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

submitted by JasonCarswell from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun -  (65 children)

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 -  (2 children)

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.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

    Re-read what you typed. I obviously DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYIN. You don't even know what you're sayin

    [–]Node 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

    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.

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

    I don't know. Popper seems more multi-personality than even socks does. Popper is often insightful and on target - and just as often spewing woke bullshit. Few on here are as unpredictably random. At least he/she/it/they are not authoritarians or terrible liars, so far as I've seen. Pulling that troll bullshit yesterday was new to me and does not bode well.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    When, Jason, when will you learn that morality-based authoritarianism IS THE ONLY THING that has been tried and that can save mankind, collectively speaking. All other collectivity management options are open to subversion. Well, local direct democracy would work, but it hasn't been tried since... cavemen?

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Who's morality? Trudeau's? Hitler's? Mao's? Zionists'? Anyone's? No thanks.

    local direct democracy would work

    Voluntaryism and Cooperatives.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    You are a closet communist, aren't you?

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    Obviously you don't understand what Voluntaryism and Cooperatives are about.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    "From each according to their capacity"...

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    morality-based authoritarianism IS THE ONLY THING that has been tried and that can save mankind

    Might want to read Oswald Spengler's, 'The Decline of the West'

    [–]Airbus320 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

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

    [–]mahavishnunj 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

    He likes to go to posts he don't like and then cries, just like socks

    id love to see an example of me 'crying'. do you mean shitting on garbage threads and posts which someone(cough cough)here is legendary for?

    [–]Airbus320 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

    You do it repeatedly

    [–]mahavishnunj 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

    give me an example. or do you not want a reply of you embarrassing yourself far more than any post ive ever made here? allegedly of course-im not specifically calling you out. that is just a possibility. because certain pussies here(cough cough)actually cry like bitches. not pointing any fingers directly though.

    [–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    I would have compiled it if magnora was here

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    I would like to see you type more than a sentence in reply to someone.

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

    I'm not too familiar with /u/Vishnu.

    [–]Airbus320 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

    Its mahavishnunj

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (15 children)

    Right. We can cross that bridge when we get to it.

    Take down the big two and set an example for the others, like a public execution.

    [–][deleted]  (14 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Airbus320 4 insightful - 7 fun4 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

      Scratch a socialist and a jew bleeds

      [–]Node 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

      How about the jews first? That solution would solve many (if not most of our) problems.

      [–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (11 children)

      First the globalists and totalitarians

      Then the SJWs and commies

      Then the NeoCons and Nazis

      Then their shills and asstrolls

      Then we're about good.

      [–]Noam_Chomsky 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

      Seems to be an uptick in shill activity.

      Here's a recent example from today.

      https://saidit.net/s/politics/comments/8esz/its_like_the_whole_thing_was_staged_or_something/v7oe?context=3 This is probably a positive sign.

      The absurdity of Reddit is causing it's audience to look to less censored alternatives.

      It's damage control for the crumbling Reddit PsyOp.

      They are desperately trying to keep their fraudulent narrative afloat.

      I agree with whomever said they'd just make s new name.

      Rather than banning them, a handful of reliable community members could save a few examples of obscenely obvious shilling from the offending account.

      Then add a link to these obviously dishonest comments, whenever this account is pushing nonsense.

      [–]Airbus320 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

      Thats a good idea, like have a pinned thread in s/SaidIt with their insanity

      [–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

      I suggested that to d3rr a while ago, but in a new dedicated sub and/or wiki - to build up cases on them. But what's the point when the cases are ignored because muhluvuv freezepeaches over rules.

      CC /u/Noam_Chomsky

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

      Leaving just you? Oh, I see now.

      [–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

      LOL. Leaving a glorious utopia of voluntaryists and cooperatives and unicorns smoking pipe dreams and DMT.

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

      Jason Carswell: "I oppose censorship"

      Also Jason Carswell: "We need to get rid of...

      First the globalists and totalitarians

      Then the SJWs and commies

      Then the NeoCons and Nazis

      Then their shills and asstrolls

      Then we're about good."

