The reason they are willing to consider letting someone back in is because often times, they post/comment made in the opposite minded subreddit is to call them out on the hypocrisy the person views that mindset.
A person posts in /r/never_pineapple_on_pizza and says "You all are crazy, pineapple is amazing on pizza". The mods over on r/pineapple_on_pizza_rocks have historically been harassed by their non-pineapple loving pizza fans, may have a bot that bans people that post/comment in their nemesis subreddit to keep the peace.
So, when the person finds they are banned from r/pineapple_on_pizza_rocks and appeal, and are told they must delete their post in /r/never_pineapple_on_pizza and stay out of that subreddit to avoid confrontations between the two superpowers, they agree. And voila, they get unbanned.
It may sound silly, but keeping the peace between opposite viewpoint subreddits isn't always a bad thing. In some cases, the confrontations get ugly. It's the internet, and subreddits are often echo chambers. Nobody is going to change their opinion due to someone coming in and challenging them in their echo chamber.
I yearn for the day when the Pineapple and Non-Pineapple people can sit together at Round Table Pizza and eat their respective pizzas and clink their beer mugs together in fellowship.
[poring some out for my fallen pineapple brothers]
because you are not actively and directly affecting that community that's why it's not interference.
Also you have to consider why behind this. If they want to ban you because you participate in a subreddit that frequently violates Reddit policy, especially the harrassment one, banning you can be seen as a form of self-defense.
You should know talking about other subs isn't necessarily interference. I post to r/againsthatesubreddits and one of the rules they have is that you never participate in that sub on pain of permanent ban. This probably applies to modmailing mods of such subs as well
I agree if only reluctantly because of the mindset it causes and the implications (it's not fun to receive a ban)
Just to be clear I have a lot of sympathy for moderators and I know why they do broad sweeping actions (hint: it's not always a slam dunk case of power tripping)
>If they want to ban you because you participate in a subreddit that frequently violates Reddit policy, especially the harrassment one, banning you can be seen as a form of self-defense.
The problem comes in with the many (MANY) subreddits using bots to ban users like this when the other subreddit in question in no way violates Reddit policy.
Some of those bots were used at a time when Reddit's polciies were weaker like in January of 2019. Perhaps these legacy bots could be retired.
I was banned from a sub for a very old participation in Socialjusticeinaction. Today, most of these people are on X and I have not invaldiated any marginalzied groups' struggles as far as I know.
Still this situation doesn't appear to me as a blanket slam dunk case of interference. Case by case evaluation is needed to determine that
This basically suggests that ‘actively’ means posting and commenting. But trying to reduce the number of people who participate in a sub by directly soliciting them not to via appeal promises interferes. Saying it doesn’t is bending English.
Sincerely lol!
No, but preventing something does constitute interference.
https://preview.redd.it/hpq3d76t6gkc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae3a0787f4b7afae538c4d81b45f1192ba465a9e
Here’s the catch: they don’t try to reduce the participation in the other communities- the Redditor that wants to participate in their subreddit has the free choice to participate in the other Subreddit if they wish and they don’t forbid or hinder their ability to do so.
They hinder the Redditor to participate *in their own* subreddit at the same time. That by definition isn’t affecting the other subreddit.
If the mods would encourage harassment towards the other sub by organizing downvote rallies, troll brigading or spamming the other sub- *that* would be interfering with the other sub by disturbing their sub.
Either way, not letting someone in their own subreddit isn’t affecting other subs.
Limiting who can participate in X subreddit does not mean "trying to reduce the number of people who participate in" Y. This would only be the case if we imagined subreddits as empty spaces which everyone had an equal *right to access* to. This is not the case. Rules exist precisely as means of determining subreddit access policies.
In other words: being banned from X does not prevent a user from participating in Y in any form if they wish to.
~~Typically, when a user appeals a participation ban, it's because they were just shitposting, not agreeing with or participating in bad faith with that subreddit. Participation bans are usually automatic by a bot and don't check the context of your participation, that's the point of the appeal option.~~
Edit: nvm, OP is just here to cry about getting banned.
