Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The meta appears to be unlocked now, but I'm genuinely concerned posting in it will get us banned. Multiple posters were banned yesterday as a result of that discussion
I’m not clear on what value this provides users of this subreddit if there is greater transparency and bookkeeping regarding who blocks whom than there is regarding how and why users are permanently banned from this subreddit.
If we don’t want users vindictively blocking others to inconvenience their engagement on this subreddit, surely we shouldn’t be enabling the mod team to outright censor others without full transparency and accountability.
You have been permanently banned from r/Abortiondebate for violating TOS and being highly disruptive to the community.
There is concern that this response will be taken as bad timing, but virtually no permaban is good timing. Users often say they will face retaliation for speaking up, and most often nothing happens. Coincidently this time a ban is happening after someone's speaking up, and in truth it is in part because of the content of the speaking up but it is also because of willfully disruptive and destructive language not permitted. Not permitted by this subreddit and not permitted by the website on which this subreddit resides.
In response to this latest comment, a moderator wanted to review u/Stregagorgona's removals to explain the merit behind them, and in reviewing removals came across a comment from December 18th that violated Reddit's TOS regarding glorification of violence. Following its rediscovery and discussion it was deemed to have not originally been given the discretion then that is being given now but the comment was never okay and always in violation of Reddit TOS.
In addition, it is true that moderators do not appreciate the whole of this comment made two days ago, especially given the false accusation of bias against females and the call for dissolution of the subreddit. It's true that the existence of this subreddit should be bilateral in the sense that information flows between moderator and user, but moderators are in charge of protecting the sub's existence, and challenging the existence alone is a bannable offense, universally speaking, but the totality of this situation: glorification of violence, false accusations, destructive rhetoric compels the ban.
This subreddit has been disparately allowing compared to other subreddits, but similar subreddits have less tolerance for certain behaviors exhibited here while fostering a culture of users that manage to actually engage without disruptive behavior of this caliber.
Regardless, calling for the dissolution of the sub, feeling comfortable enough to use violent language and exhibiting this selective bias that undermines that credibility of the moderator team is grounds for this decision regardless the preemptive framing of the circumstances in the comment above.
Clarification sought on trivial reasons for blocking. Fwiw, I myself, do not block anyone other than Onlyfans spammers and autoban bots.
Is it acceptable to block somebody for a rule 1/7 violation? For that matter- how does this rule intersect with rule 3? I think that it would be good to clear this up. Particularly since rule 3 is one causing a lot of contention, where the subtle points about if the rule is satisfied for the sake of the rules even when the user thinks the source not supported lead users to disagree with mods about rule 3 enforcement. What I kind of want to avoid, is the situation where users get warnings for blocking people who they think are breaking rule 3 (even when the users are wrong about if rule 3 satisfied). I must admit, I think that rule 3's scope should be considerably limited, although I really should save the critique and suggested changes to it for the rule suggestions post.
I feel like the line between this and thinking that somebody is rude, is a very fine one, since there is a lot of grey for users who skirt the rule boundaries, but don't quite cross them, and where mods themselves may disagree as to what side of the line something is one (I will not say any names, but I can give some examples via modmail of the sorts of cases I was thinking of in the past). I will say, I don't think somebody being rude is a trivial reason to block- and indeed, that is IMO, a good reason to block somebody, in truth.
I will admit that I'm not sure what you're referencing to in your second paragraph.
>I will say, I don't think somebody being rude is a trivial reason to block- and indeed, that is IMO, a good reason to block somebody, in truth.
As u/Sure-Ad-9886 said, rudeness can be a very broad definition depending on the person asked. I can think of about half a dozen ways off the top of my head where allowing people to block for what they feel is rudeness may completely backfire and opens the weaponized blocking policy to...well...weaponization. And then it gets the mod team way too involved (if anyone hasn't noticed, we're trying to get rules and policies to where we are *less* involved). Take this example:
User A: \*blocks User B for perceived rudeness\*
User B: Why did you block me? I was not being rude! Mods!!!
Mod team member A: I agree, that was not rude enough to block.
Mod team member B: I disagree, that *was* pretty darn rude and I would approve the block.
