Could you link an example, please?
Is GAF too strict?
- Thread starter Kraftwerk
- Start date
- Status
Could you link an example, please?
It is not the outcry itself that is the cause of bans in those situations. It is either the original statement that caused it, or the reaction to the outrage. The original statement might be something that was particularly egregious and alone would have gotten the poster banned if a mod happened to see it. The outrage only makes it more visible; it is not the cause. Alternatively, sometimes when people are confronted by that much outrage towards a view they have expressed, they will respond poorly to it by lashing out, making personal attacks, and otherwise becoming insulting. In this case, it still is not the outcry itself that caused a ban; it is the person's reaction to it. Staying calm and stating your case clearly and politely goes a long way.
cutmeamango
Banned
Yeah, gotta keep your cool.
Sometimes it's better to abandon the thread for a day or so, to not let the emotions run wild.
That is, if the first post wasn't the cause of the ban in the first place.
I think I initially got mine from Blackace and then either Shouta or Duckroll modified it further.
charlequin
Banned
Again, not an accident. There are ideologies we don't accept as morally appropriate and which we actively work to eliminate from this community. That's just life, and a commonality of all communities.
With all that said, I think to claim GAF isn't diverse does the community a disservice. In terms of ethnicity, religion, class, upbringing, education, profession, place of origin, and non-gaming interests we have quite a range of people here, producing a lot of interesting conversations as all these people bounce their personal experiences off each other. And for whatever growing pains we've had in the process, I think we've made it easier, not harder, for people with pretty distinct backgrounds and identities to talk to each other here over the years.
This is something I have to disagree with. I don't think holocaust denial when the opinion is expressed without vitriol or racism can be equated to the same types of slanderous stereotypes that harass minorities as your other examples.
I get what you're saying: some opinions are 'bad', and ought not to be supported on GAF. However, I feel there's a huge distinction between attacks on a group of people expressed as objective truths ("gay men are all sexually immoral", "Jewish people are greedy" etc); and a crazy belief in a claim that most of us know to be historically inaccurate. Just my opinion, but I don't think Christian Fundamentalists should be banned for saying "according to my beliefs/in my opinion/the Bible says menstruating women should be shunned/homosexuality is immoral/he that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord." Expressing an opinion as one's perspective in this way is totally different to trying to pass it off as a statement of fact.
Holocaust denial is tricky, because it's bound up in anti-semitism. However, it's entirely possible for someone to believe they are in possession of knowledge that calls the accepted history into question without also harbouring any ill-will towards Jewish people.
Amongst the Ukrainian diaspora, there is a tussle going on regarding Holodomor, the soviet-induced famine that killed millions of people in the early '30s. Most Ukrainians want the event to be officially recognized as a genocide. They feel it was a deliberate attack on the Ukrainian people by Stalin, with intent to wipe them out. Some historians support this claim. Many other historians, however, argue that the famine was not a genocide, because Stalin didn't care one way or the other about the Ukrainian people: their deaths were a byproduct of his policy, not his goal. More on this subject here.
If we lived in a world that generally accepted the idea that Holodomor was a genocide and that every historian who claimed otherwise was an anti-Ukrainian racist who shouldn't be given a voice, we would be wilfully ignoring a great deal of evidence that paints a clearer picture of what actually happened.
Now, I'm not saying for a second that holocaust denial has the same intellectual value as Holodomor-as-genocide denial. I'm just saying I think all opinions should be held up to scrutiny and dismissed based on evidence rather than disgust. I don't think holocaust denial is distinct from the belief that 9/11 was an inside job, or that Queen Elizabeth is a lizard-woman. Those opinions are provably, factually wrong, but they're not verboten on GAF.
While I agree that anyone who actively encourages misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism etc. ought to be slapped with a ban, I also think it's important to draw a clear line in the sand between explicitly propagating false stereotypes/information with intent to harass, and the various weird opinions that the majority of people view as equally unacceptable.
All that being said, if the example you were thinking of said something like "guys, the holocaust was exaggerated - we all know that, that's something science has taught us", then that's propagation of false information with damaging consequences, not an expression of a personal opinion. That's a ban I can get behind.
So what proof can one bring forth as a holocaust denier that seem to be logically sound and factual? I don't believe I've seen one.
