The CSS is still very red. You are welcome to to tell me I'm wrong may I suggest /s/Boobsisafaggotsub
The CSS is still very red. You are welcome to to tell me I'm wrong may I suggest /s/Boobsisafaggotsub
• 5y
Observation
Why banning culture harms a community.
• 5y
Observation
Why banning culture harms a community.
With a strict banning culture that even randomly suspends users for no reasonand even supresses their ability to prove their innocence, the administrators are harming their own community.
Not just reputation-wise, but also the confidence and well-being of other users in that community.
If one knows that (s)he coud potentially be banned from Reddit tomorrow, at the administrator's own discretion, for no comprehensive reason, how is (s)he supposed to feel comfortable submitting a post?
Also, there's Bbb23 from Wikipedia. He is the polar opposite of dignity.
He judges users over relatively minor mistakes they did a long time ago , comes out of nowhere, bans that user, and also erases his work he put alot of efforts in.
If you ask him sincere questions, he even suspends your talk page.
If you document his abusive behaviours, or give any other constructive criticism, it is labelled attack page.
They are supposed to embrace constructive criticism, but they don't.
How are users supposed to be motivated to contribute to Wikipedia, if some Bbb23 could make a huge part of their contributions ineffective at any time?
Also, the damage caused by Bbb23 is invisible. We don't know how many users that could have made good contributions to Wikipedia, have been withheld from there. We don't know what content is missing from Wikipedia, which could have been there, hadn't Bbb23 caused an apocalypse.
If that is how one is treated at Wikipedia, how are users supposed to feel encouraged to create an account and contribute to Wikipedia?
↓ expand content
With a strict banning culture that even [randomly suspends users for no reason](http://poal.co/p/116565) and even supresses their ability to prove their innocence, the administrators are harming their own community.
Not just reputation-wise, but also the confidence and well-being of other users in that community.
If one knows that (s)he coud potentially be banned from Reddit tomorrow, at the administrator's own discretion, for no comprehensive reason, **how is (s)he supposed to feel comfortable submitting a post?**
Also, there's *Bbb23* from Wikipedia. He is the polar opposite of dignity.
He judges users over relatively minor mistakes they did **a long time ago**, comes out of nowhere, bans that user, and also erases his work he put alot of efforts in.
If you ask him sincere questions, he even suspends your talk page.
If you document his abusive behaviours, or give any other constructive criticism, it is labelled **attack page.**
They are supposed to embrace constructive criticism, but they don't.
How are users supposed to be motivated to contribute to Wikipedia, if some *Bbb23* could make a huge part of their contributions ineffective at any time?
Also, the damage caused by Bbb23 is invisible.
**We don't know how many users that could have made good contributions to Wikipedia, have been withheld from there.** We don't know what content is missing from Wikipedia, which could have been there, hadn't *Bbb23* caused an apocalypse.
If that is how one is treated at Wikipedia, how are users supposed to feel encouraged to create an account and contribute to Wikipedia?
(post is archived)