6 ms·

@shitsandwich just in case you see this, you are hellbanned.

by ngoldbaum 11y ago

golergka 11y ago
wat
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  Not addressed to you, rather to a sibling commenter. Hellbanned users cannot be directly replied to. ngoldbaum, you should check a user's comment history before alerting them to the fact that they're hellbanned. If there's a clear reason then don't. In this case, he was hellbanned because he called someone an idiot on his very first post.
  - ngoldbaum 11y ago
    Really? Even if they continue to comment productively afterwards? I think it's sad to see a hellbanned person contribute productively, since obviously they have no idea they've been banned.
    - vinceguidry 11y ago
      Such users, if they care to understand the community they want to be a part of, will eventually absorb enough knowledge to understand what a hell ban is, why they exist, what prompts a hell ban, and someone like yourself will alert them to it. Then they can request an unban or just make a new account. It was a lack of recognition of those norms that prompts the ban, it's only right that they have to work harder to arrive at that recognition before they can regain visibility. We don't want it to be too easy to become aware that you're hellbanned, that would defeat the whole point.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
    Well, check for sure but it comes down to opinion at that point. Hellbanning is a pretty extreme choice for someone who made a fairly small mistake like that.
    - vinceguidry 11y ago
      I would agree that it comes down to opinion, but I disagree that it is extreme. If the very first post you make exhibits a disregard for community norms, then chances are you're not interested in building harmony. More to the point, it is indicative of someone who has made a new account specifically to be insulting, perhaps trying to evade a hellban on a different account.
      - krapp 11y ago
        There are numerous examples of users engaging in far less civil behavior than a minor and easily ignored insult, from accounts old enough to know better, only to receive, at best, multiple warnings before being banned (if they even get banned at all.) The rationale behind hellbanning is extreme because it is arbitrary. Transgressions like @shitsandwich's are what downvoting is meant for, not banning altogether.
  - tripzilch 11y ago
    That's not even by far a "clear reason" for a hell ban.
    - vinceguidry 11y ago
      Don't let the naming get in the way, it's a more humane approach to enforcing community norms than the obvious alternative, an outright ban. The subterfuge might be a little disconcerting, but it's not like hellbanned user's posts disappear into the ether, they're visible to those with showdead on.
vacri 11y ago
I check someone's comment history before alerting them - the previous comments by that handle were all trolls. Hellbanning is meant to block these users; no point telling them.
- tripzilch 11y ago
  Hellbanning (as opposed to the many, many other options available to a moderator) is one of the most disrespectful and passive-aggressive types of moderation. To clarify, a hell-ban is the type of ban where a user's posts are hidden from everybody except themselves (and on HN, those with "showdead" enabled in their profile settings). It ranks right between simply redirecting a login to a browser-bomb page (which is slightly more evil, except for the part where it doesn't potentially waste months of a person's time) and slow-bombing/random timeouts/delays (which is ever so slightly less of a dick move to do to someone's account, yet almost always works better than a hell-ban). Except in the most extreme cases (anything short of a mentally disturbed, obsessive, or dangerous person that otherwise just won't go away), reaching for a hellban is always the wrong choice, because there's always another moderation option that deals with the situation both more effectively, as well with more respect and dignity to one's entire userbase.

@shitsandwich just in case you see this, you are hellbanned.

golergka 11y ago

wat

vinceguidry 11y ago
Not addressed to you, rather to a sibling commenter. Hellbanned users cannot be directly replied to. ngoldbaum, you should check a user's comment history before alerting them to the fact that they're hellbanned. If there's a clear reason then don't. In this case, he was hellbanned because he called someone an idiot on his very first post.
- ngoldbaum 11y ago
  Really? Even if they continue to comment productively afterwards? I think it's sad to see a hellbanned person contribute productively, since obviously they have no idea they've been banned.
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    Such users, if they care to understand the community they want to be a part of, will eventually absorb enough knowledge to understand what a hell ban is, why they exist, what prompts a hell ban, and someone like yourself will alert them to it. Then they can request an unban or just make a new account. It was a lack of recognition of those norms that prompts the ban, it's only right that they have to work harder to arrive at that recognition before they can regain visibility. We don't want it to be too easy to become aware that you're hellbanned, that would defeat the whole point.
- Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
  Well, check for sure but it comes down to opinion at that point. Hellbanning is a pretty extreme choice for someone who made a fairly small mistake like that.
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    I would agree that it comes down to opinion, but I disagree that it is extreme. If the very first post you make exhibits a disregard for community norms, then chances are you're not interested in building harmony. More to the point, it is indicative of someone who has made a new account specifically to be insulting, perhaps trying to evade a hellban on a different account.
    - krapp 11y ago
      There are numerous examples of users engaging in far less civil behavior than a minor and easily ignored insult, from accounts old enough to know better, only to receive, at best, multiple warnings before being banned (if they even get banned at all.) The rationale behind hellbanning is extreme because it is arbitrary. Transgressions like @shitsandwich's are what downvoting is meant for, not banning altogether.
- tripzilch 11y ago
  That's not even by far a "clear reason" for a hell ban.
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    Don't let the naming get in the way, it's a more humane approach to enforcing community norms than the obvious alternative, an outright ban. The subterfuge might be a little disconcerting, but it's not like hellbanned user's posts disappear into the ether, they're visible to those with showdead on.

vacri 11y ago

I check someone's comment history before alerting them - the previous comments by that handle were all trolls. Hellbanning is meant to block these users; no point telling them.

tripzilch 11y ago
Hellbanning (as opposed to the many, many other options available to a moderator) is one of the most disrespectful and passive-aggressive types of moderation. To clarify, a hell-ban is the type of ban where a user's posts are hidden from everybody except themselves (and on HN, those with "showdead" enabled in their profile settings). It ranks right between simply redirecting a login to a browser-bomb page (which is slightly more evil, except for the part where it doesn't potentially waste months of a person's time) and slow-bombing/random timeouts/delays (which is ever so slightly less of a dick move to do to someone's account, yet almost always works better than a hell-ban). Except in the most extreme cases (anything short of a mentally disturbed, obsessive, or dangerous person that otherwise just won't go away), reaching for a hellban is always the wrong choice, because there's always another moderation option that deals with the situation both more effectively, as well with more respect and dignity to one's entire userbase.