Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gizm770o t1_iunbrhn wrote

Start by unbanning everyone you’ve banned in the last 24 hours and then maybe a conversation about moving forward can happen.

83

hopefulcynicist t1_iuoehl8 wrote

I was part of the initial wave of permanent bans on this sub after publicly disagreeing with this rule.

I few minutes ago, I was (seemingly?) unbanned and “temporarily muted” on this sub. Please let me know if this post is visible as I am unsure what the mechanics of a mute are.

Receipt: https://ibb.co/pxKcspt

I look forward to discussing a path forward towards restoring a degree of trust in the moderation of this community.

That said, until at he abuse of power demonstrated here in the last day has been meaningfully addressed, I will be remaining unsubscribed and will work to contribute to r/camberville

As things stand currently, I believe that the mod here should work with the community to onboard a mod team in line with the ethos of Cambridge and then gracefully step down.

Edit: Mechanics of a mute: https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205269739

22

defenestron t1_iupm8l7 wrote

This is great news. Thank you for sharing.

Let us hope that others who have been similarly banned for appropriately expressing themselves are similarly allowed back.

I remain skeptical of our singular Mod who so far has not apologized, accepted any responsibility, or shown even a modicum of self-awareness. Even as he works along the edges to undo the damage he has wrought, he should still step down.

10

akanefive t1_iuohzjj wrote

I can see this comment. Thanks for sharing the messages.

9

taylorhayward_boston OP t1_iuo67k9 wrote

The bans were put in place to limit toxic posts while a new path forward is created.

−29

defenestron t1_iuoa3ux wrote

You created the toxicity by banning all posts about cycling because a cyclist spit on you.

Meanwhile, you ignored your moderation duties for years, including plenty of pretty toxic posts on this and other topics. Dat moderation backlog…

But no! Someone outside of Reddit does something bad so now the people you have power over get punished! Yes, this is a normal and totally healthy reaction. You also banned many people who were respectful but challenged your arbitrary decision even when you asked them for feedback… It’s only healthy, right?

Your lack of self-awareness is only matched by how totally unqualified you are to have power over anyone else. You cannot even control yourself.

36

gizm770o t1_iuo7eb0 wrote

Your toxicity meter is broken.

22

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iuol5ac wrote

Are you sure that yours isn't? Reading these posts as someone who has no idea what's going on or what the conflict is seems surreal.

−13

akanefive t1_iuoo2tj wrote

Context is important then, isn’t it?

12

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iuotk5j wrote

Or maybe it's worth stepping out of your shoes and seeing whether your high intensity flame war would make sense to an outsider? Because I don't know that it would.

−7

akanefive t1_iuow24m wrote

I’m happy to summarize: this sub, which has 17,000 members, only has one moderator. That moderator made a new rule based on an interaction he had outside of the sub (according to his own explanation), and has removed posts and outright banned people based on that rule. People are upset about it.

8

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iupbx9w wrote

Yeah, a single mod, or even a sub with one dominant mod, isn't ideal. That said, maybe there's a good argument to be made that the great bicycle wars need a ceasefire? This is clearly a really serious topic to some, but to others it seems like a bizarre over-the-top caricature of activism.

−11

defenestron t1_iupn8to wrote

I’d suggest you read the room (and the clear distribution of karma). This is an important issue to the majority of active users.

If you believe that most of the active users are an “over the top caricature of activism” then perhaps you should make your own subreddit where you can ban your neighbors and live in a happy safe space with no stated rules and a singular and totally arbitrary moderator who only shows up to moderate when they are angry about something.

10

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iuqqcx6 wrote

This seems like the toxic kind of response that's at issue. I agree with your observation that the room seems to want to engage in this toxicity, which is kind of a better argument against your point than for it. We're talking about bicycles here folks. Maybe a little perspective is in order.

−5

No_Dance1739 t1_iusidzi wrote

All this talk of toxicity and you don’t realize you’re a part of it. Yikes

5

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iuss1c3 wrote

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand the intensity of the conflict. Is that toxic? If telling some people that they might be losing their bearings in an argument is toxic, I don't know really how to apply a reality check. The trouble is that I haven't heard any actual argument of substance about this stuff. It's just some kind of bicycle identity group with whom some of us don't feel kinship. Maybe if you could help us understand why this is such a motivating aspect of your identity, we'd get it. I use a bicycle to commute for part of the year. The bike lanes are dramatically better now than 10 years ago, when none of them existed at all. Seems good?

