3 ms·
Users get really bothered by arbitrary banning, irrationally so I think. I've been on sites with moderators who could basically just enforce the rules as they l
by insanitybit 3y ago
Users get really bothered by arbitrary banning, irrationally so I think. I've been on sites with moderators who could basically just enforce the rules as they liked and it's so much better. No "well technically I'm not rule breaking" - a human makes a judgment and bans them.
For some reason these "professional" Websites (ie: the modern web of company-run forums) seem to resist this idea, and unfortunately it's hard to do it later in the game because the userbases can be very easily riled up.
- OnlineGladiator 3y agoSo you think if you get banned without notice you should be unable to appeal and this is what fosters a healthy community?
- whalesalad 3y agoAbsolutely. Those in power make mistakes all the time.
- insanitybit 3y agoSo strange, none of the words you said appear in my post.
- OnlineGladiator 3y ago> I've been on sites with moderators who could basically just enforce the rules as they liked and it's so much better. No "well technically I'm not rule breaking" - a human makes a judgment and bans them. I'm not sure how else to interpret what you typed.
- insanitybit 3y agoI said nothing about lack of appeals or lack of notice. I said that mods would make judgment calls.
- OnlineGladiator 3y agoIs there ever a situation where mods don't make judgment calls? Or are you just saying moderated is better than unmoderated? Also you specifically pointed out that arguing over the ban is bad, which is implies appealing the ban is bad.
- insanitybit 3y agoThere are - when they go by the letter of the rules.
- OnlineGladiator 3y agoYou realize a moderator has to make a judgment on whether or not they're breaking the rules though, right? That's a human decision. Anyway, this is a circular conversation. Cheers.
- insanitybit 3y agoI don't think it's circular, you just put words in my mouth and now you're not understanding what it means to follow the rules to the letter versus interpreting their intent.
- OnlineGladiator 3y agoRules have ambiguity. If there's a rule like "no jokes allowed" how do you decide that mechanically without human judgment? Do you seriously believe everything is binary without nuance? This entire argument is over whether or not I'm understanding your words correctly, and you're simultaneously arguing that words are not ambiguous and have a clearly defined meaning. I feel like you're missing the irony here.
- insanitybit 3y agoAgain with another straw man. Not continuing this. Everyone else gets what I'm saying.
- ytoawwhra92 3y agoI agree that this tends to be the best kind of moderation for individual communities, but I don't think it scales particularly well to platforms hosting many communities, and anyone earning an income from the platform really won't like arbitrary, human-judgement bans.
- JohnBooty 3y agoI ran a small community (thousands of members) that way and I think it was the best (or rather, least bad) approach. There are a few reasons why it worked IMO, but the practices seem extremely difficult to scale. - I spent a lot of time building good will in the community: personally interacting with members, calling out great community participation, etc. My positive interactions outweighed negative probably 5:1 or 10:1. - I used the ban hammer exceedingly rarely. Like, probably about twice per year over the course of ten years. - This was a pay-gated community, which cut down on troublemakers - Moderators enforced policy, but I was the only one who could actually ban