Source
r/metanarchism•
sync0pate

[proposal] Ban /u/min_thamee

Proposing to ban u/min_thamee , because nobody else wants to do this properly.

Min has been a subtle but persistent troll for a while, he has been recently asked to lay off the complaining about moderation for a while, until people trust that he is acting in good faith.

In spite of this request he has created this thread in meta that a lot of people find to be disingenuous. The thread was created at a time that we were being brigaded by gamergaters.

I don't think the suggestion is that there is necessarily anything wrong with that thread, or even that the criticisms aren't valid or worthwhile, but that min is continually acting as close to the line as possible and is being an aggravating and divisive presence.

Vote away.

Posted Aug 27, 2015, 7:01 PM UTC

9137
lokkenmor•

Edit:

Abstain. Whichever way the vote goes the cadre of characters responsible for the constant ban proposal's again Min need to be reigned in and told that continuing the same bullshit is not an option.

Oh for fuck's sake. Can we get fucking done with this already!?

I usually keep myself sewn shut on met@ because I loathe being involved in precisely this type of petty bullshit but this is too much:

Ban the fucker, or don't. Either way, shut. The. Fuck. Up. About them.

In the most literal terms, there has not been a week gone by in the last two months where there hasn't been a thread on met@ either proposing a ban of u/min_thamee, or where they have been the centre of some fresh debacle because something they've posted has been found to be objectionable. It's tiresome, irritating and it's gone beyond the fucking pale.

The community, at large, has consistently failed to uphold any proposals to ban u/Min_Thamee. And yet the proposals continue to come in thick and fast and without so much as pausing for breath.

At this point, I'm tempted to support a ban purely on the basis of the level of disruption u/Min_Thamee's continued presence causes between @ and met@ doesn't make them worth having around. But I would equally ban those involved in the persistent submissions of ban proposals against u/Min_Thamee because they are as much a part of the problem. Min may be the focal point of the problems, but fuck me if their opponents don't just keep pouring fuel onto that fire.

Counter-proposal:

  1. Do one of the following:

1.1) Enact an exceptional ban of u/Min_Thamee, and any sock accounts which come to their defence and be done with this bullshit, or

1.2) Institute a 4 week moratorium of thread's proposing to ban u/Min_Thamee (unless there is unequivocal evidence that they have outright broken the AOP).

The disruption u/Min_Thamee brings to this sphere fully outweighs any benefit derived from having them present. In an actual community they would've been tossed out on there arse on that basis alone.

Speaking of community, here's a couple of suggestions y'all might try out:

  • Use your up- and down- votes to keep each submission and comment made by u/Min_Thamee at a neutral score of 1 (or in other words do not vote on anything they have to say, unless it is to correct the score to 1).

  • Similarly, don't reply to anything; not even the most innocuously passive, or most gregariously offensive, sentiment they post. Community ostracization. Don't engage, don't participate and don't encourage.

10
sync0pateOP•

But I would equally ban those involved in the persistent submissions of ban proposals against u/Min_Thamee[4] because they are as much a part of the problem.

I created this thread as a response to another ban thread that was created with zero evidence, fyi. Enkara created a thread that just said "can we just ban min already?" or something like that..

Then I was accused of somehow defending min or having a special fondness for him, when really, I, like you, just want everyone to shut the fuck up about it.

I created this one as kind of a final attempt to get everyone to shut up, so depending how the vote goes, one of your counter proposals is going to be enacted.

3†
lokkenmor•

My bad, wasn't having at a go at you. My ire is directed toward others.

I created this thread as a response to another ban thread that was created with zero evidence, fyi.

I knew that already. I'd seen that particular low-effort, obviously shit-stirring post this morning (which is why I'm so hacked off at seeing another thread this evening, your good intentions aside).

I didn't mean to, and wasn't, including you in that group above because (to the best of my memory) I haven't seen you persistently submit proposals to try and have Min banned.

Too much emotion and not enough thought put into the delivery. Didn't mean for it to seem as though I was coming after you. Sincerely wasn't my intention. You have my apologies.

2†
sync0pateOP•

I'm just saying, I greatly sympathise with you, and this will almost definitely be the last thread about min.

