Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Coming Trainwreck
A deeply ugly scenario is shaping up. Consider the strong possibility that (a) Donald Trump through sheer petulance and poor judgment, has actually managed to be culpable of obstruction with respect to the May grand jury subpoena and (b) the morally deficient Twitter-slave currently running the Department of Justice under the watchful eye of the malignant buffoon who is currently POTUS is on a desperate course to indict the former president on whatever grounds possible and will do so regardless. Consider the possibility that Trump is guilty but of crimes for which no Democrat would ever be prosecuted.
The likelihood that there is a great risk to national security from the contents of the documents at Mar-a-Lago strikes me as infinitesimally small. Anything of military or strategic value has likely been vacuumed up by Chinese techno espionage, Eric Swalwell’s pillow talk or everyday leaks, embassy parties, and/or old-fashioned bribery. But the left will tell us that Garland saved us from utter disaster at the hands of our enemies. And most irritating of all will be that the mentally challenged who still believe the dossier proved Trump’s collusion with Putin will feel vindicated.
Why did Trump hang onto that material? Even conceding his authority to declassify, the bulk of that stuff is still the property of the archive. If he wanted evidence of the Russiagate hoax, for example, was it not possible to identify and summarize each relevant document and then insist on some secure handling by the archive to prevent surreptitious destruction or removal by the conspirators?
My concern is that Trump’s reasons for hanging onto that material may turn out to be not very cogent, much less exculpatory and it will have needlessly opened him up to his enemies.
The sheer ugliness of the national reaction to such a prosecution, the media gloating, the self-righteous pap from the usual suspects, and the seething rage of the right… It has not happened yet but it already seems tiresome.
I would like to fantasize that in the aftermath of this fiasco, the GOP would respectfully decline to re-nominate a wounded Trump, instead elect a strong replacement with a popular mandate and sizeable congressional majorities and then effect vengeance and even prosecute the swamp creatures to the same measure as those lowlife scum have gone after conservatives in general and Trump affiliates in particular. Would that it were a time of true, slashing defunding of the left with fun side events like stripping security clearance and barring government employment for the 51 “experts” who declared Hunter Biden’s laptop to be disinformation.
But that will not happen. There will likely be a GOP President other than Trump and a GOP Congress but the left will recede only slightly, whine continuously, persist in rhetorical attacks, and somehow impose a near-mandatory amnesia about their crimes and atrocities on the grounds that it would be “extreme” or “divisive” or “partisan” even to point out their foul, recent history much less impose accountability. And Republicans will be too polite and say that they are “looking forward, not backward” and we will limp along until the left launches its next new offensive from their unmolested sanctuaries.
Published in General
Bingo!
Not many at all. Perhaps I should butt out.
Added an hour later: So much for butting out.
I did not! I — I mean, he probably did not.
I’m not aware of the circumstances of the woman you mentioned and I don’t know anything at all about Kenneth, but per the reference to shoes, I assume you are referring to Kenneth Cole. And I fully support his banning.
But seriously, there’s a difference between a single dust-up that lasts a few days or a few weeks or whatever, and a pattern of (whatever) stalking-troll with multiple accounts that goes on despite warnings and suspensions for a long time.
But if members who have had a single dust-up and have remained away for 4 or 5 years come back, well, it’s like a pub. A patron gets in an on-going argument with a bartender or the management and acts unruly, and finally the management says, “Get out of here! And never come back!!” well, the guy leaves. But if he comes back several years later, and the new bartenders don’t know him except as a talkative polite guy with good habits, and some of the old bartenders remember him and don’t care, it’s a different story.
It makes no sense for that old patron to write a letter to the management and ask to return, he just shows up and keeps his nose clean — and this is even more appropriate — and right — if there was only one argument that caused his previous expulsion. So the “Get out of here! And never come back!!” really does require a person-by-person determination. IF, that is, the management even knows, or even cares.
Any previously banned members that I know about (other than the lady with the shoes) who’ve returned have been recognized pretty much immediately and have been open about their expulsion. And they have been good and beneficial members who have followed the CoC.
I don’t see the point in management or anyone saying “Weren’t you told to get out of here and never come back? Aren’t you the guy?! Ooo. I never forgive anything! Get out! — And next time you come back, ask first!”
Eh, one fight? Once? People do change, but even then maybe the person doesn’t have to change. Maybe the fight wasn’t all that it seemed like at the time.
It was a knock down drag out fight with the finger tips.
