Poll: Shadowbanning/Stealth Banning; Agreeable or No?

[lacktheknack]

Only if it's absolutely hysterical.

 

[Epyc Wynn]

I had an absolute hard NO on this issue until...

Honestly, sounds like a good idea to me. All the practical effect of banning someone, with some mild assurance that they won't realize it and spoof their IP or simply ban-jump. People can't feed trolls if the trolls are invisible, inaudible, and intangible.

That's actually kind of genius and I now kind of wish it was something we could do here. I never really saw how a "shadowban" could be a good thing but your point gives me an asterix to put next to my NO...

If that's what persuaded you then you didn't understand what it was in the first place. I would call it a hard hell no especially due to that logic. Do you know what defines a troll? A troll is a fictional label placed upon people who think or act differently to the point other people claim these individuals are not merely controversial but rather that their willful individuality is an act of trolling; i.e. calling the person a troll. I hope that no staff member will dare to promote this manipulation of individuals and that shadowbans will be put under the utmost restriction of solely being used against bots. Psychological manipulation is a scummy thing to do I don't care how awful any person thinks the user on the receiving end is. This is a practice which is not only unethical but has great potential to serve as a gateway to a myriad of horrendous abuses of power against users and should be treated as a threat by any user that cares about their own account's safety.

 

[09philj]

Transparency is important up until the point an individual gets themselves publicly slapped with a permanent, total denial of service ban. After that, who cares how moderation deals with them? They aren't meant to be there.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

So are we discussing a mute type function where no one can see their posts but them and they do not realize it? I have seen numerous games/ sites mute people as that can be pretty standard in gaming . Some times mutes are temp or perm, and they very well may be necessary depending on what that person was actually doing. If that is a security feature to allow them to preview posts before allowing them to go live that may also be a way for them to be in accordance with certain laws and such as they can vary greatly depending on state/ country/ region. For example, California's laws on minors makes it so websites have to allow parents and minors to remove anything a minor does on an online website:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/teens-online-eraser-button-california_n_3976808.html

Sometimes the info in the post may be illegal for whatever region and what not, so I can see certain security measures being taken.

ALSO I do not see a problem with them stealth muting/ banning spambots so it takes them longer to know none of their posts are showing up so you buy some time before they go make another bot.

So yea under certain circumstances it can prove useful.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

It's a disgusting measure to silence people who don't agree with them. Twitter is a shithole for doing it, and I hope it comes back to bite them in the ass.

You really didn't need to elaborate beyond "Twitter is a shithole" because its the truth regardless of context.


Anywho, using it on spambots is probably a good idea instead of the whack-a-mole approach but otherwise just give the mouthy bastards a PM and a proper access ban.

 

[Saelune]

I had an absolute hard NO on this issue until...

Honestly, sounds like a good idea to me. All the practical effect of banning someone, with some mild assurance that they won't realize it and spoof their IP or simply ban-jump. People can't feed trolls if the trolls are invisible, inaudible, and intangible.

That's actually kind of genius and I now kind of wish it was something we could do here. I never really saw how a "shadowban" could be a good thing but your point gives me an asterix to put next to my NO...

The problem is when its used for more than trolls, or the definition of "trolling" is abused.

 

[Drathnoxis]

It sounds like a real scummy thing to do. I would hate to waste years commenting on a site and never realizing that nobody was actually able to see my comments.

 

[tippy2k2]

The problem is when its used for more than trolls, or the definition of "trolling" is abused.

Well of course but a shadowban is just a tool, which can be used for good or evil. Hence I changed from a hard NO to a NO with an asterisk because there are a handful of situations where a shadowban would be the best option for everyone.

I had an absolute hard NO on this issue until...

Honestly, sounds like a good idea to me. All the practical effect of banning someone, with some mild assurance that they won't realize it and spoof their IP or simply ban-jump. People can't feed trolls if the trolls are invisible, inaudible, and intangible.

That's actually kind of genius and I now kind of wish it was something we could do here. I never really saw how a "shadowban" could be a good thing but your point gives me an asterix to put next to my NO...

If that's what persuaded you then you didn't understand what it was in the first place.

Disagree. Right off the top of my head, I can think of two specific situations where a shadowban would be perfect.

Situation 1: The Bot Situation
While we have no concrete proof about it, I am 100% convinced that the bots are man-made and not robots. If we had the ability to shadowban them, they would continually post their garbage but no one would ever see it. Right now, we ban them and they create a new account to spam with.

