5 ms·

Maybe this could apply to people hell banned from communities. Instead of a regular hellban, have a hellban community... Let all of the rolls play together.

jiggy2011 14y ago
I think that exists and it's called 4chan.
- lmm 14y ago
  Interestingly for certain topics there are banned users who join in by ghostposting in the archive (i.e. posting just to the archive, not to the actual thread - the archive is an independent site, so it doesn't matter if you're banned from 4chan proper) for those threads (the archive updates in realtime, so you can read threads there as they happen).
MartinCron 14y ago
I read about this when I first heard of hellbanning: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/06/suspension-ban-or-hellban.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/06/suspension-ban-or-h... (There is one additional form of hellbanning that I feel compelled to mention because it is particularly cruel – when hellbanned users can see only themselves and other hellbanned users. Brrr. I'm pretty sure Dante wrote a chapter about that, somewhere.)
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  I have HN set to show me comments from hellbanned users. A lot of them are just trolls/spammers , however there are a number that I feel sorry for because they post relevant and sometimes long comments on threads and I imagine that they wonder why they are not getting any votes or replies. I think it's easy to get off to a bad start on an online community simply because you don't understand it's ethos rather than outright malice.
  - disgruntledphd2 14y ago
    So do I. I tend to upvote the sensible (i.e. not crazy) ones, in the hopes that someday they'll make it back to positive karma.
    - ramidarigaz 14y ago
      I don't think the votes actually go through on hellbanned users unfortunately.
      - hef19898 14y ago
        Hellbanned? what does that actually mean? Seems i missed a lot online since around the early 2000s...
        neutronicus 14y ago
        Your account appears, to you, to function normally, but your posts are not visible to any other users. The rationale is that trolls and spammers will usually register new accounts upon being notified of a ban, but a hellbanned troll/spammer might continue to use the hellbanned account without realizing that their posts are ignored.
        JohannL 14y ago
        If only people would not downvote instead of voicing disagreement; just because someone is actually mistaken, or worse, simply not going along with whatever fad might be the issue, is hardly justification to waste their time like this. The rationale is that a non-troll/spammer can simply realize they have intruded on a circlejerk, instead of wasting their time making posts nobody even sees. While I get that there may be actual good uses for this, it is super silly to assume "they must be trolls/spammers, or they wouldn't be hellbanned". That doesn't follow logically at all. What is common though, you might even say well-reasearched, is that when other people get treated unfairly by our own peers, we route around the damage with neat little stories about fairness. It's sociology 101, nobody wants to be a tyrant, or in bed with them. We want the power, just not the shame, and how mediocre and small it makes us seem in the right light. So we tell stories, and sometimes those stories happen to be true, but that's just because we got lucky, not because we actually inform ourselves. It's also very convenient that those affected can not give any feedback, they're banned after all. Also: dunno about trolls (except that assholes or ignorant people are often called that, when in fact "trolling" implies deliberate deceit and trying to play mind games, instead of just being stupid or a jerk; but who needs to think when you can have labels), but why would a spammer not simply use a new account for each post? It seems like that would be actually less effort. Now vote me down or whatever, I'd rather be banned than suck up :P I'm aware it's kinda off-topic, because none of this applies to gaming... but those are the posts I'm replying to, hah. I just think that modding people, not posts, is highly flawed; even ignoring the moral high horse for a second, it doesn't produce good results either.
WiseWeasel 14y ago
I like it. There may even be practical ways for the antisocials to eventually meta-moderate each-other out from under the bridge. To be studied.
henrikeh 14y ago
Facepunch, the forum mainly connected to the sandbox game Garry's mod, has had this for a long time. If you broke a rule you were banned to "Refugee Camp" for some amount of time. Only you, the moderators and gold users (paying or 5+ years and no permaban) can see your posts in the Refugee Camp. Mostly people complained and tried to reduce or revoke the ban, but occasionally it let to rather creative or crazy time-wasting.
SimHacker 14y ago
Back in the ARPANET days, the convention was that if you wanted to be removed from a mailing list info-foo@mit-mc, you sent email to info-foo-REQUEST@mit-mc to contact the maintainer of the mailing list, instead of broadcasting a "please remove me" message to the entire mailing list. Of course there were people who didn't know the convention, and would violate this rule of netiquette. So a mischievous hacker who got sick of all the people asking "please remove me" set up a special mailing list called "please-remove-me@mit-mc" just for them, to which he subscribed people who didn't know the convention, so they could all talk to each other about how to remove themselves from mailing lists.

jiggy2011 14y ago

I think that exists and it's called 4chan.

lmm 14y ago
Interestingly for certain topics there are banned users who join in by ghostposting in the archive (i.e. posting just to the archive, not to the actual thread - the archive is an independent site, so it doesn't matter if you're banned from 4chan proper) for those threads (the archive updates in realtime, so you can read threads there as they happen).

