Official Atlas Community Poll: Do you support banning opebo?

[Bacon King]

I just find it ridiculous that the moderators are communicating one set of rules to people (don't do this again or we'll ban you) while privately enacting a completely different thing (we're banning him regardless).

Yeah we're not really good at communicating everything but I didn't even realize Inks sent a PM to opebo, let alone that it was partially on my behalf. Inks gave opebo his 8th Super Final Warning For Reals or whatever presumably because he didn't think there was the consensus to motion for a ban; when I skimmed through the thread I just saw all the moderators acting like they thought opebo should just be banned already yet didn't think all the other moderators agreed so I made my poll and it turns out literally all of us think opebo should be banned.

When it gets down to it, the TOS is not an absolute legal code and we're not judges. We're people with lives who volunteer to help run the forum in our spare time. We disagree on more things than I think any of you realize, and while we try to have precedents and procedures there's really no universal principle we follow except for rule through consensus. And we're in consensus here, maybe not all for the same reason, but still, opebo is a tiresome troll who constantly posts inappropriate material and is a terrible human being to boot. I think he should have been banned after he wrote like ten paragraphs about how he'd run an ideal country that included a big section on child sex trafficking/tourism. But that's just me.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Let's discuss this as a forum community with as little hostility as possible.

Inks, please don't delete this. I'm just trying to gague the forum's opinion on this forum issue.

I have no problem with this thread.  But keep it honest.  If you start spouting crap about he's being banned for something he did 8 years ago, I'm not going to allow you to mislead the forum in an attempt to rally people to your "side".

How about deleting the thread if people post falsehoods about me, or at least delete any posts where such claims are made.

Its unfair to have other posters making baseless charges against one.  They should only be allowed to mention what I have actually posted on the forum.

After all they're only attacking me because I disagree with them - they can't bear anything which does not conform.

Report any falsehoods that are said about you, and I will delete them.

[Potus]

If the moderators' duty is to keep the site safe for teens and kids, then that is their duty. It's what they have to do, whether they personally like individual or whether that individual is forum popular. From what I've read, it would be the mods executing their duty to keep the website safe for minors if opebo were to be banned.

[Ban my account ffs!]

At what point did the moderator stance evolve from a temporary ban if opebo posted a "sexual" image again (as detailed in Inks' little PM) to asking Dave to ban him permanently for being a troll?

edit: My 30,000th post! I dedicate it to opebo and all other victims of the power-hungry bullies.

Bullies is the correct term here.  We have a lot of bullies on this forum, and while I wouldn't say the moderators are bullies themselves (perhaps Joe in some cases)... they enable it and even encourage it.

I'm very sensitive to bullying.  I see it everywhere on this forum and it needs to be addressed.  Mob rule... bullying... groupthink... everybody is worked into a total frenzy right now over this.

I stood up for barfbag despite questioning his value as a poster because I felt he was bullied by the forum at large.  The witch hunts abound and the moderators are only too happy to fan the flames.

I respected Inks for standing up for the right thing in some cases, and got totally turned off when he started demanding my 'thanks' for it or he'd stop doing so in the future.  No Inks, you don't ahve to stand up for the right thing.  Nobody makes you.  But to stop doing so because you don't feel people appreciated it enough is very bad form.  Note:  Inks sees this differently.  He saw me attacking him despite his willingness to stick up for me... which probably isn't incorrect.  The point is, I'd hope he will be willing to do the same int he future regardless of the response he gets from the person he's standing up for.

Nym should be removed as an admin and many mods removed as moderators.  I don't advocate for Nym to be removed because he's a bad guy... he's not.  Nym and I always had a friendly relationship and when he was made an admin, I was very happy.

But he doesn't post here anymore.  He doesn't know the forum.  He doesn't know the various sides to various problems.. he only hears from the moderators.  And nobody on the forum at large gets to even see that.

When we complain about something, we're kicked upstairs to Dave... who doesn't do anything to resolve these issues until people threaten to withhold money.

So we're left with a mod team competing to have their way in front of largely absent admins.

This is why I say.. replace them all.  And replace Nym with someone who is seen as impartial by the forum but is also involved in the forum day to day (Muon would be a great candidate... or even *gulp* badger).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I just find it ridiculous that the moderators are communicating one set of rules to people (don't do this again or we'll ban you) while privately enacting a completely different thing (we're banning him regardless).

