all 27 comments

[–]LarrySwinger2 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Do the bans even last? You lose op status when you close Saidit or log out. I get the feeling that everything's temporary in the chat.

[–]Jackalope[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

No it only lasts until server resets, but a crazy guy got hold of it yesterday and banned pretty much all the regular users for 12 hours

[–]LarrySwinger2 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Twelve hours no Saidit chat. My life is meaningless now.

[–]Jackalope[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Lol, no not the end of the world by any means, just seems like a suboptimal result

[–]Jackalope[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

u/JasonCarswell, any thoughts to share?

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

This is a bitch post. But at least it's a start. And at least you offered one poor solution idea, better than none.

Your proposed ignore command is almost as shitty as the unfinished block user on SaidIt which is terrible for a myriad of reasons. It won't deal with the fundamental problem of asstrolls and all of SaidIt will suck while a few might actually use the function if they know about it.

IMO, we as a community need to dev a few clear rules and many guidelines for acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, along with the tolerance threshold levels. M7 can step in if he wants to. Already we don't need him for this. We only need to do this ourselves if we actually want it.

Asstrolls gonna suck ass. I just don't want to see it on #subscribed and #all - the front pages of SaidIt.

So how are we going to define what is or is not acceptable?

And when the oversensitive bitches griping about being banned for less than 12 hours resort to slanderous bullshit you see them for the scum they are.

Authoritarian shill usehername was a cunt. I got no apology. I even unbanned the bitch. I got no thanks. Fuck the bitches too.

[–]dingoatemytaco 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Is Saidit the only place where you feel you have control of something? No one wants to deal with the kind of authoritarianism you've promoted at Saidit. You are one of the few people who contually wants to limit comments and users. It's toxic, and part of some kind of narcissistic pathology.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

No one wants to deal with the kind of authoritarianism you've promoted at Saidit.

What kind is that? Open discussion about the rules, guides, and who should be banned or not.

You are one of the few people who contually wants to limit comments and users.

I want to take out the trash and elevate the discourse on here for Truth-Seeking and Free-Thinking. Folks can go to https://Talk.LOL if they want unbridled "Free Speech".

It's toxic, and part of some kind of narcissistic pathology.

Actually it's not. I open it up for discussion. MANY folks agree, largely other voices that have earned the respect of our community.

Timesuck elsewhere.

[–]usehername 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

MANY folks agree, largely other voices that have earned the respect of our community.

Jack is a very respected user and here you are disparaging him for disagreeing with you. In fact, I've never seen anyone defend your conduct.

You're proving my point that when there is no power structure, someone will attempt to create an authoritarian one by force. And unfortunately, this time it's you.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

you are disparaging him for disagreeing with you.

False.

I criticized the low effort OP, yet the discussion has improved within these comments. "I agree with almost everything you said here Jason, I am glad we are finding common ground." But I'd be happy to disparage you if you like.

I've never seen anyone defend your conduct.

Bitch please, here's a few...

when there is no power structure, someone will attempt to create an authoritarian one by force. And unfortunately, this time it's you.

Have another look. We're voluntaryists organizing ourselves. You are a perpetually argumentative whiner without a cause in search of shit to disturb and now to disrupt SaidIt, because you were disrupting SaidIt. Illogitroll. A taking-out-the-trash ban for <12 hours is hardly "authoritarianism". All it does is illustrate usehername-pussyification. Just request it if you'd like me to perpetual be a dick to you and I may do my best to comply - but even that won't be actual "authoritarianism" on this fringe forum. You don't even understand basic politics so how could you even understand what that big words means.

[–]Jackalope[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

This is a bitch post. But at least it's a start. And at least you offered one poor solution idea, better than none.

There's no need to be rude, I was simply trying to start a conversation, and mentioning one solution that I thought was at least a slight improvement, and soliciting others to give better ideas. On the other hand, this post doesn't offer even a single solution, you just ask more questions.

You mention guidelines. A set of rules would be one way, what do you suggest, and who enforces it?

Authoritarian shill usehername was a cunt. I got no apology. I even unbanned the bitch. I got no thanks. Fuck the bitches too.

Jason I hope you can see how your attitude towards chat is somewhat authoritarian in itself. I often disagree with Socks and Usehername as well, but what these guys are doing does not rise to the level of ban worthy imho, so maybe we do need to talk about guidelines.

