'Death from Above': - Suspensions and Bans on Babble: Should Policy and Practice be Reviewed?

I thought Fidel handled the tin foil picture well enough.  There was a video put forward by severity as well in another thread, attempting to mockingly describe the joint and the people who participate.  I wouldn't really have a problem with that if there was some follow on constructive engagement to be had once the cartoonish introduction wrapped up, if given a chance that is.  I've posted pictures of cud chewing orange coloured sheep and orange pigs at a trough, and managed to get by relatively unscathed.  I suppose it depends on how a particular depiction or statement is directed, how long people have been around here, what passes and what doesn't pass as a result, to some extent who's complaining about a particular statement, and who comes in on the scene with an itchy trigger finger.  I've never been a fan however of publically dressing down regular posters, and have called for another approach in the past.  There are obviously some situations which can't be tolerated, along the lines of an intolerance for intolerance, that sort of thing.  On the whole though, I believe we'd have ourselves a real swinging time if a tad more rope were let out.

ETA:  There are other factors as well for seeing people to the door, temporarily or otherwise, that even when explained may appear to us as simply an intangible or a variable to acknowledge, if we're aware of it at all that is, but that might be very real for someone else.

Servety was banned because his/her sole purpose in joining was to insult babblers and the left in general.  That's trolling.

ETA: the tinfoil hat bit was not what precipitated the decision, but rather in combination with another thread he/she started there was a clear indication that the new user did not join in good faith, nor did she/he appear to have anything other than derision to offer.

They must resort to the same level of logic that several inquisitions were designed around for three centuries in medieval times through to this Anglo-American inquisitorial setup(as opposed to an adversarial system of defense and prosecution with an impartial court) that exists today. Otherwise they have nothing else to say. They are coincidence theorists and modern day royal jesters whose sole purpose is to mock and entertain in vain hopes of being thrown a few table scraps and pats on heads for their relentless snivelling and grovelling to power, or they are motivated to mock and deride out of fear of being mocked themselves by their fellow toadies within their local chapters of toadies subserviant to the overall loyal order of yes-men.They are intense in their obedience to the status quo always without fail and wear the offical chocolate on their mustaches proudly as a sign of recognition to other brown nosers. Charade they are.

Table scraps?  Pats on the head?  Now that's the spirit.  I think my stuff is beginning to sink in after all.

Other than the banning of trolls, I think I have disagreed with most of the bannings that have taken place, Jeff House and E. Tamaran come to mind. As well suspensions have lead to us losing individuals like Cueball and I have yet to see George Victor re-appear although I believe his suspension has passed. I don't think suspensions or bans of regular users serves Babble well as a community.

There seems to be an aversion to conflict. I find this ironic given the dialectic in Marxism and its revolutionary nature

What I occasionally find interesting is the aversion to persistence.

If I were mounting, say, an e-mail campaign against a company for something unprogressive they did, I would expect that I might be encouraged to be persistent.  If I came here and said "I've sent them two e-mails, should I send more" I would expect the answer to be "Yes".  If I said that they seem to be getting very annoyed at my e-mails, so should I stop sending them, since they're only getting on the company's nerves at this point, I'd expect to be told "YES!  You're winning!  Don't stop now!"

But when there's disagreement here, it's supressed pretty quickly.  Stating your case more than twice -- and becoming "annoying" -- is grounds for some kind of intervention.

I can certainly appreciate that the mods might find that kind of persistence annoying.  But isn't that part of the point?

According to the TAT page, babble is a place for "folks who just won't shut up".  I'd say that really depends.

Is there anyway for one to interpret that post Smith other than as support of the status quo? I don't mean that as a criticism. The OP asks if the policy on bannings and suspensions should be reviewed. I take your answer would be "no" or do I misread your post?

Aside from my response to your specific point (it wasn't all directed at you, and I didn't mean to give that impression) I don't think you can approach the question strictly in terms of policy because maintaining order and keeping people off each others' throats isn't usually just a matter of looking things up in a book. 

