Really. You don't like the 1st amendment apparently. Engage in self-censorship all you want. It has become a plague and you'll not be alone in doing so.

The problem people have made reference to is bad (rogue) moderators using "shadow bans" to unfairly punish members. If someone has broken the rules, that person is banned. What is the purpose of trying to fool the person into believing he/she has not been banned? That dishonesty is easily open to abuse by moderators with personality problems.

Evidence is needed to support a statement claiming "Most people tend to believe in ... justice, fair play and ... the right to defend themselves?" It is stating the obvious. Of course most people believe in justice. Where they differ is how they interpret justice. It is like demanding evidence be provided if I were to state most people believe murder is wrong.

Disrespect is a noun. When I was a child, I would have failed English class if I had used it as a verb.

Thinking before speaking (or writing) or taking action is not self-censorship. It is prudent to consider the possible effects of actions before taking them. If you do not believe me, walk into a group of people, in a bar for example, and insult everyone.

Thank you for citing something that has literally nothing to do with me. Or most other people here.

Or with the topic being discussed.

(It's now quite clear to me that you're not arguing in good faith, Rinnaldir).

Interesting. How long ago was that?

According to oxforddictionaries.com, its use as a verb is informal and more common in North America, but nevertheless not wrong. Whereas m-w.com lists it first as a transitive verb.

I like how you and Rinnaldir both revealed your locations (and provincialism) at the same time.

In other words, a colloquial expression in American slang. Ain't is also in many dictionaries, but is not grammatically correct in anything approaching standard English. My dictionary has the word f**k with examples of how to use it, but I do not post the word on fora because it is in the dictionary. A dictionary is simply a list of words in use, and if a dictionary is good, archaic words that are now seldom or never used. It is not a grammar book.

I only mentioned it, because someone tried to demonstrate educated thinking by claiming a common sense statement is invalid without references to support it, but used terribly non-standard language while doing it.

Forty years ago.

Although apparently from living in a North American community I immediately understood what you meant by "a user who disrespects the terms isn't deserving of respect" and actually consider use of "disrespect" as a verb right and proper. Furthermore I frankly find it difficult to imagine not grasping the intent and meaning even had I been brought up to think of it exclusively as a noun. For one thing I seem to recall articles being written about the trend during the latter part of the 20th century for sufficiently widespread (and often comical) twisting of nouns into usage as verbs to be called an actual phenomenon. That said it could simply be my set of experiences or lack of imagination in comprehending how difficult that might be for someone else to grasp. That, however, is a package deal in communication. Some things assumed obvious by one may not be obvious to another which ideally should lead to friendly explanation so that both parties learn something new. The rules of grammar should never actively prevent dialogue and communication. That would be self-defeating.

Additionally while I, too, consider it all but self-evident that most people do indeed prefer justice and fair play and it isn't much of a stretch to include the right to face one's accuser and defend oneself (even though many people are likely to give themselves more latitude than they give others) I think you begin walking on thin ice when you oversimplify the interaction between users and providers at the very least on forums.

Firstly just as all forms of communication are subject to some form of translation with the ideal being the well known "A = A'" (A equals A Prime), an ideal exactly because 100 is not only unlikely, even the means to judge whether or not 100, no more and no less, has been achieved are commonly shaky. We all should know that anyone with whom we communicate has his own sets of association and the likelihood that something will be added or lost (or both) is utterly commonplace but we should be glad to even achieve a high percentage, that depending on the urgency and importance of the data to be shared.

So it is rather common that a user may not fully realize exactly where, and how sharply, the lines are drawn, especially when there are many users and many moderators and even moreso when, as in Internet forums, they may be of widely different cultures and languages. So it isn't always clear nor unanimous when someone has crossed the line into being undeserving of respect, and ,Myk267, you seemed to completely skip the idea that within a large group of moderators, the real offender, the one whose account for respect is approaching "Insufficient Funds" could well be a moderator. It is not quite so simple as thinking moderators by virtue of (rightfully) being the shot-callers have all the rights and users have none.

Forums, and by extension including all who participate, benefit from a pool of knowledgeable, well-intentioned users AND officers. It is a strength that humans are social animals who enjoy and benefit from collaboration within common and reasonable boundaries, of course, but it is and must be "a 2-way street" even if one direction "has more lanes". IMHO your last few sentences assume rather a lot.... either that or you know something I don't such as when shadow-banning was adopted and for what reasons and how effective it has been in achieving those goals and at what cost, especially when accountability is so deeply compromised.

I doubt I'm mentioning anything you have not considered at least to some degree since you note that your last assertion is something of a logical fallacy. 36 Million users can easily be wrong or more accurately not even counted since many, like me, didn't know about shadow-banning anywhere, let alone on a specific site and that, right there seems to be the crux of the biscuit. Because it is hidden and employs deception it is much like secret police or black ops where it becomes exceedingly difficult to even weigh cost/benefit or risk assessment.

As you correctly noted (paraphrased) "the fact that they have shadow-bans at all hints that regular bans were insufficient" and I would add and emphasize that this should have required extraordinary analysis since it is an extraordinary risk much like fighting monsters by becoming one or deep cover police. It does inhibit me from visiting Reddit as casually as I have in the past. I do browse more than I contribute but not by a vast margin and that degree is likely to diminish now that I know about shadow-banning if for no other reason that it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth but there can be no doubt that now, alerted, I will be much more on guard feeling a breach of trust is in place, and that, too, is a 2-way street.

I agree that it might be abused. That's completely possible. The purpose of shadow-bans is punishment.

No. Yes, that was dumb. I didn't, and still don't understand how the expectations or beliefs of most people fits into the discussion.

And, yeah, I nominalize nouns and write clunky sentences. I'm trying to improve, but nobody would know it. Thanks.

As much as I hate to bump this thread, it needs this:

http://sinfest.net/view.php?date=2015-09-17

No I'm far more snarky on reddit than I am anywhere else on the net.

A plain old answer, imagine that.

By snarky do you mean sarcastic? Testy? Irritable? Snide? Disrespectful?

I find multiple meanings that's why I ask. I think what you mean is that you take reddit less seriously than other places you frequent on the net. Am I right or wrong?

With the amount of censorship abuse I cannot take reddit seriously and is why I don't read it.

Yes

Reddit is a great place to watch people indulge in fantasies, it just happens to also have some interesting places as well. I would be less concerned about being banned from reddit than other places, but none will affect my income or family so they all rank pretty low on my give-a-shit meter.

Which country are you posting from, Rinndalir?

This post implies that it's America, but your attempts at technical posts have implied to me that it isn't. For one thing, I don't think English is your native language.

I do not. Same as you.

Not a mature venue in my opinion.
It could be run by bots alone, I think.

Sells like ice in July, but I'm not buying.
Exchange too. I like and appreciate LQ.

I know, right?
I've heard enough.
Don't walk through my clean mind with your dirty feet?
I wish him well.
Have to be diverse and flexible these days.

Who ya calling "regular"?
If I am "out of line", a simple PM from a vetted member of our Community, will likey do the trick.
PM from a peer goes a long way.

Hang out there for a week, read, evaluate then decide.
Is it worth the Time?

Here's what I don't get at <other_sites>.
A sense of Community like here at LQ.
I have real peers here at LQ whose experience and judgment I respect.

Reddit to me is just another "dixie cup".
Disposable. Like most of the drivel up there.

That is my Opinion.

Please enjoy your flight on LQAirlines.