I'm still laughing at "Marginal Counterrevolution." His ban deprives the forum of an amusing character and a distinctive point of view, that much is clear.
He was overly aggressive toward certain people and that needed to stop, but I can't help but acknowledge his passing with an un-ironic cry of "So much for the tolerant uselectionatlas.org!"
I get that most posters here with whom I am usually like-minded disagree, but I say this in complete sincerity: Trump's election has encouraged a lot of liberals, a lot of leftists, and even many people in the center to crawl even further into bubbles of epistemic closure and intolerance for disagreement. This isn't healthy, and it's harmful to ability to understand politics and political arguments.
Note that unlike some, I don't think that we need to define hate speech downward to reflect post-Trump realities or w/e - I'm just saying that getting more restrictive is a mistake, and, increasingly, that is what I see people doing.
and
A bit of modding advice to a group that probably wouldn't be able to handle a small-town topix forum:
1. Don't pussyfoot around decisions as that will make all sides pissed off at you. This shows a lack of a unified front among the mod team.
2. Tempbans are mostly stupid sh**t. If they offended enough to be banned, ban them. If not, then don't. This doesn't apply for some serious offenses that don't warrant a permaban but one longer-term (imo sock-making should be 6 months to a year depending on severity.) What does banning someone for a week actually accomplish besides causing controversy!?
3. When announcing controversial decisions, have different moderators around to announce then defend. This at least makes it appear as if it's not a vendetta by a moderator run amok, and again makes it seem like the moderator team is unified. Users opposed to your actions then don't have one clear enemy to attack. Ofc this doesn't apply if the modteam wants a scapegoat for an unpopular decision that they will quickly de-mod.
