AskSaidIt

AskSaidIt

log in
sign up
subreddits
search
sidebar

SaidIt Survey: Ban /u/socks and /u/ActuallyNot or keep them around?(self)

65 points64 points67 points submitted by JasonCarswell

Thumbnail

SaidIt Survey: Ban /u/socks and /u/ActuallyNot or keep them around?

You may read the origins of this most recent drama starting here, or skip this full page...
/s/whatever/comments/8eak/in_20_years_saying_the_sky_is_blue_will_be/v5rx

...to where this intersection of issues ultimately collides:
/s/whatever/comments/8eak/in_20_years_saying_the_sky_is_blue_will_be/v69q

None of this downward bullshit from /u/socks nor /u/ActuallyNot is new. If you want further evidence that they are liars, shills, and problematic disruptive forces in our community, I and others can dig all that up for you. They will of course cry /s/Victimhood, distort, spin, lie, deflect, and delay in all manner of ways.

Quote:

Q: What is allowed and what is not permitted?

A: SaidIt.net is for open civilized discourse with very few rules:

  1. By the Terms And Content Policy, "If a person is caught repeatedly dragging discussion in a downward direction on the Pyramid of Debate, they will be removed."

End quote.

The problem is that on several occasions I've built up cases against /u/socks and just did it again with /u/ActuallyNot - at admins' request - and then the admins don't follow through for various reasons, valid or not.

I understand and respect /u/d3rr greatly, and I know he prefers absolute minimal censorship/banning - along the lines of the old Voat. SaidIt is better than Voat for many reasons, including better discourse on average. IMO, /u/d3rr has been our best admin, by light years, but I fear this lack of action may slide SaidIt into being like Voat or Ruqqus. I don't want to stoop to the the asstrolls' level in the long term and I refuse to dwell in the gutter (even if I may visit it on occasion).

I'm speaking my mind here, openly. /u/d3rr may or may not feel pressured to change his stance - that's up to him. It's not my intention to make him uncomfortable, and I know he hates this kind of shit, but this discomfort is the result of unbridled "free speech" - and freedom ain't free.

On a personal note, last week I was having deep conversations with /u/Earendil, /u/Jesus, and /u/HibikiBlack that were, dare I say, critical thoughts. I was looking forward to resuming those, and to make other new strides for SaidIt, /s/Projex.wiki (Cassandra Team's upcoming project), other /s/Cassy updates, share some new organizational developments, galleries, and other stuff I've been up to, since I've been exceptionally busy these last couple weeks (more actually). You may have noticed my postings are down because a 200ft banner and two huge rallies aren't going to make themselves, our Canadian election, a few days helping a few sick senior hoarders (who are very aware), and several other local and online things. To my point, despite very few posts and interactions, my messages have been filled with the typical bullshit from /u/ActuallyNot and /u/socks and I have yet to dig down to resume the older interesting deep conversations because I was letting /u/ActuallyNot and /u/socks dig their own holes and build the case up for them to get banned. But now it seems rule #1 may no longer apply.

Obviously, I have no power, I'm not admin, nor do I want to be, nor do I envy those who have served us well now and previously. I'm asking all of SaidIt to weigh in because I'm curious to see if folks are outliers who feel as I do. I don't care if you're for me or against me, if you keep it short or make it long (with a TLDR), but all I ask is that you be very clear on your stance (even if you can see it from several viewpoints simultaneously) to remove as much ambiguity and confusion as possible.

If you really don't know what all of this fuss is about, consider yourself lucky.

This is the last bit of energy I'm going to ineffectively expend toward dealing with proven liars, shills, and asstrolls on SaidIt. Timesucks are a waste and drain on our resources and I've got solutions to work on to resist global tyranny.

May the Aaron Swartz be with you.

Ban idiots not guns.

Edit for clarity:

TLDR:

It is NOT about disagreeing with them (which obviously I do), NOR is it about them being proven liars, authoritarians, and big pharma shills (which they are), it IS because they break the rules perpetually dragging discussion downward - AND what is very new is that /u/d3rr won't do anything about it.

