Discussion Please don’t let our forum die

[👁️👃👁️]

---

 

[Chinaski]

You could be right... Like I say- I don't know. Ends up being a very petty 'she said, he said.'

Not really imo, the same few contentious paragraphs are posted on a seemingly daily basis and each person who voices disagreement faces a labelling of troll, bully, prolifer, does not understand suffering, not being suicidal, etc etc. This is a routine played out so many times now, with the accommodation and encouragement of staff, that it can no longer be described as a six-of-one, half-dozen-of-other scenario. This shit needs canning or the forum will suffer.

 

[rationaltake]

Some users on here disrespected and mocked freedompass with impunity.

A fair forum would mean that all members are held to the same standards.

 

[RainAndSadness]

To anyone following the situation, it should be obvious that freedompass was going through a bipolar episode. I was chatting to her at length in previous months and she was nothing like this. I acknowledge the inappropriateness of armchair psychology, but keep in mind she just conceded to having a bipolar diagnosis yesterday, plus I have experience with a family member who becomes similarly unhinged during mania.

Feelings in that state include uncontrollable excitement, overconfidence, irritability, a sense of invincibility and an inflated feeling of wellbeing. Behaviours include increased activity, reduced need for sleep, excessive talking/posting that may not make sense to others, loss of social inhibitions, saying things that are inappropriate, rudeness and risk-taking. (source)

It is very likely that she will soon return to a normal state and feel regret over this spectacle. Bipolar is a dreadful condition that many members here have unfortunately been afflicted by, and it is in turn often related to severe trauma in earlier life. Surely, the ideal response would strike a balance that ensures safety for the community whilst not judging someone who is clearly in the midst of a medical episode.

It's my humble opinion that an account suspension, be it a week or even a month, is a more suitable response than a permanent ban.

I have Borderline Personality Disorder. Do you see me going around doing batshit crazy BPD stuff? No, right? Because we still can influence to what degree these symptoms become a problem when you interact with other people, to a certain degree at least. There are other places to vent and go crazy when you experience a particular phase of your condition. And I gave her several warnings and I told her if she keeps doing that, she would get banned. And that's she she did despite my attempts to clear the situation. She even mentioned me in some of these threads and joked about getting banned. In my point of view, her ban is a self-ban with extra steps. And look, when I gave her a warning when she insulted another member, she defended her behavior and claimed she is a friend of that person she just insulted and 'that's just how they are'. So I messaged that member and asked, 'hey are you friends?' and guess what, they weren't. She simply lied to get out of a warning. I consider her behavior trolling until proven otherwise. I deleted a few posts and threads that were inappropiate and violating the rules. Being in a bad mental state is something we consider when we deal with people who break the rules but it doesn't give them a free pass to create chaos. Look at Emma, look at Jeremy, look at Molded, I could name so many people who are in serious need of help but that doesn't justify what they were doing on the forum or outside the forum once they get banned. If she wants to come back, she should stop creating alt-accounts and take a break from the forum for a few weeks. I think she can do that, even if she going through a phase. Then we will talk about the situation through a ticket. I'm always open to have that conversation but you should calm down first and let pass some time.

 

[Chinaski]

I have Borderline Personality Disorder. Do you see me going around doing batshit crazy BPD stuff? No, right? Because we still can influence to what degree these symptoms become a problem when you interact with other people, to a certain degree at least. There are other places to vent and go crazy when you experience a particular phase of your condition

Tbh l agree with this and think it's a fair comment which, given this forum is for everyone and not just one individual, should apply to every condition which impacts on interaction, including autism.

 

[gimzero]

It os now more philosophical.

 

[RainAndSadness]

Tbh l agree with this and think it's a fair comment which, given this forum is for everyone and not just one individual, should apply to every condition which impacts on interaction, including autism.

