banned

[Apollodorus]

In the dictionary forums the moderators really do their best to allow people to give wrong answers (for example) without interference. On the other hand a post which has nothing to do with the question will be deleted without mercy. To avoid bias, a moderator who has posted in their capacity as a member will usually ask for another moderator to intervene if a subsequent post needs moderator action.

I don't think any of that is borne out by the facts. Moreover, the key issue is moderators' posts some of which clearly have nothing to do with the OP question and seem to be devised to enforce, not "avoid" bias.

 

[Apollodorus]

It's how this forum works, and it's not going to change.

That's precisely why it seems pointless to have a section on "Comments and Suggestions". It looks very much like window dressing for PR purposes (or covering up issues that are of concern to members) ... 😀

 

[Pedro y La Torre]

To be honest, the moderators (who I have had many battles with in the past) do everything possible to not ban someone. I could have easily been banned on multiple occasions (perhaps I should have been) but I'm still here. If you get banned, there's a good chance that you decided that conflict was more important than anything else (perhaps with a degree of justice in rare cases but there we are). The rules of the site are the rules of the site. It's more stringent than I would decree were I named dictator of WordReference but that's how they do it and one can't argue with WR's success. It's been here for almost 20 years, which is no small achievement.

 

[kwak22]

In a successful forum, there are two components:
a) what people strictly don't do (enforcement of rules);
b) what people strictly do (a purpose for sensible actions).
The part b) is much more important, as without it, a) makes no sense at all.
So, the b) part is instrumental to the success or failure of any forum.
The WRF team seems to be fully aware of this. In fact, they seem to change the part a) rather freely according to the circumstances that influence the part b), although they do indeed very strictly proceed with a) in any given state.
So, what does the part b) depend upon? It often happens that one avoids to say something not because it would have been forbidden by rules or is strictly out of place, but because it wouldn't be a sensible thing to say given the purpose of the discussion. And it's rightly so, because the person himself is the best judge for sensibility of his words, anyone else's judgement would have been poorer because they don't share his internal thoughts and do not have his personality, they don't have the means to know what he really means.
So what the WRF team seems to be doing is just one thing that works in our difficult world: to keep the purpose as narrow as possible. Because otherwise, the air of modernity, the modern culture doesn't have any good means to tell a good purpose from a bad one, not any socially accepted means at least. If a person has such means for themselves, then they are a good person, and that's it, but socially, good people are always overwhelmed by bad people unless the purpose is being kept very narrow so that one can rely on social standards for the feelings of right and wrong rather than on personal ones, which are supposed to be a much more fine work with usually no social consequences. While the standard of narrow action is socially familiar to people, so it can be expected to work in a wide society, and it does indeed work.
The moderators are very keen in their phrasings, and that's exactly the thing which is most important for the part b). What do they constantly — not really 'say' — imply? "If your observation enriches the dictionary entry, then feel free to say it; otherwise, there's no use". And it makes much more influence on the climate of the place than any prohibitions, which only make sure that the part a) is also upheld, and those who don't feel the spirit of the place do not contribute.
So, whatever statements can be made on ethics of the standards of banning here, the point that these standards are beneficial to the spirit of the place holds true, in my opinion. And it's very important, in my view, a successful cultural project with a huge organisational component in a world where such projects are a rarity to be desired. Business is no democracy, and so is culture…

 

[Awwal12]

Get used to it. I can think of at least half a dozen good, thoughtful members of this forum with whom I interacted at some point and who by everything I could see were friendly, knowledgeable and helpful, and who were banned.

It's how this forum works, and it's not going to change.

However, from the outside perspective it sometimes looks kind of weird anyway. Basically we have to implicitly trust the mods that banning is the last resort indeed, while we remain in the dark. On lingvoforum.net, which I happened to mod for about 10 years (had to resign and quit after the forum's open politization - which was against its own rules - and a sequence of totally arbitrary bans by the pro-Ukrainian owner in 2022), there used to be a closed thread where the higher staff basically posted who was banned, for what specifically and for how long (that didn't cover the system of warning points, even when it led to a temporary technical ban). Despite in retrospect our system had a whole array of faults, personally that particular aspect looks like a nice example of making moderation a tad more transparent for an average member.

That's precisely why it seems pointless to have a section on "Comments and Suggestions".

