6 ms·
omg. you can be banned but still allowed to post?! how do I check whether my account is banned?
by paulftw 13y ago
omg. you can be banned but still allowed to post?!
how do I check whether my account is banned?
- X4 13y agoI was as surprised as you were! Would never ever post to HN personally if I knew that. Not letting people know that they are banned, but still allowing them to post is very egoistic.
- jlgreco 13y agoEgoist? Why? As far as I can tell it is somewhat distasteful but ultimately too useful to not use. It's pragmatic, I don't see how ego is involved.
- X4 13y agoWhat if you were banned from school and still had to pay them without knowing that you got banned. Even worse, what if all of your schoolmates would ontop of that start ignoring you and nothing you do could change it? Wouldn't that be an egoistic act? Legend: pay = posts; schoolmates = HN people/investors
- jlgreco 13y agoI would have a problem with that practice, but my problem would not be that it is egoist... Are you using egoist as a drop in replacement for "bad"? What do you mean by egoist?
- X4 13y agoSomehow can't reply under your post. By egoistic I mean that someone can continue profiting from the time you take to write posts or submit links without letting you participate with the HN users.
- DanBC 13y ago> Somehow can't reply under your post. The [reply] button takes longer to show as threads get deeper. This is because deeply nested threads tend to be flame-bait and argument, and slowing down posting is meant to help with that. Usually clicking the [link] button gives you a text box.
- X4 13y agoThanks, yes makes sense, didn't know that :)
- ctdonath 13y agoYou're not paying to use HN, so the analogy is a non-sequitur. You're a guest in pg's house; hellbanning is a generous form of dealing with the unruly by at least letting them visit and talk to those who want to hear the unruly, without either letting the unruly annoy all the guests or throwing some out entirely.
- X4 13y ago>> hellbanning is a generous form of dealing with the unruly by at least letting them visit and talk to those who want to hear the unruly, without either letting the unruly annoy all the guests or throwing some out entirely That argument is convincing, but I still believe that it's not fair treatment to not letting them at least know about their ban. I didn't know that the unruly can still talk to others. That's changing things completely!
- noarchy 13y agoIt is pretty passive-aggressive. An outright ban would get the point across, rather than this weird toying with people that we see in the form of hellbanning.
- DanBC 13y agoIt's supposed to be passive aggressive. That's the point. It's not supposed to get any point across. Hell-banning is a form of "do not feed the trolls". Some people enjoy making useless posts. They can continue making useless posts. Just with hellbanning most people no longer see those useless posts. Some people are accidentally hellbanned. It sucks for those people. But they can sometimes become unbanned, or they can start a new account.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- schrodingersCat 13y agoyou're not banned
- lucb1e 13y agoLike someone else commenting on your post said, the entire idea of being hellbanned is not knowing that you are. For the sake of humanity around here, let's not start tonnes of threads asking whether you're hellbanned. The fact that people are replying to you shows that you are not. Besides that, just keep on commenting and assume everything is okay.
- mr_spothawk 13y agoYou must be banned because I can't read what you post.