We Need to Talk About the Chat Operator Status

submitted by Jackalope from self.SaidIt

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Jackalope[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

u/JasonCarswell, any thoughts to share?

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

This is a bitch post. But at least it's a start. And at least you offered one poor solution idea, better than none.

Your proposed ignore command is almost as shitty as the unfinished block user on SaidIt which is terrible for a myriad of reasons. It won't deal with the fundamental problem of asstrolls and all of SaidIt will suck while a few might actually use the function if they know about it.

IMO, we as a community need to dev a few clear rules and many guidelines for acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, along with the tolerance threshold levels. M7 can step in if he wants to. Already we don't need him for this. We only need to do this ourselves if we actually want it.

Asstrolls gonna suck ass. I just don't want to see it on #subscribed and #all - the front pages of SaidIt.

So how are we going to define what is or is not acceptable?

And when the oversensitive bitches griping about being banned for less than 12 hours resort to slanderous bullshit you see them for the scum they are.

Authoritarian shill usehername was a cunt. I got no apology. I even unbanned the bitch. I got no thanks. Fuck the bitches too.

[–]Jackalope[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

This is a bitch post. But at least it's a start. And at least you offered one poor solution idea, better than none.

There's no need to be rude, I was simply trying to start a conversation, and mentioning one solution that I thought was at least a slight improvement, and soliciting others to give better ideas. On the other hand, this post doesn't offer even a single solution, you just ask more questions.

You mention guidelines. A set of rules would be one way, what do you suggest, and who enforces it?

Authoritarian shill usehername was a cunt. I got no apology. I even unbanned the bitch. I got no thanks. Fuck the bitches too.

Jason I hope you can see how your attitude towards chat is somewhat authoritarian in itself. I often disagree with Socks and Usehername as well, but what these guys are doing does not rise to the level of ban worthy imho, so maybe we do need to talk about guidelines.

Jumba and Ed are the only regular users I have seen in chat lately that have deserved bans at any point in time, and it usually involves very blatant harassment. Or that time Ed pasted like 100 pages of code into the chat and it kept outputting for like a half hour.

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

I wasn't wrong, and it can be debated whether I was rude or to the point.

Your post was not clear. It did not explicitly ask for solutions, though it alluded to finding them.

IMO, a few rules need to be clear and concise, along with many guidelines that are ambiguously interpreted. The community can come up with them. Maybe even different sets, and the OP can announce the rule set with a link.

SaidIt already has site-wide rules. Re-read them. They include no name-calling and the chat has always been a lot more forgiving. No subverting SaidIt, and so much of the shit in chat is NOT a good look for SaidIt.

Jason I hope you can see how your attitude towards chat is somewhat authoritarian in itself.

Bullshit. I have lost patience with asstrolls. That's all. And if they can't behave civilly then they get slapped, no more than 12 hours, and this has all blown up into a whiny bitch fest, including your post here.

Taking out the trash is NOT censorship.

I often disagree with Socks and Usehername as well,

socks is the enemy within. Fuck socks. usehername is not much better, but at least is not as prolific infiltrating SaidIt.

Jumba and Ed

They need to be spanked to learn the obvious lesson to simply behave. I'm hoping this week of my "authoritarianism" discipline is enough to keep them on the correct path for a while. Spare the rod spoil the asstroll. I hope you'll do likewise if and when necessary to maintain a modicum of decency in the chat. I could go so far as to say you have leadership potential, as everyone there likes you, but it's just a fucking chat. Nonetheless, you have earned my respect for your words, views, and insights and wish more were at your level.

[–]Jackalope[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

SaidIt already has site-wide rules. Re-read them. They include no name-calling and the chat has always been a lot more forgiving. No subverting SaidIt, and so much of the shit in chat is NOT a good look for SaidIt.

I have read them, and they are unfortunately ambiguous. Name calling isn't explicitly disallowed, as one as long isn't 'dragging down the discussion on the pyramid'.

I think if the name calling is rising to the level of harassment, as it has at times in chat, people should be put on timeout as you say. I would like to retain a modicum of decency in the chat as well, I just want the rules and processes to be fair and transparent.

Clearly a rule against harassment would cover Ed and Jumba's conduct, but I am not sure what rules you could cite against socks and usher. They generally don't harass other users in the chat and maintain civil dialogue. What exactly do you object to that can be objectively quantified?

The current system just doesn't work well. As it is, Jumba or anyone else can get the operator status and 'subvert saidit' to use one of your phrases, or just ban whoever they want. It seems like a good idea if we can all agree on some guidelines, but that only works if one of us gets the operator status.

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

I have read them, and they are unfortunately ambiguous.

Yes. This is exceptionally problematic.

Name calling isn't explicitly disallowed, as one as long isn't 'dragging down the discussion on the pyramid'.

