:sad
I feel like stupidpol is an OK sub why do you not like it?
I don't want to wade too much into it here, as I think it's a huge unresolved debate, even among their (huge) mod team. I just think they have been losing their materialist angle in favour of TiA style apolitical culture war bickering for a while now. There's still some really good posts every now and then though
It's always been like that and it was still better than chapo after, say, mid 2018. A low bar I know.
😬
It's embarrassing how much of the chapo diaspora turned out to be straight up reactionaries.
They're not wrong about us being way too online but holy shit if they aren't being transphobic reactionary arseholes about it.
The worst takes i see on the true anon sub are always people primarily posting about red scare which... I didn't know had listeners anymore after cum town people stopped ironically liking Dasha.
losing their materialist angle in favour of TiA style apolitical culture war
haha no one could have predicted this
There's something very amusing about someone being like "yeah they need to take the grillpill" in a meta thread about drama from an obscure forum .
Now to point the finger back at myself for a moment: The fact that I'm even commenting on this is a sign that I also need to log off for a bit and go enjoy a hobby that isn't endlessly scrolling through social media.
Very hard for me to take this serious when it's coming from a private invite only subr*ddit dedicated to huffing Matt Christmann's farts. They might be right that we're too online and cliquey, but it's impossible for me to take that seriously when it's coming from the people in an invite only community that analyse the latest cushbomb video like it's some groundbreaking philosophy from Socrates or something. All the while treating the opinions of their favourite Brooklynite podcast host(s) that are easily earning more than six figures as if they're infallible.
It makes their obsession with "grillpilling" extremely ironic when almost all their opinions are just basically taken verbatim from an internet podcast. These people should actually listen to Matt apparently says and log off, do something irl and/or read a book, and form their own opinions based on their lived experience or own analysis instead of getting some podcast host(s) to do it for them.
Also love to see the username of someone that got banned for covid denial in the comments there. It's just
:chefs-kiss:
Everyone should log off at some point every day, but not use that philosophy to be nihilists.
i will say this as a matt fart sniffer I do feel using his detatchment methods has made me more sane, especially with how many struggle sessions the online left have constantly or twitter virtue signals. This doesn’t mean you write a 3 page diatribe but at best give them a nudge of hey is what you’re worried about helping you materially or is just an anxiety dump. i like it as a sort of self check up like hey is this where my energy is best used and if it isn’t how can I disengage 🤷♂️
like it’s some groundbreaking philosophy from Socrates or something. All the while treating the opinions of their favourite Brooklynite podcast
haha you do know those philosophers were part of the superstructure of Roman slave oligarchy? That's why every middle class white settler podcaster can't help themselves but obscure their own inherently fascistic class position despite LARPing as woke Stalinists
Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it
- Ayn Rand
Some of this true. Taking criticism is an important step towards growth.
okay this makes sense
True
True
Ehh i don't agree but i see the point
Okay that's not necessary
Oh no
Oh nonono
Oh hell no
Okay fuck you
Every ban can be framed as disagreeing with the mods/admins/whomever. It's important what you're disagreeing with.
It's an internet forum, not a "despotic regime". It has internet forum drama. All forums do. The way a few people try to psychoanalyze the admins or the community is pretty telling.
I think this inter-community mudthrowing is rather dull, and I hope we can avoid it as much as possible.
Every ban can be framed as disagreeing with the mods/admins/whomever. It’s important what you’re disagreeing with.
At this point, whenever I hear someone saying this kind of thing anywhere online, I just automatically assume they were in the wrong until proven otherwise. It's a huge red flag about someone's intentions.
clicks to expand image and gives my right thumb repetitive stress injury from scrolling down this CVS receipt
lol i woulda just posted the thread but i think the sub is private
This online shit is tiresome. No idea why I was locked out of that sub after being subscribed since the summer and never posting, but I guess I'll take the hint and log off rather than giving myself a brain tumor trying to figure out what they're doing.
Same, subbed before it went private, don't remember if I ever commented there, now I'm not approved. Slightly annoying, but also don't care enough to figure out who/how to ask.
Don't think so. The mod there made it private because he's afraid of it normie-fying.