Nobody gets special treatment. If that person made fun of the suffering of another member (quote: 'waah waaah waah'), created several low-effort threads in the span of a few minutes and tagging members simply to provoke them, that would result in a warning too. The problem is and that's what led to that ban, the person did that repeatedly in the last few days so the warnings points piled up rather quickly. That makes it looks like we were especially harsh on that person but that's not the case. There were attempts on my part to solve this issue without a ban and some of the messages indicidated she would stop but the day after she continued just like ususal.

Nobody gets insta-banned unless they're acting purely malicious or if there is no hope that they will adjust their behavior. And for that reason not all action we take is transparent. And I don't think this is the right place to argue about other members. I just explained the details of this ban and under which circumstances we can talk about the rehibiliation of the member in question because people questioned the fairness of the ban in this particular case.

 

[Chinaski]

I haven't questioned the decision to intervene on a user who was clearly pressing the self-destruct button fwiw, l just feel if there is to be gloating in the aftermath from the quarters who went out of their way to ostracise her in the days preceding it, then some context should be provided. I actually applaud the decision to forbid users to hide behind DSM criteria or medical conditions when they consistently and deliberately post in such a way as to negatively impact the forum experience for all, in fact I'd be happy to see this widened to include those who make low-effort posts in the form of repetitive copypasting, and also those who daily proseletyse in a passive-aggressive way which makes many users feel uncomfortable and unwelcome.

 

[FuneralCry]

Wow, some of you here clearly have too much time on your hands. Chinaski, you just sound bitter and spiteful, it's not a good look, I doubt that it would achieve anything getting all angry over suffering people who were just venting and making valid points. Don't worry, I know that you lost one member of your clique but I bet there will always be people here to like your arrogant posts. It's always the same people who worship you, but it's a bit hypocritical criticising someone else for being glad that a user who harmed the forum was banned. You loved it when motel rooms was finally gone and in terms of behaviour the op is not far off from the way motel rooms behaved. This thread isn't about me, or anybody that agrees with me. I don't care if my posts are too repetitive or whether they fit into the high standards of others or not.

The way that I act isn't the problem. It's justified being glad that the forum has one less troll on it. It's as simple as that. A lot of their nonsense was aimed at me and it was affecting others as well by the end. I'm the one who is sympathetic and kind towards suffering people, I never invalidate their suffering or reasons to die, I always support them unlike some people here. I wasn't the one maliciously bumping weeks old threads just to make somebody else feel worse for no reason and trying to create drama and conflict for attention seeking purposes before spamming threads with complete nonsense. That user was beyond obnoxious and irritating and they were the ones causing so much harm, so it's good that they are gone. I respect the forum and what it stands for. At the end of the day I don't tell anyone that they must view life in the same way as me. I'm just venting really and people can believe what they want about life, it doesn't affect me.

And nobody on here knows anything about my autism, and how it's affected me, so you don't need to bring it up. That is not relevant to any of what this discussion is about. I have high functioning autism just to make it clear, which means very mild compared to some people. And posting lists of generalised symptoms doesn't reflect how I view life, ok. Gossiping about other people's personal issues is not a good look.

 

[Pluto]

I'm always open to have that conversation but you should calm down first and let pass some time.

I don't disagree with anything you say. I've rarely witnessed a long-term member go off the rails like that and I agree that a major time-out was/is needed.

As for the events leading up to that point and the ongoing rift within the community, I am sure that the same balanced approach applied across the board will yield positive results.

 

[Chinaski]

Wow, some of you here clearly have too much time on your hands. Chinaski, you just sound bitter and spiteful, it's not a good look, I doubt that it would achieve anything getting all angry over suffering people who were just venting and making valid points. Don't worry, I know that you lost one member of your clique but I bet there will always be people here to like your arrogant posts. It's always the same people who worship you, but it's a bit hypocritical criticising someone else for being glad that a user who harmed the forum was banned. You loved it when motel rooms was finally gone and in terms of behaviour the op is not far off from the way motel rooms behaved. This thread isn't about me, or anybody that agrees with me. I don't care if my posts are too repetitive or whether they fit into the high standards of others or not.