MartinCron 14y ago

I read about this when I first heard of hellbanning: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/06/suspension-ban-or-hellban.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/06/suspension-ban-or-h... (There is one additional form of hellbanning that I feel compelled to mention because it is particularly cruel – when hellbanned users can see only themselves and other hellbanned users. Brrr. I'm pretty sure Dante wrote a chapter about that, somewhere.)

jiggy2011 14y ago
I have HN set to show me comments from hellbanned users. A lot of them are just trolls/spammers , however there are a number that I feel sorry for because they post relevant and sometimes long comments on threads and I imagine that they wonder why they are not getting any votes or replies. I think it's easy to get off to a bad start on an online community simply because you don't understand it's ethos rather than outright malice.
- disgruntledphd2 14y ago
  So do I. I tend to upvote the sensible (i.e. not crazy) ones, in the hopes that someday they'll make it back to positive karma.
  - ramidarigaz 14y ago
    I don't think the votes actually go through on hellbanned users unfortunately.
    - hef19898 14y ago
      Hellbanned? what does that actually mean? Seems i missed a lot online since around the early 2000s...
      - neutronicus 14y ago
        Your account appears, to you, to function normally, but your posts are not visible to any other users. The rationale is that trolls and spammers will usually register new accounts upon being notified of a ban, but a hellbanned troll/spammer might continue to use the hellbanned account without realizing that their posts are ignored.
        JohannL 14y ago
        If only people would not downvote instead of voicing disagreement; just because someone is actually mistaken, or worse, simply not going along with whatever fad might be the issue, is hardly justification to waste their time like this. The rationale is that a non-troll/spammer can simply realize they have intruded on a circlejerk, instead of wasting their time making posts nobody even sees. While I get that there may be actual good uses for this, it is super silly to assume "they must be trolls/spammers, or they wouldn't be hellbanned". That doesn't follow logically at all. What is common though, you might even say well-reasearched, is that when other people get treated unfairly by our own peers, we route around the damage with neat little stories about fairness. It's sociology 101, nobody wants to be a tyrant, or in bed with them. We want the power, just not the shame, and how mediocre and small it makes us seem in the right light. So we tell stories, and sometimes those stories happen to be true, but that's just because we got lucky, not because we actually inform ourselves. It's also very convenient that those affected can not give any feedback, they're banned after all. Also: dunno about trolls (except that assholes or ignorant people are often called that, when in fact "trolling" implies deliberate deceit and trying to play mind games, instead of just being stupid or a jerk; but who needs to think when you can have labels), but why would a spammer not simply use a new account for each post? It seems like that would be actually less effort. Now vote me down or whatever, I'd rather be banned than suck up :P I'm aware it's kinda off-topic, because none of this applies to gaming... but those are the posts I'm replying to, hah. I just think that modding people, not posts, is highly flawed; even ignoring the moral high horse for a second, it doesn't produce good results either.

WiseWeasel 14y ago

I like it. There may even be practical ways for the antisocials to eventually meta-moderate each-other out from under the bridge. To be studied.

henrikeh 14y ago

Facepunch, the forum mainly connected to the sandbox game Garry's mod, has had this for a long time. If you broke a rule you were banned to "Refugee Camp" for some amount of time. Only you, the moderators and gold users (paying or 5+ years and no permaban) can see your posts in the Refugee Camp. Mostly people complained and tried to reduce or revoke the ban, but occasionally it let to rather creative or crazy time-wasting.

SimHacker 14y ago

Back in the ARPANET days, the convention was that if you wanted to be removed from a mailing list info-foo@mit-mc, you sent email to info-foo-REQUEST@mit-mc to contact the maintainer of the mailing list, instead of broadcasting a "please remove me" message to the entire mailing list. Of course there were people who didn't know the convention, and would violate this rule of netiquette. So a mischievous hacker who got sick of all the people asking "please remove me" set up a special mailing list called "please-remove-me@mit-mc" just for them, to which he subscribed people who didn't know the convention, so they could all talk to each other about how to remove themselves from mailing lists.