• Activity
  • Votes
  • Comments
  • New
  • All activity
  • Showing only topics with the tag "bans". Back to normal view
    1. alyaza is unbanned

      A couple of days ago, I loudly banned alyaza. After investigating it more, I no longer believe that DearDeer was their alt account, so everything I accused them of doing in that post was not true,...

      A couple of days ago, I loudly banned alyaza. After investigating it more, I no longer believe that DearDeer was their alt account, so everything I accused them of doing in that post was not true, and they've been unbanned.

      There are a lot of justifications and excuses I could give for why I got it wrong, but in the end it doesn't really matter. I made a somewhat-rushed decision, but I was confident about it at the time. Yesterday I spent more time looking into it, including following the invite chain and managing to get in contact with the person that sent the invite that DearDeer used to register. Between talking with that person (who was remarkably helpful) and some other info, I found more evidence that DearDeer wasn't alyaza than I had used to originally decide that it was, and realized that I was wrong.

      This is a good example of why I don't like publicizing bans. Without me making that post about it, I'm sure this still would have been noticed by some people, but it could have been a relatively quiet temporary ban that lasted for about a day while it got sorted out. Instead, it ends up as a multi-day unnecessary spectacle. I'm not bothered by the effect on me because of that—I screwed up and deserve the embarrassment and criticism that comes from it, and I fully accept that. But it was unfair and cruel to alyaza to be falsely accused of things publicly, and that can't be reversed.

      Decisions like this (and moderation in general) are often judgment calls that have to be made quickly and with incomplete information. Sometimes, like in this case, you make the wrong call, and more time, information, or an appeal leads you to reverse it. There can be value in having that happen in public, but there can also be harm, and I think this case absolutely leaned more towards the harmful end.

      Anyway, I'll leave the comments open this time so that you can berate me appropriately. Please avoid commenting on alyaza personally though—I've already done enough damage and we don't need to continue that.

      90 votes
    2. So, this is, in part, in response to the alibaba ban. I think it's bad practice not to know why someone got banned. Firstly, it may lead to excessives from your part ("I will ban anyone and...

      So, this is, in part, in response to the alibaba ban.

      I think it's bad practice not to know why someone got banned. Firstly, it may lead to excessives from your part ("I will ban anyone and everyone I want and no one will know"). Secondly, it fails to show other posters that X behaviour will get you banned.

      8 votes
    3. I generally haven't been making public posts about bans any more (there have been almost none recently anyway), but I'm sure there will be people wondering about this one since they were a very...

      I generally haven't been making public posts about bans any more (there have been almost none recently anyway), but I'm sure there will be people wondering about this one since they were a very prolific poster.

      I've banned alyaza. Whether it's temporary or permanent depends on how they justify it to me, but I told them that it would last for at least a week regardless. I've previously warned alyaza about their behavior multiple times (both publicly and privately), and they were aware that they were on their last chance to stop being so hostile when disagreeing with others. Today they registered a new account (DearDeer, which is also banned now) and started immediately using it in disingenuous ways, including arguing with the same comments from both accounts. I'm not sure if the intention was to circumvent that final warning instead of changing behavior, but it absolutely wasn't being used for good-faith purposes regardless.

      I'm going to lock this thread immediately since it's really not worth fostering drama or dwelling on it with a big public discussion, but I wanted to post an explanation at least. If you have any questions or thoughts about it, please feel free to send me a message instead.

      56 votes
    4. With the constant growth of Tildes, and the impressive achievement of gaining 10,000 user accounts, there is a need to discuss some things. There was a user on here last summer that was banned as...

      With the constant growth of Tildes, and the impressive achievement of gaining 10,000 user accounts, there is a need to discuss some things.

      There was a user on here last summer that was banned as a result of a post about a study between a correlation between race and iq. In a different thread, a user named go1dfish posted to discuss the topic and oppose the ban.

      I recently encountered go1dfish on another site, looked them up on Tildes, and discovered that @go1dfish was banned. I then messaged them asking what had happened. I highly suggest that you read these two pastebins, go1dfish's post on their website and chat between go1dfish and I. go1dfish's post has a copy-paste of the Tildes thread in it.

      go1dfish did not appear to violate the guidelines/rules of Tildes, yet they were banned anyways. They were civil and did not necessarily agree with the other banned user, they just hate censorship of any kind. I realize that this site is not a haven of complete free-speech, but merely discussing how one should be able to post scientific studies should not warrant a ban.