The way that I act isn't the problem. It's justified being glad that the forum has one less troll on it. It's as simple as that. A lot of their nonsense was aimed at me and it was affecting others as well by the end. I'm the one who is sympathetic and kind towards suffering people, I never invalidate their suffering or reasons to die, I always support them unlike some people here. I wasn't the one maliciously bumping weeks old threads just to make somebody else feel worse for no reason and trying to create drama and conflict for attention seeking purposes before spamming threads with complete nonsense. That user was beyond obnoxious and irritating and they were the ones causing so much harm, so it's good that they are gone. I respect the forum and what it stands for. At the end of the day I don't tell anyone that they must view life in the same way as me. I'm just venting really and people can believe what they want about life, it doesn't affect me.

And nobody on here knows anything about my autism, and how it's affected me, so you don't need to bring it up. That is not relevant to any of what this discussion is about. I have high functioning autism just to make it clear, which means very mild compared to some people. And posting lists of generalised symptoms doesn't reflect how I view life, ok. Gossiping about other people's personal issues is not a good look.

Nothing here has anything to do with motel rooms, there was a campaign to restore him from the many users who thought, correctly, that to ban him after his trifling interaction with you was harsh. I stated my position that as this person was a serial harrasser in the DMs, l did not support any argument to reinstate him. There is a significant difference here, and you know it.

 

[Sister of the Moon]

Ahhh, sweet Christmas!

I've been away from here for 7 months or so but I see it's still exactly the same things being dramatised as it was back then, by the same instigator. With one exception, the instigator has got much more malicious and bolder because they've been allowed to have the forum as their own unquestionable, untouchable space.

I find it truly pathetic, sneaky and downright malicious to be honest.
I see you, even if so many don't.

 

[Pluto]

I haven't heard back from freedompass, not that she has any real way of making contact. Hopefully she is doing better. Given her extensive history with the various predecessors to this community, she may well be back one day.

I find it truly pathetic, sneaky and downright malicious to be honest.

I understand why you would draw that conclusion, but interpreting it as malice is debatable. Sometimes trouble occurs even when people have the best of intentions. (Yes, brace yourself for more of my mental health apologia.)

My friend had a father who seemed to be pathologically optimistic. He was overweight with a big beard and bore a striking resemblance to Santa Claus, but in his mind he was the sexiest guy ever. He had a hoarding disorder and his rather shocking home was full of trip hazards, yet he thought he was a high-class connoisseur type. Driving his beaten up old car, he thought everyone was turning and admiring him with envy.

He responded to his son's suicidal ideation by proclaiming "Life is f-ing beautiful" and insisted that he plans to live to a minimum of 90. Last I heard, he had finally clashed with reality and now I don't know if he's even still alive. We used to make fun of him because he was unintentionally hilarious, plus his somewhat narcissistic parenting of my friend had made him fair game for ridicule.

At the same time, I don't like to see people suffering. The critical flaw in his life was that he was incapable of receiving feedback, responding to valid criticisms or evolving his worldview. He had no grounds to improve his life because he already thought he was the most magnificent being ever. In fact, I've known a few people from that now-elderly generation whose overwhelmingly positive self-image and sense of superiority is not based on any rational self-assessment, and has the ironical effect of discouraging self-improvement when they need it the most.

Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this. Some people have a mindset that they know it all, that anyone who disagrees with them is a fool, that anyone with a more sophisticated intellect is an annoyingly verbose shit-talker, people with divergent philosophies are deluded, people who have different life experiences are flat-out wrong, etc. Communication is futile, like trying to write to a CD-ROM, and understandably this can be frustrating. I view this inability to internalise good advice or helpful feedback as a tragic mental ailment that will unavoidably lead to the darkest possible inner state.

The only thing I can suggest is that it is important to remain compassionate for the suffering that this situation can cause, while at the same time encouraging the wider community to assert that every legitimate member of our website should feel welcomed here, even if their view towards life differs from the irreversibly self-righteous individuals in question. If we can define the problem well, it is half solved.

