1. If your goal is to completely eliminate the technical possibility for harassment, this goal can be achieved in the only way: Anonymity should be prohibited. It is necessary not only to prohibit anonymous comments, but also to prohibit anonymous account registration. At the moment, registration of the account does not require the provision of personal data. Until anonymous registration of accounts and anonymous comments are allowed, harassmet will not be defeated.
However, the prohibition of anonymity creates other threats to users from countries with a totalitarian regime, who simply criticize the government. These are very serious threats to health and even life.
Thus, there is a conflict between the right not to be harassed (or not to hear unpleasant statements) and the right to anonymity, which in my country is a necessary condition for physical security.
I think the right to anonymity should be higher than the right to protection from harassment.
All that I have just written is not directly related to the ban rules on Dreamwidth. But if you take your arguments and think about the possible consequences of fighting harassment, the consequences are bad. They are worse than harassment because they put more people at risk.
I think the fight against harassment should have its limits.
2. The great advantage of Dreamwidth over Facebook, for example, is the tree structure of comments. Such a structure facilitates reading and understanding of the meaning.
The new rules of the ban will lead to the fact that the structure of the discussions will be partially destroyed. Yes, Bob can create a new post, or a first-level comment, but this "smears" the discussion on the web page, leads to the removal of comments from the context, that is, the context is destroyed, reading and participating in the discussion for other users is difficult. For such a fragmented discussion, if it is large, it is simply impossible to follow. People will not create special posts if they are deprived of the opportunity to respond to the original post. It all hurts the communities.
That is what I mean by speaking of demotivating the discussion due to the new rules of the ban.
In addition, a situation is possible in which a user preventively bans all opponents, and publishes a post in which it is obviously impossible to criticize. Thus, eliminating the harassment, you unwittingly created the possibility of abuse, manipulation of information outside of your personal account. In fact, the new ban rules created a way to prevent discussion, for example, with the goal of trolling.
So, I understand your reasons, but I find them not quite convincing.
To be honest, I do not know what a compromise is possible here. Maybe the option to disable the ban in the communities? Then, the Moderator can ban the pursuer separately, but the troll should not have the tools to influence the discussion. My concerns you can see. You decide! :)
Re: Issue 2329
1. If your goal is to completely eliminate the technical possibility for harassment, this goal can be achieved in the only way: Anonymity should be prohibited. It is necessary not only to prohibit anonymous comments, but also to prohibit anonymous account registration. At the moment, registration of the account does not require the provision of personal data. Until anonymous registration of accounts and anonymous comments are allowed, harassmet will not be defeated.
However, the prohibition of anonymity creates other threats to users from countries with a totalitarian regime, who simply criticize the government. These are very serious threats to health and even life.
Thus, there is a conflict between the right not to be harassed (or not to hear unpleasant statements) and the right to anonymity, which in my country is a necessary condition for physical security.
I think the right to anonymity should be higher than the right to protection from harassment.
All that I have just written is not directly related to the ban rules on Dreamwidth. But if you take your arguments and think about the possible consequences of fighting harassment, the consequences are bad. They are worse than harassment because they put more people at risk.
I think the fight against harassment should have its limits.
2. The great advantage of Dreamwidth over Facebook, for example, is the tree structure of comments. Such a structure facilitates reading and understanding of the meaning.
The new rules of the ban will lead to the fact that the structure of the discussions will be partially destroyed. Yes, Bob can create a new post, or a first-level comment, but this "smears" the discussion on the web page, leads to the removal of comments from the context, that is, the context is destroyed, reading and participating in the discussion for other users is difficult. For such a fragmented discussion, if it is large, it is simply impossible to follow. People will not create special posts if they are deprived of the opportunity to respond to the original post. It all hurts the communities.
That is what I mean by speaking of demotivating the discussion due to the new rules of the ban.
In addition, a situation is possible in which a user preventively bans all opponents, and publishes a post in which it is obviously impossible to criticize. Thus, eliminating the harassment, you unwittingly created the possibility of abuse, manipulation of information outside of your personal account. In fact, the new ban rules created a way to prevent discussion, for example, with the goal of trolling.
So, I understand your reasons, but I find them not quite convincing.
To be honest, I do not know what a compromise is possible here. Maybe the option to disable the ban in the communities? Then, the Moderator can ban the pursuer separately, but the troll should not have the tools to influence the discussion. My concerns you can see. You decide! :)