|
On June 09 2011 04:14 ComaDose wrote:
I don't think its very nice.
But i would love to see 2 different versions of a controversial thread where the hell banned people are showed/not.
.
You want to see an example of the sort of thing this 'hellbanning' fixes? It's a LOT more boring than you think - feel free to not read any further if you're easily bored. I'll show you a couple of posts I made to groklaw.net that were hellbanned like this, before being unsandboxed, because I spotted them and emailed the administrator and had a brief discussion.
There are about 24 more posts like this that didn't get unhidden, as far as I know, and it would take a little bit of faffing about for me to show you the content of those (since obviously the only way to see them would be to log in under my account). Those posts should be fairly similar to these in tone.
These are all on groklaw.net, a blog all about the legalties involved in open source/free software.
When I contacted the admin about this first comment, she did claim that her underlings had tagged it because they were worried about the legality of showing pdf metadata. She gave no comment about why the second comment was hidden, or why about six months worth of my comments had been sporadically hidden, other than saying that one day she'd explain herself.
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20070904192707124&title=BSF contracts the virus&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=615067#c615158
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20070904192707124&title=Patenting Right of First Sale???&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=615160#c615162
Note that both these posts (and most of what I said on Groklaw) are in accord with the general consensus of opinion of people at Groklaw. This wasn't a case of me trolling with unpopular opinions.
There is a third comment of mine on this thread that wasn't nuked. I have no idea why that one slipped past. My guess is that if they let a few through to get answered, it takes longer for people to suss out they've been sandboxed like this.
If you can imagine the whole comment thread with those two comments missing, that's what it looked like to the general public, before those two comments were restored. The other posters who'd been treated in this manner were people whose contributions were far better and more worthwhile than mine (I think one theory is that it's offsite criticism by some of those people of some things PJ/Groklaw did that spurred these actions. Nobody knows for sure.).
The point of this is to show you what this stuff is really for. Hellbanning is designed to let site admins ban/censor people without even the accountability of being publicly criticised. It's not about getting rid of egregious trolling. If you openly ban trolls and spammers, everybody applauds. If you ban people for disagreeing with you or just because you dislike them or whatever, people start to complain, or leave your site - but if you find a way of quietly silencing those guys, you get to exclude people AND remain free from criticism - at least, that's the theory.
|
Hellbanning would be pretty effective, unfortunately, it seems too cruel of a ban for TL to adopt.
|
Not a fan of the argument many people are using about how it is cowardly to hellban people.
If we assume a mods job is to maintain a level of quality on the forums, and it can be shown that hellbans objectively make the forum a better place for everyone else, then it would be crazy and hypocritical NOT to use it. I don't think something as tangential as "cowardice" or not applies to this directive.
|
On June 09 2011 02:32 Torte de Lini wrote:
I actually like the hellban, it is deceitful and mean, but it really depends how you see a ban: removing a user from the community to maintain its integrity or punishing the user for not cooperating with the terms and conditions.
I like TL does it now. Ban someone from chatting, but they can still read the posts.
If you've ever been banned, I'm sure you enjoyed getting constantly "redirected" to Disneyland
I know I have...
It's nice of them me and my gf love disneyland!
|
On June 09 2011 01:21 Daigomi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 00:43 Rakanishu2 wrote:On June 08 2011 20:14 Daigomi wrote:
I really dislike the idea of hellbanning. It seems like a cowardly response to bad behaviour with no reasonable chance for users to redeem themselves. One of the reasons we give out temp-bans is to teach users where the line is. It's a strong reprimand which will hopefully lead to improved posting. Even users who get permanently banned are allowed to make a new account after a reasonable period of time has passed. Users who get banned know that they have made a mistake, and will hopefully stop making that mistake. In contrast, users who get hellbanned are not informed that they have been punished. They get excluded from the community without being given an opportunity to improve their posting. If you get hellbanned and ignored, you won't make a new account to improve your posting, you'll simply lose interest and leave.
