I do not consider being told when I am misbehaving or violating the rules to be a "special allowance" and the fact that this is viewed as such is really a damning indictment of this administration on your part.
The reality is that simply talking with anons here, in one's capacity as an authority with ban power, can go a very long way
in positively shaping this board into being overall a more fulfilling and civil (insofar as chans can ever be) environment. Something as simple as a single-sentence post in a thread briefly warning that it has strayed off-topic, or an anon for derailing the thread, or that certain rules are being violating / about to be violated, can suffice to rectify the issue without resorting to bans that can otherwise harm the culture and lose anons who may have unknowingly broken rules or were just having bad days. If it persists, then
maybe banhammers should start flying, since that was the minimal effort necessary to count as communication (in this case, of a warning) and it was not heeded. These are displays of "soft skills" and "soft power", both of which tend to effectuate better social outcomes than the public spectacles and abrupt thread cleansings can ever do. Anyway, such hard and power-tripping behaviour is something for which reddit moderators are notorious; should the administration really be resembling them in any capacity, including on this point?
This is intimately and saliently relevant to the thread topic because this influx of Chapo refugees will bring with it many growing pains if they persist, including the influx of increased "idpol" and rather reddit-tier humour that, to a chan, may be viewed as disruptive or even a level (or, rather, type
) of shitposting that should not be tolerated. If the administration wants to handle this moment with competence and couth, a more socially engaged, interactive, and hands-on approach that privileges communication before banishment is optimal toward that end. Otherwise, if it proceeds to ban -- and do so publicly to spectacular display -- first rather than even attempt
to resolve the problem with consideration for the interests of ''all' involved, then we will simply be losing potential regulars who could be radicalised from their reddit left-liberalism and terrorising those remaining into thinking that this board is hostile to their very presence.
I say this because I want this board to succeed
, and for its administration to facilitate that; and because I think this subreddit ban provides a critical moment whereby we as a board can potentially bring the Chapo diaspora into its fold. The administration has already displayed its ability to handle issues in this way, so this is not a matter of incompetence or inability; I mainly disagree with how quickly bans fly without warning and the fact that a more socially engaged administration is considered so abnormal as to be seen as "special" when it occurs.
I say this as someone with years of past experience moderating and managing communities with anywhere between a few hundred to hundreds of thousands of users. I am not unfamiliar with the seats in which these volunteers now sit, and I am all too accustomed to seeing my colleagues simply banish the disruptors and troublemakers and trolls even when they were not (or knew no better) for the sake of expediency, spectacle, and a disinterest in more active moderation of discussion. And I know acutely how quickly they resort to such measures not so much out of callous disregard, but to economise on time due to being woefully understaffed and chronically overworked -- I too have been tempted to resort to such rapid hammering at times, myself, back when I held such positions.
In that sense, though I did not really intend it in this instance, I suppose I am a disruptive challenge in that sense here, too, since I serve here as a case in point of why such "soft"ness is needed: At least until all the Tor exit nodes (and all the VPN nodes and proxies I have) are banned, there is actually nothing stopping me from evading every single ban and continuing along my merry way, so this "hard power" actually is useless here unless a protracted whack-a-mole is going to be the name of the game. I am not saying I will
do that (and I actually have no intention of doing that), since my point here is to be disruptive in a positive and transformative sense and frankly do not like that my honest attempts at contributing to this board are being so ill-received; but my point here
is precisely that I have way more power and leverage here than the typical anon due to these conditions, since I could
do that and jeopardise the remaining Tor exit nodes, VPN servers, and proxy chains other regular anons already/can/will use in the process. (I don't want to punish innocent random anons by forcing janitor hands like that, though, hence my behaviour above.)
So, if what I am suggesting here seems like "special allowances" (it is not, nobody is allowing
me to behave as I do), then all the more reason for the governing paradigm of this administration to change such that handling anons like me this way is the normal
approach rather than the special case. I am not interested in being special here, though I invariably seem so because of how much I stand out here; all I want is to be treated with dignity and consideration as a fellow anon here trying to share this space. If that is too much to ask, then I deeply worry for the future of this board and caution the Chapo refugees ever the more intensely because of it.
That said, while this reply has tried to remain on-topic, any further discussion here may be best taken to the moderation feedback thread at >>314001
, since this is already straddling between the two. Hopefully I have stayed within the bounds of this one in this instance. If not, then at least rest assured that no further replies to this particular subthread will come from me on this thread.
And lastly, this is not an ego issue at all and it is tiring that the only way anons can conceive of my existence is as thus simply because I make a big splash whenever I hurl into a thread, but this thread is not about me, so I'll just leave it at that.
I tend to agree and consider that an understandable critique of fascism, but that is not what I usually see articulated by antifascists and "M"L types, who do
seem to "sideline" all these "secondary" considerations to restate the usual line of "fascism=capitalism in decay" without ever elaborating in the way you have. But if you want to discuss this further, I suppose I can use that fascist post to spin off a new thread and we can take it there. Otherwise, I have nothing much more that I am willing to say here.
Literally who? Wow, you got me going there for a moment! I actually almost thought you knew who I was! No, I have no idea who "aspd-kun" is and frankly don't care to know, though a part of me is intrigued because either you are totally incompetent at identifying anons or this person is my double! Thanks for putting those worries to rest. Remember: paranoia is fascist.
Also wasn't samefagging, I don't do that. Now please stop making this thread about me. This is my final response to this little tangent.