![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icon_uk posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
scans_dailyA subject that has been brought to the Mod Team's attention lately is the use and impact of the "Ban User" blocking function, and we have been discussing how we wish to address it within Scans_Daily.
Let us state, first and foremost, that your privacy and security should always be paramount. No member should ever take action which might, in any way, make then feel unsafe.
The "Ban User" functionality on Dreamwidth is very straightforward, hovering over a users avatar will show "Ban User" as an option. This is not a group dependent function, it's automatically available to anyone with a DreamWidth account.
We, as a Mod Team, will never use "Ban User" on a member (Our ultimate sanction for members is temporary suspension/permanent expulsion from the Scans_Daily community as part of the Disciplinary process, but "Ban User" is not part of that process).
In turn, members are not expected to use "Ban User" on a Mod, as we have a requirement to be able to reply to any and threads and posts if/when the need arises.
As and when Mod's change, the same will be true for any new Mod coming on.
If you have concerns over a particular Mod, then they can be raised with the Mod Team for discussion, we're not a monolithic entity and will seek to address any concerns fairly and equitably.
Please note that Mods cannot undo someone's "Ban User" choices, that is linked to your own account, not the Scans_Daily account.
However, something to bear in mind is that "Ban User" is VERY powerful.
If you have used "Ban User" on someone then they not only cannot reply to you directly, but they cannot reply to anyone's comments on any post you are the creator of.
Thus if you reply on a post, then someone on your "Ban User" list cannot reply to you, and if you have made a post, someone who is on your "Ban User" list cannot interact with any comments on that post.
So, whilst who you choose to block is your own affair, we would ask that it be kept to a minimum amongst scans_daily members wherever possible. Blocking prevents conversation and the general flow of discussion, which is a large part of our raison d'etre, and can also cause stress to the person who finds that they cannot comment, especially if the person you have blocked is unaware that you have done so, or the reasons you might have done so.
If members have concerns on this topic please feel free to raise them here, or contact the Mods via our usual contact of scansdailymod[at]gmail[dot]com . We can't promise we'll know all the answers immediately, but we'll do our best to address them.
Thank you
The Scans_Daily Mod Team
aeka / icon_uk / sistermagpie
Let us state, first and foremost, that your privacy and security should always be paramount. No member should ever take action which might, in any way, make then feel unsafe.
The "Ban User" functionality on Dreamwidth is very straightforward, hovering over a users avatar will show "Ban User" as an option. This is not a group dependent function, it's automatically available to anyone with a DreamWidth account.
We, as a Mod Team, will never use "Ban User" on a member (Our ultimate sanction for members is temporary suspension/permanent expulsion from the Scans_Daily community as part of the Disciplinary process, but "Ban User" is not part of that process).
In turn, members are not expected to use "Ban User" on a Mod, as we have a requirement to be able to reply to any and threads and posts if/when the need arises.
As and when Mod's change, the same will be true for any new Mod coming on.
If you have concerns over a particular Mod, then they can be raised with the Mod Team for discussion, we're not a monolithic entity and will seek to address any concerns fairly and equitably.
Please note that Mods cannot undo someone's "Ban User" choices, that is linked to your own account, not the Scans_Daily account.
However, something to bear in mind is that "Ban User" is VERY powerful.
If you have used "Ban User" on someone then they not only cannot reply to you directly, but they cannot reply to anyone's comments on any post you are the creator of.
Thus if you reply on a post, then someone on your "Ban User" list cannot reply to you, and if you have made a post, someone who is on your "Ban User" list cannot interact with any comments on that post.
So, whilst who you choose to block is your own affair, we would ask that it be kept to a minimum amongst scans_daily members wherever possible. Blocking prevents conversation and the general flow of discussion, which is a large part of our raison d'etre, and can also cause stress to the person who finds that they cannot comment, especially if the person you have blocked is unaware that you have done so, or the reasons you might have done so.
If members have concerns on this topic please feel free to raise them here, or contact the Mods via our usual contact of scansdailymod[at]gmail[dot]com . We can't promise we'll know all the answers immediately, but we'll do our best to address them.