Does this mean that it's open season for name-calling, downward discussions, and disruptive behaviour?

top 100 commentsshow all 326

TheJamesRocket 16 insightful - 7 fun16 insightful - 6 fun17 insightful - 7 fun 3 years ago

Socks should have a post limit on his account, so that he can't spam threads with dozens of inane comments.

ActuallyNot should just be banned.

Airbus320 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun 3 years ago

And that vishnu user as well

FlippyKing 12 insightful - 6 fun12 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 6 fun 3 years ago

won't they just come back as socks2 or bctuallynot? Block them and worry not about their disingenuous trolling

[deleted] 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

I've tried to convince them to block each-other, Jason and socks, but they never listen. I just quit trying eventually. I blocked actuallynot the other day, when it became obvious he was just trying to waste my time (along with a few other trolls).

I don't know about socks, but actuallynot would definitely come back with an army of alt accounts.

JasonCarswell[S] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

Blocking socks won't stop him from ruining SaidIt for everyone, including my local friends who I'm trying to bring here. Ignorance is bliss, but ignorance via blocking is no excuse. Intentionally being blind to the abuses is intentionally setting SaidIt up for failure.

Socks is perpetually breaking the rules.

Yes they're obviously timesucks.

If we don't ban them, we'll never know if they'll come back in alts accounts - and ban evasion is a rule I guess but it's not on the FAQ (/u/d3rr ?). I've been unfairly banned TWICE - and neither of those rule-breakers has even been banned once.

Node 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

But to be fair, your bans and retractions led to the demise of the cancer that's killing /b/ spring dramafest that caused somewhat of a user exodus to other sites. Although we're still waiting for the proverbial other shoe to drop when m7 decides what to do about saidit.

load more comments (2 replies)

FlippyKing 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

Maybe moderators of subs could ban them and put in their side bar the pro-tip of blocking them for a better user experience, or at least remind people of that option in the side bar.

[deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun 3 years ago

Moderators are allowed to ban people for dragging discussion down the Pyramid of Debate, that's all I'll say.

Node 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

Tell me if I'm "doing it wrong", but blocking socks has also blocked a large number of comment threads. (Can I block a user and still see the replies that follow in that thread?)

But it's surprising how easily one can detect replies to socks in s/all/comments. There's a level of frustration and annoyance that seems unique to his interlocutors. Then you click on context and get the "there's nothing here" message.

Airbus320 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

Ehhhhh is one of them

mahavishnunj 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

someone whining like a bitch about users that hurt your feelings? that is almost ironic from a post i read from someone elsewhere in this thread, lol. this same posters history is one of the most embarrassing things ive seen on this site, but im not naming names.....thats against the rules.

Node 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

but im not naming names

Aircraft types? Btw, did you ever get back to those people who are wondering what ever happened to the user named mahavishnunj they used to know?

Progressive Ears

Anyone remember a guy from long ago, back when PE was still on Yahell, with the moniker "mahavishnunj"? He disappeared and I never found out what happened ...

Poor guy is looking for some closure.

JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

There are many, but most are minor by comparison.

JasonCarswell[S] 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

It's more than just trolling.

Rule #1 : "If a person is caught repeatedly dragging discussion in a downward direction on the Pyramid of Debate, they will be removed."

FlippyKing 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

I'm not disagreeing with you. But I have to say, saidit has been much more enjoyable after blocking the obvious trolls and those who always argue in bad faith. Banning them lets them know they've been banned and the will just create a new account, or accounts. The cure might be worse than the disease, like coronavirus.

JasonCarswell[S] 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

This is about more than just my comfort. Among many reasons, this is also about not alienating new users who are truth-seekers and free-thinkers but don't give a shit about trolling culture found anywhere else. For example, it seems like Popper was trying to fuck up my efforts to bring my real-life Windsor resistance friends to this platform.