With all due respect, the fact that the administration is open to suggestions doesn't mean that all suggestions will be accepted!

If you get banned, there's a good chance that you decided that conflict was more important than anything else

How can a conflict be important per se?.. It's not like we ever say to ourselves "It's settled then, I absolutely need a conflict with that person". Heated discussions aren't really "conflicts" and are okay unless there is a high risk that it will provoke violation of the rules (in which case mods are free to make preemptive interventions - but foreros are likewise free to move the discussion to private messsages, especially since the forum's engine convinently allows private discussions involving several people).

And as far as direct personal attacks are concerned, my deep belief is that they are:
- demeaning for the attacker himself;
- against the spirit of Christianity AND science;
- typically counter-productive.
In any serious discussion, the argumentation must be completely separated from the personalities who employ it.

 

[Apollodorus]

If you get banned, there's a good chance that you decided that conflict was more important than anything else (perhaps with a degree of justice in rare cases but there we are).

“Good chance” is an interesting choice of phrase. Unfortunately, it is too vague to mean much. For all practical purposes its meaning would depend (1) on how we define “good chance” and (2) on the degree it is backed up by relevant evidence-based statistics.

In my experience, forum members do not necessarily seek conflict. The conflict may be created, for example, by a moderator’s incorrect or false statements that he or she tries to justify, reinforce, or cover up with additional incorrect statements in order to defend and impose their “authority” over members. The member in this case neither initiates the conflict nor decides that “conflict is more important than anything else,” but comes to the reasonable conclusion that he is under no obligation to accept incorrect statements as fact, indeed, that he has a moral obligation to draw other members’ attention to such statements. Members should be commended, not condemned, for their efforts to expose deliberate misinformation. Besides, what “anything else” is left when your posts and threads are getting systematically edited or deleted???

Speaking of which, we mustn’t forget that moderators can shadow ban forum members for political or other purposes without others noticing anything. This is a widespread practice, so we shouldn’t pretend it isn’t happening. In fact, shadow banning is worse than outright banning as it gives the false impression of “tolerance” and “open-mindedness.” It follows that there is much more to it than it might seem on the surface ….

 

[Awwal12]

Speaking of which, we mustn’t forget that moderators can shadow ban forum members for political or other purposes without others noticing anything.

Shadow banning is an extremely dishonest policy. However, XenForo would need certain add-ons to use it, because it isn't available in the vanilla engine. Do we have reliable evidence that it *is* used on Wordreference regardless? So far I've only heard of restricting access to certain forums, which is okay when caused by an apparent necessity (in the end, nothing should harm the forum's function as a linguistic tool; by the local rules it's the absolute priority and personally I can live with that).

 

[Apollodorus]

With all due respect, the fact that the administration is open to suggestions doesn't mean that all suggestions will be accepted!

With all due respect, that wasn't what I said. What I said was that (1) it's pointless to have a section on "Comments and Suggestions" if those in charge of the forum have decided not to change their policies or practices and (2) such a section can only serve the purpose of giving the false impression that the forum is open to comments and suggestions.

 

[Apollodorus]

Shadow banning is an extremely dishonest policy. However, XenForo would need certain add-ons to use it, because it isn't available in the vanilla engine. Do we have reliable evidence that it *is* used on Wordreference regardless?

Well, I have been banned from posting on my own thread on the Etymology forum. And other members have similarly had their posts edited or deleted for spurious reasons.

One practice I have noticed is that a moderator starts a pointless discussion in answer to your thread after which he deletes your comments for being "off-topic". Alternatively, he deletes his own comments after which he deletes yours for "responding to off-topic comments", etc. This seems to be happening particularly frequently with discussions on biblical words or names, which suggests some kind of political or religious agenda. If this is the case, then I think forum members have a right to know about it.

 

[Awwal12]

if those in charge of the forum have decided not to change their policies or practices

Certain polices and practices. Not all of them. I hope I'm not alone who can see the difference.

Essentially any decent forum is an enlightened monarchy and it just cannot reliably work according to different principles, simply because we're all on the Internet, semi-anonymous and not communicating directly, visiting certain resources on an entirely voluntary basis. Since the number of active posters is usually relatively small (hundreds tops), it can work fine if properly organized.