Thank you
The Scans_Daily Mod Team
aeka / icon_uk / sistermagpie
no subject
Date: 2021-07-14 01:43 pm (UTC)Which doubtless suits the most ban-happy members of our happy little clan just fine, as it allows them to exert complete control over the narrative.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-14 04:46 pm (UTC)I brought this first to the Mod's attention because a significant amount of content in one theme week was from a user who had blocked me, thus keeping me from interacting with the content.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-14 05:52 pm (UTC)At least for me, making a post takes a non-insignificant amount of time and effort at a time when I'm already severely lacking in spoons to begin with, and if I had to do it knowing that it would forcibly require me to interact with a person I am not fond of, I would definitely just throw my hands up. I'm on scans_daily to relax and have fun, and have negative interest in being anybody's captive audience.
Conversely, if the person I'm not fond of is creating a narrative I strongly dislike, that could be the trigger to make me get off my butt and post something about that particular topic. Just because they have so far been the only person here who posts scans about that topic doesn't mean it has to keep being that way. There is absolutely nothing preventing a banned user from making their own posts to change the narrative.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-14 11:04 pm (UTC)Yes, that would be a desirable outcome on my part. Thank you for articulating my wish, probably better than I could.
As to your other comment, when the creator of the narrative that I strongly dislike is spitting in the face of this community's supposed "anti-racist ... woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free" atmosphere, and you're all letting them do it, I'm not all that motivated to help the rest of you.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 02:37 am (UTC)Me, even if I personally dislike someone, I still very much don't want them to stop posting. Scans_Daily is the one (1) Community I'm left with after LiveJournal went the way of the dodo and every other social media embraced the streaming and hate-click models. You ever tried to have a multi-person discussion on Twitter? On Instagram? On Facebook? On Tumblr? Would. Not. Recommend. And Scans_Daily lives or dies depending on the post flow. So a reduction in flow because I literally annoyed someone out of contributing to it is most definitely not a desirable outcome on my part.
Also I was referring to "changing the narrative" as in offering alternate character interpretations or highlighting a writer's strengths and weaknesses, not fighting with the other poster. If they are being a bigoted bully, dealing with them is the mods' job, not mine. And frankly I'm calling bull at your implication that they haven't been doing their job or that you could do any better.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 02:52 am (UTC)If they are being a bigoted bully, dealing with them is the mods' job, not mine. And frankly I'm calling bull at your implication that they haven't been doing their job
And yet cyberghostface goes right on posting here.
or that you could do any better.
Don't recall implying that, not responsible for your inferences.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 03:07 am (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 03:26 am (UTC)You have made your bigotry against Muslims very clear through your support of Miller's 300 and Holy Terror, and your obvious misogyny is also readily apparent. If you are, as has been implied elsewhere, a woman, then you are one of those types who writes love letters to serial killers, putting you in the same exalted company as Ayn Rand which I'm sure makes you very happy, and you doubtless watched the scenes of [i]Daredevil[/i] and [i]Jessica Jones[/i] featuring the only characters you found interesting -- the rapist and the murderous gangster -- with one hand very busy.
You are a plague on this board.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 03:52 am (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 03:58 am (UTC)And yeah I stand by my views that religion is not above criticism regardless of which one.
Edit: And now he’s going to my other posts to troll. That’s what you get for giving someone a chance. Blocked again.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 04:04 am (UTC)I always find the villains interesting.
You find the villains interesting as long as they're men who hurt women. The female villains you pour boundless contempt on.
And wanting to engage in genocide is not criticism.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 04:29 am (UTC)I’ve never condoned any form of genocide. You are lying as you always do.
You are also lying about my interest in villains. They run the entire gamut from Magneto to Leatherface (and no liking Leatherface doesn’t mean I want to eat people). As for my issues regarding female villains, you are once again being a liar. I think I’ve called out characters like Mystique for being awful and treated like heroes after but I’ve said the same thing about Daken and Punisher.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 04:36 am (UTC)I unblocked you and within minutes you went and tried to harass me in an unrelated topic like a child.