3†
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-1
Min_thamee•

There's no evidence in this one either. it's the same as enkaras just written more calmly. The "evidence" is "some people say".

What about the people who opposed my bans and warns? are their voices second class?

2†
sync0pateOP•

The evidence is that you were asked to stop posting about mod stuff for a while, and you didn't even wait a week.

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Min_thamee•

You mean on that "warning thread"? It said "stop trolling". The post I posted a few days ago wasn't trolling, it was asking for a discussion on an issue.

Also many people opposed the warning. In fact a majority of non-mods in that thread opposed it.

0†
jackrousseau•

You're eligible to vote - what's it going to be? Support?

1
lokkenmor•

With respect, I don't consider myself eligible to vote because I do not describe myself as an anarchist (the wording in the eligibility rules states you must be an anarchist to vote - not merely a participant).

This is another reason why I typically don't involve myself in voting on issues in met@.

That being said, I've edited my top-level comment with my vote, however it's an abstention and it will remain so until the ballot is expanded to include action against those whose have continuously called for Min's ban and contributed to the ongoing disruption (said action being formal warnings) and/or a temporary moratorium on proposal's calling for Min's ban.

1
jackrousseau•

Personally I'm really tempted to just go into the mod tools, start typing in 14 day bans for everyone involved, and make it clear that the next person who brings it up gets a permanent ban for incorrigible trolling. This is seriously ridiculous.

0†
jackrousseau•

See https://www.reddit.com/r/metanarchism/comments/3iu4h8/jacks_package_deal/

-1
Kernunno•

Support. Min is a never ending quagmire of drama and I suspect partly the reason why so few from /r/@ come here.

8
justcallcollect•

Support, though to be fair he's already on his third (?) username so he'll probably just make a new one and come back in the event of a ban. Wouldn't be the first time.

7
punkswcleankitchensKeepin' the kitchen clean•

I thought using another username to evade a ban was like, crazy against the rules?

4
Rein3•

It is, but that's admin's ground, not mods. And we can go banning every user that seems like it's them either.

1
Hannibal_Lecturer•

Well to be fair, he is not hiding who he was or that he has changed handles (quite the opposite) and retired the old ones so no vote manipulation there. And he is not ban evading, if that's what you're getting at, since the last ban attempt failed

Edit for accuracy

0†
justcallcollect•

Mmmm he kind of did ban evade at one point though...he got banned as alookyaw, came back as min_dami or something, and after people spent several weeks accusing him of being alookyaw, during which time he never confirmed not denied if I remember correctly, he then made a thread saying that he was alookyaw, and wanted to overturn his ban, and succeeded in doing so. So he got banned, came back with a different name (ban evading), then got the ban overturned so that from th a point forward he was never "really" banned, and he didn't "really" ban evade....

But regardless, I wasn't accusing him of ban evading or being dishonest, just saying that he has a history of making new accounts and coming back, so why would a ban stop him?

3
Hannibal_Lecturer•

Ok cool, I just wanted to make sure that everyone was on the same page because there were some crazy allegations about socks floating around and evading always gets tossed around, but your description is pretty solid. About the new account thing, I am not sure a new account which would question regulars and show knowledge of past events would last more than a day (at least not for someone who is suspected to be min.)

0†
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

0
justcallcollect•

I did vote, in support of the ban

1
jackrousseau•

I know, I was just keeping track of who was and wasn't eligible.

1
Newbunkle•

That's true, but if he learns and stops trolling he could participate fully on the new account in peace. Otherwise it would be treated the same as any other random troll account, which would mean far less drama and no bullshit conspiracy theories about mod cabals picking on him for absolutely no reason at all.

-1†
justcallcollect•

I totally agree. If he were to be banned, come back with a new username, and not continue acting in the ways that have consistently made people want to ban him for over a year now, then no one would be the wiser. But then, he's also had plenty of chances to do that without having to change usernames, and never has so....I dunno.

4
MooreIsLess•

Min seems like a wanker to me but I don't think they've done anything ban worthy.

6
jackrousseau•

Actually, you aren't eligible to vote judging from your user history.

2
MooreIsLess•

What really? I've been subbed here for a long time.

