The fact that @puttitout banned aged based purely on a brigaded request thread by people who themselves are spammers (and unlike aged their 'spam' wasn't even relevant to the subverse).
Like it's very hard to feel sympathy for someone like /u/aged, but this uneven enforcement is ridiculous, why is /u/theoldones not banned when he spammed /v/gaming constantly with self posts reqursting /u/aged to be banned? Are these relevant to gaming but lewd fanart of adult female game characters is not?
If puttitout can give an explanation of which rule was broken I'd be ok with it, but as it stands "im a dictator lmao" is not an excuse to ban a user.
view the rest of the comments →
PuttItOut ago
I'm glad you made this post now. Because we do need to work to define a new rule about people who disrupt things on purpose.
They abuse the mere fact that we don't typically ban and then shit on everything. Think about the v/aww thing a few months back. That was complete BS.
So how do we phrase this rule?
TheBuddha ago
If you're going to be that subjective, and you may need to, then I'd suggest an entirely new rule.
"Making Putt clean up after you."
I may be drinking, but right now that idea seems pretty good. Don't cause drama by doing stupid shit that makes the admin have to pay attention. Ideally, the admin shouldn't even know most usernames. If you know their username, they're probably a problem.
Granted, I much prefer a hands off/minimal approach, but I'm not the one that gets hundreds of retarded pings every day.
I wish you luck! If you need a picture of a middle finger and help burning the place to the ground, let me know!
Broc_Lia ago
Two problems:
Putt's intervention arguably wasn't necessary here
That effectively makes it ok for putt to delete anything then ban the user because he had to clean up after them. The whole point of this is to have clear rules about what kind of content should be removed and under what circumstances users can be banned.
TheBuddha ago
Yeah, but he does have a great deal of history of making good choices.
This is one that I can't agree with, but I doubt it is a trend or slippery slope. I have pretty good expectations from Putt and he hasn't failed much.
I really, really don't agree with his choice this time. Calling it spam really bends those rules.
Broc_Lia ago
I'm not ragging on putt too much, I don't think it was a disasterously bad decision or anything, just don't personally disagree with it. In fairness he's acknowledged that there's controversy and he's trying to put solid rules in place. That's more than any reddit shitmin would do.
TheBuddha ago
Absolutely. I don't think it's the start of a new trend or anything.
frenemy ago
the first time is the hardest. i would suggest a reread of animal farm. this never goes well.
'some animals are more equal than others.'
TheBuddha ago
I'm well aware. I am, for example, pretty much above rules and law. It's just reality and I don't try to abuse my privilege. (I have a few bucks and am devilishly handsome!)
But...
@PuttItOut has a history of making good choices and working his ass off for this site. So, I doubt it's a slippery slope.
Again, I don't agree with this decision - for the reasons I've made clear in my other posts. But, it's not my job to agree, nor is it his job to care what I think.
Finally, this is Putt. He's a grown adult male. He will think about this. If he changes his mind, he will do so openly and let folks know he felt his decision was made in haste/whatever. He's been pretty fucking good at being an admin on a site filled with idiots. I have some trust in his decision making skills and a great deal of trust in his openness. He'll man up, if he needs to change it. I'm nearly positive of this.
Hell, you've been here longer than I have! (I just hovered over your username!) You know damned well that he has a good history AND that he's able to change his mind. I have some trust in him.
frenemy ago
so i have a second hand promise that things won't get worse. excuse me if i don't take you at your word.
even if he does change his mind, at this point a lot of damage has already been done. free speech is not a guiding principle here while this happens. that's stealing trust from a subset of users. it didn't have to go that way.
i truly hope you are right. there aren't many places for people like me to speak our minds. it would be a true loss if this one was no longer trustworthy.
TheBuddha ago
You don't have my promise of anything. You do have my expectations explained. It's just that, and nothing more.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely don't agree with Putt's decision here. As much as I'm not really happy with @aged's content, my view is that he violated no specific rules. To me, it seems like folks finally got what they wanted and 'spam' is just the justification used after the fact.
"Let's hang him now. We'll find him guilty of something tomorrow."
That's what it seems like to me.
I think it was a bad action. I don't think it sets a bad precedent, because history shows us Putt makes good choices the overwhelming majority of the time. I think it's a singular error, but I could be wrong. I'd like to think Putt has been a pretty good defender of the liberty of free speech. At the end of the day, he's still human and mistakes will be made.
I guess I'm suggesting we sharpen our pitchforks, but not yet openly brandish them. We could maybe sit on the porch and sharpen them where we can be observed, just to make sure we know they know our intentions!
frenemy ago
well, we agree it's a bad action now. maybe that's good enough for this situation.