4 ms·

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

by rimliu 10y ago

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.

icebraining 10y ago
Why not indicate your previous account?
- unethical_ban 10y ago
  My 1k account got banned before this account was created. I don't mention its name because I don't know if the moderators would ban me.
  - SFJulie 10y ago
    They would. I made some experiments. Mix of fear of cross voting and anti spam technique I guess.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  When you get banned I'm pretty sure you get banned. So that account/accounts is/are closed but the person is banned. Clearly it's not enforceable but indicating a new account of a banned person would surely have that account removed?
  - rimliu 10y ago
    Will see. I have no doubts that mods are doing that they sincerely think is the best, but I have my doubts if that's indeed the best.
  - dang 10y ago
    Not necessarily. If we see some sign that the user is turning over a new leaf, we're happy to give another chance. The purpose of banning isn't to cast anyone out, it's to preserve a place for civil, substantive discussion. I sometimes hear people defend uncivil comments by saying that other people shouldn't be so fragile. But it isn't individuals who are fragile—it's the community. Plenty of users have gone from being banned or penalized to being positive contributors on HN. Once someone understands why the rules and moderation are the way they are, things almost always go fine. It's not, for example, about "needing to sugarcoat everything", "avoiding uncomfortable truths", or any of that kind of explanation. It's about the extreme weakness of the social contract on the internet.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
To be fair, sometimes this is a security feature so that folks don't go off hating one individual moderator. I've seen this in games more often, but I imagine it works out here as well. It sucks for normal folks, but sometimes that's the way it works.
- rimliu 10y ago
  Well, yeah, I kind of get it, but still smells fishy somehow. You still can be anonymous and say "I did something" now it just sounds like you are washing your hands and avoid being responsible. OTOH, I was never a moderator of any kind, so I have no idea what problems they have to deal with.
- throwaway743824 10y ago
  If they want to 'protect' the moderators they should use more neutral language focusing on the actions. You can easily say "This account has been x" instead of "We've x this account" or "x has been changed to reflect y" instead of "We've changed x to reflect y". It's less personal, but that's the point.
  - Cthulhu_ 10y ago
    I think that works best; a moderator is / should be only a member that happens to be responsible for maintaining the site's user behaviour policy and tidiness of articles posted, and thus decisions shouldn't be an "I" or "we" thing, but "the site". Of course, that's an utopia and no amount of rules will cover every situation.
    - rimliu 10y ago
      It may sound stupid, but it'd make me feel better if moderators still used "I" even if otherwise completely anonymous. Still add human touch and personal responsibility to the act even if there is no way to call some particular person out.
onion2k 10y ago
It seems likely that the mods talk to each other and critique one another's decisions. It's quite reasonable to say "we" to mean "the moderators of HN as a collective group" if banning your account was a group decision. The fact you're getting a comment from an individual doesn't mean it was necessarily just that person's decision to ban you. It's pretty uncharitable to assume moderators don't take their 'job' quite seriously.
- jo909 10y ago
  Also even if the moderator made that particular decision alone, he will not have to stand up for it as an individual if it gets challenged. Any sensible organization will back him up as long as he acted in good faith and did not break some basic rules. He is, at all times (except when not acting as a moderator), representing a larger entity. (They might of course still have an internal disagreement over an issue, and maybe take internal action for bad decisions, and might overthrow that decision if warranted, but not by blaming it on one individual.)
nkurz 10y ago
There was also a lie about warning which never happened, but hey, "not lying" is not in the guidelines, so… I think you've unfairly jumped from the evidence you see (I don't recall receiving any warning) to an accusation that Dan was lying. Since lying about this doesn't seem to be to Dan's benefit (why risk adding false information?) it seems more likely that Dan may have confused you with another user, or that you may not have seen (or remembered) the warning. Scanning back through your comments, I fairly quickly found the warning from a couple months ago that I think Dan was referring to: [redacted]. Likely you didn't notice this (or didn't consider it to be a warning?) but even if he's wronged you elsewhere, you probably should apologize to Dan for the false accusation. while some of my comments might be harsh Having just scanned through a couple months of your comments, I think that's unfortunately an understatement. A surprisingly large percentage of your recent comments are, as Dan warned, "personally abrasive". If your intent was to cause offense with each of these comments, I think Dan was right to ban your account. If the offense you were causing wasn't intentional, then there would appear to be a cultural misunderstanding that would be to your benefit to address. the most annoying thing was the comment left by moderator "we banned". How about "I banned"? Faceless corporate "we" does not look well. I agree with you about the use of "we". It often comes across oddly when it seems clear that the decision was made by an individual. I don't think a blanket switch to "I" solves it, but it seems like there should be a better phrasing.
- rimliu 10y ago
  First, I don't remember mentioning that the account you are pointing to was mine. And while it is true in this case this kind of exposing does not sit well with me at all. Second, it is a bit of a stretch to call Dan's (I still have no idea who 'dang' is, there is no name or personal address on his profile, but based on your doxing skills I will believe you) comment a warning. You can see that in other cases he's a bit more explicit ("stop doing that or we will ban you"). Also, I may be wrong, but if you read his comments a bit of different treatment is applied, I guess this is up to personal likes and dislikes. As for offensive comments… well I am firmly in a camp of thinking that offense is taken, not given. Sure, one can be excessively rude, but I do not think this applies here. Calling opinion you consider bullshit is worth banning? Well, sad day indeed, then. More so because you can find plenty of stronger expression here which are posted without repercussions—likely because mods agree with them? Cultural differences? Close enough I guess. I am still not sure if shaping this place into a Stepford where everyone is all fake smiles and nods in agreement is a best way, but it is not up to me to decide. I am glad that at leas on topic of "we" we are in some agreement. As I've mentioned previously there may very well be solid reasons for this kind of anonymity, but it still feels very inhuman.
stefantalpalaru 10y ago
You should have stayed hellbanned. We could make a parallel forum, without the possibility to reply to each other's comments directly and limited to about 4-5 comments per day, but visible only to that minority with "showdead" enabled in settings.

