Laissez-faire moderating

http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/russia-3?page=8

There you go.

Thank you Unionist and NDPP for your comments above in this thread.   It is painfully ironic that we are discussing this in a thread called Laissez-faire moderating.  

Timebandit wrote:

Caissa wrote:

Bannings of comrades diminish us. sometimes comrades need to be reminded to have more camraderie.

In this case there was a distict lack of camaraderie. There were plenty of insults and unfounded accusations to go around, though.

I don't feel particularly strongly about the banning one way or the other, but relentlessly nasty, sneering posts have made the site extremely unpleasant, indeed virtually unrecognizable over at least the past year.

Is there a process or procedure that allows for direct contact with banned members?   I would like to send ikosmos a note, but I don't know him personally or his email, and obviously now I can't PM him.   

I will miss ikosmos.  I felt he contributed a lot over the years, especially before he changed his handle.

Geopolitical events over the last few years caused his role here at babble to change a lot, I think.

Thanks Unionist, for you calm and reasoned take.  I agree.

Meg told him repeatedly to stop, dial back the rhetoric etc. he blew her off on multiple occasions. Having been on the board for as long as he had been, he was aware of consequences for that kind of behaviour. Ultimately, being an asshole was more important to him than following the policy.

I'm wondering whether there's a place for understanding, compassion, a helping hand, forgiveness, a second chance, a way back home. Rather than mockery and erasure. I have never believed in banning. We really need to have a conversation about what kind of family we have here and how we'd like it to evolve. Because in the real world movement, it's a lot like this - but we can't erase people quite so easily. At least, judging from the trade union movement, and workplace struggles, it's simply astonishing the extent to which you can build unity and solidarity with people who, taken as individuals, look like abusive racist sexist homophobic creeps. Because life doesn't afford us the same luxuries as a discussion board. We need to find other ways. If we don't even consider that the banning of ikosmos may reflect a failure of our own (and not just that he is worthy of capital punishment, good riddance forever, yay!!!) - then we are missing some important point.

Timebandit - you know how much I respect you and your views - but it's perfectly obvious to me, from your comments above, that you don't spend a whole of time in real-life mass movements, where you have to unite with liars, thieves, cheats, and abusers, because there's a basis of unity despite ourselves, and there's a common goal and a common enemy. If you like, I'll retract my "family" analogy. How about "movement"?

And you know what I've noticed? The most vehement applause for the banning of ikosmos comes from those that disagreed with his political views. Isn't that odd? I personally abhorred his abusive posts and behaviour, and my methodology was to simply ignore and refuse to engage. But not everyone did that, did they?

I've reopened an old thread. Don't know if that's the right forum for continuing this conversation. But "laissez-faire moderating" seems inappropriate.

Quote:

The most vehement applause for the banning of ikosmos comes from those that disagreed with his political views. Isn't that odd?

Not at all.  The people who disagree with his politics were the people on the business end of his insults and accusations and smears.  He was always civil to those who agreed with him.

pookie wrote:

I'm curious what you mean by "help".  If you are using it in the way I think you are, how have you come to the conclusion that ikosmos "needs" it?  And how would such help be offered?  I only ask because you said that your response was (mostly) not to enagage him.

You know pookie that I respect and like you, and I know you must be trained to read carefully, so read carefully:

Unionist wrote:

You may have noticed that I not only never engaged him, but tended to steer clear of conversations where he was going over the deep end. We tend to do that in real life too - even (maybe especially) with family, friends, allies, members of the same movement.

I'm sure you understand. When he was freaking out, I did not engage him. Not the way you put it.

And if you're really interested in "how would such help be offered", I'll tell you. Even though I'm telling you publicly, where the haters and celebrants and mockers can see. Because I trust you. Here's what I wrote privately to the mods:

Unionist wrote:

I understand clearly why you did what you did. And I can't honestly say I would have decided differently.

But: 1) He has been here since the beginning. 2) He has a problem of some kind. He has moments of clarity where he realizes, and says, that he goes over the top with abusive posts. But then he lapses back. 3) I never ever engage him when he's off on an abusive crusade. People like Smith, whose opposition to him is purely political, provoke him non-stop - and wow does he enjoy being provoked and leaping over the abuse cliff in response. 4) ikosmos recently spoke up in the babble book club - first time ever. He made sensitive and even moving comments about the last book we read (Ruth Ozeki's "A Tale for the Time Being"), and proposed the next book (Hemingway's "For the Whom the Bell Tolls"), which was accepted and is scheduled for discussion soon by our diverse little group (Caissa, Left Turn, sherpa-finn, and now ikosmos). That told me there's hope.

