Do you support Evergreen's permaban?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'd like to believe she could reform enough to apply for lifting her permaban after customary one year.

Really, I'm tired of seeing decent users turning into malicious trolls.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

She stepped over a line, but not the line that'd lead to a permaban

I'm intrigued what, in your view, would warrant a permaban?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

She stepped over a line, but not the line that'd lead to a permaban

Maybe not in isolation, but evergreen has stepped over many lines, so it's more than appropriate.

     Pretty much this. Other posters caused problems in those threads and weren't banned for it. For evergreen, the final act was not only a very bad one in its own right, but also proved that she wasn't really willing to change her ways either.

Yes. As stated before, Evergreen got more warnings than it's usually happens to somebody who'll eventually be banned. The last one was clearly stated as a final one.

You can debate about the rules in general, but, under present system, we really had no choice.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Sinclair Lewis once said: "When fascism comes to Atlas it will be wrapped in a Polish avatar and carrying a master's degree."

Why are you trying to involve Nathan in this mess?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's not that easy to get banned on Atlas, and the longer your tenure is, the more leniency is being applied. I should know, for I, objectively speaking, should've been banned during my earlier times. God, I was such a pest (some would say I still am, of course).

I mean, how many years it took to ban opebo? You have to go really hardcore, like Snowstalker's "last stand" of spam and scat porn, or like Evergreen inciting to violence to get ax'd quickly. Even if it's just a rant on an online forum, calling for violence is no-no.

Remember the forum itself is of secondary importance at best to Dave. If he notices disturbing patterns that could put his beloved Atlas in tough spot, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd just pull the plug on us. We were lucky in the aftermath of ModLeaks, but next time he might just cut his losses.


And once again, if you want Krazen to be dealt with, report his posts that you feel are against the ToS. Without going to any specific, he's among least-reported users

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

In CC's defense, that was a sarcastic comment, as was his "abortion/beheading" kerfuffle. Evergreen's posts came from a genuine sense of malice.

'
Uh, no... Evergreen was just as sarcastic as CC is, probably moreso? At least she doesn't want to reclaim the holy land?

Saying stuff like that, while incredibly moronic, is not against the ToS per se. If he were to say something like "let's kill more muslims", it'd be a diffrent story.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

To be really frank, what do you, as the community, really expect from the mod team? Be on a constant lookout all over the forum in order to "get" people like CC, Krazen or Evergreen, or be chill, cautious and react when we're alarmed? You can't have both ways.

Every time I have a private conservation and this issue pops out, I suggest actually reporting posts by these fellows that in your view are against the ToS, but I constantly hear something like "I don't care that much", "I'm not going to read his posting history" etc.

Well, fine, but then don't complain "why is nothing being done with XXX". I hate to appear like someone saying "inform the authorities on thy fellow poster", but this function exists for a reason.

And no worries, after the last controversy the team decided no reports we'll consider as frivolous will be posted publicly.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

To be really frank, what do you, as the community, really expect from the mod team? Be on a constant lookout all over the forum in order to "get" people like CC, Krazen or Evergreen, or be chill, cautious and react when we're alarmed? You can't have both ways.

Every time I have a private conservation and this issue pops out, I suggest actually reporting posts by these fellows that in your view are against the ToS, but I constantly hear something like "I don't care that much", "I'm not going to read his posting history" etc.

Well, fine, but then don't complain "why is nothing being done with XXX". I hate to appear like someone saying "inform the authorities on thy fellow poster", but this function exists for a reason.

And no worries, after the last controversy the team decided no reports we'll consider as frivolous will be posted publicly.

Speaking for myself at least, what I'm most interested in is consistency in ToS enforcement.  I don't care about the stuff krazen posts in and of itself because I deliberately read and listen to offensive stuff every day, all the time, that contradicts my beliefs.  But he's tolerated so much by the mod team that it has created the impression that he is bulletproof while others aren't so fortunate.  He found the sweet spot between what is deemed ban-able and what is just gruelingly offensive.  People don't like it.  He was banned for a week (or was it a month?) with the expectation that he would reform himself and he did not.

Though to be fair, maybe krazen wouldn't be so much of a problem if people simply didn't respond to his posts or attempt to sway his opinion all the time.  I've told at least a few people here (actually, maybe it was just Virginia since she asked me about him) that he's a confirmed troll, because Keystone Phil (R.I.P) indicated such.  Alas, internet rage is very contagious, I suppose, and that's what leads to threads getting derailed.  The ignore button is way underused here.

(Also, remember that evergreen wasn't banned simply for calling Sanchez "Gollum" or "mocking" America after the Scalise shooting; it was a history of repeat behavior that the mods deemed unacceptable.)