I don’t see it as trolling. I see it as banned members being honest about having been banned and maybe testing the waters to see if it’s alright.
Again, nobody asks for permission to enter a public house after 5 years, they just just go in and hope it’s all blown over. But they don’t hide it either.
Unfortunately, this discussion leaves the most important question unanswered.
I would even go so far as to say that it was me making an inside reference to something that I knew YOU would understand. Trolling? I see the reading comprehension here hasn’t gotten any better.
I see your points, but this is more like a private club than a corner pub. That difference seems relevant to how you come back in.
I think you’re overcomplicating things. First, the pub metaphor only goes so far when it comes to sites like this, which is basically a club with membership rights, responsibilities, and privileges, run by TPTB who are free to impose any legal restrictions on membership that they like.
Second, when a member is banned here it’s the result of months, sometimes years, of issues, and it doesn’t happen without upwards of six or eight people agreeing that it’s the only option. No member is banned by a unilateral decision of a moderator, an editor, an administrator, or even a combination of positions making up a minority of the whole. No member is banned as the result of (in your words) “one fight” or “one argument that caused his previous expulsion.”
Third, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with instituting a process for readmission consideration for those who’ve been banned. There’s no reason it should be onerous or complicated by calculations as to how long someone’s been gone before they’re eligible to reapply. (The “one fight” scenario you describe is never in play; as I said above, bannings are the result of months or years of issues with a particular member.) There’s no reason a member can’t identify himself to TPTB, indicate that he’s sincerely interested in joining up again, pledge to behave, and accept the resulting decision when it’s made.
Third, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a hard and fast rule that says that once you’ve been banned, you’re out for life and if we find you’ve come back, or if you try to come back, we’ll boot you immediately, no questions asked. That has been, until quite recently the (I believe) unwritten rule. And there’s no reason it can’t be written down, promulgated, and carried out.
The only thing wrong is not having a clear and well-communicated policy as to which way it is that members who’ve been banned will be handled. That clear and well-communicated policy does not exist at the moment.
Why would a member who’s reappeared under a “new” name so many years later need to make it known that–under a different name–he was banned long ago? What would he be worried about? What waters is he testing? Why not simply join in the conversation, leave all that extraneous detail out, and start afresh?
You say yourself:
I know of one such member who contacted the site before posting, posted under a name similar to his previous one, was open in his first post about his banning, pledged to work within the CoC, and is still here.
Perhaps we can both agree that this is the way such things should be done? Because it can work, if it’s done this way. Perhaps the only difference between us is that while you think it’s a good idea, I think it should be the required path.
I flagged this comment, because my reading comprehension is A-OKey dokey.
(Okay. No I didn’t.)
This entire discussion reminds me that every day, in every way, someone is wrong on the internet.
Yes, it’s more a club than a pub.
I don’t know it we’re talking about the same person here or not, but the one I’m thinking about, early on commented that he just signed up and took his chances, and he’ll see if he get re-booted out.
There are other reasons for using a pseudonym today than there were 4 or 5 years ago, namely personal privacy. A couple people have changed their names, and one person had changed to using a pseudonym on other sites before he came back to R>.
And yes, it’s more a club, not a pub, but the same principles apply I think of take a chance and hope it has blown over still all apply.
All true, already known to me, and noted. But not really germane to the question.
In the absence of clear guidelines, we are left with “chance” and “hope.” However, “chance” is not a policy and “hope” is not a strategy. I guess I like a little more organizational clarity and consistency, because I believe it will lead to fairer outcomes for all. I’m pretty agnostic as to what that should look like, but I think it should look like something a bit less vague than “chance” and “hope.”
Is there such a thing as banned for 3 to 5 with possibility of parole?
Isn’t that rather similar to what I’m advocating? A ban for ongoing, repeated, long-lasting disruptive, offensive, or unsupportably obnoxious behavior. (Here’s where I’d put a time limit, perhaps a year, maybe two, minimum on the term). After which, if you’d like to be paroled from your sentence, you ask for parole.
AFAIK, convicts who want to be paroled don’t let themselves out of jail on the hope, or the chance, that people will have forgotten what they got up to, and that they’ll just be left alone. If they want to be readmitted to polite society, they’re expected to man up in court, show some remorse, and promise that from now on they’ll be good, upstanding citizens and check in with their parole officers as required. One misstep, and back to jail it is.** (Apologies if this sounds like a rather extreme metaphor, but you’re the one who used the word “parole,” and I’m just trying to stay true to the concept.)
