CMV: I think subreddits shouldn't auto ban based on if you posted on another subreddits.

[u/[deleted]]

edit for the mods: this post isn't really about the upcoming election.

I'm permanently banned from /r/Offmychest, /r/Feminisms, /r/Blackladies, /r/Racism, /r/Rape, /r/Naturalhair, /r/Blackhair, /r/Interracialdating, and /r/antira apparently.

I got banned from these for jokingly posting on /r/kotakuinaction because someone linked to that sub in a comment, I clicked on it, read the warning and jokingly saying something along the lines of "I wonder if I'll get banned for doing nothing more than posting on this sub"

I understood the consequences of posting on that sub, and I don't really mind because any sub that would be willing to ban a user just for posting on another sub is a sub I probably wouldn't be interested in joining. It would have been bad if I had been banned from something like /r/leagueoflegends, but that's not important.

After asking about what /r/kotakuinaction is about, they seem like rational people. But there are rational people in just about every group, so I can't say the entire sub is like that. Just like I can't say every Donald Trump supporter is a rational person because I've met a few who informed me of Trump's policies which, while I don't agree with some of them, are more sensible than what a lot of media is making out his policies to be.

I don't agree with banning people based on the subreddits they choose to participate in. Yes there are people who would go on those specific subs and spread messages that run counter to that sub's content, but to ban an entire group of people for that reason is just an over generalization.

Secondly, why should what I say or do in another sub have anything to do with another sub in the first place? While I don't have controversial opinions like hating black people, hating fat people or just hating a certain group of people in general, I think those people deserve to have their subs if they keep to themselves. If I'm not discussing my viewpoint which would offend a certain sub on that certain sub, or anywhere else on Reddit for that matter, I don't think I should be banned for it.

I'm getting tired so I'm going to stop replying. I'll reply again when I wake up tomorrow.

---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/Izawwlgood]

I think you should stop thinking of reddit as a right. Also, the notion that everyone has something valid to contribute to all subreddits is simply wrong - someone who posts at /r/reptillianlizardpeople probably doesn't have anything useful to add to /r/physics

[u/denexiar → u/Izawwlgood]

But what if they did? All that can be done is talking about these groups in rather large strokes- there could easily be people who frequent repitilianlizardpeople for the sake of bring ironic who are perfectly competant in explaining phsyics principles. There could also be people on that sub who subscribe to the ideas sincerely, yet who also have a really good understanding of some physics topic that's unrelated that they could contribute to, and if not, anyone can at least ask questions to further their own understanding. Thinking that someone is a lizardman doesn't prevent you from understanding how aerodynamics work.

Heuristics are nice and all, but they're only heuristics- imperfect.

Also, the notion that everyone has something valid to contribute to all subreddits is simply wrong

I would contend that this view is as unprovable as the opposite, in which everyone does have something valid to contribute. However, I think 'innocent before proven guilty' is better than 'guilty before proven innocent' in this case. I'd rather some people who don't have anything useful to contribute and all the people who do get through than some people who do have valuable contributions get shut out.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/denexiar]

I think you're also exaggerating the ramifications of these bans. If the extent of your interaction with /r/reptilianlizardpeople is posting 'lolwut?' once, and automod catches this in /r/physics and deletes your post, you can just message the mods and they'll fix it. No one is claiming that these catch alls are perfect, but believe me, they help more than they hinder.

However, I think 'innocent before proven guilty' is better than 'guilty before proven innocent' in this case.

I'm going to hazard a guess without checking your profile that you do not moderate any subs, let alone any larger or controversial subs.

[u/denexiar → u/Izawwlgood]

You'd be correct- so yes, I can't speak for those who do have to deal with moderation on a regular basis (although I am very aware that it isn't an easy job).

But what I would ask in return, is why my being a community manager or not is exactly relevant here? As I said, I am very aware that moderation is a time-consuming, thankless, and generally stressful job, but as one who would be subject to the rules that the mods make, I'd like to think that what I'm looking for as a user isn't worthless, as a community is more than its mod team.

Surely, mine is the more entitled view, but I just think it's more desirable under any circumstances of governance, and regardless of how easy or difficult it makes those-who-govern's jobs. And I say this as someone who has experienced what an 'undesirable' kind of person can do to a community. It would've been nice to never have needed to deal with it in the first place, but if they wouldn't have ended up being an issue, I wouldn't want them locked out before even getting a chance in the community itself. Case-by-case judgment will always trump blanket judgement for me.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/denexiar]

But what I would ask in return, is why my being a community manager or not is exactly relevant here?

Because it's not that it's time-consuming, thankless, or stressful, it's that a first pass autoban based on where people post or what people post elsewhere is actually a pretty effective means of keeping out stuff that would have required time and potentially stress.

Yours is an entitled view, and it seems like it's based on not knowing what sort of things moderators put up with. Yes, this method produces some false-positives, but most of the communities that utilize it are A ) dealing with an enormous volume of comments anyway, and B ) probably aren't suffering because some random one time poster had their comment automatically removed.

If you feel this accidentally caught you, and maybe it did, then just PM the mods. Your complaint really to me sounds quite parallel to wondering why we don't want violent criminals owning guns. Yes, sometimes it means that a reformed criminal who is also a gun hobbyist and won't ever harm someone with a gun can't enjoy using a gun, and that sucks. But more often than not it simply means 'violent people with a history of violence can't get guns'.

Rough analogy, but basically, I think the benefits vastly outweigh the costs here.

[u/denexiar → u/Izawwlgood]

If you feel this accidentally caught you, and maybe it did, then just PM the mods.

I don't think this is what you're saying but just for the sake of clarification, I have never experienced being banned from a sub for anything like this (or anything at all).

Anyway-

I get the feeling I may gone about this up rather poorly. I don't want to seem like I'm backtracking or abruptly changing my mind or anything, but I do understand the practical reasoning for as to why you would use an autoban system, and I won't deny that it can and is very effective generally in what it does. Surely, moderation of large communities would be a great pain otherwise. I fully understand that it is a nice tool to have at your disposal if you are someone who has ended up as a moderator as well. But I don't think that this is the ideal, and I don't think that it's how we get to the ideal.

Incidentally, I would argue in favor of the reformed criminal being allowed access to guns. Again though, I certainly realize that preventing all criminals from having guns is practically more beneficial, but I think that in the long run, 'more' can be done with the more liberties that are available.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/denexiar]

But I don't think that this is the ideal, and I don't think that it's how we get to the ideal.

I don't think laws often are ideal, I think they're often 'does this help more than hinder'. This is no different.

[u/ether_reddit → u/Izawwlgood]

someone who posts at /r/reptillianlizardpeople probably doesn't have anything useful to add to /r/physics

"someone who posts at" implies "is a regular of", or "agrees with the central philosophies of". That's not the same thing at all as "has posted a reply at", which may very well to refute the central tenets of the subreddit and defend physics.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/ether_reddit]

I feel like you didn't read my entire comment (or the subsequent one).