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 feel like we should be getting into a federalist vs. states rights debate here just to enhance the CEP nature of the discussion. Do we want a strong, centralized policy on banning (or opinion on Lys), or do we want each sub-board to create the most appropriate rules for their sub-board? Could be interesting.
Also, I had no idea so many regulars are on the FB page!
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.
So you're assuming that the vote is representative of this board as a whole. Ok.
I'm assuming that even if you discount a percentage of non regs, the vote wouldn't change much, if at all. And I don't see what on earth there is to show otherwise, since the percentages are pretty much falling in line with the original post you started.
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.
What you're saying isn't a slippery slope, though. You're bringing up (valid) points on why lys should or shouldn't be banned.
A slippery slope would be - We ban lys. Then we'll have to ban aw. Then we'll have to ban springs1. Then we'll have to ban... uh... that's about as far as I can get on that train. Which isn't going to happen.
Currently we ban no one except for spam bots. Which works *most* of the time. However we have to hammer out when it is appropriate to ban someone. If this is the impetus to do that, then great! Let's work on that.
And I do hear that others are ok with lys staying.
What's the story behind this? Cause this sounds like something that I could be interested in.
Unless speaking of it is a bannable offense, then just slip the Coke Dick Doke Cick file under the 3rd bathroom stall on the left, and I'll take it from there, thanks.
What you're saying isn't a slippery slope, though. You're bringing up (valid) points on why lys should or shouldn't be banned.
A slippery slope would be - We ban lys. Then we'll have to ban aw. Then we'll have to ban springs1. Then we'll have to ban... uh... that's about as far as I can get on that train. Which isn't going to happen.
Currently we ban no one except for spam bots. Which works *most* of the time. However we have to hammer out when it is appropriate to ban someone. If this is the impetus to do that, then great! Let's work on that.
And I do hear that others are ok with lys staying.
In that case, I believe I did answer it:
"She's annoying. She's offensive. But if that's the criteria we're going to use for banning, let's start lining up."
And I do believe the lack of willingness to change is a slippery slope, because taken as that phrase alone, most if not all posters are guilty of it - so we'd all get banned eventually if a mod who could do it decided we hadn't changed after being called out for any number of reasons.
And I'm all on board with working on better banning practices, if that helps this kind of situation. I'm glad I'm not a mod.
was anyone ever given a reason why amoosed wasnt banned?
No. She said she would leave when we voted to ban her, then her stupid ass showed up a week later under a new name. We found out it was her when someone hovered over her new screen name and found that her log in name was amoosed. And now here she is. Just hanging out like nothing happened.
What's the story behind this? Cause this sounds like something that I could be interested in.
Unless speaking of it is a bannable offense, then just slip the Coke Dick Doke Cick file under the 3rd bathroom stall on the left, and I'll take it from there, thanks.
Long story short: 2 regulars had a gtg where they blew lines of coke. And they admitted it on the board. There was something about guys being there, and as message boards go, the story evolved into them blowing lines of coke off of dicks. Coke dicks.
If Michael Brown's community is overwhelmingly black, then why is not the school board likewise overwhelmingly black.? Are they not putting up candiates? How do you vote white candidates in when you (black) have most of the votes -- unless they are not interested, not registered to vote, or do not get themselves to the polls.
You fucking bitch.
Someone please ban this racist fucking pig from this board so we never again have to hear her say how black people don't care about voting or the school board.
Black people are to blame for being underrepresented. Fucking brilliant. It is all their fault, man.
NewOrleans, is this the comment where she perpetuated a racist stereotype? This is the closest thing she said to "Blacks don't vote." Also it seems that this is the comment where you lost your shit. To be honest, though, and I can't believe I'm even defending Lys a little bit, it doesn't read as though she is perpetuating a stereotype. Inflammatory? Very. Racist? Not really. Ban-worthy? Absolutely not.
Did she violate TOS? Why are people not just blocking her? I am very confused, and late, to this, but now I am confused as sbp said she was banned yesterday and now we are voting to ban her?
Did she violate TOS? Why are people not just blocking her? I am very confused, and late, to this, but now I am confused as sbp said she was banned yesterday and now we are voting to ban her?
TEF! Not lys. We're talking about amoosed who posted personal and identifying information about another ML poster. The board voted, as a whole, to ban her. She violated the TOS. She was never perma-banned.
Did she violate TOS? Why are people not just blocking her? I am very confused, and late, to this, but now I am confused as sbp said she was banned yesterday and now we are voting to ban her?
Lys was never banned. And the reason people aren't blocking her is because apparently a whole board can't block a person. Someone will have to see her shitty posts and then it will all get stirred up again and then people will have the rage attack or something or other. Blah, blah, blah.
Long story short: 2 regulars had a gtg where they blew lines of coke. And they admitted it on the board. There was something about guys being there, and as message boards go, the story evolved into them blowing lines of coke off of dicks. Coke dicks.
I'm pretty sure it was dicks that belonged to male prostitutes who were also little people. It all happened at the hottest new NY nightclub sHOrts.
Someone please ban this racist fucking pig from this board so we never again have to hear her say how black people don't care about voting or the school board.
Black people are to blame for being underrepresented. Fucking brilliant. It is all their fault, man.
NewOrleans, is this the comment where she perpetuated a racist stereotype? This is the closest thing she said to "Blacks don't vote." Also it seems that this is the comment where you lost your shit. To be honest, though, and I can't believe I'm even defending Lys a little bit, it doesn't read as though she is perpetuating a stereotype. Inflammatory? OK. Racist? Not really. Ban-worthy? Absolutely not.
I am wondering the same thing. I know there was a post yesterday where she recounted (wrongly) and posted about the New Black Panther party...a trending story on FB yesterday. That is all I have, outside of people just don't like her at all (not ban-worthy).
Did she violate TOS? Why are people not just blocking her? I am very confused, and late, to this, but now I am confused as sbp said she was banned yesterday and now we are voting to ban her?
TEF! Not lys. We're talking about amoosed who posted personal and identifying information about another ML poster. The board voted, as a whole, to ban her. She violated the TOS. She was never perma-banned.
Oh. got it. I was very confused. But, SBP didsay something about her (lys) being banned yesterday, too. I even asked. Thanks for clarifying, though, even if this vote still confuses me.
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.
Pixy, we haven't banned ANY regular posters that I'm aware of. Like zero bannings. We don't have a warning system or anything in place to ban anyone other than a spambot, really. Someone "accidentally" outed another poster's info and they weren't banned.
That's what I mean by that. The common practice around here has been not to ban and little to no moderation; basically as requested, but even then, bans have never happened.
My point is that if we start banning people - or even one regular poster - we start down the path of more serious and time consuming moderation and I think time and time again, when we've had mod related discussions, the answer has been people want very little moderation.
TEF! Not lys. We're talking about amoosed who posted personal and identifying information about another ML poster. The board voted, as a whole, to ban her. She violated the TOS. She was never perma-banned.
Oh. got it. I was very confused. But, SBP didsay something about her (lys) being banned yesterday, too. I even asked. Thanks for clarifying, though, even if this vote still confuses me.
You now need to go read the 11 page thread to see what happened.
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.
Like I said, photo IDs. Illegals should not be allowed to vote.