That is exactly what I’m suggesting. The possibility of parole, versus a situation where 1) no-one who’s been banned is ever allowed back in and those who are discovered to have done so on their own are summarily booted out–all of them–or 2) a situation where people float back in whenever they feel like it and hope that nobody notices while they send out warning flares left and right. I don’t believe those sorts of situations should be left up to the members to manage on the fly. The members didn’t ban the people who’ve come back (although most bannings accumulate, over time, a significant number of member complaints and a substantial volume of member input into the process). TPTB–administrators, editors and–at the bottom of the food chain–moderators are the people who voted the banned members off the island. They’re the people who need to be approached for, and who can deliver on, “parole.”
**While “one and done” might be an appropriate sanction for a previously banned member, who’s to administer it, if the member is flying under the radar and no-one (except his friends and those who’ve hob-nobbed with him under the same name elsewhere) know who he is.
What I’m suggesting isn’t rocket science. It’s not even, umm, Science!! It’s just the result of tried-and-true observations over the course of many, many years (and not just by me) that human beings tend to do better in a social framework whose boundaries are understood, fair, and consistent, rather than one in which those boundaries are arbitrary and capricious.
Thank you for your comments.
I really got steamed when several presentations of the timeline showed that Pres Biden was asked if he would revoke former Pres Trump’s de-classification privilege. And Biden said he was willing to revoke it.
And so the Lar-A-Lago raid proceeded.
This de-classification “privilege” is not something the next president after the “problem president” can revoke. At least, the privilege cannot legally be revoked.
Of course so much of modern life is about legal takings from citizens if it benefits some authority. For instance, asset forfeiture laws. Currently in the Carolinas, a recent court case might overthrow the concept once and for all.
The Draft, being totally mismanaged during the Vietnam War, is another area of life where the Constitution was ignored. (It is also a reality that the Vietnam War was never an officially sanctioned war, as designated by Congress. Which is also a huge instance of the Military/Industrial/Surveillance State playing loosey goosey when it comes to the Constitution and the civil rights of Americans.)
The lockdown restrictions, mask mandates and vaccine mandates also were illegal. But just as the media had ignored Biden’s revocation of Trump’s de-classification privileges, these draconian measures would never have come about if the media had forced itself to look into how sloppy/non-existent the science for draconian measures happened to be. Instead the media ridiculed and “fact checked” those drs telling the truth.
I agree with everything I’ve said above. (Cue the seal-clapping GIF @percival ?).
However, it’s something more than 24 hours later, and perhaps we’ve beaten this subject to death here. I don’t know that anything will be served by my writing another post, on whatever feed, asking for consideration for a review and clarification of the policy as it relates to banned members, when it appears that–irrespective of their previous comments or commitments on the matter–TPTB here have nothing to say at this point. There’s a limit to what can be achieved in a conversation in which one side is offering suggestion after suggestion, and the other side is offering….nothing.
You all know what I think, and where I stand. I believe there’s a rational and supportable case to be made for “grace” and “redemption.” I’m willing to make it. I’m willing to support it. And I’m willing to work at it. (Do not mistake me by thinking that I believe that all members banned here deserve to be reinstated. Truly, there are a few of them whose attempts to worm their way back in would result in incandescent (but oh, so entertaining), posts from me. Believe. Even in the case of some members you might love.)
Unfortunately, these days, I’m no more of a decision maker than any of you. And in the absence of any follow through from the–perhaps misleading–comments of December 2019 indicating that site administration may feel the need to rethink previous bans in terms of “second chances” (i.e. “grace” and “redemption”) I’m reverting to my fallback position, one which I’ve also stated repeatedly here to the effect that “forever banned is the easiest of the scenarios to implement.”
Sometimes, we have to go with “easiest.” And, moderators, if that what works for you, I support you.
Do the best you can. And never mind the fallout.
Been there. Done that. Lived to tell the tale.
To your first statement quoted here, I know nothing about the disciplinary process or the culling of members who comment in bad faith (or whatever results in their banning). It is all completely opaque, unless I suppose one is being subjected to it.
I have flagged comments that I thought were legally inflammatory and libelous, and have heard nothing.
The only things I know about suspensions and banning are from the occasional personal descriptions of those who were suspended or banned — and even these are just one side of the story.
I don’t know who the Mods are, or how they divide up the work load or how much attention it takes, or how many posts they have to monitor at once.
