I like you people and I enjoy sparring with you all. Smartest forum on the internet. I have learned a lot, BTW.
But, the way I figure its just a matter of time until I piss a mod off again.
Yea, those suspensions until the end of the Unix Epoch are definitely a thing here.
I just want to point out that having posted 61 out of 400+ posts in a topic is in itself cause for concern. That summary at the top of every topic with the cast of characters ordered by number of posts is … not exactly a leaderboard. It’s closer to the opposite of that.
In general, the longer the topic and the greater percent of it taken up by a few folks, the worse that conversation becomes. Diversity of opinion and participation is good. Healthy even.
So, any time you find yourself replying over and over and over to a topic (or worse, a particular person)… take a break. Go for a walk. Something. Anything. I too give myself this advice on a regular basis.
It’s not exactly a secret. Anyone who can Google can clearly see.
http://www.popehat.com/2012/10/09/frankly-i-dont-care-how-due-process-makes-you-feel/
The BB deletions tend to be selective, not global, if you are being an asshat at times (and you know it happens to the best of us, we are all human) there will be some artifacts left around. Total deletions of all user responses from an entire time period… very unlikely, BB would just delete or suspend the user if it was that bad. And rightfully so.
New accounts though, you wonder, why is it new? And why a new user that wants to suddenly interact so much? That’s more oddball in my book than periods of inactivity.
With month long bans being passed out on a regular basis you can’t imagine a reason new accounts are created that want to suddenly interact? Are you even trying?
New accounts with bad behavior would just be suspended forever or deleted. And why not?
Suspensions of limited duration are for users you already have a reasonable track record with. New users have no such track record.
You said…[quote=“codinghorror, post:44, topic:48128”]
New accounts though, you wonder, why is it new? And why a new user that wants to suddenly interact so much? That’s more oddball in my book than periods of inactivity.
[/quote] you make no mention of bad behavior . You simply question why new accounts would want to interact so much. Well there’s your answer.
Poppycock.
Because a subject is near to my experience and I have a lot to say about it is not a reason to alienate a user.
As a matter of fact, its the stupidest reason to ban a user. Unless, of course you have an agenda. Hmmmm?
What if other forum participants are asking you questions “over and over”?
Your criteria leaves much to be desired.
I didn’t say you should be banned for it. Just that it’s a sign of a sick conversation, depending on the percentages and the number of people in the conversation.
Good advice. I haven’t even read your reply to me from yesterday. Better to slow some conversations down. fist-bump.
LOL, those references in the wiki article might be some of the most tremendous PR I have ever seen.
Edit: And the popehat article? Jeeeezus. Woolly mouthed, mental midgetry.
As a fan of both blogs, I actually quite like the ending of Popehat’s.
Second Update: Xeni Jardin, the author of the BoingBoing post, updated it to link to dissenting views, including Gideon’s and mine, and printed a dissenting view from Cory Doctorow. I think that shows admirable openness to opposing views. Ms. Jardin also points out that she did not moderate the post.
He then says
I accept that, but I think the kind of moderation by Antinous discussed in this post represents a serious credibility problem for BoingBoing.
And by creating the BBS / taking the comments off the front page, I think that BB has addressed that feedback as well.
I’m a fan of Ken.
Clark should go away, and Patrick needs his own twitter account.
For me, Clark works because every evil mastermind needs a loyal-but-flunkie henchman.
I rarely agree with what Clark says, or follow his leaps of logic, but the interplay between him and Ken is often funny.
Hmm, yeah… I’m rather sensitive to people throwing down with the accentuation of legal definitions given particular prosecutorial conduct over and above the underlying moral implications of an action.
In fact, the only time I remember being approached by a mod recently is in relation to my inability to engage cogently with people who fall back on that stance.
They don’t ever seem to go so far as to imply that the results of a legal process imply moral truth but the reliance on the tactic to make a point not only gets my goat but minimises the moral implications of a subject.
It’s as if people who use the tactic think that stating (in this instance) why it is perfectly justified that such a person should walk free given the circumstances of their prosecution is actually adding anything to the exploration of the situation.
It hardly matters. I posted only a couple of the first results I attained with a quick search. The only point I intended to make was that I am clearly not the only one who has this impression in response to a user who repeatedly claims I am imagining it. I wont post the thousands of others posts where others have repeated the same impressions because it doesn’t matter to my point. Many people have noticed the manner in which BB controls the narrative of the comments by eliminating posts that don’t jibe with their chosen narrative. I say that their often defensive stance reveals inadequacy in the validity of the convictions. That’s what Ken is getting at when he refers to the “serious credibility problem for BoingBoing”. Personally I welcome when my beliefs are held under scrutiny it gives me a chance to refine them or to change them if I am in error. BB would often rather silence those who would scrutinize .
I wonder if the result would have been the same if this had not come to light in a respected blog. It almost looks like BB responded just to save face.
No, it was probably that pesky Dragon!
Did you even read the article you linked to?
This is pretty much the only unconditional statement I’ve seen you make to represent your actual views. A lot of ‘I wonder’, ‘It’s almost as if’ etc. So let’s go with that.
There is a great deal of discussion here, and if you can hold yourself to a standard of commenting on a topic without derailing or victim blaming, if you can pay attention to how your views can be misrepresented and make an effort to be clear; I think you’ll find yourself being pleasantly challenged on many subjects.
As to the convictions of the people who run the site and to the convictions of those who comment here, a stronger memetic oak is hard to find anywhere.
The reason I like boingboing so much, the reason that I was willing to stick with this language game and learn the ropes, the reason I am still coming here and attempting to get mired in subjects with which I am not comfortable; is that you either have good memes or your ideas will be crucified.
The reason that a bunch of people are pissed off at the site (meta entity) is because they are weak sauce.
Like I’ve said elsewhere, there is an inroad to every meme for even the most closed mind. Unfortunately, sometimes you will be expected to find that road yourself.
