Whats with all the banning of people?

[d3crypt]

I have seen a lot of people banned lately. Can't there be simple freedom of debate?

[#FF0000]

people like who?

i mean generally I think revleft does ban too much but...

[d3crypt]

people like who?

i mean generally I think revleft does ban too much but...

Most recently NeonTrotski comes to mind. But ya in general its way too much. Why was he even banned?

[#FF0000]

They list reasons in the moderator/admin actions thread.

For NeonTrotski:
Banned NeonTrotski and his sock Meadowlark Lenin. No platform for age of consent liberation means no platform.

[d3crypt]

They list reasons in the moderator/admin actions thread.

For NeonTrotski:
Banned NeonTrotski and his sock Meadowlark Lenin. No platform for age of consent liberation means no platform.

What does that even mean?

[#FF0000]

Dude was all about being able to fuck children basically.

[Comrade Jacob]

Shhhh, you don't want to get banned do you?


:laugh:

(I am kidding mods)

[Nevsky]

When I come across an older thread, it's always disturbing to see all the banned people who used to post here. L'Enfermé, 9mm, TheRedAnarchist etc. are all gone. Then I realize I could be the next victim of totalitarian revleft purges and fear for my life :lol:

[Sasha]

Oh great, this thread again....
Kids, i remember the great purges of RAAN, this is nothing, this is daily house cleaning, you have seen nothing yet!!! [/manical laughter]

[Decolonize The Left]

Honestly, speaking as a former mod/admin here, there are rules which are clear and easy to see and access. These rules are taken seriously because this forum is meant to be a place where people can come and explore ideas which might otherwise not be accepted and encouraged. And the rules aren't that crazy: you can't be a sexist/racist/homophone/transphone/fascist/troll, you can't talk about wanted to fuck kids, you can't threaten other members of the board, you can't make sock-puppets, and you have to respect general security culture. Not a big deal really.

People get upset because they became attached to one poster or another, I have in the past, but those people broke the rules and usually did so knowingly. There are some cases which are less clear-cut but, in general, it's pretty easy to see why things happened.

People need to be less attached to the board in general unless they are willing to operate within the (very reasonable) confines of the rules.

[G4b3n]

Uncle Joe's mustache has clearly been listening.
Or rules have been broken, one of the two.

[The Douche]

Nobody gets banned if they follow the rules, I am living proof of that.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's really not that difficult to follow the rules of the board - they're here to make sure that we can discuss all aspects of revolutionary politics without the interference of non-revolutionaries in every thread, and without discourse to name-calling, personal attacks and other silly stuff.

[Brutus]

Two of the people Nevsky listed were socks and TRA was a racist.

[OHumanista]

An urge to purge.
Seriously I don't know how things are going recently but I have seen people being banned by various imaginary reasons before.

[Conscript]

The past year has seen quite a decline because of bans if you ask me. Maybe longer.

All the good posters are gone for the most part. I don't see any quality discussion anymore.

[The Douche]

Just because somebody is a "good poster" (a phrase which is to subjective to mean anything), that doesn't give them a free pass from breaking the rules...

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Two of the people Nevsky listed were socks and TRA was a racist.

Actually, this is demonstrably false in L'Enferme's case. His IP location is miles away from the I.P location of where he was accuse of being.


Oh great, this thread again....


Perhaps if it is such a common grievance, then it is worth redressing and ought not to be dismissed.

[The Douche]

Actually, this is demonstrably false in L'Enferme's case. His IP location is miles away from the I.P location of where he was accuse of being.



Perhaps if it is such a common grievance, then it is worth redressing and ought not to be dismissed.

Would you act this way, so demanding and indignant, if you were in somebody's home and they had asked one of your friends to leave?

[cyu]

Somebody's home? What are you, some kind of pro-property capitalist? :D

Seriously though, we had a similar discussion in a devart group regarding censorship. My reply was that would people be allowed to form groups for kitten pictures in anarchist society, or would they be forced to allow in people who wanted to post pictures of corpses?

Then again, I wouldn't say that people should be banned from forming groups devoted to corpse pictures, distasteful as that may be...

[Nevsky]

Two of the people Nevsky listed were socks and TRA was a racist.

Oh I wasn't being apologetic of them, just noticed they were very present during the time I started here and then they just disappeared...

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Would you act this way, so demanding and indignant, if you were in somebody's home and they had asked one of your friends to leave?

Demanding and indignant? I said:


Perhaps if it is such a common grievance, then it is worth redressing and ought not to be dismissed.


I understand that the internet does not allow tone to be expressed, however I fail to see the unreasonable element of that statement.