And I don’t know how the process of banning begins. Is there a Mod Supervisor that looks over all the flagged and redacted comments and says , “Hey, this guy should be banned”? Or does just one Mod say, “Hey, this guy is a real royal pain. Let’s ban him.”
And I had no idea that it takes a convocation of 8 staff members to ban someone. Is this the same for suspensions? Or is there a single disciplinary process that decides upon a number of alternative penalties, ending with: none, warning, suspension, or banning.
***
To your second quoted statement, if “easiest” means uncodified, I agree. Despite all the inconsistencies and differing personal policies on redaction and more, I prefer a laissez faire approach — only because once something is codified, it is almost impossible to act outside of it: “But they knew the rules and the penalties, they should have know better, it’s their fault. Hang it all!” Not only is punishment codified, but any “mercy” is codified as well.
BUT — Getting back to hearing nothing and to disciplinary opacity, there has got to be a way for the management to notify all members that there was a on-going problem, these are the facts of what was said or done, this is the thinking, this was the determination, this is the disciplinary action, and so take this as the way we do things and avoid committing these kind of breaches yourself.
I can see effected members and management both not wanting to air anyone’s dirty laundry, but it beats secrecy and speculation, and the misunderstandings and possible resentments that secrecy produces It wouldn’t require a member post, but even just a notification to link to page on the site for further information would do.
Otherwise, we’re going to get people gathering together like now, saying. “She was a witch!” And “No, she wasn’t!”
#MeToo. Join the club.
Of course they’re just one side. Nevertheless, there is another side. Sometimes it’s worth listening to. Sometimes it’s just bafflegab. And sometimes (honestly) it’s just more trouble than it’s worth.
I dunno either. During my years as a mod, the expectation was that we would look at–over time–every single post. I tried to do that myself. On the day that I discovered a comment by a member who’d decided to try to destroy me here because I gave him a roof over his head when others would not, a member who said “Someone tell Moderator She that if she cums [sic] to see me in Thailand I will let her have sex with me”), I sort of lost interest in the to-and-fro of this-and-that.
It’s taken me years to get my mojo back And I’ll never be other than grateful to those of you who’ve ignored the nonsense, and who’ve encouraged me to keep on going.
No. There isn’t an individual. It’s the result of months, or perhaps years of aggravation and record-keeping, and people just getting fed up.
Please take into account, on any given day, the number of administrators, moderators, editors, and so on. The point that I was making is that it takes a group of them to make a decision. Some days it might be five. Others, eight. Others, ten. In any event, there is a discussion that precedes every suspension or disciplinary process. None of them is made in a vacuum.
“Easiest,” in this case, and perhaps via my own experience, merely means “since I can’t get those who might have skin in the game to go along with me, I’ll just say my piece and try to live my life peaceably and without further muddlement.”
Despite all the inconsistencies and differing personal policies on redaction and more, I prefer a laissez faire approach — only because once something is codified, it is almost impossible to act outside of it: “But they knew the rules and the penalties, they should have known better, it’s their fault. Hang it all!” Not only is punishment codified, but any “mercy” is codified as well.
BUT — Getting back to hearing nothing and to disciplinary opacity, there has got to be a way for the management to notify all members that there was a on-going problem, that these are the facts of what was said or done, that this is the thinking, this was the determination, this is the disciplinary action, and so take this as the way we do things and avoid committing these kind of breaches yourself.
I can see aeffected members and management both not wanting to air anyone’s dirty laundry, but it beats secrecy and speculation, and the misunderstandings and possible resentments that secrecy produces It wouldn’t require a member post, but even just a notification to link to a page on the site for further information would do. If there were trust among us. LOL.
Yeah. Proudly: A Witch!
Many comments back I said that this is all off the topic of this post and suggested that Annefy write a new post to discuss this all. Nobody has done that, so how about we move this off the Main Feed and into this post by @omegapaladin where he talks a bit about how moderating works. Members can post their questions there and I will suggest to the other moderators that we all follow that post and answer your questions.
That post, again: https://ricochet.com/711786/quote-of-the-day-moderators/
Chuckle out loud (COL)! Thanks for your response and the depth you went into.
Yes, I read his post, and it was very good, and perhaps the best I’ve read on the process to date.
As another member — who shall remain nameless — said on this thread, starting a new one would likely be counter productive. And I think She and I have said about all we can say. So I will likely be leaving it here.
I would think it best for the management to consider what we have been saying — and it appears to be important, because it always comes up — on other people’s posts.
So, now answer me this about no longer being able to search even my own commen— zzz, crackle.