Jumba and Ed are the only regular users I have seen in chat lately that have deserved bans at any point in time, and it usually involves very blatant harassment. Or that time Ed pasted like 100 pages of code into the chat and it kept outputting for like a half hour.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

I wasn't wrong, and it can be debated whether I was rude or to the point.

Your post was not clear. It did not explicitly ask for solutions, though it alluded to finding them.

IMO, a few rules need to be clear and concise, along with many guidelines that are ambiguously interpreted. The community can come up with them. Maybe even different sets, and the OP can announce the rule set with a link.

SaidIt already has site-wide rules. Re-read them. They include no name-calling and the chat has always been a lot more forgiving. No subverting SaidIt, and so much of the shit in chat is NOT a good look for SaidIt.

Jason I hope you can see how your attitude towards chat is somewhat authoritarian in itself.

Bullshit. I have lost patience with asstrolls. That's all. And if they can't behave civilly then they get slapped, no more than 12 hours, and this has all blown up into a whiny bitch fest, including your post here.

Taking out the trash is NOT censorship.

I often disagree with Socks and Usehername as well,

socks is the enemy within. Fuck socks. usehername is not much better, but at least is not as prolific infiltrating SaidIt.

Jumba and Ed

They need to be spanked to learn the obvious lesson to simply behave. I'm hoping this week of my "authoritarianism" discipline is enough to keep them on the correct path for a while. Spare the rod spoil the asstroll. I hope you'll do likewise if and when necessary to maintain a modicum of decency in the chat. I could go so far as to say you have leadership potential, as everyone there likes you, but it's just a fucking chat. Nonetheless, you have earned my respect for your words, views, and insights and wish more were at your level.

[–]Jackalope[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

SaidIt already has site-wide rules. Re-read them. They include no name-calling and the chat has always been a lot more forgiving. No subverting SaidIt, and so much of the shit in chat is NOT a good look for SaidIt.

I have read them, and they are unfortunately ambiguous. Name calling isn't explicitly disallowed, as one as long isn't 'dragging down the discussion on the pyramid'.

I think if the name calling is rising to the level of harassment, as it has at times in chat, people should be put on timeout as you say. I would like to retain a modicum of decency in the chat as well, I just want the rules and processes to be fair and transparent.

Clearly a rule against harassment would cover Ed and Jumba's conduct, but I am not sure what rules you could cite against socks and usher. They generally don't harass other users in the chat and maintain civil dialogue. What exactly do you object to that can be objectively quantified?

The current system just doesn't work well. As it is, Jumba or anyone else can get the operator status and 'subvert saidit' to use one of your phrases, or just ban whoever they want. It seems like a good idea if we can all agree on some guidelines, but that only works if one of us gets the operator status.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

I have read them, and they are unfortunately ambiguous.

Yes. This is exceptionally problematic.

Name calling isn't explicitly disallowed, as one as long isn't 'dragging down the discussion on the pyramid'.

Ya but no but ya but no. There is a fuck tonne of dragging down that is not dealt with. Also the two strikes over my head are for name-calling when I intentionally pushed the limits to prove points.

I think if the name calling is rising to the level of harassment, as it has at times in chat, people should be put on timeout as you say. I would like to retain a modicum of decency in the chat as well, I just want the rules and processes to be fair and transparent.

1000000% on fair and transparent. Better: FOTPACH = fair open transparent peaceful accountable consistent honest. There's nothing worse than an admin that stoops to lying.

Clearly a rule against harassment would cover Ed and Jumba's conduct, but I am not sure what rules you could cite against socks and usher. They generally don't harass other users in the chat and maintain civil dialogue. What exactly do you object to that can be objectively quantified?

Bad faith argumentative sealioning timesucks are a problem in that calling out their bullshit feeds the asstrolls and sucks your time. By that point everyone's tuned out and no one cares. However, upon repetition, they build up their unlikable bad faith reputation.

The current system just doesn't work well. As it is, Jumba or anyone else can get the operator status and 'subvert saidit' to use one of your phrases, or just ban whoever they want. It seems like a good idea if we can all agree on some guidelines, but that only works if one of us gets the operator status.

It's not so dire. It only lasts 12 hours. But it is a problem.

Off the top of my head, it seems we need to create a League Of Respectable Gentlemen (and Ladies).

I pick you and you pick me and that's the start. We have a consensus, always. We nominate others agree to include them, by consensus. All of us come up with more nominees to include or not, by consensus, and so on growing. If anyone has a problem including a nominee then that nominee is not included. The rejector(s) can explain why, take the 5th (ending all discussion), or engage in discussion to be turned or not. Careful consideration for inclusion should be taken as getting consensus to eject someone may be more difficult.