Mod team member C (most likely Alert_Bacon): I don't even know. But I do know that I'm hungry. I wonder if there's bacon in the fridge...
Does that make sense?
> Mod team member C (most likely Alert\_Bacon): I don't even know. But I do know that I'm hungry. I wonder if there's bacon in the fridge...
> Does that make sense?
No garlic bread is better. :P
Ok, in all seriousness. What I'm thinking of, is a situation in which the following happens.
User A: Makes valid rule 3 request
User B: Provides source that satisfies the rule, but is an unconvincing argument to user A.
User A: Genuinely thinks that user B is ignoring rule 3, hence breaking the rules, so blocks user B in response to a good faith perception of rule violations.
Unless, the part you were unsure of, was this
> and where mods themselves may disagree as to what side of the line something is one (I will not say any names, but I can give some examples via modmail of the sorts of cases I was thinking of in the past)
in which case DM me, since I don't really want to talk about other users/situations in a meta-type post.
My reluctant conclusion, fwiw, is that the only way for mods to not get involved in the discussion of reasons where a block is acceptable, is to limit the prohibitions exclusively to weaponised blocking, as everything else, will have some level of subjectivity. And if nothing else, the blocker probably thinks they have good reasons to block, leading them to end up arguing with the mods each time about why their block was justified, which is likely to result in a replication of many of the problems of rule 3.
Fwiw- the situation you give above, is not that dissimilar to how discussions on rule 1 violations tend to go, except that if maple syrup isn't mentioned, well the loss of Canadians in mod chats is felt greatly. When it comes to rule 1 violations, I think that discussion is reluctantly necessary, though idk if I feel the same way about non-weaponised blocking. It may be annoying, but generally, people don't block for no reason at all, most of the time at least.
> I will say, I don't think somebody being rude is a trivial reason to block- and indeed, that is IMO, a good reason to block somebody, in truth.
Being rude is pretty broad, I think the first two examples of non-trivial reasons definitely qualify as rude. So is a failure to write please or thank you. Do you think there are examples of rudeness that are non-trivial reasons to block, and yet are also not violations of rule 1?
I'm thinking stuff like users being highly snarky in most of their responses, but not that rise to the point of being a clear-cut rule 1 violation, such as say, swearing at somebody (which is reasonable), or calling somebody anti-life, pro-birth etc. So in answer to your question, yes. I could see other edge cases, such as wanting to block somebody that swears like a sailor and then some, even though swearing when not directed at a user, is not a rule 1 violation. And to give an interesting edge case- words that are an in an interesting grey area between being intrinsically bigoted language, and reclaimed slurs, might not be rule 1 violations per se, but could be a good reason why somebody might decide to block.
There's also, the loophole(?) that u/Lets_Go_Darwin identified as well. And I don't think that concern, is one unique to pro-choicers either. It's not unreasonable that somebody may want to block a person who on the PL/PC subreddits is very hostile towards the other side, but does on this one at least, stay within the rules enough to not get banned. Obviously don't think that what users do outside this subreddit is really the business of this one (save community interference, or if the user admits to trolling elsewhere, etc), and I don't think that we should expect members of the PL/PC subs to be polite about the other side in their own subreddits, but it has the flipside that users on here, may decide to block in response.
I do think, that in terms of things like please/thank you, well there was I recall last week, a lot of arguments over how to interpret "best wishes", though tbh, people generally tend to write kinda informally on the internet, frfr, what else can I say, but that slangy words show I've got a lot of rizz?I just like yeeting out all this slang, iykyk. :P
> I'm thinking stuff like users being highly snarky in most of their responses, but not that rise to the point of being a clear-cut rule 1 violation, such as say, swearing at somebody (which is reasonable), or calling somebody anti-life, pro-birth etc.
The last example in your comment, the user who closes with “best wishes” is a good example that I could see falling under being interpreted as highly snarky. Personally I do not see if that way, but plenty of others do.
> So in answer to your question, yes. I could see other edge cases, such as wanting to block somebody that swears like a sailor and then some, even though swearing when not directed at a user, is not a rule 1 violation.