Surely mods who are clearly and unquestionably unfit for moderation must be displaced by appealing to the higher authorities in a polite, persistent, discrete and matter-of-factly fashion (I've seen my share of really bad mods on other forums). However, the very frequent attitude "the people in power are always to blame by definition" will be hardly productive. In the end, all of us are merely human, and you seriously cannot expect mods to be absolutely objective, however much they might try. Still, because of being appointed as mods they must make decisions, and we for the most part must comply.

As far as my personal experience on the forum is concerned, I've never experienced mods' actions that would seem totally unreasonable (despite regularly discussing very controversial topics and being habitually misunderstood by a lot of people - cultural borders and all).

 

[Pedro y La Torre]

“Good chance” is an interesting choice of phrase. Unfortunately, it is too vague to mean much. For all practical purposes its meaning would depend (1) on how we define “good chance” and (2) on the degree it is backed up by relevant evidence-based statistics.

You're caviling here. Good chance = likely to be the case. Aside from spammers, I have never seen another member banned without multiple and clear warnings.

In my experience, forum members do not necessarily seek conflict. The conflict may be created, for example, by a moderator’s incorrect or false statements that he or she tries to justify, reinforce, or cover up with additional incorrect statements in order to defend and impose their “authority” over members. The member in this case neither initiates the conflict nor decides that “conflict is more important than anything else,” but comes to the reasonable conclusion that he is under no obligation to accept incorrect statements as fact, indeed, that he has a moral obligation to draw other members’ attention to such statements. Members should be commended, not condemned, for their efforts to expose deliberate misinformation. Besides, what “anything else” is left when your posts and threads are getting systematically edited or deleted???

My posts regularly get edited or deleted (it goes with the territory when one is often engaged in heated debates). Sometimes I spend quite a lot of time on them and it irritates me (to put it mildly). But it's nothing personal, moderators are almost always just applying the rules of the forum in question. Are there individual cases of moderators holding a grudge and behaving unfairly? Sure. I have been on the receiving end in the past. But in almost 17 years here, I find it to be incredibly rare.

Speaking of which, we mustn’t forget that moderators can shadow ban forum members for political or other purposes without others noticing anything. This is a widespread practice, so we shouldn’t pretend it isn’t happening. In fact, shadow banning is worse than outright banning as it gives the false impression of “tolerance” and “open-mindedness.” It follows that there is much more to it than it might seem on the surface ….

I have never seen shadow banning here. I have been excluded from individual threads before (but this is rare and it's usually done to ensure that members don't get themselves banned).

 

[Awwal12]

Well, I have been banned from posting on my own thread on the Etymology forum. And other members have similarly had their posts edited or deleted for spurious reasons.

Being directly banned from certain threads and forums isn't shadow banning (though, admittedly, the fact that you've been banned won't be visible to other forum members - for purely technical reasons, and sometimes it may be a problem). Shadow banning is highly questionable because it, in fact, keeps deceiving the very person who's been shadow banned, with an array of negative consequences.

 

[Glasguensis]

The WordReference forum does not have a tool which would allow shadow-banning. We do have the ability to exclude someone from a forum but this is rarely used: it only makes sense when someone posts in several forums but is only problematic in one. Less than 0.005 users have a forum ban.

We also have the ability to exclude someone from a thread, but again this is rarely used: generally it’s when someone keeps coming back and either adding needlessly to the thread or arguing with anyone who expresses a.different opinion. I don’t remember ever using it personally and I’ve only been in discussions about using it on a handful of occasions.

There is of course no simple way of “proving” these points, I’m merely putting them out there for the benefit of those who don’t believe the moderation team are a bunch of dishonest control freaks.

 

[Apollodorus]

You're caviling here. Good chance = likely to be the case. Aside from spammers, I have never seen another member banned without multiple and clear warnings.

I wasn't talking about banning. My comment was in response to your claim about members allegedly "deciding that conflict is more important than anything else.” How exactly do we know that "this is likely to be the case"?

I have never seen shadow banning here. I have been excluded from individual threads before (but this is rare and it's usually done to ensure that members don't get themselves banned).

The whole point of shadow banning is that members aren't aware of it except indirectly. And members get excluded from individual threads "to ensure they don't get banned"? 🤨

 

[Pedro y La Torre]

I wasn't talking about banning. My comment was in response to your claim about members allegedly "deciding that conflict is more important than anything else.” How exactly do we know that "this is likely to be the case"?

