Scans_Daily

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