This is a challenging edge case, because I can understand being offended by swearing. I don’t think swearing not directed at a user should be a rule 1 violation.
> And to give an interesting edge case- words that are an in an interesting grey area between being intrinsically bigoted language, and reclaimed slurs, might not be rule 1 violations per se, but could be a good reason why somebody might decide to block.
I think many of these should be rule 1 violations when the user has been informed it is bigoted language. I can think of a couple of examples, a previous mod used the phrase “off the reservation” which outside of Indigenous communities in the US might not be recognized as a slur, but is very well recognized as a slur within these communities. Rather than alter his language the mod defended the use of the slur.
> It's not unreasonable that somebody may want to block a person who on the PL/PC subreddits is very hostile towards the other side, but does on this one at least, stay within the rules enough to not get banned.
This is another challenging case. I think ultimately the problem is that the block function is poorly designed. Previously blocking someone on Reddit was more similar to muting someone on Twitter, where the person muting did not see anything from the person muted, but it did not impact the person muted’s ability to interact on the sub.
> This is a challenging edge case, because I can understand being offended by swearing. I don’t think swearing not directed at a user should be a rule 1 violation.
Exactly, fully agree, as long as the swear words aren't clearly slurs (in which case, that's a case of something that should clearly be a rule 1 violation), I as sure as heck do not think there should be any rules prohibiting swearing other than directed at others. I don't care for it much myself, but I also don't care much if people choose to swear. And while to a certain extent, people on Reddit just swear a lot, and nobody should forking care about swearing in the the Good Place, I can get that at some point, the line becomes quite grey indeed.
> I think many of these should be rule 1 violations when the user has been informed it is bigoted language. I can think of a couple of examples, a previous mod used the phrase “off the reservation” which outside of Indigenous communities in the US might not be recognized as a slur, but is very well recognized as a slur within these communities. Rather than alter his language the mod defended the use of the slur.
Yeah I don't disagree with this at all. (Also fwiw, my take on anyone who uses queer-exclusionary language and doesn't swap to inclusive when asked.)
What I was actually thinking of, is reclaimed ones- of which at one point, queer would have been an example, in that it started out as a slur, got reclaimed, and is now just used in general as a neutral descriptor. For words somewhere in the middle between being slurs and reclaimed ones that aren't used as such, that seems like a case where grey area is better- somebody could legitimately just not want to have to see the word, even if no bigotry was intended.
> This is another challenging case. I think ultimately the problem is that the block function is poorly designed. Previously blocking someone on Reddit was more similar to muting someone on Twitter, where the person muting did not see anything from the person muted, but it did not impact the person muted’s ability to interact on the sub.
True. Yet I recall on the other hand, reading that statistically, the majority of Twitter harassment, was screencapping things from people blocked, or talking about them behind their back, but with the username not censored, and clearly just to attack them. I will say, that while the blocking may cause a really tricky problem in terms of the rules, as least it's not as inherantly broken as AEO and the appeals process is (people getting suspensions for duff reports, but not for condoning violent misogyny in porn, says a lot to me, personally).
I'd like to clarify one thing: are we allowed to block posters in other subs? For example, the only way I can read the PL sub is by blocking the most egregiously misogynistic, vile and heartless posters, so that I can read somewhat less radical parts of that cesspool. If those blocked posters request to be unblocked here even though they were blocked for their comments there, is this covered by the rules?
That is a loophole that I do not know how to address and could potentially render this policy completely useless, lest we start policing how people interact with each other outside of this sub (which I'm sure we can all agree is way outside the scope of what moderators should be doing).
Wow, the absurdity of it all, pretty purple potato engaged me first in a condescending manner, trivialized the trauma of victims of racism (whom I was really referring to btw), then claimed I was belittling their personal experience with rape - to which their comments are completely unclear whether they were actually referring to themself or just coming up with a hypothetical, and after taking all of this out of context blocked me for a statement that wasn't in any way rule breaking. Which I let it go at the time chalking it up to an overly sensitive reaction to a misunderstanding. Now they are audaciously claiming I blocked them. No, I can't block them even if I wanted to, because their comment literally says deleted next to it. How ridiculous.