Other users have been banned an not returned. Maybe they deserved it maybe they didn't. Certainly most of them did. If and when they return, it's obvious who the real trouble makers are as they tend to let loose. Some have quietly returned and been civil, because they never really deserved it. If we did ban socks and ActuallyNot and they did return we might see their true essence, if it wasn't already obvious.

FlippyKing 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

You make an excellent point. I vote yes then if this is a democracy. We see their true essence, and a few other's true essence as well.

You are right about new users being turned off by them, especially I think if they would be new users worth having around.

Node 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

For example, it seems like Popper was trying to fuck up my efforts to bring my real-life Windsor resistance friends to this platform.

Funny case. Do you remember how popper used to be like a slightly milder version of socks and nemocolin (sp) before his months-long absence? The new popper seems to have shaken off some of that wokeness he used to display.

Airbus320 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun 3 years ago

Consider that vishnu user as well. He likes to go to posts he don't like and then cries, just like socks

load more comments (30 replies)

MONKEYBALLS 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

won't they just come back as socks2 or bctuallynot?

lol.

Chipit 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

It's about everyone else being negatively affected by their breaking the few rules we have.

FlippyKing 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

I agree, my only concerns where about them circumventing bans by creating new accounts. The new users argument, where they'd be turned off to the site by their trolling and ingenuousness, is a good reason to send them packing.

[deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

[deleted]

JasonCarswell[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

It only takes one to disrupt, drag down, be an asstroll, smear, lie, misinform, shill, spam, and/or spoil Saidit. We have at least 2.

jykylsin2034 10 insightful - 7 fun10 insightful - 6 fun11 insightful - 7 fun 3 years ago

Socks is dumb an annoying. I haven't heard of the other guy. I say we keep them for satire.

JasonCarswell[S] 10 insightful - 6 fun10 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 6 fun 3 years ago

Satire is supposed to be fun.

Chipit 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

Hard no.

literalotherkin 11 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

I think d3rr is right on this one, Jason. I mostly just lurk the DAR sub and of course have had run ins with Socks but I don't think he's malicious he's just extremely dull and one of those people who needs to 'win' internet arguments for some odd reason. Those people always drag a discussion into a long back and forth dick measuring contest including copious citations -- usually always from Wikipedia or a Quora post what he read in Socks case.

I say just ignore or block. There's no need for these people to actually have the ability to drag discussions down outside of what we give them.

Just my two cents.

JasonCarswell[S] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

Socks but I don't think he's malicious

Obviously you haven't had enough exposure.

Thanks for your two cents. It counts. As does everyone's feedback here. It's not a simple matter. But they are clear rule-breakers.

[deleted] 10 insightful - 6 fun10 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 6 fun 3 years ago

No matter how you feel about someone, they could surprise you with some insightful things to say. Disagreements can get out of hand on here, but that all depends on how much emotional work is going into it. That said, no. Both have posted some pain in the ass comments imo, but restrictions on their ability to post because of even escalated disagreements is stupid. We don't want our speech restricted, so why would we impose that on someone else simply because we don't like what they have to say or piss us off with their argument methods?

soundsituation 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

Okay, I'm curious: do you feel the same way about paid influencers? I agree with everything you said when it comes to free agents, but I think an exception should be made for shills, in the same way that I think individuals should be afforded maximum liberty but corporations should be held to a different standard.

[deleted] 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

Companies should definitely be held to a different standard, and held accountable for having employees astroturf or do any paid activity that benefits their business while disrupting the natural discussion ecosystems.

chadwickofwv 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

I can agree that paid influencers should be banned, but how can you be sure someone is being paid for a post? I believe you have to default to free speech unless you can prove an account is a paid shill, not just a shill. I don't really believe this site has the resources for that type of investigation.

[deleted] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

As users, we don't unless something is obvious enough or there's strong evidence.

[deleted] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

It's obvious to most of us.

load more comments (1 reply)

[deleted] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

This is what u/D3rr needs to get through his head, unless he himself is ok with paid influencers acting on this website, willy nilly. Willy nilly, I say.

