2
60

[–] Kleyno 2 points 60 points (+62|-2) ago 

I don't know how the ban mechanic works, since I don't Mod anything, but it might be nice if the process of banning a user required a mandatory field which linked to a post or comment, made in that sub, which prompted the ban. If you tried to use a comment or post they made in a different sub, it would throw an error, and if you picked just a random comment or post they made in your sub, just so you could ban them, that would be on record, if the user challenged the ban.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

9
-9

[–] [deleted] 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] immibis 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Well with the existing system, in that situation, how can that mod know which user is posting the comments?

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I'd have no problem with having the ban function attached to comments, but it's useful to be able to ban spammers as soon as you see them post, rather than having to wait for them to inevitably work their way around to your subs.

The problem on reddit with cancer-mods banning everyone from subs they didn't like wasn't their ability to do so (openly), it was that the nature of default subs made migrations impossible. If /r/european weren't being propped up by thousands of new auto-subscriptions, for example, it would probably be gone by now. Same for /r/offmychest and all the others.

0
1

[–] SecureRhino 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

There's already a ban reason which you could challenge example, more average example. But who's to decide whether a ban reason is legitimate?

7
24

[–] ElementalPee [S] 7 points 24 points (+31|-7) ago 

Just to expand on my reasoning a bit. It gives the people trying to push an agenda all over the site less control to do so. People will have less of a reason to create alts. The fewer reasons there are for mods to attempt to justify banning people and removing discussions, the better.

But most important of all, a sub's rules need to stop and end within the confines of that sub. Unless you broke a sub's rule inside of that sub, there should be no justification for banning.

0
6

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

There's all kinds of reasons why it would be nice if people didn't do this, but making a rule against it won't stop them, it'll just make the rulebook a bit longer.

0
1

[–] Tipman79 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This right here. There's really no way to stop people from doing this. They just have to make up some stupid reason why they've banned the user. Even if it is something ridiculously stupid and obviously bullshit like.. I dunno, requiring a certain punctuation mark in a thread title...

In all seriousness though, it's a fine idea, but there's no effective way to enforce it and it's too easy to circumvent.

7
22

[–] xeemee 7 points 22 points (+29|-7) ago 

better idea: ban preemptive banning

2
12

[–] Reow 2 points 12 points (+14|-2) ago 

I think this is the real answer. Otherwise, mods will just say "We banned them because of their opinion/attitude/attributes, not because they posted on X."

[–] [deleted] 5 points 9 points (+14|-5) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Uncle_Skeeter 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Harder to enforce.

Just give Atko control of the subs.

0
1

[–] blackblarneystone 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

and ban anyone who would ban someone for saying they are for banning pre-emptive banning.

[–] [deleted] 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

4
-1

[–] Broc_Lia 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago 

No. It's a useful tool to combat spammers. I've preemptively banned a tonne of MA spambot accounts for example.

1
2

[–] xeemee 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

ideally that should be handled at the Voat level so mods don't have to deal with it

the problem with preemptive banning is that it can be used to censor based on an personal grudge and that's something no mod should have the ability to do

4
19

[–] ec69f4c200b442f59e9f 4 points 19 points (+23|-4) ago 

Honestly I'm in favor of as few rules and policies as possible, so I'd vote no on this.

2
7

[–] BusyBody 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Same here. What we need is a site where subs can be run as their users wish. If someone shitbag mod wants to ban people for straying from ideological purity then that's probably not a sub you'd want to visit. Why would anyone want to engage in a sub run this way?

Do you know if there's any kind of conflict resolution for where a sub gets hijacked or a previously trusted mod team goes batshit crazy? That could be handled through a simple voting system open only to subscribers, current and old, who can choose a new mod to begin rebuilding a sub.

0
0

[–] timsandtoms 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The problem with letting mods run things without site-wide rules is that that is exactly how Reddit worked, and you can see how well that worked out for them. Subs grow large with good moderation, and then slowly turn corrupt once they're too big to be effectively replaced, because no one wants to go start participating in the sub with only 1,000 subscribers versus hundreds of thousands.

0
3

[–] Thehealbus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I agree, if communities want to disinclude people for whatever standard they should be allowed to as long as the community understands the rules.

0
3

[–] weezkitty 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

What if it wasn't a rule? What if it was just made impossible to ban someone who hasn't posted in the sub they are being banned from

0
5

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It's still handy to be able to do so, like five minutes ago when I preemptively banned the spam account in this thread from /v/mensrights.

0
1

[–] blackblarneystone 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

my nigga

1
7

[–] Broc_Lia 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

While I personally think it's a shitty thing to do, I see no reason why a community shouldn't be permitted to do so.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

if a user decides to go full griefer and attack that community there's no reason why he should be provided the opportunity to do so again and again in every sub the community has

That's different from what's written in the OP though. The suggestion refers specifically to banning someone purely for participating in another sub (as has happened with a few cancer-defaults on reddit). Eg: /r/offmychest banning everyone who posts in /r/tumblrinaction.

Some other people subsequently suggested eliminating preemptive bans altogether, which is an even worse idea because they actually serve a function.

4
6

[–] erowidtrance 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago 

People want so many rules. I thought the point of this site was to be less stiffing than reddit.

6
1

[–] ElementalPee [S] 6 points 1 points (+7|-6) ago 

It would ultimately be less stifling unless you're some crazy ban-happy mod. It's just suggesting that mods need to keep their sub's rules in their subs and off the rest of the site.

0
2

[–] WatDabney 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

See - that's the thing though. It wouldn't be less stifling - it would be more stifling.

Site-wide rules are stifling, by their nature. Individual sub rules can be stifling, but they'd only apply to an individual sub. If you don't want to be stifled by those rules, you can just go to a different sub. That's as it should be.

I understand that you're trying to prevent abuse here and I don't have any particular problem with this specific rule - it's just that I don't think the site should establish that sort of precedent at all, since all that will do is invite other people to lobby for their own preferred site-wide rules, and that's the path to what Reddit has become.

3
2

[–] erowidtrance 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago  (edited ago)

The great thing about reddit up until recently is the admins let the mods basically do what they wanted. They had the freedom to be aresholes and you had the freedom to make your own sub with very little if any outside intervention. As soon as you bring in more and more site wide rules it just encourages more top down control which undermines the whole point of the site. The admins will have to be constantly involved in subs and what happens when the admins start going in a direction the users don't like? That then has a much more widespread impact compared to if they'd had a much less interventionist mentality from the start. Reddit is going to shit because of more and more admin involvement, we don't want the same to happen here.

3
6

[–] Zidota 3 points 6 points (+9|-3) ago 

Yes, recently read this on Reddit. That if you participate in basically sub reddits that big 'ol mean Reddit don't like, you can get banned in others.

Shit's ridiculous.

What are you, my parent?

0
2

[–] SimonJ57 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Like how /r/kotakuinaction members are banned from /r/offmychest ?

0
0

[–] Zidota 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Can you explain this? Sorry I missed this comment alert.

4
3

[–] thejustchad 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago 

Fuck off whinny bitch

load more comments ▼ (18 remaining)