I'm a former IC ZZL/P Mod = AMA

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnoopRob
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 772
  • Views: 12K
  • Off-Topic 
Something that might explain the mod decisions that seem the most "objectionable" (well, beyond the ones about bigotry, which seem pretty clear) is that a few bans over the years essentially come from the mindset that the ZZLP is a social community, something like an online bar.

So, in a few cases, if you have the online equivalent of someone who comes to the bar every night, gets drunk, and posts in such a manner that they mar the experience for a large number of other people, then that was considered under the definition of trolling and could get you the boot.

For the 3 folks I mentioned above - lynch34, Ovshinsky, and gtyellowjckt, - their trolling bans were lifetime achievement awards that fell under that justification.

And, again, we're talking about 3 posters in a 4.5 year period.
 
SnoopRob said:
Yes, the ZZLP rules prohibited bigotry.

I also understand that's a partisan issue when one party bases its policies in a number of various bigotries.

If you want to whine that the ZZLP wasn't comfortable or accepting of outright bigotry, I'll gladly admit that you're correct. And I'm ok to stand behind the anti-bigotry rules we enforced there.
Click to expand...
I'm not talk about policies. I fully support policies, like gay marriage protection, that ensure equal rights for all LGBTQ people....the government can't discriminte. Legislation is a different topic from biological facts. I support equal rights for transgender people, But that doesn't mean that a trans male is biologically male.
 
I forget who but way back in the day one of the mods expressed essentially that an act of moderation wasn't for violation of any rule but because paraphrasing - The flow was weak. I always appreciated that sentiment.

Snoop - what was your main goal in moderation? Was it to make the board as interesting as possible for as many people as possible? Was it more heavily dictated by rules than that would allow? What were your thoughts on the balance between MC-ing and Policing ?
 
ZenMode said:
I'm not talk about policies. I fully support policies, like gay marriage protection, that ensure equal rights for all LGBTQ people....the government can't discriminte. Legislation is a different topic from biological facts. I support equal rights for transgender people, But that doesn't mean that a trans male is biologically male.
Click to expand...
You can't go around saying homosexuality is abnormal, though. It's different biologically than most, but the term abnormal just sounds bigoted.
 
LosPollosHermanos said:
What was the post in 2016 and was that a permaban? Because I'm pretty sure my permaban happened during the Lia Thomas controversy or possibly after the controversial Chappelle special and that was way after 2016. If I received any bans before that there was no communication about it and i probably didn't notice because I didn't post much anyway.

Regardless, I don't care how many bans of "long-term, consistent" posters there were because you all knew that's when everyone was looking. I was an infrequent poster and generally stayed under the radar and got banned with no communication whatsoever and when I DM'd a WTF letter I never got a response. And it never made the ban thread you admitted doesn't work correctly either so maybe that's not the best source of info for how many bans happened.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what the post in 2016 was because I wasn't part of that discussion or decision. But for LPH the record shows the ban was in August 2016 and the post history shows that's when the last posts were made under that username. Again, you're whining about me for a ban and response I had nothing to do with.

In fact, the ban threads didn't start until I became a mod and pushed that we start them in the name of transparency. And PM'ing posters when they received a ban as a regular practice also started as a push between UNCChris2001 and me when we became mods so that folks would understand why they'd been banned.

So, in fact, as a mod I took steps to address one of the very issues you're complaining about.

The ban thread had software issues, but we were good about updating it despite the issues. It's the best repository of data that we have about bans. Of course, it seems that you're eager to reject all these facts because they don't fit your narrative...which isn't shocking to me in the least.
 
RaiGuy said:
On the premium board, so idiot screenshotted one of BWall's posts from the Caleb Wilson visit thread and posted it on BR. Evidently, that user had been taking screenshots for a while from premium and posting it on BR. BWall has been on the boards for a long time, and, and many people know his identity and his job. So, leaking the information publicly to what he was sharing could negatively affect his job.

There are also other idiots, like Wes Tucker on facebook, that take premium info and share it to others while claiming that they have "sources" and that the info they are sharing is from their sources when it 100% matches up with what is posted on the premium board and he posts it immediately after it's posted on premium.
Click to expand...
Some folks really do suck.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm not talk about policies. I fully support policies, like gay marriage protection, that ensure equal rights for all LGBTQ people....the government can't discriminte. Legislation is a different topic from biological facts. I support equal rights for transgender people, But that doesn't mean that a trans male is biologically male.
Click to expand...
Bigotry is more than just policies and laws. But you already know that.
 
dcf2 said:
I forget who but way back in the day one of the mods expressed essentially that an act of moderation wasn't for violation of any rule but because paraphrasing - The flow was weak. I always appreciated that sentiment.

Snoop - what was your main goal in moderation? Was it to make the board as interesting as possible for as many people as possible? Was it more heavily dictated by rules than that would allow? What were your thoughts on the balance between MC-ing and Policing ?
Click to expand...
As a mod, I really had a couple of goals...to enforce the rules of the board and to create an environment where folks could have discussion about politics and current events.

