No.21007
>>21006Who the fuck is Pascal
No.21008
>10 days for /pol/
It's joever thingnoticerbros
No.21009
>>21007Oh, sorry, pasquale. I assumed its another French idiotism of writing "quale" to say "cal", but nope, turns out that is Italian and actually pronounced like its spelled, who knew. How very foolish of me.
No.21010
Jannies setting up their own subreddit
No.21011
>>21007if you don't know who the menace Pasquale is, its because you are new.
>>21010always has been.
No.21012
Good move, more clarity and congruency is in the interests of the users and fairness, to stop powerabuse or biases from creeping in.
People complaining about it being "too much effort from the mods" should shut up
No.21013
>>20949i feel like there should be a shorter low quality posting ban length.
if someone's made one shit post they don't need to be told to fuck off for a whole day - and they won't, they'll unplug their router, resent the ban and forget the lesson - ban them from an hour or two and it's not really worth the effort of getting up to unplug the router, they'll wait and they won't feel half as bad about it because it's just a gentle reminder rather than being effectively told to fuck off.
more generally: an inconsistency in ban lengths is not necessarily a bad thing. rules are always violated to a greater or lesser degree. some people need to be gently reminded that /isg/ isn't /usapol/, which could be done with a short ban, others might need to be gently reminded that /usapol/ isn't /anorectalviolencepol/ by being kicked out indefinitely.
>>20974subjectivity isn't really a bad thing. what's needed is reflexivity.
that is, mods should ban with subjective judgement, and the userbase should judge those bans. not in some rigid bureaucratic way, but just by discussing the matter, such as in a moderation general. (crucially,
not in matrix.)
>>20997it ought to vary from ban to ban
(and sometimes perhaps public humiliation without a ban is enough.)
No.21014
>>20997This poster is completely wrong. This forum/community has had a recurring problem for years now of mods doing driveby discussion nuking so that when someone gets banned entire threads get shat on and no longer possible to follow the discussion chain. If anything we need far less post deletion than is currently happening. In reality, public ban messages are an essential means of holding moderation accountable by forcing mods to justify their decisions out in the open. Disappearing posts should only be reserved for blatantly illegal content that nobody wants to see on their computer.
No.21015
>>21014If we don't delete people's posts when they get banned, there's essentially no deterrence against bait because people will still respond to it and anon's shitty take will still be there for all to see, with a big red 'pay attention to me' sticker.
No.21016
>>21014Sometimes we cant ban/punish posters coz it is a throwaway IP or TOR so deleting is the only effective way of moderation.
No.21020
>>21014>If anything we need far less post deletion than is currently happening.lmao get fucked
>public ban messages are an essential means of holding moderation accountabledid you forget the public staff logs………………
No.21021
Does this apply retrospectively?
for example, if I have been "perma-banned" for one of the things listed other than illegal content is that ban now lifted?
No.21022
>>21021no, the ban categories are not the only way people can get banned. just a quick method to categorize some common bans into a standardized ban length.
No.21023
>and here we come to the main issue: mods don't know what organic growth and discussion is. all they know is micromanaging threads, hoping the discussion goes in a direction they want. but just like you can't keep trim a plant, then water it, then replant it, then add nutrients, then remove them, etc. it stresses the plant and the plant withers and dies, or its growth is stunted and it grows into a bad plant. that is what we have here. /leftypol/ is a dying tree. and instead of watering it and leaving it be, the mods are. cutting off whole branches that have a few bad leaves. there's barely anything left of this tree, a few leaves and a trunk, and rotting roots.
>the biggest issue I see is that mods think they are content curators>>>/leftypol_archive/557475 No.21024
>>21020As a small digression, if you are who I think you are, you are without a doubt one of the worst posters across multiple boards and it is truly a mystery how anyone thought you had the mental disposition to be a moderator. Nearly every one of your posts would fall under the "low-quality posting" rule and would qualify for deletion or banning, but of course it won't… because that's a completely subjective rule prone to abuse by interpretation (and naturally arrogant mods think they're above the rules). You are yourself a good argument for why that rule shouldn't even exist.
No.21025
>>21024>if you are who I think you arei am not.
ive never identified myself on this shithole
No.21026
Blah blah we will have schizophrenic glow bans when you critizise Russian imperialism.
No.21027
>>20949Alanya being threatened by red fascists is good mascot of this site.
No.21029
>>21015you really need to understand there is a large difference between a post that is, kinda shit, or, a little controversial and, a post that is so abominable that it cannot under any circumstance be allowed
No.21030
>>21029Do you? We generally don't even touch the former. If only you knew how many report we dismiss because the rationale of the report is so asinine at worst or debatable at best.
No.21031
>>21015Ok… but then all the responses will just be a dunk on the posters final post.
>>20949What does /pol/ even mean?
What does off-topic even mean?
Stupid. Also I've seen much longer bans than those for anything.
No.21032
>>21031>Ok… but then all the responses will just be a dunk on the posters final post. Why do you want more of this? 'dunking' on some retard to 'totally own' the reactoid with 'le epic maymays' is not exactly something we dont have every day.
