Suspension, Ban or Hellban?

BTW, HN has a hybrid hellban+slowban in case some still don't know.<p>Not only do you become invisible to others but there is long sleep delay on pages.<p>My old "_ck_" account somehow got flagged that way for reasons I don't understand and cannot find anyone to undo (<i>and still would please like it back if possible?</i>)

It's worth noting that the author's non-transparent heavy-handedness towards "niceness" in meta has driven away at least one of the self-governing, power-to-the-people moderators he advocates.<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2473029" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2473029</a><p>I'm disturbed by the idea that concealment is considered an appropriate response to social problems you don't know how to solve (I'm aware pg does it also).

My first reaction was this is terrible, just giving someone the silent treatment, does nothing to clue them into what they did to deserve it. Assuming they are not a troll, who know what they're doing is wrong, the person may not understand, what they are doing is not acceptable, perhaps a cultural difference, perhaps social issues they have, ignorance whatever. Giving them the silent treatment will do nothing, they already have issues with socializing obviously, "getting the hint" probably isn't their strong point.<p>Then I started thinking about what was said, about this being "reality altering". Which I disagree with, if you are not good at socializing, annoying even, no one is going to want you to be involved in conversations, or participate in activities with you. Much like ratings/web hits, if people don't like you or what you have to say, you effectively get the silent treatment, or are completely ignored or worse. If you do have relevant things to say, and are socially well behaved, people aren't going to ignore you, and will want you to participate in their activities, because you have something to offer, and its in their best interest to let you participate. That is of course assuming they don't have some prior misconception about you, because of race, sex, jealously or other social failures on their own parts. They will accept you in instead of doing all those things that they do to try and give you the hint to "go away" like ignoring you, not telling you about social gatherings, or whatever. This is all very natural, and mimics the real world quite well.

I have considered the "hellban" in the past for supertrolls on the Dark Mists forums, but I think our players are not so easily duped, and it could lead to worse fires to put out. The problem is that they do not just have one account on the forum, and they do not participate in isolation from other players; people talk to each other.<p>"Did you see my post where I told off Xurinos? No? Censorship! Big brother! I'll make another account and spam it."<p>In other words, hellbanning is not really different from obvious bans. And frankly, players will communicate via AIM outside of the forum anyway.<p>It is a lot more difficult, but there are ways that moderators can work with a community to establish the social rules and expectations, such that the entire community is in support of putting down the trolls. And the easiest way to drop a troll is to ignore them, to not validate them. After years of trying different techniques in DM, this has been the most effective.<p>On occasion, we still ban or delete posts, but we make the reasons clear and consistent with the ethics of the community. There is always some kind of drama of the month. Most of the time, we can just move on to doing more important/fun things like <i>playing the game</i>.<p>One addition to this: The players understand that if we had to ban them on the forum, they also have their character (associated with that account) banned. So banning is a bit more painful then a simple rejection from public communication and has to be done with due care.

Interesting... what about a progressive hellban, where there's a probability that the hellbanned user's participation is seen by others? The probability would exponentially decay after each offense and be slowly restored as a function of time without offense.

I wonder if anyone has tried slowing down some posts - sort of like a "hellban," except that the user's comments do show up for others after a few hours, making back-and-forth arguments less likely.

Power without transparency inevitably leads to power that is abused. In the west we have built our civil systems around that theory.<p>What are we risking by not having this transparency on HN? By not having transparency on what accounts are banned, and why? Only the value of the discourse that occurs here.<p>If the value of the communications that happen here is high enough, our interest in having protections for that communication should be just as high.<p>If the value of this discourse is low, why are we putting on airs and pretending we need harsh measures, such as slowbanning, to protect it?<p>Sooner or later, any human, even one as benevolent as pg, will abuse their power over others. We need access to the reasons that accounts are secretly banned or slowbanned, so that we can pressure moderators (or whoever has that power) to wield the punishments fairly, and petition for unfair punishments to be reversed.