Like I say, it seems really cowardly to me. It's moderating without taking responsibility for your moderator's decisions. I don't like it. Obviously this would be in the place of full bans, not temp bans. These are the people that have proven they don't deserve the privilege of posting, and this is an effective way to make the punishment more personal so that they don't continue to shit on other forums in the future. Why wouldn't you just permban or even IP ban them then? You mention making the punishment more personal, but the goal of punishment should almost never be to hurt someone. Punishment is there to deter someone from continued law breaking, and failing that, to make them unable to break laws.
Bottom line is, we're balancing an internet trolls right to transparency versus how clean forums are kept.
If you're one of those people who think ban-worthy people don't deserve to be prodded a little, sure-thing. But from my experience, the forum experience on a place like TL (near-draconian moderation policy), versus someplace like a off-topic sports forum (moderators don't care), it's much better to favor a whooping for the ban-worthy jerks, and makes forums better for people who can control themselves.
If you think the trolls should have some rights, you're welcome to post about all of their merits, and reasons we shouldn't go 5 seconds out of our way to make their experience suck, for a change.
|
On the Thrasher Message board, instead of banning people, they would just contain them to their own thread.
|
On June 09 2011 03:08 krbz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 21:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It's just very unfair and disrespectful. Yeah, even the worst Trolls deserve basic respect: namely, to be treated openly.
You want to ban someone, you tell him. You don't do things behind his back. That's just not the way to treat people, whoever they are.
Really immoral, for what I can say. If you don't give respect, then you deserve none back. Trolling and flame baiting is certainly not in the respect category.
If you don't respect people who don't respect you, you didn't deserve the respect in the first place. A person is a person. By treating someone that way, it's yourself you degrade.
The argument "I behave like shit but I got treated like shit so the other one deserved it" is ALWAYS wrong. It's not about if someone deserves it, it's about if you deserve to treat someone like that. (That's the reason why the debate about water boarding was so damn disgusting: if you are civilized and not a barbarian scum, you don't torture people, terrorists or not.)
I have dignity, so my answer is no, because I have enough self respect not to act like a douchebag (and not to play protoss. Ouch. Sorry, too many Idra replays).
|
On June 09 2011 23:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 03:08 krbz wrote:On June 08 2011 21:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It's just very unfair and disrespectful. Yeah, even the worst Trolls deserve basic respect: namely, to be treated openly.
You want to ban someone, you tell him. You don't do things behind his back. That's just not the way to treat people, whoever they are.
Really immoral, for what I can say. If you don't give respect, then you deserve none back. Trolling and flame baiting is certainly not in the respect category. If you don't respect people who don't respect you, you didn't deserve the respect in the first place. A person is a person. By treating someone that way, it's yourself you degrade. The argument "I behave like shit but I got treated like shit so the other one deserved it" is ALWAYS wrong. It's not about if someone deserves it, it's about if you deserve to treat someone like that. (That's the reason why the debate about water boarding was so damn disgusting: if you are civilized and not a barbarian scum, you don't torture people, terrorists or not.) I have dignity, so my answer is no, because I have enough self respect not to act like a douchebag (and not to play protoss. Ouch. Sorry, too many Idra replays).
Wow, that slope was so slippery that you've equated hell-banning people on the internet to water-boarding prisoners.
Glenn Beck would be proud.
|
On June 08 2011 20:14 Daigomi wrote:
I really dislike the idea of hellbanning. It seems like a cowardly response to bad behaviour with no reasonable chance for users to redeem themselves. One of the reasons we give out temp-bans is to teach users where the line is. It's a strong reprimand which will hopefully lead to improved posting. Even users who get permanently banned are allowed to make a new account after a reasonable period of time has passed. Users who get banned know that they have made a mistake, and will hopefully stop making that mistake. In contrast, users who get hellbanned are not informed that they have been punished. They get excluded from the community without being given an opportunity to improve their posting. If you get hellbanned and ignored, you won't make a new account to improve your posting, you'll simply lose interest and leave.
