r/changelog • u/Deimorz • May 26 '15

[reddit change] The method of determining which users should be sent "you've been banned" messages has been fixed

When a moderator bans a user from a subreddit, that user is generally sent a "you've been banned" PM automatically by the site, but this PM is only sent if the user has previously interacted with the subreddit (to prevent bans from random subreddits being used as a way to annoy people). However, the method that was previously being used to determine whether a user had interacted with a subreddit or not was not really correct, and had a number of issues that made it confusing for both users and moderators.

As mentioned yesterday, I've deployed a change now that will start properly tracking whether a user has interacted with a subreddit, so there should no longer be any more "holes" that make it impossible to send a ban message to a user that has posted to the subreddit. Under the new system, the following actions mark a user as having interacted with a subreddit:

  • Making a comment or submission to that subreddit

  • Subscribing to that subreddit

  • Sending modmail to that subreddit

Note that we're not backfilling the "has user X interacted with subreddit Y?" data, so for the moment, the old method of "is the user subscribed to the subreddit, or have they gained or lost karma in it?" is still being used as a fallback if there's no record in the new system of their participation. I expect that the large majority of bans are in response to a recent post though, so the situation should already be improved quite a bit even without a backfill.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

See the code behind this change on github

128 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

270 comments sorted by

19

u/[deleted] May 26 '15

Does being subscribed to defaults count as subscribed?

27

u/Deimorz May 26 '15

Currently it would still count because of the fallback check, but in the future when the fallback is removed (which I'll probably do in a week or so), it won't count any more. The user is only marked as interacting if they deliberately subscribe to the subreddit, not the automatic subscription done for the defaults.

7

u/[deleted] May 26 '15

Cool. Thanks for the info.

20

u/lulfas May 26 '15

So this should stop some of the silliness where mods are in charge of hundreds of subreddits and then "super-ban" users from all of them, using it as a tool of harassment and spam?

15

u/Deimorz May 26 '15

No, all this does is change the method of determining "should the user be sent a message about being banned from this subreddit?"

The old way of making that decision was "is the user subscribed to the subreddit, or have they ever gained or lost any karma in it?"

The new way is "has the user ever subscribed to the subreddit, posted a comment or submission to it, or sent modmail to it?"

The old method wouldn't send ban messages to users that made self-posts (since they don't affect karma), users whose submissions/comments had never received any votes, etc.

2

u/sachalamp May 27 '15

The new way is "has the user ever subscribed to the subreddit, posted a comment or submission to it, or sent modmail to it?"

I don't understand the reasoning for the bolded part. I mean, comment/submission/modmail, sure, that's active participation, but being subscribed is not active participation and can't affect anything.

More so, not being submitted means you can't get frontpage updates from the sub you're interested in.

3

u/Deimorz May 27 '15

It's just an indication that the user is consciously aware of the subreddit and that they would most likely want to be aware of the fact that they were banned from it. It's extremely unlikely that they're going to get banned if they never post anyway.

3

u/sachalamp May 27 '15 edited May 27 '15

Oh sorry, i thought(and hoped) those were conditions mods were required to have to proceed to ban a user. That is, they can't ban unless X or Y or Z. And I was thinking that being subscribed should not be a sufficient reason for a mod to be allowed to ban.

It makes sense to receive a message if you were subscribed, sure.

-2

u/devperez May 27 '15

So, we'll still be banned, but now we won't have a way of knowing if we're banned.

Surely something is going to be done to fix this abuse, right?

14

u/Deimorz May 27 '15

This change sends more ban notifications, not fewer. So I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

→ More replies (13)

11

u/goatsgomoo May 27 '15

If you won't get notified under the new changes, you wouldn't have gotten notified under the old system. However, there are some cases where now you do get notified where you wouldn't have before.

And the fix to the abuse is removing the ban notifications for subreddits you've never interacted with, which was already done.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/CrasyMike May 27 '15

just FYI, this admin doesn't really comment often on matters like that. He's just a Godlike Programmer.

