There's a pretty big set of changes coming down the pipe. These shouldn't have much impact on users - it's all internal bookkeeping - but there's a lot of it, and if there's bugs, it might cause issues. Let me know if anything weird happens! Weird, in this case, is probably "comments you can see that you think you shouldn't be able to", or "comments you can't see that you think you should be able to", or anything else strange that goes on. As an example, at one point in development reply notifications stopped working. So keep your eyes out for that. I'm probably pushing this in a day or two, I just wanted to warn people first.
EDIT: PUSH COMPLETE, let me know if anything goes wrong
Are you a software developer? Do you want to help? We can pretty much always use people who want to get their hands dirty with our ridiculous list of stuff to work on. The codebase is in Python, and while I'm not gonna claim it's the cleanest thing ever, it's also not the worst and we are absolutely up for refactoring and improvements. Hop over to our discord server and join in. (This is also a good place to report issues, especially if part of the issue is "I can't make comments anymore.")
Are you somewhat experienced in Python but have never worked on a big codebase? Come help anyway! We'll point you at some easy stuff.
Are you not experienced in Python whatsoever? We can always use testers, to be honest, and if you want to learn Python, go do a tutorial, once you know the basics, come join us and work on stuff.
(if you're experienced in, like, any other language, you'll have no trouble)
Alt Accounts: Let's talk about 'em. We are consistently having trouble with people making alt accounts to avoid bans, which is against the rules, or making alt accounts to respond to their own stuff, which isn't technically against the rules, and so forth. I'm considering a general note in the rules that alt accounts are strongly discouraged, but if you feel the need for an alt, contact us; we're probably okay with it if there's a good reason. (Example: We've had a few people ask to make effortposts that aren't associated with their main account for various reasons. We're fine with this.) If you want to avoid talking to us about it, it probably isn't a good reason.
Feedback wanted, though! Let me know what you think - this is not set in stone.
Single-Issue Posting: Similarly, we're having trouble with people who want to post about one specific topic. "But wait, Zorba, why is that a problem" well, check out the Foundation:
The purpose of this community is to be a working discussion ground for people who may hold dramatically different beliefs. It is to be a place for people to examine the beliefs of others as well as their own beliefs; it is to be a place where strange or abnormal opinions and ideas can be generated and discussed fairly, with consideration and insight instead of kneejerk responses.
If someone's posting about one subject, repeatedly, over and over, then it isn't really a discussion that's being had, it's prosletyzing. I acknowledge there's some value lost in removing this kind of behavior, but I think there's a lot of value lost in having it; letting the community be dominated by this behavior seems to lead to Bad Outcomes.
Feedback wanted, though! Let me know what you think - this is also not set in stone.
Private Profiles: When we picked up the codebase, it included functionality for private profiles, which prevents users from seeing your profile. I probably would have removed this if I'd had a lot more development time, but I didn't. So it exists.
I'm thinking of removing it anyway, though. I'm not sure if it provides significant benefit; I think there's a good argument that anything posted on the site is, in some sense, fair game to be looked over.
On the other hand . . . removing it certainly does encourage ad hominem arguments, doesn't it? Ad hominems are kind of useless and crappy and poison discourse. We don't want people to be arguing about the other person's previously-stated beliefs all the time, we want people to be responding to recent comments, in general.
But on the gripping hand . . .
. . . well, I just went to get a list of the ten most prolific users with hidden profiles. One of them has a few quality contributions! (Thanks!) Two of them are neutral. And seven of them have repeated antagonism, with many of those getting banned or permabanned.
If there's a tool mostly used by people who are fucking with the community, maybe that's a good argument for removing the tool.
On the, uh, other gripping hand, keep in mind that private profiles don't even work against the admins. We can see right through them (accompanied by a note that says "this profile is private"). So this feature change isn't for the sake of us, it's for the sake of you. Is that worth it? I dunno.
Feedback wanted! Again!