The moderation is fine for the most part I think. A couple of years ago when I used to lurk, the board was a lot worse. Than the new mods kicked in and the this place did get a lot better. To say anything less would be dishonest of me. That said the moderation of topics aren't perfect and there are times when certain topics can get lead astray, but that doesn't happen nearly as often as it used to. I guess my biggest critique would be that mods should pitch in more to keep topics as focused as possible.
charlequin
Banned
That's kind of too bad for them. I don't actually care if someone holds an opinion as shockingly offensive as this out of pure, uneducated ignorance or malice; it is not appropriate to our community. In the former case, the person should learn to educate themselves about basic, uncontroversial elements of the world they live in before they try to participate in discussions of ideas; in the latter case, they're a toxic influence that's unwelcome in our community.
"If you wouldn't ban someone for having the wrong opinion about Holodomor," you ask, "how can you ban them for having the wrong opinion about the Holocaust?" It is specifically because these things are unalike and the academic situation surrounding the one is entirely unlike the other that the response to them is different.
Actually, both of these are firmly exiled to specific conspiracy-theory garbage-dump threads for exactly this reason: they're ignorant nonsense that ruins legitimate discussions when people bring it up. That we only corral them instead of ban them outright is simply a reflection of how offensive and hurtful these particular "opinions" are compared to the Holocaust thing.
As far as I'm aware, there is none. That was my point: crazy is as crazy does, and anyone still on the fence gets to see those ideas knocked down if they ever pop up. It combats the trend for lies to gain traction as suppressed truths that 'society' refuses to confront. Thread derailments aside, I like the fairness and natural social correction this system provides.
I've known some very ignorant people who were raised and educated poorly. Bad parents, bad churches, bad schools...none of these things was their fault. Fair enough to say it's not the forum's place to re-educate these people, but I can't help but feel a "you're wrong" ban doesn't help the core problem. I know it would be a pain, but it would be cool if those bans came with a choice link or two: "Your stance is profoundly hurtful to members of our community, and your claims are provably false."
I guess I'm saying I don't think people should be banned for expressing their beliefs if they're not attacking anyone and are legitimately trying not be a jerk, no matter how wrong or offensive those beliefs are. But I respect your position and that of the forum.
charlequin
Banned
I try to provide informative ban messages as much as I possibly can (at least in the space we're alloted) but on this particular issue this is not a bad idea at all. Next time this sort of thing comes up I'll try to make sure I do so as clearly as I can.
Conciliator
Banned
There is a case to be made, but the long and the short of it is that I go to NeoGAF because it's not GameFaqs. Long 'waiting' lists, strict rules, ubiquitous thread locks and visual conservatism all contributes to NeoGAF being basically the only near-civilized general gaming forum on the internet. Compare to yr GameFAQs, which is like 80,000 racist preschoolers with access to infinite hand paint running around headbutting each other.
Yeah, that's why I defend the ban list. Unless the rules are constantly being updated, it seems a little unfair to expect people to stay on top when there is no consistent source of what's bannable?
NameGenerated
Who paid you to grab Dr. Pavel?
Freezie KO
Banned
Holocaust denial is absolutely horrible. Of course, that event happened, and deniers are clearly motivated by something else.
That said, let's talk about the nature of "proof." So far, I see no proof for the existence of god that is logically sound and factual either. So if we're going to ban people for beliefs that are stated as fact, illogical, and wrong, we need to ban the entire Christianity and Islamic threads.
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
I don't think GAF is too strict
I appreciate their flexibility and understanding as they evaluate each potential ban on a case by case basis
I appreciate their flexibility and understanding as they evaluate each potential ban on a case by case basis
Wuthering_Heights
Banned
/slow clap
It's not going to happen, so don't even bother.
And jax, the ban list idea simply is not going to happen either.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Now that was actually funny.
Freezie KO
Banned
Nor do I think it should. I'm bringing it up as an example that banning people because they are "wrong" is a policy that can easily be applied to many, many things.
charlequin
Banned
Don't quit your day job, Mr. Swift.
Well, that's a shame, because I really don't see any valid opposition (that can't be applied to the current methods) especially when compared to the benefits. Oh well.
I hope I've at least prompted some moderator thought into the current process of "figure it out by watching trends", though, and how that seems a bit unfair at times. Don't you agree that, at the very least, the rules should be constantly updated?