I was expressing my genuine opinion that I feel disgusted to have enjoyed the same thing as you. If you view my self-disgust as harassment, that's a you problem.
Given that you defended Hannibal as well as admitting to liking Leatherface, I'd say the odds of you fantasizing about eating people are pretty high. Also, these are my sincere and genuine thoughts. If they are mistaken, that's life. But they are not falsehoods. I am not lying.
And now you are replying to me while preventing me from replying to you. How mature.
Before you say that I can easily stop you from replying -- I don't censor people. That's one more way that I'm not a fascist, like yourself.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 04:50 am (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 04:53 am (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 05:31 am (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 05:39 am (UTC)And yes it is censorship, we're just going to have to disagree on that.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 06:13 am (UTC)And as your own behavior has amply demonstrated on this thread, the block function doesn’t control what you can and can’t say, it just changes where you can say it. It is establishing personal space
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 06:19 am (UTC)(frozen) Mod Note!
Date: 2021-07-15 07:48 am (UTC)It's early in the morning here and I've just woken up to this, so in the interests of everyone's peace of mind I'm freezing this thread whilst the Mods discuss it.
Ironically, given the subject of this post, I strongly advise both of you knock off the snipe-fest and go back to ignoring each other.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 03:11 am (UTC)Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookay.
You know what, I don't think we can ever understand each other, so I'm backing off. Addio.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 04:18 am (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 05:08 am (UTC)Please never reply to me again, because I find you genuinely upsetting.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 05:26 am (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 05:27 am (UTC)Generally I have a very favourable view of Cyberghostface because they are the only one who thought of reaching out with kindness to History79 and talk with them in DM, instead of shit talking them over differences of opinion in amount and priority of posts.
Plus, in the old days of pre-Under The Red Hood, when bashing my comfort character Jason Todd was a popular past time and I couldn't check a single post about him without seeing scores of people talking wistfully about his painful death and bragging about voting yes on the phone poll and victim blaming the literal 14-year-old for being sold out by his mother, I appreciated that Cyberghostface was always defending him.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 05:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 09:44 am (UTC)On the whole, I broadly agree that it is useful for posters to be able to curate their own viewing experience. However, thie can come at the expense of the whole community experience. Dreamwidth is not designed to be a forum, as others have pointed out. I have dozens of users set to Ignore on a forum, but it just hides their content from me, rather than stopping them form posting in threads I began. That functionality would be preferable, but sadly not possible with the Dreamwidth tools.
Finally, I understand and appreciate your point about how much effort goes into making good quality posts. You undermine that point with your final paragraph saying that nothing is stopping other people from making such good quality posts to redress the balance. This also does not account for one user reaching the posting limit of a book very early, thus locking any other users out of creating their own posts in the topic
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 10:33 am (UTC)My idea is that, if you are really frustrated about the way a different poster is curating a series/character, then you are motivated to do something about it. That motivation is absent if you have to create the posts in the first place and there is nothing to respond to. Same reason a lot of people normally don't write fanfiction, but decide to write a fix-it after canon does something especially irritating.
It does not account for that because it has nothing to do with the topic of blocking. Even if nobody is blocking anybody, the page limit is still there.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 11:35 am (UTC)And you are correct that the existing community posting limits (which I wrote) can serve to limit the number of people who can make posts related to a particular title. However, being banned from the only discussion happening on this community and with no community sanctioned outlet to begin your own discussion does not do much for community engagement.
The debate between you and I seems to be over the conflict of what is in the interests of posters and what is in the best interests of the community.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 11:58 am (UTC)I know we have never been fond of each other due to very different personalities, and I'm even kinda salty that a couple of times I tried getting friendly by asking you questions in your own posts and you never replied and left me hanging even if it was a topic you were apparently passionate about, but now I'm feeling insulted that you just automatically jumped to the worst possible conclusion.