      Hm...

      [–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

      I want to stress that I agree with you on the banning. So, what next? What if they don't ban them or what if they come back? 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.

      [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

      I had to ban Poopper from /u/StandUpWindsor for a better user experience. Too late after the asstroll shit all over my post. Maybe we'll all have to have private subs for our projects if the rules can't be enforced.

      With no rules I expect this place to slide to shit. I hope it doesn't. If it does my hesitancy to recommend it to other aware folks will increase.

      I have a huge list of stuff I aim to do, locally and online, including start up a new video channel. So I'm going to pull way back anyway.

      I totally fucked up with this post. It's my fault that I wasn't completely clear that this was about perpetually breaking the rules without consequences - NOT the fact that they are liars, authoritarians, and shills. Getting them banned is killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Instead they use censorship victimhood as a shield and suckers buy it.

      [–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

      I don't think you fucked up with this post. I think you are just being honest and expressing genuine things. I think you are one of the best parts of this place and I would be OK with banning a thousand socks and other trolls if it meant your content and your ideas grew and developed more clearly as a result.

      [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

      Aw, shucks. Saved (for my ego, until the swelling goes down).

      FYI: You're one of the good ones too. I'd add you to my friends list but you were already there a while ago. (I like to read the friends names in red first to see what kind of conversations are going on under posts.)

      [–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      Cool! I did not know there was a friends thing here. I will check that out.

      [–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      Go to any user's page and add/remove them or in here:
      https://saidit.net/prefs/friends/

      Then you can see only their posts or comments under:
      https://saidit.net/s/friends/

      And their name shows up red in conversations in dark mode. In light mode there's not much difference.

      /u/d3rr, two recommendations, if it's not a chore:

      1. Differentiate "friends" in light mode.
      2. Add a third tab under /s/friends/ that links back to prefs.

      If you're going to do either of those lemme know, and if not soon I can draft up a public service announcement to share info about this friends feature, and add it to the FAQ. Am I forgetting anything?

      [–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Excellent, said-it friend!

      [–]astronautrob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

      Man sad to see you on the censorship train Jason, I had a higher opinion of you. Banning = censorship, period. To make some argument we need to protect new members or w.e is silly. We are all adults, people can block users if they choose, it's really easy. I think anyone coming to this site has a fairly thick skin and if not again these people are adults we don't need to treat them like snowflakes. A top down approach is never the answer. If everyone blocked these people then they would have no one to interact with right? That would be more organic and more in line with what I believe saidit is trying to be. I respect you man, I usually like your contributions to this site, but this is not one of them. This fake drama, this talk of banning, is a waste of time. You and anyone else can stop interacting with these people, stop seeing what they say, etc., with one click. Instead you want big Daddy to ban them? Come on man grow up, let's be adults here. We can shun these people and make them irrelevant without involving daddy saidit. Let's try it at least before running to Mommy and Daddy.

      [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

      Their ongoing rule-breaking is the primary problem and it sets bad examples for others to follow. That is why they should be banned.

      I'm not for censorship, though getting rid of the sealioning trolls is bonus. When this site is overrun with sealions benefiting from no censorship we'll deal with that then. There's no shortage of others here I don't agree with and won't call for their bans. The block function is very incomplete and a failure IMO as it stands. I don't need block to ignore them.

      I failed. I should have been more clear in my post and clarified the distinctions. For that I am sorry.

      We can shun these people and make them irrelevant

      Countering their bullshit is a full-time job that will never end. Like all of us they are free to roam our pastures, but they leave huge turds everywhere they go. I'm done trying to clean up their shit. I did try it by the rules, several times, and they weren't enforced, thus leading to this post. You won't see more "fake drama" about this after this post from me.

      Shame you missed the point.

