Question on ban announcements

[Daemon]

Except, of course, that Shri's initial ban was itself objectively stupid and should never have been issued in the first place. Otherwise, to follow your precedent, ***** would now be banned for expressing similar sentiments towards me, and indeed Daemon, who he wished would get quarantined with corona virus a few weeks ago. Moreover, as is often the case with non-lawyers, you're falling into the error of thinking this is some sort of court of law, where there are binding precedents. It isn't and there aren't. Do you think some muppet like D/L deserves the same degree of understanding towards them as a poster like Shri, who's known and largely well liked around the place? Of course not. You aren't handing out parking fines, use your ****ing brains in dealing with people ffs. Of course there are differences between posters and between issues. If you're going to adopt across the board standards relating to stuff like Shri posted which got him banned in the first place, then you'll have three members left here because some thin-skinned but Honest wanker has a strop every time someone posts something they don't like. The joint ceases functioning.

It's not especially difficult, assuming you have an EQ in double figures, to work out when someone is having a lend of another person, and/ or whether you should exercise discretion in infracting or banning someone. This idea that moderating is some incredibly hard job and the people who do it are modern day Joans of Arc for doing it is tripe.

The fact that sledger, myself, and you amongst others are still posting is surely evidence that they exercise discretion.

 

[cnerd123]

is it possible to cyberbully a machine

 

[trundler]

I thought that modern society had gone past the dark days of social Darwinism. Can we really hold the glass eating among us to the same standards as the rest? Even cavemen took better care of their disadvantaged fellows. Equity, not equality!

Of course there's an ancap behind all this. Of course those pedos are also eugenicists.

 

[Daemon]

is it possible to cyberbully a machine

Now this avatar impersonation thing, that’s definitely banworthy. #banzorax

 

[Prince EWS]

The silence from the moderating team here is deafening.

#freeshri

Tbf if the mod in question wasn't hiding from everything that's going on in this thread there'd be no need to approach them about it in other threads.

I've already said my piece in this thread, I wasn't hiding from it. No-one's really raised any new questions.

I'm definitely open to talking to the other mods about letting him back early, but he will definitely need to sit out his actual original ban (starting now, given he used a multi to evade it and so wasn't really serving it), plus some other extra penalty for evading it with a multi. So I'm pretty much not budging at anything shorter than another four months from now (which is still less than half of what it 'should' be), and he'll need to show a bit more contrition about it than he is at the moment if he wants special favours.

The fact that he's a well liked member of the community matters. It's not irrelevant. But we do have to have the ability to ban well-liked members of the forum when they break the rules, otherwise they'll just go around saying whatever they **** they like to less popular members (and this is faaar from the first time Shri has done that) knowing the pitchfork mob will demand they get no punishment, and we certainly need to be able to actually enforce bans by extending them when people use multis to just continue posting as normal or they'll have no teeth to begin with.

He was. That's why the ban is now a year rather than the original three months. I'm open to cutting it back down to something much shorter than a year, but it shouldn't be shorter than three months, otherwise he'd effectively be rewarded for making the multi.

Just camping in here making more or less the the exact same post over and over again isn't going to help anyone, and no-one has brought anything new to the table that would warrant a response other than a rebadged or re-explained version of those posts. I don't owe you all personal responses to the same arguments of "a year seems too long, maybe we should let him back early" (agreed, and already stated above - happy to have a chat with Shri and the other mods after he serves three months), "the ban he got originally that I didn't really care about arguing until now was for insulting someone we don't like so it shouldn't have counted" (yeah, not an argument, and in fact actually kind of makes it worse in a way because we know Shri does this on purpose to the heel of the day to try to get them banned and we've asked him not to) or hashtag compaigns.

You can call me whatever you like in this thread, I don't care. Mods need to make unpopular decisions sometimes and people are some people are going to be mad when that happens. I'm not about to hand out infractions for copping insults in this thread, but if you start systematically trying to take over Cricket Chat threads I haven't even been posting in with irrelevant crap about me then that's another matter.

 

[trundler]

Now this avatar impersonation thing, that’s definitely banworthy. #banzorax

If we can unban Shri for being well liked, can we not rally together to have ***** banned on account of being universally recognised as a cretin?

 

[Athlai]

How unreasonable we are all being, not just waiting for a conversation we can't see, with no updates.

Of course people are going to go over board FFS. What ****ing kind of a big deal is it to just say that you're giving Shri 100 days. Jesus Christ.

 

[nightprowler10]

Just to clarify, is it an actual prerequisite to being a Mod these days that you check your sense of humour in once you're appointed?

Look I'm not here to speak on anyone's behalf. But I deal with the consequences of bullying quite a bit due to the nature of my job and in almost every incident the offending party was just having fun without meaning to cause any malice. There's always been tons of posting on CW that I just assumed was ok because surely the people involved were all in on some joke I was missing. Once you realize that's not the case it becomes clear just how little self-awareness some of you have about what you post and how it can and is taken by the targets of those posts.

 

[trundler]

Lol double post. ****ing ******.

 

[Athlai]

No one is saying Shri shouldn't be punished. No one serious anyway. Its the year long stitch up thats the problem. Pull your heads in FFS.

 

[nightprowler10]

No one is saying Shri shouldn't be punished. No one serious anyway. Its the year long stitch up thats the problem. Pull your heads in FFS.

