Beast's Lair History

[Rafflesiac]

Now that was some good history.

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

The fact you frame it as mods banning people they don't like just shows how little you people understand the spirit of what I asked for. It's not about personal distaste, but instead about protecting users from potential bigots. Life sucks enough. There's no point in letting potential harassers lurk and force some people to be extremely vigilant in a fan space.

[Zurvan]

No, that's not actually my point. But rather than engage in this topic more I'll just bow out before something new starts.

If you want to continue your fight on this hill, I'd suggest engaging in some PMs with what you'd consider the more reasonable members of the staff, and see what their stance is on things. Screaming out in a thread that isn't meant for the purpose is kind of just a nuisance, but maybe that's just my jaded/flawed view of things. I personally at least don't care to engage in this any more than has been said.

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

Yeah, I sort of am, but I'm not optimistic. The mods and I have different views about ensuring user safety.

[I3uster]

Never seen a community get safer from overmoderating, just more formal and scared.

The same can be said of total freeform we ban whoever we like modding. Neither of those are ideal models.

Fwiw I dont think anyones safety is a concern, the most sensitive data you can give us is an email and you can control public visibility in case you gave us one you can be doxxed with.

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

Yeah, I don't think over moderating would be even close to a problem with my suggestions. Also, I'm not talking about user privacy concerns when it comes to safety.

[I3uster]

Whats safety then?

Even if we categorize something like an online pile on as safety concern theres like 100 concurrent users that actually post in peak hours. 10 PMs of YOU SUCK are pretty much the best you can hope for, and we have yet to see an incident like this. This isnt Facebook.

[Laserman]

Something I wanted to ask about was that some BL members used to go on group trips to Japan right?

[Five_X]

The fact you frame it as mods banning people they don't like just shows how little you people understand the spirit of what I asked for. It's not about personal distaste, but instead about protecting users from potential bigots. Life sucks enough. There's no point in letting potential harassers lurk and force some people to be extremely vigilant in a fan space.

I feel like this shows a certain detachment from the way forums work in a contemporary internet ecosystem. Forums are now on the periphery of online social interaction, and almost all communities are necessarily cross-platform, with social interaction spread out variously between Discord servers, Twitter, Reddit, and so on. Forums are unique in that they're one of the last closed social systems on the internet today. If you're banned from Twitter, you can just make a new account; if you're banned from a forum, you're banned. People who are egregiously toxic get banned - that objectively happens and has happened here, as was pointed out to you.

It's disingenuous to talk at first about bigots and bad posters, and then treat personal harassment as the same issue, particularly from the perspective of a forum. Anyone who doesn't hit the threshold of being banned outright can be blocked and, unlike other platforms, there's nothing they can do about it. If they use the forum as a platform for harassment, that's a whole different issue from being a poster you don't like. If there's someone you don't like, block them. If you find yourself still clicking to view their posts, then it becomes your issue.

[Ratman]

Maybe not the first offense, but definitely by the third if it's bad enough. Bigotry isn't something that needs that much proof to see a pattern of. Thrice should be enough, and even twice might be good depending on how bad the events were. Also, most of the psychos on Gennews were repeat offenders.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, genocide denial should be permabanned on the first offense.

Quite the opposite. Bigotry lies in the eye of the beholder. We all get offended sometimes, and when it's just once, we've got to live it down. It's when it keeps happening that a community has a problem, since it gets uncomfortable to come back there.

Issue is that if you want to get offended ahead of time, you will. In fact it could be argued that those who get offended are as much of a social obstacle as those who are being offensive. For an easy example close to your heart, bible-thumpers get offended a lot, but you'd disagree with this forum getting a christian bent.

Obviously it's equally socially disruptive to write edgy posts, seeking out situations where people have to continually choose whether your words offend them or not, since inevitably something will offend them, making everybody on the forum offended in their own way. But thinking you're the only one being offended the right way shows a lack of humility.

[SpoonyViking]

There's a huge difference between "I'm offended" and "this is offencive", though.
To put it another way: reducing *all* reasons for being offended to the same thing is an extremely simplistic view of things, to put it mildly; more often than not, deliberately disingenuous.

ETA: Not saying *you're* being disingenuous, Ratman, but it's been my experience that people arguing from that position often argue in bad faith.

[Ratman]

Being all very intelligent academics adept in academisms, we can determine a structural structure to ethics, and this structure is prone to structuralist analysis as all existence verily is, because every science is in fact, exact, especially social psychology. As we have demonstrated on structural analysis of art, art is a process wherein a soul-less creator with no free will constructed wholly by his socioeconomipsychological influences creates a soul-less work meaningless without the context of language and culture for a soul-less audience which has its questions preemptively loaded in their psyche which itself is determined by socioeconomipsychological factors solely, and the artwork merely becomes an answer to these questions, its interpretation entirely separate from the author's intent, if it is even possible for the dead and buried author to have an intention without free will.