1
jackrousseau•

You need 10 comments in r/anarchism to vote. I went and counted and you don't have them. I'm not accusing you of being a sockpuppet, but honestly it looks like it might be a problem in this thread so I'm sorting the eligibility of everyone.

2
MooreIsLess•

Oh! I'm kinda a lurker, that makes sense.

2
sync0pateOP•

That's a popular opinion. Is that a vote?

0†
MooreIsLess•

Yeah yeah, I oppose a ban.

5†
Rad_q-a-v_Just Rhizoming•

SUPPORT.
We don't need to deal with grey-area trolling any longer.

6
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

1
darlantan•

Oppose, but if Min is to be banned, then frankly I think those crying out for the constant bans need to be shown the door per lokkenmor's proposal, because this shit is downright absurd.

6†
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

4
ty5on•

Oppose.

If min_thamee is being banned for playing hopscotch with the AOP, there should be a record so people can come to their own conclusions.

If they are being banned for being disruptive to the community, a much stronger case needs to be made. /r/@ has allowed several accounts continue extremely disruptive behavior without censure, so if we're banning for disruption now, it should be clear exactly where the line is that can't be crossed.

5†
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

3
TheLoreAxe•

Support. Let them come back with a sock puppet they want to contribute without drama.

5†
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

2
Potss•

Oppose. I don't know if hes a subtle troll or not, but I haven't seen him do anything ban-worthy.

Only if it is PROVEN that he's socking in a toxic way.

4†
MooreIsLess•

I'd say just if it's proven he's socking then bring it down.

2
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

2
_drink_drank_drunk_•

Support. Min constantly just touches the AOP then skates off crying moderator oppression or something. Constant borderline cases mixed with an unrepentant and self-righteous attitude. Can't even hide their socks properly. Contributes nothing worthwhile.

4†
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

3
Vindalfr•

I'll support like I always support.

Getting weekly ban proposals clearly means your a shitty person. /s

4†
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

3
NotToiletPaper•

Oppose. Don't know what he did in the past but the reasoning behind THIS SPECIFIC proposal is petty as shit.

I don't think the suggestion is that there is necessarily anything wrong with that thread, or even that the criticisms aren't valid or worthwhile

Then let's discuss it, instead of just banning the person who brings it up, regardless of how many times he does it. The constant banning is what's making things divisive, not the people who happen to bring it up.

4†
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

2
Capn_Blackbeard•

Support

4
davydagger2•

oppose.

4
Newbunkle•

Support.

3†
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

2
flaxrabbit🐰•

Support.

I hope no one imagines this is a gleeful support as I cackle away in my hovel. Actually, I read this depressed, and with a sigh clicked comment. I'm so tired of the circus that u/min_thamee pulls this sub through. It's a circular argument that just goes on and on. I believe every other option has been tried and failed. This seems like the only option to move forward, and I'm not even excited about it anymore.

3†
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

3
Another_Dupont•

Support.

3†
jackrousseau•

You are EDIT: not eligible to vote. Your account is only one month old.

3
copsarebastards•

Support, I guess. I would rather go the admin route with the whole ban evasion thing, since more than one sock is worth punishing in my opinion.

3†
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

3
Hannibal_Lecturer•

The accusation of min using "socks" is the result of a year long game of Chinese whispers. Check my comment here.

1†
copsarebastards•

Okay so this complicates things. I amend my vote to be: Support, but let them come back on the condition of no more meta drama ever, and if there is any everyone involved gets banned. This is silly.

1†
andyogmClever flair•

Support

3†
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

3
andyogmClever flair•

Thank you?

1
jackrousseau•

Sorry, I'm just commenting on all the votes because some people aren't actually eligible. It will help when tallying them up later.

1
rebelsdarklaughter•

Oppose. Min brings up some good points that even I am guilty of.

I am guilty of banning people based on perceived intentions, and have made the wrong decision in the past.

Thanks to someone like min calling this out, I'll probably never unilaterally ban anyone again, minus incredibly bad cases.

We gave min a public warning that I supported, and I don't think they've overstepped that.

3†
jackrousseau•

You are eligible to vote.

2