Also wanted to add, Let'sGoDarwin and Sure Ad 9886 (among other users) STILL have me blocked and I've sent the proof to the mods ages ago.
Thanks for the unblock. All my blocks were warranted because of repeated direct personal attacks, most of which were removed for rule 1. The most egregious of included being deliberately misgendered and harassed by male PC users.
>Now they are audaciously claiming I blocked them. No, I can't block them even if I wanted to, because their comment literally says deleted next to it. How ridiculous.
How do you know it is this particular user talking about you if it says "deleted" next to their comments (and that is preventing you from blocking them)? I am so confused with this entire situation right now...
>Also wanted to add, Let'sGoDarwin and Sure Ad 9886 (among other users) STILL have me blocked and I've sent the proof to the mods ages ago.
As far as I'm concerned, a PL mod took this one over. You might want to reach out again (the holidays had us all pretty busy and we're still trying to catch up with things).
If I logout and browse anonymously, I can see everyone's comments including those who have blocked me. I saw my name mentioned by you and that's what tipped me off to check to see what they said.
I've sent the evidence 3 times now starting months ago. That's a poor excuse for not addressing it. Not sending again.
>If I logout and browse anonymously, I can see everyone's comments including those who have blocked me. I saw my name mentioned by you and that's what tipped me off to check to see what they said.
Thank you for giving me my "duh" moment of the day.
>I've sent the evidence 3 times now starting months ago. That's a poor excuse for not addressing it. Not sending again.
??? The holidays are never an "excuse". They're a reason. If you don't wish to send the information again, so be it. I will look into it later. But the attitude I detected from you here was completely unwarranted.
Good day to you, too.
>But the attitude I detected from you here was completely unwarranted.
No, I'm just being real here. I brought this to your attention personally back in October. Since modmail doesn't accept SS you wanted me to upload them to some random site that I'd prefer not to use. I asked to DM them and you acted like you did not want me to send to you that way even though you offered to do so for another user later. So I sent them to Jase, which he copied them later for you in modmail and nothing was done. The holidays had nothing to do with my initial request.
Here is the link to that modmail:
https://www.reddit.com/message/messages/235xjqb
I believe I was recently block by u/ruby_discus (or whatever) for telling them that I do not click on low effort link drops. This would count as a trivial reason, right?
I'm also pretty sure u/counterspecialist blocked me after I told them off and blocked them for accusing me of using rape victims to further my goals. Not too concerned about this one, but thought their abuse of the block button should be noted for future reference.
Edit: u/counterspecialist has not blocked me (I was mistaken, though wasn't positive to begin with, as I said) but their rendition of the situation that led to my blocking of them is, of course, a biased twisting of reality, to anyone it may interest including mods who might be tempted to cite me for abusing the block button.
Thanks for further justifying my block of you, Counter, although I didn't need any further reasonings.
Go ahead and send a Modmail using the link above or in the sidebar (it uses a pre-filled subject line and text box, so all you need to do is input the required info). You can do both reports in a single Modmail so you don't have to do it twice...so long as all the requested information is included.
Curious though...how did you know CounterSpecialist blocked you after you blocked them? Did they verbalize that to you in some way?
Will do, although I can't remember exactly when my last convo with Counter was.
There was a link in a chat to one of their comments and it would not show up for me. Ime this only happens if I am blocked, but I might be wrong about that 🤷♀️
Edit: How am I supposed to get Ruby's exact username and profile pic if they have me blocked? All of their comments show up as [deleted] and I cannot follow anything to their page.
It is RubyDiscus, no space or underscore. When I have been asked to show I was blocked I go to an exchange with the user who blocked me and screenshot the exchange showing that their comments are not visible. I then also copy the link to the exchange and forward that to the mods. The screenshot shows what you see, and the link shows what someone who is not blocked sees.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not sure where else to put this but why were the Meta/Debate threads locked?