I'd never even heard of this practice, hellbanning, slowbanning. I gotta say, and this may not be popular sentiment, that I view using such tactics as dishonest. You got a problem with someone, deal with it head-on. Don't resort to passive-aggressiveness, and don't yield to the oh-so-human desire for revenge the delicious poison of helping someone get what you feel they have coming to them.<p>Deal with problem users directly and honestly. Warn them, temp-ban them if it doesn't work, permaban them if they force you to, but not without telling them why.<p>I'm not speaking without experience. I've been the moderator of political threads in the off-topic section of a college football board for about six years. We've had to deal with some crazies.

I'm not sure how I feel about this suggestion but it seems worth pondering: If you have an advertising-supported site and advertising is what is supporting the community then it seems reasonable to show more or less advertising based on the contribution of individual members of the community.<p>The most valuable contributors would see little (or possibly no) advertising in exchange for the value they are contributing with their time. People who are disruptive have a cost and the compensation for that would be to gradually increase the level of advertising shown to them.<p>Clearly, this isn't perfect, but no system is and there is at least a rationale for it.

The problem with this democratic moderation is... it's a bit self-affirming and oblivious to its hidden costs. For instance the moderators on Programmers.stackExchange constantly close topics for any reason they can find, even if it was interesting reading and people were providing answers. Not to mention a lot of the topics which are 'legit' are much <i>less</i> interesting. Result? Puts people off, site gets gradually more boring, but they think everything's going great.

I'm a guest, so I like listening in (and participating at times) to the community. As a guest, it's a privilege to be here.<p>But I have a very simple rule about websites: the site should do things that I naturally expect. If I provide a credit card, I don't expect that credit card to be used for other purchases. If I provide an email, I don't expect to be spammed. If I cancel a membership, I don't expect to be able to access the site.<p>And if I provide a comment that appears to be legit, I expect other people to be able to read it. When I vote something up, I expect that vote to make a difference. In short, if you provide what appears to be a way of communicating with others, it had damn well be a way of communicating.<p>When website owners violate that standard of fairness, sorry to say, I find it unethical. They are presenting me with a picture of the world that they know not to be true. Not as bad as using my credit card to make other purchases, but bad.<p>The "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" argument is fundamentally flawed. It's the obnoxious protester who turns out to be right every now and then. It's the guy pleading for an unpopular cause that manages to sway public opinion. In short, we desperately need diversity of opinion and manners.<p>What happens is, people change and sites no longer serve them. Whatever the <i>intent</i> of the "feature", the effect seems to be preventing folks from changing. To enforce group homogeneity.<p>Like I said, I'm happy to be here and follow whatever rules there are. But this hellbanning shit is way fucked up. I don't care how many millions of users you have, screwing over folks for the greater good -- and lying to their face about it -- isn't a good thing at all.<p>How many hours of people's lives do you get to rob them of, pretending to let them publicly comment, before it's a bad thing? 10? 100? 1000? If a thousand people were actively commenting and nobody could read them, where do they go to get that part of their life back? Who says it's okay to lie like that? Just because you are a guest in somebody's house, they should treat you this way? I don't think so.<p>We act as if people are simply cogs in some great machine, the machine of the site. Not precious humans.<p>My opinion, for what it's worth. A bit over the top and theatrical, sure, but I exaggerate to make a point. Hopefully folks are able to read and understand it. There's no bright line between "I hellbanned this guy for being that .01% of folks who are impossible to deal with" and "I didn't like Joe, so let's just let him think he's contributing" You start down this road, there is no turning off. It's either acceptable or not. To me it's not.<p>These are tough problems, yes. But simply because you have something that works doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. EDIT: Note slowbanning is fine. Nobody says you have to have a <i>responsive</i> site, just an honest one.

This topic reminds me somewhat of DRM -- Specifically, #2 and #3 reminds me of Titan Quest's blocks that caused pirated copies of the game to malfunction and crash without warning.<p>The problem is, many believe this actually backfired for Titan Quest: people reviewed the game and said it was buggy and would crash often, so people didn't buy the game, even when these bugs only affected the pirates.<p>Couldn't this happen too, with websites that are trying to rise in popularity? If you have users that are getting slowbanned or errorbanned, they will move away from your site. They might also tell other users that your site is slow and glitchy, and to stay away as well. In the end, this could very well hurt your site more than it is helping it.<p>And also, what about legitimate users? If a user ever gets a 404, a slow loading page, or no one responding to their queries, they will wonder if they've been hit by a ban. Do you want legitimate users (the majority) to have to worry about something that effects only a small amount of problem users?

