Moderators (requests and notices)

@Velocio +1 to the above

I had thought the post by @yukirin would be sufficient. @ABCNews appears to be a repeat offender here.

Citations please.

As far as I can see right now, @ABCNews posted a single foul comment, that no-one challenged in the thread.

If he's a repeat offender, show me.
If he's an alias of banned aliases, tell me which ones.

As it stands, I'm letting the community moderate it. Which doesn't mean when people call me I'll just ban, it means when I see something is unacceptable because the community reacts and says "We don't want this", and does so in a way that tries to correct the behaviour of people posting foul content, gives them a chance to do so... then, when it's clear the person isn't going to change, then I'll nuke them.

But first thing is, if you disagree with the post, call him on it. Not me.

If you think there's prior, and that stuff was called out, then move on to showing me that history.

If you think there's justification for an instant ban because he's been banned before or is an alias of a banned person, show me that stuff.

I can't remember the aliases and now they show up as "deleted" :(

They were three pages back in this thread, though. NB I don't actually know that it's the same guy, I just think that he might be. He's been directly confrontational towards several people for no discernible reason for quite a while (c.f this thread http://www.lfgss.com/conversations/257125/ for an early example - he also got into a spat with dammit and DJ yesterday in a thread that the name of which escapes my memory*) and it seems to me that he's an old member with an axe to grind that he's grinding by trying to offend as many people as possible.

* aha yes it was this one: http://www.lfgss.com/comments/11957897/

Does that count as calling him out directly and him refusing to change?

Also, in addition to directly trolling the ladies thread, his recent meme posts:
https://www.lfgss.com/comments/11957520/
https://www.lfgss.com/comments/11957518/
https://www.lfgss.com/comments/11957509/

betray a misogynist vibe. None of those posts by themselves are much but taken as a whole I think he or she would benefit from a stern talking to at least.

#badvibes

I'd thought sexism is not to be taken lightly.

None of those posts by themselves are much but taken as a whole I think he or she would benefit from a stern talking to at least.

Perhaps. But that's not where I come in.

You guys, the community... you tell him why he's being a jerk, and if he doesn't listen and continues, then I'll ban him.

But my tools are basically to ban people, and aside from DJ getting a bit gobby with ABCnews, I don't see evidence that anyone has actually said to him that it's a bit much.

I'll happily ban, but only after it can be demonstrated that he's either obviously shot past the line (and as admitted "None of those posts by themselves are much", so he hasn't done this in a way that would instantly trigger a ban) or that you guys have warned him (and then you can demonstrate that he's ignored the warning).

To ban (because that's my only tool) based on the above, if I were to be consistent I'd have to ban the vast majority of people on here. So show me clearly and unequivocally why he should be banned in this instance. And if it's not a ban right now, then someone else has the right to set him straight. I will ban if I can be shown that has happened and that he's ignored it.

Re my thread and ABC, I expressly felt I couldn't call him out given the nature of the thread, anyway you have my complaints about him already for the record...

I'd thought sexism is not to be taken lightly.

And as a society we recognise that there are grades of intent and harm. We know the difference between things planned, with high severity, and things that are mild, impulsive and low severity.

There's an ocean between the extremes, and there's a lot of grey area in which everything becomes highly subjective, the intent debatable, the meaning of the sentiment behind it bordering on a tautological or metaphysical debate.

If I banned everyone in the grey area, you would be banned edscoble. Almost everyone would be banned. Shit, I'd have to be banned. There's few to no-one on here that has never ever posted anything that someone could find objectionable.

All I'm asking is what I've always asked for... the community should police itself.

And I'm happy to step in as an enforcer when things are freaking obviously out there (spam, threats of violence, hardcore porn, etc). And I'm happy step in as an enforcer for the lesser things when it can be shown that the person in question was moderated by the community, people pulled them up on it, asked for an explanation, offered the chance to correct it... and then if they fail to conform to the community idea of acceptable standards, and if I believe that this really is the community (rather than individual) desire to have this enforced... I'll enforce it.

But... this issue has been flagged ONLY in this thread or via PM. The guy has never been confronted (or no-one is showing me he has).

Am I expected to drop a nuke, on a plausible greyzone issue, on that basis?