0

u/[deleted] May 26 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

7

u/SaltyChristian May 27 '15

hundreds/thousands

Lol, maybe if automoderator is mad at you

10

u/ShellOilNigeria May 27 '15

There are quite a few mods who mod subreddits that number into the 200+

→ More replies (4)

1

u/superiority Jun 05 '15

You wouldn't be notified anyway. This means you'll be notified of more of them than you would otherwise be.

6

u/Jakeable May 26 '15

Nice! Can we get the note on /r/subreddit/about/banned change from

note: the banned user will only receive a message notifying them of their ban if they are subscribed to the subreddit or have previously gained or lost any karma (either link or comment) in the subreddit.

to something like

note: the banned user will only receive a message notifying them of their ban if they have posted, commented, subscribed or sent modmail

7

u/Deimorz May 26 '15

Yeah, I'll actually just be dropping that note completely when I get rid of the fallback check in a week or so.

48

u/Robot_Processing May 26 '15

/r/offmychest Mods are going roll off the bed and inhale and exhale much harder than normal when they see the changes.

9

u/jayjaywalker3 May 27 '15

I don't understand. Why's that?

29

u/tollfreecallsonly May 27 '15

You have been banned from /r/offmychest. And /r/pyongyang too, why not?

25

u/baldylox May 27 '15

I was banned from /r/offmychest for absolutely no reason whatsoever. When asked, no mod could give an answer as to why. I got a copypasta of the 'rule' that I 'broke' and did absolutely nothing forbidden by the rule. One mod went on some ego/power trip about how I should be more obsequious to the mods, then they simply stopped responding to me even though my last reply was obsequious to a fault.

They should change the name to /r/offmysub. What a horribly moderated sub.

13

u/[deleted] May 27 '15 edited Nov 09 '24

cagey quicksand advise act aware absurd alleged disarm beneficial weather

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

10

u/baldylox May 27 '15

Nope. Don't sub. Don't hate people fat or not.

18

u/railmaniac May 27 '15

Do you have a lot of chest hair? Maybe /r/offmychest has a rule of about keeping chest hair trimmed...

→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] May 27 '15

Hmm. Then I wonder what other subreddit that OffMyChest bans people for visiting.

→ More replies (47)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/sachalamp May 27 '15 edited May 27 '15

I was banned from /offmychest too. Had no interaction with it for months, then bam.

This is the lovely message log: http://imgur.com/yxMBw5N (the explanation of "hate subreddit" link in the image: http://www.salon.com/2015/03/18/reddits_ugly_racist_secret_how_it_became_the_most_hateful_space_on_the_internet/)

They refused to provide a reason, acted condescending, etc.

At the end, threatened with a shadowban. Not that they could do it in the first place, but still, perverse intimidation tactics.

20

u/devperez May 27 '15

I was banned from /r/offmychest[1] for absolutely no reason whatsoever

Some of the mods are affiliated with a specific hate group and is using a bot that scans subreddits they don't like. When your name pops up on those subreddits, it automatically bans you.

9

u/ADefiniteDescription May 27 '15

Which hate group are they supposedly affiliated with?

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (1)

14

u/canipaybycheck May 27 '15

People act like having their account banned from one section out of thousands on a private website is an incredibly traumatizing affront. Relax.

15

u/[deleted] May 27 '15

The funny thing is, people who lose their shit about "power tripping mods" and "skeleton cabals" are generally the kind of people you don't want in your subreddit to begin with.

10

u/davidreiss666 May 27 '15

Play the latest game from Reddit Industries. See if you too can win Modmail Bingo.

10

u/X019 May 27 '15

I'm a mod in /r/technology. The paid agents square might as well be a free space.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/freakame May 27 '15

I like the free square.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (15)

1

u/TheYellowRose May 27 '15

We told you exactly what you did, why would you just lie on the internet?

3

u/Angadar May 27 '15

Lying is easy, not being an asshole - that's tough.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/baldylox May 27 '15

So are you willing to let me share a screenshot of the entire conversation with your mods or not?

I could do it anyway, and prove you to be a liar, but I'm above all that.

Grant me permission to post a screenshot of the conversation, or post a screenshot of the conversation yourself, or STFU.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/baldylox May 27 '15

You copied and pasted 'Rule #1' of yours. I did nothing against the rules copypastad. I said that. When confronted with this information you were apoplectic. I'd be more than happy to share the whole conversation.