 

[Sister of the Moon]

@Pluto
A good, fair, post. I am open-minded to seeing all the different sides of it that I may have not seen before, and you bring up some very good points.
However, having been away for so long, then logging in and seeing the same old bullshit that's been posted thousands upon thousands of times before and is still going on daily, I have to wonder what is the point if not to try to get other members who are equally suffering, to be banned.

Why should one person be untouchable here, and anyone that dares to disagree be called a bunch of names. Sorry but I find it to be troll behaviour at this point.

 

[Pluto]

Your perspective is completely valid and I agree that the growing intolerance towards dissenting views is a real concern for the community. The problem with attempting a frontal attack is that the community then descends into a battle between defenders and opponents of a particular worldview, with belligerents on both sides claiming they are merely exercising free speech. This has unfortunately become a routine occurrence.

I'm trying a bridge-building approach because sometimes the sense of frustration is reduced when the problem is seen to be a painful mental health ailment rather than a Machiavellian stratagem to divide and conquer. This lends itself to a very different response, though of course I am not advocating excuse-making and inaction.

If we are mostly in agreement, then the solution could be a united voice calling for the site admin to clarify that all people legitimately afflicted by suicidal ideation should feel welcomed and supported here, not only those whose worldview strictly conforms to those of a particular sect within our community. In turn, this would mean that any tribe which routinely derides and triggers members of outgroups can be called out by the site's admin itself.

 

[rationaltake]

Why should one person be untouchable here, and anyone that dares to disagree be called a bunch of names.

This is it. In a nutshell. I would really like to know why one member doesn't have to stick to the same rules as everybody else.

 

[Pluto]

I would really like to know why one member doesn't have to stick to the same rules as everybody else.

It is because inherent flaws in the structure of this community are being stress-tested and will need patching. If I may, let me try a different angle.

For starters, let's view this as a sociological phenomenon involving an 'edgy' faction within the community. Regardless of whether the leader/s can be identified, there is no use confronting them as it will only bolster a narrative of one person being unfairly gang-bashed for expressing personal views about life. That narrative is a get-out-of-jail-free card.

First, the basics. In a human social group, it is natural for people to try and achieve a sense of belonging and to prevent abandonment by the tribe. Often this is achieved by striving to be an 'above average' member in terms of enthusiastic conformity to the group's culture, lingo and worldview. The obvious danger is that this can evolve the collective behaviour of the group until it slowly drifts in the direction of fanaticism.

A good (and hopefully not incendiary) example is the tendency for some Islamic societies to give rise to a variety of extreme movements. All begin as enthusiastically Islamic before eventually turning to attack moderate Muslims for being too soft. These groups are also defined by their desire for absolute domination and extremely ruthless leadership.

While of course this is merely an internet forum (albeit one dealing with complex life-and-death issues on a daily basis), our hardcore subset takes a lot of the most generic philosophical positions of the website - not only support for suicidality but atheism, nihilism, anti-natalism, misanthropy, etc. - and stretches them to the extent that there is a growing movement to ban non-hardline members of the community or at least make them feel increasingly unwelcome.

This can manifest as the name-calling towards users who might be attempting recovery or supportive of others in that process. Some might be considering suicide for reasons (poverty, physical illness, etc.) other than subscribing to rigid anti-life philosophical doctrines and thus might challenge the fanatics when their views are presented as irrefutable fact.

Because the philosophy of the hardline faction is only a more extreme version of the community's typical ethos, this movement easily camouflages itself even as it causes a growing rift. Critics of the faction can be shamed as enemies of the website itself by conflating their concerns with positions that oppose suicide support and thus do not belong here at all. Legitimate criticisms of society's attitude towards suicide that we all share can be stretched to rationalise lashing out at members within our community who have had positive views towards life.

To that end, the post made by the OP gains renewed relevance. She questioned the fact that members are routinely attacked for being 'pro-life trolls,' etc. without the said members actually being named, which creates an atmosphere of McCarthyism. This deepens the schism by making moderate members feel unwelcome, while pushing those on the fence to drift towards more extreme views about life.