Yeah we're not really good at communicating everything but I didn't even realize Inks sent a PM to opebo, let alone that it was partially on my behalf. Inks gave opebo his 8th Super Final Warning For Reals or whatever presumably because he didn't think there was the consensus to motion for a ban; when I skimmed through the thread I just saw all the moderators acting like they thought opebo should just be banned already yet didn't think all the other moderators agreed so I made my poll and it turns out literally all of us think opebo should be banned.

When it gets down to it, the TOS is not an absolute legal code and we're not judges. We're people with lives who volunteer to help run the forum in our spare time. We disagree on more things than I think any of you realize, and while we try to have precedents and procedures there's really no universal principle we follow except for rule through consensus. And we're in consensus here, maybe not all for the same reason, but still, opebo is a tiresome troll who constantly posts inappropriate material and is a terrible human being to boot. I think he should have been banned after he wrote like ten paragraphs about how he'd run an ideal country that included a big section on child sex trafficking/tourism. But that's just me.

Yup - this pretty much sums it up, and it's actually something I just realized.  For the sake of transparency, I'll admit that we screwed up in sending that PM.  There was a lot of silence for a long period, so a couple people (mainly me) who wanted at least some progress to be made, assumed that those who were silent weren't going to speak up.  At that point, those who had explicitly expressed support for a ban was only me, and 2 opposed it, favoring a warning.  Then there was silence.  So I drafted it, a few people said it looked good, a couple weeks went by, and I pointed out that we should send it, nobody volunteered, so I did.  I actually realized this at 02:45:12 am and posted my findings to the mod board.  Does this make the mods look good?  Nope.  But we're human.  I believe we made a mistake in sending that PM, and I think most of us realized it.  Now, does this mean that all the mods think this?  Absolutely not.  Not everyone has weighed in.  Most importantly, Nym and Dave haven't weighed in, and they may think sending the PM wasn't a mistake, making this whole debate moot.

[Eraserhead]

How many mods are there on here?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How many mods are there on here?

Active 16; active-ish 17; + Nym and Dave

[Spamage]

People take this forum way too seriously.

[morgieb]

In fairness the NAMBLA posts were in shocking taste. It's surprising he wasn't banned back then.

But given how long ago they were made, should that constitute a banning? Probably not now at least.

[Eraserhead]

Poll Watch: 26-25 (51%-49%) in favor.

51 total votes so far.

[Eraserhead]

People take this forum way too seriously.

Okay but how'd you vote?

[Deus Naturae]

In fairness the NAMBLA posts were in shocking taste. It's surprising he wasn't banned back then.

But given how long ago they were made, should that constitute a banning? Probably not now at least.

As I understand it, those post have literally nothing to do with his potential banning.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Something to be reminded of: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=180390.0

opebo is by one measure objectively the best poster on the site!

[Joe Republic]

In fairness the NAMBLA posts were in shocking taste. It's surprising he wasn't banned back then.

But given how long ago they were made, should that constitute a banning? Probably not now at least.

As I understand it, those post have literally nothing to do with his potential banning.

Correct.

Again, it's merely a reminder of what type of person so many people here are eager to defend.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I've never really cared one way or another until lately, to be honest, because I've always just ignored him. But after reading through everything here and in the last week or two of "moderator controversy" I ended up voting yes.

There just doesn't really seem to be any good reason in his defense, from what I've seen so far. In fairness, the argument against opebo isn't particularly good or well constructed either, as the approach to dealing with opebo has been super sloppy and the rationale for his banning seems to boil down to "we all realized we should've done this ages ago so now we're finally planning to do it" which.. I'm not really sure is all that good of a reason, but opebo is still a troll. Other posters have been banned for less. Even if the moderator approach isn't all that well executed, it's clear they want to ban him, and at best would just wait for the next opportunity to do so, and considering opebo's behavior probably wouldn't take that long.

But Bacon King is right, that everyone needs to get real for a second. Opebo's behavior is kind of indefensible. There's really no good reason to keep him around and encourage his presence here. What does Joe's dumb prank have to do with any of this? (Dumb, though, it was, and people should at least admit it.) This is consistent moderating. You're getting it.