The Volunteer System is actually working and doing useful stuff at this point. It doesn't yet have write access, so to speak, all it's doing is providing info to the mods. But it's providing useful info. Fun fact: some of our absolute most reliable and trustworthy volunteers don't comment. In some cases "much", in some cases "at all". Keep it up, lurkers! This is useful! I seriously encourage everyone to click that banner once a day and spend a few minutes at it. Or even just bookmark the page and mash the bookmark once in a while - I've personally got it on my bookmark bar.
The big refactor mentioned at the top is actually for the sake of improving the volunteer system, this is part of what will let it turn into write access and let us solve stuff like filtered-comments-in-limbo, while taking a lot of load off the mods' backs and maybe even making our moderation more consistent. As a sort of ironic counterpart to this, it also means that the bar might show up less often.
At some point I want to set up better incentives for long-time volunteers, but that takes a lot of code effort. Asking people to volunteer more often doesn't, so that's what I'm doing.
(Feedback wanted on this also.)
I want your feedback on things, as if that wasn't clear. These threads basically behave like a big metadiscussion thread, so . . . what's your thoughts on this whole adventure? How's it going? Want some tweaks? Found a bug? Let me know! I don't promise to agree but I promise to listen.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I’ll register my disagreement with the crackdown on single-issue posters. Frankly, I just don’t see why people have a problem with it; it definitely does not feel like the Culture War thread is bogged down by too much discussion of one particular topic, and if there’s a thread I’m not interested in I can just hide it and move on.
It seems to me that it’s the particular topic that certain accused “single-topic posters” have chosen that is getting people’s hackles up. If there was a user who only wanted to post about, say, AI safety, or some other issue that doesn’t carry significant emotional valence for other users here, I think that people would readily see the value of just tolerating that poster and hiding his threads if they don’t care about the issue in question.
I suspect that the mods have one particular user in mind - one whose supposed “single-issue focus” is the JQ - with this policy. Maybe I’m being uncharitable and there are other prominent users who rub people the wrong way by flogging specific hobby-horses, but the fact that I can’t think of any illustrates, in my opinion, that this is not in fact a widespread problem that needs addressing.
Can I say that I think you're right, but
I consider myself very liberal and open-minded when it comes to discussion topics. I know I can hide it and move on. But I still just have a reflexive distaste for this same topic over and over again, for multiple reasons. The JQ just seems simplistic and juvenile. Everyone's first red pill is noticing the same last names in positions of power. Despite legislating the problem over and over again, the only "solution" that seems possible is implicitly prepended with "final".
I'm not interested in anything remotely approaching that (and I doubt many others are either), so why bother hammering the topic over and over again? I don't think it's emotional valence, I'm just sick of hearing about problems without a real path forward to discuss as well. It just comes across as bitching.
More options
Context Copy link
Or you are too focused on your particular hobby horse to notice the other ones.
The one that immediately came to mind for me was the guy that kept posting about pedophilia. Marxbro is an example that other people brought up. A decade ago I would have said 9/11 conspiracy theorists often tended to be single track.
Pedofascist guy hasn’t posted in many months; I think he either got permabanned or just stopped posting. And MarxBro has been gone for a long time. So those guys are not active issues that need to be dealt with.
He was perma banned. There was a different guy that I was thinking of that always posted about children's rights. He was either perma banned for always posting about the same thing, or warned enough to stop doing it.
Just because one person causing an issue has been banned does not mean that type of mod situation has been put to bed.
Euphoric Baseball.
More options
Context Copy link
JB was banned for alt abuse, no? Sock puppets plus ban evasion.
I forget the specific details, but we were losing patience with him for multiple reasons. One of which was being a single issue poster.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would have thought there are at least two prominent anti-semites here? Three if you count Foreverlurker?
The specific issue does make a difference. There are enough of these posts that a casual scroll through the CW round-up on any given day is likely to run into at least one of them, and the regular presence of narratives about how the perfidious Jews are plotting to destroy Western civilisation is something that's going to make a lot of people uncomfortable, or contribute to the perception that the Motte is a 'Nazi forum' or somesuch. Heck, the top post in the roundup thread right now is one directly engaging with anti-semitic conspiracy content, and it isn't even by any of the 2/3 regular anti-semites we have.
