Inkbunny

I stated he could block individuals at the start.

But one might want to see others reactions that don't have a standing feud with one another.

All I'm pointing out is if conflict avoidance is the goal with muting it should be applied to the user and the viewers.

Clearly the staff feels the user being muted can't go without inciting conflict. So why allow any replies at all?

frogstune

6 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 5 months ago by Owner

Then he can make the submission for friends only. And then weed out the "friends" he thinks are not like-minded as him. There are tools he can use to limit the "rioting" he causes. Either remove the ability for anyone to comment, or remove the ability for those he thinks will be giving him backlash, from even seeing the submission. It isn't very hard to rationalize a way for him to get a message across and not step on everyone's toes as he does it.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 5 months ago

link

I feel it's only fair to point out he's not the only one that can use the block function.

frogstune

6 years, 5 months ago

link

That is true, but his submission goes out to the general public. It is up to him, if he wants to deal with backlash from "everyone". Or he can manage it himself.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 5 months ago

link

He's not the only one that can choose to not engage.

frogstune

6 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 5 months ago by Owner

He is the one throwing the firebomb to the general public. You are arguing on the behalf of the general public NOT being able to reply back to that. Think about that rationally... You are literally saying that "freedom of speech" should be taking away from everyone else, for just 1 person who can't manage what he says(or at least who he says it to).

CuriousFerret

6 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 5 months ago by Owner

This is a private site, not public. The staff effectively and from what I hear unanimously choose to remove one users ablitly to speech freely here. If they wanted they can mute us all.

This is

GreenReaper

house, we are here under his good graces. He makes the rules. And if he wants to end this ongoing cluster bomb of unyielding reactionaries by any means necessary he's going to do it.

And I do not blame him.

This whole mess is a waste of his time, the staff time, and undermines the sites purpose.

They choose to silence one for a chance at peace. If members keep lashing out at each other, more will be muted and banned.

Or simply leave.

This argument in my opinion is not worth wrecking this site.

If your here for the art, the porn, or polite conversation, simple seek it out and don't step into arguments.

frogstune

6 years, 5 months ago

link

Freedom of speech, is not absolute.  He has a history of being purely confrontational with speech(even I was witness to it, when "trying" to debate with Roarey.  Though the comment thread got deleted...).

"The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[6] Therefore, freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.""

The site rules are a reflection of the limitations applied to "free speech".  When people try to make claims that a group of people are "mentally ill", "child abusers", and supporting some transgender "agenda", then they are violating both the site rules and freedom of speech.

It seems that the admins are trying to control the individuals responsible for promoting "reactionaries".  Hence why I asked why you guys are throwing fuel all around.  I see nothing but submission after submission, as well as journals, being posted to drag this out indefinitely.

Yes, this site is for the art.  But these people are using it as a platform for mounting political attacks.  There are so many other platforms out there that allow such things, and are not moderated.  I love Roarey's artwork, and I love the taste of Pierce's commissions, but I do not like having to see spam in my submissions/notices of their political warfare.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 5 months ago

link

It's late for me, and possibly you, which could be why your waffling on free speech a bit.

I honestly don't understand how I've thrown fire on anything with this journal.

It had a notification of new admin resources to use on disruptive members, and an opinion on its effectiveness and fairness.

What else did you take away from what I posted here tonight?

frogstune

6 years, 5 months ago

link

You were arguing for him to still be able to toss his opinions at the masses, but not have the masses be able to reply. That is thoroughly outlined in your journals proposition. Hence why I brought up freedom of speech and its restrictions. In all fairness, if he is still allowed to send "reactionaries" to the public, then the public should be able to react. Though it would be ideal if he just stopped sending reactionaries, as then there wouldn't be a cause for people to react. Your proposition was that only he should be able to speak, and that he shouldn't have to listen. Which lacks all rationality. I know you are doing this because you hate to see your friends being "attacked", but you have to look at the whole of the picture.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 5 months ago

link

No.