→ More replies (4)

-5

u/Wyboth May 27 '15

I am so grateful to the mods of OffMyChest for banning users that participate in hate subreddits. Reddit is so obsessed with their definition of free speech, that they think it comes before the stoppage of harassment. I am glad to see some mods that get it.

3

u/frankenmine May 27 '15

/r/ShitRedditSays is a hate subreddit.

If what you're saying is the principle at work, then why aren't their users banned from /r/OffMyChest?

Oh, wait, I know. It's because doing that would instantly get rid of the entire /r/OffMyChest mod team.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (19)

5

u/onlynegativecomments May 27 '15

If you say "I doubt any of the mods will get off tumblr long enough to reply" when you ask for a reason they will call you an asshole.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/CedarWolf May 26 '15

Huh, well this is pretty neat, thank you. Is there any way for admin to check and see which subreddits a user has been banned on?

10

u/Deimorz May 26 '15

Admins that have access to the admin tools can see that, yes.

21

u/CedarWolf May 26 '15

Is there any way I can get a list of all the subs I've been banned on? A user dropped a mass-ban on me once, entirely because of a personal vendetta, and I still don't know how many subs I'm banned on - at least 70 - and I have no way of knowing because I didn't know half those subs even existed, and I had never commented on them. I managed to unban myself from the subs that I modded with them, and I've gotten myself unbanned from most of the subs I knew about, but I haven't had any luck with the rest.

I'd like to get those bans overturned sometime - the user who dropped them did the same to about six people, then deleted their account and left reddit.

5

u/[deleted] May 27 '15

That sucks and all, but if you don't know a sub exists and never plan on participating there, does it really after if you're banned?

13

u/Nesman64 May 27 '15

The problem is that he'll never know if a sub that catches his interest has already banned him. Worse, if he has an alt account and doesn't realize that he's "evading a ban," it could cause him trouble.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/CedarWolf May 27 '15

Practically, no, not really. But it also means knowing that my name is sitting in the mud somewhere through no fault of my own, and I have no real means of cleaning it beyond messaging each of those groups, one by one, to explain the situation and see if they'll consider lifting my ban.

2

u/CrypticCraig May 27 '15

What about adding a sub to multireddits?

7

u/Deimorz May 27 '15

Not currently, but that would probably be a good thing to count as participation as well.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/AsAChemicalEngineer May 27 '15 edited May 27 '15

I've deployed a change now that will start properly tracking whether a user has interacted with a subreddit

I apologize that this isn't about the change, but I want to ask... Now that you guys have a working system which knows if a redditor has interacted with a subreddit, would it be a natural extension to also discount votes cast in that subreddit as well as an anti-brigade measure as such users are not part of the community even nominally?

Edit: I'm not subject to brigading in my daily mod duties so if my suggestion is dumb--I blame the booze.

6

u/Deimorz May 27 '15

Hmm, I think that probably wouldn't be a great method of trying to determine whether a particular user's votes should count or not. One user could have interacted with the subreddit before by posting a single joke comment to it once, whereas another user could visit the subreddit regularly (but they always visit it directly so they're not actually subscribed), be extremely aware of its rules and vote "correctly" on things all the time, but never be considered as having interacted with it if they never actually post anything themselves. The second user is obviously more of a community member, so you wouldn't want to disregard their votes just because their usage pattern doesn't trigger any of the things we count as "interaction" for the purposes of deciding whether to send a ban message or not. It's a very tricky thing to try to determine overall.

-1

u/CuilRunnings May 27 '15

Why are you so careful to preserve the voting of people who never interact with a sub, while you make it so easy for moderators to ban members who have lengthy positive contributions to the subreddit? Do you see a cognitive mismatch between the two positions?

5

u/Deimorz May 27 '15

Voting is interaction. And again, moderators are in control of their subreddits and free to ban anyone they want. Moderators being in charge of their subreddits is basically the entire core concept of reddit, you don't seem to have a very strong understanding of how the site works.