Ya but no but ya but no. There is a fuck tonne of dragging down that is not dealt with. Also the two strikes over my head are for name-calling when I intentionally pushed the limits to prove points.

I think if the name calling is rising to the level of harassment, as it has at times in chat, people should be put on timeout as you say. I would like to retain a modicum of decency in the chat as well, I just want the rules and processes to be fair and transparent.

1000000% on fair and transparent. Better: FOTPACH = fair open transparent peaceful accountable consistent honest. There's nothing worse than an admin that stoops to lying.

Clearly a rule against harassment would cover Ed and Jumba's conduct, but I am not sure what rules you could cite against socks and usher. They generally don't harass other users in the chat and maintain civil dialogue. What exactly do you object to that can be objectively quantified?

Bad faith argumentative sealioning timesucks are a problem in that calling out their bullshit feeds the asstrolls and sucks your time. By that point everyone's tuned out and no one cares. However, upon repetition, they build up their unlikable bad faith reputation.

The current system just doesn't work well. As it is, Jumba or anyone else can get the operator status and 'subvert saidit' to use one of your phrases, or just ban whoever they want. It seems like a good idea if we can all agree on some guidelines, but that only works if one of us gets the operator status.

It's not so dire. It only lasts 12 hours. But it is a problem.

Off the top of my head, it seems we need to create a League Of Respectable Gentlemen (and Ladies).

I pick you and you pick me and that's the start. We have a consensus, always. We nominate others agree to include them, by consensus. All of us come up with more nominees to include or not, by consensus, and so on growing. If anyone has a problem including a nominee then that nominee is not included. The rejector(s) can explain why, take the 5th (ending all discussion), or engage in discussion to be turned or not. Careful consideration for inclusion should be taken as getting consensus to eject someone may be more difficult.

This League, or trusted-team, would then collectively come up with some rules and/or guidelines for chat. That would be good for chat and the OP so they can do their job without reservation.

Getting OP is as simple as setting an alarm a minute before the chat resets. If able, drop what you're doing, refresh your tab, and then resume your day. The bitches may complain and cry but I'm not giving a fuck doing something else entirely. Sometimes I peek in. Sometimes I see nothing, I see blather, I see insights, and occasionally I see problems. Squash them, for less than 12 hours. Whatever. It seems that simply having the OP status is enough of a threat to keep them in line after a day or two of heavy hands. Unhinged bitches like usehername will shriek obscenities about loosing <12 hours, proving they're just a twat. If only we could ban some for life.

[–]Jackalope[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I agree with almost everything you said here Jason, I am glad we are finding common ground.

I like your FOTPACH thing, I think those are good principles for us. I think the League is a good idea as well, I can make an effort to get the daytime operator reset and +o the other trusted members, the other one is my sleeping time.

I won't bring up socks again, but I'm not sure I would lump usehername in with socks. There is zero doubt in my mind that usehername believes the things he says and is attempting to argue in good faith. I get frustrated at the authoritarian shit he defends too, but I truly think he is just a young guy who believes that stuff.

I have my doubts about the sincerity some of the things socks says too, but it's really hard to read intent (not saying impossible) and still manage to stick to the FOTPACH principles, as it wouldn't be fair if we misread intent and banned people for simply disagreeing with us. You have had some reallly solid suggestions so far, do you have any thoughts on how we could manage this issue?

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

Despite them both sharing much of their ideological frameworks, I haven't fully lumped usehername in with socks yet, as the latter is all bad faith and less rude. Being rude and negative is downward dragging, but at least it's not bat faith even if it is retarded. In time this may require more action, or hopefully they grow and become aware.

My problems are NOT with the disagreements, but the inauthenticity and prolific nonsense. Sealioning timesucks are the worst and fool many people. socks pretends to listen to your argument, says "thanks I'll look at all that research you just took the time and energy to give me" and then never does and keeps spouting the same bullshit without evolving with new info. Ad nauseam BAD FAITH.

This prolific ad nauseam bad faith bullshit also comes from Ed/fEd/skank/skeeter/wonderwoman/etc and Jumba/weegs/speegs in very different forms.

All of these need to be called out for what they are when they happen. Not just to teach them, but to illustrate to everyone else what is clogging up the chat and alienating folks. We must defend the SaidIt front page chats: #all and #subscribed. There are hundreds if not thousands of other subs they can chat in. If they just wanted to chat they would go elsewhere. Chaos agents lust visibility.

Actual management via clear rules, abundant guides, and a trusted-team are a deeper matter. I'm willing to help, in time, but at this point I have too many higher priority personal projects, group projects, and local people with serious problems to help rather than leading this minor project for a few whiny asstrolls and shills needing lessons in etiquette and decorum. Feel free to run with it and ping me. I'll do my best to try to keep in the loop, but I've been not doing well with my communications backlog for a while.