[deleted] 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

unless he himself is ok with paid influencers acting on this website

Yes, I am fine with it for numerous reasons

  • this is anonymous social media, there is no way to stop it
  • there is no way to identify them aside from witch hunting, which can ruin a site even more than having paid shills. e.g. AOU and Poal
  • there are no rules that prohibit being a "paid influencer"
  • i already spent hours and hours developing custom user and sub blocking tools
  • not my site, im just the temporary janny

JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

My two cents: I agree.

I also think the rules should be enforced and perpetual downward trolls should be banned.

[deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

I respect your position, although I disagree and think your position is dangerous.

Long live the reign of u/D3rr!!!

Node 6 insightful - 7 fun6 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 7 fun 3 years ago

Socks surprised me one time by pretending to be a legitimate person, and I got sucked into replying to him. Just have him blocked because he's the only troll-shill I get tempted to reply to.

[deleted] 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun 3 years ago

I either get bored, or just give up reason to respond. I'm sorrt of ashamed to admit this, but socks honestly reminds me so much of a friend that I've had for nearly 20 years irl that I can't block him. It's uncanny, down to similar goofy ass jokes and the way that he responds to things.

[deleted] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

You are advocating for an inauthentic user to be on this website, stirring shit. And you think Jason is wrong for trying to stop it.

It's not silly or goofy or harmless.

[deleted] 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

I'm defending the ability for him to speak freely, and for you to do the same. I don't know how authentic socks is. I don't agree with the way that he dismisses information, the politicians he follows, or the covid vaccine opinions he's got. I can also yank up my big girl breetches and fucking ignore it when I choose to, because this is the internet and we're not revolutionaries in it.

Node 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun 3 years ago

You very much remind me of a friend that I've had here for nearly 20 years saying that.

All of us on saidit are doppelgangers of your real life friends. 😁

[deleted] 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

It starts to feel like that, no shit.

load more comments (1 reply)

JasonCarswell[S] 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

because we don't like what they have to say

That is NOT the issue. You missed the point. What about the rule-breaking?

[deleted] 8 insightful - 6 fun8 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 6 fun 3 years ago

Socks made the point before that he's going to defend himself. No matter what his reasons are for being here are, I fully expect him and anyone else to defend themselves to a degree. That goes for you as well.

HOWEVER: You're not innocent here. You drag discussion down with your relentless vigilante complex in trying to out the shills, slamming out paragraph after paragraph, following their posts, and just acting like a tattler. Fucking block them. You're investing far too much into bullshit internet arguments with people you don't know from Adam's housecat. You post quality content, and around this time last year I remember you being pretty civil and focused heavily on multiple projects. I don't know what's going on in your life to make you turn away from those projects, or what changed in your personal life, but you need to find something else to put yourself into other than focusing on specific users on here that you get your ass hairs in a bunch over.

[deleted] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

You should not defend shills.

ShalomEveryone 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

Well said, I am surprised he did not reply to your post calling you a shill.

Shalom

✡️️

[deleted] 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

Thank you. Eh, just give it time.

load more comments (1 reply)

GST893 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

Ignore them and do not engage.

Drewski 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

I'm against banning. The pyramid of debate is a good framework for civil discussions, but I don't want to see it used to silence dissenting voices.

JasonCarswell[S] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

I'm against banning too.

But will we let our civil discourse slide now because of these two? If they get to perpetually break the rules with downward trolling what's to stop the rest of us from mud slinging? Fuck the filth, lies, and name-calling.

Drewski 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

I block some of the blatant trolls and shitposters, others I only engage if I feel their comment is in good faith or will provide something for the rest of the community. Hopefully we can take the high ground by not engaging in mud slinging and name calling so their attempts to drag down dialogue will be apparent.

[deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

It's been apparent for a year that socks is an inauthentic user. A year has passed since people started to catch on to that account.

They got rid of the Ironleft for good reason. Socks is similar.