If any of us has a disagreement or recommendation I think it is good to let it be known. And I think we are doing that right here and now. But as for an attempt to codify it, I don't see it working, because there will always be special circumstances. As an example, I think it is enough that if a moderator tells you to stop doing something, and you do not, the option of a suspension is there. 

If you want to consider that support of status quo, I suppose it is. Except that I don't consider any situation where people learn from experience and are open to advice to be static.

I think the 'Zap' is used far too frequently, probably unnecessarily. I understand and support its use to stop malicious intrusions and trolls, but there is a distinctly oppressive aspect to the status quo. I suggest the time has come to review, alter and drastically restrict its use. The present practice of 'death from above' suddenly taking out someone from a conversation because the shooter didn't understand or like what someone said, is inconsistent with progressive practices or principles. This has happened. One possible change could be a review mechanism whereby if three Babblers contest a ban or suspension, that suspension or ban can be lifted.

I support a policy review.

NDPP

Except that if you have a group of three friends you can effectively override the power of the moderators to do anything, and ultimately that is a system that WILL fail. The fact is that the power over what happens here ultimately lies with the site owners, as it must.

I don't mean to imply  that I don't take your concerns seriously; I do. As I said, I don't agree with all rulings, closures and suspensions. And I think that keeping a dialogue open for appeal, or to let moderators know how rulings are perceived is a good thing.

After all, babblers do ultimately have power in that they can leave and render the site irrelevant.

But I think the first step is to recognize who is ultimately responsible for what goes on here, and where the buck stops.

Taking the ultimate control of the site away from the site owners is simply a non-starter.

(edit)

And SJ. 

Agreed. It would be nice to be able to recognize satire for what it is. Problem is that some people are just so good at it that it is hard to distinguish from the object of satire..

There are few other sites where you can discuss canadian politics in a dialogue.  Almost all [I await the exception] other sites are vile places inhabited by people who think racism and misogyny are an okay basis for insults.  I think that he moderators generally give sufficient warnings about behaviour they believe is disruptive of civilized debate. 

The problem is the medium.  It is hard to write nuanced ideas in a few paragraphs so with posters one is familiar with you read in views based on their past stated beliefs.  An ambiguous statement by a newbie gets challenged so that people can determine where they are coming from.  It is the tone of that questioning by some of the old guard that looks a lot like hazing.

Moderating is a a dirty job but someone has to do it.  The proof that it has to be done is in the other sites.

"We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still...Censorship is the hallmark of an authoritarian regime."

John Stewart Mill

Censorship is a concern when the government is the censor because if the government censors something, then an individual has no ability to speak.

In the context of a private endeavor, such as babble, if a person is censored, then that concern does not arise because there is a vast multitude of alternatives to express an opinion still available to the censored person.

So, all censorship is not the same.

Whether or not babble should engage in censorship is a different question.

Ideally, babble censorship should be limited in the interest of encouraging wide-ranging discussion.  If discussion is too narrowly channeled, then babble would become an uninteresting echo chamber.  On the other hand, if discussion is too wide open, the fundamental character of babble as a progressive site would be lost.

For the most part, I think babble strikes a reasonably good balance, although I would probably make more use of suspensions that outright banning.

Excellent comment, milo204...

Thank you for that observation.  Maysie is remarkable for her patience and willingness to teach people about race, class, privilege and feminism.  I have the pleasure of knowing her, and having her ear (and advice) on those issues, and I hope that, with experience, I can come close to her understanding of those issues.

I'm glad to see you back NS.

As babble has evolved, the air has become thinner.  We've evolved rules and interpretations on rules, remember, because people have seriously violated them.  And then, because we're such a clevah crowd, we find artfull ways of putting first a toe, then a foot over the line, which requires yet another interpretation of a rule or convention......

I saw an agrument in a thread last week that resulted in a banning, and cripes, I couldn't even understand it-- because I didn't have the background of the thread where the arguement started two weeks before that. 

Y'know, Sven and I dissagreed in the Greece thread.  But with me it stays there.  Maybe Sven and I will agree in another thread. More likely-- because he's such a mellon head-- we'll dissagree.  But that dissagreement will be based not on Sven being wrong in the Greece thread, but on being wrong in the current thread he's currently being wrong in.

