She's been tagged, but she never comes for her tags.
TBH, even though the results say don't ban her, it's not like anyone's like, "OMG I LOVE LYS'S POSTS." People are voting that they don't think they are banworthy but they don't like her contribution to the board either.
I mean, I voted no, but I hope lys doesn't take that as an endorsement for her BS. It was more of a preserving the common practice of this board vote, and I would guess most other no voters feel the same way.
We have a post about whether to ban her or not - that's not exactly welcoming even if the vote goes her way.
I feel like I can safely say that Lys doesn't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks of her and her posts. She doesn't care if anyone here likes her or not. Her currency is Fox-esque sound bites and for some it's just white noise. For others it incites a rage hotter than 1,000 suns.
We have TWO Lys centered multi-page posts going on today. For a group that apparently hates her or is just annoyed by her existence, we give her a lot of press.
Ok, so I think the vote is disingenuous. Voting if you're a lurker, voting if you're just passing through from another board, voting if you don't actively participate on *this* board shouldn't be counted. This is not a democratic vote where everyone gets to vote.
We are talking about the regulars, on this board, who actively participate and deal with her on a daily basis.
And I'm not just saying this because it's going against what I recommend. Most of the regulars are on the FB page, and there's only 101 people there (give or take a few that aren't active, but those would be replaced by the handful that are active here and not on the fb page). There's something weird going on here.
Ok, so I think the vote is disingenuous. Voting if you're a lurker, voting if you're just passing through from another board, voting if you don't actively participate on *this* board shouldn't be counted. This is not a democratic vote where everyone gets to vote.
We are talking about the regulars, on this board, who actively participate and deal with her on a daily basis.
And I'm not just saying this because it's going against what I recommend. Most of the regulars are on the FB page, and there's only 101 people there (give or take a few that aren't active, but those would be replaced by the handful that are active here and not on the fb page). There's something weird going on here.
I'm not on FB and thought I was a regular... and I voted twice just to see how the vote would swing.
Ok, so I think the vote is disingenuous. Voting if you're a lurker, voting if you're just passing through from another board, voting if you don't actively participate on *this* board shouldn't be counted. This is not a democratic vote where everyone gets to vote.
We are talking about the regulars, on this board, who actively participate and deal with her on a daily basis.
And I'm not just saying this because it's going against what I recommend. Most of the regulars are on the FB page, and there's only 101 people there (give or take a few that aren't active, but those would be replaced by the handful that are active here and not on the fb page). There's something weird going on here.
I'm not on FB and thought I was a regular... and I voted twice just to see how the vote would swing.
Ok, so I think the vote is disingenuous. Voting if you're a lurker, voting if you're just passing through from another board, voting if you don't actively participate on *this* board shouldn't be counted. This is not a democratic vote where everyone gets to vote.
We are talking about the regulars, on this board, who actively participate and deal with her on a daily basis.
And I'm not just saying this because it's going against what I recommend. Most of the regulars are on the FB page, and there's only 101 people there (give or take a few that aren't active, but those would be replaced by the handful that are active here and not on the fb page). There's something weird going on here.
I'm not on FB and thought I was a regular... and I voted twice just to see how the vote would swing.
Lots of people quit the FB page. Malcolm and Helena come to mind.
Ok, so I think the vote is disingenuous. Voting if you're a lurker, voting if you're just passing through from another board, voting if you don't actively participate on *this* board shouldn't be counted. This is not a democratic vote where everyone gets to vote.
We are talking about the regulars, on this board, who actively participate and deal with her on a daily basis.
And I'm not just saying this because it's going against what I recommend. Most of the regulars are on the FB page, and there's only 101 people there (give or take a few that aren't active, but those would be replaced by the handful that are active here and not on the fb page). There's something weird going on here.
This is ridiculous. I don't care one way or the other about Lys. But I can ignore her without even blocking her.
I voted no because I think saying we should ban her is too much of a grey area, full stop. I voted no because I think if the people she offends the most say blocking is a more appropriate solution than banning, I can respect that and take that into account. I voted no because it IS a slippery slope, to me and to apparently many voters, on who gets to decide the symptoms of a troll and if they should post on a public internet message board or not.
