Thank you to the Mods

[Formless]

As for your ousting from SFD, your reply of "I call racists racist" clarifies how you think, but it doesn't mean every time you used the term it was actually justified. But at this point we're making this discussion about yet another web forum.

We could just as easily be talking about this forum. Just replace racist with nazi, fascist, trumpist, or libel.

Can we just not? I don't want to sound like a back seat mod, but I do believe both you and TRR have been warned about Vendetta behavior in the past, and I don't want to see this thread locked and shamed or something. Either way, TRR is not the subject of this thread, nor should he be regardless of whatever his habits on the forum are.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thank you.

[Steve]

Agreed.

Considering the original subject, tomorrow there's going to be a voice Q&A on Discord where the SB admins will take questions on the matter.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, that's encouraging. It at least shows that they're willing to acknowledge and discuss the issue, rather than trying to brush it under the rug. That seems to me the appropriate course of action.

Final judgement withheld until I've read the thread and the responses there.

[ray245]

The issue is the staff only seems interested in taking action against the most blatant forms of racism, homophobia and etc. The issue that people had with the mods goes beyond the explicit discrimination in the forum.

[ray245]

And now you get to see people like l33telboi for what they truly are. l33telboi is still a member on SDN? He is apparently making excuse for hate speech now.

[Lord Revan]

And now you get to see people like l33telboi for what they truly are. l33telboi is still a member on SDN? He is apparently making excuse for hate speech now.

he's technically SDN member but hasn't been active since 2011, so I'd say that he isn't a member in practice.

[Q99]

One of the key things is how in all that time, a single post was reported/had mod action, and a single poster objected, was kicked, and was threatened with ban if he told people.

The mods on it clearly condoned it/encouraged it, and the rest of the people involved- saved for the one who left and the one who was kicked- did so for long enough that their feelings on bigotry are sufficiently clear that the forum would really be better off without them. 90~ is a solidly large number of bigots but also quite small compared to the whole forum.

The irony of all the accusations of left wing favoritism in the past (some by people involved!) where the right literally had their own mod-run favoritism hugbox where they could be as bigoted as they wanted. Even now the response is still mild enough that they’re treating those involved with kid gloves, unless they do come around to a mass ban.

[The Romulan Republic]

One of the key things is how in all that time, a single post was reported/had mod action, and a single poster objected, was kicked, and was threatened with ban if he told people.

The mods on it clearly condoned it/encouraged it, and the rest of the people involved- saved for the one who left and the one who was kicked- did so for long enough that their feelings on bigotry are sufficiently clear that the forum would really be better off without them. 90~ is a solidly large number of bigots but also quite small compared to the whole forum.

The irony of all the accusations of left wing favoritism in the past (some by people involved!) where the right literally had their own mod-run favoritism hugbox where they could be as bigoted as they wanted. Even now the response is still mild enough that they’re treating those involved with kid gloves, unless they do come around to a mass ban.

You see this shit all the time, even among professional politicians and media figures. The Right pulls whatever outrageous shit it wants, tramples gleefully on human decency and the rule of law, spouts bigotry and open incitement of violence... but somehow, the burden is always on the Left to be more "civil" and "bi-partisan". And its not just the obvious suspects on the Right pushing that- its people in the Center and even on the Left too. Remember after the children in cages story first broke, and some Trump officials had nasty things shouted at them in public, and we had all these liberal media figures hemming and hawing over whether we needed to be more civil? Or how quickly and apologetically a lot of the news outlets backed off (at least initially) from Russia-gate after Barr's summary came out, for that matter. Because Republicans have spent thirty years drilling it into peoples' heads that they are the norm, and that anyone calling them on their shit is "shoving a PC agenda down our throats" and needs to be more "fair and balanced".

[Q99]

I like this one because it's such a case-in-point on a mid-sized internet forum (that most of the forums I'm on know about). Like, sure, the politicians do that, but that's just the Republican party, an organization, right? Nah, it's just 90~ bigots who made their own private bigot club on a webforum, and not even a particular bad webforum like 4chan or such.


And now a good number of posters there are arguing for an RPGnet/Ravelry Trump ban.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I wish the Left were half "Just as bad" as the Right is. That would be alright with me.

[Ralin]

I wish the Left were half "Just as bad" as the Right is. That would be alright with me.

"Man, I am so radical and good at the violence. Have I mentioned how much I support violence? I am so okay with punching and the violence. Because I am radical and on the Left and doing the violence is part of being a radical Leftist. Just felt the need to mention that."

[Sea Skimmer]

Can we just not? I don't want to sound like a back seat mod, but I do believe both you and TRR have been warned about Vendetta behavior in the past, and I don't want to see this thread locked and shamed or something. Either way, TRR is not the subject of this thread, nor should he be regardless of whatever his habits on the forum are.

This thread should have been locked the moment it was created, affairs of other boards do not concern SDN, all the more so that board.

But still pretty funny to see someone breaking one of the bigger and more important rules to praise the moderation here.

[Formless]

Funny, I double checked the board rules and found no rule that actually says we can't discuss the affairs of other boards. I know, I was surprised too, but if its a de-facto rule here the staff have never bothered to write it down. That's why I didn't bring up the issue myself. Honestly, with the internet becoming more and more relevant to modern politics, such a rule makes less and less sense as time goes on, at least for the really big social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc.