1

akanefive t1_iut4zmx wrote

The conflict is not actually about cycling, it's about how the sub is moderated. Banning people for voicing dissent to a rule that was arbitrarily added, deleting posts about it, deleting and shutting down the comment section, is not a good way to run a discussion forum. People are rightfully upset about that. Once the sub is properly managed I'd be happy to talk to you about infrastructure and traffic safety issues.

3

No_Dance1739 t1_iutmaiy wrote

If those were your intentions, then your strategy is flawed. Jumping in an calling folks toxic is indeed not “just trying to understand the intensity of the conflict,” nor is it an effective strategy for discovering the nuance of a situation.

2

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iuv2wc5 wrote

Wait a sec, now calling out toxicity is toxic? Come on. I think you just don't want to hear any dissent. If there's nuance here somewhere, I'm not hearing it. The toxicity I replied to was a bunch of sarcasm and snide for no purpose. People genuinely don't understand why there is so much bicycle anger. I myself am deeply upset about climate issues, but I know who my enemy is on that. They're not for the most part my fellow Cantabrigians.

0

No_Dance1739 t1_iuvub43 wrote

If those were your intentions, then your strategy is flawed.

0

blackdynomitesnewbag t1_iuovfu8 wrote

My post wasn’t toxic. It was a poll. In the past 12 hours, you’ve been the most toxic person here

19

taylorhayward_boston OP t1_iuow8jd wrote

Unfortunately I needed to stem the flow of the many bike related posts as they were coming in and the net was wide.

As with the other post, thank you for your feedback.

−12

Gram-GramAndShabadoo t1_iuqz1ze wrote

Why do you think there was such a high influx of bike posts?

10

taylorhayward_boston OP t1_iuqzoa8 wrote

There are many who feel strongly about biking, bike culture, and the freedom of expression on social media. They were protest posts. I get it, and they weren't helping the discussion of next steps.

−4

Gram-GramAndShabadoo t1_iur0gk2 wrote

A few things need to be answered. And I'm giving you a chance right here to better explain and clarify your thinking.

What type of discussion were you hoping for?

Why did you share the story of a biker spitting on you?

Most importantly. Why did a biker spitting on you mean bike related posts had to be banned from the sub?

11

taylorhayward_boston OP t1_iur3per wrote

What type of discussion were you hoping for?

A: How the animosity on and off of reddit, specifically in Cambridge can be lowered among groups who don't necessarily agree with one another on different topics.
Why did you share the story of a biker spitting on you?

A: As an example of how bad things have become between two groups I've seen regularly argue in an unproductive way on here, bicyclists and those who prefer other types of transportation, like cars.
Most importantly. Why did a biker spitting on you mean bike related posts had to be banned from the sub?

A: This was a temporary ban (see the original post, "Taking a break from bike related posts") while a plan was figured out as to how best to handle the tribal mentality that was witnessing spilling out of local forums, like CambridgeMA into the world outside of Reddit.

−3

Locksmith-Pitiful t1_iuqzutf wrote

Should all topics that even have the scent of politics be banned?

6

taylorhayward_boston OP t1_iur29mi wrote

There's a threshold. It's no secret that social media has caused a lot of discord and instability across the country, so much so that other countries have been actively leveraging it to create divisions here. Divisions between races, genders, political ideologies, etc. The concept of divide and conquer is as old as time and we're heading deeper and deeper down that hill.

It isn't the things that are obviously evil that trip up a society, it's issues on the cusp of "right or wrong". For the right reasons, people stand firmly behind what they believe to be the best for society, and when they see someone who is threatening to undermine progress towards the realization of their belief fighting can occur. Insults, hostility. Often time the result of the perpetual fighting is war which is typically worse than the original issues that created it. People know war is hell but can find themselves caught up in one for "the right reasons". Progress can be made without it.

Cambridge is arguably one of the most knowledgeable cities on earth. I don't want us to get sucked in by our baser nature. I think to some extent I was and now I'm attempting to put things in place where that kind of mistake will be limited in the future. If the world starts to crumble as a result of social media feuds I don't want CambridgeMA to be remembered as part of the problem. That's the goal.

−4

akanefive t1_ius8fcf wrote

Please just level with everyone: you don't like bike lane expansion and are annoyed that you're in the minority on this sub and in Cambridge.

4

taylorhayward_boston OP t1_iusb41l wrote

I don't have strong opinions on it, I'm not a civil engineer. Apparently some here do have strong opinions and I would like for people to be able to talk them through in a constructive way, without the name-calling, etc. that I've been seeing.

−2