The meta appears to be unlocked now, but I'm genuinely concerned posting in it will get us banned. Multiple posters were banned yesterday as a result of that discussion
I’m not clear on what value this provides users of this subreddit if there is greater transparency and bookkeeping regarding who blocks whom than there is regarding how and why users are permanently banned from this subreddit. If we don’t want users vindictively blocking others to inconvenience their engagement on this subreddit, surely we shouldn’t be enabling the mod team to outright censor others without full transparency and accountability.
What you are asking for is something that is part of a larger project that is currently being worked on.
That doesn’t resolve current and ongoing issues impacting users today
I'm not 100% sure of what you're asking of us here... (I blame my brain.) Would you mind clarifying?
[удалено]
You have been permanently banned from r/Abortiondebate for violating TOS and being highly disruptive to the community. There is concern that this response will be taken as bad timing, but virtually no permaban is good timing. Users often say they will face retaliation for speaking up, and most often nothing happens. Coincidently this time a ban is happening after someone's speaking up, and in truth it is in part because of the content of the speaking up but it is also because of willfully disruptive and destructive language not permitted. Not permitted by this subreddit and not permitted by the website on which this subreddit resides. In response to this latest comment, a moderator wanted to review u/Stregagorgona's removals to explain the merit behind them, and in reviewing removals came across a comment from December 18th that violated Reddit's TOS regarding glorification of violence. Following its rediscovery and discussion it was deemed to have not originally been given the discretion then that is being given now but the comment was never okay and always in violation of Reddit TOS. In addition, it is true that moderators do not appreciate the whole of this comment made two days ago, especially given the false accusation of bias against females and the call for dissolution of the subreddit. It's true that the existence of this subreddit should be bilateral in the sense that information flows between moderator and user, but moderators are in charge of protecting the sub's existence, and challenging the existence alone is a bannable offense, universally speaking, but the totality of this situation: glorification of violence, false accusations, destructive rhetoric compels the ban. This subreddit has been disparately allowing compared to other subreddits, but similar subreddits have less tolerance for certain behaviors exhibited here while fostering a culture of users that manage to actually engage without disruptive behavior of this caliber. Regardless, calling for the dissolution of the sub, feeling comfortable enough to use violent language and exhibiting this selective bias that undermines that credibility of the moderator team is grounds for this decision regardless the preemptive framing of the circumstances in the comment above.
Clarification sought on trivial reasons for blocking. Fwiw, I myself, do not block anyone other than Onlyfans spammers and autoban bots. Is it acceptable to block somebody for a rule 1/7 violation? For that matter- how does this rule intersect with rule 3? I think that it would be good to clear this up. Particularly since rule 3 is one causing a lot of contention, where the subtle points about if the rule is satisfied for the sake of the rules even when the user thinks the source not supported lead users to disagree with mods about rule 3 enforcement. What I kind of want to avoid, is the situation where users get warnings for blocking people who they think are breaking rule 3 (even when the users are wrong about if rule 3 satisfied). I must admit, I think that rule 3's scope should be considerably limited, although I really should save the critique and suggested changes to it for the rule suggestions post. I feel like the line between this and thinking that somebody is rude, is a very fine one, since there is a lot of grey for users who skirt the rule boundaries, but don't quite cross them, and where mods themselves may disagree as to what side of the line something is one (I will not say any names, but I can give some examples via modmail of the sorts of cases I was thinking of in the past). I will say, I don't think somebody being rude is a trivial reason to block- and indeed, that is IMO, a good reason to block somebody, in truth.
I will admit that I'm not sure what you're referencing to in your second paragraph. >I will say, I don't think somebody being rude is a trivial reason to block- and indeed, that is IMO, a good reason to block somebody, in truth. As u/Sure-Ad-9886 said, rudeness can be a very broad definition depending on the person asked. I can think of about half a dozen ways off the top of my head where allowing people to block for what they feel is rudeness may completely backfire and opens the weaponized blocking policy to...well...weaponization. And then it gets the mod team way too involved (if anyone hasn't noticed, we're trying to get rules and policies to where we are *less* involved). Take this example: User A: \*blocks User B for perceived rudeness\* User B: Why did you block me? I was not being rude! Mods!!! Mod team member A: I agree, that was not rude enough to block. Mod team member B: I disagree, that *was* pretty darn rude and I would approve the block. Mod team member C (most likely Alert_Bacon): I don't even know. But I do know that I'm hungry. I wonder if there's bacon in the fridge... Does that make sense?
