Shadow Banning

[Intrepid37]

This topic came up in another thread.

If I ruled the world, shadow banning would be illegal.

Every time an online forum did it, they would have to pay a million dollars to whoever they did it to.

Do away with that sadistic practice right quick.

[Lomm]

It's the worst on Reddit; people posting in subforums and never getting any responses or likes or anything, but never even knowing they are silenced. They just think no one finds them interesting. I don't know about other forums, but this one doesn't allow that sort of thing.

[jimimac71]

I think I've found the problem, but the solution is probably difficult.
Anything posted here, goes to the top of the page.
I believe posts went to the top of that category at the old TCM forum.
The Off Topic section at TCM was seemingly toxic.
The issue here, for me anyway, is seeing stuff I'd otherwise avoid.
Don't know what shadow banning is, but if it means view but not post, that's where I am with the other forum.
I can see that forum on a browser with VPN.

[Lomm]

Shadow banning is when a user is not really banned, but can post/view everything...but no one can see their posts. I think it's vindictive and nasty. Either ban them outright or do nothing.

As for what you see at the top of the page, Jimi: you're seeing active threads across ALL the different forums here, not restricted to any section. If you want to browse by forum topics, scroll down past the active threads to the forum list below it. The intent is to more easily keep up with everything and not have to click through a bunch of sub-forums to find new content.

[Intrepid37]

Shadow banning is when a user is not really banned, but can post/view everything...but no one can see their posts. I think it's vindictive and nasty.

Absolutely.

It should cost the perpetrator of it BIG time.

[Masha]

This topic came up in another thread.

If I ruled the world, shadow banning would be illegal.

Every time an online forum did it, they would have to pay a million dollars to whoever they did it to.

Do away with that sadistic practice right quick.

I am sorry to have to say that I strongly disagree.

I saw it many times that a corruptive user would not mind being banned because they would simply re-register with a different name and/or use VPN to avoid the ban. They would be back in the forum within minutes of learning of their ban. Each time they returned with renewed antagonism against their selected victims in the forum and with vengeance against the moderators. It was never pretty.

The classic usage was for moderator to post a request that all users ignore the oft-banned troll in all their guises and imply that any who engaged with them would face a ban also. They would then set the twit bit. The bad actor would assume that all were simply ignoring them and finally give up.

This meant significantly less work and aggravation for the moderators. It meant also that users were not exposed to the vitriol and NSFW elements of the trolls' postings.

I agree that it should not be the only element in the moderator's arsenal but there are times when one must simply stop being a nice guy being walked over all the time and go Armageddon on someone's ass.

YMMV

[Intrepid37]

This topic came up in another thread.

If I ruled the world, shadow banning would be illegal.

Every time an online forum did it, they would have to pay a million dollars to whoever they did it to.

Do away with that sadistic practice right quick.

I am sorry to have to say that I strongly disagree.

I saw it many times that a corruptive user would not mind being banned because they would simply re-register with a different name and/or use VPN to avoid the ban. They would be back in the forum within minutes of learning of their ban. Each time they returned with renewed antagonism against their selected victims in the forum and with vengeance against the moderators. It was never pretty.

The classic usage was for moderator to post a request that all users ignore the oft-banned troll in all their guises and imply that any who engaged with them would face a ban also. They would then set the twit bit. The bad actor would assume that all were simply ignoring them and finally give up.

This meant significantly less work and aggravation for the moderators. It meant also that users were not exposed to the vitriol and NSFW elements of the trolls' postings.

I agree that it should not be the only element in the moderator's arsenal but there are times when one must simply stop being a nice guy being walked over all the time and go Armageddon on someone's ass.

YMMV

So, ban them.

Don't be playing malicious tricks. How would you like to find out that everything you've spent your time of life writing has secretly been banned from having anyone read it?

It's an abhorrent practice and I'm really, really surprised that you would approve such a thing.

[Dargo]

I am sorry to have to say that I strongly disagree.

I saw it many times that a corruptive user would not mind being banned because they would simply re-register with a different name and/or use VPN to avoid the ban. They would be back in the forum within minutes of learning of their ban. Each time they returned with renewed antagonism against their selected victims in the forum and with vengeance against the moderators. It was never pretty.

Naaah...REALLY?! This really HAPPENS???

(...btw, I can do many other impressions than just Claude Rains as Capt. Renault...my Henry Fonda as Tom Joad being an especally skilled one, if I do say so myself)

[Intrepid37]

There are only so many VPNs. They run out eventually and the game ends.

[LostHorizons]

Naaah...REALLY?! This really HAPPENS???

Yes and sometimes said multi-account user just skips the whole fiasco of doing it again on a different site and so he or she creates his or her own website to rule over with an iron fist. That way they don’t even need multiple accounts to talk back and forth. They can just use the “God” account.

[Intrepid37]

There are only so many VPNs. They run out eventually and the game ends.

Also, there's the ability to disallow members from joining the community using a VPN-created address.

[Dargo]

So then, should I be proud of the fact that in any forums I've ever become a member of, I've only ever needed to go by the handle of "Dargo"?

Well, except of course for that whole unfortunate incident about dozen years ago now and when dummy here had forgotten his password on TCM.com and so created that infamous character known as "Dargo2" for a short while.

And so this has now got me to thinkin' here...Has anyone present in this conversation ever needed to create a whole new identity after being banned from some website?

(...an inquisitive cuss, ain't I)

[Intrepid37]

So then, should I be proud of the fact that in any forums I've ever become a member of, I've only ever needed to go by the handle of "Dargo"?

First of all, pride is a sin.

And there's no reason to worry about losing one's membership status if you always support certain social-political brainwashing like a good boy.

[laffite]

I am sorry to have to say that I strongly disagree.

I saw it many times that a corruptive user would not mind being banned because they would simply re-register with a different name and/or use VPN to avoid the ban. They would be back in the forum within minutes of learning of their ban. Each time they returned with renewed antagonism against their selected victims in the forum and with vengeance against the moderators. It was never pretty.

Naaah...REALLY?! This really HAPPENS???

(...btw, I can do many other impressions than just Claude Rains as Capt. Renault...my Henry Fonda as Tom Joad being an especally skilled one, if I do say so myself)

When I a kid---really young, say a little boy---I inflicted my impression of Peter Lorre upon family members. My aunt looked at me and said, "That didn't sound much like Peter Lorre to me." I remember how I did it and today I would have to agree with her assessment. At that age I wonder how I even knew who PL was. This was somewhere around 1950. It came out more like a depressed Boris Karloff. My brief career as an impressionist never came to fruition. I have a nagging half-remembered memory fragment of someone that I could do passably well (say, at as party) but I am so old now it seems lost to me.

[Dargo]

So then, should I be proud of the fact that in any forums I've ever become a member of, I've only ever needed to go by the handle of "Dargo"?

First of all, pride is a sin.

And there's no reason to worry about losing one's membership status if you always support certain social-political brainwashing like a good boy.

Hmmm...sounds like a confession of sorts here, Dark...ahem...I mean Intrepid ol' boy!

(...and of course and as usual I'm sorry to say, with the addition of a thinly-veiled and misapplied slight directed at another)