In any case, my take is that the interests of posters and the interests of the community are intertwined. Because the community lives and dies depending on the post flow, and we LJ veterans have all seen what happens when the post flow dries up. So anything that worsens the posters' experience here (such as being made to interact with somebody they don't get along with) risks driving people away, or at the very least turning them into passive lurkers, and consequently killing the community.
I think there is a balance to consider, and ultimately I believe there are decent enough outlets for the scenario you describe. For example, if you are very frustrated with the ongoing narrative about a series or character but the page limit has already been reached and you can't comment on those posts, you could make your own no_scans posts. Throw in a few fanart/commissions/cover art to make the post more visually inviting and put in your thoughts about the storyline and characterization in exam.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 12:35 pm (UTC)This is not exclusive to you when I say that I don't pay too much attention to the personalities of the big name posters. I know that somebody uses contractions excessively, and somebody posts scans with completely no context ever, but even with a multiple choice quiz I would struggle to match names to posting habits. Some posters are even less distinct.
Please be reassured that this isn't a case of being mutually antagonistic and I do not and have not borne you any ill will.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-14 01:56 pm (UTC)I think that sums up my opinion of it best.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-14 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-14 04:31 pm (UTC)1. The creation of alt accounts to get around blocks. I realize that this is hard to prove but it would be nice to have clarification on the community policy with regards to this. Would it be different if the account was only used to reply to others on posts created by the blocking individual
2. Replying to people you have blocked but who have not returned the block. This seems disingenuous at best and bullying at worst.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-14 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-14 10:00 pm (UTC)I mean 1 is straight up disrespecting someone's boundaries and is a red flag example of behavior that definitely makes a community unsafe and 2 is a person being an ass to get the last word esp if it's recurring behavior. I mean it's one thing if a person just forgets they blocked someone but it's another entirely if it becomes their entire method of handling disagreement.
Other than wanting clarification on those two things I'm fine with what the mods have decided.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 05:08 am (UTC)I have to say, while I'm not philosophically opposed to blocking other users, the "ban user" feature on dw seems to not be all that useful. Like, cyberghostface has cricharddavies blocked, and yet there they are a few posts up, having a pretty nasty back-and-forth.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 01:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-16 01:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 09:27 am (UTC)The block can be circumvented by creating a new account. SD has few restrictions on who can join only banning people when they cause trouble. What’s more, when a member attempted to raise the subject of a fellow member who they believed had changed their name they were shut down by the rule (I’m not sure this is a rule, it may just be a more) that we do not speculate about other members’ identities. At the time, I believe, the very existence of the ban function was not well-known, so the disconnect between this rule/more and the protection the ban function provides was not brought up, but I feel like we need an official way to address this.
At the same time, it can feel like the creation of an alt identity to comment on a posters’ posts but on replies to others is a victimless act that addresses the intent of the ban function without restricting their participation in the group unduly. I’m not saying that I believe in this interpretation, but I do think it needs to be addressed in the rules, even if just to be dismissed as a justification
The ban function, as we’ve seen above, can also be circumvented by responding to others’ comments or even your own with a comment addressed to the user utilizing that function. My feeling is that this needs to be included in the rules to shut that shit down ASAP.
Conversely, the ban function can be abused by banning somebody and then responding to them to get the last word. While this seems pretty cut and dried, it’s also true that nearly every ban will have an inciting incident. Whilst the posters I have/will have banned have been the culmination of a lifetime of membership interactions, the moment at which I did it would undoubtedly seem that I did so to get my way
Likewise, the ban function can be abused by banning a user and then posting issues that you know they will want to comment on. We all have our favorite characters and titles that we love to post about and it would be a profoundly petty act to ban a user and then proceed to post about every issue featuring them within minutes of their digital release, thus preventing them from commenting on said character
Before the above conversation got out of control (very, very quickly I might add), some good points were raised with regards to how this function both restricts AND facilitates the free exchange of ideas. One way or another the way this function is used will shape the direction of this community, and while I appreciate the informative post and it’s recommended course of action, I feel that some stronger boundaries with regards to its use are necessary to establish this community’s future growth in a positive direction
More specifically, as much as I would prefer a ban function closer to the way it works on other forums where it serves as a reminder that the post you are about to read may be stressful but leaves the choice to read and respond solely to you and then, we can’t reprogram dreamwidth at this time and will need to live with the ban function as it exists now. While not being able to comment on certain posts is definitely annoying, I’d prefer that the user(s?) that have me blocked keep me blocked, so as to prevent the likelihood of me forgetting who I am talking to and accidentally entering into the same types of conversations that I have found so stressful in the past. I don’t want any sort of public “shame” list but I almost feel like we would need some sort of database as to who was blocked by which user and why so that we can best address whether any given incident is a violation of the spirit of the incidence or not and to make sure people are aware of a block so they can reciprocate
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 10:16 am (UTC)You raise some very valid points, some of which we hadn't even considered in the light raised.
