before this.

 

[YourNeighbor]

I don't understand this thread. His behaviour was inappropiate and we warned him repeatedly, Symbiote already explained why we banned him. And I do think intentionally going into other members threads and basically throwing shit at them crosses the line, it's harassing behavior - you can't see behind the curtain and maybe that's why you don't see an issue with his recent behavior but we do. That's also not the first time it happened. We ususally consider past behaviour when we moderate members, it helps us figure out intend and motivation behind someones action and these decisions are never made in a vaccum. The history of someones behaviour is much more relevant than popularity.

And here is the deal. We treat everyone equally regardless of their position in the community. I understand why people are curious when a popular member gets banned but these threads are unfair to everyone who gets banned that doesn't have a lot of support from the community. Because nobody asks for them. We can't treat someone differently just because the community asks us to do that. That would give members that have a high popularity an unfair advantage and that's why moderating the forum shouldn't be a democratic process in my opinion. We have to remain as neutral and objective as possible.

This thread reflects the confusion about how bans are administered, even among those users who thought @motel rooms should have been banned. Those supporting the ban all point to actions that happened in the past, as far as anyone can tell. And, as far as anyone can tell, no one could find anything in @motel room's recent comments that warranted any sanction.

No one is suggesting that bans be meted out based on a popularity vote. Not sure why that straw man is being brought up. This thread expressly disclaims that notion, and was frankly written under the presumption that @motel rooms was not all that well liked, at least by a sizeable portion of members, given his apparently antagonistic history.

I guess the questions boil down to whether MR was banned merely for disagreeing with another member (where his past may have been considered an aggravating factor), or whether he did something objectively sanctionable that led to his banning. From what is visible to members, it reasonably appears (at least to some) that he was disagreeing with another member and was banned for that. Pointing to past bad behavior does not answer the obvious follow up questions of 1 - Why did that behavior not lead to a ban when it took place? and 2 - What specifically precipitated a ban now? I didn't want to rehash all this as I've already written more than I care to on the subject and have nothing more add, but as you asked for clarification there it is.

 

[RainAndSadness]

This thread reflects the confusion about how bans are administered, even among those users who thought @motel rooms should have been banned. Those supporting the ban all point to actions that happened in the past, as far as anyone can tell. And, as far as anyone can tell, no one could find anything in @motel room's recent comments that warranted any sanction.

No one is suggesting that bans be meted out based on a popularity vote. Not sure why that straw man is being brought up. This thread expressly disclaims that notion, and was frankly written under the presumption that @motel rooms was not all that well liked, at least by a sizeable portion of members, given his apparently antagonistic history.

I guess the questions boil down to whether MR was banned merely for disagreeing with another member (where his past may have been considered an aggravating factor), or whether he did something objectively sanctionable that led to his banning. From what is visible to members, it reasonably appears (at least to some) that he was disagreeing with another member and was banned for that. Pointing to past bad behavior does not answer the obvious follow up questions of 1 - Why did that behavior not lead to a ban when it took place? and 2 - What specifically precipitated a ban now? I didn't want to rehash all this as I've already written more than I care to on the subject and have nothing more add, but as you asked for clarification there it is.

You floated the idea that there was "arbitrary use of banning authority" in your first post and that seems to be more or less the consensus among a few posters in this thread. What I said about these types of threads in my previous post wasn't a strawman, I simply clarified my position on them because they tend to appear when a popular user was banned. Your thread about Chinaskis ban included the request to unban him and you also asked other members to do the same, which gave me the impression that some members think this is a democratic process. In the case of motel rooms there was rule violating behaviour such as harassing another members and baiting conflict in several of their threads over a long period of time and repeatedly ignoring instructions of moderators to stop that led to the current situation. And that's it. This case isn't as controversial as you think.

 

[Pluto]

In the final appraisal, the situation reminds me of the line, "The sins of the father were visited upon the son."

There is an unspoken agreement here that we are all far from perfect and should not demand perfection of others.

But the tendency to erupt into a bull in a China shop in response to innocent discussions about gentle belief systems, or harmless members making semantic errors, can cross a line.

It strikes me as a re-enactment of how he was assaulted when he was an innocent child. 'Attack the lamb' is the message. Given reports that female members were disproportionately affected, that would surely seal his unfortunate fate.

 

[whatevs]

You floated the idea that there was "arbitrary use of banning authority" in your first post and that seems to be more or less the consensus among a few posters in this thread. What I said about these types of threads in my previous post wasn't a strawman, I simply clarified my position on them because they tend to appear when a popular user was banned. Your thread about Chinaskis ban included the request to unban him and you also asked other members to do the same, which gave me the impression that some members think this is a democratic process. In the case of motel rooms there was rule violating behaviour such as harassing another members and baiting conflict in several of their threads over a long period of time and repeatedly ignoring instructions of moderators to stop that led to the current situation. And that's it. This case isn't as controversial as you think.

So Chinaski wasn't unbanned through a democratic process then? Word on the street is that people pressured you to get him back on.

Perhaps you regret having let people erode the authority of the mod team in that instance, no? Because if it happens just once it's enough to signal to people that popularity will give you some cover to act like an ass.

 

[Chinaski]

So Chinaski wasn't unbanned through a democratic process then? Word on the street is that people pressured you to get him back on.

As l remind you every time you mention this (most recently just yesterday), you weren't there for it, I've seen the narrative bullshitters invented in the immediate aftermath about conspiracies of the woke which suit certain persecution complexes on here, I'm clearly going to be your main character again today ffs, get a new obsession imo.

 

[RainAndSadness]

So Chinaski wasn't unbanned through a democratic process then? Word on the street is that people pressured you to get him back on.

Incorrect. He was unbanned because the ban was a mistake. Chinaski knows that. If the ban was justified, it wouldn't have been lifted.