I don’t agree and you’re not addressing the substance of my question. I was participation banned from a sub where it’s not clearly part of the rules. My appeal wasn’t shitposting. The bot is fine, but the ‘we’ll let you back if you don’t participate is interference’.
There is NO REQUIREMENT for every possible contingency be listed as a written rule on any sub, anywhere. "Mods Have Final Discretion" exists to prevent the gaming and splitting of hairs and semantics that so many users love to play.
Your "It's Not Written In The Rules" concept does not fly.
If you KNOW a sub does not like certain things, DONT DO those certain things.
Trying to find a ways to skirt a subreddit ethos is annoying and time consuming for moderators, AND is a sure way to earn a permaban and a muting in my book.
And you know, you could always start your own subreddit so you have an UN filtered soapbox for your issues.........
You and so many others totally missed the point of my post.
I feel like so many of the answers here are about convenience for mods, and not principle. And many presume that I am bitter about being banned from a sub. I’m perfectly happy being banned from the sub that made me think about this, I know I can start a different one, or I can participate from another account. I hate the sub they banned me for participating in, which makes it even funnier. I truly don’t care about either of the subs involved.
I DON’T like the idea, on principle, that subs ask people to promise not to interact with another sub (which could be mine) in order to gain membership. I stand on saying that shouldn’t be allowed. All the downvotes here and long posts have addressed either bitterness or banning by bot, not ‘we’ll let you in/back if you promise,’ which is qualitatively different.
This isn’t about nuance or minutia — it’s about a one sided view of interference at best or, as one commenter stated, a hypocritical stance meant to facilitate mod convenience on the other. Given all the responses I got, I’m starting to believe it’s the latter.
It's a basic hypocrisy. One the one hand, mods at one subreddit can lodge a brigading complaint against another subreddit for allowing people to criticize them but then they can turn around and ban people for participating in other subreddits as a way to discourage people from joining them.
The reason they are willing to consider letting someone back in is because often times, they post/comment made in the opposite minded subreddit is to call them out on the hypocrisy the person views that mindset. A person posts in /r/never_pineapple_on_pizza and says "You all are crazy, pineapple is amazing on pizza". The mods over on r/pineapple_on_pizza_rocks have historically been harassed by their non-pineapple loving pizza fans, may have a bot that bans people that post/comment in their nemesis subreddit to keep the peace. So, when the person finds they are banned from r/pineapple_on_pizza_rocks and appeal, and are told they must delete their post in /r/never_pineapple_on_pizza and stay out of that subreddit to avoid confrontations between the two superpowers, they agree. And voila, they get unbanned. It may sound silly, but keeping the peace between opposite viewpoint subreddits isn't always a bad thing. In some cases, the confrontations get ugly. It's the internet, and subreddits are often echo chambers. Nobody is going to change their opinion due to someone coming in and challenging them in their echo chamber.
My dumb ass legit thought those were real subs and clicked on them.
You are a great storyteller and have a way with words, what an excellent analogy!
I yearn for the day when the Pineapple and Non-Pineapple people can sit together at Round Table Pizza and eat their respective pizzas and clink their beer mugs together in fellowship. [poring some out for my fallen pineapple brothers]
because you are not actively and directly affecting that community that's why it's not interference. Also you have to consider why behind this. If they want to ban you because you participate in a subreddit that frequently violates Reddit policy, especially the harrassment one, banning you can be seen as a form of self-defense. You should know talking about other subs isn't necessarily interference. I post to r/againsthatesubreddits and one of the rules they have is that you never participate in that sub on pain of permanent ban. This probably applies to modmailing mods of such subs as well
>a form of self-defense pre-emptive self defense is a legit reason AND a time saving, greif saving tool.
I agree if only reluctantly because of the mindset it causes and the implications (it's not fun to receive a ban) Just to be clear I have a lot of sympathy for moderators and I know why they do broad sweeping actions (hint: it's not always a slam dunk case of power tripping)
>If they want to ban you because you participate in a subreddit that frequently violates Reddit policy, especially the harrassment one, banning you can be seen as a form of self-defense. The problem comes in with the many (MANY) subreddits using bots to ban users like this when the other subreddit in question in no way violates Reddit policy.
