babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I think by the time they're done with the spam beat, they're already in a crabby mood by the time they get to us.
We have a 'bless me with your fierce tears' thread for condolences, and your second point here about preaching on the 'evil kinfolk' is quite low I have to say.
It's not so much that we have the right to ban people -- it's really more an obligation to keep the peace. I'm completely open to alternatives to banning. Reminders of what courteous discourse is, or pointing out policy guidelines for new babblers, works for most people who, from time to time, get really steamed and blow their stack (I mean, who here, myself included, hasn't lost it at some point or other?). For a few, multiple reminders followed by a warning does the trick. A very tiny percentage of babblers continue to inflict abuse or violate policy after the reminders and the warnings, and we reluctantly suspend them, give them a cooling-off period, usually 24-48 hrs.
When a veteran babbler is outright banned, it's a last resort and comes after much discussion among mods and, quite often, with the individual who is affected. It's a small but incredibly crappy part of this job, and if we could come up with something better, we would. Suggestions are welcome.
It is a failed strategy without any semblance of due process, violating all accepted principles of justice. Moreover it is clearly applied with prejudice. Some have license to abuse, name-call and harass other babblers relentlessly and repeatedly without any intervention, - this thread is as good an example as any.
The suggestion made repeatedly is NOT to do it. Another is to reverse the one just rendered.
this comment made me pause and think for a bit and then i realized that what you're saying is that the moderators and the operators of rabble must believe in the sentencing of death as a penalty at some level.
The better analogy is ostracism.
I still haven't run across a specific thread where the final straw was laid down. Was there such a thread, or was he run out minus the standard announcement, all quiet like?
I believe that was 'dearth,' as in, an imposed lack of postings from certain contributors.
think so? seems like if a person is banned then they are figuratively dead or at least their presence here is and they have no ability to post which means they have no ability to exist except in memory. if we were to take that unilateral action of wanting to keep the peace at all costs outside into the world it would mean death penalty or extreme security state protecting its citzens from terror.
no matter though shunning is a nice regressive tactic all on its own.
Well, honestly, I like this idea. I've recently read Don McIntyre's Master's thesis about "no-exit societies," an aboriginal alternative to the "easy-exit society" of capitalism (break a rule? Go to jail. Abuse a community? Move somewhere else. Exploited resources and labour forces? Close down factory). I think this would be a good model to adopt here, but of course, it would need to be adopted universally, which I don't see happening.
Part of the problem is that this isn't a society. We don't have a charter or a constitition. We have a board anyone is welcome to join and a policy with which we try to govern it. Rebecca and I aren't judges or politicians or suzerains. We're just two employees trying to make this place work, for which we need the help of our members (which we don't often get).
I think before we entertain some idea of an alternative justice model, babblers need to take it upon themselves to just make this a better place to engage with one another. To like it here, to say they like it here, and to like the fact that other people like it here--to make it a space where an ethos of inclusion, solidarity and acceptance can actually emerge and flourish.
In this lies the rub. What external evidence would indicate that we have reached this state and who would be the arbiter that it has been met?
What would be the downside in treaty this space as a society and rabble allowing a charter or constitution to be created and ratified by the denizens?
I'm thinking out loud here; I don't have the answers or solutions. I just know that I would like to see the banning of non-trolls to cease.
You asked for suggestions so I will make one-- I don't know if it is practical but at least an alternative.
What about allowing the person to submit posts that become fully moderated for a while. This allows a calm down process and inflicts delay but not banishment.
I see it working like this-- a person who has been warned and would otherwise be banned loses the ability to post directly. They then have to send a post that will go in the thread once it has been read and determined by a mod/volunteer as complying with all policy.
They would face delays but could still get things out there. The post would go in the thread if it is still open or in a new thread if it is a continuation. If there is no continuation the thread could be lost-- a risk the person would take.
This could allow them time to earn back full posting ability. It would allow for a cooling off.
Challenges are of course the impact of the delay on a conversation (I think that this can be overcome).
The mechanics of posting -- even that may not be a big deal-- the post could go through another account set up that they do not have access to. Unless that has been abused they could retain access to their messaging functions as well to stay in touch with those who want to converse with them directly.
This would be restricted to people who have been in the community here say a minimum of 6 months so we would not do it for people who never ever fit in here.
So if a banned person had something to say, they could send it to an account, or person where it would wait until they had time to read it to see that it was ok. Because of the extra work involved they could be limited in the number of posts they could make while in this situation.
The idea is that as nasty as it is, it still allows them a chance to earn the right to get back in and does not eliminate their ability to comment on issues that matter most to them although it makes it harder and slower for a while.
People might lose interest with this but after a time they might calm themselves and decide they wanted to earn their way back in and this is how they could. If workload is too great some supporter of their could volunteer to do the reading and be responsible to make sure that there was nothing offensive. Like a posting buddy.
I'm just saying we might be able to find an alternative if we want to. I don't like seeing the diversity of opinions lost.