And the comparison to private property norms is not applicable. We communists do not believe in the legitimacy of such institutions. Of course that is not to say that it is possible to live with complete communal norms as long as capitalism exists. However I would imagine that the Anti-Capitalist project would not place their organizational norms within the boundaries of private property. I would say that while this forum ought not to be literally owned by the entirety of the userbase, that the moderation staff should not view itself as above the objections of its members, that this forum should be considered socially owned by its userbase even if it is not, that this forum exists as a place for the extange of Anti-Capitalist ideas rather than as a means of generating Ad revenue for its owner, and that the moderation staff serves the purpose of discussion, instead of the forum being subservient to the will of the administration staff.

The fact that any degree of criticism is considered a thread to the authority of the administration shows that they clearly do not have this view of serving the forum. If they did, then they would welcome public criticism as to allow them to improve their moderation abilities. If I might quote Mao:


If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid to have them pointed out and criticized, because we serve the people. Anyone, no matter who, may point out our shortcomings. If he is right, we will correct them. If what he proposes will benefit the people, we will act upon it.


That, is the appropriate way in which criticism ought to be handled.

Nothing of what I ask here is unreasonable, I am not asking for democratic elections of moderators or the removal of any of them. All I am saying is that there ought to be a re-evaluation of the banning policy and a greater openness in which this forum is moderated as well as more freedom to criticize the actions of the staff.

[hatzel]

Oh I wasn't being apologetic of them, just noticed they were very present during the time I started here and then they just disappeared...

...after taking over a thread shrieking 'GYPSIES ARE JUST THE WORST KIND OF PEOPLE AND DONT DESERVE TO EXIST IN OUR SOCIETY BECAUSE EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM IS DISGUSTING!!!'

What I mean to say is the OP would surely notice 'what's with all the banning of people' (even though there have been very few even remotely contentious or even noteworthy bannings lately) if they checked the kind of stuff people were getting banned for, which 9 times out of 10 is both obvious and reasonable...

[Sea]

Actually, this is demonstrably false in L'Enferme's case. His IP location is miles away from the I.P location of where he was accuse of being.The "it was a sock" thing is quite ridiculous considering that L'Enferme was well-respected enough to become a global mod for christ's sake. That was just banning by the book, even when it lowers the level of discussion. Considering that the purpose of those rules it (in theory) to make the board a better place, that is ridiculous. If RevLeft's administration is supposed to be a meritocracy, that just makes it all the more absurd.

edit: I just wanna take the time to say that the mods and admins here are pretty groovy and I have a lot of respect for them. No, really. I do. In fact this is the only thing I've seen that I really take any issue with which is more than I can say for most forums.

[The Douche]

Demanding and indignant?

Yes, you demand further explanation, and the room for discourse, don't you?


I understand that the internet does not allow tone to be expressed, however I fail to see the unreasonable element of that statement.


I don't think its "unreasonable" necessarily, but its not the way this forum works, or any other forum I've been too. This one, like others, has an established set of rules enforced by a staff, everybody is made aware of the rules and they choose to follow them or not. And at least at this one, the staff is chosen with the input of users, and the rules are plainly stated, in many other places, the staff is selected based on cronyism, and the rules are often arbitrary.


And the comparison to private property norms is not applicable. We communists do not believe in the legitimacy of such institutions.

Of course, private property is capital, that property which is used in the creation of value, a home on the other hand, is personal property, which communists do not reject. So drop the fucking semantics.


However I would imagine that the Anti-Capitalist project would not place their organizational norms within the boundaries of private property. I would say that while this forum ought not to be literally owned by the entirety of the userbase, that the moderation staff should not view itself as above the objections of its members, that this forum should be considered socially owned by its userbase even if it is not, that this forum exists as a place for the extange of Anti-Capitalist ideas rather than as a means of generating Ad revenue for its owner, and that the moderation staff serves the purpose of discussion, instead of the forum being subservient to the will of the administration staff.


This website doesn't make anybody any money, people run this place out of their own pockets because they care about it.

The staff does not "views itself as above the objections of its members", the members and the staff are not even static categories, I was once a member, then a moderator, then an admin, and now just a member again. There are a number of posters who can testify to the fact that I helped them (in my capacity as an admin) to solve disputes on the board, and I'm sure every other member of the staff has had multiple experiences where a member came to them with either an issue or a suggestion and the staff member did what they could to help.

The membership of this forum is not "subservient" to a goddamn thing. You are free to come and go as you please, and the staff is not dictating to you what topics you must focus your energies on or anything. Subservient? What the fuck? In what way does the general membership of this site "serve" the fucking staff?


The fact that any degree of criticism is considered a thread to the authority of the administration shows that they clearly do not have this view of serving the forum.

