I wanted to share my open-source solution on Reddit. I created an account, found a community where people post links to their projects, and posted a link to my GitHub project there. The post was immediately deleted, and my account was banned.
It turns out you first need to write
Unpopular opinion: in this case, the system worked as intended for the benefit of the community. If all this person really has to contribute is a link to their own content, it’s spam.
Why isn’t his project valuable? You’re saying other people should share it rather than the author sharing it. But how are other people going to find out about it first?
Based on the votes, your opinion seems popular, but I don’t find it rational.
I’m not saying the project isn’t valuable. It could be extremely valuable. And I think it’s ideal if the author shares rather than someone else, so long as they’re a community member in good standing, with a positive contribution history. Real communities are made of people who engage, not just links, even if the links are good.
In this case ban makes sense to me because the account has nothing else to contribute, other than quota-meeting fluff. I never said ban everyone who breaks the rules. Again, I’m only talking about the example in the OP. But yes, warnings and content removals are also good moderation tools.
Unpopular opinion: in this case, the system worked as intended for the benefit of the community. If all this person really has to contribute is a link to their own content, it’s spam.
Why isn’t his project valuable? You’re saying other people should share it rather than the author sharing it. But how are other people going to find out about it first?
Based on the votes, your opinion seems popular, but I don’t find it rational.
I’m not saying the project isn’t valuable. It could be extremely valuable. And I think it’s ideal if the author shares rather than someone else, so long as they’re a community member in good standing, with a positive contribution history. Real communities are made of people who engage, not just links, even if the links are good.
Why a ban and not a warning or content removal? Are we just getting used to the idea that we execute people as a first line of corrective action?
In this case ban makes sense to me because the account has nothing else to contribute, other than quota-meeting fluff. I never said ban everyone who breaks the rules. Again, I’m only talking about the example in the OP. But yes, warnings and content removals are also good moderation tools.