Freezie KO
Banned
And this is why snark reigns on GAF. You can't get banned for snark. It's harmless and "fun." But if you make an actual point, you risk getting banned. So everything just devolves into a snarkfest.
Sarcasm or not, this actually is as accurate a description of the way I and other mods I have discussed bans with have approached them as I have seen.
It could be, but it is not and should not. We're pretty discerning about the sorts of things we apply that sort of standard to.
I think that the problems were already explained, were they not? It would result in endless complaining about divergent ban lengths. For instance, I have banned someone for five days and another person for three weeks for similar offenses because the two posters had completely different records and the offenses took place in very different contexts. I would not want to have every person whom I ban coming to me on AIM or IRC to harass me about discrepancies. We consider poster history and situational context in making decisions about how long a ban should be, and that is not something that is easily encapsulated in a ban list. It would create endless whining and complaining about lengths, who was banned, which mods was doing the banning, why someone else was not banned (and sometimes we choose to warn rather than ban), and so forth. Moderation being behind a veil is much healthier for the community.
charlequin
Banned
Not exactly. In fact, we've consistently been moving away from updating the rules to constantly track minutiae of policy and towards general behavioral guidelines for the last few years. What we want to encourage is not posters who read a list and scrupulously avoid doing precisely the things on that list, but rather posters who internalize the goal of making good, high-content posts.
While I agree there are some specific areas of policy that need to be communicated in a direct way, the vast majority of bans are issued for stuff that's really obvious and very well explained in the FAQ forum: don't talk about committing piracy; don't insult or say awful shit about other people; don't post nudity or inappropriate content; don't argue disingenuously; don't thread-shit or -whine; don't, in general, be a jerk.
I don't think either part of this is really true. "Making an actual point" rarely leads to a banning unless your "actual point" is something wildly inappropriate (as per discussion above), and people do get banned for disruptive hit-and-run snark.
In the particular case of your posts here... Moderation policy on inappropriate "opinions" has nothing to do with what's "provable" and everything to do with the core values that NeoGAF embraces and how certain positions run counter to those core values.
Freezie KO
Banned
Fair enough. This should have been your first reply.
Well, this is where we disagree. I think a properly maintained ban list WOULD keep people informed of how important context and history are.
"Why was this person banned for so long?"
*clicks "rap sheet"*
"Ah, they've been banned like 4 times for throwing tantrums over Sony. Question answered."
One less person asking in a thread. Isn't that the goal? To keep people from clogging threads with that very question?
I also disagree that the veil is healthier. I think it makes a community worse when the moderator's decisions ARE NOT explained. THAT, in itself, prompts the questions about "Why was this person banned? What rule did they break? Why did this mod do this?"
Hence why I have seen the ban list work very well on other forums.
I realize your stance, but I hope you're willing to understand why I argue the merits of mine.
Let me finish with this: Do you think it's fair that the rules list isn't updated regularly?
Do you (or any other moderators) have any thoughts on a Moderation Policy OT that would keep posters apprised of new rules/clarifications/trends in moderation? Mods only, no discussion of update posts; just a one-stop thread users can subscribe to that will keep us apprised of the most current policy before we fall foul of it?
Edit:
Not to put you on the spot, but do you know if something is in the works to address this?
I agree with your ideology of encouraging the high-content mentality.
However, I don't share your optimism that this is a viable method, ESPECIALLY as communities grow. You simply can't expect everyone to just "get it", especially as more and more people from different cultures and backgrounds and countries start to join. As that population grows, so will the topics, and thus so will the rules needed to discuss those topics. Especially as, under the current methods, it's up to moderator discretion instead of word-of-law. We both know there've been times where a mods' personal bias affected decisionmaking.
Honestly, the idea that people will just "get it" or they're weeded out sort of stagnates the population growth. Yeah, the whole junior thing is supposed to do that, but I don't think it really does, in the long run. I think it just keeps a core group of the same posters and brings nothing new to the table. I think GAF should be BETTER than it is right now, but the same stuff and the same people keep being posted. Everyone jokes about how predictable a thread will be and they're usually right...
I guess we'll see who is right if either of us are posting here in 5 years.
So make it clear that ban lengths are determined by the context and post history and ban history and whatever else. I think most posters understand this already.
Don't make you AIM or IRC public to posters.
Make it a rule that complaining and comparing your ban to someone else's ban just leads to a longer ban.
