Getting banned without warning is harsh. Mods here uses it as a last resort. I say this as someone who has formerly triggered warnings around here: appealing to rationality, shared goals, and positive intent can work wonders in some cases.
I got banned from a default sub in reddit for the reason "I didn't see that in the article". I replied to the mods with an explanation and a direct quote from teh article, and... nothing. They perma-banned me, and then blocked my account from messaging.
My comment was correct,
but even if it wasn't, it wasn't against the rules,
and even it if was against the rules, their own guidelines say you get a warning first,
and even then, the sitewide rules say that mods should hear appeals. But nah, forget all that. I'm just gone.
But those who got banned didn't they ignored the warnings, continued flaming and insulted other users? Will you pretend that people who behave themselves get banned?
I have had 3 accounts hell banned. Each time was slightly mysterious to me, but let me relate the context and maybe someone can enlighten me.
- The first ban was after I posted a comment that suggested that some venture capitalists that fund start ups may be exploiting young naive technologists. My guess was that saying anything bad about VCs or the startup culture merits a ban.
- The second ban was after a post where I said that Flouride is rat poison. I understand this is controversial, but it is also an indisputable fact. Flouride is used in rat poison. I assumed that mentioning any inconvenient/controversial fact merits a ban.
- The third ban was after I disagreed with someone on how the brain learns. There was nothing particularly controversial about it at all. I assumed that I had angered someone with moderation powers and was rewarded with a ban.
My conclusion is that developing a moderation system that rewards people who agree with your world view tends to be self-selecting towards that world view. Down voting or banning anyone who disagrees with you rapidly develops group think, regardless of how 'intelligent' that particular world view is. I assume that any criticism of HN or the moderation system also merits a ban, so I expect this post will not be visible for very long.
Thanks for an honest answer. I'd be interested in seeing examples of what's gotten you banned, if you'd care to share. In my experience it's been for behavior and tone more often than not, but I know that can sometimes be a matter of perspective.
Is that something common at Hacker News? I find it worrisome that someone can be banned from a community and not even be aware of it. What's the point of punishing wrong behavior if the one making it isn't aware that it was wrong?
I'm trying to grasp how moderation and banning works around here, but it's difficult since neither the FAQ nor the posting guidelines have an explanation about it.
I've got my account (with 9+k point) banned. Which is, of course, annoying, but the most annoying thing was the comment left by moderator "we banned". How about "I banned"? Faceless corporate "we" does not look well.
There was also a lie about warning which never happened, but hey, "not lying" is not in the guidelines, so…
And while some of my comments might be harsh I sometimes wonder if overzealous moderation leads us to creation of some kind of Stepford here.
I've reread what GP was posted and he was banned for reason: personal attack, because he did say, that comment is stupid. For exactly the same reason you can get banned, if you use nuanced sarcasm or actually if you are touching anything that is toxic.
Warnings can not be sustainable, when such high volume of warned is involved - you have to keep records of those warnings. Since it is easy to create account in reddit, outright ban is a warning - to not to do the same with new account.
If you are a dick in RL and do snarly comments in RL, you will be banned from communication quicker than in reddit - in some cases even beaten up. So, the only approach is to use reddit and NH comments with attitude, that it is not real conversation.
This problem is common to nearly every subreddit, on every side of the political spectrum. Unaccountable moderators will ban you in a heartbeat for arbitrary reasons, such as disagreeing with the sub's majority opinion.
I was banned from my (very liberal) U.S. state's subreddit for quoting Martin Luther King. I quoted a passage from one his speeches that denounced political violence, such as the arson and vandalism we've seen in Kenosha recently. The subreddit moderator banned me within minutes, called me a Nazi, and immediately denied the appeal.
Without context the bans could very well have been warranted.
I'm going to divulge my experience; I am the closest thing to "god" to a small IRC community, I could ban with impunity- but why would I do that? It only serves to either stroke my e-peen of how much power I have (thus- making people dislike you and more willing to go somewhere else) - or I have a legitimate grievance.
There are people in this world that when you try to treat them charitably, if you have some perceived authority over them they do _not_ see you charitably. There are people who /really/ wish to test the bounds of tolerance and patience and there are those who are e-masochists, genuinely trying to illicit bans and grovel about it (if you unban, then they do the same thing again or worse despite claiming they would not).
SO, my position towards the author is one of skepticism, Reddit does indeed have over-zealous moderation in some forums, I really don't doubt that- but if you're a mod of a popular sub and you hand out bans so liberally then eventually you'll push people to another subreddit or platform. Entrenchment to a subreddit basically doesn't happen because it's so easy to pop up something new.
Yeah but everyone thinks their case is special because of X, then spew at the very least 2-3 messages in your inbox, debate whether they've actually broken the rule you wrote or not, and just generally waste your time.
Speaking as someone who used to be the main moderator for a country sub (albeit a smaller one), at a certain point you just go numb and stop justifying your actions (you still communicate it with other mods and they see your ban reason, not visible to the user). That being said, I did enforce one or two temporary bans before handing out permanent ones.
But in the places I have been banned, it's not been my fault. The people who say "we don't ban people because of X" are, like most people, just telling themselves a pleasant lie.
There's that one guy, who while never doing anything outrageously obnoxious, rubs you the wrong way. And eventually you're going to find something borderline or even milder than that, and use your petty powers. This is human nature, I'd almost certainly do the same. Everyone would.
IIUC most ban had an explicit announcement of the mods, but I'm not sure if after the ban the poster can see that their post are [dead]. (I think that there are some automatic bans for new accounts with too many automatic red flags.)
reply