Question for Alexander - new rule?

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The No-Contact restriction is permanent, though it can be rescinded by the party who originally requested it.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

I’d say it’s a waste of time. You can't even comment on other threads because of mod decisions anyway.
And even if you actually proved a mod was targeting you personally—which, let's be real, isn't gonna happen—they'd just kick them off the team.

dustypilot11 said:Honestly, I wouldn't bother. You can't exactly go around arguing about moderator decisions in other threads anyway.
Even if you actually managed to prove a mod was targeting you personally—which, let's be real, is a massive long shot—they’d just strip them of their mod status.

You're sailing straight into the "optimist" category here.😉

Linda Young38 said:Sailing an Optimist class boat. 😉

I said the odds were slim, so don't expect me to join any optimist club. Plus, since we've seen mods get booted before, there's still a statistical chance. Even if it's tiny.

dustypilot11 said:I said the odds were slim, so I’m definitely not putting myself in any optimist category here. But since we've seen mods strip privileges in the past, statistically speaking, there is still a chance. Even if it's a small one.

No, you actually said the chances are slim that someone could prove a moderator is targeting them on a personal level. And honestly, I agree—proving that kind of bias is an uphill battle.

we are implementing a ban on commenting about specific individuals

The level of stupidity required to come up with this is staggering. 🙏

If I’m not allowed to comment on someone else's posts, then they shouldn't be able to comment on mine either; otherwise, this whole new rule just doesn't make any sense.

bluejackal2 said:If I'm not allowed to comment on someone else's posts, then they shouldn't be able to comment on mine either—otherwise, this new rule just doesn't make sense.

+

I was actually thinking the exact same thing. If it isn't mutual, it’s just going to end up being abused.

Is there any way we could get some kind of visual indicator on Reddit—maybe a green or red highlight next to a username—for users who are restricted from posting? I feel like if a moderator makes a call like that, they’re the only ones who can overturn it, so it would be really helpful if the community could actually see that decision in action. Otherwise, how am I supposed to know if a six-month ban is still active or if it was already lifted?
I'm also all for making sure these rules work both ways, both directly and indirectly. We definitely need to move away from those vague "you know who I'm talking about" situations where people just start dogpiling someone without clear cause.

And on that note, I really think we should tighten up the rules regarding clone accounts. Right now, it feels like a loophole waiting to happen: someone opens three different profiles, gets one blocked for 30 days, uses the second one for ten days while the investigation is pending, then switches to a third for another ten... and before you know it, the original 30 days are up and they're back at square one. It’s an endless cycle!

It feels like you can’t even use the ignore button anymore now that they’re rolling out this rule

And honestly, who’s actually going to be the judge in all of this? Like, who gets to decide if someone is genuinely harassing a person or if they’re just having a normal conversation with a potential "victim" in a space that was literally built for discussion?