We're small. But we're progressive. We can make efforts to help community members like ikosmos. I'm not convinced we've made all the efforts we need to. I'm prepared to devote some time (call it therapeutic moderation) with a variety of tools: 1) intervening where needed; 2) coaching and convincing other babblers to simply, solidly, IGNORE him - say, for 24 hours - when he gets abusive. Sort of an in situ suspension. And other tools - maybe there can be a collaborative effort of healing and recreating unity and solidarity.

Is there a way to create a road back in for ikosmos, surrounded by strict conditions - but which is a helping hand? I wish there were one. I don't know how to reach him.

Sorry for the rant. What do you think?

Because I trust you pookie, I'd like your response to what I asked. Was it unfair? Impossible? Unfeeling? 

Yeah I remember that k. It struck me as really odd because you were generally one of his defenders. And I saw that you tried, and he didn't seem to care.

I only wish that were possible; I don't see how. I have remained pretty much outside this thread as ikosmos subjected me to a great deal of abuse, including private messages and misconstruing my political outlook. Yes, that can be because of 'issues', but my brother persecuted me for years until I left home as a teen and have pretty much never seen him again. (Last time, at our mother's funeral, and it was creepy indeed)... And I was horribly concerned about skdadl, someone I loved very much but it just ended up in a shouting match - I don't think online fora are the most appropriate means of support.

I'm not happy about anyone being banned except outright trolls (remember our Zionists? I'm sure there were others, right-wingers, racists etc but they were never around for long). But we can't have a zero banning policy when there are issues of personal abuse.

Unionist, I respect you, too.  So I offer this in a good spirit.  You often respond to criticisms/challenges of your posts by suggesting people have not read them carefuly enough. It comes across as condescending, and tends to inhibit productive dialogue.  Please re-consider the frequency with which you do it.

My response that you quoted is perfectly capable of bearing the qualifier "when he went over the deep end" after "not to engage him."  Which is what I meant. I don't parse my posts in a legalistic sense.  I have a full-time job for that.

With that out of the way.

Thank you for posting that message to the mods.  I agree with much of it.  I have only a few comments or cautions.

I like the idea of refusing to engage.  I am utterly unconvinced that we will ever convince everyone to do it, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth a try. In the past, I have found the recipe strategy to be effective, if occasionally obnoxious. :)   Perhaps that would be a better tack.  It certainly shuts down conversation.  For that reason, it could open up people to discipline, so mod cooperation or sign-off might be necessary.

I am wary of putting much stock in a person's longevity on the board.  Something about that rubs me the wrong way.  

Finally, I think Magoo makes a reasonable point when he contests the idea that the burden should be on other babblers.  Of course, if we were truly talking about a mental health issue, I suppose that could be seen as a form of accommodation.  But, unless a person discloses, it can be dangerous to make assumptions.  The fact that someone engages in abhorrent behaviour in their posts does not, of course, say anything one way or the other about her mental state.  The fact that a person is occasionally capable of self-reflection says nothing about that either, nor does it suggest that she is open to change.  I don't know what to do about that.  I don't think everyone wants redemption.  Some just want things to burn, b/c the world is fucked anyway.

Could say more, but will leave it there for now.

Unionist: I appreciate and agree with what you are trying to do here.   But a request - let's not couch this in terms of mental illness.   I know this is not your intent, but it is unfair to continue to discuss ikosmos in such a personal way when he is not here to defend himself.    This used to be a rule here, no?    Stop discussing babblers once they are banned?

In my view the people who opposed him on the Russia threads displayed no understanding of the basic principles of anti-imperialism, or sympathy for them, much less agreement with them.    Complaints about him being rude and insulting are astonishingly hypocritical, given the rudeness of the comments directed to him by others in that thread.  

 Unionist again:   I really appreciate that you and others want to improve the tone here.   I don't think that will happen through meta discussion or proposals (but I will participate in them and hope they succeed).    If you do decide to leave, please PM me first and let me know if you post on any other boards.

Smith you've made your position clear on this many many times.   I am doing the same.

The second sentance of your post above demonstrates that you do not understand the anti-imperialist position.   In no way was ikosmos or anyone else on those threads apologizing for misogynist violence.    But you and others complained that you were insulted and the moderator agreed and ikosmos is gone.   You won, I've already offered my congratulations.   So forgive me if I don't want to discuss this with you further.  

Sure. Except I am not accusing you of a lack of understanding. I understand your position well enough that I can explain it to you:

That the western powers, and the globalists which back them, being the largest and most aggressive force on earth, are the true imperialists. Certainly the only ones we need to concern ourselves with. And any forces or nations which oppose them are working in the interests of anti-imperialism. Any who oppose that resistance are simply serving the imperialist cause.