Because I have been active on this forum for 17 years and have seen many people get banned in that time (and have come mighty close to it myself). You have been here for 2. Our sample sizes are not comparable.

The whole point of shadow banning is that members aren't aware of it except indirectly. And members get excluded from individual threads "to ensure they don't get banned"? 🤨

Shadow banning is not a function of this forum's software. And even if it were, it would be obvious as regards certain members who post regularly (and are regularly in trouble with the moderators). It doesn't happen.

 

[Apollodorus]

Being directly banned from certain threads and forums isn't shadow banning (though, admittedly, the fact that you've been banned won't be visible to other forum members - for purely technical reasons, and sometimes it may be a problem). Shadow banning is highly questionable because it, in fact, keeps deceiving the very person who's been shadow banned, with an array of negative consequences.

It isn't officially "direct banning". It simply says "You have insufficient privileges to reply here." And of course it isn't visible to other members. In any case, it is a form of getting banned without it being official or visible. From what I see, no special mechanism or procedure is needed.

Another way of doing it is to delete a member's thread on the grounds that there was "no sentence or context provided" - even after the moderator and other members responded to the thread for several days! If the alleged "absence of sentence or context" is the real reason for deleting the thread, why wasn't this pointed out from the start?

 

[Apollodorus]

Shadow banning is not a function of this forum's software. And even if it were, it would be obvious as regards certain members who post regularly (and are regularly in trouble with the moderators). It doesn't happen.

You did say that members get excluded from individual threads "to ensure they don't get banned" (#61), didn't you? The way I see it, excluding members from individual threads amounts to partial banning. So, it does happen, and it explains why not more members are officially banned.

 

[User With No Name]

I’m merely putting them out there for the benefit of those who don’t believe the moderation team are a bunch of dishonest control freaks.

I don't think the moderators are dishonest at all.

Control freaks? Well....

 

[Apollodorus]

We also have the ability to exclude someone from a thread, but again this is rarely used: generally it’s when someone keeps coming back and either adding needlessly to the thread or arguing with anyone who expresses a.different opinion. I don’t remember ever using it personally and I’ve only been in discussions about using it on a handful of occasions.

There is of course no simple way of “proving” these points, I’m merely putting them out there for the benefit of those who don’t believe the moderation team are a bunch of dishonest control freaks.

If excluding someone from a thread is "rarely used" then I must be a particularly unlucky forum member, especially as I haven’t experienced this anywhere else! 😀

As for "arguing with anyone who expresses a different opinion", the fact is I wasn’t even arguing. I simply asked for additional information to the topic and the mod for some reason felt a need to immediately intercept the thread and take it over when nobody asked him for his opinion.

In any case, I don't see how excluding a member for contradicting the mod can be deemed good practice. On the contrary, it tends to suggest an intention on the mod's part to control the narrative and suppress debate.

 

[Apollodorus]

I don't think the moderators are dishonest at all.

I agree. I don't think all moderators are dishonest, either. Not sure where Glasguensis got the idea from ...

 

[Apollodorus]

Because I have been active on this forum for 17 years and have seen many people get banned in that time (and have come mighty close to it myself). You have been here for 2. Our sample sizes are not comparable.

Well, if you’ve been on this forum for 17 years and haven’t noticed anything unusual, isn’t there a “good chance” that you never will?

 

[Pedro y La Torre]

I never said that I hadn't "noticed anything unusual".

 

[User With No Name]

For the record:

I am critical of aspects of this site and its rules. I also tweak the moderators because I think they often do act like, well, control freaks. ("Context!!!!", even when the context provided is enough for any sentient being to understand the question.) And I find that they are also sometimes fairly short-tempered and even vulgar, although I admit that sometimes I provoke them for fun.

Having said that, I recognize that this site has substantial value despite what I consider to be its faults, and I have never suggested that the moderators were dishonest, or bad people, or somehow engaged in some kind of sinister ideological conspiracy. I want to make sure I'm not associated with any accusations of that sort.

Just wanted to say that in public.

 

[velisarius]

I see " You have insufficient privileges to reply here" when the thread has been deleted (or closed, I think too).

 

[Apollodorus]

I never said that I hadn't "noticed anything unusual".

If you’ve seen so much, shouldn’t you know better than siding with the mods against the people?

