WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

952

A banned user is usually in a stigmatized position, thus and a misjudgement of a moderator/administrator, without inevitably evading his ban.

The rest of a community who has witnessed the ban from only one perspective (the unquestioned mod/admin perspective), and not from the potentially innocent user's perspective, will likely consider that user a policy violator, which might be true for some users, but false for other users that were stigmatized in the same way.

It's a catch-22:

  • Either shut one's own mouth and have everyone falsely believe that one is actually guilty and/or harmful.
  • Or evade a ban to prove one's innocence, but then fall into the ban evader's stigma.

This is a Whack-A-Mole situation.

When directly contacting administrators to review the ban through a ban appeal form, one's chances are slim anyway , and one is very likely to get neglected entirely because many administrators usually happen to “have no time to deal with this”.

It is also irrational and culturally hostile to put constructive ban evaders into the same stigma as destructive ban evaders.

  • Constructive ban evaders should be embraced and have their original account reinstated, because of good faith and because their constructive behaviour proves that their prior ban is logically unnecessary and obsolete.
  • Destructive users should obviously have their writing access revoked anyway, no matter whether they are evading a prior ban or not.
A banned user is usually in a stigmatized position, thus [unable to prove his own innocence](https://www.quora.com/How-come-the-Wikipedia-administrator-BBB23-has-never-been-sanctioned-after-violating-WP-5P4-countless-times-for-years/answers/184895343) and a misjudgement of a moderator/administrator, without inevitably evading his ban. The rest of a community who has witnessed the ban from only one perspective (the unquestioned mod/admin perspective), and not from the potentially innocent user's perspective, will likely consider that user a policy violator, which **might** be true for some users, but **false for other users** that were stigmatized in the same way. ## It's a catch-22: - Either shut one's own mouth and have everyone falsely believe that one is actually guilty and/or harmful. - Or evade a ban to prove one's innocence, but then fall into the ban evader's stigma. This is a ***Whack-A-Mole*** situation. When directly contacting administrators to review the ban through a ban appeal form, **one's chances are slim anyway** [due to mod/admin biasses](https://poal.co/s/ModAbuse/117841), and one is very likely to get neglected entirely because many administrators usually happen to *“have no time to deal with this”*. It is also irrational and culturally hostile to put ***constructive*** ban evaders into the same stigma as ***destructive*** ban evaders. - **Constructive** ban evaders should be **embraced** and have their original account reinstated, because of good faith and because their constructive behaviour proves that their prior ban is logically **unnecessary and obsolete.** - **Destructive** users should obviously have their writing access revoked anyway, **no matter whether they are evading a prior ban or not.**

(post is archived)

[–] 7 pts

any banned user here is not banned from chat.poal.co and is welcome to come there and appeal their ban.

[–] 4 pts

I think he was referring to other communities, not Poal.co.

[–] 4 pts

Obviously. But here on poal you will always have recourse. Its pretty rare that we ban someone but they will always have recourse.

[–] 5 pts

Poal.co is perfectly fine anyway, and is in good hands (unlike e.g. Wikipedia with Bbb23 and Reddit with Ani625).

Poal.co was built in first place because people were fed up with the banning culture on Reddit and Voat, and their hostility towards new users.

[–] 3 pts

Indeed I was.

Poal.co is perfectly cool (pun intended).

[–] 4 pts

This actually got me thinking... Then I saw your extremely simple answer.

Well done.

[–] 3 pts

Eh I give it my best shot. People still can't figure it out from time to time.

[–] 2 pts

Does not seem to be working, chat.poal.co , at the moment.

But places that purport to be "free speech" places always are not.

Always limitations put on posters.

If I wasn't so lazy, I'd open up my own website. But I'm lazy.

I have never seen any post on the net that is nothing more than free speech.

[–] 3 pts

let me fix that for you. You need to use ssl. https://chat.poal.co is that better?

[–] 5 pts

Well said, CMA!

When I was suspended on Wikipedia, I tried to get help from Meta.Wikimedia.org, but they formally didn't give a damn.

[–] 3 pts

Thanks, mate.

Screw their blatant ignorance.

[–] [deleted] 2 pts

The bans are not necessarily viewed from only one perspective by the community. There are certain users who go from one platform to another and shit all over it in the same predicatble way. In other words, there is existing evidence of bad character. And that should be taken into account. In fact, one infamous user does it just to play the victim and his track record speaks for itself.

[–] 4 pts

one infamous user

Which user? And on which platforms?

I'm not going to answer that publicly.

[–] 2 pts

I'm not going to answer that publicly.

No problem, but that vandal must really be controversial and unpredictable if you can't even name him here.

[–] 3 pts

There are certain users who go from one platform to another and shit all over it in the same predicatble way.

If their intention is to inflict damage, then they could use different user names.

[–] 3 pts

Like the last point says, regardless of whether a user has evaded his ban or not, if that user inflicts damage onto a community, of course that user should have his writing access revoked.

[–] [deleted] 2 pts

I think this is a quality post with a good discussion outlining certain principles and generating a good discussion to reinforce the mission here.

We have 3 sticky slots on poal, I've added this post to one.

[–] 3 pts

Good idea.

It is indeed a quality post.

[–] 3 pts

quality post

Thanks alot!

It just needed to be said.

[–] 2 pts (edited )

The mere concept of stigmatizing constructive ban evaders as cheaty ban evasion is irrational empirism.

Ban evasions can be prevented by giving banned users a mere chance to communicate to the moderators and administrators, to either prove their innocence or promise not to repeat their mistake.

But that's evidently often not the case (Bbb23, Jason Scott, etc., see posts of this subverse).

Users often get banned without any recourse and based on prejudice.
Communities that treat their users like that, effectively solicit ban evasions.

I was banned from Reddit without even violating their guidelines, and my appeals were ignored entirely by anyone except their auto-reply bot.

[–] 1 pt

Ban evasions can be prevented by giving banned users a mere chance to communicate to the moderators and administrators, to either prove their innocence or promise not to repeat their mistake.

Sadly, Wikipedia is currently not like that.

Prolific editors such as you are not given any chance to make Wikipedia better.

I hope this hostility ends one day.

[–] 2 pts

Golden words!

I experienced this phenomenon at ArchiveTeam's community.

The user Fusl accused me of ban evasion instead of actually relating to the points I made in the statement I posted.

Jason Scott, proprietor of ArchiveTeam, the same person who falsely accused me of ignorance, also neglected my questions entirely.

[–] 1 pt

Jason Scott is now on Rank 2 on the .

Thank you for uncovering it.

[–] 1 pt

Oh, you added him there?
Incredible thanks!

When I joined ArchiveTeam, I did not expect to be treated this badly by Jason Scott.
Incredible thanks for exposing his brutal hostility.

[–] 2 pts (edited )

Wikipedia's hostile ban evasion policy is an innovation bottleneck.
They should be thankful for any user who makes good contributions, but instead, they knock off prolific editors among all of their content (legitimate contributions!) off their platform, just because that user was banned earlier.

Where is the rationale for that?

[–] 1 pt

Where is the rationale for that?

None I can think of.
That policy is indeed hostile, and goes against their own goals and ethics.