This League, or trusted-team, would then collectively come up with some rules and/or guidelines for chat. That would be good for chat and the OP so they can do their job without reservation.

Getting OP is as simple as setting an alarm a minute before the chat resets. If able, drop what you're doing, refresh your tab, and then resume your day. The bitches may complain and cry but I'm not giving a fuck doing something else entirely. Sometimes I peek in. Sometimes I see nothing, I see blather, I see insights, and occasionally I see problems. Squash them, for less than 12 hours. Whatever. It seems that simply having the OP status is enough of a threat to keep them in line after a day or two of heavy hands. Unhinged bitches like usehername will shriek obscenities about loosing <12 hours, proving they're just a twat. If only we could ban some for life.

[–]Jackalope[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I agree with almost everything you said here Jason, I am glad we are finding common ground.

I like your FOTPACH thing, I think those are good principles for us. I think the League is a good idea as well, I can make an effort to get the daytime operator reset and +o the other trusted members, the other one is my sleeping time.

I won't bring up socks again, but I'm not sure I would lump usehername in with socks. There is zero doubt in my mind that usehername believes the things he says and is attempting to argue in good faith. I get frustrated at the authoritarian shit he defends too, but I truly think he is just a young guy who believes that stuff.

I have my doubts about the sincerity some of the things socks says too, but it's really hard to read intent (not saying impossible) and still manage to stick to the FOTPACH principles, as it wouldn't be fair if we misread intent and banned people for simply disagreeing with us. You have had some reallly solid suggestions so far, do you have any thoughts on how we could manage this issue?

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Despite them both sharing much of their ideological frameworks, I haven't fully lumped usehername in with socks yet, as the latter is all bad faith and less rude. Being rude and negative is downward dragging, but at least it's not bat faith even if it is retarded. In time this may require more action, or hopefully they grow and become aware.

My problems are NOT with the disagreements, but the inauthenticity and prolific nonsense. Sealioning timesucks are the worst and fool many people. socks pretends to listen to your argument, says "thanks I'll look at all that research you just took the time and energy to give me" and then never does and keeps spouting the same bullshit without evolving with new info. Ad nauseam BAD FAITH.

This prolific ad nauseam bad faith bullshit also comes from Ed/fEd/skank/skeeter/wonderwoman/etc and Jumba/weegs/speegs in very different forms.

All of these need to be called out for what they are when they happen. Not just to teach them, but to illustrate to everyone else what is clogging up the chat and alienating folks. We must defend the SaidIt front page chats: #all and #subscribed. There are hundreds if not thousands of other subs they can chat in. If they just wanted to chat they would go elsewhere. Chaos agents lust visibility.

Actual management via clear rules, abundant guides, and a trusted-team are a deeper matter. I'm willing to help, in time, but at this point I have too many higher priority personal projects, group projects, and local people with serious problems to help rather than leading this minor project for a few whiny asstrolls and shills needing lessons in etiquette and decorum. Feel free to run with it and ping me. I'll do my best to try to keep in the loop, but I've been not doing well with my communications backlog for a while.

[–]usehername 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're a funny guy... except you're not joking.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

One solution (of many):

Start /s/UnbridledChats and have all the asstrolls play in that sub's chat.

SaidIt site rules will apply, if anyone cares to watch those chats.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

It scares me how many people live on this site.

[–]Jackalope[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Says the guy with 56K karma....Is that meant to insult me? lol

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one working from home now who likes to use saidit chat to replace the office chatter.

What are you saying anyway? Let's just settle for highly abusable chat rule systems because the people that use chat a lot are losers? Im just saying it would be pretty easy to improve the dynamics of this, to everyones benefit who uses it.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Just turn it off and never use it again. Problem solved!

[–]Jackalope[S] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Thank you for your profoundly insightful and helpful suggestions.

You sir, are a sage and a scholar, and I don't know what I would do without your great wisdom.

I can only hope to emulate your way of never using saidit excessively, or wasting my time by frivolously trolling in the comments. You are my role model and hero.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Glad my suggestion could help.

[–]yabbit 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

there's only 10 users on this site total you gaylord

[–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun - 1 day ago It scares me how many people live on this site.

I'd like to live here. Its a nice place.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And thousands of other sites too.

[–]suzew 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Welp, then it's time to make saidit posts or comments OR get off of technology for 12hrs.