User c45 deployed two comments in 2721's discussion page:
the thing that is bad is the fact that you thought this was a good idea in the first place
because you thought that, its a miracle you had the competency to even write an scp
go neck yourself
nice -J though
democracy gay fuck you fagit 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Permaban, clearly.
Banned.
I'd love to delete these posts, please give feedback and someone give me a reason why we shouldn't, cause apparently we don't delete posts any more.
I don't see a reason to let those posts stay, but apparently the vote from here: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-6231350/voting-thread-deleting-troll-posts is that we can't do that.
Might be time to revisit that conversation—I don't think it benefits anyone to let spammers just build up a legacy on something like this.
Non-disc,
but as I said in that discussion post….
Some of the stuff about the recent Social Media fiasco has made me think of this issue from a more PR-standpoint. While the reasons for people are varied, I am getting a sense that some users see Staff as some kind of authoritive Big Brother when it comes to content on the site. That kind of perception is hard to shake once it's earned.
So deleting troll posts (and then the ban that's probably going to follow) is only going to strengthen that perception. From anyone who didn't see the post in question, all a user will need to say is "those dumbfucks banned me and erased my comments because they didn't like my opinion!", and there's a good chance that they'll take the troll's side. Sure, we can point to the procedures, show a pastebin image…
… or just -snip- and say "Hit 'show more' and click on their first revision". A troll post is going to be obvious, and leaving the post there after blanking is proof enough for anyome who's curious that Staff had justification for said blanking.
The trolls we're getting now aren't just run-of-the-mill shitstirrers; those that target 2721 likely have an agenda they want to push. And outright deleting their offensive posts only feeds into that agenda, "They say they let people have their opinions on 2721, but they don't. I left my opinion, and they banned me and deleted my post!" is a much stronger argument to make if obvious troll posts are deleted instead of blanked.
I'm inclined to agree with Dankaar that removing troll posts altogether only strengthens their position by giving them access to an "Oppressed Martyr for Free Speech" card they wouldn't otherwise have (which they can use to perpetuate the misinformation and encourage further trolling from wherever they slither away to after being banned). Blanking the posts prevents us from having to see them without giving the troll any more ammunition.
Obligatory non-disc, but I agree with dankaar on this front. I had previously backed the removal proposal, but in this case outright deleting their posts is going to feed into their 'muh freeze peach is being censored by the essjaydubwoos!' Blank it, ban this guy, and make it clear we condemn this kind of attack, but don't add shit to the pile.
This is by far and away the most frustrating line of argument I've seen in this thread because it effectively prioritises the rhetorical validity of a bigot's arguments over the emotional welfare of a user. I don't see why staff should continue to put the rhetorical validity of a bigot's arguments beyond the emotional welfare of an active user. I don't understand why staff believe that evidence is at all necessary for bigots to be making these arguments to begin with.
Most importantly, I don't see why they couldn't construe the ban itself as an embargo on free speech. Surely removing someone from a platform permanently is just as severe, if not worse? Should you therefore argue against permabanning users who are disruptive in this particular fashion because that could be considered a slight against their rights?
I reiterate that this argument prioritises the views of the people who continue to conduct baseless harassment campaigns over the victim of these campaigns, and because of that I'm frankly fucking sickened we have to have this discussion in the first place. I fail to see a cogent argument for letting death threats remain on the site no matter how poorly-spelt they might be. Hard yes to deletion.
(Noting here that I am J-Staff) (Edit: Sorry about posting after you asked to move it, I started this before I saw the comment asking us to move it to the discussion thread (and possibly before it was posted, it took a little while to write this and I got distracted for a while)).
While I definitely can see your line of reasoning here, just saying screw them and doing what we feel is right can cause problems.
This is by far and away the most frustrating line of argument I've seen in this thread because it effectively prioritises the rhetorical validity of a bigot's arguments over the emotional welfare of a user.
