The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here

[Scentless Apprentice]

Miss P, I certainly didnt expect you to agree with me!!

I'll keep it short. I dont think anyone cares about my opinion.

I am afraid I disagree.  Where is the evidence that people complain about -- that is, report to moderators, not simply gripe about -- people with whom they disagree or whom they find annoying?  As I said upthread, I think this is a canard.  The people in this thread seem to be posting out of a desire to prevent arbitrary bans, such as PILOFOLO's appeared to be, and are seeking additional warnings and notice for posters before their accounts are suspended, and temporary suspensions before posters are banned.  This is a sign of tolerance and concern for fellow posters, even ones they may not like, and I don't know how you read it otherwise.

I have no desire to go through the thread and pull out comments that support my position. So, if this were a case, you would win on my lack of effort presenting evidence. This is the crux of my position on the ban issue. Short of harassment or spam, it should be allowed. You know, an open forum.

Cliff007 is probably not a great example of anything except, perhaps, EarlCat's favoritism or lack of objectivity.  (I certainly know that lots of "regulars" hated him or felt tormented by him.)  I wasn't hanging out in a lot of the threads where he posted, but the few times I saw him post, I thought he was terribly obnoxious (and I knew who his other identity was when I thought this).  I may have even complained about him myself.  In any case, I know that in at least one thread (I'll try to find it and add the link here), .cliff007 acknowledged that people had complained about him and that a moderator had contacted him about it.  That's really all we know for sure about what happened until EarlCat comments himself.

I don't see it as ONLY Earlcat's favoritism. Your post to me implied that some regulars on the board know who the "real" cliff is. You do. Also, Earlcat's not the only moderator, and I don't think all of Cliff's posts were in the  Pre-law boards. So, Cliff IS a good exmaple because it's one poster who most would agree should have been banned, he received complaints, and NOTHING HAPPENED. I guess moderation on this board is a joke, correct? Posters who should have been banned were not, and posters who shouldnt have been, PILOFOLO, were banned.

I don't know what your last sentence means, exactly, but if it has something to do with me, please be more straightforward: what things are people saying that seem unfair to you?

I'm trying to be really straight forward. It kind of turned into ISUCKATTHIS vs. Miss P. I see some regulars jumping in on the last few pages of this thread and just kind of sticking up for you. I wasnt referencing anything you said, though.

[Miss P]

Well, I'm not going to argue with you about things about which you admittedly don't care enough to provide evidence.  That just doesn't make sense.  I will repeat that there is absolutely no indication outside of ISUCKATTHIS' posts that people -- regulars or otherwise -- report posts with which they disagree to the moderators.  If you think I'm wrong about this, it's really on you to come up with something.  (I'm not trying to be a jerk, here, btw -- I just don't see the point in shadowboxing about this when I see it as a made-up distraction from an important conversation.)

I will, however, respond to your point about Cliff007, because I think you are misinterpreting what I've said about his situation.  My guess -- without any personal knowledge -- is that both regulars and non-regulars alike complained about him.  I know that a lot of people found him very frustrating and often offensive.  If the moderators failed to remove him, it's likely for one of three reasons: (1) special treatment from EarlCat (perhaps due to understanding of his value in other parts of the board); (2) moderator restraint (which a lot of people here advocate, if it's obviously uneven in application -- which this thread is attempting to correct); or (3) improved behavior following warnings, obviating the necessity of a suspension or ban.  I don't think any of these have to do with the supposed power or favoritism of regulars.  (And indeed, if I can be frank about this, a lot of us have had conflicts with EarlCat in the past, and we certainly aren't in tight with him.  He's not friendly with any of the Off-Topic Board cliques.)

Finally, I don't think there's anything wrong with people sticking up for someone who is being attacked.  It also doesn't evince any lack of objectivity (though there's no reason posters should necessarily strive to be objective, either, as long as they're truthful and upfront about their biases).

[Scentless Apprentice]

Okie dokie, Miss P.

Your first paragraph - you're right, I don't care enough.

On Cliff, we're not going to get anywhere. You gave 3 guesses as to why Cliff wasnt removed. I'm not sure what I should do with that information. I said he should have been banned. Can't you just concede on that point?

Your last pargraph is hilarious! Attacked?!?!? Come on, Miss P! You're tougher than that. You have to be..I would think being a Mets fan would give you a thick skin 

I'm just trying to be objective, which, as you said in your post above, isnt always necessary.

[Miss P]

Your first paragraph - you're right, I don't care enough.

