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 →

[–]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.

💩

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

Basghetti 💩 [+58][F] 2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 hours ago

I've deposited that little gem in your tag field. Looks just like what you see here, with your username being white letters on a red background. Mmmm, poop.

Btw, the Breatharian guy (Wiley Brooks) said at his first official talk in California that his inspiration for meeting all his nutritional needs through the breath was the horror of his own poop. He was a real classy guy street-African from NYC.

[–]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?

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

"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."

That is what I've been saying.

Moving past the rule-breaking vs censoring shills confusion, how many polite shills and/or problematic trolls are acceptable among the actual authentic users? 10%? 50%? 90%? The internet ghetto idea is only far fetched until it happens. They have way more resources than we do.

Ceasing to interact with them won't stop them. They are here to disrupt and delegitimize SaidIt and the anti-authoritarian content we share here, including taboo anti-Zionist info. IMO, that is the prime reason they are here. They could have much more "fun" on many other sites.