And you still haven’t told us what you mean by “anything else”. Why so secretive?

 

[Apollodorus]

For the record:

I am critical of aspects of this site and its rules. I also tweak the moderators because I think they often do act like, well, control freaks. ("Context!!!!", even when the context provided is enough for any sentient being to understand the question.) And I find that they are also sometimes fairly short-tempered and even vulgar, although I admit that sometimes I provoke them for fun.

Having said that, I recognize that this site has substantial value despite what I consider to be its faults, and I have never suggested that the moderators were dishonest, or bad people, or somehow engaged in some kind of sinister ideological conspiracy. I want to make sure I'm not associated with any accusations of that sort.

Just wanted to say that in public.

Well, congrats for finally mustering the courage to speak your mind! Maybe there is still some hope for you, though I somehow doubt it.

But I think you’ve got a problem there because control freaks tend to be manipulative and manipulation is associated with dishonesty: “Manipulation is generally considered a dishonest form of social influence as it is used at the expense of others” – Manipulation - Wikipedia

Anyway, could we complete the description (of some of them) by adding “ignorant,” “uneducated” and “stuck in the 1800s”?

 

[Apollodorus]

I see " You have insufficient privileges to reply here" when the thread has been deleted (or closed, I think too).

If the thread has been deleted, then obviously you can't post on it. I get that message on threads that have been neither deleted nor closed ...

 

[Haltona]

Well, congrats for finally mustering the courage to speak your mind! Maybe there is still some hope for you, though I somehow doubt it.

If this is a typical example of how you interact with other users, then it is very easy to understand why your posts might get deleted (hint: it's not the mods' fault)

 

[Awwal12]

IMO, if this thread proves anything, it's that the administration has absolutely saint-tier patience.

There is of course no simple way of “proving” these points, I’m merely putting them out there for the benefit of those who don’t believe the moderation team are a bunch of dishonest control freaks.

Proving that you aren't a camel (as Russians say) is not what you are normally expected to do anyway.

 

[Apollodorus]

If this is a typical example of how you interact with other users, then it is very easy to understand why your posts might get deleted

If this is a typical example of how you automatically side with the mods, then it is very easy to understand why your posts might not get deleted ... 🙂

And no, my posts DID NOT get deleted for "how I interacted with other users", but for disagreeing with the mod. Checking the facts before commenting might be useful (hint: just a suggestion).

 

[Haltona]

If this is a typical example of how you automatically side with the mods, then it is very easy to understand why your posts might not get deleted ... 🙂

And no, my posts DID NOT get deleted for "how I interacted with other users", but for disagreeing with the mod. Checking the facts before commenting might be useful (hint: just a suggestion).

You should start following your own advice and don't assume anything about me before "checking the facts" (sic). I agreed with what User With No Name stated in their post, and I found your reply arrogant and uncalled-for.
And one last piece of advice before I proceed to ignore you: if you don't like the way things are dealt with here, you have two options: become a mod yourself or look for other online platforms with more relaxed rules.

 

[Apollodorus]

Well, even if my reply to User With No Name had been "arrogant," it wouldn't follow that my posts get deleted "because of the way I interact with other users" as your comment falsely implies.

As a matter of fact I’ve been on this forum for two years and I’ve NEVER received any complaints from other members (not even from User With No Name! 🙂). FYI my last thread was deleted because there was allegedly “no sentence or context provided” and the thread before that apparently because it was a “duplicate”.

Incidentally, User himself admits that he sometimes "provokes the mods for fun" (#73). Where I'm from it's called "banter" and nobody interprets it as a criminal offence. But maybe you should lead by example and become a mod yourself ...

 

[Apollodorus]

IMO, if this thread proves anything, it's that the administration has absolutely saint-tier patience.

Great. A forum where the mods are “blameless,” the admins are “saints” and the owner (presumably) is “god,” is just the kind of cult, sorry I mean forum, I had been looking for.

Shame that you decided to ban me …

BTW, from what I see the issue seems to be some of the mods, not admins. Unless the mods in question are implicitly acting on orders from the admin(s), which of course would be a different matter.

 

[mkellogg]

Hello, folks. I think everyone has made their points here and further discussion isn't going to help anything. I am going to close the thread. If any of you NEED to make a final point, let me know and I will open it up for a few minutes for you to make a final post.