I can very much understand people not wanting this garbage on their doorstep. If nothing else, it makes it much, much harder to recommend anything here to outsiders.
"Oh, the Motte, that's the site with the Nazis" - that's not a reaction one particularly wants to deal with, is it?
I think, in my ideal world, it would be "The Motte, that's the site where no position is censored for being outside the Overton window, not even literal holocaust denial, as long as you can be civil and support your arguments. And somehow the quality of discourse is still better than pretty much any other political discussion forum".
But it's a very fine line between that and "The Motte, that's the newest fsr right echo chamber, like Gab / Voat before it. It's where all the witches and bigots and crazy people go when all of the normal person platforms have banned them. Sad, but what else could you possibly expect from a forum that doesn't even ban literal Nazis".
Right, exactly. I'm really not trying to say that we should just ban all the bad people. It's more - how can we get on and stay on the right side of that fine line?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If “Jewish Question”-type threads are keeping such outsiders away, then those threads are features, not bugs, and kings like SecureSignals are doing God’s work in helping to keep pearl-clutching scolds away.
I don't think one has to be a pearl-clutching scold in order to simply not want to hang out in the place with the anti-semites and the Holocaust deniers.
What does anti-Semite or white nationalist even mean?
I can be called an anti-Semite for saying Jews have higher average IQ or the Jews control Hollywood. Both are basically factually correct. Many would call me a white nationalist for saying western culture is better. Which I do believe. A white nationalist today can mean anything from a literal KKK member to someone who thinks advanced math should be taught in schools.
Certainly, and I would never advocate for the mere accusation of anti-semitism or racism to be a superweapon. We can all agree that definitions of those words that are so broad as to include even people who just state obvious facts are ridiculous and should not be heeded.
However, I'd argue that there are minimalist definitions of anti-semitism, racism, white nationalism, etc., that are much more defensible - and which some posters here definitely meet. A relatively high average IQ among Ashkenazim or overrepresentation of Jewish people in Hollywood are just facts, and being aware of them does not make one anti-semitic. However, when one starts talking about believing that all Jews have an inherent racial tendency to parasitise upon other cultures and subvert them for Jewish benefit, then I think one can plausibly argue that's anti-semitic. The fact that accusations of anti-semitism are sometimes thrown around promiscuously does not mean that, say, Hitler wasn't anti-semitic, and it seems possible to plot people on a spectrum from not-at-all-anti-semitic on the one end to 'literally Hitler' on the other end.
Ok so this is fair. You get my point that people will try and label anyone as “literally Hitler” to get a group banned. The issue I see with banning people is you can’t ban people for being an anti-Semite or white nationalist (I’m probably a white nationalist for 20-30% of the population) you have to ban them for a very specific belief. You can’t ban someone for being a holocaust denier but you could because they deny that over 5 million Jews died in the holocaust. It would be a legitimate headache though to list the beliefs that we believe are agreed upon bad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If their presence would make you uncomfortable independent of the factual correctness of their claims, and also your response to that discomfort is to call for them to be banned (rather than leaving yourself), I think you would fall into the "pearl clutching scold" category by the ideals of this space.
I don't think that actually describes you, but it does describe a particular type of poster that I have run into numerous times, and I worry that it would describe the friends you are hesitant to introduce to this space.
I did just say explicitly that I don't support banning SecureSignals just because he's wrong and makes bad arguments. I think the question here is not whether he's wrong (he is) or whether being wrong should be a bannable offense (it shouldn't be), but about whether the recurrence of radioactive subjects like this is a bad thing for the Motte, or otherwise obnoxious, and if so, what if anything we might want to do about it.
I do appreciate all the concerns about freedom to express controversial positions, and I'm on your side most of the time, but I also don't want the Motte to go further down the road to Witchville, as I put it.
Yeah, I do get the desire to avoid becoming witchville. In my ideal world that's accomplished by moderating heavily for effortposting and high quality engagement and discussion, rather than by moderating more heavily for some subjects than others (which means "wrong and makes bad arguments and refuses to change their mind and refuses to change the subject" would be a bannable offense).
