Mod Post - The "Ban User" functionality on Dreamwidth

[icon_uk]

A subject that has been brought to the Mod Team's attention lately is the use and impact of the "Ban User" blocking function, and we have been discussing how we wish to address it within Scans_Daily.

Let us state, first and foremost, that your privacy and security should always be paramount. No member should ever take action which might, in any way, make then feel unsafe.

The "Ban User" functionality on Dreamwidth is very straightforward, hovering over a users avatar will show "Ban User" as an option. This is not a group dependent function, it's automatically available to anyone with a DreamWidth account.

We, as a Mod Team, will never use "Ban User" on a member (Our ultimate sanction for members is temporary suspension/permanent expulsion from the Scans_Daily community as part of the Disciplinary process, but "Ban User" is not part of that process).

In turn, members are not expected to use "Ban User" on a Mod, as we have a requirement to be able to reply to any and threads and posts if/when the need arises.

As and when Mod's change, the same will be true for any new Mod coming on.

If you have concerns over a particular Mod, then they can be raised with the Mod Team for discussion, we're not a monolithic entity and will seek to address any concerns fairly and equitably.

Please note that Mods cannot undo someone's "Ban User" choices, that is linked to your own account, not the Scans_Daily account.

However, something to bear in mind is that "Ban User" is VERY powerful.

If you have used "Ban User" on someone then they not only cannot reply to you directly, but they cannot reply to anyone's comments on any post you are the creator of.

Thus if you reply on a post, then someone on your "Ban User" list cannot reply to you, and if you have made a post, someone who is on your "Ban User" list cannot interact with any comments on that post.

So, whilst who you choose to block is your own affair, we would ask that it be kept to a minimum amongst scans_daily members wherever possible. Blocking prevents conversation and the general flow of discussion, which is a large part of our raison d'etre, and can also cause stress to the person who finds that they cannot comment, especially if the person you have blocked is unaware that you have done so, or the reasons you might have done so.

If members have concerns on this topic please feel free to raise them here, or contact the Mods via our usual contact of scansdailymod[at]gmail[dot]com . We can't promise we'll know all the answers immediately, but we'll do our best to address them.

Thank you

The Scans_Daily Mod Team
aeka / icon_uk / sistermagpie

Comments

[cricharddavies]

If you have used "Ban User" on someone then they not only cannot reply to you directly, but they cannot reply to anyone's comments on any post you are the creator of.

Which doubtless suits the most ban-happy members of our happy little clan just fine, as it allows them to exert complete control over the narrative.

[stubbleupdate]

Yep. If I'm the only person here who posts Red Sonja scans (and I pretty much am) then I can just bin the people who I don't like from replying to me and so curate the community's Red Sonja discussion.

I brought this first to the Mod's attention because a significant amount of content in one theme week was from a user who had blocked me, thus keeping me from interacting with the content.

[dcbanacek]

"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." - Tyrion Lannister

I think that sums up my opinion of it best.

[janegray]

Very happy with how you have handled this, this is exactly what I had been hoping for :)

[thezmage]

So two things that I would appreciate an official mod clarification on:

1. The creation of alt accounts to get around blocks. I realize that this is hard to prove but it would be nice to have clarification on the community policy with regards to this. Would it be different if the account was only used to reply to others on posts created by the blocking individual

2. Replying to people you have blocked but who have not returned the block. This seems disingenuous at best and bullying at worst.

[stubbleupdate]

2 - That's my general vibe on it too.

[obsidianwolf]

Yeah I' agree we need clarification on these two things.

I mean 1 is straight up disrespecting someone's boundaries and is a red flag example of behavior that definitely makes a community unsafe and 2 is a person being an ass to get the last word esp if it's recurring behavior. I mean it's one thing if a person just forgets they blocked someone but it's another entirely if it becomes their entire method of handling disagreement.

Other than wanting clarification on those two things I'm fine with what the mods have decided.

[sadoeuphemist]

Also, what if multiple people are having a conversation and one of them has you blocked, and you respond to what they're saying but in a reply to someone else?

I have to say, while I'm not philosophically opposed to blocking other users, the "ban user" feature on dw seems to not be all that useful. Like, cyberghostface has cricharddavies blocked, and yet there they are a few posts up, having a pretty nasty back-and-forth.

[thezmage]

Okay, so to reframe my thoughts, what I feel this announcement is missing is an address regarding how the ban function can be abused and how it can be circumvented and a clear statement as to how those will be addressed by the mod team going forward.

The block can be circumvented by creating a new account. SD has few restrictions on who can join only banning people when they cause trouble. What’s more, when a member attempted to raise the subject of a fellow member who they believed had changed their name they were shut down by the rule (I’m not sure this is a rule, it may just be a more) that we do not speculate about other members’ identities. At the time, I believe, the very existence of the ban function was not well-known, so the disconnect between this rule/more and the protection the ban function provides was not brought up, but I feel like we need an official way to address this.

