~~Return the site’s moderation practice to it’s former, libs-banned-on-site glory.~~ Move forward to a new, glorious form of banning theory inspired by TC69 thought, while learning from it’s mistakes, and listening to neurodivergent comrades
Reinvigorate the heart of this site’s community, c/furry
Remove r*ddit karma

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS@hexbear.net 25 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Actually banning I'm leaving posts is good, because they're only ever shit stirring

[–] WithoutFurtherDelay@hexbear.net 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

This is my point, though. “Shit stirring” isn’t an issue unless issues haven’t actually been fully resolved (or it’s someone repeating something blatantly offensive on purpose). If something has been generally processed and come to a conclusion as a community, someone trying to bring it back up again would just be rightfully dismissed. I feel like it’s a red flag when a community has to crack down on discussions about itself. It has the same vibe as people refusing to communicate in a relationship because they don’t want to cause issues.

Plus the stated reason, that being that nobody cares if you leave, is just flat out wrong. People get attached to individual users and while it isn’t the healthiest it’s weird to try and ignore that instead of addressing it directly

[–] PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well I'd rather not have a struggle session every time someone decides to leave. We have enough struggle sessions. If people want to resolve issues, the time to do it is as a participant in the community, not as a parting shot

[–] WithoutFurtherDelay@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

Good point

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Shit stirring is an issue though if you're an admin that bans anyone disagreeing with the shit you're stirring, and you ban them for being "transphobes" or "reactionaries" despite being neither. There was a time period where you couldn't even criticize or disagree with her without getting banned for being reactionairy. If you do that then you also make it impossible to actually resolve the conflict.
I think a lot of stuff wouldn't have been sitewide conflicts if it hadn't been for her picking a side and then banning those on the other side for being "reactionairy". It made any resolution impossible because discussion was impossible.
I got called a

cw:sa

rapist

for drinking milk. I didn't respond, but another user did. They pointed out that such an accusation was a bit much. They got banned for being reactionairy.

Edit: if this gets removed for misinformation I'd sincerely and in good faith like to ask for an explanation on what that misinfo is.