14

Proposal: Disallow inter-forum banning [passed]

Submitted by jadedctrl in meta (edited by a moderator )

You probably saw the post about sudo's banning earlier, but if not:
/u/zombie_berkman banned /u/sudo in /f/armed_left for a comment they made in /f/meta. /u/zombie_berkman interforum-banned them for breaking /f/armed_left's (informal) rules on a completely different sub-forum.

That's eerily similar to the situation on PK leftist subs on reddit-- if you say something a mod disagrees with on /r/socialism, you're banned in every sub they control. If you comment in a subreddit they don't like, you're, again, banned in every sub they control. Break the rules in /r/eddit, get banned in /r/leftwithoutedge.
That's a really shitty setup that can ultimately allow mods to entrench and shape communities with hardly any justification-- "you might not've broken the rules in my house, but you broke my house rules at town square!"

Each sub-forum is its own community with its own rules and standards. Having sub-forum rules be, effectively, "site-wide" (as far as a moderator is interested in patrolling everything else) really doesn't make sense.

For transparency and preventing mod overreach, I propose that IF-banning be disallowed.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

3

chaos wrote

Are you the person who made the image upload site for raddle? It hasn't worked for a while. Always says:

"639166 WE'RE GETTING SOME INTERFERENCE

PLEASE USE A DIFFERENT COIN-NAME"

5

jadedctrl wrote

Oh, heck! Sorry about that.
I can reproduce it, yea. If you type a custom file-name in the text-box, though, it works just fine (so it's a good work-around until I can fix it later today).
Thanks for reporting

3

jorgesumle wrote (edited )

Use a different name, that image name is taken. I mean that you should rename the image. There can't be too cat.png links, so names should be unique. I think that the upload site should suggest an alternative name and request confirmation, as that's more user-friendly.

Does it work after renaming the image? I've opened an issue.

2

Enkara wrote (edited )

You're describing two things really.

Thing #1:

Person says some shit on forum x which causes their banning from forum y. This is oftentimes an appropriate move and I am opposed to making any formal rules against that.

Thing #2:

Person gets banned from not just one forum, but all the forums some mod is a mod on... This is maybe a bit more sketchy... but again... sometimes it's appropriate. I think rather than making a formal rule against that style of modding, we should be more mindful when we are voting in mods how many large forums they are already a mod for and feel comfortable opposing a modship on those grounds. As it really can be a concentration of power situation and un-anarchistic, even if all the folks involved are totally well-meaning.

Case in point, me. I am mod of 3 pretty big subs and 5 little ones(most of which I made), it's up to the community to decide if letting me mod more would be a mistake (although I really don't want any more because I'm doing pretty much jack-shit as it is tbqh)

In ZB's case they only mod 2 subs so certainly can't have performed thing #2

I Oppose the proposal because it would disallow me from banning an obvious fascist or spammer from all the subs I mod... which is a pretty terrible unintentional consequence.

6

jadedctrl wrote

I Oppose the proposal because it would disallow me from banning an obvious fascist or spammer from all the subs I mod... which is a pretty terrible unintentional consequence.

Obvious fascists and spammers should (and are) be banned site-wide, really.

5

sudo wrote

Yeah, I can't think of any scenario where someone would say something on one forum that would necessitate a ban for them on another forum, but not a site-wide ban. If one actually does come up, then I suppose we could modify this rule accordingly, but as of now I agree. I'll make a separate top-level comment saying so.

2

DissidentRage wrote (edited )

What's the comment sudo made? Also, support.

2

juliebean wrote

it was this thread.

1

DissidentRage wrote

Thanks, I guess. I'm still not really clear on what sudo said that got them banned, but I guess if it were obvious this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

5

juliebean wrote

according to the moderation log, it was for "you arent going to start shit here", which doesn't really clear anything up. it seems ZB is convinced that sudo is trying to pull some kind of a coup by questioning their authority or something.

1

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I'd rather not make a rule based off of one occasion and postpone anything like this to a time if it becomes a regular problem.

-4

zombie_berkman wrote

lol @ accusing me of being part of the anti edge crew.

5

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

I never said that, what?

I brought them up because they do the same type of bans as you did-- IF-bans.
This isn't really about you, it's about IF-banning.

-3

zombie_berkman wrote

neither is stiring up shit, brigading, and then requesting mod like sudo is doing. neither is saying protesting pipelines is a waste of time, yet here we are. neither is dismissing insurrection anarchist and talking shit on anarchist, yet you dont care that sudo did it. but hey if you want to defend pieces of shit go for it. just keep brigading

2

juliebean wrote

where did they request modship? you keep making these claims that they said things that i can't seem to find any evidence of. did it happen on another website or something? like, trying to give you benefit of the doubt here, but it really looks like you're the one stirring shit.

-4

zombie_berkman wrote

did you even put any effort in?

https://raddle.me/f/meta/17647/comment/22880

and

https://raddle.me/f/meta/12429/mod-application-f-science-s-only-mod-in-inactive

as well as them just magically becoming a mod of f/freeasinfreedom even tho they dont know the difference between open source and free software. seriously stop wasting my time with stuff that i posted today and can be easily researched

4

juliebean wrote

sorry, it looked like you were claiming they were requesting to become a mod of /f/ArmedLeft

them modding some other forums seems neither here nor there, if you ask me.

-3

zombie_berkman wrote (edited )

this is a classic p_k move. stir shit, brigade, then power grab. they have already shown multiple times to do each one separately. sorry for not being clear

4

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

Jesus, the comparison to PK here really isn't fair.

sudo hasn't "stirred shit," they just brought up a legit issue with /f/armed_left.

"Brigading" isn't really fair, either-- since this site's user-base is so small, the communities really aren't distinguished much in terms of users. And the issue also could set precedent for later decisions for other forums by administration-- meaning it regards and impacts every user.

They "power grab" in that they pick up moderation of sub-forums, I guess. But they've done well as a moderator. No censorship, abuses of power, nothing like that.

EDIT: Accidentally misgendered /u/sudo (sorry!)

-4

zombie_berkman wrote

bbbbbut muh freeze peach. you cant censor me! /s

2

ArbitraryHuman wrote

That’s no argument to the contrary; indeed, it seems to indicate that you have given up. Should we assume that you have surrendered?