Whether your seniority date is like mine, almost the same as babble itself, or whether you have joined recently, we all stand on the rectums of those who have come before.   That's why the personal arguments are so strange, and that's why it's hard for new people to get a handle and join in. It requires a lot of time investment to "fit in" here. 

I don't think that's avoidable. Ten years-- that's like a century of convention outside the internet.  It's a culture. And it's not determined by moderators, it's determined by the participants.

Kind of reminds me of the old babble. /sniff

Yes, except that having an opinion is not the same as dealing in bad faith, and I shouldn't expect that listening to someone else's opinion should necessarily mean one is required to convert to it - even after the hundredth time.

Besides, from what I see the biggest fault lines here have nothing to do with people coming back with non-progressive arguments. They are strong disagreements between people who are right here and they are not going anywhere. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that so long as it is dealt with in the right way.

@ LTJ

Are we talking about opinions or behaviour?

Trolling and attacking  is not the same as holding "non-progressive" opinions. And my point is that if you asked 10 people here you wouldn't get the same answer as to what "non-progressive" means. And furthermore, that is not going to change because those differences of opinion have very little to do with newbies and outsiders. They are here, and they will always be here.

What one believes has nothing to do with behaviour. One can be the most committed leftie dedicated to the cause and still be a fucking jerk about it. 

That would be the "wrong way" IMO.

If it is any consolation, it has been awhile since we have had a meta thread.

the problem is with enforcing rules against that. It's impossible to interpret what is and isn't passive aggressive on the internet. What might sound insulting to me could be someone's lack of english language skills or their way of typing or it could in fact be an insult.

the point for me is, by coming here and contributing to an internet forum i kind of expect that and try and give people the benefit of the doubt or press people to explain what they mean by responding to my posts. it usually seems to clear it up just fine and ends up as a fruitful discussion, even if we still disagree in the end. or maybe they call me an idiot or other names and just try and divert the argument...

i can't, nor want to control what other people say or think. sure some of it angers me, frustrates me or offends me but that's the reality of the world we live in. we can't hide from that, we need to confront it at every possible opportunity. banning/suspending/rules seem to just push it off somewhere else.

i know many disagree with that, but it makes sense to me...

Snert should not have been banned.  I await his return under a new incarnation if the ban isn't lifted. Without individuals like Snert this place rsiks becoming an echo chamber. I think the place is a far better place when we have individual's pushing the envelope at the edges.

Please don't disrupt the Leadership threads with discussion of suspensions. This looks like the thread.

I'd like to suggest that we stop suspending babblers for their tone, or opinion - except where there's no other alternative, and only after a word of caution. The suspension of Malcolm was unwarranted in my opinion, and I now see that Peter3 has suffered the same fate, allegedly because he doesn't understand "Racism 101" - and there's even a scornful set of scare-quotes around his "years" of anti-racist activism. That's uncalled for, and it's a personal attack.

If we want to argue against personal attack, perhaps we should take the same tone in our criticism of moderation and focus on the action rather than the person. 

I know situations like this are charged. Let's try not to make it any more so .

Okay, I'm going to try to speak in the interest of reconciliation. I'd appreciate it if babblers could holster their weapons and listen, because I'm really speaking from a position devoid of malice or bias right now (as far as I can tell). I really like Malcolm, I don't think he's racist (obviously) and I'm pretty sure he has a good understanding of racist dynamics and how Saganash has to deal with them on a daily basis. This has never been in doubt. I hope that's clear.

From the women babblers I've had the pleasure of meeting in person--and there have been a handful--they have all told me the same thing: it is really, really hard being a woman on babble. This assertion can easily be supported by the paltry number of female posters who still hang around regularly: a number which grows even smaller on the NDP partisan threads. This problem--and it should be a problem for all babblers, not just women and not just moderators--is why we have a policy statement which aims to protect female voices. It also aims to protect other marginalized voices, which enjoy even less purchase on babble nowadays.