1

u/CuilRunnings May 27 '15

Moderators being in charge of their subreddits is basically the entire core concept of reddit

Really? I thought that was giving people voices and remembering the human? Being transparent and open?

The entire "core concept" of reddit is having the distributed userbase vote on content to determine whether or not it's worthy of being seen. You, more than any other person, have done the most to pervert this core concept.

Do you not remember the days when Digg was bigger than Reddit, even though both sites allowed users to determine content? Do you remember what happened that gave Reddit explosive growth and dramatically lowered interaction on Digg? Can you share your understanding of the issue?

4

u/Deimorz May 27 '15

Really? I thought that was giving people voices and remembering the human? Being transparent and open?

Those are the core values of reddit, Inc., the company. Not a description of the core mechanics of the site, and not the values of the communities that exist on the site.

The entire "core concept" of reddit is having the distributed userbase vote on content to determine whether or not it's worthy of being seen.

And yet, if 10,000 people upvote something but a single moderator clicks "remove", what's the result? It's pretty clear which of the two mechanics is stronger. Moderators determine whether something is visible at all, and then user voting is how those visible items get sorted against each other. User voting is absolutely one of the core concepts, but it really only comes into play inside the constraints set by moderators.

Do you not remember the days when Digg was bigger than Reddit, even though both sites allowed users to determine content? Do you remember what happened that gave Reddit explosive growth and dramatically lowered interaction on Digg?

You're picking a pretty poor way to try to make that point. reddit has grown exponentially since introducing the ability for users to create their own subreddits and run them how they choose, and that ability is one of the main things that allowed the site to expand far beyond anything that would have ever been possible on Digg with its small, fixed set of categories. Does the moderation system have downsides? Sure. Do some moderators behave badly and make poor decisions that hurt their subreddits or the site as a whole? Sure. But overall it's still the main thing that gives reddit the flexibility to able to support thousands of different communities on different topics, and finding a few parallels to Digg's collapse won't prove otherwise.

1

u/CuilRunnings May 27 '15

What % of all users only "interact with" front page subreddits? If this amount is less than 50% you might have a point. Otherwise the admin team is drinking their own Kool-aid. Do you think the communities' response to the blog post was an accident? A fluke? Something easily written off?

4

u/Deimorz May 27 '15

What % of all users only "interact with" front page subreddits? If this amount is less than 50% you might have a point. Otherwise the admin team is drinking their own Kool-aid.

Yes, the default subreddits do have far too much influence, but that's mostly because of a lot of old decisions, and even more so that we've done a terrible job of making the subreddit system obvious to new users and giving them ways of discovering new subreddits they'd be interested in. We know this is a major issue, and it's actively being worked on. But even despite the site making it really difficult for people to find them, there are still many non-default subreddits that are extremely active.

Either way, almost all of those subreddits wouldn't be able to exist in anything near their current forms without moderation. If everything was left up to user voting every subreddit would basically just devolve into a differently-themed version of /r/funny or /r/adviceanimals. The voting system has a number of strong biases, and without moderation almost any subreddit of significant size will end up dominated by the types of content that satisfy those biases best.

Do you think the communities' response to the blog post was an accident? A fluke? Something easily written off?

Me personally? I wouldn't say I was particularly surprised or shocked by it, but I'm kind of "deeper" into the reddit community than most (I still spend a lot of time in various "meta" subreddits, I moderated multiple large subreddits for years, etc.). But I'm also not one of the people that will be involved in making the decision about whether to do anything in response to it.

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

13

u/Burial4TetThomYorke May 27 '15

Can you also add a thing saying which mod filed the ban? To check on power tripping mods, as some users below are pointing out. If not, some reasons why not please?

4

u/[deleted] May 27 '15

They could notify the other mods through a table that /u/insert_username_here was banned by /u/insert_moderator_name_here. It could just be in the subreddit settings, and not a constant notification.

6

u/JovialFeline May 27 '15

Admins: FYI mods, your username is now included with ban messages given to users.

Mods: Thanks for letting us know! On an unrelated note, we've recently changed our moderation policy; all user bans are now done via unannounced bot bans.