So we will reply properly on this, but it might take us a little while to have the necessary conversations, and didn't want you to think your comments were being ignored in the meantime.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 11:29 am (UTC)Of course, this is very (very) passive-aggressive, but it is difficult to imagine a functioning moderation policy that forbids people from posting an opinion just because someone who has blocked you has already posted their opinion first. Or vice-versa, if you're not supposed to respond to people you've blocked. To add to this, there are comment chains which have multiple people corresponding in them - how does this work, if you want to participate in the conversation, are you at some point in the chain allowed to respond to someone who has responded to a person who blocked you / you have blocked?
Adding to this, I simply do not know everyone who has blocked me, and I'm not sure if there's any functionality to find that out. I learned just recently that dw still lets you write out a reply to people who have you blocked, it just tells you that you're blocked when you try to post it. So I don't know how to learn if someone has blocked me short of writing out a reply to them and seeing if it goes through, and I don't want to try replying to people who I suspect have animus with me just to check.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 02:22 pm (UTC)Something like one person saying they liked a book while the other responds with saying they do like the book would likely be ignored for at least the first couple of comments until it became obvious that one or more of them were circumventing a ban and shut down then, but someone posting “ignore them, they don’t know what they’re talking about” might not be allowed to go on at all. It’s really up to the mods and/or the participants in the discussion
And, yeah, it sure sucks writing out a comment either long and detailed or just short and pithy before finding out that you’re banned, but it should only happen once.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-16 01:23 am (UTC)Also, if I'm being frank, I do not believe that a user should be able to post on a topic and prevent even indirect interaction from people who disagree with them. For example, I am banned by velacron. If velacron posts some shit about Kyle Rittenhouse being totally justified in crossing state lines and killing people, I am not going to ignore that, and I do not want to be sanctioned by mods for informing other users of the extent of velacron's extremism.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-16 04:04 am (UTC)EDIT: not that we even have that option, of course. It’s here, presumably to stay, and we need to know how to use it. If we purposefully neuter it in order to justify a handful of edge cases (I think it’s just Velacron? These people tend to weed themselves out anyway) I feel we do more harm than good
no subject
Date: 2021-07-16 07:06 am (UTC)My concern is expecting the mods to prevent people from "circumventing" these bans. Because as it is, as tools, the bans don't do all that much. You voiced the concern of someone banning another person to have the last word. As we have seen with cyberghostface and cricharddavies, the result is: nothing happens, they keep sniping back and forth like usual, the ban doesn't do shit.
So it would be almost entirely on the mods to design and implement and enforce a policy of "users are allowed to select other users that they don't want to interact with". This is something that should be built into the code of the site. I don't believe it is reasonable to expect a team of human mods to have to babysit and intervene to keep any given pair of people from even interacting. I don't believe the current mod team is even remotely inclined to try such a thing, given that their announcement consists of: "the ban function exists, you can use it, we can't stop you, but try to keep it at a minimum, ok?"