There's obviously a lot of nonsense in this, but I think there are a couple of really valid criticisms here:
- Assume good faith. Chapo Dot Chat users really seem to assume the worst of the people there disagree with here. I'm including myself here.
We really need to take a step back and realize that we all came from somewhere, no one is perfect, and sometimes the intention is the important part.
- The mods can be overly combative. I like the general direction they are taking for moderation, but there's a tendency to be too flippant or argumentative when banning, and I do think there are bans that happen too quickly.
I've been part of the site before it was launched and brought up some of these concerns back in June and July once we launched. There's something to be said for more formal behavior in any mod activities, and I think it would cool down the ban process a bit.
I also think good faith needs do be exhibited from the mods (and other site 'leaders' or whatever) in order for it to take foothold here.
Its a balancing act with the CoC on one side and discerning good-faith on another, it can be difficult at times but !userunion@hexbear.net exists as a place for asking for clarification or raising these issues.
What does a cooled down ban process look like to you?
What does good faith moderation look like to you?
Looking at the modlog and seeing bans for things that are not explicitly rule-breaking content is part of it.
Reasons like "posting cringe" and "pineapple on pizza" (even as clearly a bit) are not good ban reasons. Bans should not be used for bits, especially with the amount of controversy surrounding ban decisions by mods. Mods have been combative at times when criticized. These actions lead to a lack of trust in the moderation. More formal addressing of moderation actions has been something I've suggested repeatedly as a way of making moderation actions less controversial (cooling it down).
A specific suggestion I've made is to avoid bans for "wrecking". There needs to be a clearer explanation as to what actions the "wrecker" user is undertaking that involves rule breaking content. Similarly, "ban evasion" is a tough one to swallow because of the way some seem to believe "just make another account" is a solution to heavy-handed moderation. If "just make another account and change your behavior" is an option, then "ban evasion" should not be a ban explanation, the subsequent bans should also be tied to rule breaking content.
These mixed messages create unease around the idea of bans and criticisms of moderators. If a person disagrees, how far will they be able to go before being labeled a wrecker and getting banned?
Good faith moderation means level-headed responses to criticisms, and not assuming criticism is coming as a personal attack. It also means being a little more hesitant before smashing that ban button. Clearer explanations of what constitutes a ban, and adhering more closely to the explicitly stated rules before banning. Utilizing bans from a community instead of sitewide bans more frequently would also help. A lot of good faith can be made evident through consistency and communication with the community.
These are suggestions from one user, and there may be reasons they don't work. Perhaps they are being utilized, but it isn't clear to the user base. That would point to needing more transparency in sitewide moderation practices. But I see where other users are coming from when they complain about over-moderation and a lack of transparency.
This will probably get lost in the comments of this thread maybe make a stand-alone post in user union.
Wreckers refers to 1944 OSS Sabotage specifically section (11) General Interference with Organizations and Production.
If someone states in a post they were banned I'm going to ban them for ban evasion if you don't say "This is my new account my old one got banned" won't be a problem. Personally I think keeping the mod log simple keeps it from becoming overwhelming. I'm happy to provide more reasoning for a comment removal or ban that I did if you give me a specific example. Some have done so in !userunion@hexbear.net
Mods are people too and experience emotions, but I can assure you we all want this community to grow and prosper in a healthy, sustainable, and respectful way.
In closing the Code of Conduct section on moderation specifies a Moderator can remove a comment or ban for inappropriate, so again I refer you to !userunion@hexbear.net with specific examples you wish to be clarified.
Thanks!
This is my personal stance, I would never speak for anyone else, or the mod team.
we all came from somewhere, no one is perfect,
no historical materialism? go to /c/gulag
Thank you for posting this, it feels good to know I'm not the only one who thinks that.
the difference is that there it’s one thread. here it’s every thread
I just want to grill and diagnose mods on a different forum with personality disorders over the internet for God's sake
:grillman:
"Why don't they take the grill pill?"
Six paragraphs of bitching because they got banned for being a transphobe
for real lol
i love the idea matt phrases as “logging off in your heart” but this is definitely not it
I think there's a place to talk about growth of the sub. When chacha started, it was claimed that this was supposed to be a leftist alternative to reddit where we would grow into a large community. If people are being permabanned for downvoting...that's not a good strategy. At least downvoting is gone now. I think that is a positive change.