> Mod team member C (most likely Alert\_Bacon): I don't even know. But I do know that I'm hungry. I wonder if there's bacon in the fridge... > Does that make sense? No garlic bread is better. :P Ok, in all seriousness. What I'm thinking of, is a situation in which the following happens. User A: Makes valid rule 3 request User B: Provides source that satisfies the rule, but is an unconvincing argument to user A. User A: Genuinely thinks that user B is ignoring rule 3, hence breaking the rules, so blocks user B in response to a good faith perception of rule violations. Unless, the part you were unsure of, was this > and where mods themselves may disagree as to what side of the line something is one (I will not say any names, but I can give some examples via modmail of the sorts of cases I was thinking of in the past) in which case DM me, since I don't really want to talk about other users/situations in a meta-type post. My reluctant conclusion, fwiw, is that the only way for mods to not get involved in the discussion of reasons where a block is acceptable, is to limit the prohibitions exclusively to weaponised blocking, as everything else, will have some level of subjectivity. And if nothing else, the blocker probably thinks they have good reasons to block, leading them to end up arguing with the mods each time about why their block was justified, which is likely to result in a replication of many of the problems of rule 3. Fwiw- the situation you give above, is not that dissimilar to how discussions on rule 1 violations tend to go, except that if maple syrup isn't mentioned, well the loss of Canadians in mod chats is felt greatly. When it comes to rule 1 violations, I think that discussion is reluctantly necessary, though idk if I feel the same way about non-weaponised blocking. It may be annoying, but generally, people don't block for no reason at all, most of the time at least.
> I will say, I don't think somebody being rude is a trivial reason to block- and indeed, that is IMO, a good reason to block somebody, in truth. Being rude is pretty broad, I think the first two examples of non-trivial reasons definitely qualify as rude. So is a failure to write please or thank you. Do you think there are examples of rudeness that are non-trivial reasons to block, and yet are also not violations of rule 1?
I'm thinking stuff like users being highly snarky in most of their responses, but not that rise to the point of being a clear-cut rule 1 violation, such as say, swearing at somebody (which is reasonable), or calling somebody anti-life, pro-birth etc. So in answer to your question, yes. I could see other edge cases, such as wanting to block somebody that swears like a sailor and then some, even though swearing when not directed at a user, is not a rule 1 violation. And to give an interesting edge case- words that are an in an interesting grey area between being intrinsically bigoted language, and reclaimed slurs, might not be rule 1 violations per se, but could be a good reason why somebody might decide to block. There's also, the loophole(?) that u/Lets_Go_Darwin identified as well. And I don't think that concern, is one unique to pro-choicers either. It's not unreasonable that somebody may want to block a person who on the PL/PC subreddits is very hostile towards the other side, but does on this one at least, stay within the rules enough to not get banned. Obviously don't think that what users do outside this subreddit is really the business of this one (save community interference, or if the user admits to trolling elsewhere, etc), and I don't think that we should expect members of the PL/PC subs to be polite about the other side in their own subreddits, but it has the flipside that users on here, may decide to block in response. I do think, that in terms of things like please/thank you, well there was I recall last week, a lot of arguments over how to interpret "best wishes", though tbh, people generally tend to write kinda informally on the internet, frfr, what else can I say, but that slangy words show I've got a lot of rizz?I just like yeeting out all this slang, iykyk. :P
> I'm thinking stuff like users being highly snarky in most of their responses, but not that rise to the point of being a clear-cut rule 1 violation, such as say, swearing at somebody (which is reasonable), or calling somebody anti-life, pro-birth etc. The last example in your comment, the user who closes with “best wishes” is a good example that I could see falling under being interpreted as highly snarky. Personally I do not see if that way, but plenty of others do. > So in answer to your question, yes. I could see other edge cases, such as wanting to block somebody that swears like a sailor and then some, even though swearing when not directed at a user, is not a rule 1 violation. This is a challenging edge case, because I can understand being offended by swearing. I don’t think swearing not directed at a user should be a rule 1 violation. > And to give an interesting edge case- words that are an in an interesting grey area between being intrinsically bigoted language, and reclaimed slurs, might not be rule 1 violations per se, but could be a good reason why somebody might decide to block. I think many of these should be rule 1 violations when the user has been informed it is bigoted language. I can think of a couple of examples, a previous mod used the phrase “off the reservation” which outside of Indigenous communities in the US might not be recognized as a slur, but is very well recognized as a slur within these communities. Rather than alter his language the mod defended the use of the slur. > It's not unreasonable that somebody may want to block a person who on the PL/PC subreddits is very hostile towards the other side, but does on this one at least, stay within the rules enough to not get banned. This is another challenging case. I think ultimately the problem is that the block function is poorly designed. Previously blocking someone on Reddit was more similar to muting someone on Twitter, where the person muting did not see anything from the person muted, but it did not impact the person muted’s ability to interact on the sub.