No where did I say he should be unmuted.

frogstune

6 years, 5 months ago

link

You are stating he should be allowed to make submissions that are reactionary, but not receive comments in return.  I didn't imply that you meant he'd be unmuted.  I know perfectly well that you still want him to be able to make submissions with absolute impunity, which is what I'm pointing out as not being fair.

Yes, the fact he still has the privilege of making submissions, is why he can still regulate control of comments.  He can turn off ALL comments for a submission.  Or he can make the submission friends only.

"Staff now have the option of blocking a user's ablitly to make journals and post comments and shouts as a punitive measure for rule breakers and individuals that attract and contribute to conflict on the site."

"I ask you, why do you want to comment on his submissions if you can't stand what he says or believes any way?"

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of this journal in the first place.  If you know "why" they muted him, then why attract and contribute to the conflict on the site?

I feel bad for not trying to say something to Pierce to get him to understand that he wasn't helping the situation, but I was more concerned about the person who continues to inspired this whole thing.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 5 months ago

link

The fact he can still submit content, a privilege the staff could very well take away if he uses it to subvert theit intent, isn't an excuse for poeple to go to his comments solely to lash out at him.

I ask you, why do you want to comment on his submissions if you can't stand what he says or believes any way?

frogstune

6 years, 1 month ago

link

Edited 6 years, 1 month ago by Owner

Sorry, don't think I seen this post until now.

As he has his privilege back now, I don't think I need to answer for that.

As for commenting on his submissions. I don't think I have ever commented on his submissions before, nor have I ever butt heads with him about his opinions. The only instance I had contact with him concerning any opinion, was when he decided to try and white knight for someone else I was trying to debate with. But he only came to troll, as he refused to give his 2 cents on the matter that was being discussed. I think he may have thrown an insult my way, followed by a "want to fight?" comment(in jest I'm sure). But I may be mistaken, as the comments in question were deleted by admin due to it boiling into a foul language match towards the conclusion.

frogstune

6 years, 5 months ago

link

Also, I'd like to think that once the hysteria has died down, that he'd be offered the chance to have his ability to communicate on this website returned.

Stumpycoon

6 years, 5 months ago

link

Odd tactics. If letting problem people communicate by submissions why not let them comment on those submissions?

CuriousFerret

6 years, 5 months ago

link

@ Stumpycoon

There are rules over what can be submitted. Political grandstanding is frowned upon along with a bunch of other items off limits in the TOS.

I got a warning for posting a picture of a toy dump truck strapped onto my flat bed as a cute indicator of my job.

If the submissions don't fit with what's allowed, or is being used to circumvent the staffs intent on the original offense they can block submissions as well.

And it becomes an effective ban at that point.

GreenReaper

6 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 5 months ago by Owner

Not sure what's new about this. Staff have been able to remove comment/shout/PM ability for years. We've used that - just as we have used the ability to restrict submissions or keyword suggestions, or more rarely, journals - not as punishment, but to curtail future harm to others, while leaving the member the opportunity to use Inkbunny in other ways (which they wouldn't have if their account was completely disabled).

As frogstune noted, members have many options to control commenting on their own submissions - one of which is not to have comments at all. Likewise, they have the power to disable their shout box, if they wish. It seems strange that you want us to add more restrictions on these members, in the name of fairness; it seems far more fair for them to continue to be able to choose whether their audience can respond.

To be clear, our intent is not to remove any risk of this member getting into arguments. It's to stop them from going out from their own space to argue with everyone else on the site, often in an abusive and denigrating manner. It means we think their actions are the main problem. The goal is not impartial conflict resolution. Our primary goal is to limit harm to others; limiting impact on the member in question is a secondary goal.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 5 months ago

link

It's the first time a blanket comment lock had been used, or so I assumed. I know indvidual posts have been blocked or deleted by staff in the past. This seems an escalation from past smaller steps taken prior.

Blocking viewers would be a restriction on their ablitly to argue and carry on a continuing contentious issue, which the user in question was locked down for.

Or so I've been lead to belive, as no rules had been violated as admitted to by staff.

