Posts by Walter Hughes2

Just throw that sentence into Google Translate so you can actually understand what’s being said (assuming your English isn't up to par) 😁

By the way, if you bother to read that message, it says right there that Coca-Cola blocked you ☕

I’m circling back to this specific thread because I have a few questions regarding the recent decision.
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=71336601&postcount=3

You were banned because you have a documented history of harassing the user IBM, despite being previously warned to stop. In this particular post, you referenced IBM's comment and stated that you "find such an attitude disgusting," which can be interpreted as a fresh instance of targeted harassment. Without the context of your prior history, that post might have looked like a standard debate, which created a dilemma for us regarding whether our decision was correct. Formally, the post looks fine, but given the background, it isn't. When faced with such a dilemma, we opt for the path that minimizes harm to our community members. Furthermore, this concept of "contextual behavior" isn't an explicitly defined rule on Reddit. Therefore, the ban stands.

To prevent similar dilemmas moving forward and to avoid having to constantly psychoanalyze the intent behind individual posts, we are introducing a "No-Contact Rule." This restriction against commenting on a specific individual is the digital equivalent of a restraining order; commenting on someone when there is a documented history of conflict constitutes harassment of the other user.

This means if someone under a No-Contact restriction ignores the rule and comments on the restricted user anyway, and that interaction is reported, they will receive a 30-day ban.

The No-Contact restriction is permanent, though it can be rescinded by the party who originally requested it.

Due to your history of targeting IBM's posts, you are now prohibited from commenting on them. Please keep this in mind.

Does this policy apply to moderators as well? Hypothetically speaking, if a moderator is constantly handing me warnings and I feel it's unfair—so I complain about our interactions on other threads—could that same moderator report me for violating the No-Contact rule and land me a 30-day ban?

And who actually decides if a No-Contact request is granted? Is it enough for me to just tell someone they aren't allowed to talk to me anymore, or does Nicole or someone else have to sign off on it?

Thanks!

edit: I actually think this is an excellent rule, provided there's a bit more technical clarity on how it works. 👍 The massive issue arises when someone is subtly poking at another person, mocking them or using sarcasm to wind them up, all while playing the victim to get them in trouble. In those cases, the provocateur gets off scot-free, while the person who actually snaps ends up getting banned. It’s easy for someone to intentionally bait my anger, and the moderators won't see it or react because, on paper, nothing "concrete" is happening.

Rachel Palmer56 said:Of course, it's not just about whether they have the right—it’s strictly prohibited by law. It's a criminal offense, period. Even if you're only leaking details that only you happen to know.
But let's be realistic here: we're talking about linking two usernames together, not exposing someone's actual legal identity. Aside from one single Forum User here who uses their real name and happens to be a public figure in certain circles, we aren't dealing with identities.

So, if we're going to play the "justice and fairness" card, we actually need to evaluate whether this is truly an issue.
Look, I'm not losing sleep over this, and yesterday's drama didn't bother me one bit. I don't care where people go or what they do; if it's irrelevant, I'll just skip past it. But in this case, those two are absolutely right, and I have every right to point that out.

I get that, but the fundamental issue is that the only thing connecting two different handles on this forum is the actual human being behind them. There isn't any other link unless you start using private information—names, email addresses, IP addresses, cookies, you name it. Under GDPR, personal data is defined as anything that can lead to the identification of a real person. And using it like that is strictly forbidden.

I'm telling you, I understand the dilemma, but this is just an inherent part of anonymous online communication. There is simply no way to resolve this tension. 🤷

Under the strict guidelines of the GDPR, nobody has the right to link a real-life identity to an online profile without that person's explicit permission. Because of that legal barrier, there simply isn't a viable solution to this heated issue 🙂