 

[whatevs]

As l remind you every time you mention this (most recently just yesterday), you weren't there for it, I've seen the narrative bullshitters invented in the immediate aftermath about conspiracies of the woke which suit certain persecution complexes on here, I'm clearly going to be your main character again today ffs, get a new obsession imo.

Let's settle it, then why were you unbanned? RainAndSadness brought this up and is relevant. Why were you unbanned?

 

[Chinaski]

Let's settle it, then why were you unbanned? RainAndSadness brought this up and is relevant. Why were you unbanned?

Settle what? Absolutely nothing about me is any of your fucking business, l owe you zero explanation for anything, similarly l don't demand you explain why you follow me around like some stalkerish weirdo or keep mentioning me in seemingly every third post like an obsessive crank.

 

[whatevs]

Shit, that was disappointing brudda. I thought you were going to dispel the conspiracy theories about the unbanning but you resorted to the usual condescension and mud shots.

If you're going to respond to me say something interesting please. It's baffling that you actually take the time to quote me for this. Better to just ignore each other if nothing of substance is going to be discussed.

 

[Chinaski]

Shit, that was disappointing brudda. I thought you were going to dispel the conspiracy theories about the unbanning but you resorted to the usual condescension and mud shots.

If you're going to respond to me say something interesting please. It's baffling that you actually take the time to quote me for this. Better to just ignore each other if nothing of substance is going to be discussed.

Why don't you tell us what these conspiracy theories are, I'm sure I'll find them as entertaining as your usual crackpot bullshit

 

[Lullaby]

 

[Fragile]

This whole situation has been illuminating in many aspects. It still baffles me that some people use this forum as replacement for social media.

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?

No, it was a legit question. I was assuming that there was something wrong with the ignore function when it comes to DMs by the way people talk about it. Thanks for assuming the worst and signaling it to your crew tho.

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.

Not my fave, I even had a lot of disagreements with him in the past, but it never escalated to this point I guess. I would not consider you my "fave" despite the fact that I commented in your favor in the thread asking about your ban so stop painting it in such terms, this is not about some sort of friendship.

 

[YourNeighbor]

Let's settle it, then why were you unbanned? RainAndSadness brought this up and is relevant. Why were you unbanned?

Please don't hijack my thread, no one's interested. And by @motel rooms precedent, your behavior here may be crossing into harassment. You seem to mention one user in like every other thread.

 

[Symbiote]

 

[whatevs]

Please don't hijack my thread, no one's interested. And by @motel rooms precedent, your behavior here may be crossing into harassment. You seem to mention one user in like every other thread.

That's actually quite hilariously false, as I have actually thought about it and I probably only mention this user in like one of 20 posts.

"No one's interested"? Fuck off and I will write wherever I want. You're basically asking for an unbanning of motel rooms with your thread and it's absurd to pretend me talking about someone that was actually unbanned is unrelated.

 

[YourNeighbor]

It may be time to give this thread its coup de grace.

 

[Chinaski]

This whole situation has been illuminating in many aspects. It still baffles me that some people use this forum as replacement for social media.

No, it was a legit question. I was assuming that there was something wrong with the ignore function when it comes to DMs by the way people talk about it. Thanks for assuming the worst and signaling it to your crew tho.


Not my fave, I even had a lot of disagreements with him in the past, but it never escalated to this point I guess. I would not consider you my "fave" despite the fact that I commented in your favor in the thread asking about your ban so stop painting it in such terms, this is not about some sort of friendship.

Fair enough if the question was legit, in which case l apologise - however the point still stands that the ignore button irrelevant if a user is snarking at you in multiple threads (ignore means you don't see but also can't report or exercise a right to reply) or spreading malicious shit about a user in the dms, and even if it did work for dms it's kind of irrelevant, the recipient is not responsible for the shitty dms they receive.

I don't have a "crew" fwiw and I'm surprised this has been mentioned, I'm not sure who is considered to be a member but the only name I've seen mentioned is someone l do not engage with away from the public forum.

That's actually quite hilariously false, as I have actually thought about it and I probably only mention this user in like one of 20 posts.

If you discount the posts in the counting game that's still one third of your output.

 

[Fragile]

Fair enough if the question was legit, in which case l apologise - however the point still stands that the ignore button irrelevant if a user is snarking at you in multiple threads (ignore means you don't see but also can't report or exercise a right to reply) or spreading malicious shit about a user in the dms, and even if it did work for dms it's kind of irrelevant, the recipient is not responsible for the shitty dms they receive.

I understand your point a bit better now. It's still hard to make a picture of the situation based entirely on DMs that I haven't seen, or deleted threads, but there's no reason for me to doubt anyone in here. I'll take your word for it and move on. Not my fight anyway.

I don't have a "crew" fwiw and I'm surprised this has been mentioned, I'm not sure who is considered to be a member but the only name I've seen mentioned is someone l do not engage with away from the public forum.

Not that this has anything to do with this conversation, or that it should matter at all. But there's always the same 3-4 people that positively interact with what seems like every single one of your posts, they also seem politically aligned with you and in amicable terms. I guess you could see why many of us have the impression of this being a clique to some degree.
But, again, there's hardly anything wrong with it. It just feels like an ever-present thought when replying to your posts.

 

[Chinaski]

I guess you could see why many of us have the impression of this being a clique to some degree.

Idk who the "many of us" are that you're referring to here but tbh that sounds like a clique in itself, when considered alongside someone else describing "conspiracy theories" going around about me in a way which strongly suggests I'm being discussed way beyond what is healthy among petty little groups I'm inclined to agree that cliques do exist here, but that has nothing to do with three, maybe even four people agreeing with the often very uncontroversial positions l take.