As for EM. There is a lot I like about that place. It has one problem-- it lacks the volume of people to sustain most conversations and that is unfortunate as they have even some technical advantages over this place (multiple page threads that don't close for example). I found it frustrating to post on something current and then have to wait days to interact with people at times. There are some really interesting people over there and I really wish there could have been a way to combine some of those discussions. I have to admit that I came back here mostly because of the higher volume of traffic and numbers of people writing currently. That is why I am so biased about hanging on to the people who are here so we don't lose what you might call critical mass.
My understanding is that no one is getting paid to do what's done now, let alone provide a potentially 24/7 vetting service. The second point is mostly what we seem to be on about in coming here to talk about a regular being walked out over the plank. That, and I don't mind saying on a personal level that respect can exist even when there's disagreement and certain words exchanged as a result.
Threads have to be read anyway right?
Numbers of posts could be restricted.
The poster in that situation could wait till someone gets around to it. I suggested could even find a sponsor.
I don't think there are that many long time people banned and this could provide an alternate approach.
Please don't dismiss if there is a way to make it workable and there is no other alternative.
Certainly please don't characterize it as 24-7-- the post would sit in the queue until someone got to it. Still better than nothing. The number can be rationed according to resources. Perhaps the person would only get 2 opportunities a month to add something...
Actually, while a good percentage of our work on babble is unpaid, we do get a stipend. As far as the moderated comments pre-post, we don't currently have the system capabilities to do that, though that is an excellent idea.
ETA: we definitely don't have the capacity for 24/7 moderation, and I don't think that anyone here would want that.
I have seen boards where they have a pre-screening system for offenders. It's one alternative. Whether one sees it as better or more humiliating would be a matter of personal choice, I think.
As for banning, never mind looking for last straws, I can think of at least a dozen cases of people daring the moderators here to ban them.
I don't like it either, but I can think of several cases in which it was probably the only option.
I just like the idea of giving someone a way out-- or path back... Doesn't mean they take it but it is there.
@ Sean
I don't want to speak for the mods, but I assume nothing is absolutely written in stone. I have always thought of banning as more of an indefinite time out than an execution.
How bout specifically, Gaian's banning be re-thought. Let's have a show of hands on it:
Well, we certainly wouldn't want to put y'all through some of the overnight stuff that goes down sometimes, not while it's in progress at least.
Un-ban!
Did ya ever have an experience like this, while waiting in anticipation for something....
I love babble
ETA: Re George - he went through a very difficult time in real life, and while I agree with the mods' tough job of maintaining a minimum of decorum here, I'd like them to consider what we sometimes do at work - a "last-chance agreement", reflecting the duty to accommodate up to the point of undue hardship. I think, on balance, that gesture may do more good than harm to the climate here. And it clearly lays out the consequences of recidivism.
I like it here. And I like how the mods work hard - in full public view, as well as behind the scenes - to try to make this place work.
I like Unionist's thoughts in #53.
George is a really tough call to be considering these general questions.
In my opinion he was persistently the nastiest character around here. And abusive to quite a few people. Possibly he 'selected' only people with thick skins who least need protection. So there may be that, i guess. And my opinion of 'how bad' is only my opinion.
But if you arent going to ban someone who many times repeatedly returns to attacking and very overtly belittling, then who ARE you going to ban?
But then, maybe the same people who want to give him another chance right away- because based on past practice you can count on him getting another one if he wants it- are the same people who do not want any banning. And there is not an agreed means of enforcing some very minimal standards of behaviour.
And as to George or anyone else facing tough things in life- they are free to bring that up when asking for another chance. They can even be prompted. But I dont see why anyone should get a pass just because they are going through things that would challenge any of us.
I have very, very difficult people in my life who I choose to put a lot of time into. And I dont ever really question why. But it matters that I make that choice.
KenS, you are correct; I don't support the banning of long-standing members. I think we need to find a mechanism to keep this from happening.
One discussion group I belong to has a place called Hell where the gloves come off and it is no holds barred. I'm not advocating it for babble but it seems to work there.
I guess the other issue is one of working conditions: would the moderators want to work in an environment where the banning tool is not part of their toolkit?
I think this plac can tackle more attacking than it does. EnMasse, although it has a lower volume of traffic, seems to tolerate more conflict than the Babble norm.
Again, I'm thinking aloud here and I by no means think I have the solution.
The community appears to have spoken in its silence and wisdom. I'm a little disappointed to tell you the truth. Not that any suggestion of mine has failed to pass muster, like that's ever been a hindrance.....but that harmony, and being of somewhat homogeneous and agreeable character are such sought after qualities, and that people who have been put off by this or that would support a state of permanent shunning as the solution. It's an understandable response to the troll or spammer let's be clear. But we're not talking about them. We talk about politics, divisive subject material first and foremost, before personal characteristics are even introduced into the mix.
I think you are fundamentally mistaken that the really strong reactions we are referring to was over subject material and politics. For example, George and I even have a significant degree of overlap on that.
It is the peronal characteristics that are the issue.
I can rattle off a number of people here who I almost never agree with, but see no problem at all with their style. NDPP is just one example.