Basically what I'm getting at is there are ways around every excuse you're making up.
Do you not understand how frustrating it can be for us regular posters to see someone get banned and have no idea why they got banned? Or if it's a poster we like but don't really have contact with outside of the board, how long they got banned?
Look at Something Awful. Every member has a Rap Sheet. Anyone can click on that and see that poster's history of bans, why they were banned, how long they're banned, which mod banned them, and which other mod approved the ban. And when a poster is banned, the offending post gets a big, bold, THIS USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST at the bottom, which lets all the other posters know that whatever he just posted probably won't be tolerated.
This doesn't lead to the utter chaos and confusion that you seem to think it would. On the contrary, it helps posters learn more quickly what not to do.
And while you speculate that such a system would lead to derails complaining about this guy getting banned for longer for the same thing and all sorts of things, don't you realize that our current system leads to plenty of derails, too?
"Hey, he was banned? Why was he banned?"
"I dunno. Maybe it was _____?"
"No I heard it was _____."
"How long is he banned? Is it a perma?"
"I think it might be."
"No I heard it was just for a couple months."
This "moderation from behind a veil" tactic isn't healthier for the community. It just leads to confusion and mistrust and a feeling that the mods are above the community instead of actually part of it. A bit of transparency and openness with something like a ban list would go a long way toward helping GAF not seem as strict.
Regarding the 'veil' issue, I can see both sides. I lean towards Jax's stance for the various reasons he's outlined, but I can see the merits of the current system.
I don't think a ban list would invite more discussion of bans, however. In fact, I think having a single reference for the mod team's final word would quash a lot of the ban discourse we already have.
"Where did Poster X go...?"
"You didn't see the Ghostbusters thread? He called Mr Stay Puft a ......"
"No way! I love Mr Stay Puft. But calling someone a ..... is bannable? When did that happen?"
"There was a whole thing about it in ........."
Etc.
A list would let mods be even firmer about discussion of bans. No excuses. You wondered about Poster X? There's his ban post. No reason to bring it up in any threads he was posting in at all.
Edit: Double KO, according to our timestamps. I hate that KevinCow is on top, and refuse to acknowledge the possibility he beat me.
I don't think a ban list would invite more discussion of bans, however. In fact, I think having a single reference for the mod team's final word would quash a lot of the ban discourse we already have.
"Where did Poster X go...?"
"You didn't see the Ghostbusters thread? He called Mr Stay Puft a ......"
"No way! I love Mr Stay Puft. But calling someone a ..... is bannable? When did that happen?"
"There was a whole thing about it in ........."
Etc.
A list would let mods be even firmer about discussion of bans. No excuses. You wondered about Poster X? There's his ban post. No reason to bring it up in any threads he was posting in at all.
Edit: Double KO, according to our timestamps. I hate that KevinCow is on top, and refuse to acknowledge the possibility he beat me.
charlequin
Banned
We usually try to use forum announcements for this purpose and we've also been making efforts to communicate directly with members of individual subcommunities when we see issues arise that demand an abnormal level of moderator attention. Nobody's perfect but we're trying to find ways to handle this stuff when it arises.
Well, in the future if you want a serious response, I would suggest stating your concerns about moderation policy earnestly instead of sarcastically trolling our religious users to make your point.
I understand why, I just don't think it's factually supported. I've participated in forums where bans were a matter of public record as you suggest. The net effect was to drive a lot of unproductive hand-wringing and meta-discussion about moderation, and to kick off a lot of thread derails about individual bans, people posting threads accusing specific moderators of specific types of bias, popular movements to change individual ban lengths by insignificant amounts, etc. We're not interested in dealing with that, and we don't see any practical benefit to the information -- most people learn to post well just fine without such a list.
GAF has grown immensely over the last five years and the majority of users who make it to full member stay well clear of the banhammer. I really, honestly don't think this is a concern.
Freezie KO
Banned
I promise I wasn't trolling. By the nature of my statement, I couldn't have picked something on which everyone agreed with. I had to pick something in which there was division over a perceived difference in logic and available facts.
That said, if the proof requirement is not the issue, only the level of contradiction to the communal values, none of that matters.
But they don't, though? All of those things you describe happen. KevinCow already said it well.
People DO already ask about bans. They do this all the time. And I doubt you REALLY want to ban everyone who does this, because that would quite honestly decimate the forum of a lot of good posters. People want to know.