I think it makes more sense to design policy completely independent of the ban function. If two users routinely get into toxic arguments, then ... just sanction them for their toxicity. (ex: this certainly is not the first time cricharddavies has talked to people this way, why was something not done earlier, there has to be a better solution than individual users putting them on a ban list). Trying to build a policy around a half-baked ban function that anyone can use for any reason strikes me as a bad idea.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-20 07:18 am (UTC)In some cases people may have to abandon profiles and adopt new ones for reasons of their own and whether they choose to acknowledge their past self/selves is up to them. (and provided they're not doing it to get round an previous expulsion by the Mods)
Mod's also can't see the e-mail associated with an account, so we can't tell who is who in that way. We do have visibility of ISP numbers, but even that has a diluted relevance with the prevalence of VPN randomising and people using more than one means/network to access the site.
Creating a new user account to circumvent a Ban User so as to pick (or restart) fights is a "bad faith" move, and it would certainly trigger the disciplinary process.
The unique issue with Moderating the Ban User situation is that, even as Mods, we have no visibility of the intra-member Bans which might be in place at any moment. Nor can anyone see who has Banned them, until they try interacting with them.
So, unless we happen upon clearly egregious situation in passing, the Mods will be entirely reliant on members to let us know if something is up (Which we hope would happen anyway), and then decide whether it was done with malicious intent or not, and act accordingly.
Which is what Mods are expected to do, of course. But this adds a new wrinkle to it, since the arising issues are not "things which have concretely happened" which we can see, but "things which have not happened because of an invisible-to-everyone-else Ban being in place at the time", which we can't see... it's like Moderation Dark Matter.
We already have rules about using multiple accounts to "sockpuppet" conversations or fake support for a point.
The example you give of "Replying to people you have Banned but who have not returned the Ban" would also be influenced by the motivation for doing so and the impact on the recipient.
If you have Banned someone presumably you aren't that interested in interacting with them, so why are you replying to them?
Certainly, if you did so to insult them, or start an argument, in the knowledge they can't respond, then that would definitely be worthy of raising with a Mod if we haven't responded to it already, as picking a fight like that would not be acceptable, Ban or no Ban, but the deliberate use of Ban User would certainly be seen as aggravating things.
On the other hand if it's clearly a casual remark which isn't looking for a response, it's probably less of an issue, though the recipient might not think so, and we would weight their opinion into any decision.
The "unblock, comment and then reblock" move, which is attempting to have the last word by very dubious means, would definitely be regarded as a Conduct Fail by the Mods and treated accordingly.
In short, the sort of issues you raise would seem to be related to general conduct and behaviour, which we already have rules in place for, rather than something specific about the Ban function itself, though we would regard the use of Ban User as an aggravating factor.
Obviously we hope this isn't a situation we hope see come up very often, but when it does Mods and members will have to work together to address it on a case by case basis because it's new to us too, and there's just no other way to do it we can see.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-14 09:14 pm (UTC)The version that this site uses seems utterly bizarre, but I suppose that this is primarily meant as a blogging site rather than the discussion forum that SD uses it as.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-14 11:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 03:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 10:22 am (UTC)Likewise if you have more general concerns about a poster's comments, you are always welcome to raise them with the Mod Team, and if they breach group rules, they can be handled by us that way.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 04:18 am (UTC)I didn't know about this function of Dreamwidth, so when I was suddenly unable to respond to a user's posts while they continued replying to disagree with mine I thought it was an action by the mod team without notification to me. I was understandably less than pleased until a couple of helpful posters told me what was actually happening.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 10:26 am (UTC)It genuinely hadn't occurred to me you might think that that was the case, so never thought to reassure you otherwise. I'm grateful to the other posters who straightened thigns out.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 04:35 am (UTC)Go to your journal, then Organize, Customize Journal Style, Custom CSS and add in the following code:
and replace "username" with the user name of the person you don't want to see. Repeat as many times as you like, using the whole code with the new user name each time. They will also not be visible to you in other people's comments, or in your circle.
Re: To quote a meme: the Iranian yogurt is not the issue here.
Date: 2021-07-15 05:43 am (UTC)Re: To quote a meme: the Iranian yogurt is not the issue here.
Date: 2021-07-15 06:17 am (UTC)Re: To quote a meme: the Iranian yogurt is not the issue here.