Yes, there's a green area many of our "problematic" posters exploit. FamousMortimer was especially good at that: carefully dosing his hateful and truly offensive posts, so he wouldn't end up under the radar, and it took a poster taking a time to make a case against him that led to temporary ban.

As of krazen, there might be indeed reluctance to report him/state a case against him because the community feels it's a waste of time since "he's bulletproof". And even if he's under the radar now, there's a general agreement between the mods to proceed slowly, give formal warnings etc. Evergreen herself got like two warnings aside of temporary ban, so the first time she crossed the line again there was little choice but to pull the plug. Still, no one is really "bulletproof", we've said the same thing about opebo, haven't we?

As of ignore function, there's one fundamental flaw. You can still click a "show" link (and, let's be honest, many of us just can't stop themselves), in addition to seeing quoted posts. That is why I myself hardly ever used the iggy function. Honestly, if the forum settings are ever modified, we should have a real ignore function. Doesn't AAD have something like this?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

To be really frank, what do you, as the community, really expect from the mod team?

not to ban good posters

Oh, so we're back on "yeah, opebo's pretty bad in general, but hey, he posts on Thai politics!"

What's really sad about Evergreen is that she was actually a very good poster before going off the cliff after the last election. Plenty of people were, and are, very upset, but managed not to go banana.

If she, as I hope, manages to get her emotions under control, I'd be more than happy to support her reinstatement if she applies for it in a year period. We've let permabanned posters back in before and with very few exceptions (Libertas) it worked out well.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Can someone please without violating the terms of service summarize what Evergreen did to be Perma banned? Also, what did she receive repeated warnings about?

Hey, I'm not leaking anything totally on my own again

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Can someone please without violating the terms of service summarize what Evergreen did to be Perma banned? Also, what did she receive repeated warnings about?

Hey, I'm not leaking anything totally on my own again

There's nothing to be leaked I assume. It appears what he did was public enough that there are enough Witnesses, so to speak.

My understanding is that the final straw was celebrating the attack on the Republican baseball team

Yes, and since she'd been warned before a couple of times, there was little choice.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No, as the fascist posters weren't permabanned with her.

Another proof the mods are controlled by the Alt-Right.

Kay, so we're back on "but XXX is bad too" argument.

Questioning the moderation consistency (and yes, I'm the first one to admit we have a problem here) is a diffrent question than specific ban imposed on Evergreen.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OK, what kind of transparency would you like to see? Any more specific proposal?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OK, what kind of transparency would you like to see? Any more specific proposal?

I mean quite literally any transparency would be an improvement... Were we ever even informed what specific posts these two posters were banned over? And if we were informed, it was only after a s[inks]ton of asking on our part...

OK, here's a pickle. Quoting infracted post had been considered trolling in the past, so wouldn't it be inconsistent for mods to do this?

Ftr, I'd gladly show the post(s) in question (as well as some parts of discussion), but I just don't know if I'm allowed to. I'm not going to act on my own again.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Wait... quoting an infracted post in an official context to further transparency and increase trust in your team - clearly a good cause - might be considered trolling? Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse...

For your info, I started a topic on the mod subboard on the matter. If it were up to me alone, I might as well pull BK and give you my password so you can see how slow, boring and devoided of any sinister motives the process is. I'm genuinely unsure what the proper line of proceeding is here. I'm not sure whether Dave would be pleased to see moderated content surviving online, even in this form.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Good point. It's just sort of depressing seeing LLR's progression from a great poster to Whiny AAD Edgelord #238.

I'm a punk/hippie/something along those lines. A punk/hippie's job is to question any authority. I'm also a cynical f[inks]. If that makes me an "AAD edgelord", so be it, but that's just my personality. Also lmao at the idea that I was ever a good poster, I've always been terrible.

Have you talked to the cops on the street the same way as to "the authorities" here, or it's an armchair hippie thing?

Because if you do, then I'd be freaking impressive.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Good point. It's just sort of depressing seeing LLR's progression from a great poster to Whiny AAD Edgelord #238.

I'm a punk/hippie/something along those lines. A punk/hippie's job is to question any authority. I'm also a cynical f[inks]. If that makes me an "AAD edgelord", so be it, but that's just my personality. Also lmao at the idea that I was ever a good poster, I've always been terrible.

Have you talked to the cops on the street the same way as to "the authorities" here, or it's an armchair hippie thing?

Because if you do, then I'd be freaking impressive.

I'm an atlas poster. You think I go outside?

School?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I mean, I like to think that I'm critical of both forums, but sure, whatever you say. Again, I'm just really cynical.

Acting overtly outraged over some silly internet business is not exactly the mark of a "cynic".

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

FWIW, the current US President has incited violence at his campaign rallies and built his entire candidacy on being a malicious troll who engages in vindictive personal attacks as a matter of daily routine. Presumably any and all supporters of such an individual should be banned from this forum.

OK, let's just have a giant echo chamber here.