Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Post History
I only believe people should be banned if they did something wrong. They should be banned, and then should know that they are banned, why, and for how long. People who have not done anything wrong...
Answer
#4: Post edited
I don't think shadowbans are fair. If someone did something wrong, they should be banned, but then should know that they're banned, why, and for how long.If someone didn't do something wrong, they shouldn't be banned at all.
- I only believe people should be banned if they did something wrong. They should be banned, and then should know that they are banned, why, and for how long.
- People who have not done anything wrong yet should not banned (shadowbanned) at all, if there is no pressing reason to do so. Unless Codidact receives a sudden spam wave caused by newly registered accounts, and they cannot be filtered in any other way, such as by applying IP-based blocks to locations from which large volumes of spam originate, applying a shadowban to **all** new accounts is unnecessarily degrading the experience to new users, by causing their posts to have zero engagement for seemingly no reason, until the shadowban expires.
- I say no, unless a pressing need emerges, in which case, this should be a last resort.
#3: Post edited
I don't think shadowbans are fair. If someone did something wrong, they should be banned, but then should know that they're banned, why, and for how long.
- I don't think shadowbans are fair. If someone did something wrong, they should be banned, but then should know that they're banned, why, and for how long.
- If someone didn't do something wrong, they shouldn't be banned at all.