Here are a couple of posts from yesterday in Turtle Soup (including one from Dancing Mustard after a long absence). Though i agree that the site needs to be careful, i also think they get/have got a lot right in the creation of this site. Our reluctant, sustained presence on it may confirm that but we also need to keep them from ballsing up what they have thus-far created.
It is a lesson for all Police-States: though the people are pain in the arse of the executive, it needs to remember that they merely keep in check what we create, without us there are nothing but empty shells echoing with perfect obedience!
jiminski wrote:Frigidus wrote:
I've come to the same conclusion about Xtra. It sure feels nice seeing someone banned when they piss you off, but after seeing several enjoyable posters banned over trash and exaggeration I don't think I can support the banning of anyone, ever. As someone mentioned earlier, if you don't like their posts there's a foe button for you. It's like your own little banhammer. That that isn't enough indicates to me that a) one of the mods threw a temper tantrum (and threw out any semblance of impartial judgment they might have had) and b) none of the other mods gave a shit.
If this place didn't have such a good supporting cast of posters I'd have left over the shitty moderation a long time ago. DM said it best recently:Dancing Mustard wrote:Man, I had forgotten how much I missed this place and how much I enjoyed the semi-trolling debates that flourish in OT.
Seriously, trolled a whole load of sites while I was away and joined in a ton of very serious debates... but nowhere was quite as much fun as here. It was all either too trolly, too stupid, or too grown-up and serious, I just couldn't quite find an atmosphere that suited.
In other words, I just wanted you all to know that it feels pretty good to be back.
hmmmmm you open up the exact crux of the matter here Frig.
The reason Mustard bothered to grace us with his energy was due to the tone and dynamics of the site.
Give the site Mods etc their dues - their balance of authority whilst allowing for organic conversation and creativity allows what Mustard describes above. Their philosophy of action and how they perceive the sites direction is the soil and we are the flowers all vying for the light of acceptance, the synthesis of attention.
It is a fine, fine balance and one which we, the baying and derisive masses, rarely credit them for.
But our reluctant satisfaction is a part of the dynamic too. That we are one step from revolt at all times guides the tone of the site.. if we do it correctly. That we mock all aspects, and then stay anyway, should be reflection of our satisfaction. I agree that that is a subtle measure for the Site police to make.
The problem is that we now seem to be embarking on a new direction with a new tone. The ban-stick seems to be out with greater frequency. I have no problem with that but the permanent ban used to be so rare as to be almost shocking. It was the last recourse for the heinous activist; the racist, the outrageous point dumper and those who perpetually ruined the the character of the site.
Now it seems to be a tool to wave to maintain authoriteee for its own sake or to relieve the frustrations of the site civil-servants.
.. That's not enough in my opinion.. and i concede an opinion is all it is! But if we allow, unchecked, this 'new subtle direction' then the site will fall from exactly what Mustard describes above. It will become bland and easy. It will become the refuge of all the good little boys and girls who toe the party line. It is our job to make the Mods and Andy realise that the site does not actually want that. They may think they do .. but they do not.
Now specifically; Mustard was a pain in the mods arse... of course he was! He was disruptive and inventively subversive.. he was the boy who did not give a fuck about the consequences of moderation. So the leaders will say "We must show to the rest that rules have to be obeyed and actions have consequences!"
It's a compelling argument but it is also a lazy argument. It also, if you think about it, purely illustrates this new and sanitised direction we are moving in. Why do the mods have to give the ultimate sanction for small and repetitive rule infractions? In my opinion, quite from showing strength, it shows fear and weakness in the face of fun and mischief!
Banning Mustard Permanently for never-ending and frequent infraction, is like giving a petty criminal the death penalty! No modern, self-confident society does that! We, as civilised and reflective human beings, mock such weakness in a society. What we do is keep punishing.. with longer sentences surely but no one realistically forwards that the level of disruption and evil committed by stealing a TV is deserving of the ultimate recourse. It is a given that no amount of repetition of such crimes warrants such retribution.
Now with greater relevance to this particular case - Mustard was more akin to a surrealist comedian with an activists agenda. By banning the inconveniently intellectual, who have an alternative slant on life, we once more show our weakness.
If our little, loosely combined group can not retain its most elaborate yet ultimately passive dissenters then we are doomed to mediocrity and stagnation.
If, merely by the repetition of minor rule infraction, we are to be punished by death? ... then we need to call for the adjustment of this new site philosophy.
The site is a good deal less without such characters.