I guess I should be more direct: I don't think you should level accusations against people unless you have some basis for them.

On Cliff, we're not going to get anywhere. You gave 3 guesses as to why Cliff wasnt removed. I'm not sure what I should do with that information. I said he should have been banned. Can't you just concede on that point?

I've said several times that I didn't see enough of Cliff007 to make a judgment about whether he should have been banned.  I really didn't cross paths with him very often.  If what you say is true, sure, he should have been banned.  I just think we disagree about why he wasn't.  You seem to think he wasn't banned because regulars liked him.  That's just not true -- or at least I don't know any regulars who did like him.  My understanding is that a lot of regulars strongly disliked him, in fact.  I think it's much more likely that he wasn't banned either because he shaped up or because EarlCat was doing his friend a favor.

Your last pargraph is hilarious! Attacked?!?!? Come on, Miss P! You're tougher than that. You have to be..I would think being a Mets fan would give you a thick skin 

I'm just trying to be objective, which, as you said in your post above, isnt always necessary.

Yes, I have been attacked, baselessly, by this poster/these posters for about a month now.  First, they tried to claim I was some sort of elitist who is obsessed with some imaginary status system on the LAW SCHOOL DISCUSSION board.  Then, one of them called me a psychopath several times.  Later, two of them chimed in that I was a racist based on a complete distortion of a remark I made about another poster's avowed Asian fetish.  Finally, two of them have alleged, without a shred of evidence, that I tried to get PILOFOLO banned because I disagreed with him, and that, in fact, I do this regularly to people with whom I disagree (and so, probably, do my friends). 

You may think these are minor allegations; I take them seriously because I think that if any of these things were true or widely held to be true it would detract from my ability to give advice, etc.  Also, my board persona and my real-life personality are effectively merged, so how "Miss P" is perceived is important to me on a more general level.  And yes, I'm making myself more vulnerable by admitting that. 

Whether I am tough (and I'm not all that tough, obviously -- perhaps rooting for the Mets all these years has frayed my nerves) has nothing to do with whether this poster or these posters are attacking me.  And if others want to defend me, that's their prerogative.  It's not evidence of any kind of desire to exclude unpopular viewpoints; it's evidence that they think that ISUCKATTHIS et al. are off base and that it's important enough to say something. 

[Scentless Apprentice]

Your first paragraph - you're right, I don't care enough.

I guess I should be more direct: I don't think you should level accusations against people unless you have some basis for them.

I said I didnt care enough to go through the effort of digging them out - NOT THAT I DIDNT HAVE BASIS FOR THEM.

My claim in that paragraph - "here is a board full of future/current lawyers coming up with all kinds of conditions and scenarios to protect this little island from what they don't agree with or may consider annoying"

Now, do you think I can go back in this thread and find some posts that would support the above quote?

[Jamie Stringer]

My claim in that paragraph - "here is a board full of future/current lawyers coming up with all kinds of conditions and scenarios to protect this little island from what they don't agree with or may consider annoying"

Now, do you think I can go back in this thread and find some posts that would support the above quote?

As to the first paragraph, that is a faulty claim.  No one here is coming up with conditions and scenarios to protect LSD from annoying people.  There are plenty of annoying people who post here all the time who go unreported (at least by me.  And I'm sure I'm annoying to some people too).  We are, however, discussing ways to make LSD a more pleasant place and thus open it up to traffic from MORE people (which would likely lead to more annoying people since that's the nature of the beast).  And when I say "make LSD a more pleasant place," I don't mean a place with opinions that I agree, but a place where there is thoughtful, engaging, provocative, stimulating conversation.  If you look beyond the plethora of off topic posts in this thread (and there are many -- namely anything that doesn't have to do with discussing a new moderation/ban process), I don't see this as people wanting to become more exclusive at all.  I see people who are trying to engage in a discussion about a uniform process.  If you have suggestions, I'm sure everyone would like to read them.  But if not, what's the point in continuing the back and forth?

As to the last line, no, I don't.

[Scentless Apprentice]

I just think we disagree about why he wasn't.  You seem to think he wasn't banned because regulars liked him. 

100% wrong. I never said regulars liked him. I have no idea if that is true. I do know, because you told me, that some regulars are aware that cliff had/has an alt ID. That's the extent of it.