[deleted] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

Interestingly, I found the Ironleft character so wildly far out that he was utterly amusing to me. I don't know, I didn't find him actually disruptive, at least not at first, since his posts were so delirious. There are people who took it seriously? I mean... HOW?

Voater 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

Didn't we come here to get away from censorship and cancel culture?

[deleted] 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

Is getting rid of bots and shills cancel culture?

JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

Yes. SaidIt still has rules. But now d3rr is not enforcing them.

[deleted] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

[deleted]

JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

Did you mean to share that somewhere else? It seems very off topic.

[deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

[deleted]

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 reply)
[deleted] 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

[deleted]

JasonCarswell[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun 3 years ago

But you know - banning?

I know right? But where do you draw the line? Clearly they KEEP breaking Rule #1 without consequences. For fuck sakes, I've been banned TWICE and resurrected twice - and so far socks has gone completely unscathed as far as I know. Let's just ban them for a month and see what happens, like a little experiment. Make it permanent if desired.

Lastly, I'm trying to entice my real-life Windsor resistance friends to join this platform. Windsor, SaidIt, and everyone in the world has enough issues to deal with besides asstroll timesucks.

Optimus85 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

They're so pathetic that they're not worth wasting time over.

JasonCarswell[S] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

Agreed. This is my last effort to help maintain a modicum of decency on SaidIt.

Optimus85 8 insightful - 6 fun8 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 6 fun 3 years ago

I don't mind shining a light on them and exposing them for the disingenuous frauds they are every once in a while.

JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

That's still a lot of potentially unnecessary effort when we haven't even tried the simple solution.

It's like inventing a vaccine and ignoring Ivermectin.

Optimus85 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

Like ILYNFO said, shunning them might be the best option.

[deleted] 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

They do give saidit.net a rancid smell. They are pretty extreme cases of which examples should perhaps be made. If we look to preserve saidit's health, I think these rule breakers should be removed.

[deleted] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

This is the only sensible thing to do with obvious trolls. They did it with the Ironleft, no problem.

[deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

I found Ironleft to be a hoot.

[deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

I did as well, at first. I thought they might be playacting at being commies to show how silly it all is.

zyxzevn 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

They are breaking the Pyramid of discussion all the time, and are clearly here to disturb the discussions.

astronautrob 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

Not this shit again good lord, are y'all fucking serious? No one should be banned, period. This fake drama shit is annoying as hell people come on. If you have a problem with a user block them, or maybe put a post limit or w.e but this talk of banning is fucking stupid. People should allowed to post what they want here. Whether it's stupid, inane, WHATEVER, it doesn't matter when we start banning one side for some things then the same can be done to the other. We've already been through this fake saidit drama bullshit, idk why this keeps coming up. I feel like you guys have a inability to just stop interacting with people and instead want them banned or w.e. Just fucking grow up jeez. Banning = censorship, period. And at that point we are no better than Reddit. Just stop this stupid shit guys and grow up

JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

when we start banning one side for some things then the same can be done to the other.

It's not about Left or Right or banning viewpoints. It was my mistake to not make it more clear in the OP.

It's about CONSTANTLY BREAKING THE RULES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.

Banning = censorship, period.

Not if they are breaking the rules.

astronautrob 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

Are you really going to say that if someone breaks a rule then banning them from a platform, or anything at all, is not the same as censorship? So if you break rules on YouTube or Reddit or any other platform and they ban you, do you not consider that censorship? I really would like to know where you stand on this. If it is a yes and you do think platforms should have the ability to censor people if they break a rule does the same apply for everyday life in your belief? People who break societal rules, should they be banned from society (so to speak)? I'm not trying to troll here I would like to know your belief on this. This is what is happening in our society today, people wanting other people "banned" from society for not following the rules, a.k.a not getting the shot, not wearing a mask, etc. These are rules that are set or being set, should it be ok for people to be ostracized or banned from society because they didn't follow those rules? I'm in no way saying it's left or right, when I say the other side I'm not speaking in political terms I'm speaking strictly in a one side versus the other side no matter the context. What you do to the one side can be done to both, that's all I'm saying. So if we start banning people because they are "breaking the rules", instead of taking another avenue, then what happens when someone takes over saidit and makes new rules? The precedent is already set that we ban people who don't follow the rules. That precedent will stay even if the rules change. You see what I'm saying? Censorship is never the answer no matter the reasoning.

