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

[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

[icon_uk]

First of all, thank you for the considered and well constructed comment, it's appreciated.

You raise some very valid points, some of which we hadn't even considered in the light raised.

So we will reply properly on this, but it might take us a little while to have the necessary conversations, and didn't want you to think your comments were being ignored in the meantime.

[sadoeuphemist]

IMO, the ban function only really works to prevent user from commenting on one's post, and has significantly reduced utility when it comes to the comments section, because you don't need to reply directly to someone's comment to make it visible to them. Someone can comment "This is great, I love this!" on a post, and even though they have blocked me, I can still totally comment right beneath, "Wow, this sucks because of x, y, and z, can't believe people like this," etc.

Of course, this is very (very) passive-aggressive, but it is difficult to imagine a functioning moderation policy that forbids people from posting an opinion just because someone who has blocked you has already posted their opinion first. Or vice-versa, if you're not supposed to respond to people you've blocked. To add to this, there are comment chains which have multiple people corresponding in them - how does this work, if you want to participate in the conversation, are you at some point in the chain allowed to respond to someone who has responded to a person who blocked you / you have blocked?

Adding to this, I simply do not know everyone who has blocked me, and I'm not sure if there's any functionality to find that out. I learned just recently that dw still lets you write out a reply to people who have you blocked, it just tells you that you're blocked when you try to post it. So I don't know how to learn if someone has blocked me short of writing out a reply to them and seeing if it goes through, and I don't want to try replying to people who I suspect have animus with me just to check.

[thezmage]

Ultimately it will fall on the mods, as human beings, to enforce one way or another. Based on past performance, I have every reason to believe that they will err on the side of keeping posters around but even if we get an official policy of “hey, that’s not cool” followed by no other action it should have a positive effect on the community overall

Something like one person saying they liked a book while the other responds with saying they do like the book would likely be ignored for at least the first couple of comments until it became obvious that one or more of them were circumventing a ban and shut down then, but someone posting “ignore them, they don’t know what they’re talking about” might not be allowed to go on at all. It’s really up to the mods and/or the participants in the discussion

And, yeah, it sure sucks writing out a comment either long and detailed or just short and pithy before finding out that you’re banned, but it should only happen once.

[sadoeuphemist]

It just feels to me that any sort of enforcement amounts to telling the users to ignore each other, but if the users were capable of simply ignoring each other, then ... it wouldn't have escalated to banning in the first place, y'know?

Also, if I'm being frank, I do not believe that a user should be able to post on a topic and prevent even indirect interaction from people who disagree with them. For example, I am banned by velacron. If velacron posts some shit about Kyle Rittenhouse being totally justified in crossing state lines and killing people, I am not going to ignore that, and I do not want to be sanctioned by mods for informing other users of the extent of velacron's extremism.

[thezmage]

Well, yeah, any policy is going to only be as good as its enforcement makes it. We don’t throw away a safety tool because somebody who should have been banned a long time ago is misusing it to excuse genocide. Any rule will need to emphasize that it is a safety tool and not an “automatically win arguments” tool.

EDIT: not that we even have that option, of course. It’s here, presumably to stay, and we need to know how to use it. If we purposefully neuter it in order to justify a handful of edge cases (I think it’s just Velacron? These people tend to weed themselves out anyway) I feel we do more harm than good

[sadoeuphemist]

To be clear, I am fine with the status quo - the ban function exists, and everyone can use it as they please. It's not my preferred situation, but I'm fine with it.

My concern is expecting the mods to prevent people from "circumventing" these bans. Because as it is, as tools, the bans don't do all that much. You voiced the concern of someone banning another person to have the last word. As we have seen with cyberghostface and cricharddavies, the result is: nothing happens, they keep sniping back and forth like usual, the ban doesn't do shit.

So it would be almost entirely on the mods to design and implement and enforce a policy of "users are allowed to select other users that they don't want to interact with". This is something that should be built into the code of the site. I don't believe it is reasonable to expect a team of human mods to have to babysit and intervene to keep any given pair of people from even interacting. I don't believe the current mod team is even remotely inclined to try such a thing, given that their announcement consists of: "the ban function exists, you can use it, we can't stop you, but try to keep it at a minimum, ok?"

I think it makes more sense to design policy completely independent of the ban function. If two users routinely get into toxic arguments, then ... just sanction them for their toxicity. (ex: this certainly is not the first time cricharddavies has talked to people this way, why was something not done earlier, there has to be a better solution than individual users putting them on a ban list). Trying to build a policy around a half-baked ban function that anyone can use for any reason strikes me as a bad idea.

[icon_uk]

The "We don't ask about who people are" is an interpretation of the age old Scans_Daily rule of "You are your username". No one is ever beholden to justify who they are here, just as who you are elsewhere is your own business, and we will never pry into that.

In some cases people may have to abandon profiles and adopt new ones for reasons of their own and whether they choose to acknowledge their past self/selves is up to them. (and provided they're not doing it to get round an previous expulsion by the Mods)

Mod's also can't see the e-mail associated with an account, so we can't tell who is who in that way. We do have visibility of ISP numbers, but even that has a diluted relevance with the prevalence of VPN randomising and people using more than one means/network to access the site.

Creating a new user account to circumvent a Ban User so as to pick (or restart) fights is a "bad faith" move, and it would certainly trigger the disciplinary process.

The unique issue with Moderating the Ban User situation is that, even as Mods, we have no visibility of the intra-member Bans which might be in place at any moment. Nor can anyone see who has Banned them, until they try interacting with them.

So, unless we happen upon clearly egregious situation in passing, the Mods will be entirely reliant on members to let us know if something is up (Which we hope would happen anyway), and then decide whether it was done with malicious intent or not, and act accordingly.

Which is what Mods are expected to do, of course. But this adds a new wrinkle to it, since the arising issues are not "things which have concretely happened" which we can see, but "things which have not happened because of an invisible-to-everyone-else Ban being in place at the time", which we can't see... it's like Moderation Dark Matter.

We already have rules about using multiple accounts to "sockpuppet" conversations or fake support for a point.

The example you give of "Replying to people you have Banned but who have not returned the Ban" would also be influenced by the motivation for doing so and the impact on the recipient.

If you have Banned someone presumably you aren't that interested in interacting with them, so why are you replying to them?

Certainly, if you did so to insult them, or start an argument, in the knowledge they can't respond, then that would definitely be worthy of raising with a Mod if we haven't responded to it already, as picking a fight like that would not be acceptable, Ban or no Ban, but the deliberate use of Ban User would certainly be seen as aggravating things.

On the other hand if it's clearly a casual remark which isn't looking for a response, it's probably less of an issue, though the recipient might not think so, and we would weight their opinion into any decision.

The "unblock, comment and then reblock" move, which is attempting to have the last word by very dubious means, would definitely be regarded as a Conduct Fail by the Mods and treated accordingly.

In short, the sort of issues you raise would seem to be related to general conduct and behaviour, which we already have rules in place for, rather than something specific about the Ban function itself, though we would regard the use of Ban User as an aggravating factor.

Obviously we hope this isn't a situation we hope see come up very often, but when it does Mods and members will have to work together to address it on a case by case basis because it's new to us too, and there's just no other way to do it we can see.