4 ms·

> Shadow-banning / hell-banning happens on HN too, but you're right that it's not a very nice way of moderating. It's literally the worst way of moderating (sh

> Shadow-banning / hell-banning happens on HN too, but you're right that it's not a very nice way of moderating. It's literally the worst way of moderating (short of serving the banned user destructive/malicious code). HN is wrong when they do it, too. Fortunately we got some new mods a while back, they're very good, and nowhere near as trigger-happy with the hell-bans as before. And still, it's wrong, vindictive and dishonest, and if you're clever just as easily circumvented as regular bans, which would be the right option (otherwise I'd like to hear the argument why non-clever people should be punished more harshly).

grzm 10y ago
Should an online community or its hosts have a say in shaping their community? If not, why not? If so, how should that be done? Why is shadow/hell banning in particular bad? I haven't seen a lot of discussions with reasons: just that it's bad. If you know of some, feel free to provide a link rather than duplicate it here.
- hueving 10y ago
  It doesn't punish people intentionally trolling because they know to just create a new account. It just punishes people with unpopular opinions who are honestly trying to participate in the community.
  - grzm 10y ago
    It = hell/shadowbanning? From what I've seen on HN, those that have been banned have been warned, and it's been for either incivility or posting mostly unsubstantive/inflammatory posts. Which seems reasonable to me. Have you seen something different? Or have a different take?
    - hueving 10y ago
      Yes, an account with thousands of karma can be permanently shadowbanned by triggering a mod. The problem is that the line between unpopular opinion and inflammatory can be completely subjective in many cases. This site implies that comments should be analyzed rationally, but comments from shadowbanned accounts do not get this treatment. It's the equivalent of claiming someone will be allowed to take place in a televised event but then secretly cutting all of their responses out of the broadcast. Shadow banning is anti-intellectual behavior because it's essentially a systematic ad hominem.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Agreed that the line between unpopular and inflammatory can be a matter of perspective. Regarding shadowbanned accounts not getting the same treatment: are you saying they weren't warned beforehand? Or not treated fairly before the banning? How long should those who have contributed negatively (wrt community standards) tolerated? Those who keep showdead and have enough karma can and do vouch for substantive and civil comments from shadowbanned accounts. Btw, are there particular instances you have in mind that you can point to? I've been following sctb and dang for the past month or so to see how they interact with the site and don't recall seeing anything grievious about their banning decisions. I completely agree that there's some tension between an policing a community forum and perceptions of anti- intellectual behavior, which motivated the additional questions in my previous comment. Would you mind weighing in on those? (And I'm not saying shadowbanning is the only tool they can use. Perhaps only voting and flagging should be used? I'm not sure if that's enough.) Thanks! (Please pardon any lack of proper editing or phrasing. I'm on my phone and having issues with commenting.)
        hueving 10y ago
        >Regarding shadowbanned accounts not getting the same treatment: are you saying they weren't warned beforehand? Or not treated fairly before the banning? Their comments are not allowed to be judged based on the merit of their content. They are pre-filtered by a moderator's decision that anything generated by that person is not fit for human conversation. Every other account, including brand new ones, can create a comment and have it seen by everyone. They may have been warned, etc, but I'm saying the shadowban itself is garbage, not the conditions under which it is administered. >How long should those who have contributed negatively (wrt community standards) tolerated? Downvote/flag individual negative comments, that's what we have the system for. If someone truly wants to contribute negatively, a shadowban is a joke because they can create new accounts.
        grzm 10y ago
        As I understand it and have observed, users are shadowbanned because they've shown that they sometimes act in ways that are detrimental to the community as a whole. By continuing to act that way, they've accepted that they might be banned. Users can also appeal the ban by contacting the mods by email. I leave showdead on and have vouched for comments of banned users. I've also seen users continue to spew vitriol after they know they are banned. Is the type of user that would pointlessly continue to contribute negatively in this fashion have on balance a positive impact on the community? Arguing that they're behaving this way because they've been banned shows that they don't have the maturity to recognize that their behavior continues to reflect badly on them. It's not going to change the fact that they're banned. You're right that if you're a determined troll, you can get around a shadowbox. From what I've seen, banning has been on balance effective to deal with uncivil behavior. Creating a new account does add some cost to the ban. Relying only on down votes puts the cost entirely on the community at large at no cost to the user behaving badly. Do you think it's fair to the community to bear the cost of the user's behavior? Do you have any other ideas on how to effectively shape community behavior, preferably ones that move the cost from the community to the user behaving badly? I'm honestly interested, because I've seen enough complaints about banning that I'd like to hear about alternatives that would considered fair and still be effective. It would be great if everyone would contribute in a positive, or at least civil, way. In larger online communities it's much easier for users who contribute negatively to destroy a community where positive users no longer want to participate. Each community has its own standards and cultures (and what's considered good and bad behavior), which is great! So far, I think it's pretty remarkable that HN has been able to maintain the community it has in comparison to other online communities of similar users.

