What is the point of these forums if you’re banned for using it?
From the modlog:
admin
Banned @Julianus
reason: 3 week timeout for more constant bickering
expires: in 21d
There are admins with clear political bias and they are using their powers to suppress opinions they don’t like. This isn’t a ban for violating rules… but simply replying to their posts. What gives?
We have never removed any responses during debates, with us or otherwise, with the exception of clear violations against the (not at all political) rules. In fact, we sometimes leave rule breaking comments up if they have gotten a lot of responses, especially factual rebuttals, by other users.
In the tolerance example you brought up, the user wasn’t banned for having that belief, they were banned because they were repeatedly being disrespectful to (attacking and insulting the) other users trying to debate with them, following multiple reports of their comments.
I am not sure if we both have the same person in mind (for now I won’t reveal anyone’s name). I rechecked the post and reread it couple of times. I tried to check the modlog but the ban couldn’t be seen but this lerson is still labeled as “banned”. Couple of observations:
we sometimes leave rule breaking comments up if they have gotten a lot of responses
comments were not removed, the user was banned
repeatedly being disrespectful to… other users
said person was only debating with one other user, an admin specifically.
neither of them was being blatantly disrespectful, though their debate was surely heated.
-the modlog didn’t specify your stated reason.
the user wasn’t banned for having that belief
The modlog (now weirdly missing certain logs) stated that they were nazi a sympathizer, when in fact they were not (the admin was biased in my opinion and being maliciously rethorical with his replies)
Again, we could be talking about different people here, so if you need more information I will gladly serve you with that so you could check yourself. A counter-argument to what I’ve said could be that the user was banned for other comments he made on other posts but that could easily be refuted because: 1) No other comments of theirs gained so much attraction and controversy and 2) the modlog stated they were a “nazi sympathizer”.
Either way, my argument prevails concerning admin/mod bias, especially that the the user was banned by the same admin they were arguing with. That, I think, can lead to unjust consequences. A solution would be that another admin/mod be the one that decides in such cases.
Can you link that user’s profile then? I’m not the one who took the action so I don’t know all the details off the top of my head.
The modlog (now weirdly missing certain logs)
It’s not perfect but also not malicious. Bulk actions are only listed as a single entry for example, something that needs to be addressed in further development.
And of course we do have to hide links to things like porn, gore, etc from it so it can’t be seen at all. We also remove blatant spam and brigading posts (like the recent waves from 4chan) because they want it to be seen in any way possible, and knowing that it will remain visible in the modlog will just encourage them. We have never removed a rule breaking debate post from the modlog in this way.
I see now. I didn’t deal with this person, but IMO, I don’t see the ban as being unreasonable. The admins have generally agreed that advocating for bigotry such as white supremacy and Nazi ideology is also against rule 1. I guess whichever admin banned them saw this user as falling under that category.
But nobody was defending bigotry until the admin mentioned it, and the issued reason of the ban was malicious rather than truthful . Either way I still respect your opinion and this issue has passed a long time ago. But I mentioned this specific case to talk about a general issue, which is the predominant admin/mod bias when they enter into heated arguments. I already stated my suggestion above and would like admins to take it into consideration, regardless of whether this phenomenon is frequent or not. Thank you.
We have never removed any responses during debates, with us or otherwise, with the exception of clear violations against the (not at all political) rules. In fact, we sometimes leave rule breaking comments up if they have gotten a lot of responses, especially factual rebuttals, by other users.
In the tolerance example you brought up, the user wasn’t banned for having that belief, they were banned because they were repeatedly being disrespectful to (attacking and insulting the) other users trying to debate with them, following multiple reports of their comments.
I am not sure if we both have the same person in mind (for now I won’t reveal anyone’s name). I rechecked the post and reread it couple of times. I tried to check the modlog but the ban couldn’t be seen but this lerson is still labeled as “banned”. Couple of observations:
said person was only debating with one other user, an admin specifically.
neither of them was being blatantly disrespectful, though their debate was surely heated.
-the modlog didn’t specify your stated reason.
The modlog (now weirdly missing certain logs) stated that they were nazi a sympathizer, when in fact they were not (the admin was biased in my opinion and being maliciously rethorical with his replies)
Again, we could be talking about different people here, so if you need more information I will gladly serve you with that so you could check yourself. A counter-argument to what I’ve said could be that the user was banned for other comments he made on other posts but that could easily be refuted because: 1) No other comments of theirs gained so much attraction and controversy and 2) the modlog stated they were a “nazi sympathizer”.
Either way, my argument prevails concerning admin/mod bias, especially that the the user was banned by the same admin they were arguing with. That, I think, can lead to unjust consequences. A solution would be that another admin/mod be the one that decides in such cases.
Can you link that user’s profile then? I’m not the one who took the action so I don’t know all the details off the top of my head.
It’s not perfect but also not malicious. Bulk actions are only listed as a single entry for example, something that needs to be addressed in further development.
And of course we do have to hide links to things like porn, gore, etc from it so it can’t be seen at all. We also remove blatant spam and brigading posts (like the recent waves from 4chan) because they want it to be seen in any way possible, and knowing that it will remain visible in the modlog will just encourage them. We have never removed a rule breaking debate post from the modlog in this way.
Thank you for responding.
here’s the comment of DPUGT responding to Dessalines about the paradox of tolerance.
I believe that. And yes it should be addressed, especially when it comes to such matters.
I see now. I didn’t deal with this person, but IMO, I don’t see the ban as being unreasonable. The admins have generally agreed that advocating for bigotry such as white supremacy and Nazi ideology is also against rule 1. I guess whichever admin banned them saw this user as falling under that category.
But nobody was defending bigotry until the admin mentioned it, and the issued reason of the ban was malicious rather than truthful . Either way I still respect your opinion and this issue has passed a long time ago. But I mentioned this specific case to talk about a general issue, which is the predominant admin/mod bias when they enter into heated arguments. I already stated my suggestion above and would like admins to take it into consideration, regardless of whether this phenomenon is frequent or not. Thank you.