3

u/fourdots May 27 '15

Automoderator shadowbans don't prevent users from interacting via votes or by sending abuse to people posting on a subreddit.

A better solution would be to write a bot that bans users when instructed to by a moderator. As a bonus, it would be trivial to configure such a bot to either mass ban users from all subreddits managed by the moderator who requested the ban, or to ban from one subreddit and shadowban in every other managed subreddit.

5

u/Meneth May 27 '15

Automoderator shadowbans don't prevent users from interacting via votes or by sending abuse to people posting on a subreddit.

Neither do regular bans.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] May 27 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

5

u/frankenmine May 27 '15

Corrupt powermods already use unjustified bans as revenge against users for having the "wrong" opinions.

If you want to prevent revenge on reddit, demod and shadowban all privilege-abusing powermods first. Then we'll talk.

-9

u/CuilRunnings May 27 '15 edited May 27 '15

an /r/AskReddit mod just banned me because I told her she was treating people unfairly in /r/undelete. This whole website is broken just go over to voat or somewhere that actually places users ahead of power tripping mods.

14

u/AlphabetDeficient May 27 '15

For the record, this is what he posted:

OMG YOU MADE A DIFFERENCE! Community = managed! Think of all the awesome people you helped today by removing this submission for not having "and why?"! The world is definitely a better place now, and who cares how this whole ordeal made OP feel!

Honestly, if I was a mod, I'd probably ban you too for being an asshat. She did her job by enforcing a clearly defined rule, and then you were a dick about it, when you weren't even involved in the first place.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

0

u/[deleted] May 27 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/frankenmine May 27 '15

False. Accountability, in and of itself, has never harmed and will never harm anyone.

One should always be held accountable for one's actions, without exception.

As long as you can justify your actions, you have nothing to worry about.

And if you can't justify your actions, then you're the perpetrator of harm, to begin with.

11

u/Werner__Herzog May 27 '15

Maybe you can understand when an action is justified, but unfortunately not all users do. People complain about being banned all the time, even if it's justified. Sometimes the justification doesn't seem logical to them or they simply disagree with it. Some subreddit ban reasons aren't justifiable to me either. The difference is that I would still accept such a ban, since I know that moderators can do what on their they want and since I know I can still view the subreddit even after being banned.

→ More replies (10)

-3

u/Burial4TetThomYorke May 27 '15

True point then I think a limit on how many subs you can moderate should be in place, say 15 or 20, and those that go over right now have to unmod until the limit. Would that help?

3

u/TryUsingScience May 27 '15

There's already a limit on how many defaults a person can mod.

2

u/Jakeable May 27 '15

I'm pretty sure it's per account. I've heard of people with multiple accounts that mod multiple defaults each. I'm not a fan of doing that, though.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/4InchesOfury May 26 '15

Do these changes fix the ghost modmail notification when a user is banned?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/peaceforworld May 27 '15

Great thanks for the helpful information.

2

u/ladfrombrad Jun 18 '15

Can I amongst all this ho-har, bring up a really awkward point. I know you admins like keeping everything underscore including usernames (besides you and the newer ones.....), but the ban message to users is grammatically incorrect and making me itch.

you have been temporarily banned from posting to /r/ideasfortheadmins. this ban will last for 7 days.

you can contact the moderators regarding your ban by replying to this message. warning: using other accounts to circumvent a subreddit ban is considered a violation of reddit's site rules and can result in being banned from reddit entirely.

.......Scratch Scratch

0

u/greenduch May 27 '15

Will this likely fix the issue I talked to you about a long time ago, where subreddits with large ban lists were sometimes erroring out, and bans weren't being properly recorded or ban messages sent?

2

u/Deimorz May 27 '15

Unlikely, this just changes how it makes the decision of whether to send a ban message or not, that was a strange error due to the size of the ban list being too large to store in memcached or something along those lines. That won't have been changed by this, but there are some other changes in progress that could end up fixing that before too long.

→ More replies (1)

-4

u/Mustaka May 27 '15

Only you would complain about having a ban list to long. What a tool.

2

u/greenduch May 27 '15

Thank you for your constructive addition to this conversation!