One of the most vicious and painful attacks someone can suffer on the internet is the pile-on. For anyone who has been subject to one, it's terrible. Please take a moment to consider what it's like to say something you think is true, and then have about a dozen posts scornfully and insultingly invalidating your experience. It really, really sucks. And the people most often on the receiving end tend to be women. Maysie was subject to a pile-on in the last thread for having the temerity to say that something someone said in relation to a FN candidate and in a discussion with minimal emphasis on racial politics was racist. I want to underline that it doesn't matter if she was "right" or not (I tend to think she had a point, but this is beside the fact). So when Maysie was victimized by a very sizeable pile-on, we took notice. What I also want to underline is that Rebecca and I are extremely sensitive to this kind of response, particularly when it targets someone who identifies as a woman of colour. I can't discount that we mods reacted quicker/more decisively because of sympathies with our fellow ex-mod, but truly and honestly, I still try to govern myself with the above reasoning, no matter who it pertains to. The pile-on is completely unacceptable, particularly when the victim is trying to introduce a perspective normally invisible to dominant male, white hegemony. If mods are supposed to do anything, this has got to be it, hasn't it?

(As a quick aside, many people have commented on the irony or uncollegiality of Maysie's initial comments. Sarcasm and conforntation are basically babble's bread and butter, but for whatever reason, Maysie (and this happened when she was a mod as well) faces a disproportionate amount fo scorn and backlash when she is sarcastic. I have always felt that this was rooted in sexism: Maysie is not a "nice girl".)

As for the recently departed, while it's always sad to see a babbler excuse themselves, I can't see the rash of "language policing" that has made the place so intolerable that Malcolm's short suspension broke the camel's back. In my work, I find that introducing a politics of oppression to those to whom it hadn't appeared yet--especially to people who consider themselves enlightened--frequently incites an affect-based reaction, frequently quite violent to a degree far disproportionate to the initial intervention. I hope at least one of the departed returns once they've cooled down, but I don't find that kind of reactionary response particularly compelling as a means to engage or effect dialogue.

Someone asked how I would respond if someone said that something I did was racist--wouldn't I naturally think that they thought my whole person was thoroughly racist? As it happens, in some of the work I do, my privilege and entitlements as a middle-class man are consistently challenged and consistently revealed to me as biased and rooted in class violence. I frequently respond poorly to these revelations, but I have strived, over the past few years, to respond less with angry ejaculations or self-absorbed snits and more with listening. I have never regretted not responding verbally and taking a moment to shift my perspective--and usually it results in an opportunity for personal growth. "Take the cotton out of your ears," a wise activist said to me once, "put it in your mouth and listen, listen, listen."

It's a slap in the face. Ease off the bans. Too many are leaving and it's largely for this reason. If we need a cop we'll call one.

Not to muddy the waters any more, and I certainly know what a pile-on is, but I think part of the definition is that it involves more than one person.

(edit)

... If the word is to holster our guns, and all.

I should think we'd be careful talking about someone who is in no position to respond.

Hear hear! When the uber-debater descends to the level of personal attack, they've lost the argument.

*deleted by user* -- off topic post that I considered frivolous.

"Cranky mods"??? Christ, they're just doing their job.

The moderating on the site has gotten much more "sudden death" over the last couple of years, in my opinion. I don't know if that's a bug or a feature, although my obvious preference is to let a discussion continue rather than banning a participant for a perceived breach of policy that may well be inadvertent.

General consensus?  Of what and by whom?  When you say "controversial assessment" do you mean Maysie's or the moderator's decision?  Either way, I don't see consensus.

"Natural course" like reddit and KOS? Just so we're clear.

Ripple, I wish there was a way for us to connect! <Hint>

Babble has just suspended an anti-racist Anglican priest for his righteous outrage at being told "what you wrote was racist" when it was written with the very opposite intent.

I submit all concerned need to apologize to him. It may not get Malcolm to come back, but it will at least put a fair end to this shameful episode.

Women get disproportionately piled on? Piffle. I was one of the most outraged barkers, boobs and all.

Ladies, if you're going to start an argument by accusing someone of racism or sexism, you better back it up, instead of backing away and shutting the person down.