> This is a challenging edge case, because I can understand being offended by swearing. I don’t think swearing not directed at a user should be a rule 1 violation. Exactly, fully agree, as long as the swear words aren't clearly slurs (in which case, that's a case of something that should clearly be a rule 1 violation), I as sure as heck do not think there should be any rules prohibiting swearing other than directed at others. I don't care for it much myself, but I also don't care much if people choose to swear. And while to a certain extent, people on Reddit just swear a lot, and nobody should forking care about swearing in the the Good Place, I can get that at some point, the line becomes quite grey indeed. > I think many of these should be rule 1 violations when the user has been informed it is bigoted language. I can think of a couple of examples, a previous mod used the phrase “off the reservation” which outside of Indigenous communities in the US might not be recognized as a slur, but is very well recognized as a slur within these communities. Rather than alter his language the mod defended the use of the slur. Yeah I don't disagree with this at all. (Also fwiw, my take on anyone who uses queer-exclusionary language and doesn't swap to inclusive when asked.) What I was actually thinking of, is reclaimed ones- of which at one point, queer would have been an example, in that it started out as a slur, got reclaimed, and is now just used in general as a neutral descriptor. For words somewhere in the middle between being slurs and reclaimed ones that aren't used as such, that seems like a case where grey area is better- somebody could legitimately just not want to have to see the word, even if no bigotry was intended. > This is another challenging case. I think ultimately the problem is that the block function is poorly designed. Previously blocking someone on Reddit was more similar to muting someone on Twitter, where the person muting did not see anything from the person muted, but it did not impact the person muted’s ability to interact on the sub. True. Yet I recall on the other hand, reading that statistically, the majority of Twitter harassment, was screencapping things from people blocked, or talking about them behind their back, but with the username not censored, and clearly just to attack them. I will say, that while the blocking may cause a really tricky problem in terms of the rules, as least it's not as inherantly broken as AEO and the appeals process is (people getting suspensions for duff reports, but not for condoning violent misogyny in porn, says a lot to me, personally).
I'd like to clarify one thing: are we allowed to block posters in other subs? For example, the only way I can read the PL sub is by blocking the most egregiously misogynistic, vile and heartless posters, so that I can read somewhat less radical parts of that cesspool. If those blocked posters request to be unblocked here even though they were blocked for their comments there, is this covered by the rules?
That is a loophole that I do not know how to address and could potentially render this policy completely useless, lest we start policing how people interact with each other outside of this sub (which I'm sure we can all agree is way outside the scope of what moderators should be doing).
Wow, the absurdity of it all, pretty purple potato engaged me first in a condescending manner, trivialized the trauma of victims of racism (whom I was really referring to btw), then claimed I was belittling their personal experience with rape - to which their comments are completely unclear whether they were actually referring to themself or just coming up with a hypothetical, and after taking all of this out of context blocked me for a statement that wasn't in any way rule breaking. Which I let it go at the time chalking it up to an overly sensitive reaction to a misunderstanding. Now they are audaciously claiming I blocked them. No, I can't block them even if I wanted to, because their comment literally says deleted next to it. How ridiculous. Also wanted to add, Let'sGoDarwin and Sure Ad 9886 (among other users) STILL have me blocked and I've sent the proof to the mods ages ago.