      [–]astronautrob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

      Ah man Jason you make me giggles. Acting like someone doesn't understand, shame shame, hahaha, just like the children on the other side. Man really expected better from you than a retort that I didn't get your point. Banning, getting rid, etc., these are euphemisms for censorship whatever rational you want to put after that statement. The block function works pretty good as a couple other people have said in this thread already. The fact that you choose not to use it is your choice, a poor one in my opinion but your choice none the less. Idk did I miss something or I thought once dr3 or w.e took back over he said he wasn't too keen on the pyramid of debate or these "rules". Eh, maybe he's changed his tune which would be a bummer. Either way crying about some rules and people breaking them makes you sound like a child sorry dude. Just grow up, get off the computer for a little bit, and ignore these people. And please try blocking them, it really does help. Banning = censorship PERIOD. W.e rationale or reasoning you want to put after that doesn't take a away from that fact. You want to censor people for breaking rules? Ok cool but call it like it is, it's fucking censorship and you're prompting it. Fuck off with this "shame you missed my point shit" bro, we both know your smarter than that. Call it for what it is, censorship, for whatever reasons IDC but speak the truth my friend.

      [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

      If you think banning porn and spam and other rule-breakers is censorship then so be it. I call it good hygiene.

      M7D3 have never claimed that SaidIt is a "free speech" zone (alluring to asstroll chaos) because they want civilized discourse here.

      Conveniently you've ignored the complaints about the block function, under this post and abundant elsewhere on Saidit.

      Either way crying about some rules and people breaking them makes you sound like a child sorry dude. Just grow up, get off the computer for a little bit, and ignore these people.

      Stooping to saying basic crap like that only looks bad on those who say it.

      [–]Node 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      The 'logic' is like that of a socks alt.

      [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Agreed and noted.

      [–]astronautrob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Dude if you want censor people ok but stop arguing about the semantics to try and make yourself feel better. Banning = censorship, no matter the reasoning. Also the whole pulling out a piece of the response instead of responding to the whole post is trollish. I did say something about the block feature. I said in my opinion, along with a few others on this thread, seem to think the block feature works fine. To say it's incomplete is silly. When I blocked theameliamay or w.e the fuck his/her name is all it's shit went away. That doesn't seem incomplete to me. You can ignore people without blocking them, yes, but you don't seem to have that ability. If you feel it's incomplete let's works to make it better instead of censoring people. There are always other ways. Also try not to respond twice before I get to answer one retort it makes for a really bad discussion. &Really my friend, just try getting off the computer for a little bit and being in the real world I promise you this stuff won't mean as much.

      [–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

      we both know your smarter than that.

      Spelling errors in the same sentence where you're saying someone else is dumb are particularly

      [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      LOL.

      [–]astronautrob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

      ...saying we both know he's smarter than being dumb is saying he's being dumb? Are you trolling today? Lol, that makes no sense my friend.

      [–]Node 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

      I'm saying that making spelling errors while calling someone dumb should be embarrassing, because it denotes a high level of obliviousness.

      [–]astronautrob 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

      Again I don't understand how I was calling him dumb. I said "We both know your (you're) smarter than that." That's saying you and I both know you are smarter than how you are acting, i.e. you are smart but you may be acting below your intelligence level at this time or concerning this subject, etc. That's not the same thing as saying someone is dumb. You could say it's the same thing as saying someone is ACTING dumb but that isn't the same as saying some one IS dumb. So no I wasn't saying he is dumb, I've engaged with Jason's content and contributions to this site for years. He's always seemed like a good guy to me so when he starts calling for censorship I felt the need to call him out. I was on my phone so yes it did auto-correct to your instead of you're, but come on man Nazi much? It's not even a good contribution to the conversation, it's just being a troll. Anyway, try to correctly represent what people actually say in the future before calling them out because it was obvious that I was (and still am) saying he is ACTING dumb, not that he IS dumb. It's called nuance my friend. I know it's a lost art on the internets but lets try and be better people, what do you say?

      [–]Node 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

      God, the one time I don't go full loquaciousness I get called out on it. lol

      Yes, I agree you were technically only saying he was ACTING dumb. However, that is so close to effectively saying they ARE dumb that it makes little difference in real life, even if one can fall back on the disclaimer.