This could result in us becoming witchville anyway, at least by some standards, if a factually correct position ends up being far outside the Overton window. But in that case I think it would be better to become witchville-with-high-quality- discussion than another-high-quality-debate-forum-with-bannable-positions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Right. Just like one doesn't have to be a pearl-clutching scold in order to simply not want to hang out in the place with the various 'ists and 'phobes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That’s precisely the mindset I’m accusing the mods of having; I think that they see this particular issue as radioactive in a way that other issues aren’t, and are keen to prevent this community from becoming the “den of witches” which, ironically, Scott Alexander wanted to avoid his forum from becoming, sparking the creation/exodus of this forum in the first place.
I’m not hiding the fact that I have a special interest in wanting this community to remain an open forum for witches to participate as members in good standing; white identitarian ideas aren’t quite as radioactive as antisemitism, but they’re not far behind. (And certainly the two memeplexes are often intimately linked.) I don’t want the mods to start cracking down on topics that are likely to scare away normies, because I would fear that my own ideas would quickly find their way into the chopping block.
If that means that this is a forum which will remain repellent to outsiders, that is a price that I am willing to pay, but of course I would say that. Again, I’m not hiding the skin that I have in the game. I think that to some extent the mods probably are, and I’m trying to draw that out.
You're not entirely wrong, and you're not entirely right.
Speaking for myself (no other mods), I do want Holocaust deniers and white supremacists to be allowed to speak here. I don't want to ban you or @SecureSignals even though I find your views noxious. (Unironically, I really do appreciate both of you for your useful articulations of these positions.) However, no, I don't want this place to become Scott Alexander's den of witches either. He accurately identified the problem, and never identified a solution, and neither have we, but (you) witches are the only ones who don't see a problem with becoming a den of witches. Yes, I understand, from your point of view, you are the good guys and that you are seen as bad guys is the entire problem which you want to change. Unfortunately for you, you're fighting the world, and we are of the world.
If we ever get to the point where this place is overrun by white supremacists and Holocaust deniers and most of my mod time is spent fielding reports about Da Joos Da Joos Da Joos, I will concede victory to the witches and you can celebrate my departure.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, to be blunt, I think the Motte is indeed at the Seven Zillion Witches stage of subculture evolution, and unfortunately once you reach that point you fall off the side of the cliff and eventually only get witches.
There's some sort of balance that has to be found. You don't want to be so committed to what's 'normal' or popular that any or all dissenting opinions are frozen out. At the same time, if you're radically open, you become a den of witches. Both Normieland and Witchville are bad places to have conversations. I understand and agree with not wanting to become Normieland, but at the same time the Motte is getting much too far into Witchville territory for my liking.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And this is where you lose me. "Oh, I'd love to recommend this place to my lovely friends, who are going to throw a tantrum and storm out at the slightest whiff of wrongthink, but alas, I cannot, for there are too many Nazis here". Oh, what a great loss.
I would say it's possible to talk about degrees? I think this conversation is happening now because we're talking about rather more than a 'whiff' of wrongthink.
Doesn't change the fact that the kind of person giving you hard time for this place being "full of Nazis" is likely to make further demands, if given an inch.
I'm uncomfortable about posting in a place that, judging from likes, contains significant support for explicit anti-semitism, and the hypothesis of a Jewish racial consciousness that leads them to seek to destroy the white race.
How do you think I would feel about telling someone else that there was a great post here that I thought made a good point? Even if that point is totally unrelated?
Do not invite them. I won’t speak for the whole forum and say “we don’t want them,” but I will say very forcefully that I do not want your normie friends here, I do not want their sensibilities to have any influence whatsoever on the direction of discourse norms on this sub, and I hope that this place stays icky enough that you remain unwilling to recommend it to them.
Do you think I like the fact that when I make what I think is a really good post here, I can’t go and brag about it or show it off to some of my smarter normie friends? If we lived in a better world, my ideas would have much wider acceptance and a place firmly inside the Overton Window, and I could show this place to people I respect, or at least acknowledge the existence of the forum and the fact that I post here. But we live in the shitty timeline, so I have to conceal the existence of The Motte, and of my profile in particular, to anyone who would be interested. This is ultimately a good thing for the forum. It should remain a hidden sanctuary, spoken of only in a vague and evasive manner, so that us witches can continue to practice our witchcraft in peace.