There's a discussion going with on with people weighing in as they get a chance to do so. We don't live here and have lives outside this place. Add to that the discussion ends up being more about the insane reaction from you lot rather than Shri. So there will be communication when there is something to communicate. Until then take your own advice and pull your ****ing head in.

 

[Gnske]

I've already said my piece in this thread, I wasn't hiding from it. No-one's really raised any new questions.





Just camping in here making more or less the the exact same post over and over again isn't going to help anyone, and no-one has brought anything new to the table that would warrant a response other than a rebadged or re-explained version of those posts. I don't owe you all personal responses to the same arguments of "a year seems too long, maybe we should let him back early" (agreed, and already stated above - happy to have a chat with Shri and the other mods after he serves three months), "the ban he got originally that I didn't really care about arguing until now was for insulting someone we don't like so it shouldn't have counted" (yeah, not an argument, and in fact actually kind of makes it worse in a way because we know Shri does this on purpose to the heel of the day to try to get them banned and we've asked him not to) or hashtag compaigns.

You can call me whatever you like in this thread, I don't care. Mods need to make unpopular decisions sometimes and people are some people are going to be mad when that happens. I'm not about to hand out infractions for copping insults in this thread, but if you start systematically trying to take over Cricket Chat threads I haven't even been posting in with irrelevant crap about me then that's another matter.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8574722/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025913/

PEWS you moderate an online squash forum, please remember that before you take the "These questions are beneath me" approach.

 

[trundler]

Would be great if we could get Kippax to become a spokesperson for the movement

 

[Daemon]

There's a discussion going with on with people weighing in as they get a chance to do so. We don't live here and have lives outside this place. Add to that the discussion ends up being more about the insane reaction from you lot rather than Shri. So there will be communication when there is something to communicate. Until then take your own advice and pull your ****ing head in.

Just ignore all this noise and focus on AC Maf ffs

 

[Athlai]

There's a discussion going with on with people weighing in as they get a chance to do so. We don't live here and have lives outside this place. Add to that the discussion ends up being more about the insane reaction from you lot rather than Shri. So there will be communication when there is something to communicate. Until then take your own advice and pull your ****ing head in.

A reasonable response from a moderator eh? Shall I also take James advise and if I don't like it just **** off the forum entirely?

Have any of you ever considered that the issue with what is occurring here is the amount of discussion needed to make a decision on who can post on a cricket forum? This community is insular. Made up of asshole intellectuals. But that is just what cricketweb is.

If you think a few posts on an internet forum with a mock hashtag are insane, well ****. What an insane world we must live in.

 

[Gnske]

This is turning into a circa-2016 NZ tour thread real quick.

Or in PEWS's case a circa-1939 Polish tour thread real quick.

 

[Prince EWS]

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8574722/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025913/

PEWS you moderate an online squash forum, please remember that before you take the "These questions are beneath me" approach.

Most of the posts don't even contain any questions, they're just rants, memes and jokey insults. Which is fine, but I don't know why people were expecting replies if so. I've already said my piece. None of this is beneath me, if anything I'm probably above my station being the only mod actually replying to questions about Shri in the thread, but I've already said what I had to say in response to the issues people have brought up, saying it again isn't going to help.

 

[cnerd123]

i thought we were all protesting for the lulz

is anyone actually seriously mad about this? Shri got a year long ban, people spoke up, and the mod team is open to reducing the sentence. All's good. The mod's here largely do a thankless job excellently, and PEWS's responses have been satisfactory. I was only piling on cuz I thought it was funny tbh.

Having said that, I don't think it would be the worst thing if bans/infractions relating to abusing/insulting members get reversed/retracted if the member involved receives a perma ban.

 

[Prince EWS]

Having said that, I don't think it would be the worst thing if bans/infractions relating to abusing/insulting members get reversed/retracted if the member involved receives a perma ban.

The perverse incentives this would create would be absolutely terrible. I'd sooner ask James to make sledger a moderator.

 

[jimmy101]

I've already said my piece in this thread, I wasn't hiding from it. No-one's really raised any new questions.





Just camping in here making more or less the the exact same post over and over again isn't going to help anyone, and no-one has brought anything new to the table that would warrant a response other than a rebadged or re-explained version of those posts. I don't owe you all personal responses to the same arguments of "a year seems too long, maybe we should let him back early" (agreed, and already stated above - happy to have a chat with Shri and the other mods after he serves three months), "the ban he got originally that I didn't really care about arguing until now was for insulting someone we don't like so it shouldn't have counted" (yeah, not an argument, and in fact actually kind of makes it worse in a way because we know Shri does this on purpose to the heel of the day to try to get them banned and we've asked him not to) or hashtag compaigns.

You can call me whatever you like in this thread, I don't care. Mods need to make unpopular decisions sometimes and people are some people are going to be mad when that happens. I'm not about to hand out infractions for copping insults in this thread, but if you start systematically trying to take over Cricket Chat threads I haven't even been posting in with irrelevant crap about me then that's another matter.

Whilst I understand it might be difficult to deal with so many voices at once, the fact that you plan to talk with Shri/other mods in three months time is an unintentional admission that your original ruling was hypocritical. No-one here is asking you to answer back to every post, we're just asking you to give the people what they want & #freeshri, if you can't/won't do that then maybe you should resign, man.

I'm sure people told the movers & shakers of the Occupy Wall Street campaign that "camping here isn't going to help anyone" but that doesn't invalidate their cause at all.