By all means, start looking up IP addresses and validating each voter. If you all have the time, go for it.
Well, I personally think it's fine if other boards are weighing in. Because lys posts on on (MM), and I think having a banning of the first regular poster affects all of us on this forum, not specifically this board.
To me, this vote is more about whether we want to head down the path of bannings or maintain the status quo.
To me, this vote is more about whether we want to head down the path of bannings or maintain the status quo.
You keep saying this, and I'm struggling to understand. How, exactly, is this going to lead down a path of bannings. I know I personally don't have a list of people I want to ban.
ladyd - I challenge you to think of one mod action here that lead to a slippery slope. One.
I think it was pointed out by at least one other besides me that the definition of "troll" is not hammered out. There's one.
I think it has also been questioned whether her latest post about Michael Brown was an outright racial slur; there's lack of agreement there.
I think the assertion that she shows no willingness to change, given today as a reason she should be banned, needs more definition as well. Willingness to change what? There are many posters who don't change their style, approach, and general tone for anyone or anything and post repeatedly about old topics/news/references in non-related threads as well.
I also think the argument that most of the board blocking her won't work is not a solid one. We're all grown women with solid intellects who run into people daily with whom we'd rather chuck to the curb than interact with. This board falls in that same bucket, and I think we can all put big-girl panties on and block a user, ignore their posts on the mobile app if we use it, and KOKO.
She's annoying. She's offensive. But if that's the criteria we're going to use for banning, let's start lining up.
ladyd - I challenge you to think of one mod action here that lead to a slippery slope. One.
I think it was pointed out by at least one other besides me that the definition of "troll" is not hammered out. There's one.
I think it has also been questioned whether her latest post about Michael Brown was an outright racial slur; there's lack of agreement there.
I think the assertion that she shows no willingness to change, given today as a reason she should be banned, needs more definition as well. Willingness to change what? There are many posters who don't change their style, approach, and general tone for anyone or anything and post repeatedly about old topics/news/references in non-related threads as well.
I also think the argument that most of the board blocking her won't work is not a solid one. We're all grown women with solid intellects who run into people daily with whom we'd rather chuck to the curb than interact with. This board falls in that same bucket, and I think we can all put big-girl panties on and block a user, ignore their posts on the mobile app if we use it, and KOKO.
She's annoying. She's offensive. But if that's the criteria we're going to use for banning, let's start lining up.
1. It's defined by proboards as part of the TOS and has been stated she fits as a troll.
2. I never claimed it was racist. I used it as an example of being tone deaf, not reading what the rest of the thread is about, and then leaving without further discussion.
3. I heartily disagree with you, and I stated why. Regarding this very issue, how many instances in how many threads did people say, "I must have missed something." It happens every time.
This has just gotten ridiculous. Validating voters? Really? Even if you take away half of the "no ban voters" (since I'm guessing they are the invalid ones), the no ban still wins. Jesus.
This has just gotten ridiculous. Validating voters? Really? Even if you take away half of the "no ban voters" (since I'm guessing they are the invalid ones), the no ban still wins. Jesus.
But it's a closer vote, and more true to what this board wants. Really that's all I'm after here.
This has just gotten ridiculous. Validating voters? Really? Even if you take away half of the "no ban voters" (since I'm guessing they are the invalid ones), the no ban still wins. Jesus.
But it's a closer vote, and more true to what this board wants. Really that's all I'm after here.
Yes. It's a closer vote, if you assume a full half of the no voters don't count, but all of the yes voters do. Which is beyond ridiculous.
Eh? Related to my fourth point, or the slippery slope request?
Slippery slope.
OK then, I guess I thought I did bring up several points that aren't defined. And you didn't address the willingness-to-change point you made. Plus you said you heartily disagree with me re: the blocking thing, which OK, but maybe that needs its own vote on if people can deal with mass-blocking of one poster or not and if they think it'll lead to mass confusion. That's not a given and would need to be tested - maybe we try blocking her and see where that leads after a short time?
But here's yet another slippery slope - a majority of posters in your prior thread indicated they don't think she should be banned for a myriad of reasons (TOS, board history and norms, etc). Whether you buy the current vote or not, those opinions are relevant. Mine is just one, and that's cool.