Suggestion: End unethical method of removing posts in a deceptive fashion

[Jaladin]

I have no problem with you removing or editing posts, my problem is that you seem to engage in that activity in a very unethical, deceptive, and very shady fashion.

You make so that the author of the post is completely unaware that his post is now invisible. The post appears to still exist, in its original form, in the same place in the thread that it did originally. But no one else sees the post.

This is a very shady practice, is very deceptive, and in my own opinion reflects a very unethical type of attitude towards your site's users. Not to mention that it leads to a very very negative perception of your site.

[Dolby]

Hi Jaladin,

Thank you for contacting us. After reviewing your posts on your other account I agree with you. In the past we have only used that option when we have banned some one for breaking our site rules and they keep coming back.

I have removed the curse put on your other account. As long as you stay away from name calling and our other rules you are welcome to post your opinion.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

[Jalandar]

You address my "curse" but not my complaint.

The practice itself is shady, and unethical. And frankly, as long as that practice is used, will leave me with the continued impression that your site is engaging in deceptive practices.

I have no problem with the removal of my posts, I have the problem with the METHOD in which you do it, and the way it is essentially a grand deception to your users, who do not know they are being edited and silenced in this fashion.

Shame on your site for doing it that way. You hide your actions and avoid taking responsibility for them when you do things this way.

[Dolby]

Your welcome to stop using our site at any time Jaladin.

There is nothing I can say or do that will convince you to change your current opinion of us or anything for that matter.

[Jalandar]

Originally Posted by Dolby Your welcome to stop using our site at any time Jaladin. There is nothing I can say or do that will convince you to change your current opinion of us.

One real easy way is to stop using a method of removing posts that does not utilize a sleazy and deceptive method of hiding the fact that the posts have been removed.

I have no problem with removing the posts. It's the DECEPTION you use to hide that you have done that. You deceive the poster of the comments by not giving them any way of knowing that their posts were removed, or that they have had such a "curse" put on their account.

And by posting here, and trying to change this practice, I am trying to make this site a better place, a place that the users can in fact have trust in. Your actions leave a real reason why your users should not in fact trust you.

I Am still here only because I hope that we can discuss this policy, and my suggestion to end it, and that this practice will come to an end. If the end result is that you do decide to continue this deceptive and unethical practice, then that will in fact have an impact on whether I use the site any longer.

Your comment makes me feel that you are not willing to engage in an honest discussion of this policy and why it leaves such a negative impression, and ways to improve your policies so that they are more transparent (and build trust rather than breaking it).

Is that the case? I had hoped my post would result in discussion of the practice, but if you won't even discuss it, well, that says a lot in itself.

[Dolby]

As I explained above the tool we used on you is normally only used on those people that find ways around our bans. People who seem to have an unlimited amount of IP's. We will normally give 1 warning and then a ban. This isnt a normal policy to use this tool right away.

I apologize this tool was used on you in a fashion it was not intended for. The topic at hand is a very passionate one for many. After reading many of your posts it looks like you are only repeating the same thing over and over and not even listening to the other side of the debate. Although not a reason for banning or using this tool. It was the reason for my last reply.

The simple fact is we can never go back unless curse goes back. Our servers can not handle the traffic wowmatrix caused and we can't afford to upgrade them when we get nothing in return when wowmatrix uses them. We are a smaller addon site. This a long with many of the other reasons pushed us to block them.

[Jalandar]

Again, not the subject of this thread.

I didn't come here to discuss or debate the WM issue, and will refrain from commenting on your presented opinions regarding it (though I'd be happy to discuss them in the appropriate thread).

[Kyc]

Banning a users account using ghosting is a tool used in most forum software. It's used so that abusers and offenders of the forum no longer impact anyone else on the forums, without them realizing that they've been banned. This way they don't create endless accounts and make an even larger impact.

Your thoughts of unethical and deceptive methods don't really matter in this instance, it's a tool used so abusers don't disrupt others who are using the service.

[schnoggo]

The practice of sandboxing or ghosting a problematic user is common. It is only "deceiving" to the problem user. In this case, it appears your account was incorrectly flagged as abusive.

As Dolby explained, the practice is reserved for accounts which are abusing the system.

As far as an open discussion on the actual practice...
I believe it is a terrific tool to protect other users of the system from abusive accounts.
When designing a forum system last year, my team looked at many methods for dealing with abusive accounts and this is one of the best methods.

• The general population of the forum doesn't have to be subjected to the spam or other postings of the suspect account.
• Since the troll/abuser/spammer sees their posts, they may be satisfied and discontinue the problematic behavior.
• The admins can see what the account is posting and review their decision.
• Since all the messages are kept, the decision is reversible.