3 ms·

>Yeah, and? This is weird. You're effectively saying someone telling you to go away has to allow you to make a counterpoint. No they don't. If you're irritating

>Yeah, and? This is weird. You're effectively saying someone telling you to go away has to allow you to make a counterpoint. No they don't. If you're irritating them they're absolutely going to use tools at hand to make you go away. If that's a problem for you maybe you should work on being less irritating? The issue with blocks as implemented on reddit is that they effectively work as moderation tools that instead of following some community norms are in the powers of individuals who are happy to abuse them. In at least one Reddit community it was enough of a problem that they made ot a rule that blocking someone was a bannable offence. Blocks should just be mutes for those blocking them. not an effective unilateral ban for whoever gets there first.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
Can I get more details on that one? Which subreddit, and why was it so disruptive? Genuinely curious.
- rcxdude 3y ago
  Check out rule 11 on https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/about/ https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/about/ (they have relaxed the rules a bit because Reddit doesn't provide for a non-abusable block, which is important and useful functionality). But essentially it's disruptive because you can simply block most of the active members of a subreddit and get an unchallenged soapbox, which in a community which wants to correct misinformation is not desired (I think they fixed this particularly stupid idea but for a while you could just block all the moderators and it would be quite difficult for them to even notice you)
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    But by virtue of blocking most of any given subreddit to get "an unchallenged soapbox" I mean... you will get that, but: 1) Your post will get very little traction or engagement, which means it'll be buried in New quite quickly 2) You won't really be a bother to the community at all, because of 1. Like, if someone posted something that was incredibly offensive to all in a given community but then hid it from everyone... like, is it even really posted? Isn't that just basically shadowbanning yourself? I'm legit trying but I'm having a hard time picturing what purpose this would be used for, on the part of the poster. Seems like a huge waste of time to be honest.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

Can I get more details on that one? Which subreddit, and why was it so disruptive? Genuinely curious.

rcxdude 3y ago
Check out rule 11 on https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/about/ https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/about/ (they have relaxed the rules a bit because Reddit doesn't provide for a non-abusable block, which is important and useful functionality). But essentially it's disruptive because you can simply block most of the active members of a subreddit and get an unchallenged soapbox, which in a community which wants to correct misinformation is not desired (I think they fixed this particularly stupid idea but for a while you could just block all the moderators and it would be quite difficult for them to even notice you)
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  But by virtue of blocking most of any given subreddit to get "an unchallenged soapbox" I mean... you will get that, but: 1) Your post will get very little traction or engagement, which means it'll be buried in New quite quickly 2) You won't really be a bother to the community at all, because of 1. Like, if someone posted something that was incredibly offensive to all in a given community but then hid it from everyone... like, is it even really posted? Isn't that just basically shadowbanning yourself? I'm legit trying but I'm having a hard time picturing what purpose this would be used for, on the part of the poster. Seems like a huge waste of time to be honest.