4 ms·

This may come off as a bit bitter, but there is an enormous difference between "Send to Coventry" in the wiki schoolyard sense and shadow banning. The schoolya

by jerrya 15y ago

This may come off as a bit bitter, but there is an enormous difference between "Send to Coventry" in the wiki schoolyard sense and shadow banning. The schoolyard kids are a lot less cowardly and passive aggressive than you. Ostracism itself is not a passive aggressive act, it's blatant and obvious. (And in some cases, the silent treatment is considered a form of psychological abuse. http://www.google.com/search?q=silent+treatment+psychological+abuse http://www.google.com/search?q=silent+treatment+psychologica...) But shadow banning is purposefully spiteful way to waste your contributors time and energy, precisely because it is not obvious. And so, if you mistakenly shadow ban otherwise good users (and what test does not suffer from false positives) than you can truly have abused and damaged a member of your community. It really isn't something you should take lightly as ha ha, I've sent them to Coventry. It's your community to manage as you see fit, but I think a more ethical way to treat people is to specifically state straight out they've been banned.

buro9 15y ago
Absolutely. Which is why I outlined that it's important to only apply shadow banning/send to coventry to those who are unambiguously going to redouble their efforts to spam and troll. If in doubt, have a word with the person first.
- jerrya 15y ago
  I guess I don't have a real problem with the way you implement your behavior, I think my difficulty is that this is not like "Send to Coventry", but something actually much harsher. In Dennehy's case, I would be annoyed with him as a blogwhore, but I wouldn't have classified him as a spammer as reddit did and defended. Reddit and others defend it as "it works", that's an end justifies the means argument and mainly speaks to the woes of our mad skillz, not to the virtue of the method. And since you do speak to the person first, there is no way I can have a problem with that.

by jerrya 15y ago

buro9 15y ago

Absolutely. Which is why I outlined that it's important to only apply shadow banning/send to coventry to those who are unambiguously going to redouble their efforts to spam and troll. If in doubt, have a word with the person first.

jerrya 15y ago
I guess I don't have a real problem with the way you implement your behavior, I think my difficulty is that this is not like "Send to Coventry", but something actually much harsher. In Dennehy's case, I would be annoyed with him as a blogwhore, but I wouldn't have classified him as a spammer as reddit did and defended. Reddit and others defend it as "it works", that's an end justifies the means argument and mainly speaks to the woes of our mad skillz, not to the virtue of the method. And since you do speak to the person first, there is no way I can have a problem with that.