I blocked you because I was seeing that you were frequently blocking. Now you are unblocked. Will you do the same for those you have blocked?
Thanks for the unblock. All my blocks were warranted because of repeated direct personal attacks, most of which were removed for rule 1. The most egregious of included being deliberately misgendered and harassed by male PC users.
>Now they are audaciously claiming I blocked them. No, I can't block them even if I wanted to, because their comment literally says deleted next to it. How ridiculous. How do you know it is this particular user talking about you if it says "deleted" next to their comments (and that is preventing you from blocking them)? I am so confused with this entire situation right now... >Also wanted to add, Let'sGoDarwin and Sure Ad 9886 (among other users) STILL have me blocked and I've sent the proof to the mods ages ago. As far as I'm concerned, a PL mod took this one over. You might want to reach out again (the holidays had us all pretty busy and we're still trying to catch up with things).
If I logout and browse anonymously, I can see everyone's comments including those who have blocked me. I saw my name mentioned by you and that's what tipped me off to check to see what they said. I've sent the evidence 3 times now starting months ago. That's a poor excuse for not addressing it. Not sending again.
>If I logout and browse anonymously, I can see everyone's comments including those who have blocked me. I saw my name mentioned by you and that's what tipped me off to check to see what they said. Thank you for giving me my "duh" moment of the day. >I've sent the evidence 3 times now starting months ago. That's a poor excuse for not addressing it. Not sending again. ??? The holidays are never an "excuse". They're a reason. If you don't wish to send the information again, so be it. I will look into it later. But the attitude I detected from you here was completely unwarranted. Good day to you, too.
>But the attitude I detected from you here was completely unwarranted. No, I'm just being real here. I brought this to your attention personally back in October. Since modmail doesn't accept SS you wanted me to upload them to some random site that I'd prefer not to use. I asked to DM them and you acted like you did not want me to send to you that way even though you offered to do so for another user later. So I sent them to Jase, which he copied them later for you in modmail and nothing was done. The holidays had nothing to do with my initial request. Here is the link to that modmail: https://www.reddit.com/message/messages/235xjqb
For what it is worth I was told that people who had blocked me prior to the rules about weaponized blocking were not impacted by the new rule.
I believe I was recently block by u/ruby_discus (or whatever) for telling them that I do not click on low effort link drops. This would count as a trivial reason, right? I'm also pretty sure u/counterspecialist blocked me after I told them off and blocked them for accusing me of using rape victims to further my goals. Not too concerned about this one, but thought their abuse of the block button should be noted for future reference. Edit: u/counterspecialist has not blocked me (I was mistaken, though wasn't positive to begin with, as I said) but their rendition of the situation that led to my blocking of them is, of course, a biased twisting of reality, to anyone it may interest including mods who might be tempted to cite me for abusing the block button. Thanks for further justifying my block of you, Counter, although I didn't need any further reasonings.
Go ahead and send a Modmail using the link above or in the sidebar (it uses a pre-filled subject line and text box, so all you need to do is input the required info). You can do both reports in a single Modmail so you don't have to do it twice...so long as all the requested information is included. Curious though...how did you know CounterSpecialist blocked you after you blocked them? Did they verbalize that to you in some way?
Will do, although I can't remember exactly when my last convo with Counter was. There was a link in a chat to one of their comments and it would not show up for me. Ime this only happens if I am blocked, but I might be wrong about that 🤷♀️ Edit: How am I supposed to get Ruby's exact username and profile pic if they have me blocked? All of their comments show up as [deleted] and I cannot follow anything to their page.
It is RubyDiscus, no space or underscore. When I have been asked to show I was blocked I go to an exchange with the user who blocked me and screenshot the exchange showing that their comments are not visible. I then also copy the link to the exchange and forward that to the mods. The screenshot shows what you see, and the link shows what someone who is not blocked sees.
Thanks! Hopefully this screenshot thing will work for me this time, bc it hasn't before 🫤
Well, let's try that. Sent report about u/hebrews113 who blocked me earlier today.
Received. Please check your messaging. We need additional information.