|
>>
|
No. 162852
ID: 01cbb4
Mind you that I am not a mod and have never been a part of the team, so feel free to take my opinion on this with a grain of salt.
/meta/ is not the place for personal drama (ideally). When you make a thread that "so-and-so shouldn't be banned" you immediately welcome the counterargument "so-and-so should be banned" and there is no way for that conversation to go well.
There is also the issue of privacy. Oftentimes a mod will look back at prior history when deciding what to do. That is privileged information, its why they don't call you out for posting under a false name if you're not doing it to cause trouble. The moment you want to start talking about "Was the decision to ban justified?" then you need to make public all the information used to come to that decision. It is worth pointing out that in this situation you are not the banned party. If you can open up a thread asking about these two bans, then I would be fully within my rights to open up any inquiry into any ban, thus making public the posts of whomever I wanted, as long as they have been banned before. Of course you could say that you're a friend of his and I'm just some schmuck, but it isn't the moderators' job to monitor every single interpersonal relationship on this site, they'd have to judge the legitimacy of my interest on this matter based entirely on my own word.
Then there is the issue of things like ban evading. It stands to reason that if we are talking about somebody who is banned then they are indeed banned. The party most interested and the subject of the thread cannot be present for the conversation by definition. This immediately begs the question hinted at earlier, "what business is it of yours?"
Of course, there are ways around each and every one of these concerns, and I'm sure that while you read through them that you thought of several very clever ones! But. This is not a nation state. This is a website about cartoon ponies. The ways around those concerns are very complicated, and if the rules take more than a few bullet points to summarize in detail then people won't make sense of them. Its not that they are unable to make sense of them, but that they don't care enough about the legalese, and those that do will invariably want to contest it. Again, I point to this very thread as an example where you protest a rather simple and direct rule. Imagine if, instead of summarizing it in a few words, it took you as long as this post simply to define what you objected to! (Coincidentally, if you have gotten to this point in my inane ramblings then you should get up and get yourself a piece of candy. You've earned it!)
The final point is: for all those complexities and all those concerns, would such a thing do anything differently? The banned is able to reach out to the entire moderation team, the exact same team that any such thread would be appealing to. The banned could account for their actions and their own accounts would be worth much more than yours or mine. The only practical use of the thread would be to discuss the appropriateness of a rule or a moderator, except we have an entire board dedicated to only that. So with that, in my opinion (remember, I'm just some guy) the only purpose of such a thread is to make a public fiasco out of something that can and should be handled in private.
If you're reading this sentence first then I'll spare you the trouble; just think of reasons why such a thing would be against the rules.
|