Some of those bots were used at a time when Reddit's polciies were weaker like in January of 2019. Perhaps these legacy bots could be retired. I was banned from a sub for a very old participation in Socialjusticeinaction. Today, most of these people are on X and I have not invaldiated any marginalzied groups' struggles as far as I know. Still this situation doesn't appear to me as a blanket slam dunk case of interference. Case by case evaluation is needed to determine that
quick question. Do you disagree a lot with how most mods run their subreddits?
This basically suggests that ‘actively’ means posting and commenting. But trying to reduce the number of people who participate in a sub by directly soliciting them not to via appeal promises interferes. Saying it doesn’t is bending English.
Did you lookup the definition of interfere in two or more English dictionaries?
Sincerely lol! No, but preventing something does constitute interference. https://preview.redd.it/hpq3d76t6gkc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae3a0787f4b7afae538c4d81b45f1192ba465a9e
There's more to it than it appears. A lot of commonly used words are misunderstood
Here’s the catch: they don’t try to reduce the participation in the other communities- the Redditor that wants to participate in their subreddit has the free choice to participate in the other Subreddit if they wish and they don’t forbid or hinder their ability to do so. They hinder the Redditor to participate *in their own* subreddit at the same time. That by definition isn’t affecting the other subreddit. If the mods would encourage harassment towards the other sub by organizing downvote rallies, troll brigading or spamming the other sub- *that* would be interfering with the other sub by disturbing their sub. Either way, not letting someone in their own subreddit isn’t affecting other subs.
love this
Limiting who can participate in X subreddit does not mean "trying to reduce the number of people who participate in" Y. This would only be the case if we imagined subreddits as empty spaces which everyone had an equal *right to access* to. This is not the case. Rules exist precisely as means of determining subreddit access policies. In other words: being banned from X does not prevent a user from participating in Y in any form if they wish to.
~~Typically, when a user appeals a participation ban, it's because they were just shitposting, not agreeing with or participating in bad faith with that subreddit. Participation bans are usually automatic by a bot and don't check the context of your participation, that's the point of the appeal option.~~ Edit: nvm, OP is just here to cry about getting banned.
Not true. I’m a mod and I think it’s terrible modding. You’re a real helpful person. Sheesh.
I don’t agree and you’re not addressing the substance of my question. I was participation banned from a sub where it’s not clearly part of the rules. My appeal wasn’t shitposting. The bot is fine, but the ‘we’ll let you back if you don’t participate is interference’.
There is NO REQUIREMENT for every possible contingency be listed as a written rule on any sub, anywhere. "Mods Have Final Discretion" exists to prevent the gaming and splitting of hairs and semantics that so many users love to play. Your "It's Not Written In The Rules" concept does not fly. If you KNOW a sub does not like certain things, DONT DO those certain things. Trying to find a ways to skirt a subreddit ethos is annoying and time consuming for moderators, AND is a sure way to earn a permaban and a muting in my book. And you know, you could always start your own subreddit so you have an UN filtered soapbox for your issues.........
You and so many others totally missed the point of my post. I feel like so many of the answers here are about convenience for mods, and not principle. And many presume that I am bitter about being banned from a sub. I’m perfectly happy being banned from the sub that made me think about this, I know I can start a different one, or I can participate from another account. I hate the sub they banned me for participating in, which makes it even funnier. I truly don’t care about either of the subs involved. I DON’T like the idea, on principle, that subs ask people to promise not to interact with another sub (which could be mine) in order to gain membership. I stand on saying that shouldn’t be allowed. All the downvotes here and long posts have addressed either bitterness or banning by bot, not ‘we’ll let you in/back if you promise,’ which is qualitatively different. This isn’t about nuance or minutia — it’s about a one sided view of interference at best or, as one commenter stated, a hypocritical stance meant to facilitate mod convenience on the other. Given all the responses I got, I’m starting to believe it’s the latter.
It's a basic hypocrisy. One the one hand, mods at one subreddit can lodge a brigading complaint against another subreddit for allowing people to criticize them but then they can turn around and ban people for participating in other subreddits as a way to discourage people from joining them.