      In the words of go1dfish,

      "I argued my case and rather unexpectedly got banned, no message or anything, and once the site came public again all of my contributions were totally deleted." "I speak out against censorship of meta discussion.... and they ban me for meta discussion."

      The state of the rules of the site is rather vague, and leaves for much room for confusion as to what is acceptable. I call for a change in the rules to be more specific.

      And instead of removing controversial issues, we should address them, and rise above them together.

      The current moderation system is fundamentally broken. If titles and tags of topics can be changed by the moderator, then there is clearly something wrong. This is why many people left Reddit. Spez edited others' comments and posts, and created a massive uproar. Tildes needs a way to verify that bans are not handed out in judgement calls or out of emotion, but instead out of a rulebook.

      go1dfish addresses this as well,

      "Also, I had no fucking clue it was the guy's anniversary. This is precisely why moderation of forums needs to happen via objectively defined rules rather than subjective on the spot determinations. People get pissy for reasons out of the control of others and do things they otherwise might not do."

      Also, I would like to say that this site, quite like Voat, has become extreme in the viewpoints held. The variety in the vocal users has ebbed away slowly, leaving one main political viewpoint, which all of you can probably guess.

      I will remain on this site for as long as possible, in order to provide some dissenting opinions, and I greatly encourage any of you who have dissenting opinions to do so.

      I really have no big point to this post, other than to expose some flaws in this site.

      I am open for any of you to state your views on the issues I addressed, and instead of criticizing the way I presented my arguments, I hope that you criticize the argument itself.

      Notes:

      1. go1dfish gave me permission to post what they replied with, and by extension what was posted on their site at the time of the ban.

      2. I asked Deimos if by chance there was a way to get the exact comments that go1dfish posted in case anything was changed from the original, but as a result of the ban, the original is gone.

      3. Also, please try to be civil, as the previous discussion was not so.

      36 votes
    5. After reaching a nice milestone yesterday of over 1000 users registered, we've followed it up with a slightly less nice one—I've now banned someone for the first time. This almost certainly won't...

      After reaching a nice milestone yesterday of over 1000 users registered, we've followed it up with a slightly less nice one—I've now banned someone for the first time. This almost certainly won't happen with every ban, but I'm going to be quite transparent with this one since it was the first one, and it gives a good starting point for a discussion today.

      Trying to be transparent about this one is actually a bit funny, because the user I banned was named "Redacted" (really, I promise!). I had removed his comments from the thread, but I've un-removed them for now so that you can see exactly what I banned for: https://tildes.net/user/Redacted

      There were two reasons that I decided to ban him:

      1. Those last 3 comments, all in the ~talk thread. That thread has been a bit heated in places, but overall it's been civil and going pretty well. He came into it without being involved in the discussion at all and went straight to personal attacks.
      2. He went through and tagged almost all of Mumberthrax's comments as some combination of "troll", "flame", and "noise"—sometimes even all 3 tags on a single comment. That's just blatant misuse of the tags, with no possible reasonable excuse. (Note that I've already removed all his tags, so you won't be able to see them any more)

      So that's a pretty clear case of being an asshole, in my opinion. Let me know what you think—I'm not sure that there's any particular focus for the discussion today, so we can just talk about this specific case as well as banning/removing in general since this is the first time I've had to do anything (and I was just saying how nice it had been).

      161 votes
    6. In the interest of transparency (and a little bit in statistics) it would be really cool to have a master banlist or at least a thread with links to all ban-worthy posts. This would help new users...

      In the interest of transparency (and a little bit in statistics) it would be really cool to have a master banlist or at least a thread with links to all ban-worthy posts. This would help new users understand what isn't acceptable in the community and allow for community discussion on what could be considered an unjustified ban or a weird influx of bad behavior. This wouldn't be super viable when the site goes public, but would be a neat implementation in Tildes' alpha state.

      14 votes
    7. Basically, with groups being admin controlled rather than the reddit system of mods, will all bans be site wide or should group bans be possible? Let's say somebody is harassing or being an...

      Basically, with groups being admin controlled rather than the reddit system of mods, will all bans be site wide or should group bans be possible? Let's say somebody is harassing or being an asshole on ~LGBT, should they be banned from ~LGBT or from the website?

      21 votes