Saidit.net Canary #7

submitted by magnora7[A] from (self.SaiditCanary)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Perhaps, but I fear creating a "high score list" where people will deliberately try to get subs banned so they can go on the list and feel big about themselves.

To date we've only banned 5 subs. Each banned sub has the reasons why on its ban page.

I'm on the fence about this, but it is something I've considered more than once. I'll keep thinking about it. Maybe we could have a sub run by admins that just keeps track of all this information. But then that's creating more work for me, which might not even really provide a useful benefit and might create a lot of extra drama that will then be used to splinter the site... I will think about it some more and thanks for the suggestion highlighting the benefits.

[–]Snow 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oh I hate political struggle...Thanks for the effort.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What's the 5th not on the /s/SaidIt/wiki/BannedFromReddit list?

If I'd known when I started it would have just been called Banned, and still might.

I don't see it as a score so much as documenting our history and progress. Also having examples of the clear limits is handy.

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Don't make a list. It just gives these morons a "hall of fame" to strive for imo

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's more than just a banned from SaidIt list. It started with being an alternative to Reddit. I think it's important to see the limits and that it's not all just idle threats. Maybe not all of them need to be listed, but I'm for more transparency than less, and for noting history not ignoring it. Morons gonna on more, but that's not on me.

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah I just don't want a highscore list for bad guys, sorry. They know the threats aren't idle, they don't care about that tbh. Some people might make it a "fun" game to see how many things they can get on that list

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We can easily remove the list if it comes to that.

The no-name calling seems to be less important now. Seems kinda idle to me.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We can easily remove the list if it comes to that.

It will almost certainly come to that at some point, so I'd rather not do it. The costs far outweigh the benefits

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Should we do a survey?