What was done was cowardly, and had the effect of causing at least four quality contributors to a discussion (note: not all of whom I agree with all the time, but all of whom I learn from in the process of debating) to leave this board.

This is most assuredly NOT the purpose of moderation. If you can't stand the heat, ladies, get out of the moderating kitchen.

I hate seeing good threads get derailed. I wish we had a rule here that if an argument develops, take it elsewhere, like PMs. That can only be enforced with full time moderators, though.

@ RP

I'd say that is a question each person has to answer for his or herself, and that there is no one answer. 

No one has ever taken away my speaking privileges. 

I suppose how I would react to it would depend entirely on the circumstances, but I can tell you for sure that it is not something I would take lightly, as just a time out. What I had to learn would certainly not be the only thing on my mind.

Malcom should reconsider.  Man....if I had a nickel or everything referred my way since way back on the board..much of it well deserved.....some of it still haunting me today...

As someone who has been suspended in the past, and this is just my opinion, I would say that suspensions (as opposed to banning) can serve a useful cooling down period.

There is also the question of how it is that people wind up getting themselves suspended. 

While in some cases it comes out of the blue (I can think of at least one case that made no sense whatsoever to me) I'd say in most cases it comes down to losing your cool, and not knowing to follow the rules, and direct orders. 

Perhaps it is a time of reflection for some people, but I doubt it would be that for me

I don't mean to imply that there is nothing to be learned here - quite the opposite. But I wouldn't say that the prospect of a ban, or the rules have taught me anything other than how to follow rules. 

I can't think of too many occasions when I learned something by force, except lessons about the nature of force.

I am quite aware that I disagree with some people on some issues, and there have been a few occasions when I have not said certain things because I know they would be at best pointless and at worst get me canned.

On the other hand, if someone doesn't know well enough to follow a direct order when it comes from a moderator, that person should not be surprised when he or she winds up getting suspended. I am sure we have all seen enough cases where people were asking for it.

 We are after all not barbarians but supposedly free thinking progressive people here -  sharing info, carrying on discussions, conversations and yes even arguments - not unruly children playing in a standbox requiring 'timeouts' or public humiliation to teach 'discipline' or to follow orders. Taking away the right to speak when an authority decides you don't speak 'correctly' is something that is not appropriate very often here. When the intervention of a mod is truly required, it is quite  likely someone will ask. 'Zap' and punish less. It is not the best way and there are alternatives and suggestions proferred to that end. Dial down standing babblers in the corner.  Too many have left already. Things will be easier for all, mods included if the chill and manner of these interventions can be moderated.

I support your option of listening to each other without reservation. My answer to your last question would be try no more suspensions for a start. I'm sure others will make additional suggestions and absorbtions if the contributions already offered aren't clear or understandable to you.

I agree. The suspensions are too much, although I will admit there were other extenuating circumstances I'd prefer not to mention.

I think you're onto something. Perhaps, if we get beyond the complaints of ideology police. Folks just need to own their words. Internet text is much different than interpersonal skills. You're a good sport, I appreciate and respect that Sven.

You know, it'd be one thing if babblers were being banned all over. The other day started with ageism and sexism against a former NDP MP with respect to a floor crossing and then had a WOC attacked for challenging poorly written language. The mod's are poorly under-resourced and it's up to us babblers to take responsibility for our words.

Disagree with the suspension, I'm in your corner, disagree with being asked to re-examine your language and you're on your own.

No. Not unless Malcolm caused the pile-on. It was caused by reaction to Maysie's posts, not by Malcolm.

Malcolm was the victim of Maysie's attack. You're blaming the victim.

Done. Now, do you care to engage with Malcolm's post at #66? Also, please get your supervisor to do so, since you are a party to the dispute and have a conflict of interest.

That babble should apologize to Malcolm.

Seriously, you're a lawyer? And have read babble's terms of use? And support them? Maysie challenged Malcolm on his use of language. That Is All. And yes, Malcolm finished the pile-on with his "vile slander" rhetoric. A lawyer must recognize the hostility of those words, NO?

Too cute by half.

Blaming the fucking victim? Where the fuck have I heard that before?