Might not be textbook, but I'm pretty close, I guess.

So I don't misunderstand. Nor do most of us who see it differently. We just disagree.

(edit)

It is upthread, kropotkin. The suggestion that moderation should be made based on the definition of imperialism I just stated. I didn't make it up; other people said it.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sure. Except I am not accusing you of a lack of understanding. I understand your position well enough that I can explain it to you:

That the western powers, and the globalists which back them, being the largest and most aggressive force on earth, are the true imperialists. Certainly the only ones we need to concern ourselves with. And any forces or nations which oppose them are working in the interests of anti-imperialism. Any who oppose that resistance are simply serving the imperialist cause.

Might not be textbook, but I'm pretty close, I guess.

There is the reason I think you are one of the problems on this board. You are wrong and you are so arrogant you think you know what I think better than I do. You think you know the minds of other posters and based on that you read ill intent and nasty things into others thoughts. You insult and tear down anyone who is as anti-American as I am. I frankly think that Iksomos didn't have the English skills to keep up with your relentless attacks. Just so you know what I mean by an attack here is a post you made about one of my posts. You unfavourably compared my view to someone you thought was a "brainless ass" but with a rider that at least he was being honest. Methinks that most readers would get the impression that the person you were comparing his honesty to was me and that I was somehow being dishonest in expressing my viewpoint.

6079 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Trump ran as a populist but it is clear he is supported by one group of billionaires in the US oligarchy while Clinton was supported by a different group of billionaires in the same oligarchy.

You know, not that I don't think Slavoj Žižek is a brainless ass; he is one.  But at least he had the good sense to recognize that things are going to be far worse under Trump. And the honesty to say so. That is why he is happy because he thinks that this is going to bring this all closer to revolution. 

In that, well, he just proves himself the arrogant idealogue dumbass that he is.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Okay, if that's where we are going.....

No. Just that you equated the two of them. Why some here decline to talk about some of the details I can't say. So yeah, one thing I can say about him is that he does talk frankly about it, in contrast to his being an ass who doesn't seem to care who suffers.

Somehow I think if I had actually come out and assumed motive on your part I'd be getting shit for that instead.

But if you are asking if I consider you honest, I think I said something about that not too long ago. Yes, I do.

You seem to be blind to the normal meanings that people would take from your posts. Maybe it's just our backgrounds but I have corresponded in my professional career with  many union busting lawyers. They all had a way of poking and jabbing with innuendo instead of forthright statements. 

I do not think you are as bad a person as some of those lawyers but I think your writing style is very comparable. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sure. Except I am not accusing you of a lack of understanding. I understand your position well enough that I can explain it to you:

That the western powers, and the globalists which back them, being the largest and most aggressive force on earth, are the true imperialists. Certainly the only ones we need to concern ourselves with. And any forces or nations which oppose them are working in the interests of anti-imperialism. Any who oppose that resistance are simply serving the imperialist cause.

Might not be textbook, but I'm pretty close, I guess.

There is the reason I think you are one of the problems on this board. You are wrong and you are so arrogant you think you know what I think better than I do. You think you know the minds of other posters and based on that you read ill intent and nasty things into others thoughts. You insult and tear down anyone who is as anti-American as I am. I frankly think that Iksomos didn't have the English skills to keep up with your relentless attacks. Just so you know what I mean by an attack here is a post you made about one of my posts. You unfavourably compared my view to someone you thought was a "brainless ass" but with a rider that at least he was being honest. Methinks that most readers would get the impression that the person you were comparing his honesty to was me and that I was somehow being dishonest in expressing my viewpoint.

6079 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Trump ran as a populist but it is clear he is supported by one group of billionaires in the US oligarchy while Clinton was supported by a different group of billionaires in the same oligarchy.

You know, not that I don't think Slavoj Žižek is a brainless ass; he is one.  But at least he had the good sense to recognize that things are going to be far worse under Trump. And the honesty to say so. That is why he is happy because he thinks that this is going to bring this all closer to revolution. 

In that, well, he just proves himself the arrogant idealogue dumbass that he is.

huh. i've been reading along and thought he was speaking about ikosmos not you k. i never thought about you for a second. i think you realize things are going to be much worse and definitely don't think you're happy bout it.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Given that none of us can know the intent of other posters

We do like to assume here though.

Mobo2000 wrote:

 Complaints about him being rude and insulting are astonishingly hypocritical, given the rudeness of the comments directed to him by others in that thread.  

 

 

Yup.

Unionist wrote:

Mobo2000 wrote:

Unionist: I appreciate and agree with what you are trying to do here.   But a request - let's not couch this in terms of mental illness.

