Apologies if I end up repeating myself in this thread, I don’t normally make them this long. Take a look at this user. Their ban says it’s for “pedophilia”. However, no source is given to what specific content they posted that broke said rule. Maybe they deserved it, I don’t know, but the problem is I can’t tell what they posted that broke said rule, keep in mind cub is allowed on this website as long as there’s no irl confessions or activities. And I do not see any irl confessions or activities here.

On another topic, there’s a similar concern I have with rulebreaking content that gets hidden. If the comment gets hidden, I can’t see it and don’t know what type of content to avoid commenting. I sometimes think keeping the comment up and showing they got banned for it is the better option here.

lankylank said:
Take a look at this user. Their ban says it’s for “pedophilia”. However, no source is given to what specific content they posted that broke said rule.

If no public source is provided chances are there is no public source, and whatever source lead to that ban is private for any number of reasons (usually to protect the source)

The site is no stranger to discretion bans

lankylank said:
On another topic, there’s a similar concern I have with rulebreaking content that gets hidden. If the comment gets hidden, I can’t see it and don’t know what type of content to avoid commenting. I sometimes think keeping the comment up and showing they got banned for it is the better option here.

We did this when I was staff, and I was also one of the people that greatly pushed for us to stop doing it
It doesn't help, people don't look at it as what not to say themselves, they look at things out of context and rally around those comments to complain about moderation

lankylank said:
Apologies if I end up repeating myself in this thread, I don’t normally make them this long. Take a look at this user. Their ban says it’s for “pedophilia”. However, no source is given to what specific content they posted that broke said rule. Maybe they deserved it, I don’t know, but the problem is I can’t tell what they posted that broke said rule, keep in mind cub is allowed on this website as long as there’s no irl confessions or activities. And I do not see any irl confessions or activities here.

Even if you could see the source of the ban listed, it will 100% be hidden and can only be viewed by the OP and the mods/admins.
In more extreme cases, illegal content/links would have to be deleted immediately and would never be saved for recording purposes.

Since there was no source listed for the banned user in question, I highly doubt whatever they had said were related to young/cub artwork at all.
It could be an inappropriate comment or behaviour they had made elsewhere that got brought up to the attention of the mods.

On another topic, there’s a similar concern I have with rulebreaking content that gets hidden. If the comment gets hidden, I can’t see it and don’t know what type of content to avoid commenting. I sometimes think keeping the comment up and showing they got banned for it is the better option here.

As @Donovan_DMC has said, this would typically lead to more trouble than it is worth keeping it public.

If you don't know what type of comment you should avoid making, I would suggest not commenting anything inappropriate at all. For example, things that would not fly when conversing with people in real-life.
The general rule of thumb is that we do not want to hear anybody making any sort of creepy comments at all or making any sort of statements that alludes to illegal or extreme activities.

Pedophilia bans include comments made off-site. On-site comments that attract that ban tend to be of the 'confessions or expressions of irl intent/experience' type. Don't make comments that could be interpreted as a confession/expression of attraction to real children and/or intent to act on it.

Cub art alone is NOT a confession/expression of attraction to real children.

lankylank said:
Apologies if I end up repeating myself in this thread, I don’t normally make them this long. Take a look at this user. Their ban says it’s for “pedophilia”. However, no source is given to what specific content they posted that broke said rule. Maybe they deserved it, I don’t know, but the problem is I can’t tell what they posted that broke said rule, keep in mind cub is allowed on this website as long as there’s no irl confessions or activities. And I do not see any irl confessions or activities here.

On another topic, there’s a similar concern I have with rulebreaking content that gets hidden. If the comment gets hidden, I can’t see it and don’t know what type of content to avoid commenting. I sometimes think keeping the comment up and showing they got banned for it is the better option here.

Lack of transparency is a general issue here. At the very least that user should have a "discretionary ban" in the ban reason to let people know it was external behavior.

mklxiv said:
Lack of transparency is a general issue here. At the very least that user should have a "discretionary ban" in the ban reason to let people know it was external behavior.

This already happens. Granted, it doesn't specify it was outside behavior.

lankylank said:
Apologies if I end up repeating myself in this thread, I don’t normally make them this long. Take a look at this user. Their ban says it’s for “pedophilia”. However, no source is given to what specific content they posted that broke said rule. Maybe they deserved it, I don’t know, but the problem is I can’t tell what they posted that broke said rule, keep in mind cub is allowed on this website as long as there’s no irl confessions or activities. And I do not see any irl confessions or activities here.

On another topic, there’s a similar concern I have with rulebreaking content that gets hidden. If the comment gets hidden, I can’t see it and don’t know what type of content to avoid commenting. I sometimes think keeping the comment up and showing they got banned for it is the better option here.

If there is no source provided, it means either 1. we had to remove it from public view and it'll be in admin notes elsewhere, or 2, it came from a source outside the site, such as email.
In this particular case, it was something in the user's bio that we then had to erase to prevent others from following/using it.

As for hiding rulebreaking comments, well those tended not to instruct people on what not to do, but tended to embolden people to be shitheals and cause drama. If you want to know what type of content to avoid commenting, read our rules page. It has examples that show exactly that.

regsmutt said:
Pedophilia bans include comments made off-site. On-site comments that attract that ban tend to be of the 'confessions or expressions of irl intent/experience' type. Don't make comments that could be interpreted as a confession/expression of attraction to real children and/or intent to act on it.

Cub art alone is NOT a confession/expression of attraction to real children.

See, the ban doesn’t actually mention anything off site is the thing. This doesn’t even mention it being a discretion ban.

lankylank said:
See, the ban doesn’t actually mention anything off site is the thing. This doesn’t even mention it being a discretion ban.