The rules enforcement was because, ultimately, the rules are the directive of the site owners/PTB for how they want the boards to operate. And since it's their site, they ultimately get to decide what that looks like.

The second goal was to create an environment where folks could come to have good discussions about politics and current events. And that's often where the rub happened. That's where rules about trolling come into play because most folks don't find it very enjoyable to deal with folks who, either intentionally or unintentionally, disrupt the overall conversation by repeatedly posting stupidity or being attention whores.

I'm not sure I really understand your last question about "MC-ing" vs Policing, but I'll give it a shot. In many cases, we tried to more gently direct folks in the direction the board rules/guidelines demanded by editing or deleting posts or sending warning PMs before taking any other steps. In some cases that would be effective, in other cases that fell on deaf ears and a more "policing" type approach had to be used. We strove for balance, but ultimately policing occurred if other forms of moderator activity failed.
 
CFordUNC said:
How in the world did I miss that lynch34 got banned?!?! I am so stupid- I legit thought he just stopped posting cold turkey.
Click to expand...
I don't have access to the ban lists any longer, but I'm pretty sure he was permabanned.

I know he got a couple of tempbans and numerous warnings, but I think we eventually pulled the trigger on a permaban for him.

I put him on the list because if he quit posting of his own accord, it was certainly under duress.
 
SnoopRob said:
I have no idea what the post in 2016 was because I wasn't part of that discussion or decision. But for LPH the record shows the ban was in August 2016 and the post history shows that's when the last posts were made under that username. Again, you're whining about me for a ban and response I had nothing to do with.

In fact, the ban threads didn't start until I became a mod and pushed that we start them in the name of transparency. And PM'ing posters when they received a ban as a regular practice also started as a push between UNCChris2001 and me when we became mods so that folks would understand why they'd been banned.

So, in fact, as a mod I took steps to address one of the very issues you're complaining about.

The ban thread had software issues, but we were good about updating it despite the issues. It's the best repository of data that we have about bans. Of course, it seems that you're eager to reject all these facts because they don't fit your narrative...which isn't shocking to me in the least.
Click to expand...

You are right, I stopped using LosPollosHermanos in 2016 apparently because of a ban I don't remember and changed the name to BillyRayPenny. You banned me in 2021 because I said some of the people complaining about the Netflix Chapelle special should just get a set of balls. Maybe not in great taste but clearly a joke and nothing worthy of a first offense permaban. No communication at all and never put in ban thread. I had 1500+ posts since 2016 at that point and had no warnings at all on that account.
 
ZenMode said:
No, thank you for supporting my assertion. Biologically speaking, homosexuality IS abnormal. Mammals are designed to keep their species going. Saying that isn't bigotry.

Regarding Cincy....he did nothing wrong that I saw, beyond frustrate other posters who seemed to wield significant influence on moderation decisions.
Click to expand...
Rock, thanks for the personal banhammer. Ignore (for now).
 
LosPollosHermanos said:
Funny because I think the subject of this thread moderated like the person you describe. I'm actually peretty certain of it.

I see you've now changed your mind. After incessant bitching about my observations of ZZLP moderating you now wish for me to continue with it? You will get your wish.
Click to expand...
Nah, I'm tired of it. Ignore.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
You can't go around saying homosexuality is abnormal, though. It's different biologically than most, but the term abnormal just sounds bigoted.
Click to expand...
The survival of any species of mammal is based on an attraction of different genders. That is how it's designed.... that's"normal". Same sex attraction is, by definition, abnormal. It would be unconstitutional for the government to punish anyone for saying as much. Clearly a privately owned forum is not bound by the same restrictions. I'm fine with that, but the fact that I was banned, for stating what was true, doesn't make it untrue.
 
ZenMode said:
The survival of any species of mammal is based on an attraction of different genders. That is how it's designed.... that's"normal". Same sex attraction is, by definition, abnormal. It would be unconstitutional for the government to punish anyone for saying as much. Clearly a privately owned forum is not bound by the same restrictions. I'm fine with that, but the fact that I was banned, for stating what was true, doesn't make it untrue.
Click to expand...
And saying it is abnormal is exactly what bigots latch on to to justify their bigotry. The government isn't going to punish you for saying it, but it still reeks of bigotry.
 
ZenMode said:
The survival of any species of mammal is based on an attraction of different genders. That is how it's designed.... that's"normal". Same sex attraction is, by definition, abnormal. It would be unconstitutional for the government to punish anyone for saying as much. Clearly a privately owned forum is not bound by the same restrictions. I'm fine with that, but the fact that I was banned, for stating what was true, doesn't make it untrue.
Click to expand...
Studies in animals show that sex is a lot more than about breeding and that same sex encounters aren't terribly rare. If you think humans are anything greater than animals, nothing you've pointed to or said has proved it. "Normal" is not defined by some ethical opinion someone might hold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top