I think it's more of a gradient or a spectrum, really, and no one is either totally normie or radical, but I think you misunderstand the context. I might be talking to a bright, right-curious, burned ex-liberal type who tells me that he's really keen to find a place where he can discuss controversial political topics openly. Should I suggest he visit the Motte?
(I have recommended the Motte in its Reddit form to people before in exactly this situation.)
At the moment, I don't think I would, and a big part of that is because of the preponderance of certain positions, particularly those obsessed with the Jews. Heck, do you think I'd recommend the Motte to a bright young controversialist who happens to be Jewish? Heck no.
If cis white males have to tolerate the persistent hatred from the rest of the internet then everyone else can have a little bit of thicker skin here. Hell, if your friend is jewish, they're statistically more likely to be smart enough to understand why.
More options
Context Copy link
You do know we have lots of Jewish posters here, right?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As uncomfortable as you are with this place, you're able to compartmentalize - "there's some bad dudes here, but every once in a while someone makes an interesting point about something". By saying we should sanitize this place in order for you to feel comfortable inviting your friends here, you're implying they would be unable to compartmentalize in a similar way, and all potential issues with giving inches / taking miles aside, I am not particularly interested in hanging out with people like that. If I was, I'd still be on Reddit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I dislike single issue posters (and I think there have been quite a few around a few different topics over the years, I’d say more were incels than antisemites honestly) because I see this space as a kind of ‘intellectual community’, and when there’s one guy in the corner who only ever wants to discuss one thing that kind of damages the vibe.
More options
Context Copy link
Back on /r/SSC and /r/TheMotte we had a single issue Marxist called MarxBro. In theory, everything you said applied to him, it's not like either subreddit was a Marxism hub, and yet... goddamn was that dude annoying. Then, one time, something compelled him to write a comment on some unrelated topic, and for that very short moment he seemed like an actual human being that I'd like to get to know a little better, and not GPT 2.0 trained on Das Kapital.
You can claim it's on us to tolerate a person like that, or ignore them, but I don't see how it's not easier for one guy to write a comment on another topic every once in a while, then it is for everyone else to tolerate a one-issue bot.
Marxbro was a troll by the way. At one point we had a discussion about the Labor Theory of Value, I tried my best to steer it away from theorizing and keep to a concrete example of some guys on an island exchanging fishes for pots etc, and eventually he had enough and basically said that no, he didn't want to explain this or that, he was doing it to get a rise out of people like me. Or at least that's how I remember it, it was, what, five years ago? But yeah, my impression was that he let the mask slip.
Of course, in words of a Chinese poet, if you pretend to be insane and tear your clothes and run into the garden, are you actually pretending, which also applies to single-mindedly "trolling" an internet forum for years.
More options
Context Copy link
They could just block him if it was really that onerous?
Actual MarxBro was also pretty aggressive and rude at times, as I recall -- which got him banned pretty much everywhere.
But we could imagine a platonic MarxBro who was unfailingly polite and still could be a problem.
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe, but wouldn't it be a lot more fun if mods started writing warnings like "Post something about anime, or get banned!"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As long as you have other things you want to talk about, it gives the impression of being a legitimate person as opposed to an appendage of some opinion-forming group.
Why is it a bad thing to be an appendage of an opinion-forming group?
In some sense, we are all opinion-forming groups of one, and every time we post, we are acting as ambassadors of that group of which we are the sole member.
I’m not trying to be cheeky. I really just don’t see why it would matter.
If you are arguing with a person who is taking a position that they personally endorse, you can in theory change their mind in the way that they could in theory change yours. If they are instead operating under the process of "try to respond with what my ideological group, which is correct, would probably say", then you are not meaningfully having a discourse where both parties can change their mind (because one of the sides is a mental model of a position rather than an actual position).
