#102

There’s an awful lot of insinuation and cautious referencing to apparently broadly held knowledge about bannings and name changes and so on, but I can’t be the only one who hasn’t a clue what is going on. Is this purposefully not being laid out because it’s only speculative, or could someone actually clear up some facts, ie who was banned and why, and what were the old/new usernames?

4 Likes
#103

theres a reticence to do this for a few reasons. If people have been offended (and worse) by banned posters bringing them up is triggering for them.

#104

I kind of agree… and am guilty of this sometimes… but there’s a counter just under someone’s post that shows how many replies they’ve gotten so it’s not that unrealistic

#105

Not on mobile

7 Likes
#106

I don’t know the old username. Still think their posts were transparently dodgy

3 Likes
#107

That’s my excuse for missing that somone already pointed this out above.

2 Likes
#108

That’s understandable but there are ways to post with content warnings to allow for that.

I also get it maybe isn’t my business, but just seems the level of discussion on a public board for this (rather than just a moderator discussion for example) it feels a bit odd if the details aren’t laid out for people.

#109

not how many direct reply there is to a specific post, but there is a counter of how many replies you’ve got up to in a thread. It’s reasonable to expect people to be aware that they haven’t yet got to the latest post in a thread.

#110

as someone who hasn’t been the victim (for want of a better word) Im all for airing dirty laundry, but yeah theres an attitude of letting sleeping dogs lie…

#111

I don’t know the history on the poster and haven’t really been aware of their previous posts. I hope you didn’t feel I was referring to you (or anyone) in specific.

What I noticed more was that poster peaced out and the thread kept raging and in their absence someone else started getting hassled. Imo, at the point the “offender” is no longer actively in play, I don’t see how much use continuing the situation is. Colin Z had also done a pretty fair warning post setting out the expectations (although I don’t remember if “chill” was before or after this). Felt to me like it became just a hostile environment and it didn’t seem like the person it was aimed at was even participating at that stage.

3 Likes
#112

I’d need to read it again but as I remember it once they left it just turned into a debate about pile-ons. Personally I’ve no problem in being hostile to people that post very unprogressive views, they join from time to time and they need weeding out imo.

6 Likes
#113

It’s not knowing the full history of the dispute that is causing confusion. This has resulted in that to those less in the know that there appears to have been a pile on but that it is the views and feelings of those doing the piling that are being prioritised.
It’s a mess.

#114

I don’t really bother with the site on mobile, it’s a treat for when I’m on desktop. Helps that I’m always logged out on the former

1 Like
#115

Honestly feel that just his posts in that thread were enough for multiple people to say ‘what the fuck are you on about mate’

7 Likes
#116

someone made an insensitive post in a thread. bunch of people complained. the user then gave an apology (which was a bit shit tbf). so some people still weren’t happy, but others said to drop it giving the original user the benefit of the doubt.

however it then turned out some people think the user was someone that had originally been banned a while ago and come back with a different name, which changed the tone of the post for some people.

basically it was a bit of a shit apology, and if you thought it was from a new user it was like ‘okay its shit but at least they tried lets move on’ whereas if you thought this was someone returning after already posting a bunch of shit then you weren’t as keen to drop it.

nb this is a broad description of what happened. there will be some who thought it was an old user but still wanted the issue dropped and others who don’t care if the user was new or not that wanted to discuss it further. i’m trying my best not to continue that specific argument just to give an idea of what happened.

12 Likes
#117

Everyone seems to have missed the post I was actually responding to, in which he doubled down on his shit apology and made further comments that led me to form my opinion of him.

15 Likes
#118

I think they deserve a second chance and that a mod should be made aware. either this place is completely intolerant to anyone new who doesn’t fit in, or we try to welcome new people and give them the benefit of the doubt and if they are persistently shitty/troll then they get booted.

1 Like
#119

Yep I got the same vibe to be honest having read that post.

3 Likes
#120

nah, I don’t know the posters history either, didnt need to. They made a post where they were clearly dismissive of someone speaking out about mental health and racism, made a really weak apology where they didnt address much of what was wrong with it with a bizarre tone, then when that was challenged came out with all the ‘im just thick skinned, doesnt bother me to hear opinions I disagree with’ again being completely dismissive of the issues. That is what most people replying were objecting to, and then it became a meta discussion about pile-ons where the narrative seems to be ‘they’ve apologise we dont need to pile on’ when those problematic threads were still dangling unresolved. You really don’t need to know old usernames, it is a clear archetype that is instantly recognisable. There probably is a legitimate discussion around pile ons to be had but really cannot believe this is one that sparked it off

11 Likes
#121

Honestly, the background info I was made aware of, was given to me after I had written out my (admittedly, hasty and curt reply).

I am feeling very hurt that people think so little of me here.

14 Likes