Tiwaking 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun 2 years ago

Socks is a constant reminder that the oppressive liberal media elitist superstate is tirelessly watching with its unceasing, uncompromising, corporate gaze.

grassfed 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun 2 years ago

If we continue stick together with Jason they can't do us any harm. Watch out from u/nemacolin too

mahavishnunj 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

why did you make a new thread that doesnt have my totally relevant comment in it?

JasonCarswell[S] 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

Sorry about that. I was having trouble with the thumbnail. Since there were no votes and not comments I re-posted it assuming no one noticed the post yet. It was not intentional.

I see that you said this:

banning anyone is the height of pussy behavior.

A valid view that I also share. However, /u/ActuallyNot and /u/socks are not just anyone. They're proven asstrolls here to disrupt SaidIt, while lying and spreading authoritarian misinformation.

Before you claim I'm intolerant of all asstrolls and want them all banned feel free to look at my interaction earlier today. Like the other two who are much worse, /u/Popper occasionally has some good things to say, though I often throw up a little when I digest /u/Popper's bullshit too. Today's /u/Popper incident was different than I've ever seen as he/she/it/them decided to go full-on asstroll forcing me to make my first moderator ban ever. Our /s/StandUpWindsor community sub is about resisting tyranny in Windsor, Ontario, Canada where I'm quite certain /u/Popper doesn't live. I gave the asstroll many opportunities to apologize for insulting my local community, and me, in front of them, whom I'm trying to entice to SaidIt away from Facebook. Not a good look for SaidIt via the bullshit of Popper.

Yet, in short, I haven't called for /u/Popper to be banned from SaidIt - so far, if ever.

Do not ask me why they're all acting crazy today. Maybe they all got a Mossad memo to up the timesuckage and chaos.

Rule #1 : "If a person is caught repeatedly dragging discussion in a downward direction on the Pyramid of Debate, they will be removed."

[deleted] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

never censor

load more comments (6 replies)

Ehhhhhh 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

Because it didn't support the narrative?

load more comments (1 reply)

Chipit 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

If you want further evidence that they are liars, shills, and problematic disruptive forces in our community

I can support this. They are very likely to be paid social media influencers. Get them out of here. They routinely break the few rules we have and are not here to contribute anything.

Questionable 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

NO. And I refuse to look into 'the drama.' Please feel free to use the report button if you wish. Though I encourage you to use your clear abilities for articulating your points of view in debate instead.

Ĥ̅͛ǝ̮̺͕̲̰llo ʍoɹlp' I,m Qnǝsʇᴉouɐqlǝ.̬̘̟ͅ

JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

I have reported, collected evidence of rule-breaking, and now d3rr won't do anything.

So you like rule-breaking then? If they can do it everyone will start to.

Questionable 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

I don't like echo chambers based on exclusion, and bans. There are many people I would outright ban if it weren't for my awareness of this slippery slope that leads to.... The creation of current day Reddit.

Ĥ̅͛ǝ̮̺͕̲̰llo ʍoɹlp' I,m Qnǝsʇᴉouɐqlǝ.̬̘̟ͅ

load more comments (3 replies)
[deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

[deleted]

JasonCarswell[S] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

Don't be an inauthentic asstroll. You fucking know damn well they don't allow our kinds of echo chambers there. Furthermore, it's not about the echo chamber. Sure we definitely need more authentic left here, and the SJWs are insane so I can't say we need any of them. But those two, as I stated clearly, are beyond just being inauthentic asstrolls - they're liars, perpetual rule-breakers, and disruptive agents on SaidIt.

