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 - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun -  (24 children)

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 -  (23 children)

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 -  (22 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.

[–]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?