I know nothing of the drama with the mods, I only recognize their names. I basically just come here for left perspective on current events + dunking on twitter libs. My hope is that this place becomes less niche, but that requires letting more people in who may be further center in the lib to left pipeline. I hope that we can accommodate and educate them as opposed to removing them from the discourse entirely.
I barely know anything about these drama posts even while being on here, meanwhile those people who allegedly hate us are chronicling the whole existence of the site lol
They're right about how problematic, and ultimately a death blow to the long term viability of the site, it is, that well established and good faith posters here have to create alts to express their true opinions, less they be smited down by by our mighty overlord mods. It also creates a lot of resentment and walking in eggshells by users.
I'm sure Corr3ct would be a lot more tactful with the above comment, and probably more understanding of where TC69 was coming from, if they weren't put in a position of building resentment over time resulting from small amounts of dissent and disagreement being bannable offences.
Create pressure cookers and eventually they will blow.
building resentment over time resulting from small amounts of dissent and disagreement being bannable offences
With very few exceptions, no one here should care about their account being banned. You can just make a new one.
if you've got TOR and shit, sure. but being told you're not wanted somewhere is a thing. and if you're not deferential to authority, like many lefties, that eventually ends up being just about everywhere.
They aren't doing IP bans, so I don't think you'd need TOR. From what I've heard the people who get repeat banned either (1) keep crossing the same lines that got them banned in the first place or (2) keep bringing up their issues with the original ban.
The vast majority of bans wouldn't be a big deal if the banned user shrugged, made a new account, and posted better. The main problem is personal investment in one's online alias.
this is just how I use the internet in our dystopian panopticon hell world. I literally don't go online without TOR or at least a commercial proxy nowadays.
but being told im unwelcome in a place is a bigger deal to me than a new name. it creates a kind of opposition to a place. even if i reengage it's different, with more hostility, and a lot less respect for the people there.
I definitely get that sentiment. Ideally, I think bans should be accompanied by a "you got bounced, but you're welcome to make a new account and come back in" message. We need to fight the feeling you're describing while maintaining some way to frustrate trolls/wreckers/incorrigibles.
yeah but after a while its just kind of.. everywhere. it becomes a default in places that aren't explicitly inclusive, and those include people whose inclusion that excludes me.
My understanding is that we can't really ban people permanently. We don't do IP bans (which can be circumvented anyways), so as long as a user doesn't (1) keep doing bannable stuff or (2) make it apparent that they're a banned user, they can easily get back in.
So why not do warnings, temp bans, etc.? It adds a whole layer of administrative work for the mods and a bunch more opportunities for people to dispute how they've been treated. A system that creates a bunch of work isn't a great one, and we want to have a way to push back on shitty behavior without causing tons of "I've been treated so unfairly!" drama. Making bans less of a big deal would accomplish both, and (because we can't perma ban people anyway) it would have the same effect on more persistent assholes.
The main problem is personal investment in one’s online alias.
Yeah recognition of other people is overrated, what is it even good for anyway?
An anonymous internet name isn't a person. We shouldn't treat them as such.
okay but when youre marginalized enough and properly disgusted by the idea of boot licking; literally every space feels like that. like I don't assume I'm welcome anywhere, and it's just a matter of time before im asked to leave. including here. if it hasn't happened yet, I just assume nobody's been paying attention.
i occasionally poke the mods, if its a place like this, just to check. which is maybe rude, but fuck it; it's got an expiration date anyway, right?
which isn't to say ive never gone back anywhere with a new account, but it's not the same when you know you're unwelcome, and that shit builds up over time across places/clubs/social groups/bars/old pre-facebook boards/subreddits/wherevertheshitelse.
My previous account was banned for saying this exact same thing. I said about the original "2 week notice" and I quote:
Drama queen starts drama, fails to follow through on promises.
Power users in general were a mistake.
Redistribute the attention to all posters.
There needs to be drawn a bold distinction between people who leave (temporarily or permanently) because they were experiencing hatred (e.g., transphobia) directed at them, versus people who felt alienated because of the stonks posts despite the admins providing a means to filter them out and the mods doing their best to ensure they were kept to the containment subreddit.
These two phenomenon are not on equal footing and should not be discussed as such.
