Why shouldn't we be able to Ban users we interact with?

It’s not just about them having authority over us; it’s about being directly affected by it. If someone gets a Ban and I have no clue why, I figure I should at least be allowed to know the reason. How are mods expecting people not to repeat the same mistake if they don't even know what the mistake was in the first place? This whole "it doesn't concern you" nonsense is just a way to screw over people who actually take this "job" seriously.

Matthew Anderson4 said:It’s not just about them having authority over us; it’s about being directly affected by it. If someone gets a Ban and I have no clue why, I figure I should at least be allowed to know the reason. How are mods expecting people not to repeat the same mistake if they don't even know what the mistake was in the first place? This whole "it doesn't concern you" nonsense is just a way to screw over people who actually take this "job" seriously.

👍

Applies generally to anyone letting a Reddit thread mess with their RL and emotions too much. And trust me, there are plenty of them out there.

Honestly, I have no clue why Medin Ban issued that ban, but Smizlin totally caught me off guard!

Just before she announced at the Tvuku recreation session that she was going to look into it—without being warned to just mind her own business and watch her step, or else face a 500-point penalty and a Ban.

Anyway, not trying to start any drama here.

Thomas Cruz15 said:Honestly, I have no clue why Medin Ban issued that ban, but Smizlin totally caught me off guard!

Just before she announced at the Tvuku recreation session that she was going to look into it—without being warned to just mind her own business and watch her step, or else face a 500-point penalty and a Ban.

Anyway, not trying to start any drama here.

Exactly. I'm only bringing this up to point out the obvious fact of the matter. I'm hoping someone actually steps up and addresses this instead of dancing around it.

What kind of "gossip" are we talking about? This is just about rules and how they're enforced. It’s like if an FBI spokesperson showed up on the news and said they aren't issuing a statement on an arrest because they don't deal in rumors.
Nobody expects moderators to justify every single move they make, either. Just look at the sheer volume of warnings and bans handed out daily versus how often a thread like Smizl's actually pops up, and you'll see people aren't really interested in chasing empty distractions.

hollowtrucker77 said:Since the moderator sent them my way, I went ahead and issued the Ban.

As for the whole situation, I’m not going to engage with any of you clowns for a few specific reasons.
1. You can't see the deleted posts, so you don't actually have an objective view of what happened here.
2. A moderator shouldn't have to justify every single move they make, especially when people start acting like their decisions should change based on how popular someone is.
3. The administration isn't going to get dragged into gossiping about third parties just because you're all dying of curiosity and trying to manufacture some sense of entitlement out of it.

I don't follow—what exactly did the mod send you? A request for me to ban you, or to lift my own?
Why was I even banned in the first place?
Where in the rules does it state that "advocating" is prohibited or grounds for a ban? And why wasn't everyone else who commented on the ZMM's ban penalized?
Why aren't the game rules clearly written so we actually know how to behave?
Why aren't you being held accountable?
Who is monitoring you?

Where is Tvuku? Why the silence?
There should be consequences for this mess regarding my ban. He essentially tricked me into starting a thread about a forbidden topic. Why wasn't I given a warning?

William Fisher26 said:I don't follow—what exactly did the mod send you? A request for me to ban you, or to lift my own?
Why was I even banned in the first place?
Where in the rules does it state that "advocating" is prohibited or grounds for a ban? And why wasn't everyone else who commented on the ZMM's ban penalized?
Why aren't the game rules clearly written so we actually know how to behave?
Why aren't you being held accountable?
Who is monitoring you?

Where is Tvuku? Why the silence?
There should be consequences for this mess regarding my ban. He essentially tricked me into starting a thread about a forbidden topic. Why wasn't I given a warning?

Actually, you do have the rules of the game.

Nicholas King said:Actually, you do have the rules of the game.

It’s great how you managed to pull that out after we spent the entire day debating—only for those fanatics to Ban me and strip 500 points because of it.

It is curious that there aren't any rules governing admin oversight—or any semblance of accountability for them, for that matter.
They aren't sitting in Congress—they don't have immunity. I don't get it.

Look, it’s been explained to you hundreds of times already: this Reddit isn't some place where we debate democracy. It's more like a dictatorship, honestly.
The "admins" just do whatever they think is right, period. They don't owe anyone an explanation or any accountability, except maybe the big boss—but even then, he couldn't care less if the moderator is Peter, George, or Steve.
It's pretty simple here: either follow their rules, or just leave and find somewhere else where you can act however you want.
I guess these intense arguments you're having are just, unfortunately, a waste of time.

William Fisher26 said:It’s great how you managed to pull that out after we spent the entire day debating—only for those fanatics to Ban me and strip 500 points because of it.

It is curious that there aren't any rules governing admin oversight—or any semblance of accountability for them, for that matter.
They aren't sitting in Congress—they don't have immunity. I don't get it.