      I do appreciate a good technical argument, though.

      He's always seemed like a good guy to me so when he starts calling for censorship I felt the need to call him out.

      I disagree that he's calling for censorship. What I see him calling for is a fair and consistent application of the existing rules that supposedly regulate conduct on saidit.net. Those rules call for banning a user exhibiting certain proscribed behaviors.

      This section of the rules has clearly been ignored, with some banned without the proscribed behaviors, and others not banned after doing the behaviors. Socks is one of the latter group. I might have been in that group too, at one point.

      come on man Nazi much?

      Sieg Heil! The season is open on grammar jews, and there's no bag limit! \o

      I don't like the idea of banning site users, and at the same time, too many trolls and ill-intentioned users can turn a site into an internet ghetto. Socks is a good example of an ill-intentioned user. What do you do about them? If you do nothing, your site ends up going to shit. If you ban them, they come back and make new accounts every day like the "Americans say" troll. Maybe add a 'Troll' tag to their account? Shorter bans? Socks has been doing this act for quite some time, and is probably incapable of being an honest and forthright person. What's your idea for preventing that kind of behavior on saidit?

      [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (5 children)

      I'm gonna see if this shows up like I want, and if it does then moderators can use it for tags. You inspired me with your little crown sticker thing. Anyhow, if it works I want the poop sticker label too.

      💩

      [–]astronautrob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      I don't agree with that statement at all. There's a big difference between someone acting dumb and someone being dumb, but it's a waste of time to argue this with you. You can equate the two if you like but I don't. I think you're smart enough to see the difference but you just want to be difficult to make an argument.

      I was very careful to make my point clear that I think Jason is acting silly in this situation, not that I think he is overall a dumb person. Just because you find that you can not make that distinction "in real life" doesn't mean all of us work with that narrow of a mindset. I say what I mean and mean what I said. Jason is acting dumb in this situation. In past situations and interactions I've had with him or seen him in, he seemed to be "smart" or carry himself well. So because you acted "smart" in my opinion in these other situations I consider him a smart person. I still think he's an intelligent person. I think his personal vendetta is getting in the way of his "smartness" and thus he is ACTING dumb. Is it that hard for you to understand the difference? I tried to make it a little less "technical" so maybe you would get it. I mean that seems pretty straight forward and you seem like a fairly intelligent person. I've already stated my idea for preventing this behavior. You stop engaging with the person, block them, and if enough people do that the person would have no one to engage with. The fact that all these people keep engaging with sock or whoever else gives them legitimacy. Are you really telling me people are not adult enough to block users or ignore users? People like Jason or whoever are UNABLE to not engage with these people so instead they want to ban them? Again, if we set the precedent that banning people is what happens when you don't "follow the rules", then that precedent will stay when the rules change. And what happens then? What happens when someone takes over reddit who doesn't share our values? You get where I'm coming from? Censorship is bad for whatever reason, we should try to think of better ways to deal with these kinds of things. But the VERY FIRST thing I would say is that these people, Jason and whoever is complaining about these people, need to block these people and STOP ENGAGING WITH THEM. It's silly they don't have the self control to not engage these people. It's childish. This site seems pretty small, if the "power users" or w.e were to all stop engaging with these people they would have no one to argue with, they would become bored (like the children they are), and they would move on. It's really simple. To act dramatic like these people would someone take down the site or turn it in to a "internet ghetto" is silly. Idt saitit is trying to be the beverly hills on the internet but a couple of shitty trolls is not going to turn it in to a ghetto either.

      Honestly though I wish you guys would stop playing with semantics and speak the fucking truth. Banning = censorship no matter who much linguistic gymnastics you want to play. Idk why you guys are defending yourselfs so hard. Like why can't you say "yes the rules call for censorship (or banning) if you break the rules, these people are breaking the rules, we are calling for their censorship." Isn't that easy?

      [–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      JasonCarswell[S] 10 insightful - 4 fun - 4 months 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.

      Popper is gone now and wont be annoying anyone anymore.