Why not treat shills with kindness?

submitted by LarrySwinger2 from (self.SaidIt)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HibikiBlack 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (10 children)

I think people have an ethical duty to call people out on their crimes and it is the only method we have to maybe stop them. I'm sure I've managed to make some of them reconsider their actions by posting anti-shill content.

But either way, there's no reason to treat scum like them with kindness. Out of the active users of r/conspiracy that have been persecuted by TopMindsofReddit I only know of me and P_L_C making it through, out of which I'm the only one who is still active while P_L_C is always semi-active either way...

Aleister, RecoveringGrace, Flytape, RMFN, polkadotgirl are just some of the many who have been taken out by Phoenix and his group. I wouldn't be surprised if socks was one of his many alts. He leads a group of shills but for some reason he is usually the one using dozens of alts. There's no reason why we should be overly empathetic more than neccesary. They are scum and should be treated as such.

However, with the recent cases, Jason should really limit the repression. It's exactly what socks wants to make the site look bad.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

I think people have an ethical duty to call people out on their crimes and it is the only method we have to maybe stop them. I'm sure I've managed to make some of them reconsider their actions by posting anti-shill content.

But either way, there's no reason to treat scum like them with kindness.

There's no reason why we should be overly empathetic more than necessary. They are scum and should be treated as such.

▲

However, with the recent cases, Jason should really limit the repression. It's exactly what socks wants to make the site look bad.

WRONG.

This is hyperbolic fRRRREEEEEEEEspeech overreactions that you've bought into.

I don't make SaidIt look bad. Bad faith disruptors like socks make SaidIt look bad and his whiny REEEE team only helps him with overreactions to any disciplines whatsoever. socks is an enemy of SaidIt. He was banned and for some utterly retarded reason it was only temporary. He's still the fucking enemy within. We all know it. Me occasionally banning him for <12 hours in chat will hardly slow his prolific spray of bullshit.

No one of consequence gives a shit about how good or bad SaidIt looks.

Hypocrisy:

  • You don't give a shit if SaidIt looks bad welcoming bad faith shills and disruptors.
  • You give a shit if SaidIt looks bad taking out the trash.

Let's focus on quality over quantity.

[–]HibikiBlack 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

We all know socks is a bad faith user but we should be wise if we want to oppose him. You are falling in his game if you act in a frenzy. We have the advantage since everyone has had a bad encounter with him.

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

You are falling in his game if you act in a frenzy.

Find me an instance of this.

[–]Jackalope 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

What happened with Kathryn last night was pretty fucked up, I don't want to see that happen again. We need to use more discretion than what was exercised last night.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

What happened with Kathryn last night was pretty fucked up

Jumba and Ed make 99% of the new accounts we see in chat, and "Kathryn" was passing off pictures of a TikToker as their own.

Additionally the person claimed to be bipolar. I don't know if you've ever dealt with that. I feel like if any of us owe a karmic debt to minister to the sick of mind, I have paid my bill times over. Having someone you care about regularly do 180 degree mood changes, to go from sweet to vile without warning. It hurts my own well-being.

I don't say that to be mean to anyone. But I feel being wary was/is justified due to the circumstances. Although I'll admit Ed doesn't keep his charades going this long. Where is Jumba tho?

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

What happened with Kathryn last night was pretty fucked up, I don't want to see that happen again.

1) For clarity: I did NOT ban her. Indirectly conflating my past actions with last night's exceptionally unique situation is problematic bordering on misinfo smearing.

2) She came in as a first time new alias.

3) Ed is the actual problem in this situation, though he may not have actually been there.

4) The story may have all been bullshit or even Ed masterfully manipulating us. I don't think Ed is capable of that. And she seemed legit to me. This is not the first time I've seen people reach out like this. We didn't make her fucked up, nor did we make Ed et alia fucked up. The situation was NOT fucked up, some individuals were.

We need to use more discretion than what was exercised last night.

I disagree. I think we handled it excellently. We corrected course.

Also, I won't blame he-who-banned in the slightest, nor will I if it were to happen again.

I blame Ed and the other shit disturbers.

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

1) For clarity: I did NOT ban her. Indirectly conflating my past actions with last night's exceptionally unique situation is problematic bordering on misinfo smearing.

I didn't accuse you of doing it, I'm not here to cast blame.

2) She came in as a first time new alias.

If this is the welcome new users are going to get, I don't think I want to be a part of this community

I disagree. I think we handled it excellently. We corrected course.

We did, but I don't feel good about how that happened, what if she hadn't reached back out to us via PM ? This is no way to treat people that come here. Other people shouldn't have to pay for Ed's actions

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

I didn't accuse you of doing it, I'm not here to cast blame.

I didn't say you were. I'm just clarifying for readers.

If this is the welcome new users are going to get, I don't think I want to be a part of this community

You're missing the fucking point: We are over-defensive because we refuse to properly deal with Ed and other problems.

We did, but I don't feel good about how that happened, what if she hadn't reached back out to us via PM ? This is no way to treat people that come here. Other people shouldn't have to pay for Ed's actions

We aren't responsible for her mental health, or Ed's, or their actions or inactions. She reached out for attention. Real folks in that position don't do that. We did our best.

I agree. Ed and other problems need to be dealt with properly. Take action: Take out the trash instead of bitching about "censorship".

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

You're missing the fucking point: We are over-defensive because we refuse to properly deal with Ed and other problems.

If I thought we could ban Ed to save the new users, I would be cool with this. Seems like the greater good. However, I worry that even if we 'deal' with Ed, he will still create millions of accounts to ban evade, and we will be even more over-defensive about this.

IMO We need some clear guidelines about spam and harassment, with 12 hour bans given, and consistent enforcemnt, rather than guessing games and pre-emptive bans

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

However, I worry that even if we 'deal' with Ed, he will still create millions of accounts to ban evade, and we will be even more over-defensive about this.

He's doing it anyway.

Further, chat is not top priority, never has been. It's only been this active recently.

We might ban abusers in SaidIt with M7's help. Perhaps if we petition him.

IMO We need some clear guidelines about spam and harassment,

Start the first drafts.

with 12 hour bans given, and consistent enforcemnt, rather than guessing games and pre-emptive bans

Good luck with that.