Concretely, if you're arguing with a person who personally has concluded that a position is correct, you can search for places where you each predict different things about what the world looks like, and then hopefully you can actually go out and look at the world and resolve your argument. If you're arguing with someone who is operating as an appendage of an ideological group, and you attempt that, you will get a vague taking point and a change of subject, at best, because to them, it's not about what position actually reflects reality, it's about which position is supported by their social group.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's bad to be arguing with people who are paid to spread ideas online. They're not going to deal with your ideas in good faith, they'll misrepresent and use all kinds of verbal judo tricks to undermine opposition. They might as well be a GPT-bot, programmed to leap to the defence of their corporate or political masters.
Some search algorithm picks up wrongthink and in come the tenacious guardians of orthodoxy...
I agree that it seems bad to argue with people who are getting paid to do it. Although I think that's mainly due to the fact that they would be incentivized to not care about the quality of their arguments, rather than the fact that they're self-consciously recruiting for a cause per se.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He's not the only one, and that's not the only topic, but yes, you are correct that this is the central example.
There are other reasons for telling someone to knock it off (for example, blatantly using the forum as a soapbox for recruitment). And Holocaust deniers going on about the JQ are not the only ones we've ever asked to give it a rest with their single-issue axe-grinding.
Given that you are accusing the mods of wanting to crack down on an issue because we don't like it, you will surely not consider it uncharitable of me to observe that you are more willing to defend obsessive axe-grinders who happen to be aligned with you. If there was a leftist constantly going on about how white nationalists are Nazis who should be deplatformed and disenfrachised - but always managed to write it long form posts that don't break the rules - can you honestly say there would not come a point where you would be asking us to tell him to give it a rest?
I can answer honestly: yes, if someone who was saying things I liked, or at least constantly annoying people I don't like, was doing this, I would still tell them to knock it off if their pet topic was all they ever posted about, in constant, long-winded JAQ style. As Zorba said, this place is for discussing things, not just nailing your thesis to the door over and over and over again. The "particular user" never participates in any discussions except when there's a chance to dunk on Jews.
There already are, and there have certainly been significantly more in the past. Remember JeanStealers? I make liberal use of the report function if I feel that a post is uncharitable, if its central thesis is “outgroup bad”, or if I feel that ot contributes nothing of intellectual value. Obviously I’m far more likely to do so if I find the post in question ideologically unpleasant; I’m a human being, susceptible to normal human failures and perceptual blindspots, and I’m more likely to notice the flaws and shortcomings of a post I disagree with.
What you have failed to adequately explain is why single-issue posting is inherently bad for this forum. Why can’t I just hide threads on topics I don’t find interesting or worth engaging with? The whole “recruiting for a cause” thing has always been massively ill-defined. Does it mean “trying to get people to enroll in, or give money to, a specific organization”? If so, the user in question has, to my knowledge, never done so. Or does it mean the far more nebulous “trying to convince people that a specific issue or ideology is important and worth subscribing to”? If so, that describes roughly every single post here.
Also, for what it’s worth, the poster in question does, in fact, engage with other topics. He has replied to a number of my comments about non-Jew-related posts, which is how I know that to be the case.
There is value in not allowing a community to become a free-for-all for traveling preachers to lecture to its membership.
More options
Context Copy link
It's the Community Pool theory of community development. Every action kind of influences everyone to a small degree; if everyone's wading through a dozen posts of "the Jews did this" to get to the meat, it's going to drive away people who aren't interested in that, and simultaneously encourage people to jew-post. This both makes the problem worse and removes the mitigating factor.
But are people wading through a dozen Jew-posts every time they visit this forum? The answer seems to be a definitive no. SecureSignals does not post all that often, and few other posters comment very often on the issue either. That particular topic does not come close to outweighing discussion of other topics.
It seems like something is happening here where each JQ post is considered so inflammatory that it “weighs as much as” some larger number of an equivalent post on a different topic, such that you’re treating each individual post like it’s a dozen posts.