I don't begrudge you the need to police your site as you see fit. And something does need to be done. But you can't say only one side is going out of the way to cause trouble.

The enforcement of the rules and detriment of disruptive behavior needs to be applied equitably.

SpoonFox

6 years, 5 months ago

link

It's been used many times before on actual trolls and assholes who come around just to start crap. I believe this feature was used a few times near the beginning when anti-cub FA folks came to attack some people here, but I could be wrong.

As for you complaining about this action (of a certain individual who seems to be your friend) step back and think about this: You're causing more ruckus over this than you should be. The guy broke the rules and got punished. Just because you think what he did -shouldn't- be against the rules doesn't matter, because it was and still is against the rules. (Especially if said individual has been warned -multiple- times to stop, and refused, instead -INSULTING- some of the admins and their decisions)

Freedom of Speech is not a privilege to be an arsehole, it just keeps the government from arresting you for speaking your opinions. (Or it's supposed to be that way >_>) Companies reserve the right to silence, kick, ban, or refuse service to -anyone- for -any reason-. If you don't like it, you can leave.

Musuko42

6 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 5 months ago by Owner

@ SpoonFox

Your last paragraph sums up the situation perfectly, and I wish more people saw the situation this way. If this were a restaurant and not a website, and the owner was telling someone "sir, you are making a scene and I must ask you to leave," I can't imagine so many people would be complaining "but what rule did he break?!" or arguing for that customer's free speech rights.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 5 months ago

link

@ SpoonFox

He acctual didn't break any rules. Admin told him this, there a screen shot of that addmission.

And I never said the site didn't have the right to limit free speech or expression. That's not what I find troubling in this instance.

GreenReaper

6 years, 5 months ago

link

@ SpoonFox

It's been used on those attacking artists who post cub, and also on those who couldn't stop themselves attacking those who don't like cub. Acceptance works both ways.

GreenReaper

6 years, 5 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 5 months ago by Owner

We've imposed such restrictions several times in the past, often for members who've been around for a while but whose interaction with others has degraded over time. It is a rare action, because usually the warning is enough - and often the content is such that if it was a new member, we'd assume they were just here to stir up trouble, and ban them outright.

Again, submitters and journal posters retain the ability to choose whether others can interact with their content, and the ability to restrict who those other people are, either via bans or through the friends system. Restricting that ability would be a further imposition on the member in question - it'd offer no additional protection against other members.

It's often said that those seeking equity must come with clean hands. As it happens, we have taken action against individuals on all kinds of 'sides' over the past few months. But our actions are tailored to the situation, and we're not about to start tit-for-tat restrictions to present a veneer of fairness.

If we think a journal or submission is the problem, we may delete it. If we a submission's comments have descended into abuse on all sides, we'll restrict them, and delete specific comments or threads. And if we see regular abuse of a member's ability to comment to denigrate groups and individuals, we're likely to restrict that - just as we might for someone with a habit of harassing people about their choice of artistic themes, or spamming requests for free art.

None of this is fun, and we'd prefer not to have to do any of it, but as you say there comes a point where it seems necessary and appropriate to act. We typically aim for the minimum necessary to resolve the problem at hand, and give a warning to preclude repeat instances. But that also means that if a restriction is imposed, it's hard to come back from - because it's clear that it's not just a one-off issue, but a habit - and in some cases, not something they can even control.

We don't operate a 'strike' system, in part because it doesn't adequately cover the range of behaviour we see, or account for the context in which it may have taken. But anyone who receives formal warnings over their behaviour should understand that they're intended to resolve a problem. Usually it does. If it doesn't, technical restrictions are usually the next step.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 5 months ago

link

Each report and ticket is weighed individually, without a uniformed standard. Applying corrective actions on a case by case base.

Assuming it's a rarely needed, I can see it being manageable.

CuriousFerret

6 years, 5 months ago

link

If you feel what is been said is that damaging, half measures are inappropriate.

Ainoko

6 years, 5 months ago

link