See Rainbow Dash's comment above. Due to the nature of this ban reason, it very often involves deleted comments/posts/actions. If you're curious about a specific ban you can like. Ask the staff involved directly.

rainbow_dash said:
If there is no source provided, it means either 1. we had to remove it from public view and it'll be in admin notes elsewhere, or 2, it came from a source outside the site, such as email.
In this particular case, it was something in the user's bio that we then had to erase to prevent others from following/using it.

As for hiding rulebreaking comments, well those tended not to instruct people on what not to do, but tended to embolden people to be shitheals and cause drama. If you want to know what type of content to avoid commenting, read our rules page. It has examples that show exactly that.

I feel like the rules page doesn’t specify a lot of things well enough. Especially with the “trolling” rule. I know I’m not the only one to think this. I did see a ban that I thought was for completely unjust reasons from years ago, and thought about making a post about it, but the ban was so old that I didn’t want to get in trouble for reviving an old argument. That being said I my point is I often feel this website can be a bit too strict and not specific enough for what is allowed and disallowed.

regsmutt said:
See Rainbow Dash's comment above. Due to the nature of this ban reason, it very often involves deleted comments/posts/actions. If you're curious about a specific ban you can like. Ask the staff involved directly.

I suppose I could, yes. I’m not sure if I want to but I might consider that. That ban was mostly just an example, for my complaints, considering it was recent, but definitely will look into that.

lankylank said:

I suppose I could, yes. I’m not sure if I want to but I might consider that. That ban was mostly just an example, for my complaints, considering it was recent, but definitely will look into that.

It seems like you're beating around the bush with what you're asking. Is it just that you want to see what got people banned? Or is there a topic you want to discuss or type of comment you want to make but you aren't sure if it'd get you slapped?

rainbow_dash said:
As for hiding rulebreaking comments, well those tended not to instruct people on what not to do, but tended to embolden people to be shitheals and cause drama.

Can confirm
Several "less than agreeable" users have been more than eager to reference someone's records to dehumanize and invalidate them.

lankylank said:
I feel like the rules page doesn’t specify a lot of things well enough. Especially with the “trolling” rule.

There's a silverlining to this one. If you're a genuine person and your activity shows that you want to be helpful and agreeable, there's a chance that staff might pull you aside to talk things out and clear up any misunderstandings. But you have to show why it's worth their time and energy to not just ban you. Honesty is key c:

mklxiv said:
Lack of transparency is a general issue here. At the very least that user should have a "discretionary ban" in the ban reason to let people know it was external behavior.

Transparency is a fine line to walk, both comments and tickets are hidden now because people cause more drama with them than they ever did anything good with

Name another website that has all tickets public or leaves up comments that break their rules, I'd bet there's maybe a handfull of the former, and maybe a couple dozen if the latter (which are likely very small sites)

People love drama, it's the same reason we dont allow searching for posts with disabled or locked comments

If you really want to talk about lack of transparency, some staff wanted to hide mod actions or even records entirely

lankylank said:
That being said I my point is I often feel this website can be a bit too strict and not specific enough for what is allowed and disallowed.

Take note, the level of strictness does change over time. There's no explicit line across the board for "don't say this" "don't repeatedly say this" for inappropriate comments that all staff members share. Some people are naturally more lenient or unbothered than others and it's very possible to dance between each mod's individual tolerance without knowing it.
tl;dr Comment moderation has gotten lighter in the past few years

donovan_dmc said:
Transparency is a fine line to walk, both comments and tickets are hidden now because people cause more drama with them than they ever did anything good with

Name another website that has all tickets public or leaves up comments that break their rules, I'd bet there's maybe a handfull of the former, and maybe a couple dozen if the latter (which are likely very small sites)

People love drama, it's the same reason we dont allow searching for posts with disabled or locked comments

If you really want to talk about lack of transparency, some staff wanted to hide mod actions or even records entirely

Only one I can think of is wikipedia for the extremes of transparency. The vast majority of the admin discussions, bans, appeals and so on are public record. However there is the foundation level stuff which happens behind closed doors and often runs afoul with the individual site's admins.
The only content that is "destroyed" leaves specific marks in the records indicating it was removed without being able to view it and is generally reserved for illegal content like copyright infringement or worse.

lankylank said:
I feel like the rules page doesn’t specify a lot of things well enough. Especially with the “trolling” rule. I know I’m not the only one to think this. I did see a ban that I thought was for completely unjust reasons from years ago, and thought about making a post about it, but the ban was so old that I didn’t want to get in trouble for reviving an old argument. That being said I my point is I often feel this website can be a bit too strict and not specific enough for what is allowed and disallowed.

The rules are deliberately vague to allow staff wiggle room when handing out disciplinary action.
Otherwise, you would have rule breakers arguing that their actions did not meet the exact ban criteria, etc. and it would waste more time for everyone involved.

If you want to bring up questions about a past ban, you can do so now.
There is no problem if you want to learn more about it, as long as you do it respectfully.

deadoon said:
Only one I can think of is wikipedia for the extremes of transparency. The vast majority of the admin discussions, bans, appeals and so on are public record. However there is the foundation level stuff which happens behind closed doors and often runs afoul with the individual site's admins.
The only content that is "destroyed" leaves specific marks in the records indicating it was removed without being able to view it and is generally reserved for illegal content like copyright infringement or worse.

Wikipedia is definitely an outlier considering they are the world's vast knowledge of history, they need to be extremely transparent to be fully trusted

Other than that it doesn't really benefit a site for all moderation to happen in the open, we're even a bit of an outlier with the record system