I could understand if the JQ was genuinely a massively frequent topic of discussion here relevant to other topics, but the numbers don’t seem to bear that out at all, so I hope you can understand why I suspect that is not the full explanation. Perhaps that you consider any significant amount of discussion on that particular topic to be a potential vector by which this sub becomes a true “den of witches”. If that’s the concern, then I have my own concerns about what that could mean for future crackdowns on certain topics if they fail the mods’ “annoying” filter.
Again, as I said above, I think it’s transparently the case that you would not be treating this as a serious issue if we had a prominent poster whose sole area of interest was something anodyne like AI safety. Everyone would readily recognize the value of tolerating that poster and hiding his posts whenever they popped up, if that’s not a topic they’re interested in. It’s only because SecureSignals’ primary focus is an inflammatory topic that this is becoming an issue.
The problem is that this pushing-the-general-community-tone behavior happens, to some extent, proportional to how often this sort of post shows up. And if we're not getting anything out of the posts - and I think at this point we arguably aren't - then it's a net loss.
Note that I'm not saying that any specific topic should be banned, I'm talking about people who seem to be here only to push a single topic. It's the "ugh, this guy again" subject.
Actually, if someone brought it up to me, I probably would.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, @SecureSignals is less bothersome to me than Foreverlurker was, just because, despite being fairly focused on Jews and holocaust, he talks about it at a frequency that is more reasonable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Just so we're clear, you guys are done with the line that he was a simple centrist worried about antisemitism and the rise of the far right, like he claimed? He should have been banned on bad faith alone.
Huh? Has anybody claimed that about SecureSignals? I certainly never have. I don’t think he ever has. Do you have evidence of such a claim? He has always come off as a sincere right-wing antisemite, since I’ve been aware of his posting.
I'm talking about foreverlurker and his alts.
My problem with foreverlurker is that his posts were low effort, not that they were all centered on a particular topic.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh. Yeah, that’s not who I was talking about.
I thought with the OP focus on alt accounts, private accounts, and single issue posting, they, and therefore you, meant FL, who did that. Else, SS ban, burdensomecount ban, hlynka ban, darwin ban, most bans, I oppose on general free speech grounds, but I don't want to pester the mods too often. When I did hamster duty, I usually clicked neutral or good, but I realized janitor nullification wasn't what zorba had in mind and I'm grateful to the guy, so it seemed pointless.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He was banned, IIRC (not just for being a one-note poster, but for being consistently antagonistic).
Yes, you and a number of others largely report posts you object to ideologically.
I think Zorba and I have explained that. Being a one-note drummer is annoying, and this is not your (or anyone else's) personal soapbox. People are allowed to have their causes and their hobbyhorses, but they are also expected to participate here in good faith, not just use it as a platform for grinding an axe.
Is this something you keep track of much?
More options
Context Copy link
Interesting, can the mods see who reported a post?
Yup.
I've thought about turning it off, but if I do, it'll happen after a more thorough melding of the report system and the volunteer system.
More options
Context Copy link
yes, it looks like this
https://i.imgur.com/nFVD1iq.png
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For being antagonistic to other users. Is SecureSignals consistently insulting other specific posters, calling their posts stupid, being uncharitable toward them in particular? I don’t perceive him as doing so. What I see him doing is effortful replies with interesting citations from primary sources. JeanStealers never did anything remotely close to that.
I mean… yes, it is. This place is a soapbox for all of us to weigh in on the things we think are important, and to cast our opinions out to the public to be judged and heard. If we do a good job, they are received well, and might change people’s minds. If we do poorly, we get downvoted, and if we do poorly in certain specifics ways, we get modded. As far as I’m aware, being annoying is not against the rules. If you want to make it part of the rules, then fine, but that’s what I’m disagreeing with. I don’t see how having strong opinions on one particular issue, and seeing a variety of other issues through a lens of how they connect to that issue, is “not in good faith”. If your posts are effortful, and consistently introduce new supporting information and arguments in response to specific criticisms and questions - all of which, I believe, is true of SecureSignals’ posting - then you should be free to continue to do so, and let the chips fall where they may.
At times notably so, yeah (see footnotes section of that comment for examples). Though also that entire thread was a shitshow.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link