Not my intention.
~Max
I can see that as a general policy in cases where the sock is caught quickly. But if somebody manages to get several hundred posts out before they’re banned, people are going to notice the banning and wonder.
For all the problems I have with the moderation of this board, not knowing if a silently banned person was a sock, or a troll, or a spammer is not one of them.
As to the motivation of the OP - if I were a mod, that would raise all kinds of flags - you need to know why some trock was banned so you don’t fall afoul of the same modding? How about “follow the #1 rule, and you’ll be just fine”? Basing your behaviour on not being *quite *as bad as banned posters isn’t very encouraging.
How come lots of us didn’t wonder at all, then?
It’s because we *know *silent ban = sock or spammer, because that’s what the mods *always *say if they make any comment. And that’s what the FAQ says.
That was the thing: it seemed that this recent member had followed the rules, yet was still banned.
I didn’t realize that he or she was banned for being a sock.
~Max
Being new, I wouldn’t know from history.
That’s on me.
~Max
2 years is not new.
On more than one occasion we have seen banned long time members comes back under new names, participate for weeks or even months then get caught/banned. In that case, absolutely do tell the reasons.
I’ve only been here since March.
~Max
Or you might be slightly off yours. He couldn’t have been a more obvious sock if he’d called himself Hanes McCottoncrew and used a picture of Lamb Chop as his avatar.
“Join Date: Aug 2017” :dubious:
It’s not a big deal to wonder about it. I think it’s reasonable to wonder, and mods are glad to let folks know. Typically we request that this be done via PM for reasons already stated. We try to be pretty transparent in mod actions so in instances where we are less so it can stand out for relatively new posters. No harm, no foul.
One reason why we don’t is because there are a host of tools that we utilize and we don’t want to reveal them because it could make them less useful in the future.
Can you fit the word “banned” into the FAQ entry so it matches a text search?
~Max
First off, I don’t disagree with the policy. I’m not sure the policy of not revealing socks and trolls works, but it has a bit of logic to it, and the burden is small to have to ask if you actually care. And, even then, most of the time, it’s fairly obvious why someone was banned by checking their posting history.
That said, I think this logic is backwards. The whole entire point of wanting those in authority to disclose their reasons is so you don’t have to trust them. You can instead verify what they have said.
That’s not to say that the people aren’t trustworthy. Even the best people make mistakes, for one reason or another.
Again, I’m not arguing with the policy here, as I think it as worst a minor inconvenience. I’m arguing against the idea you’ve presented that it’s pointless to hear reasons for decisions.
Sure, I updated question 21.
There’s a big difference between believing something is true and knowing something is true. Unfortunately there are many people who don’t understand that difference and act as if their beliefs are proven facts.
As I’ve said, I didn’t see it. And I still don’t know which former poster he is.
Any advice pointing to threads which would give me the evidence you saw would be appreciated.
Not on the internet, there isn’t.
There’s more meanings to “know” besides factual certainty.
“We know” = “we are familiar with the explanation”.
Because it’s the same explanation they give. Every. Fucking. Time. Someone starts a “Why, Oh why was Trocky McTrockface banned?” thread.
Thanks! I hope that prevents the next person from making a fool of themselves as I have here.
I don’t think it would hurt to silently put the reason on the member profile if a member has made significant contributions before being found out as a sock. But as everyone says this is unusual, I am also fine messaging the moderators in the future.
Thank you everyone,
~Max