To be fair, most of the users on this site have a fairly thick skin. I am obviously not saying death threats are ok or just something that will happen, but I would think that most users take things like this as a troll post and ignore it (especially the writer in this specific case. I honestly cannot believe they could still be on this site without some majorly thick skin). Users of this site should be able to tell when someone is worthless, but we can't control what these trolls say or do in other spaces. It is much easier to say we are oppressing beliefs if we delete posts because we feel they are wrong. If there is something like a death threat on it, delete it 100% (that would be illegal IRL, I don't see what the issue is with considering it the same here), but if they are just being a moron, ban them and possibly state that the user has been banned and why on their post (that will let the writer know something has been done and make sure the user has a smaller chance of influencing others).
I don't understand why staff believe that evidence is at all necessary for bigots to be making these arguments to begin with.
Evidence is not required, but it helps a lot. When I was younger I used to try to start arguments online for the fun of it (obviously not bigoted or morally unacceptable stuff, just disagreeing with people about worthless subjects). And while I could string an argument together without evidence, having evidence just made it that much more annoying to deal with and easy to change people's minds on. A guy with a dull blade can still cut something, but giving him something to sharpen that blade on only makes the blade that much better. We should be attempting to lower the moral of these trolls while still not giving them any ammunition.
Should you therefore argue against permabanning users who are disruptive in this particular fashion because that could be considered a slight against their rights?
I personally agree that permabanning is just as bad, but it is 100% necessary to keep the site running smoothly. There are many different ways to approach this issue other than deletions. Once again, I would personally suggest not deleting the post but rather editing it to say the user is banned and why. That would take away the troll's argument while still allowing writers to feel like these trolls are getting repercussions. There are likely many other ways to fix this issue as well. So I think we should all calm down and try to think up ways to fix this problem that makes everyone happy (other than the trolls of course)! We would be acting just like these bigots if we think of these issues as black and white. There is not just 2 options: do nothing or delete the posts, there is a multitude of other options to make this work.
I reiterate that this argument prioritises the views of the people who continue to conduct baseless harassment campaigns over the victim of these campaigns, and because of that I'm frankly fucking sickened we have to have this discussion in the first place. I fail to see a cogent argument for letting death threats remain on the site no matter how poorly-spelt they might be. Hard yes to deletion.
You are right, death threats should be deleted. That is cut and dry!
In a perfect world, we could delete these posts without a second thought (or even better, we wouldn't get them in the first place). But in this not-perfect world we need to think of this with more depth rather then just deciding on policy with a black-and-white mentality in mind.
So basically:
I am still against the blanket deletion of troll posts. However, as I said last time the topic came up, that doesn't include the ones that are actually harmful. Telling Kinch to kill herself is definitely harmful, and I would support deleting that one.
EDIT: Some other examples would be doxxing people, threats, or incitement to violent.
I'm in the same boat here. If it's actively harmful, take pictures of the post for proof and delete it and ban the user.
But for posts that aren't harmful, blank it and staff post if necessary,
I dunno. I can see a situation where a troll might game the system and make it appear as if we banned them for whatever reason they want to claim if we straight-up delete really harmful posts. As in, they make a series of posts critical about 2721, and then one "go fucking kill yourself" post. Boom: they now have ammunition to claim that they were banned over having a negative opinion of 2721, and because we deleted the harmful post, it's harder for us to claim otherwise.
Maybe, as a standard part of the "this user has been permanently banned for trolling" statement that appears on a banned user's posts after they get perma'd, we include a link to the relevant 05 thread? This way, we keep the really harmful post off the site, but also still have the proof easily avaible to everyone to pre-empt claims to the contrary.
Perhaps we should open a discussion again instead of posting in someone's disc thread.
Good idea.
New discussion thread for troll post treatment is here: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-10082525/discussion-troll-post-treatment-round-2
There, deleted. I'll use my admin perogative in the future and save screengrabs.
EDIT: and have saved a screengrab here too.