I don't think Inks should be a mod. The infraction system is bunk because almost no one (or maybe even actually no one) seems to be banned by its proper use. Dave kind of needs to grow up and stop thinking that Forum Community should be kid-friendly because that's f**king stupid. Joe's prank was in poor taste. Rule enforcement is often arbitrary and they should make efforts to stop that. But all of that has nothing to do with this specific issue. All of that is true, but opebo should still probably be banned. Deep down most of you know it.

[Zanas]

I voted no. But if he is, and the Mod team presents us with sufficient evidence that he has indeed been in infraction of the rules, I won't have anything to object.

I think banning is pretty much like a criminal conviction. You either present the court with evidence of actual infractions, or the accused goes free on benefit of the doubt.

So what are the recent and actual posts that opebo should be banned for ? For now the accusation has been pretty vague. I don't like it.

FTR, my vote made it 30-30.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow, the forum positively surprised me for once.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'd give opebo a fair chance under a system of consistent moderation. If he continues his awful stunts, then he should be banned.

[Velasco]

Lean No. Legal defect/ technicality.

[rejectamenta]

Of course not. Easy question, easy answer.

[DemPGH]

He has not violated the terms of service, so no, of course not.

The terms of service are here to protect the forum and the website, not to be used as a weapon, which is the road I fear the few of them who are doing this are getting ready to go down.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think banning is pretty much like a criminal conviction.

A lot of people here - moderators included - seem to think that. They're wrong.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The Modstapo has clearly and proudly abandoned any pretense of operating under the TOS and now eliminates undesireables at will.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How about deleting the thread if people post falsehoods about me... blah, blah, blah

This pathetic cabaret does you no favours. And I mean that very seriously.

[anvi]

I don't really know enough about this case to cast an informed vote on this poll, so I won't, at least not now.  I'm also reluctant to enter this debate, because the issue is so divisive, in a particularly depressing way.  But I do have a few impressions I guess I'll share.  Both are just general principles, and don't necessarily apply to this case, since, as noted, I don't know enough particulars based on what I've read.  One speaks against banning a poster from this particular forum in general and one for doing so.

Though I repeat here that I think the mods have generally served the community quite well, absent direct input from Nym or Dave, I do find it generally concerning that mods seem to have so little agreement on the standards that should be used for banning posters.  Even in this case, where, as BK informs us, there is unanimous mod consensus on a ban, there appears to be little consensus on the reasons for it.  If that's the case, then the ban, if carried out, will always be quite difficult to justify to the forum community, and will only exacerbate mod-community tensions, which is obviously a bad thing.  That in principle creates an ongoing situation in which the grounds for banning someone may be widely inconsistent, susceptible to a kind of "piling on" effect and risk being arbitrary.  When I raised this question on another thread, I was simply told that there is just too much disagreement among mods about standards and absent a clear verdict from Nym or Dave, consistency of standards was too much to expect.  That may indeed be the case.  Maybe my expectations on this matter really are too unrealistic, too attached to a "law-and-order" kind of mentality on a site where it perhaps, all things considered, doesn't belong.  But this is just my sense of the ongoing difficulties that fundamentally inconsistent standards around bans will create.

On the other hand, this is not my forum, it's Dave's, and one of the basic principles that Dave has evidently established for the forum is that he wants it to be family-friendly as well as open to participation by people as young as 13.  That would seem to put a bar on the degree to which posted sexual content, either verbal or visual, can be explicit.  I don't think any single posts, or even a few of them, when they can otherwise be dealt with through the infraction system, should merit banning.  This is especially the case if they are old posts or had successfully been dealt with through other means and so on.  But if, over the course of their posting career, a participant intentionally and repeatedly violated the conventional bar--mostly just to be provocative--over an extended course of time, ignored infractions and warnings that made the bar known to them, and persisted in clearing that bar anyway, then I think a ban could be more easily justified.  But, returning to the issue raised in the previous paragraph, in the absence of a clear and consistent sense of where that bar of acceptable content is supposed to be, even this standard gets a little dodgy.

So, those are just my impressions.  Not knowing enough about the particulars, I can't fairly cast a vote in this case.