The Chainlink

So after the amazing shit show that was Gabe and Michelle crapping all over the message board here I think it is a good time to ask this question.

 

What happened here is ridiculous, two people were allowed to run wild like a couple of monkeys flinging shit everywhere.  Regardless of who you want to see as wrong or right there the fact remains that they were allowed to carry on completely unchecked.

 

Why?  Light moderation is one thing but why should two defective people be allowed to run wild like that?  Especially when others have been kicked off for doing the same?

 

Didn’t we kick off Beezodog for hijacking threads and not letting an argument die?

 

Of course that leads to another thing; we have some loose rules but they never seem to be enforced, why?



So what is it, do we have an enforce rules or can people just do whatever they like?  Because it mostly looks like people can just act however they want…

Views: 9025

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

yes

Hhhhyup same shit as always. This'll go nicely alongside the insane graphs of associations a bunch of neckbeards are passing around to make Anita Sarkeesian's critiques of sexism in video games an elaborate conspiracy. 

The order I'm describing is one where moderator action is taken only in order to protect the community's functioning as an open forum in which people of diverse backgrounds can discuss whatever is of interest of them, primarily of a cycling-related nature.

Vilda's doxing of Michelle crossed a line, I felt, but that line ultimately is a matter of e-etiquette - a generally observed standard of behavior which respects the degrees to which we try to keep our real lives separate from our internet personae. Vilda's goading of Michelle was disruptive, but it was targeted at Michelle and not at the community more generally. It might make sense to "punish" Vilda, if "punishment" is what moderation is all about.

But if moderation is (or should be) just about maintaining a space in which participants can adjudicate conflicts on their own, then it's less clear what purpose banning Vilda would serve, while it's more clear how Michelle's actions were distinguishable.


Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:

If it is her method, and not her content which is the problem, then what does it say that the methods of deliberately antagonizing someone and posting her pictures are considered just fine. What order are you maintaining. 

Protecting the use of slurs and exiling people who have a problem with it, while sanctioning the doxxing of the people who raise those concerns, is in fact the opposite of maintaining an open forum for people of diverse backgrounds. 

Simon Phearson said:

The order I'm describing is one where moderator action is taken only in order to protect the community's functioning as an open forum in which people of diverse backgrounds can discuss whatever is of interest of them, primarily of a cycling-related nature.

Dang dude is your skull literally shaped like a fedora 

It's a good thing no one is doing that, then.

Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:

Protecting the use of slurs and exiling people who have a problem with it, while sanctioning the doxxing of the people who raise those concerns, is in fact the opposite of maintaining an open forum for people of diverse backgrounds. 

It's called noble-cause corruption. 

Simon Phearson said:

It's a good thing no one is doing that, then.

Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:

Protecting the use of slurs and exiling people who have a problem with it, while sanctioning the doxxing of the people who raise those concerns, is in fact the opposite of maintaining an open forum for people of diverse backgrounds. 

Except you are, because you kicked out the person complaining about it and kept the person who doxxed her for it. 

This is conveying clearly what behavior is regarded as appropriate vs what is inappropriate. 

Simon Phearson said:

It's a good thing no one is doing that, then.

Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:

Protecting the use of slurs and exiling people who have a problem with it, while sanctioning the doxxing of the people who raise those concerns, is in fact the opposite of maintaining an open forum for people of diverse backgrounds. 

Since this exchange is clearly going nowhere, I'm going to stop engaging you. You can repeat yourself ad nauseam in responses to others. Perhaps while you're at it, you can threaten to derail the community until moderator policy matches your preference. 

Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:

Except you are, because you kicked out the person complaining about it and kept the person who doxxed her for it. 

This is conveying clearly what behavior is regarded as appropriate vs what is inappropriate. 

Simon Phearson said:

It's a good thing no one is doing that, then.

Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:

Protecting the use of slurs and exiling people who have a problem with it, while sanctioning the doxxing of the people who raise those concerns, is in fact the opposite of maintaining an open forum for people of diverse backgrounds. 

So we can see the threshold of incorrect method of engagement is "continuing to disagree with you." 

Gettin' doxxed without consequence kinda justifies her regard for the forum to boot. 

Simon Phearson said:

Since this exchange is clearly going nowhere, I'm going to stop engaging you. You can repeat yourself ad nauseam in responses to others. Perhaps while you're at it, you can threaten to derail the community until moderator policy matches your preference. 

Dang. Nice knowing ya, Peenworm. You must realize by now that expulsion is the next step. We can't have you bullying the rest of us and disrupting the precious 'equilibrium' of our smug little boys' club now, can we?

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service