Date: 2021-07-15 06:36 am (UTC)Re: To quote a meme: the Iranian yogurt is not the issue here.
Date: 2021-07-15 06:55 am (UTC)Also, that last bit? That was a rather blatant lie, right?
Re: To quote a meme: the Iranian yogurt is not the issue here.
Date: 2021-07-15 07:31 am (UTC)Re: To quote a meme: the Iranian yogurt is not the issue here.
Date: 2021-07-15 11:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 07:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 08:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 01:54 pm (UTC)And for what it’s worth I don’t share half of Frank Miller’s views on the matter.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 02:02 pm (UTC)This can only end in tears (for everyone else).
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 06:28 pm (UTC)I don't believe you. I expect you're going to say that's a lie, too.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 06:37 pm (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 06:45 pm (UTC)And why should I not believe that?
You admire this person. Why should I not believe you want to emulate them? I want to emulate the people I admire. I fail, like I do at everything else, but it's what I want. Why should I not believe that you have the same desires I do?
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 06:51 pm (UTC)Because I don’t have the problems you clearly have in separating fiction and reality. I can enjoy Bryan Cranston’s performance as Walter White and find the character fascinating without wanting to cook meth.
Also I never said I admired Hannibal, so there you go. Lying again.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 07:07 pm (UTC)And there you go, making the ad hominem attacks you claim to despise in me. This after posting in this thread after you were asked to stop.
I admire the people I enjoy watching. I don't watch people I don't admire. Why should I not believe you be different?
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 07:27 pm (UTC)Why do you think everyone is just like you? Because you seem to think that “This is the way I view the world, therefore I’m going to project my views on everyone else.” I don’t know if that’s arrogant or naive.
And god, how boring that mindset is. “I don't watch people I don't admire.” Imagine refusing to watch something like The Godfather or even Shakespeare’s Macbeth because you are only able to watch characters who are nice people.
(frozen) Mod Note!
Date: 2021-07-15 08:38 pm (UTC)I freeze a thread whilst at the same time STRONGLY suggesting that the two of you cease interacting and you go elsewhere on the same post to resume?
This is now under discussion by the Mod Team.
This thread is frozen. Do not try my patience any further by resuming elsewhere.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 07:48 pm (UTC)I start with that expectation because the alternative is terrifying. You (humanity in general) keep proving me wrong.
I do refuse to watch The Godfather, and I have no interest in watching a performance of Macbeth, having read it in high school and despised it then. All these stories about old rich white men who do awful things are simply endless reiterations of "The Aristocrats", as far as I'm concerned.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 08:10 pm (UTC)Then I suggest you figure out that not everyone thinks the same way you do. The real world doesn’t work that way. I don’t know how else to explain something as basic as that. Your views are beyond irrational and it’s hard to even fathom them at this point.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 08:21 pm (UTC)If being rational means being like you (specific), I don't want it.
By all means, keep being delusional or dissembling, whichever one it is (I suspect the latter, but don't really give a crap) about Miller's motivation being 'criticism of religion', which, were it the case, would not have resulted in Classical-era Persians, who share no religion with 21st century Muslims, being portrayed as a horde of monsters and a threat to everything decent in the world.
No matter what happens, no matter whether I convince anyone else -- I know what you really are. And whatever I am does not change that.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 08:32 pm (UTC)Thinking that those who find Hannibal a fascinating character are aspiring cannibals goes beyond irrationality to outright delusion. It has no basis in reality and even the most paranoid of people haven’t reached the conclusions you do.
(frozen) Mod Note - First Official Warning
Date: 2021-07-16 08:36 pm (UTC)And unblocking and then reblocking someone to try and get the last word is just just poor behaviour.
As such this is your First Official Warning. Please note that if you receive two further warnings you will lose the ability to post on this community.
(frozen) Mod Note - First Official Warning
Date: 2021-07-16 08:34 pm (UTC)As such this is your First Official Warning. Please note that if you receive two further warnings you will lose the ability to post on this community.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 04:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 10:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-15 09:54 pm (UTC)