grzm 10y ago

Should an online community or its hosts have a say in shaping their community? If not, why not? If so, how should that be done? Why is shadow/hell banning in particular bad? I haven't seen a lot of discussions with reasons: just that it's bad. If you know of some, feel free to provide a link rather than duplicate it here.

hueving 10y ago
It doesn't punish people intentionally trolling because they know to just create a new account. It just punishes people with unpopular opinions who are honestly trying to participate in the community.
- grzm 10y ago
  It = hell/shadowbanning? From what I've seen on HN, those that have been banned have been warned, and it's been for either incivility or posting mostly unsubstantive/inflammatory posts. Which seems reasonable to me. Have you seen something different? Or have a different take?
  - hueving 10y ago
    Yes, an account with thousands of karma can be permanently shadowbanned by triggering a mod. The problem is that the line between unpopular opinion and inflammatory can be completely subjective in many cases. This site implies that comments should be analyzed rationally, but comments from shadowbanned accounts do not get this treatment. It's the equivalent of claiming someone will be allowed to take place in a televised event but then secretly cutting all of their responses out of the broadcast. Shadow banning is anti-intellectual behavior because it's essentially a systematic ad hominem.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Agreed that the line between unpopular and inflammatory can be a matter of perspective. Regarding shadowbanned accounts not getting the same treatment: are you saying they weren't warned beforehand? Or not treated fairly before the banning? How long should those who have contributed negatively (wrt community standards) tolerated? Those who keep showdead and have enough karma can and do vouch for substantive and civil comments from shadowbanned accounts. Btw, are there particular instances you have in mind that you can point to? I've been following sctb and dang for the past month or so to see how they interact with the site and don't recall seeing anything grievious about their banning decisions. I completely agree that there's some tension between an policing a community forum and perceptions of anti- intellectual behavior, which motivated the additional questions in my previous comment. Would you mind weighing in on those? (And I'm not saying shadowbanning is the only tool they can use. Perhaps only voting and flagging should be used? I'm not sure if that's enough.) Thanks! (Please pardon any lack of proper editing or phrasing. I'm on my phone and having issues with commenting.)
      - hueving 10y ago
        >Regarding shadowbanned accounts not getting the same treatment: are you saying they weren't warned beforehand? Or not treated fairly before the banning? Their comments are not allowed to be judged based on the merit of their content. They are pre-filtered by a moderator's decision that anything generated by that person is not fit for human conversation. Every other account, including brand new ones, can create a comment and have it seen by everyone. They may have been warned, etc, but I'm saying the shadowban itself is garbage, not the conditions under which it is administered. >How long should those who have contributed negatively (wrt community standards) tolerated? Downvote/flag individual negative comments, that's what we have the system for. If someone truly wants to contribute negatively, a shadowban is a joke because they can create new accounts.
        grzm 10y ago
        As I understand it and have observed, users are shadowbanned because they've shown that they sometimes act in ways that are detrimental to the community as a whole. By continuing to act that way, they've accepted that they might be banned. Users can also appeal the ban by contacting the mods by email. I leave showdead on and have vouched for comments of banned users. I've also seen users continue to spew vitriol after they know they are banned. Is the type of user that would pointlessly continue to contribute negatively in this fashion have on balance a positive impact on the community? Arguing that they're behaving this way because they've been banned shows that they don't have the maturity to recognize that their behavior continues to reflect badly on them. It's not going to change the fact that they're banned. You're right that if you're a determined troll, you can get around a shadowbox. From what I've seen, banning has been on balance effective to deal with uncivil behavior. Creating a new account does add some cost to the ban. Relying only on down votes puts the cost entirely on the community at large at no cost to the user behaving badly. Do you think it's fair to the community to bear the cost of the user's behavior? Do you have any other ideas on how to effectively shape community behavior, preferably ones that move the cost from the community to the user behaving badly? I'm honestly interested, because I've seen enough complaints about banning that I'd like to hear about alternatives that would considered fair and still be effective. It would be great if everyone would contribute in a positive, or at least civil, way. In larger online communities it's much easier for users who contribute negatively to destroy a community where positive users no longer want to participate. Each community has its own standards and cultures (and what's considered good and bad behavior), which is great! So far, I think it's pretty remarkable that HN has been able to maintain the community it has in comparison to other online communities of similar users.