Guests may browse all the site, but only registered users can post in the main forums.
Unregistered users may post in the Free Range Talk Forum

Poll: Should the administrator be allowed to "hellban" users that persistently and grievously break the rules of the forum?
Yes
No
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Persistant Personal Attacks
#11
Jafs, the ignore button is the libertarian part, and from what I hear, it's a smashing success.
 
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#12
The member L275, which is me, and I got into a spat so I hell banned him.  I had Liberty275 (which is me as moderator) go in and look, and so far it appears to remove every post he ever made.  As admin I can see him.  I'll let him stew a day or two then let him out and see if his posts return.
With the lights out, it's less dangerous.
Reply
#13
Then, why are you even talking about hellbanning or other consequences?

If the ignore feature is successful, then nothing else is necessary.



 
Reply
#14
The test was a success.  Me and Myself had an argument so I hellbanned me.  My other me watched on as a regular user.  The hellbanned user couldn't tell he was hellbanned, I could see his posts as admin, and when returned to his normal group, now all of you can see the exchange.  I left his insults in as examples.

http://forum.ljwd.org/showthread.php?tid=3437
 
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#15
(03-16-2014, 06:53 AM)'jafs' Wrote: Then, why are you even talking about hellbanning or other consequences?

If the ignore feature is successful, then nothing else is necessary.

 

 
Because occasionally a member may not reflect the tone of the community, and it is a good way of making them think about whether this community is appropriate for them, or perhaps they decide "hey, these guys are giving me more freedom to speak my mind, maybe I should be nice to them".

Don't get too worked up about "consequences".  Hellbanning is not a punishment.  I see it as a opportunity to communicate that the community will protect itself from breaches of the TOS and it may be time for the member to consider a different forum.

As for why it's needed, I think the community made the decision to not tolerate personal attacks in a poll you started, so it helps protect those people that prefer not to use "ignore" from personal attacks and it stops the board from becoming too hateful and scaring away new users.

Don't mistake Libertarianism for Anarchy.

Anyway, whether we use this is still up for vote in a poll.  I'll do whichever you guys choose by next Friday.



 


 
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#16
I'm not worked up - I think consequences are good, and the only effective way to create the desired atmosphere.

If hellbanning is just a temporary thing with no further consequences, I predict it won't be effective.

My memory may be faulty, but I don't remember a significant majority opinion on my polls - they seemed very evenly split, with maybe a small difference.  That makes it even harder, of course, to deal with in a libertarian manner.

This really is the problem with libertarianism - it's just not a good philosophy for communities.  Unless those communities are very homogenous, with a lot of shared culture and values.  A group of people who all wanted to insult and attack each other would work fine, as would one in which nobody wanted to do that.

I support your efforts to ensure a more civil tone, and voted yes in the hellbanning poll.  But, I thought libertarians didn't really like the idea of "majority rule", especially with a significant minority opinion.

 

 
Reply
#17
(03-16-2014, 12:20 PM)'Kevin Groenhagen' Wrote: Liberty:

How do you intend to treat personal attacks that are "hidden" in reputation ratings? For example, Agnostick recently offered this comment when rating my reputation: "Scared, sniveling wife-beater hiding behind multiple usernames."

 

 
The truly bizarre part of that story is that Ag gave you a "positive" rating with that comment!


 
Reply
#18
(03-16-2014, 12:20 PM)'Kevin Groenhagen' Wrote: Liberty:

How do you intend to treat personal attacks that are "hidden" in reputation ratings? For example, Agnostick recently offered this comment when rating my reputation: 

 

I turned off comments on ratings.  That should be adequate.

 
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#19
'Kevin Groenhagen dateline='' Wrote: Liberty:

How do you intend to treat personal attacks that are "hidden" in reputation ratings? For example, Agnostick recently offered this comment when rating my reputation: "Scared, sniveling wife-beater hiding behind multiple usernames."

 

 

Now you've gone and done it.  I like seeing the comments regardless of their nature.  I honestly can't believe you are whining about Ag's comments when you have subjected me to several personal attacks.  Man up, dude.

 
Civil disobedience is patriotic 
Reply
#20
Do you guys want comments on ratings or not.  I honestly didn't know they were there.  I think I have them turned off right now.
With the lights out, it's less dangerous.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Our Amazon Picks


Donate With PayPal