I know Evilore doesn't like ban discussion and thinks it derails threads and that's why the rule even exists. And that's fine, it's his forum.
But do you see how "No we will never explain bans" does NOT promote more rule-abiding? It just promotes MORE questioning because it's so unclear at times.
People want to know why others were banned--if only to protect themselves from breaking whatever unknown rule the person broke.
If you want to use the argument that people should just "get it" on their own, then showing WHY people are banned makes far more sense than literally guessing, which is the current method.
That's awesome - really good to hear it's a known issue. I'm specifically thinking of the C-Word thing. Mumei announced it in the football thread, so the community that used it the most had plenty of fair warning; but a bunch of others trod on the land mine in other threads thinking the word was still fair game because no board-wide announcement was made.
The benefits are outlined above in the posts by KevinCow and I (I concede that Kevin's is better), and all the downsides you list can simply be made bannable; no exceptions. They're essentially banned already, but things that are currently legitimate questions ("how did poster X get banned?", "will he be back to finish this discussion?", "can I be banned for the same thing...?") would never need to be asked again.
charlequin
Banned
We're not interested in letting moderation policy be guided by people's prurient interests in one another's misbehavior.
We're also pretty strongly disinterested in creating situations where our moderation policy encourages types of behavior from otherwise-good posters that we then have to ban them for. Giving people this information and then harshly enforcing a gag order on it would have pretty much exactly this effect.
Not providing perfect information about bans keeps away the rubberneckers and the people who just want to nitpick every single moderation decision, but still gives us room to discuss generalities about banning policy with people who have real concerns.
I think that this conversation is actually a bit illustrative of one of the potential problems, jax. You suggest that what will happen is that if we had a publicly available ban list, interested posters would be able to view the reason for bans they were confused by. They could see post history and they would understand why someone for banned for X length of time. And fade to black. But this is not what happens on NeoGAF when people receive an explanation from moderators. They argue when they receive an explanation.
Take you in this particular conversation, for instance. You made a suggestion for a potential change we could have: having a publicly available ban list. You have been given an explanation by multiple moderators why we do not do this and why we do not agree with your arguments. You are obviously not satisfied with the point blank, "No, and it is never going to happen," that you have been given and are still arguing using the same talking points we rejected earlier this in spite of that, evidently because you still wish to convince us that a list would be better.
What you are doing right now is a much more accurate representation of how people would respond to a ban list's information than your idealized scenario above. They would see the explanations, and far from clarifying things, they would be a source of conflict.
I have spent several hours on IRC with a poster before explaining the reasons for their ban over and over and over and over. If we had a ban list, not only would I have to deal with the ones who guess correctly that I had banned them; I would have to deal with anyone who disagrees about their moderation because the fact that I had banned them would be publicly available. I would also have to deal with any friends or surrogates of people that I moderated.
Moderation would be an untenable nightmare from the constant harassment of people demanding that their particular moderation be justified by me or whoever happened to moderate them alone.
It simply would not have the positive effect that you believe it would have, and I think that your response to our explanations - coming from a pretty good poster, at that - is perhaps the best we could expect out of a ban list. I cannot imagine having to deal with a poster I actually dislike.
... I am a moderator; I did not join a convent and take a vow of no socializing outside of GAF.
Take you in this particular conversation, for instance. You made a suggestion for a potential change we could have: having a publicly available ban list. You have been given an explanation by multiple moderators why we do not do this and why we do not agree with your arguments. You are obviously not satisfied with the point blank, "No, and it is never going to happen," that you have been given and are still arguing using the same talking points we rejected earlier this in spite of that, evidently because you still wish to convince us that a list would be better.
What you are doing right now is a much more accurate representation of how people would respond to a ban list's information than your idealized scenario above. They would see the explanations, and far from clarifying things, they would be a source of conflict.
I have spent several hours on IRC with a poster before explaining the reasons for their ban over and over and over and over. If we had a ban list, not only would I have to deal with the ones who guess correctly that I had banned them; I would have to deal with anyone who disagrees about their moderation because the fact that I had banned them would be publicly available. I would also have to deal with any friends or surrogates of people that I moderated.
Moderation would be an untenable nightmare from the constant harassment of people demanding that their particular moderation be justified by me or whoever happened to moderate them alone.