Here is my ORIGINAL post on Cliff -

"Was cliff007 ever banned? I don't think so..and he exhibited that kind of behavior for months and months. The argument in this thread is pretty light, IMO. If people would just ignore each other - I think it would go away. If someone displays a negative, bitter attitude..that should completely be allowed. Regardless of if they get complaints. I think ISUCKATTHISS falls into that category. IIRC, his first post was about being miserable in law school. So..he gets in arguments & displays his negative attitude in his posts. That's ok, right?"

[Miss P]

Your first paragraph - you're right, I don't care enough.

I guess I should be more direct: I don't think you should level accusations against people unless you have some basis for them.

I said I didnt care enough to go through the effort of digging them out - NOT THAT I DIDNT HAVE BASIS FOR THEM.

My claim in that paragraph - "here is a board full of future/current lawyers coming up with all kinds of conditions and scenarios to protect this little island from what they don't agree with or may consider annoying"

Now, do you think I can go back in this thread and find some posts that would support the above quote?

No, I don't believe you can. Your statement contains two implicit falsities.  First, no one is advocating for removal of posters or posts with which they disagree.  The only person who said this is ISUCKATTHIS, and he could not provide any evidence of it.  Second, no one is trying to come up with new ways to get rid of posts or posters they find objectionable.  The moderators here already have the power to suspend and ban posters, and they use that power regularly (twice, at least, in the last couple of weeks) -- and sometimes too quickly.  This thread arose out of complaints that Sands was too quick to ban PILOFOLO.  Almost all of the (on-topic) posts in this thread have been arguing for further restrictions on the banning power or for using temporary suspensions instead of bans.  I believe everyone has said posters should receive clear notice/warnings before being banned.  It's not a thread about "protecting a little island" of people who all agree with one another; its a thread, in fact, about protecting people who are unpopular or who make mistakes.

ETA: I didn't see Mona Lisa's post before posting this.  I agree with it.

[Scentless Apprentice]

Yes, I have been attacked, baselessly, by this poster/these posters for about a month now.  First, they tried to claim I was some sort of elitist who is obsessed with some imaginary status system on the LAW SCHOOL DISCUSSION board.  Then, one of them called me a psychopath several times.  Later, two of them chimed in that I was a racist based on a complete distortion of a remark I made about another poster's avowed Asian fetish.  Finally, two of them have alleged, without a shred of evidence, that I tried to get PILOFOLO banned because I disagreed with him, and that, in fact, I do this regularly to people with whom I disagree (and so, probably, do my friends). 

You may think these are minor allegations; I take them seriously because I think that if any of these things were true or widely held to be true it would detract from my ability to give advice, etc.  Also, my board persona and my real-life personality are effectively merged, so how "Miss P" is perceived is important to me on a more general level.  And yes, I'm making myself more vulnerable by admitting that. 

Whether I am tough (and I'm not all that tough, obviously -- perhaps rooting for the Mets all these years has frayed my nerves) has nothing to do with whether this poster or these posters are attacking me.  And if others want to defend me, that's their prerogative.  It's not evidence of any kind of desire to exclude unpopular viewpoints; it's evidence that they think that ISUCKATTHIS et al. are off base and that it's important enough to say something. 

Well, Miss P, this makes me very sad for you. I'm not trying to put you down, but I can only imagine the frustration of trying to keep your so called 'merged' online identity "clean" of all accusations.

 

[Miss P]

I just think we disagree about why he wasn't.  You seem to think he wasn't banned because regulars liked him. 

100% wrong. I never said regulars liked him. I have no idea if that is true. I do know, because you told me, that some regulars are aware that cliff had/has an alt ID. That's the extent of it.

But what's your thought about how their knowledge is significant, and, in particular, how it's connected to the fact that he wasn't banned?  I took the following to mean that you thought it was because regulars protected him somehow.  That seems highly unlikely to me.

Your post to me implied that some regulars on the board know who the "real" cliff is. You do. Also, Earlcat's not the only moderator, and I don't think all of Cliff's posts were in the  Pre-law boards. So, Cliff IS a good exmaple because it's one poster who most would agree should have been banned, he received complaints, and NOTHING HAPPENED. I guess moderation on this board is a joke, correct? Posters who should have been banned were not, and posters who shouldnt have been, PILOFOLO, were banned.

***

Well, Miss P, this makes me very sad for you. I'm not trying to put you down, but I can only imagine the frustration of trying to keep your so called 'merged' online identity "clean" of all accusations.

It is frustrating, for sure.  But I don't need your pity.  What should be sad to you is that adults who are entering this profession are comfortable lying and being vicious to each other just because they are cloaked in pseudonyms.