by rimliu 10y ago

icebraining 10y ago

Why not indicate your previous account?

unethical_ban 10y ago
My 1k account got banned before this account was created. I don't mention its name because I don't know if the moderators would ban me.
- SFJulie 10y ago
  They would. I made some experiments. Mix of fear of cross voting and anti spam technique I guess.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
When you get banned I'm pretty sure you get banned. So that account/accounts is/are closed but the person is banned. Clearly it's not enforceable but indicating a new account of a banned person would surely have that account removed?
- rimliu 10y ago
  Will see. I have no doubts that mods are doing that they sincerely think is the best, but I have my doubts if that's indeed the best.
- dang 10y ago
  Not necessarily. If we see some sign that the user is turning over a new leaf, we're happy to give another chance. The purpose of banning isn't to cast anyone out, it's to preserve a place for civil, substantive discussion. I sometimes hear people defend uncivil comments by saying that other people shouldn't be so fragile. But it isn't individuals who are fragile—it's the community. Plenty of users have gone from being banned or penalized to being positive contributors on HN. Once someone understands why the rules and moderation are the way they are, things almost always go fine. It's not, for example, about "needing to sugarcoat everything", "avoiding uncomfortable truths", or any of that kind of explanation. It's about the extreme weakness of the social contract on the internet.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

To be fair, sometimes this is a security feature so that folks don't go off hating one individual moderator. I've seen this in games more often, but I imagine it works out here as well. It sucks for normal folks, but sometimes that's the way it works.

