5 ms·

Is "nasty tone" really the basis of silently banning people? Just because something offends a moderator, then all of their subsequent comments are censored? Be

Is "nasty tone" really the basis of silently banning people? Just because something offends a moderator, then all of their subsequent comments are censored? Being offended shouldn't offer anyone any special rights. If something "offends" you, ignore it and move on.

lutusp 13y ago
> Being offended shouldn't offer anyone any special rights. Its a good think you said "shouldn't" rather than "can't", because any number of laws forbid various kinds of offensive behavior. > If something "offends" you, ignore it and move on. Not everyone can "move on", which is why we have the laws we do. This is only peripherally associated with the present topic, but no one should imagine that offensive behavior is absolutely tolerated, or that people can only relocate themselves to solve the problem.
- voicereasonish 13y ago
  Just because a law exists, doesn't mean it should exist. For example, sending "offensive" tweets should not be illegal IMHO.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Just because a law exists, doesn't mean it should exist. Yes -- that's a point I made also.
jfoster 13y ago
I think the problem with what you're suggesting is that it can rapidly devolve the forum into being uncivilized. I do think silent banning is a little bit mean, but if you tell people they've been banned, they just start a new account. Perhaps new accounts could start off dead until endorsed, and bans could be reversed. A bit like pending comments, but at an account level. It takes away "starting a new account" as a solution to being banned if both accounts have the same (100% dependent on content of posts) likelihood of coming back.
jamesaguilar 13y ago
There are other forums with the rules you propose. Many, including the people who control this site, believe that part of the reason for the quality of HN is that we have these rules. I for one agree, but if I didn't, I'd go find one of the easily available low-moderation or no-moderation sites.

lutusp 13y ago

> Being offended shouldn't offer anyone any special rights. Its a good think you said "shouldn't" rather than "can't", because any number of laws forbid various kinds of offensive behavior. > If something "offends" you, ignore it and move on. Not everyone can "move on", which is why we have the laws we do. This is only peripherally associated with the present topic, but no one should imagine that offensive behavior is absolutely tolerated, or that people can only relocate themselves to solve the problem.

voicereasonish 13y ago
Just because a law exists, doesn't mean it should exist. For example, sending "offensive" tweets should not be illegal IMHO.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Just because a law exists, doesn't mean it should exist. Yes -- that's a point I made also.

jfoster 13y ago

I think the problem with what you're suggesting is that it can rapidly devolve the forum into being uncivilized. I do think silent banning is a little bit mean, but if you tell people they've been banned, they just start a new account. Perhaps new accounts could start off dead until endorsed, and bans could be reversed. A bit like pending comments, but at an account level. It takes away "starting a new account" as a solution to being banned if both accounts have the same (100% dependent on content of posts) likelihood of coming back.

jamesaguilar 13y ago

There are other forums with the rules you propose. Many, including the people who control this site, believe that part of the reason for the quality of HN is that we have these rules. I for one agree, but if I didn't, I'd go find one of the easily available low-moderation or no-moderation sites.