The element of structuralism, as we know, which has an immortal soul and a free will, is the outside observer of the structure, which is to say, the academic who came up with structuralism, who actually has no skills or abilities that would make them do jack shit themselves, but they get to judge art because they're not a part of it, making them objectively more important in terms of their make-believe structure than the works they spend their lives obsessing over while their actual value for humanity is close to zero.

We observe the same structure in the application of ethics in internet society, wherein a soul-less offender says a meaningless buzzword which is interpreted by a soul-less reader. Much like the art critic was actually the real artist all along, so it is the critic of ethics, he who judges and determines the meaning of the soul-less offender's post, who is actually the real bigot.

[SpoonyViking]

For accuracy's sake, I consider "Hurr durr, you're dumb for caring", "I'm just 2edgy4u", and similar stances to be in bad faith.

- - - Updated - - -

Well. I *didn't* think you were being disingenuous, at least. :-)

[Ratman]

just don't be an asshat and party on dudes

[I3uster]

Well seeing this is now Spoony courteously talking to a far right guy I suppose all is well that ends well and we buried this topic for good.

[Draconic]

Maybe not the first offense, but definitely by the third if it's bad enough. Bigotry isn't something that needs that much proof to see a pattern of. Thrice should be enough, and even twice might be good depending on how bad the events were. Also, most of the psychos on Gennews were repeat offenders.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, genocide denial should be permabanned on the first offense.

Look, Gau, I’ll admit to agreeing with you and SpoonyViking at least about bigotry and these things being unacceptable, but at the same time, the mods aren’t just the staff, they’re also our friends, just like any of the other users here, and it doesn’t feel fair to judge them so harshly based on their policies.

I might not know how this all started, but I do know that I don’t want to see either of you get banned over getting too angry and causing a bunch of drama. I know how you’re feeling right now, considering that I’ve done the same thing, and I’ll just say that it’s not worth fussing too much over.

Remove your shackles staff, just start banning people you don't like

I'll volunteer to be the first

NOOOO! Not Zurvan! Don’t ban the Zurv, I couldn’t handle it!

(I really hope I didn’t just start shit because that wasn’t my intention at all.) :wince:

[Ideofago]

Being all very intelligent academics adept in academisms, we can determine a structural structure to ethics, and this structure is prone to structuralist analysis as all existence verily is, because every science is in fact, exact, especially social psychology. As we have demonstrated on structural analysis of art, art is a process wherein a soul-less creator with no free will constructed wholly by his socioeconomipsychological influences creates a soul-less work meaningless without the context of language and culture for a soul-less audience which has its questions preemptively loaded in their psyche which itself is determined by socioeconomipsychological factors solely, and the artwork merely becomes an answer to these questions, its interpretation entirely separate from the author's intent, if it is even possible for the dead and buried author to have an intention without free will.

The element of structuralism, as we know, which has an immortal soul and a free will, is the outside observer of the structure, which is to say, the academic who came up with structuralism, who actually has no skills or abilities that would make them do jack shit themselves, but they get to judge art because they're not a part of it, making them objectively more important in terms of their make-believe structure than the works they spend their lives obsessing over while their actual value for humanity is close to zero.

We observe the same structure in the application of ethics in internet society, wherein a soul-less offender says a meaningless buzzword which is interpreted by a soul-less reader. Much like the art critic was actually the real artist all along, so it is the critic of ethics, he who judges and determines the meaning of the soul-less offender's post, who is actually the real bigot.

Are you being sarcastic or not? If you're being sarcastic, congrats, I laughed very much.

[Crown]

thanks for everything guys, I was dozing off at work and reading this helped

[Pendant]

This forum sounds like it needs a "say something nice about the poster above you" sort of thread.

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

There's a huge difference between "I'm offended" and "this is offencive", though.
To put it another way: reducing *all* reasons for being offended to the same thing is an extremely simplistic view of things, to put it mildly; more often than not, deliberately disingenuous.

ETA: Not saying *you're* being disingenuous, Ratman, but it's been my experience that people arguing from that position often argue in bad faith.

He is being disingenuous, given that he is a self-admitted racist.

- - - Updated - - -

Look, Gau, I’ll admit to agreeing with you and SpoonyViking at least about bigotry and these things being unacceptable, but at the same time, the mods aren’t just the staff, they’re also our friends, just like any of the other users here, and it doesn’t feel fair to judge them so harshly based on their policies.

I might not know how this all started, but I do know that I don’t want to see either of you get banned over getting too angry and causing a bunch of drama. I know how you’re feeling right now, considering that I’ve done the same thing, and I’ll just say that it’s not worth fussing too much over.


NOOOO! Not Zurvan! Don’t ban the Zurv, I couldn’t handle it!

(I really hope I didn’t just start shit because that wasn’t my intention at all.) :wince:

If the mods are friends who we trust to manage interactions with other friends, then that's all the more reason to judge them harshly. Friends should protect their friends from shittier friends who deny or question their right to live.