Another more traditional name for <i>hellban</i> is <i>shadow ban</i>. Just saying, for those who remember the modems and BBSes :)

Other users should simply stop answering to the bad guys. It works like hellbanning but it's more acceptable. I have seen this working in some of my forums. Trouble is "legitimate" users have a bad habit of keeping the conversation alive, so they are responsible too. Ignore the bad guys and they leave, answer to them and accept the consequences.

#2 and #3...every reddit user just became paranoid.

The stackoverflow model seems very similar to the successful models of european prison reform systems: gradually reward inmates with many incremental levels of privileges for good behavior and dial back otherwise.

One drawback to the various forms of invisible bans is that they aren't visible to the rest of the community. The HN "showdead" feature allows the banned comments to be seen, but relatively few people (I assume) use that feature.<p>One good way for community members to learn what is or isn't acceptable is by example.<p>Approaches like disemvoweling (and like HN's graying of down-voted comments) have the advantage that the offending post is still available as an example to other members of the community, quite clearly saying "don't be like this".<p>Another distinction is that disemvoweling is an action taken against comments, not users. Ideally, a user's first offensive post is disemvoweled, but they're allowed to come back and make a second attempt at civil conversation.<p>Of course, you still need a way to deal with the persistent offenders who refuse to learn from their experiences. For them, banning of whatever flavor seems perfectly reasonable to me.<p>On <a href="http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/" rel="nofollow">http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/</a>, where I've seen the most use of disemvoweling (and several discussions of it and other techniques for defending community and rational conversation), disemvoweling of a comment is often followed by a moderator's brief explanation to fellow community members what about the comment was objectionable. There's also often an invitation to the commenter to try alternative approaches to the discussion, or to join in other conversations on the site that might be easier to discuss politely.

Open discussion, democracy and transparency is certainly the goal of the internet at large, but individual sites have different incentives. The moderator has curating as one of their responsibilities and they probably have a general sense of the kind of discussion they'd like to foster.<p>Moderators and site-owners should take all measures at their disposal so that they can shape the overall experience of the site they envision. In the end, whatever mix of authoritarianism and democracy achieves that is fine.<p>That being said, hellbanning seems cruel. I think that all punishment should be explicit because the trick is to cultivate reasonable users rather than to pick and choose. I'd prefer some sort of comment rate adjustment as punishment (1 per day, 1 per hour, 1 per quarter hour, etc). As from personal experience, most obnoxious comments derive from a mixture of caffeine and passion.

From the comments from folks here who were hellbaned that then subsequently modified their behavior, the banning options in the software should have some easily review periodic samples of the banned users posts so they can be unbanned if the issue was a short term anomaly.

I love the hellban idea. It's like the light and dark world from legend of Zelda.

Hellbanning? Wow. Talk about paternalism, judgment-elitism and power-madness.<p>Hellbanning really has to be a method of last resort for users with who repeatedly come back with problems for the community and with at least 2 admins agreeing on the ban. Not as a "i don't agree with this guy, byee".<p>I was once hellbanned from reddit for 2 months before i noticed it, i had never posted any really offensive posts and nothing even close to trolling, i had many top posts in discussions on the programming subredit and then suddenly the account went dark. After i noticed the ban i asked an admin about it and they did not even have a record of why it was banned, he took a look at my posts and concluded there had to be some mistake. WTF?! "Some mistake" During the ban i had spent tons of time replying to posts in thought that it would be of help or interest to someone, all just going down into some black hole.<p>The positive i got out of that experience was that posting on internet forums isn't worth my time and i stoped posting on almost all internet forums i had previously been active in (And yet still i am here writing this shit ^_^ )<p>If i made something wrong i want to know about it, not everyone is an active troll and i find it hard to believe the trolling problem is so big you have to throw away hellbans left and right without even thinking. There are many stories similar to mine, especially on reddit.