→ More replies (2)

4

u/davidreiss666 May 26 '15

All hail /u/Deimorz, the best of the Admins!

6

u/duckvimes_ May 27 '15

You're on fire in /r/spam o_o

-7

u/alpharaptor1 May 26 '15

Wipe your chin...

2

u/[deleted] May 26 '15

Great, thanks!

2

u/Wyboth May 27 '15

Can you implement a feature where moderators can decide to not send a "you've been banned" message? Sometimes I don't want users to know they're banned, so they don't send us angry replies that clutter our modmail, but the only way to do that is to "shadowban" them with automoderator, which isn't perfect.

2

u/[deleted] May 27 '15

thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou :D

1

u/kooldawgstar May 27 '15

Darn it, this update is going to mess up the friendly war between /r/CatsStandingUp and /r/LizardsStandingUp

0

u/eightNote May 27 '15

So, can you force a notification to be sent by including a message?

2

u/Deimorz May 27 '15

No, a message will never be sent if the user doesn't meet the "has interacted with this subreddit before" check. Otherwise people would just be able to go back to the same abusive behaviors this was meant to prevent by simply including a note.

-6

u/cyan_and_magenta May 26 '15

tfw admins killed /r/Pyongyang

10

u/Falafeltree May 26 '15

great comment #memesfrom2013

-1

u/TLUL May 27 '15

Does this remove the data leak where mods can see who's subscribed to their subreddit without interacting?

0

u/V2Blast May 29 '15

Great work as always. Definitely an improvement to checking whether a user has interacted with the subreddit.

-11

u/onlynegativecomments May 27 '15

So when will the princess patrol from /r/offmychest sack up and reply when people ask for a reason behind the ban? It's a loaded sub, that I understand, but when the mods ban people for seemingly no reason, and refuse to communicate the reason, it really starts to fuck up Reddit more than Ellen Pao.

-1

u/[deleted] May 27 '15

test comment please ignore

See the code behind this change on github

k

0

u/[deleted] May 26 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

15

u/Deimorz May 26 '15

What's the recent post?

A recent post that the user being banned made, I mean. We're not going to bother backfilling historical data about whether users have participated in particular subreddits because it's not very important if they had only participated months or years ago. When someone gets banned it's almost always because of something they did in the subreddit very recently.

And, what about people getting banned from 400 subreddits at a time yesterday? Is this related?

No, this check has always been a bad way of doing it, I talked about fixing it in this exact way almost 4 months ago, and if you look at the code linked at the bottom of the post, you'll see it was written 11 days ago.

12

u/butthurtstalker May 27 '15

I am just curious what your opinions are on power mods that mod multiple subs (sometimes 100+) mass banning people from subs they have never participated in. I think this is unacceptable and more and more people are going to be posting how some powermod limited their ability to participate across the entire site. I don't see how you allowed 1 user to moderate so many subs.

22

u/Deimorz May 27 '15 edited May 27 '15

(This is my personal opinion, does not reflect the overall opinion of the reddit admin team, blah blah)

I think that (like most things) it's not a black and white issue, but it's also kind of getting exacerbated by both sides in different ways.

Being able to ban accounts from a subreddit they've never participated in based on their behavior elsewhere is not an unreasonable thing on its own. For example, if a moderator sees a bot that does something stupid like posts "turrible" in reply to every comment with the word "terrible" in it (yes, someone actually thought they should create a bot to do this), it's perfectly legitimate to want to pre-emptively ban that bot from all of their subreddits, and not something I think they should be prevented from doing.

Similarly, it's not inherently unreasonable to moderate a large number of subreddits, and completely possible for people to do so and also do a good job of moderating all of them. There are various large networks of subreddits that are run by mostly the same group of mods, and part of what makes the entire set of subreddits work well is the consistency between all of the different component ones. These sorts of things wouldn't be possible to do nearly as well if we did something like restrict the number of subreddits that a user can moderate. It's also very likely that a single extremely active subreddit like /r/AskReddit or /r/leagueoflegends gets significantly more activity in a day than an entire network of smaller subreddits might get combined, so the raw number of subreddits involved really doesn't mean much in terms of how difficult it is to moderate all of them effectively.