I won't do it.

Pull the guy up and show me and the world this isn't acceptable behaviour, and then depending on how he reacts (including ignoring it, which is an action), then I'll act accordingly.

Ignoring him would probably have more effect. Attention is what he seeks. Zero attention will either frustrate him or bore him.

omfg i just discovered ignore function!! I thought it was never meant to be in microcosm; thanks @Velocio #byescoble

Agreed that ignoring trolls is usually the best solution, but in a community such as this, to an outsider it just looks like tolerance.

I have requested in reply that the comment be removed. Whilst I am happy to ignore ABC, I do have concern for people viewing the comment that are either new to the forum or may not have previously ignored them.

@starfish&coffee also called it out

http://www.lfgss.com/comments/11958277/

@Velocio I know I did not want to have it all kick off on the ladies sub forum, hence why I did not challenge it there. Also isn't this the same person as tree trunk, so he has had multiple warnings and has now spent a couple of days trolling the Groupset thread.

Agreed that ignoring trolls is usually the best solution, but in a community such as this, to an outsider it just looks like tolerance.

This is actually why I never want to ban without shit being challenged.

The traces of this stuff remain and look tolerated, even when someone is banned.

starfish&coffee also called it out

Elsewhere, unrelated.

Has ANYONE challenged directly?

So long as that answer remains no and ABCNews hasn't escalated into "really fucking obvious and illegal" territory... then nothing will be done.

Right now... you all expect me to do something, when you have all done nothing.

I keep saying, I'll say it again... it's the other way around. Challenge the shit, and when nothing has happened I'll enforce the community will.

Of course for spam, just report that. For violence, just report. For eBay adverts, just report. These are black and white.

But whenever something isn't black and white, when we're in a zone of subjectiveness to determine whether or not something is cool or not, when I need guidance as to what people find acceptable, then I will not make that decision without seeing the evidence that the wider community demands this to be addressed and the person in question isn't going to voluntarily adapt to fit those demands.

Seriously... I'm bored already... if someone is posting something that people feel shouldn't be on this site, then CHALLENGE THE PERSON TO JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE, TO ADAPT OR BE BANNED.

I did challenge them and this was the response.

Wtf do you care

And

1 Attachment

The key of the always untold/researched/desired point about ignoring questioning is revealed by this simple line of code: <? href="who/whom-whom/who">there or here</?>

Come on DJ, it's just some casual misogyny. It's not like he has done anything seriously bad, like asking for tags back.

But then, if there is nothing better around of taking care please ignore my previous post and keep on accelerating, the grip of the tyres on the asphalt is still far from the ridiculous slip away, "Derapata" would be more correct.

CHALLENGE THE PERSON TO JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE, TO ADAPT OR BE BANNED>

Sounds like a way to create wholly unnecessary multi-page arguments.

Just thinking a loud - this seems like a school garden where you report to the warden instead of punching a bleedy nose out.

I found velocio a lot more sexy than a warden - but I found the forumengers even more - making a blood nose even more meaningful.

See, I'm with Bruce and ncjlee on this one. I don't think that having a go at him will be particularly productive because his raison d'être is to get a rise out of people so he can gob off back. He's being deliberately provocative in the hope that people will argue with him.

Personally I'm not that keen on the ladies forum being a place where people sit around arguing with Obvious Trolls about the relative merits of gender-positivity. That said I do understand VB's point that it should be publicly called out, otherwise saying nothing looks like tolerance... but at what point does that calling-out become unproductive? Once it's clear that the person being a twat is being a twat for trolling lolz? I kind of think it already is clear, and it was clear for quite a while before he decided to toss some casual sexism into the mix to liven things up a bit.

Spammer

https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/258672

You've posted a bunch of stuff that is denigrating at the very least to women, largely in attempt to rile people. A lot of people are hoping that you'll just shut up and go away, but you seem intent on trolling. And it's not even tongue in cheek - it's just tediously crass. Seriously, cut it the fuck out. Troll people about helmets and red lights if you must, but fuck right off with the constant low level misogyny.

@ABCNews
Regarding
http://www.lfgss.com/comments/11957591/
As previously requested, please remove this comment. It is not positive to the message in that thread.