What changed today is that d3rr said he wasn't going to deal with rule-breakers.

Zapped 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

The problem is that the rules here can be arbitrary. I have refrained from commenting because so many have already put into words, better than me, how I feel about the matter. Is one comment calling someone a name breaking the rules? What about calling someone a name while making an argument? What about using "debate" to work users into a frenzy? I think we each have a responsibility to discriminate which comments are genuine and which are from shills or trolls; whether for fun or profit. As u/Basghetti touched on: if you can prove they are actively trying to wreck the site and shutter discussion here, then that would be an open-and-shut case for banning, in my opinion.

How I deal with users I think are bad actors or have a mental issue? I don't block them. I glance over their comments and don't give them much credence. The replies to those comments can be more insightful on how others react. Truth be told, it frustrates me sometimes how worked up you can get in those conversations. I think you waste energy you can use elsewhere. There are some pertinent quotes about arguing on this link: https://celebrateyoga.org/41-quotes-arguing-idiots/

JasonCarswell[S] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

What you say is true.

It's easy enough to show that both socks and ActuallyNot are shills, trolls, and exceptionally disruptive.

how worked up you can get in those conversations

I don't understand why people say that. I'm just verbose for clarity or creativity plus I have strong convictions.

Yes, my energy will be utilized elsewhere after this last post on this shit.

If SaidIt flounders you can't say I didn't try.

Zapped 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

I think you try harder than most. You see the big picture. Don't let that get lost in the details. Culture is a group effort and those who spend time and energy being sidetracked by outliers, are often spent before they complete the journey. Don't let the pursuit of perfection take you on a side quest, for it is never ending.

load more comments (3 replies)

JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

only bullies call people names Jason <deleted comment>

FYI: Socks and ActuallyNot call people names, so you're defending bullies, chucklehead.

So give me a break, snowflake. Haven't you heard? Rules are only for civil discourse and SaidIt will now become the new Voat 3.0, so suck on my snowballs before they melt because this place is going to hell in a handbasket. Too bad the basket is only fire-resistant and won't protect us much. It's already showing signs of smoking, and not the good stuff. But whatever, this is fine.

chadwickofwv 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun 3 years ago

No, that would go directly against the principals of free speech which I hold dear. While I regard both of them as worthless shit stains, they are due the same rights as me. They may hate freedom, but no man has the right to silence their worthless ideas.

Node 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

they are due the same rights as me.

How did you arrive at the belief that your value is equal to a troll and liar? That's a pretty harsh self-assessment.

load more comments (1 reply)

JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

/u/d3rr

The problem is back.

If I hadn't looked at the comments under this post I wouldn't have known about most of them as they didn't show up in my https://saidit.net/message/unread/ as they typically used to do.

Tomorrow I can go back over the last week to see if I missed other comments under posts. I wouldn't know how to find missed response comments.

ShalomEveryone 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

I thought saidit was about free speech and open discussion? Someone has an opinion that's not popular we get posts from people with thin skin calling for someone to be banned.

Shalom

✡️️

JasonCarswell[S] 9 insightful - 7 fun9 insightful - 6 fun10 insightful - 7 fun 3 years ago

SaidIt has never been an unbridled chaotic cesspool of "free speech". SaidIt is for truth-seeking and free-thinking with goals of maintaining better discourse than elsewhere.

You have some good comments, but most often I very much disagree with. You are frustrating and even piss me off at times in your absurd ignorance, intentional or otherwise. However, you are not perpetually breaking the rules and dragging conversation downward - and thus I won't ever call for you to be banned (unless that changes).

yoke 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun 3 years ago

i think post limit matters.

also that dragging ppl down from the pyramid of debate poisons the whole forum. yeah.

well on the other hand, after looking into their most popular posts / comments, i felt socks is just your average genuine anti-semite. and actuallynot has some strong views but is generally not very popular (did not receive many votes.) in other words, both of them have some genuine opinion to express.

load more comments (47 replies)