Like I say, it seems really cowardly to me. It's moderating without taking responsibility for your moderator's decisions. I don't like it.
gotta agree here -- a hellbanned user will continue to act out until , way after the fact , until they realize they have been "squelched<3" and probably be more troll because of it.
moderated bans and warnings seem to be a good, 'hey heres a red mark' lets cut that behavior out. its not like mods come on and say "RED MARK GTFO NOOOBZ" -- the current banning system seems respectful, yet assertive. anyone desperate enough to just continue trolling and new acct/ip'ing will probably get banned, repeatedly, or as was said, eventually learn better conduct offers better community experience
|
I think the guy has to be told that he's hellbanned. It's simply equivalent to saying "we don't give you a fuck, do whatever you want".
|
On June 09 2011 23:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 03:08 krbz wrote:On June 08 2011 21:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It's just very unfair and disrespectful. Yeah, even the worst Trolls deserve basic respect: namely, to be treated openly.
You want to ban someone, you tell him. You don't do things behind his back. That's just not the way to treat people, whoever they are.
Really immoral, for what I can say. If you don't give respect, then you deserve none back. Trolling and flame baiting is certainly not in the respect category. If you don't respect people who don't respect you, you didn't deserve the respect in the first place. A person is a person. By treating someone that way, it's yourself you degrade. The argument "I behave like shit but I got treated like shit so the other one deserved it" is ALWAYS wrong. It's not about if someone deserves it, it's about if you deserve to treat someone like that. (That's the reason why the debate about water boarding was so damn disgusting: if you are civilized and not a barbarian scum, you don't torture people, terrorists or not.) I have dignity, so my answer is no, because I have enough self respect not to act like a douchebag (and not to play protoss. Ouch. Sorry, too many Idra replays).
right on -- if you want to be a troll with the trolls, all good and well, but im gonna stay classy to other classys and trolls alike. to each his own trollage or classiness - your choice
|
On June 08 2011 20:07 arak wrote:
(There is one additional form of hellbanning that I feel compelled to mention because it is particularly cruel – when hellbanned users can see only themselves and other hellbanned users. Brrr. I'm pretty sure Dante wrote a chapter about that, somewhere.)
Trolls feed the trolls. Devilish !
|
Most profound way of hellbanning would be this;
Troll posts of the hellbanned are read to him by a text2speech engine in random intervals with cruel laughter in the background 
|
This is type of people who would argue about sacrificing clarity of the government workings for the sake of national security. Which is just as ineffective.
Edit: I like the idea of 'Monkeybans' though- the flagged users get screen full of flying monkeys everywhere they visit until they get sick of TL and leave xD
|
I think it's pretty funny, but I'm not a mod so I don't have to worry about it not working.
Plus if they made a blog then nobody would reply and then they'd think something is up.
|
On June 09 2011 04:03 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 20:14 Penecks wrote:
Hm I can't remember the last time one of my posts got a response... I'm already hellbanned! I just want to reply to this just because it's sad. And probably pretty true, unless you are really controversial or famous, most of your posts are probably going to be read and not responded too. Or not read at all. I feel your pain. + Show Spoiler +I guess the other way is to be a really good contributor, but its hard to do that without a good amount of spare time and some good ideas.
I can't say if you two do this specifically, but I find a lot of people don't get responses to their posts because they don't contribute anything new to a thread. I see a lot of people look at the OP and post their opinion even though the thread is already 10 pages long. If the thread is already a number of pages long, then it is likely that your opinion was already said, and that a discussion is already ongoing. Take this thread for example. A few pages in, a whole new discussion erupts that is almost different from the OP. Somewhere in those pages, some people post their opinion on specifically the OP. While it isn't really a bad thing, you just shouldn't expect a response. And just to clarify, I'm not accusing you two, it is just a thing I've observed in many long threads, so it may be a reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