It simply would not have the positive effect that you believe it would have, and I think that your response to our explanations - coming from a pretty good poster, at that - is perhaps the best we could expect out of a ban list. I cannot imagine having to deal with a poster I actually dislike.
... I am a moderator; I did not join a convent and take a vow of no socializing outside of GAF.
cutmeamango
Banned
That's politics and power.
Clarity only exposes flaws, good conduct is expected as norm.
I do believe ban lists have an educational effect though, as jaxword and Kevin Cow pointed. I wouldn't say there is a sense of necessity to it though.
Just call it a social service.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. It's not casual interest in misbehavior, it's for understanding mod policy purposes.
Even if I don't convince you to change your mind, and I accept that I won't, I at least hope you understand that this isn't some gossipy sewing circle. I mean, obviously there's those that are, but honestly? If you look at some of the people posting "Hey, why was this person banned", they're doing so because they really want to know what rule did they break.
I should add the caveat: I've never been banned and I generally have a good feel for what rules are coming down the pipeline, but that's a LUXURY for me since my job and time allows me to read a lot of gaf. Those that lack that are kind of left out in the cold, and I do have some degree of sympathy for them.
Well, I'd hope you don't think I'm just arguing indiscriminately and unnecessarily; this is a discussion forum and I'm just discussing, not arguing just to be stubborn. I've listened and replied earnestly to all mod statements without any refusal to budge. I honestly do think it would have a positive effect but I accept it's not going to change right now.
I hope that at least I've illustrated how the current method of "No explanations, figure it out on your own." does have legitimate flaws and, at the very least, could stand at least some improvement towards clarity.
Regarding the handling of controversial opinions, well ofcourse some are easy to handle (holocaust deniers) others are more tricky: death penalty, gun control, abortion.
These kind of things will always spur a shitstorm, and there's little to do about it, yet i feel an even trickier subject is humor.
In humor, intentions are not always as clear as in serious debaits, so the reactions can be far wider; of course the level of harshness and badtaste allowed it's arbitrary and that's just how it works (unless you're 4chan) but still, despite the lighthearted nature, i noticed constant and routine "micro arguments" in the funny pics thread for example.
Or, a bunch of weeks ago, i remember a user editing out this strip:
because someone rebutted (probably in jest) "you think rape is funny?" or something to that effect.
So the monitoring of jokes is trickier than the monitoring of controversial opinions, because bad taste and offensiveness are a blurry line.
Some find people falling or hurting themselves gross, others find it hilarious.
These kind of things will always spur a shitstorm, and there's little to do about it, yet i feel an even trickier subject is humor.
In humor, intentions are not always as clear as in serious debaits, so the reactions can be far wider; of course the level of harshness and badtaste allowed it's arbitrary and that's just how it works (unless you're 4chan) but still, despite the lighthearted nature, i noticed constant and routine "micro arguments" in the funny pics thread for example.
Or, a bunch of weeks ago, i remember a user editing out this strip:
because someone rebutted (probably in jest) "you think rape is funny?" or something to that effect.
So the monitoring of jokes is trickier than the monitoring of controversial opinions, because bad taste and offensiveness are a blurry line.
Some find people falling or hurting themselves gross, others find it hilarious.
charlequin
Banned
I believe you when you say that's your interest, but it is not in practice what drives the lion's share of attention to things like ban lists.
Like Mumei suggested, I think you're looking at this from the perspective of a decent user, someone who hasn't personally been banned, who's interested in maintaining a personally positive level of contribution to the forum. Most posters aren't going to have that perspective, they're going to want to check the ban list for the lulz.
Well, that's one of my points above. You're not really being unreasonable, you're discussing something on-topic in an appropriate thread -- but the net effect is still to devote a lot of airtime to moderation policy that's not going to change. "Provide more transparency but just ban people who get into nitpicky arguments about moderation minutiae," as someone else suggested upthread, would be a terrible policy because I'd have ten more people like you getting into reasonable (but tiring) debates about mod policies that weren't going to change, and banning those posters (especially if they're generally upstanding and appropriate posters) would be a travesty.
I do think you're correct that there are a lot of individual situations where it's beneficial to provide some immediate transparency. Like I mentioned with communicating policy changes above, this is something we talk about and have taken steps towards, but getting it exactly right is going to be an evolutionary process.
- Status