21–26 of 26 posts
Cache link as it source appears to be down: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EeZYEWV... Basically, guy got inexplicably banned from the site, and is having trouble getting back on.
Reddit does secret hellbans? That's awful! I'm glad I hang out on HN instead. EDIT: Arc seems to have eaten my tags. Truly an inferior-lisp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bad summary. They ban you in a way that you don't realise you've been bannedd till you look for signs that you have. My blog got banned from there too. I only posted links from my personal blog there and never participated in any other discussions, so that might be why. But why the sneakiness? They could just be up-front about it.
I've barely touched reddit and cannot speak for them, but I do run large forums and can speak for why I silently ban. Most forum software has the notion of "Send to Coventry". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Send_to_Coventry I send people to coventry when I feel that they are unlikely to change their behaviour were I to inform them that their behaviour is going to lead to a permaban. Specifically, if people are spamming…
The schoolyard kids are a lot less cowardly and passive aggressive than you.
Ostracism itself is not a passive aggressive act, it's blatant and obvious. (And in some cases, the silent treatment is considered a form of psychological abuse. http://www.google.com/search?q=silent+treatment+psychologica...)
But shadow banning is purposefully spiteful way to waste your contributors time and energy, precisely because it is not obvious.
And so, if you mistakenly shadow ban otherwise good users (and what test does not suffer from false positives) than you can truly have abused and damaged a member of your community.
It really isn't something you should take lightly as ha ha, I've sent them to Coventry.
It's your community to manage as you see fit, but I think a more ethical way to treat people is to specifically state straight out they've been banned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've barely touched reddit and cannot speak for them, but I do run large forums and can speak for why I silently ban. Most forum software has the notion of "Send to Coventry". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Send_to_Coventry I send people to coventry when I feel that they are unlikely to change their behaviour were I to inform them that their behaviour is going to lead to a permaban. Specifically, if people are spamming…
This may come off as a bit bitter, but there is an enormous difference between "Send to Coventry" in the wiki schoolyard sense and shadow banning. The schoolyard kids are a lot less cowardly and passive aggressive than you. Ostracism itself is not a passive aggressive act, it's blatant and obvious. (And in some cases, the silent treatment is considered a form of psychological abuse. http://www.google.com/search?q=sil…
Which is why I outlined that it's important to only apply shadow banning/send to coventry to those who are unambiguously going to redouble their efforts to spam and troll.
If in doubt, have a word with the person first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bad summary. They ban you in a way that you don't realise you've been bannedd till you look for signs that you have. My blog got banned from there too. I only posted links from my personal blog there and never participated in any other discussions, so that might be why. But why the sneakiness? They could just be up-front about it.
I've barely touched reddit and cannot speak for them, but I do run large forums and can speak for why I silently ban. Most forum software has the notion of "Send to Coventry". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Send_to_Coventry I send people to coventry when I feel that they are unlikely to change their behaviour were I to inform them that their behaviour is going to lead to a permaban. Specifically, if people are spamming…
I see a lot of unreasonable demands placed on moderators, and one of them is expecting unpaid people to sink their spare time into going out of the way to be supportive of presumptuous efforts to drum up free publicity on someone else's dime. Even if the person in question might respond well to being called out, it's unlikely that the moderators would come to see them as a spammer if there wasn't some sort of presumptuous effort to drum up free publicity going on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may come off as a bit bitter, but there is an enormous difference between "Send to Coventry" in the wiki schoolyard sense and shadow banning. The schoolyard kids are a lot less cowardly and passive aggressive than you. Ostracism itself is not a passive aggressive act, it's blatant and obvious. (And in some cases, the silent treatment is considered a form of psychological abuse. http://www.google.com/search?q=sil…
Absolutely. Which is why I outlined that it's important to only apply shadow banning/send to coventry to those who are unambiguously going to redouble their efforts to spam and troll. If in doubt, have a word with the person first.
In Dennehy's case, I would be annoyed with him as a blogwhore, but I wouldn't have classified him as a spammer as reddit did and defended.
Reddit and others defend it as "it works", that's an end justifies the means argument and mainly speaks to the woes of our mad skillz, not to the virtue of the method.
And since you do speak to the person first, there is no way I can have a problem with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to be this acc. http://www.reddit.com/user/MarkDennehy/submitted/
Looks spammy to me.
/snark
Look, there is a fine line between promoting your own articles (It's totally okay to link to your own stuff), and spamming.
Linking the same thing across a bunch of subreddits and having it receive no upvotes? That's spam.