And yes, I know my post toes the line on the backseat mod rule. I admitted that already, maybe I shouldn't have. However, I was under the impression that the staff doesn't mind us reminding eachother of what the rules are so long as its an actual board policy and not an imagined policy. That's also why there is a rule saying that it is up to them to decide what is and is not actually a rule violation, and to choose appropriate action (including leniency). Otherwise we could end up going in circles accusing eachother of being a backseat mod, and that would definitely be a problem because the thread would be off the rails. If you really think posters in this thread are violating the rules, report the posts! Any other action accomplishes nothing, except further driving the thread off topic. And if the topic itself is inappropriate, I would think the best course of action is to report it, and move on. But that's just my opinion. I don't have much to say about SB itself, as its only recently that I even made an account there. But since other people thought they couldn't express their opinions about the issue on SB itself, I don't think this thread is without a valid purpose.

Now in light of all that, this is the last I will speak on this issue unless a moderator compels me to.

[Ritterin Sophia]

"Man, I am so radical and good at the violence. Have I mentioned how much I support violence? I am so okay with punching and the violence. Because I am radical and on the Left and doing the violence is part of being a radical Leftist. Just felt the need to mention that."

I mean I do. I'm okay with punching and violence. And more, yes. I mean, you probably are okay with that much too as a liberal, I don't see you advocating for the dissolution of the military.

[The Romulan Republic]

"Man, I am so radical and good at the violence. Have I mentioned how much I support violence? I am so okay with punching and the violence. Because I am radical and on the Left and doing the violence is part of being a radical Leftist. Just felt the need to mention that."

I mean I do. I'm okay with punching and violence. And more, yes. I mean, you probably are okay with that much too as a liberal, I don't see you advocating for the dissolution of the military.

There is a distinction, at least in theory, by violence practiced during wartime by professional soldiers, and random vigilantism/rioting/terrorism in the streets. Namely, that a functional society can exist while practicing the former, but not while tolerating the latter.

Of course, sometimes everything goes to hell and extra-legal violence is the only way for people to defend themselves. But there is a difference.

[NeoGoomba]

Dang, I realized I haven't really been to SB in ALMOST TWO DECADES, fuck we are old.

[Lord Revan]

Dang, I realized I haven't really been to SB in ALMOST TWO DECADES, fuck we are old.

It finally hit me when I realized that people who turn 19 this year were born the same year I turned 18

[ray245]

I believe the kids of some of the older members like Mike are basically college age now.

[Ritterin Sophia]

There is a distinction, at least in theory, by violence practiced during wartime by professional soldiers, and random vigilantism/rioting/terrorism in the streets. Namely, that a functional society can exist while practicing the former, but not while tolerating the latter.

Of course, sometimes everything goes to hell and extra-legal violence is the only way for people to defend themselves. But there is a difference.

The distinction is you think people should suffer both direct and abstracted systemic violence meekly while I think it's ethical to perform direct action in response or preemptive to stop that violence. Vigilantism, rioting, and "terrorism" is not random, all happen because of systemic issues and in the case of terror are very targeted. Nor are they fundamentally different, in fact I would argue the professional soldiers are as much terrorists as any other.

[The Romulan Republic]

There is a distinction, at least in theory, by violence practiced during wartime by professional soldiers, and random vigilantism/rioting/terrorism in the streets. Namely, that a functional society can exist while practicing the former, but not while tolerating the latter.

Of course, sometimes everything goes to hell and extra-legal violence is the only way for people to defend themselves. But there is a difference.

The distinction is you think people should suffer both direct and abstracted systemic violence meekly

Wow, even people who've barely posted here in years instinctively put words in my mouth to try to brand me a supporter of (insert horrible thing here). I guess honest debate really is beyond this board's capability.

What I actually think is that there is a time and a place for violence, in extreme circumstances and after alternatives have been exhausted, but not as the first, best, and only solution to all injustice. Partly out of moral considerations, and partly out of practical ones, because violent revolutions tend to be extremely bloody and drawn-out affairs that disproportionately harm the most vulnerable people in society, and often end up replacing one awful regime with another that is just as bad or worse.

Apparently, in some peoples' minds, that makes me the enemy. Because, you know, it doesn't count as real opposition unless there are bodies in the street.

while I think it's ethical to perform direct action in response or preemptive to stop that violence.

"preemptive" is where you instantly lose my support. Because "preemptive" means you are advocating initiating violence against people because they might be a threat later. By which argument, you can justify any act of violence against anyone at any time. Kind of like how America had to "preemptively" attack Iraq.

Vigilantism, rioting, and "terrorism" is not random, all happen because of systemic issues and in the case of terror are very targeted. Nor are they fundamentally different, in fact I would argue the professional soldiers are as much terrorists as any other.

Yeah, you put "terrorism" in quotes, then effectively admit that you are defending terrorism.

By the way, I make a distinction between defensive violence and terrorism, because terrorism is by definition the use of force to intimidate in order to advance an agenda, as opposed to the use of force in defense of oneself or others. See, I actually have this shocking, forbidden thing called "nuance" to my positions.

[Zaune]

All I'm going to say on this subject, at least here, is that people wouldn't commit acts of terrorism and/or mob justice if they didn't work.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Could this pointless tangent about violence be either split into another thread, relegated to PM, HoSed, or otherwise disposed of? If nobody has anything else to say about the SB incidents specifically, I feel like we can just let this thread die instead of turning it into a rehash of a debate we have already had in N&P a million times.

[The Romulan Republic]

Agreed.

[Zinegata]

+1 to the mods here.

What I find funny though is how people in reddit or other forums don’t realize that this kind of brigading/dogpiling with the support of “planted” mods happens all the time to push stupid opinions. Its especially easy in forums that don’t ban alt-accounts, but unfortunately a lot of folks are easily swayed when a lot of voices start chanting even abhorrent stuff like Alt Right White Supremacist BS; thinking that its genuinely popular rather than just pretty obvious manipulation.