rimliu 10y ago
Well, yeah, I kind of get it, but still smells fishy somehow. You still can be anonymous and say "I did something" now it just sounds like you are washing your hands and avoid being responsible. OTOH, I was never a moderator of any kind, so I have no idea what problems they have to deal with.
throwaway743824 10y ago
If they want to 'protect' the moderators they should use more neutral language focusing on the actions. You can easily say "This account has been x" instead of "We've x this account" or "x has been changed to reflect y" instead of "We've changed x to reflect y". It's less personal, but that's the point.
- Cthulhu_ 10y ago
  I think that works best; a moderator is / should be only a member that happens to be responsible for maintaining the site's user behaviour policy and tidiness of articles posted, and thus decisions shouldn't be an "I" or "we" thing, but "the site". Of course, that's an utopia and no amount of rules will cover every situation.
  - rimliu 10y ago
    It may sound stupid, but it'd make me feel better if moderators still used "I" even if otherwise completely anonymous. Still add human touch and personal responsibility to the act even if there is no way to call some particular person out.

onion2k 10y ago

It seems likely that the mods talk to each other and critique one another's decisions. It's quite reasonable to say "we" to mean "the moderators of HN as a collective group" if banning your account was a group decision. The fact you're getting a comment from an individual doesn't mean it was necessarily just that person's decision to ban you. It's pretty uncharitable to assume moderators don't take their 'job' quite seriously.

jo909 10y ago
Also even if the moderator made that particular decision alone, he will not have to stand up for it as an individual if it gets challenged. Any sensible organization will back him up as long as he acted in good faith and did not break some basic rules. He is, at all times (except when not acting as a moderator), representing a larger entity. (They might of course still have an internal disagreement over an issue, and maybe take internal action for bad decisions, and might overthrow that decision if warranted, but not by blaming it on one individual.)

nkurz 10y ago

There was also a lie about warning which never happened, but hey, "not lying" is not in the guidelines, so… I think you've unfairly jumped from the evidence you see (I don't recall receiving any warning) to an accusation that Dan was lying. Since lying about this doesn't seem to be to Dan's benefit (why risk adding false information?) it seems more likely that Dan may have confused you with another user, or that you may not have seen (or remembered) the warning. Scanning back through your comments, I fairly quickly found the warning from a couple months ago that I think Dan was referring to: [redacted]. Likely you didn't notice this (or didn't consider it to be a warning?) but even if he's wronged you elsewhere, you probably should apologize to Dan for the false accusation. while some of my comments might be harsh Having just scanned through a couple months of your comments, I think that's unfortunately an understatement. A surprisingly large percentage of your recent comments are, as Dan warned, "personally abrasive". If your intent was to cause offense with each of these comments, I think Dan was right to ban your account. If the offense you were causing wasn't intentional, then there would appear to be a cultural misunderstanding that would be to your benefit to address. the most annoying thing was the comment left by moderator "we banned". How about "I banned"? Faceless corporate "we" does not look well. I agree with you about the use of "we". It often comes across oddly when it seems clear that the decision was made by an individual. I don't think a blanket switch to "I" solves it, but it seems like there should be a better phrasing.

rimliu 10y ago
First, I don't remember mentioning that the account you are pointing to was mine. And while it is true in this case this kind of exposing does not sit well with me at all. Second, it is a bit of a stretch to call Dan's (I still have no idea who 'dang' is, there is no name or personal address on his profile, but based on your doxing skills I will believe you) comment a warning. You can see that in other cases he's a bit more explicit ("stop doing that or we will ban you"). Also, I may be wrong, but if you read his comments a bit of different treatment is applied, I guess this is up to personal likes and dislikes. As for offensive comments… well I am firmly in a camp of thinking that offense is taken, not given. Sure, one can be excessively rude, but I do not think this applies here. Calling opinion you consider bullshit is worth banning? Well, sad day indeed, then. More so because you can find plenty of stronger expression here which are posted without repercussions—likely because mods agree with them? Cultural differences? Close enough I guess. I am still not sure if shaping this place into a Stepford where everyone is all fake smiles and nods in agreement is a best way, but it is not up to me to decide. I am glad that at leas on topic of "we" we are in some agreement. As I've mentioned previously there may very well be solid reasons for this kind of anonymity, but it still feels very inhuman.

stefantalpalaru 10y ago

You should have stayed hellbanned. We could make a parallel forum, without the possibility to reply to each other's comments directly and limited to about 4-5 comments per day, but visible only to that minority with "showdead" enabled in settings.