Criticism =/= "why did you ban this guy, he shouldn't be banned, you're all a bunch of assholes, go ahead and lock this thread, I'll start another one".

"Serve" the forum? How? Like, ban trolls, enforce a reasonably friendly environment, clean up spam? What you really mean is "act the way I want them to act"...


I am not asking for democratic elections of moderators or the removal of any of them.

Ironically, we already have a democratic system in place for the election of the staff.


All I am saying is that there ought to be a re-evaluation of the banning policy and a greater openness in which this forum is moderated as well as more freedom to criticize the actions of the staff.

Literally all of these things exist. Many banned members were recently allowed to return (and still more can be considered for return, all you have to do is PM a staff member), all staff actions are logged in public threads, so you can see whenever any staff member does anything, and you're criticizing the staff right now.



So no, I don't believe you're just trying to make an honest and helpful criticism regarding how the running of the board can be improved, I think you have an ulterior motive, and you want to stir the pot.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The past year has seen quite a decline because of bans if you ask me. Maybe longer.

All the good posters are gone for the most part. I don't see any quality discussion anymore.

I've been browsing frequently since early 2008 and I don't recall this "quality discussion" you seem to allude to. Most of the time it has, as it remains, been the same old threads regurgitated, and the same secterian shitstorms as ever.

[cyu]

I don't recall this "quality discussion" you seem to allude to


Clearly you haven't been reading the threads I post to :laugh:

Sorry, back to my video games ;)

[#FF0000]

Just because somebody is a "good poster" (a phrase which is to subjective to mean anything), that doesn't give them a free pass from breaking the rules...

I'd like to see people using suspensions more and bans much less, tho.

[The Douche]

I'd like to see people using suspensions more and bans much less, tho.

That's fair, and something I suggested while I was an admin. And I saw the following real problems unfold when we tried that method:

1) People thought the user was banned, and sometimes would just flat out call the staff liars when we said it was just a temporary suspension. This would lead to some people throwing a fit and spamming, getting themselves infracted, throwing a bigger fit, and getting more infractions or a ban or whatever.

2) The suspended user came back with a grudge and wanted to do nothing but try to reopen (in a public way) the discussion about their suspension that they just got off of. Essentially, they try to reopen all the drama that existed immediately before the suspension.


Sometimes suspensions work, and I think its wise to use them whenever possible, but usually they don't work, and a ban is the end result, and those members who are gonna cause a fuss are gonna do it no matter how many steps the staff went through.

The majority of the board are rebellious teenage boys, for many of whom, this is their sole engagement with communist politics, the language used in these discussions "purge", or the appeals to Maoist political practice and stuff make this evident.

Nobody gets banned from revleft for nothing. So if your friend gets banned, they should've wised up and listened to the warnings, and if they didn't want to, well, they made their choice. They didn't get purged, they're just not allowed to post on one website anymore, and until people can come to understand that, there will always be situations like this.

[Ace High]

I just looked through some of the infractions the moderators are handing out.

I don't know what to say, I mean some of them seem justified, others seem trigger-happy. For instance, some of the things the mods consider "trolling" seems a bit harsh for an infraction. I understand that there are rules and that they must be followed. But I do feel like some of the mods take a few posts a bit too personally. There is a point where enforcing the rules and arbitrary censorship start to blur the line.

Banning NeonTrotski was totally justified if he said he wanted to fuck children O_O Now THAT should equal a ban. People using discriminatory slurs, THAT should be a ban. But if someone posts something funny and perhaps slightly irrelevant, and there is no harm intended, I feel like some of those infractions are unnecessary.

I really don't have a problem with a single moderator on here, you're just doing your jobs. I'm just offering a little constructive criticism, no hostility intended :)

[Conscript]

Just because somebody is a "good poster" (a phrase which is to subjective to mean anything), that doesn't give them a free pass from breaking the rules...

1. It means they contribute something knowledgeable, the people who do a lot of debating with reactionaries, answering questions, and so on with lengthy posts that frequently get thanked. It's not very subjective, and its noticeable when there's not much activity.

2. The rules are more subjective than that phrase seeing as how they're subject to interpretation and rulings dependent on nothing more than a few individuals agreeing.

Sorry, all forums have rules, yours is the only one that ends up banning so much it stifles debate, and threads over a year old have half the posters banned. There is very little reason to believe people pick out revleft to be particularly troublesome. It's more likely administration is the problem.

@ takayuki Then you're blind, this forum used to be very different not even 2 years ago, with far more historical and sectarian debates with a more varied lot, including marxism vs anarchism. Revleft has become more of a place where people post articles to rage at.

[Sasha]

Anyways, per the board guidelines we dont allow discussions like this is turning into, sorry

Closed