3 ms·

Just to provide the other side of this. Imagine seeing a post exactly like yours, literally word for word, with the same civil tone and all. Except the user i

Just to provide the other side of this. Imagine seeing a post exactly like yours, literally word for word, with the same civil tone and all. Except the user in question had been banned for posting a tubgirl (its gross) image by a moderator that happened be female and had responded in private messages on a clear alt account (minutes after the ban with the same IP address) calling that moderator a slut who deserved to be raped and killed. And that style of interaction being relatively common.

valuearb 6y ago
Imagine treating a civil poster as if they were a jerk, just because a different civil poster once turned out to be a jerk.
- Goronmon 6y ago
  Its' not about treating people like a jerk, just that you learn quickly to never trust a person at face value when they say "I didn't do anything wrong" because that's usually the first and most common phrase a person who does something wrong uses. I was merely pointing out that the "public" persona a user portrays doesn't have to match the truth.
  - syshum 6y ago
    Which can be equally applied to moderation staff, mods that say "We are not biased, and always are fair only banning people that break the rules" are equally as likely to be bad actors as your narrative about regular users
    - Goronmon 6y ago
      Definitely. I mean, in the vast majority of cases, the moderators are just "regular users" who are given (or chose in the case of the creation of subreddits) power over other users. Even if the moderators are employees they are still fallible, with personal motives, just like the people they moderate. In the end, that's why its such a difficult problem. You take the normal conflict that occurs in communities, add in the potential for malicious actors on both sides and it's no surprise that the normal conflicts can spiral out of control. Especially in the virtual and relatively anonymous setting of online communities. And from a person on the outside looking in, it can be impossible to actually know what the truth is.
syshum 6y ago
Not sure how that invalidates the equally if not more common occurrence of banning based on philosophical, political or other disagreements with the moderation staff

valuearb 6y ago

Imagine treating a civil poster as if they were a jerk, just because a different civil poster once turned out to be a jerk.

Goronmon 6y ago
Its' not about treating people like a jerk, just that you learn quickly to never trust a person at face value when they say "I didn't do anything wrong" because that's usually the first and most common phrase a person who does something wrong uses. I was merely pointing out that the "public" persona a user portrays doesn't have to match the truth.
- syshum 6y ago
  Which can be equally applied to moderation staff, mods that say "We are not biased, and always are fair only banning people that break the rules" are equally as likely to be bad actors as your narrative about regular users
  - Goronmon 6y ago
    Definitely. I mean, in the vast majority of cases, the moderators are just "regular users" who are given (or chose in the case of the creation of subreddits) power over other users. Even if the moderators are employees they are still fallible, with personal motives, just like the people they moderate. In the end, that's why its such a difficult problem. You take the normal conflict that occurs in communities, add in the potential for malicious actors on both sides and it's no surprise that the normal conflicts can spiral out of control. Especially in the virtual and relatively anonymous setting of online communities. And from a person on the outside looking in, it can be impossible to actually know what the truth is.

syshum 6y ago

Not sure how that invalidates the equally if not more common occurrence of banning based on philosophical, political or other disagreements with the moderation staff