Why would such a thing even be necessary? This isn't some democratic platform where the staff is elected by majority vote, requiring an oversight body. This site has one owner who decides how everything functions. The owner chooses the admins, not the users. The owner also oversees all moderators. If you don't like it, buy the site and do whatever you want, or go somewhere else, like Usenet which has no owner.

William Fisher26 said:It’s great how you managed to pull that out after we spent the entire day debating—only for those fanatics to Ban me and strip 500 points because of it.

It is curious that there aren't any rules governing admin oversight—or any semblance of accountability for them, for that matter.
They aren't sitting in Congress—they don't have immunity. I don't get it.

I didn't exactly "pull anything" out of thin air—I was simply answering the question, "Where does it say that playing lawyer is prohibited?" Since this was being asked by someone with a pretty decent post count, I figured I’d actually go and check to see if it was possible that—get this—it wasn't explicitly stated in the Reddit Code of Conduct.

It’s actually pretty fascinating—if you think about it—that there aren't any actual rules in place to oversee how the administration operates, or even some semblance of accountability for what they do. I mean, it's almost strange, isn't it? There seems to be absolutely nothing governing their actions or holding them responsible for their decisions. I guess it just goes to show how much unchecked power is sitting right there.
They aren't even sitting in Congress to have legislative immunity. I just don't get it—it makes absolutely no sense.

Of course there’s surveillance—and of course there’s accountability. It really isn't that complicated. They are responsible for every single cent of taxpayer money you’ve funneled into their operations. Simple as that.

I’m not trying to get dragged into this specific feud—honestly, I really am not—but I find it incredibly bizarre that someone who wasn't even around on the Reddit yesterday is suddenly preaching about parliamentary democracy and acting shocked that it doesn't exist here. It’s just... odd, I guess.

hollowtrucker77 said:Look, why don't you just head down to the FBI and demand an explanation for someone else entirely?
Actually, even better—go ahead and ask them to justify themselves every single time you feel like they ought to.

I don't get why you're so insistent on claiming we're just looking for justifications from you...

It's pretty obvious this isn't about us trying to audit your books or anything like that—honestly, I couldn't care less about that—it's just that when we ask for an explanation, it's because certain actions don't seem clear or logical, and who else are we supposed to turn to?

I have no idea why you're interpreting that as some kind of personal attack on you or the admins...

Nicholas King said:I didn't exactly "pull anything" out of thin air—I was simply answering the question, "Where does it say that playing lawyer is prohibited?" Since this was being asked by someone with a pretty decent post count, I figured I’d actually go and check to see if it was possible that—get this—it wasn't explicitly stated in the Reddit Code of Conduct.

It’s actually pretty fascinating—if you think about it—that there aren't any actual rules in place to oversee how the administration operates, or even some semblance of accountability for what they do. I mean, it's almost strange, isn't it? There seems to be absolutely nothing governing their actions or holding them responsible for their decisions. I guess it just goes to show how much unchecked power is sitting right there.
They aren't even sitting in Congress to have legislative immunity. I just don't get it—it makes absolutely no sense.

Of course there’s surveillance—and of course there’s accountability. It really isn't that complicated. They are responsible for every single cent of taxpayer money you’ve funneled into their operations. Simple as that.

I’m not trying to get dragged into this specific feud—honestly, I really am not—but I find it incredibly bizarre that someone who wasn't even around on the Reddit yesterday is suddenly preaching about parliamentary democracy and acting shocked that it doesn't exist here. It’s just... odd, I guess.

Obviously, I know this isn't a democracy. However, I had no idea advocacy was banned—Tvuku could have just told me that directly instead of dragging out an argument and making me think it was allowed.
I haven't spent my life studying the PŽK rules until today—as strange as that may seem to you.

William Fisher26 said:Obviously, I know this isn't a democracy. However, I had no idea advocacy was banned—Tvuku could have just told me that directly instead of dragging out an argument and making me think it was allowed.
I haven't spent my life studying the PŽK rules until today—as strange as that may seem to you.

It isn't particularly shocking to me that you haven't studied them until now (to be fair, I wasn't exactly an expert either 😁) — what strikes me as odd, though, is that after getting hit by a ban, your first instinct is to ask "where is this written?" instead of checking the most obvious, logical place where those rules would actually be posted.

William Fisher26 said:Obviously, I know this isn't a democracy. However, I had no idea advocacy was banned—Tvuku could have just told me that directly instead of dragging out an argument and making me think it was allowed.
I haven't spent my life studying the PŽK rules until today—as strange as that may seem to you.

Honestly, I’d suggest checking it out ASAP. It also says right there that insults are strictly prohibited, and being disrespectful is a quick way to get a thread shut down.

Besides, this thread is pretty much expired anyway, so might as well just scrap it before it totally rots.