What we are dealing with is a dark, creeping energy that, like a hacker, exploits a vulnerability in our collective ethos. This could be a good opportunity to update rules to ensure that even marginalised groups here, such as parents or people with different philosophical viewpoints, can be given a formally-defined right to feel welcome, and the attacks actually cracked down upon.

Otherwise, the situation would eventually either lead to the forum splitting into two (one of which would be the most horrific death-worshipping website imaginable), or reduce the existing forum to a cesspool of endless infighting that never resolves. I have seen huge internet forums go down in flames over similar internal infighting. I hope this makes some sense. I've tried.

 

[rationaltake]

It is because inherent flaws in the structure of this community are being stress-tested and will need patching. If I may, let me try a different angle.

For starters, let's view this as a sociological phenomenon involving an 'edgy' faction within the community. Regardless of whether the leader/s can be identified, there is no use confronting them as it will only bolster a narrative of one person being unfairly gang-bashed for expressing personal views about life. That narrative is a get-out-of-jail-free card.

First, the basics. In a human social group, it is natural for people to try and achieve a sense of belonging and to prevent abandonment by the tribe. Often this is achieved by striving to be an 'above average' member in terms of enthusiastic conformity to the group's culture, lingo and worldview. The obvious danger is that this can evolve the collective behaviour of the group until it slowly drifts in the direction of fanaticism.

A good (and hopefully not incendiary) example is the tendency for some Islamic societies to give rise to a variety of extreme movements. All begin as enthusiastically Islamic before eventually turning to attack moderate Muslims for being too soft. These groups are also defined by their desire for absolute domination and extremely ruthless leadership.

While of course this is merely an internet forum (albeit one dealing with complex life-and-death issues on a daily basis), our hardcore subset takes a lot of the most generic philosophical positions of the website - not only support for suicidality but atheism, nihilism, anti-natalism, misanthropy, etc. - and stretches them to the extent that there is a growing movement to ban non-hardline members of the community or at least make them feel increasingly unwelcome.

This can manifest as the name-calling towards users who might be attempting recovery or supportive of others in that process. Some might be considering suicide for reasons (poverty, physical illness, etc.) other than subscribing to rigid anti-life philosophical doctrines and thus might challenge the fanatics when their views are presented as irrefutable fact.

Because the philosophy of the hardline faction is only a more extreme version of the community's typical ethos, this movement easily camouflages itself even as it causes a growing rift. Critics of the faction can be shamed as enemies of the website itself by conflating their concerns with positions that oppose suicide support and thus do not belong here at all. Legitimate criticisms of society's attitude towards suicide that we all share can be stretched to rationalise lashing out at members within our community who have had positive views towards life.

To that end, the post made by the OP gains renewed relevance. She questioned the fact that members are routinely attacked for being 'pro-life trolls,' etc. without the said members actually being named, which creates an atmosphere of McCarthyism. This deepens the schism by making moderate members feel unwelcome, while pushing those on the fence to drift towards more extreme views about life.

What we are dealing with is a dark, creeping energy that, like a hacker, exploits a vulnerability in our collective ethos. This could be a good opportunity to update rules to ensure that even marginalised groups here, such as parents or people with different philosophical viewpoints, can be given a formally-defined right to feel welcome, and the attacks actually cracked down upon.

Otherwise, the situation would eventually either lead to the forum splitting into two (one of which would be the most horrific death-worshipping website imaginable), or reduce the existing forum to a cesspool of endless infighting that never resolves. I have seen huge internet forums go down in flames over similar internal infighting. I hope this makes some sense. I've tried.

Thank you. This does indeed make a lot of sense and I appreciate the wisdom of your approach. Your analysis is spot-on.

As you say - the forum could go down in flames due to infighting. However - adopting your proposals would greatly improve the chances of this forum surviving as a unique space where suicide could be freely discussed without censure.

I still visit the forum due to certain people I really appreciate. One of whom is you.

I think the forum has huge potential but it's not being realised at the moment.

And yes. You've more than tried. There is really nothing to add to your exceptional post. Your proposals just need to be adopted.