Why not ban users that detract from the subreddit?
1 2014-07-21 by Slipgrid
If someone post comments that don't contribute, why not ban them?
There are actual trolls. They are easy to pick out. Why not just ban them all?
1 2014-07-21 by Slipgrid
If someone post comments that don't contribute, why not ban them?
There are actual trolls. They are easy to pick out. Why not just ban them all?
30 comments
5 streetyouth 2014-07-21
That's not an arbitrary offense at all...
5 fexfexfex 2014-07-21
Slippery slope.
2 quantumcipher 2014-07-21
A slippery slope indeed.
To take such drastic action, which has crossed my mind briefly in the past (though not the extent of bringing it up), would have to be a last resort option.
While we have had an influx of users who post here solely with the intent of engaging in straw man arguments, forum sliding if you will, without having any other prior interest in posting to r/conspiracy, those how have an apparent agenda (whether it be corporate, pro-government, political, or simply to express an anti-conspiracist viewpoint), it would be hypocritical at best, quite literally a form of censorship to ban them in such an arbitrary manner.
4 hydrocoma 2014-07-21
I think its sort of an opinionated area as to wether someone is trolling on purpose or made a genuine post but misunderstood the context or topic. If we started banning people we could end up banning people who dont deserve to be banned. But this is just my opinion i could be thinking about this the wrong way.
-1 Slipgrid 2014-07-21
You can add or subtract value from a conversation. Why not ban people who take value away from the conversation? First comment that doesn't doesn't further the discussion could result in a ban from commenting. They could still read.
0 hydrocoma 2014-07-21
I see, so you dont mean a general ban from reddit, but a ban from posting, i could see that working if it would be a ban from posting again on that particular post or sub or even better a timed ban from that particular posting or sub for say 24 hours. Something like that i could see being quite helpfull at times.
1 strokethekitty 2014-07-21
A timed ban could be useful. Though i would only like to see that as the successor to repeated warnings made in public for transparency reasons, and as a predecessor to a full ban.
0 Slipgrid 2014-07-21
Just this subreddit. Nothing else.
4 ChickenHubben 2014-07-21
Can't champion free speech and suppress is at the same time
1 Slipgrid 2014-07-21
Who says I champion free speech? Where do you see me champion free speech? I do not believe in free speech for you. I'd have your tongue removed.
You are someone I would ban. You come here, and start ridiculing without understanding.
0 ChickenHubben 2014-07-21
I'd cut the hand of anyone who doesn't know the definition of ridicule. So I guess we'd both be fucked.
2 Slipgrid 2014-07-21
I see what you did there; and, that's the problem. You. Nonstop subversion.
3 [deleted] 2014-07-21
[deleted]
2 Slipgrid 2014-07-21
Fine by me.
0 Parasymphatetic 2014-07-21
This comment you just made doesn't really contribute anything. The upvote button is used for "Fine by me".
So according to your proposed rule you should be banned. Now if you really think it's a good idea and stand by your values, you should ban yourself by not commenting here again.
2 strokethekitty 2014-07-21
Haha. Thatd only be hypocritical if he didnt "ban" himself. But them again, who makes rules intedned for everyone else but the ones making said rules?
1 quantumcipher 2014-07-21
Considering your post history, I can see why OP's suggestion would rub you the wrong way, or make you react in such a defensive manner.
According to his proposal, he would not be subject to a ban for simply expressing an opinion. His idea was to target those who habitually disrupt or derail the conversation, those would have made it obvious they other interest in posting to /r/conspiracy.
0 Parasymphatetic 2014-07-21
His suggestion didn't rub me in any way and i didn't react defensive.
When someone asked what a the object particular "UFO" video could have been, OP answered: Your first dragon!
And if the "Fine by me" comment wasn't enough to ban OP after his own rules, then the dragon comment clearly is.
I just wonder why anyone would propose a rule where one self would get banned.
It's funny that you consider my posting history though. I feel honored.
0 Slipgrid 2014-07-21
You shouldn't mock dragons; might get burned.
3 doitdoit2 2014-07-21
Because it's just opinion. There are a lot of semi-violations that go on around here (some users only post a TON of links in a short time span and then never comment), but they really end up causing no harm, seeing as downvoting and hiding things (posts, comments) exist.
2 Slipgrid 2014-07-21
I'm not talking about violations of existing rules. I'm talking about new rules. Like ban anyone that post to /r/conspiratard.
1 doitdoit2 2014-07-21
Since poking fun at the more absurd comments and posts isn't allowed here, people take it to /r/conspiratard. Isn't it better to have those comments elsewhere? I don't think we should ban someone just because of where they comment, post or read.
0 ChickenHubben 2014-07-21
You are the Gestapo you hate
0 strokethekitty 2014-07-21
I am completely against this notion.
1 strokethekitty 2014-07-21
Probably to avoid censorship. Though, there are some truely obvious trolls around here. Definately a few users could dissappear and no one would be sad about it.
But again, its all about perspective. I actually kind of agree to not ban users who make noncontributional comments/submissions. After several warnings and advice on how to contribute constructively though, and if thry still fail after those attempts, then i would be okay with such bans.
What ive learned this far on reddit, some users just simply dont understand how to submit posts. They will submit low invest posts, but when i call them out on it, they typically fix it and repost a more contributional submission on the same topic.
What im saying is we need to give people a chance to learn first, and when they arrogantly refuse to respect discussional paradigms, then i wouldnt mind hearing the thump of the banhammer, so long as moderator discretion makes it publicly known about the warnings and shit.
I hope all this was coherent enough... Havent had my morning coffee yet...
1 Slipgrid 2014-07-21
You are giving the benefit of the doubt to people that would never give it to you.
How do you deal with an organized attempt to subvert a messageboard? Simply ban the people who don't belong. How do you know who doesn't belong? They belong to the organization trying to subvert the messageboard.
You can use a litmus test for this. Do they post at a messageboard that is trying to subvert this place? If so, then ban them from commenting.
1 strokethekitty 2014-07-21
With all due respect, this seems to resemble circular logic too much for my taste.
Anyways, i do not agree with banning a user just because they post at, say, r/conspiratard. I do not support that notion whatsoever.
I do support banning users who show their true character, which can only be revealed if given the benefit of the doubt. I could care less if they offer me the same in return.
By blanket-banning folks because of their other subscriptions is tantamount to oppression and tyranny, everything this sub is fighting against.
If we ban anybody, it needs to be because of their history in r/conspiracy. Because they have continued to post low invest submissions, racist submissions, or noncontributional submissions. But only after warnings and clear and public transparency for the reasons of banishment.
Otherwise, we would be no better than TPTB.
1 Slipgrid 2014-07-21
The proper test is debatable for sure. But, the idea is to get people to contribute in a productive way, by removing the overt detractors.
1 strokethekitty 2014-07-21
I find the premise to be attractive. Just not the means that which you propose. At least, not without ample opportunity for said detractor to repent, as removing a troll is not worth removing a potentially inciteful member of our community.
Thats basically the same thing as nsa's blanket surveillence on the entire population---violate everyones fourth amendment rights so that maybe, just maybe, youbcan remove a terrorist. Same logic. Similar, at least...
1 totes_meta_bot 2014-07-21
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.
If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.
1 [deleted] 2014-07-21
If you are going to troll, don't use an account that you have posted to /r/conspiratard with. That is just lazy.
http://www.reddit.com//r/conspiratard/comments/jqo8w/how_to_distory_a_911_troofer/