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 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.

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

Thank you. I've rarely felt more fancy.

Classy, indeed. To be honest though, poop is an oddly good indicator of some simpler dietary needs, and even useful for determining health problems. It's nasty, but it's got its uses in healthcare.

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

Poop also has its uses in healthdisregard. In the middle east, and places where those people have migrated, camel dung can resemble a type of hashish, and is sometimes sold as such.

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

Is that to bamboozle people into smoking actual shit, but paying good money for it?

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

Less about the actual material, and more about the low cost of acquiring it. I've seen some of it, and it does kind of resemble a low grade of hashish. It's probably more of a tourist scam, because it's not that close.

[–]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.

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

So you're calling for censorship because they are breaking the rules. Ok cool, I'm glad we got the semantics out of the way and are calling it for what it is. Again, I don't agree with any form of censorship for any reason. I think that if you build a robust enough community these people can be weeded out. I think that there are other ways of doing things. Improving the block feature, ignoring people, post limits, maybe limiting what sub-saidits they can post in, idk, anything but just outright censorship. I don't agree with the statement that "Ceasing to interact with them won't stop them." It's logical that if everyone, or at least of a majority of us, where to stop engaging with these people, stop talking ABOUT these people/accounts, stop making stupid posts that include their name or even referencing them, if we all blocked them and acted like they didn't exist, etc., they would have nothing to do. These are just people dude, they aren't some paid MOSSAD agent trying to counter your anti-zionist truth talk. They're bored, sad, probably obese, people, probably dudes, who have no life and get kicks from arguing with people on this site. This is their version of fun. I mean that dude socks already said in a comment here that he only keeps talking because people talk back to him, or something similar. Trolls troll, it's nature man.

Anyway, to not try something like blocking them or just ignoring them and stop engaging, and then to try and say that it won't work is silly. Have you tried blocking them? Have you tried to just not engage and encourage other people not engage? Idk bro, try that shit and see if it works before discounting it. Trying to drape yourself in some cloak of virtue by saying you're trying to save saidit from becoming some internet ghetto is silly too. Just chill man, saidit is fine. These people are not the bulk of what people see on saidit. Hell, I didn't even know who these people where till you posted this stupid thread. And that's what I'm saying, you're bringing attention to it when you could just ignore it.

Are they really disrupting and delegitimizing saidit? lol, Really? Don't you think that's a bit dramatic? Again, I don't know if a lot of people even know who these people are. Saidit seems to have a small group of people who are VERY active, overly active IMO, on this site. I think people who come and lurk, or just like myself contribute sometimes, been on here a long time, but don't get into the drama, don't give a fuck about these people but do give a fuck about keeping saidit a place for free speech and free of censorship. TBH the incessant jew shit or the "oh my god the white race is being killed" or w.e shit, is much more annoying then someone trolling. And I see way more of that stuff on the front page now a days then anything posted from this socks person or whoever the other person is. But hey this is saidit, people do what they do and that's what makes it great. Hell, we can have a sub-saidit called "debatealtright" that isn't about debate at all, it's just a place for white supremacist to have a circle jerk party. Look, saidit is filled with a lot of different people and yes some can be trolls, but lets not get too dramatic. These people are trolls and we should have a better way of dealing with trolls then to simply to censor them. If we can set a good precedent now, and find a better way of dealing with trolls and other similar issues, then it is way less likely that it will be abused in the future. And if some authority does try to abuse it, it will be easier to spot. Just censoring them sets a precedence that can be easily abused by any authority in the future.