>Regarding shadowbanned accounts not getting the same treatment: are you saying they weren't warned beforehand? Or not treated fairly before the banning?
Their comments are not allowed to be judged based on the merit of their content. They are pre-filtered by a moderator's decision that anything generated by that person is not fit for human conversation. Every other account, including brand new ones, can create a comment and have it seen by everyone.
They may have been warned, etc, but I'm saying the shadowban itself is garbage, not the conditions under which it is administered.
>How long should those who have contributed negatively (wrt community standards) tolerated?
Downvote/flag individual negative comments, that's what we have the system for. If someone truly wants to contribute negatively, a shadowban is a joke because they can create new accounts.
As I understand it and have observed, users are shadowbanned because they've shown that they sometimes act in ways that are detrimental to the community as a whole. By continuing to act that way, they've accepted that they might be banned. Users can also appeal the ban by contacting the mods by email.
I leave showdead on and have vouched for comments of banned users. I've also seen users continue to spew vitriol after they know they are banned. Is the type of user that would pointlessly continue to contribute negatively in this fashion have on balance a positive impact on the community? Arguing that they're behaving this way because they've been banned shows that they don't have the maturity to recognize that their behavior continues to reflect badly on them. It's not going to change the fact that they're banned.
You're right that if you're a determined troll, you can get around a shadowbox. From what I've seen, banning has been on balance effective to deal with uncivil behavior. Creating a new account does add some cost to the ban. Relying only on down votes puts the cost entirely on the community at large at no cost to the user behaving badly. Do you think it's fair to the community to bear the cost of the user's behavior?
Do you have any other ideas on how to effectively shape community behavior, preferably ones that move the cost from the community to the user behaving badly? I'm honestly interested, because I've seen enough complaints about banning that I'd like to hear about alternatives that would considered fair and still be effective.
It would be great if everyone would contribute in a positive, or at least civil, way. In larger online communities it's much easier for users who contribute negatively to destroy a community where positive users no longer want to participate. Each community has its own standards and cultures (and what's considered good and bad behavior), which is great! So far, I think it's pretty remarkable that HN has been able to maintain the community it has in comparison to other online communities of similar users.
>From what I've seen, banning has been on balance effective to deal with uncivil behavio
Based on what evidence? Are you able to see the IP addresses of new accounts to correlate them with shadowbanned accounts? All we can see as outsiders is that shadowbanned accounts mostly stop posting, but we can't tell how many immediately signed up for a new account and started trolling again.
All we can see as outsiders is that shadowbanned accounts mostly stop posting
You're right. And this itself is evidence that banning is effective. It's not effective because they can't create new accounts (which they can); it's effective because they generally stop posting.
In addition,
- I haven't seen users obviously thumbing their noses at the mods with respect to the ineffectiveness of banning;
- I haven't seen the mods using or discussing any other methods stronger than banning to combat trolls, which I think they would if banning wasn't effective.
On the flip side, what evidence is there that banning isn't effective?
I've been a little frustrated by your lack of answers to some pertinent questions I've asked:
- Do you have particular examples where the mods haven't been fair?
- Do you have any other ideas as to how to fairly and effectively shape community behavior?
Their comments are not allowed to be judged based on the merit of their content. They are pre-filtered by a moderator's decision that anything generated by that person is not fit for human conversation. Every other account, including brand new ones, can create a comment and have it seen by everyone.
They may have been warned, etc, but I'm saying the shadowban itself is garbage, not the conditions under which it is administered.
>How long should those who have contributed negatively (wrt community standards) tolerated?
Downvote/flag individual negative comments, that's what we have the system for. If someone truly wants to contribute negatively, a shadowban is a joke because they can create new accounts.