Situation 2: A harassing ban-jumper
This isn't something that many get to see unless the banjumper makes themselves known (like a few years ago when a banjumper continually posted in the Mod Chat) but we see people who are bitter about getting banned that decide to harass Mods or other members. If we were able to shadowban those people, they would have no clue if they're just being ignored or if they were banned.

Those are just two situations at the top of my head where shadowbanning would be good for everyone. Those two might be the only situations but I also thought that there would be no use at all for a shadowban until NeutralDrow made me really think about it.

 

[StatusNil]

If you're gonna stop someone from posting somewhere, you should just ban them. No reason to sneak around about it, frozen peaches don't apply to privately-owned websites and no amount of whining from internet crybabies will change that.

Frozen peaches?

I believe that's a reference to the "Freeze Peach" meme that originated in the "SJW" community. The idea is to mock the idea of "free speech" and open exchange of ideas as garbled and nonsensical ideals they have supposedly evolved beyond. In other words, democracy-shaming.

OT: No, not acceptable. It's underhanded manipulation of discourse by powerful interests.

 

[Saelune]

The problem is when its used for more than trolls, or the definition of "trolling" is abused.

Well of course but a shadowban is just a tool, which can be used for good or evil. Hence I changed from a hard NO to a NO with an asterisk because there are a handful of situations where a shadowban would be the best option for everyone.

But it is the hidden secrecy of it that is bad. When someone on here gets a warning or ban, we all see it, so we can potentially see if it was unfair. Shadow banning doesnt allow that, which makes it ripe for abuse.

 

[tippy2k2]

The problem is when its used for more than trolls, or the definition of "trolling" is abused.

Well of course but a shadowban is just a tool, which can be used for good or evil. Hence I changed from a hard NO to a NO with an asterisk because there are a handful of situations where a shadowban would be the best option for everyone.

But it is the hidden secrecy of it that is bad. When someone on here gets a warning or ban, we all see it, so we can potentially see if it was unfair. Shadow banning doesnt allow that, which makes it ripe for abuse.

Well yeah but that's why it should only be used in the two situations I had listed. The shadowban should never be used on a regular user, that's something I 100% agree with.

 

[chocolate pickles]

Absolutely fine. If you can't behave, you deserve to be punished however the site's owners see fit.

People need to stop being babies and crying about punishments being 'too harsh'. Act like a decent human being, don't get punished. Simple.

 

[RaikuFA]

Absolutely fine. If you can't behave, you deserve to be punished however the site's owners see fit.

People need to stop being babies and crying about punishments being 'too harsh'. Act like a decent human being, don't get punished. Simple.

So I have a friend on twitter who was shadowbanned because he kept RTing art he liked. Stuff like what you'd see on here if there was a fanart topic. They actually told him it was because he was RTing a lot. How is signal boosting art not acting like a decent human being.

 

[Saelune]

Absolutely fine. If you can't behave, you deserve to be punished however the site's owners see fit.

People need to stop being babies and crying about punishments being 'too harsh'. Act like a decent human being, don't get punished. Simple.

Thats...thats just flat out not true. People get punished ALL THE TIME for doing nothing wrong. And plenty of people have been given unfair punishments, even when they are guilty.

 

[Epyc Wynn]

The problem is when its used for more than trolls, or the definition of "trolling" is abused.

Well of course but a shadowban is just a tool, which can be used for good or evil. Hence I changed from a hard NO to a NO with an asterisk because there are a handful of situations where a shadowban would be the best option for everyone.

I had an absolute hard NO on this issue until...

Honestly, sounds like a good idea to me. All the practical effect of banning someone, with some mild assurance that they won't realize it and spoof their IP or simply ban-jump. People can't feed trolls if the trolls are invisible, inaudible, and intangible.

That's actually kind of genius and I now kind of wish it was something we could do here. I never really saw how a "shadowban" could be a good thing but your point gives me an asterix to put next to my NO...

If that's what persuaded you then you didn't understand what it was in the first place.

Disagree. Right off the top of my head, I can think of two specific situations where a shadowban would be perfect.

Situation 1: The Bot Situation
While we have no concrete proof about it, I am 100% convinced that the bots are man-made and not robots. If we had the ability to shadowban them, they would continually post their garbage but no one would ever see it. Right now, we ban them and they create a new account to spam with.

Situation 2: A harassing ban-jumper
This isn't something that many get to see unless the banjumper makes themselves known (like a few years ago when a banjumper continually posted in the Mod Chat) but we see people who are bitter about getting banned that decide to harass Mods or other members. If we were able to shadowban those people, they would have no clue if they're just being ignored or if they were banned.