Not only do I fully agree with you, but that was never my intent. And in re-reading my comments, I can imagine how you drew that conclusion. But not only did I not intend that - I never said it. I said he has a problem. And he does. He flies off the handle. And he occasionally realizes and regrets it. But mental illness? I never went there.

Quote:

I know this is not your intent, but it is unfair to continue to discuss ikosmos in such a personal way when he is not here to defend himself.    This used to be a rule here, no?    Stop discussing babblers once they are banned?

I understand your point. But I want him back. I don't agree with erasing people. So by not discussing banned babblers, we are precisely accepting and condoning erasure. I'm not ready to do that any more. And he doesn't need to defend himself against me. Because I'm not in any way attacking him. Others? They attacked him non-stop while he was here, and they are continuing. Call it freedom of expression. Or, there are other possible characterizations.

Quote:

In my view the people who opposed him on the Russia threads displayed no understanding of the basic principles of anti-imperialism, or sympathy for them, much less agreement with them.    Complaints about him being rude and insulting are astonishingly hypocritical, given the rudeness of the comments directed to him by others in that thread.  

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Those who now celebrate his erasure are uniformly those who opposed him politically. That could be a coincidence. I will leave that puzzle as an exercise for the reader. I don't in the least agree with his effusive apologias for Russian Tsars, past and present. But I don't extend my disagreement into banishment and erasure.

Quote:

Unionist again:   I really appreciate that you and others want to improve the tone here.   I don't think that will happen through meta discussion or proposals (but I will participate in them and hope they succeed).  

I merely wanted to remind folks of a proposal ex-moderator Michelle Langlois herself made - a trial period of no suspensions or bans (except for obvious trolls). If we can't manage a 3-month trial like that? Then babble should, with all due respect, fuck off and die. In reality, however, we are far stronger and more durable than some believe.

Quote:

If you do decide to leave, please PM me first and let me know if you post on any other boards.

No way. I'll come back here under untraceable pseudonyms and wreak havoc. You will always hear from me. Here, and everywhere. I'm from the working class. We don't disappear. Ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

For the record, I was the poster who specifically referenced mental illness and I apologize for that.  I felt I had to go there because of the term "issues".

And in the name of full disclosure, I've had some mental health issues myself over the years:  I've gone through significant periods of depression.  I don't personally regard mental health as something that we can't or shouldn't discuss, but understand that it can be dealt with inappropriately and as a way to silence people and delegitimize their opinions.

I didn't want to do that to ikosmos, and if I managed to do that I should clearly have been more careful in how I phrased things.

Quizzical, I don't know what to say now. Thanks for sharing that. No way will I leave this place. We've built too much here together. We've all weathered bigger storms than this in real life.

And thank you, everyone, for sharing your feelings and viewpoints - pookie, Ken Burch, kropotkin, Sean, Mobo2000, Caissa, lagatta... - it's quite overwhelming. I love you all. 

I hope ikosmos is reading this thread on occasion. The compassion and camaraderie is awesome.

And I do hope the mods (i.e. Meg) would consider opening a path for ikosmos to return, if of course he wants to. It doesn't mean ignoring or denying his behaviour. It doesn't mean forgetting. It means forgiving. It means uniting against our common enemies and in pursuit of our common goals.

If you agree, please let's get that message to the mods. These are tough situations which shouldn't all be on one person's shoulders to handle. The community should take responsibility and make it better.

I think we need to assume the best in each other.

Unionist:   Thanks again for your kind words and efforts here.   With regards to mental illness, I apologize, I read quickly and less carefully than I should have, I was upset.

Ken:   Thank you as well and I appreciate you were coming from a place of compassion.

Obviously I support any effort to get ikosmos reinstated but given I am new here I will let others take the lead. 

A request - I would like to know if this banning was because ikosmos was being rude/abusive, or because of politics, specifically this:

http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/russia-3?page=7

Timebandit:

"Russia took the first step to allowing men to beat their wives and children without consequence.

This is a fact. Excusing or rationalizing that fact on this board is contrary to policy. Of course, we'll understand if you don't want to discuss it further, and that understanding this fact causes great cognitive dissonance for you. Perhaps you and your sticky keyboard should just start a thread on how dreamy ol' Vlad is, in a Stanley Kowalski kind of way."

The post he was banned for was in response to this line of questioning.    Others also seemed to be offended that his comments were an excuse or rationalization.   I didn't see it that way, it seemed to me you both were talking about different things.   I'd like to discuss this further with the people so offended, but I need a little break.   I'll try in Ken's anti-imperialist postions re: russia thread in a few days.

MegB, would you clarify if ikosmos was banned for abusive behaviour or for violating policy re: excusing violence against women?