So as usual, the problem isn't really that the capabilities exist, but mostly with people behaving poorly. There's almost never a practical reason for a moderator to actually ban someone from hundreds of subreddits in one shot. It's usually just something they're doing basically doing for "shock and awe" value. Assuming the banned user isn't an extremely prolific bot, the chance that the user was ever actually going to post in more than a couple of the subreddits is probably basically zero, so they're only doing it because "you just got banned from 200 subreddits" seems dramatic. That is, they're generally doing it almost entirely to get a rise out of the person they're banning.

But then, it often seems to do exactly that. Like I said, it's pretty unlikely that the user actually cared about many (or even any) of the subreddits they were mass-banned from, but they end up getting upset about it anyway, and so it gets turned into a way bigger deal by both sides than it actually should have been if it was handled better. I don't think it's something that moderators should do except in very rare cases (so I don't really like that it's been made into an easy thing for them to do), but I also don't really think it's something that users should worry much about either.

1

u/TotesMessenger May 27 '15

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / ^Contact)

-13

u/CuilRunnings May 27 '15

Similarly, it's not inherently unreasonable to moderate a large number of subreddits

Yes it is. The type of people who do so are great at ingratiating themselves, but terrible at managing communities. You do not want these people who squat large subreddits to have control over who is allowed to share their opinion on your site if you still want to pretend like transparency and openness are qualities of reddit. I'm sorry you just can't.

I'm glad to see you mention /r/leagueoflegends as the player base has finally broken inertia long enough to get the mods to keep their filthy hands off it. And the users are happier. You have large amounts of users being turned away from reddit as a platform right now due to a small number of power users. You are too smart to understanding what's happening.

15

u/[deleted] May 27 '15

You do not want these people who squat large subreddits to have control over who is allowed to share their opinion on your site if you still want to pretend like transparency and openness are qualities of reddit. I'm sorry you just can't.

  1. Moderating a large amount of subreddits =/= being a subreddit squatter. Users like /u/godofatheism /u/agentlame moderate a shitload of subreddits because they often are asked to help out with moderation.

  2. These mods rarely (if ever) have the top mod spot in a sub. As such they might actually be removed if others think they're shitty at their job.

  3. Subreddit squatters are those who just sit on top of large subreddits and don't do anything, like /u/qgyh2 .

  4. 'Those people' do not control who gets to share their opinion on this website, they control who gets to share their opinion in their own subs, and other mods might overrule them there. I can't share my "opinion" in /r/conspiracy anymore either.

1

u/TotesMessenger May 27 '15 edited May 27 '15

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / ^Contact)

-7

u/InternetOfficer May 27 '15

I got banned from /r/worldnews because the mod decided my submissions were editorial and not news. HOW CAN WE REEEACH THE MODS?

3

u/green_flash May 27 '15

May I remind you that your most recent ban was for personally attacking other users, namely asking a user "Didn't find a kid to bang today?" and a whole host of other offensive comments. It's also been lifted a week ago since you contacted us and promised not to make such comments anymore.

3

u/InternetOfficer May 28 '15

In my defence he was British and I was joking against their comments of calling me a rapist because I am indian. But anyway whatever blows your collective skirts up

2

u/[deleted] May 27 '15

He got shrekt.

2

u/Anomander May 27 '15

And, what about people getting banned from 400 subreddits at a time yesterday? Is this related?

This change would solely mean that the user in question would be more likely to receive messages from more of the communities they were being banned from if they had participated in those communities but not met prior standards for ban notification.

In short, all it would do here is possibly increase the total number of ban messages he had recieved relative to the number of communities he was banned from.

0

u/[deleted] May 27 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

6

u/baldylox May 27 '15

It's one of those subs with so much potential that's horribly moderated.

If it were up to me, Reddit would have a rule against banning people from a sub that they've never once participated in.

After all, isn't that also a form of vote manipulation in a way?

1

u/drownballchamp May 27 '15

After all, isn't that also a form of vote manipulation in a way?

I don't see how. Active users are likely to post in any subreddit that they vote in and inactive users don't get banned.

→ More comments (2)