Those are just two situations at the top of my head where shadowbanning would be good for everyone. Those two might be the only situations but I also thought that there would be no use at all for a shadowban until NeutralDrow made me really think about it.

Situation 1 is correct and that is the only reason I am okay with the existence of shadowbans. Your logic on Situation 2 is incomplete. People WILL figure out if they are shadowbanned. It is not hard to view through a different browser or through Tor nor is it hard to use a different IP to view. If someone is devoted enough to ban-jumping, they are probably going to be devoted enough to be aware of something obvious like the possibility of a shadow-ban. Eventually things are going to feel a little weird when nobody is responding and they would figure out they are shadow-banned anyway. Further, it is important that users are fully capable of creating an alt account to then inform mods if they have been wrongfully banned, which is indeed a possibility given the present power of moderators on The Escapist. With this all in mind, I believe shadow-banning should be reserved exclusively for bots and not users.

 

[Rednog]

[Removed for incorrect information]

 

[tippy2k2]

Situation 1 is correct and that is the only reason I am okay with the existence of shadowbans. Your logic on Situation 2 is incomplete. People WILL figure out if they are shadowbanned. It is not hard to view through a different browser or through Tor nor is it hard to use a different IP to view. If someone is devoted enough to ban-jumping, they are probably going to be devoted enough to be aware of something obvious like the possibility of a shadow-ban. Eventually things are going to feel a little weird when nobody is responding and they would figure out they are shadow-banned anyway. Further, it is important that users are fully capable of creating an alt account to then inform mods if they have been wrongfully banned, which is indeed a possibility given the present power of moderators on The Escapist. With this all in mind, I believe shadow-banning should be reserved exclusively for bots and not users.

Most people who are banjumping for the purposes of screwing with the staff/users will get bored eventually.

The harder we make it on them, the quicker that will happen.

 

[Supernova1138]

For the context of Reddit I do think it's acceptable.

I do belive some context is necessary because it appears that many people here don't actually use Reddit.
The primary reason is that there are way too much subreddits with way too many rule sets to police. Moderators of subreddits only have power within their own subreddit not the site entirely. Thus they need some sort of way to police their subreddit. The strongest power they have is essentially a shadowban. Shadowbans allow moderators of subreddits to essentially remove that person from the subreddit without affecting that persons ability anywhere else on Reddit.

I honestly think its fine, because it is up to a subreddits moderators how they want their subreddit to be run and actually gives them the power to do so.

I think you're confused, shadowbanning can only be done by the Reddit admins, not the subreddit moderators. Subreddit mods can just ban users from participating in their subreddits. Some subreddits even have bots that automatically ban people who follow or post in certain other subreddits in order to keep people they consider undesirable out. Shadowbanning is preventing a users posts from being viewed across all subreddits. The only way a subreddit mod can do a shadowban is if he is an admin himself, or he's close enough to an admin that he can request it be done, though its hard to justify that in the context of being a subreddit moderator. The shadowban function on reddit was initially supposed to be used exclusively for fighting spambots, but the admins have been known to use it on people they don't like or on those whose views they find objectionable.

 

[Rednog]

For the context of Reddit I do think it's acceptable.

I do belive some context is necessary because it appears that many people here don't actually use Reddit.
The primary reason is that there are way too much subreddits with way too many rule sets to police. Moderators of subreddits only have power within their own subreddit not the site entirely. Thus they need some sort of way to police their subreddit. The strongest power they have is essentially a shadowban. Shadowbans allow moderators of subreddits to essentially remove that person from the subreddit without affecting that persons ability anywhere else on Reddit.

I honestly think its fine, because it is up to a subreddits moderators how they want their subreddit to be run and actually gives them the power to do so.

I think you're confused, shadowbanning can only be done by the Reddit admins, not the subreddit moderators. Subreddit mods can just ban users from participating in their subreddits. Some subreddits even have bots that automatically ban people who follow or post in certain other subreddits in order to keep people they consider undesirable out. Shadowbanning is preventing a users posts from being viewed across all subreddits. The only way a subreddit mod can do a shadowban is if he is an admin himself, or he's close enough to an admin that he can request it be done, though its hard to justify that in the context of being a subreddit moderator. The shadowban function on reddit was initially supposed to be used exclusively for fighting spambots, but the admins have been known to use it on people they don't like or on those whose views they find objectionable.

You're right I was confused. I had moderated for a subreddit for a small time streamer a few years ago. I had to double check with another mod of the subreddit. We had just used a bot to auto delete certain people, and we had just referred to it as a shadowban, thus the confusion.

 

[Pyrian]

How is signal boosting art not acting like a decent human being.

When it's spamming.