marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
MM Writes ([personal profile] marahmarie) wrote in [site community profile] dw_suggestions2017-03-13 01:07 am

Show poster is banned from quickreply

Title:
Show poster is banned from quickreply

Area:
quickreply

Summary:
In quickreply there is nothing stating a user's ban status. If a user types a comment in a journal or community from which they have been (perhaps unknowingly) banned, if they use quickreply to do so they won't realize (or recall, if they've forgotten) their ban status until they try to post their comment or else if they click through to the "more options" full-size comment box before posting.

Description:
Quickreply (the instant comment box you get on the reading page under each entry if you click "reply" from the entry linkbar) doesn't currently show relationship status to other users or communities. While kludging in the entire relationship status functionality might be a bit much for a simple reply box, it would be helpful to know if you're wasting your time writing the Gettysburg address in reply to someone, only to realize at the last second, when you try to post, that you've been banned from the journal or community in question.

While I'm not sure how it might be done, my thought is to make ban status (if applicable) visible so it can be seen before you try to post from a quickreply box. While I don't see a lot of room for it as I look at a quickreply box as I type this up, I'm thinking in addition to* the JS usericon-picker saying "Browse" in big, bold letters when you hover over it, it could say "You have been banned from this community/journal" as well.

*An earlier version of this said "While I don't see a lot of room for it as I look at a quickreply box as I type this up, I'm thinking instead of the JS usericon-picker saying "Browse" in big, bold letters when you hover over it, it could say "You have been banned from this community/journal" instead", then I realized, after posting, that "in addition to" would be better than "instead of".

Poll #18125 Show poster is banned from quickreply
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 31


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
15 (48.4%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
3 (9.7%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
11 (35.5%)

(Other: please comment)
2 (6.5%)

azurelunatic: A glittery black pin badge with a blue holographic star in the middle. (Default)

[personal profile] azurelunatic 2017-03-31 05:53 am (UTC)(link)
As long as it's information that's exposed in other places, I don't see the harm of putting it on quickerreply. (Quickreply being the regular comment on the journal entry, as opposed to the More Options original-flavor reply as first seen on LiveJournal back when Brad implemented it.)

If it isn't exposed until someone actually tries to comment, then I might be concerned about needlessly leaking information in ways that might encourage a determined troll to try some escalated tactics instead of leaving well enough alone.
jducoeur: (Default)

[personal profile] jducoeur 2017-03-31 05:57 pm (UTC)(link)
I had the same reaction as [personal profile] azurelunatic. The question is, does the bannee always know that they have been banned? I don't know DW's answer to this, and it matters.

Some conversation designs intentionally hide ban status, or allow the community owner to hide it. That's for good reason: when you've got a troll, or somebody who is getting stalkerish, the safest approach can be to let them *think* they're successfully posting, but quietly hide it from everybody else. It prevents the trolling from being effective, while not signaling to them to escalate. (By creating new sock-puppet accounts, or nastier forms of stalking.) Hence, if this were the case in DW, "information leakage" is something you have to be careful about.

OTOH, if the more-verbose posting screens already tell you that you are banned (which it sounds like they do), then I agree with this proposal -- no reason not to state it upfront. Discovering that they've been banned only after trying to post is only likely to infuriate the troll, and make them *more* likely to escalate...
azurelunatic: A glittery black pin badge with a blue holographic star in the middle. (Default)

[personal profile] azurelunatic 2017-03-31 08:20 pm (UTC)(link)
Dreamwidth doesn't have hellbanning (as much as I might sometimes like that feature).

And, come to think of it, the profile of the user who has banned the troll will possibly give away that information, if the troll has added the user to their circles, and the user displays the lists of non-mutual access and follows on their profile, because the troll won't be on those lists, as one of the features of banning suppresses that username from displaying on the profile. (The other user will still show up on the troll's profile.)

So I suppose you're probably right.

But a determined troll is probably going to escalate no matter what, and the more common case is probably more of a one-on-one disagreement situation where one of the parties may not have realized that they've stepped over the line, rather than there being thousands of trolls who will go out of their way to give their target a terrible time.