What on earth part of you wants to make this place more of a shithole for?
No.21033
>>21029and you need to understand that most posts dont fall under this ridiculous binary youre presenting
No.21034
>>21032think about le memes!!!
No.21036
>>21035this is correct. one of the splits was over MLs being autistic about Rojava. this place is only good because its the only place i know with a good spread of every ideology
No.21037
>>21035Honestly, I kind of agree with you, however 'glow' is usually/often used as a shorthand for 'obnoxious liberals' in the same way as '/pol/' is used to mean 'Nazis, reactionaries, etc'.
Do people think that we should tolerate people shilling NATO talking points about a clash of civilisations with the barbaric east? (honest question, not rhetorical) It could be fun to dunk on them at least but we have to consider that letting the board fill with cancer may have bad consequences in the long term.
No.21038
>>21037> Do people think that we should tolerate people shilling NATO talking points about a clash of civilisations with the barbaric east?Nobody ever phrases it like that
No.21039
>>21030> Do you? We generally don't even touch the former. I don’t agree.
>>21033Exactly, most post should be allowed and only a very small number should be gotten rid of.
Also like I said above, complaining about the jannies should be protected speech, in order to prevent abuse
No.21040
>>21037bad foreign policy takes are the least harmful of bad takes. nobody here has any influence on foreign policy whatsoever. (perversely, this is why people get so mad about it. this impotence makes it a powerful yet cost-free way of setting up a shibboleth.) if the CIA or MI5 were spending money to shift our foreign policy views, i'd
be insulted i wasn't offered to get in on this opportunity consider that the most positive influence we could have - sucking up money and resources that would be better deployed almost anywhere else.
also, even if we take the position that a certain line is correct, this just renders the topic unfit for discussion. there have been times where the ukraine thread has felt incredibly circlejerky since nearly everyone in it was really just defining themselves against mainstream opinion via a parasocial relationship with a foreign state. maybe it's the nature of modern social media that identifiable tribes form too quickly and become tedious. (i.e. z gang here acts insufficiently distinguishable from z gang elsewhere, rather than being unambiguously of-leftypol. thus uninteresting.)
–
tl;dr of a different post i didn't write: better to get more diversity on 'domestic' policy (i.e. questions of local revolution, economy, and general structure of sociey) than to give a damn about foreign policy. where the two appear incongruous (paul mason presents: marxist NATO!), all the better to laugh at.
No.21041
>>21035Yeah, I gotta agree with you there. I've been banned for "glow" like six times just because one of the brave jannies disagreed with my observation that ziggas are only serving as a fifth column in leftism.
No.21042
>>21041It’s also a pretty big laugh you can banned for “glow” but also for “schizo” or “x tier”
No.21045
>>20950>noooo muh bureaucracy, you cant organize or standardize anything !fuck off retard
>>20953given its only 1day, seem fine
>>21001makes sense
>>20971>always banning fucking /pol/ spam or namefag bullshit, plus the odd glowops based janguard
>>21006namefag reetards likee you should be ban on sight anyway
the moderation is pretty ok these days so do whatever you want to the saboteurs
No.21046
>>21039>I don’t agree. With what? Your fee-fees? Do you want to know how many reports are in the queue as of right? And the reasons for said reports? And how many I responded?
Check the public logs No.21047
>>21035>hey just serve as excuse for [stuff mod doesn't likeNo they don't, liar.
Anti-Secterian bans are almost always just that one or two autists reee-ing about anarchists or MLs in an attempt to create a homogeneous board politic.
These are not worth keeping.
No.21048
>>21039>complaining about the jannies should be protected speech, in order to prevent abuseit is if you werent a retard and used the right board for it
i dont want to see meta shit outside of meta
No.21049
>>21045>you cant organize or standardize anythingyeah exactly, standards are ass especially on a fucking imageboard, go to social media if you want adherence to standards
No.21050
>>21046It’s your fee fees that lead to the deletion of posts which are slightly controversial. I’ll provide a detailed list when I’m home of posts that sometimes aren’t even really controversial and certainly not abominable
>>21048Currently banned for talking about meta shit in a /b/ thread somebody else made.. whatever standards you pretend I’m not adhering to are always a lie. The fact is you banned me because I said things about you you don’t want to face up to.
No.21051
>>21050>I’ll provide a detailed list when I’m home of posts Of course conflating the personal to the general.
No.21052
>>21051Very few of them are mine actually, if any I can’t remember
No.21053
>>21051But of course, it’s just yet another side step from you lot.
No.21054
>>21052>>21053You quite literally admitted to ban evasion and still are very sour about being banned.How is that a side step?
It is very obvious you are using this thread about discussing generic ban lengths as a soapbox for your personal grievances, which probably what got you banned in the first place.
No.21056
>>21055Yes the war thread is some bullshit, you will be banned for weeks at a time for being critical of their absolute nonsense.
it is just janoids showing their true colors again, just like they did with the whole infrared shit.
Unique IPs: 28