At the same time, it can feel like the creation of an alt identity to comment on a posters’ posts but on replies to others is a victimless act that addresses the intent of the ban function without restricting their participation in the group unduly. I’m not saying that I believe in this interpretation, but I do think it needs to be addressed in the rules, even if just to be dismissed as a justification

The ban function, as we’ve seen above, can also be circumvented by responding to others’ comments or even your own with a comment addressed to the user utilizing that function. My feeling is that this needs to be included in the rules to shut that shit down ASAP.

Conversely, the ban function can be abused by banning somebody and then responding to them to get the last word. While this seems pretty cut and dried, it’s also true that nearly every ban will have an inciting incident. Whilst the posters I have/will have banned have been the culmination of a lifetime of membership interactions, the moment at which I did it would undoubtedly seem that I did so to get my way

Likewise, the ban function can be abused by banning a user and then posting issues that you know they will want to comment on. We all have our favorite characters and titles that we love to post about and it would be a profoundly petty act to ban a user and then proceed to post about every issue featuring them within minutes of their digital release, thus preventing them from commenting on said character

Before the above conversation got out of control (very, very quickly I might add), some good points were raised with regards to how this function both restricts AND facilitates the free exchange of ideas. One way or another the way this function is used will shape the direction of this community, and while I appreciate the informative post and it’s recommended course of action, I feel that some stronger boundaries with regards to its use are necessary to establish this community’s future growth in a positive direction

More specifically, as much as I would prefer a ban function closer to the way it works on other forums where it serves as a reminder that the post you are about to read may be stressful but leaves the choice to read and respond solely to you and then, we can’t reprogram dreamwidth at this time and will need to live with the ban function as it exists now. While not being able to comment on certain posts is definitely annoying, I’d prefer that the user(s?) that have me blocked keep me blocked, so as to prevent the likelihood of me forgetting who I am talking to and accidentally entering into the same types of conversations that I have found so stressful in the past. I don’t want any sort of public “shame” list but I almost feel like we would need some sort of database as to who was blocked by which user and why so that we can best address whether any given incident is a violation of the spirit of the incidence or not and to make sure people are aware of a block so they can reciprocate

[shakalooloo]

Weird how in most other systems I've seen the equivalent function merely hides from one's own view alone the replies of people one has so tagged, with an option to reveal individual posts at one's discretion.

The version that this site uses seems utterly bizarre, but I suppose that this is primarily meant as a blogging site rather than the discussion forum that SD uses it as.

[thezmage]

I feel like the system you describe is more useful than this one. If I know that seeing a specific person's posts cause my blood pressure to rise, I would rather make it so that I could not see their posts than that I could but they would just need to post around me to comment.

[janegray]

This. Both of your points, especially the second one. Thank you for making them.

[bruinsfan]

Thanks for posting this and making everyone aware!

I didn't know about this function of Dreamwidth, so when I was suddenly unable to respond to a user's posts while they continued replying to disagree with mine I thought it was an action by the mod team without notification to me. I was understandably less than pleased until a couple of helpful posters told me what was actually happening.

[icon_uk]

Yes, that one is on me.

It genuinely hadn't occurred to me you might think that that was the case, so never thought to reassure you otherwise. I'm grateful to the other posters who straightened thigns out.

[lilacsigil]

As an alternative, if you want to not see comments from a particular person but want to let other people still see them, you can use the following css in your journal:

Go to your journal, then Organize, Customize Journal Style, Custom CSS and add in the following code:

.poster-username { display: none !important; }

and replace "username" with the user name of the person you don't want to see. Repeat as many times as you like, using the whole code with the new user name each time. They will also not be visible to you in other people's comments, or in your circle.

Re: To quote a meme: the Iranian yogurt is not the issue here.

[cricharddavies]

Remind me why I should choose the high road when my enemy consistently chooses the low one?

[laughing_tree]

Ooh, a feud between the poster uncomfortably cozy with Frank Miller's Islamophobia and the poster who openly fantasizes about the death of creators they dislike. What fun.

[stubbleupdate]

[cyberghostface]

Yeah sorry I don’t think someone should be canceled (as numerous people here have said he shouldn’t be able to get work) for being critical of religion.

And for what it’s worth I don’t share half of Frank Miller’s views on the matter.

[cygnia]

...a-yep...

This can only end in tears (for everyone else).

(frozen)

[cricharddavies]

I don’t share half of Frank Miller’s views on the matter.

I don't believe you. I expect you're going to say that's a lie, too.

[owlbrigade1]

With respects to the banuser and the possibility of it being used on mod accounts, specifically potential future mods who might be on someone's ban list pre-getting promoted, can I suggest, perhaps, that future mods make a specific mod account separate from their normal user one when and if that happens? Keep their normal user activity, which is presumably what they got on the banlist for, separate from modding activity.

[icon_uk]

That's an interesting idea we'll take under advisement, thanks!

[stubbleupdate]

That's a sensible idea.