Suggestion- Eliminate Red ban public status for Posters...

[xBCxRangers]

Someone brought up a decent point, in that showing someone "banned" on the forum, is in fact shaming that person, that may only bring that user future harassment.

Why not just ban the person? Why should they be publically shamed, something in fact TOS tell us NOT to do, yet, Steam does it.

We do not need to know other peoples moderation history or affairs. That should be a Steam matter, not for we to see. And those goes for Jesters as well (though, i'll take em for the points).

It seems Steam is purposely trying to further, what they tell others not to do.

Rid the Public Shaming, Steam.

[Nx Machina]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

If i don't tell them, they'll try and tell me. I shouldn't have too, and neither should they.

You choose to tell them.

As for the ban message it should remain as it works exactly like that on other non Steam forums.

[The Commendatore]

No, keep it.

[Tito Shivan]

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

It's more so that people will know that there isn't going to be a response in the near future from the banned account.

This over here.

Originally posted by Majestically Awkward:

Case in point company's try to,protect profits however harassing customers with bans is a good way to lose that customer

Spoiler: Some customers are not worth their money.

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

We do not need to know other peoples moderation history or affairs.

You don't.

[Crazy Tiger]

No, it should be more visible, especially if it's a longer ban. Keeps people from continuing pointless convo's.

Though with the paid moderation not handling ban evasion, the forum trolls will continue anyway as shown often enough.

[Tito Shivan]

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

No, it should be more visible, especially if it's a longer ban. Keeps people from continuing pointless convo's.

I once suggested the little counter we all have next by our names (which only mods can see) with the amount of moderation actions you've had to be public.

People didn't like the idea much (And it would probably lead to an arms race to see who gets the highest number, Which with the actual moderation team could be a disaster for the usability of the fourms)

[The Commendatore]

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

No, it should be more visible, especially if it's a longer ban. Keeps people from continuing pointless convo's.

I once suggested the little counter we all have next by our names (which only mods can see) with the amount of moderation actions you've had to be public.

People didn't like the idea much (And it would probably lead to an arms race to see who gets the highest number, Which with the actual moderation team could be a disaster for the usability of the fourms)

Hmm, reminds me of a user who was going for 100 VAC and game bans before they removed the counter.

[Brian9824]

Don't see why they would remove it. OP might not be familiar for instance with how law enforcement works but arrests are public in part because it acts as a deterrent. Seeing users banned shows people that action will be taken if you violate the rules.

In addition it lets you know the person you are replying to is incapable of responding so you won't bug them and keep demanding they answer you. If your offended by it being shown then follow the rules, its not hard to avoid getting banned on a regular basis.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by Thermal Lance:

Don't want it? Don't get banned.

Don't want to get banned? Follow the rules.

I think that sums things up quite well.

[PootisMayo]

Terrible suggestion. Everyone wants to know if a particular user is banned with that red message saying so.

[Thermal Lance]

Originally posted by brian9824:

Originally posted by Thermal Lance:

Don't want it? Don't get banned.

Don't want to get banned? Follow the rules.

I think that sums things up quite well.

I have my moments.

[Psymon²]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Someone brought up a decent point, in that showing someone "banned" on the forum, is in fact shaming that person, that may only bring that user future harassment.

Why not just ban the person? Why should they be publically shamed, something in fact TOS tell us NOT to do, yet, Steam does it.

We do not need to know other peoples moderation history or affairs. That should be a Steam matter, not for we to see. And those goes for Jesters as well (though, i'll take em for the points).

It seems Steam is purposely trying to further, what they tell others not to do.
Rid the Public Shaming, Steam.

I see no benefit in showing "banned" beside someone, besides giving the trolls a reason to highfive each other, and gaslight/bully the user at a time they're unable to reply or report.
therefore, remove it.

alternatively, go the other way, more transparency, show WHY they were banned too.

[Knee]

Originally posted by Psymon²:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Someone brought up a decent point, in that showing someone "banned" on the forum, is in fact shaming that person, that may only bring that user future harassment.

Why not just ban the person? Why should they be publically shamed, something in fact TOS tell us NOT to do, yet, Steam does it.

We do not need to know other peoples moderation history or affairs. That should be a Steam matter, not for we to see. And those goes for Jesters as well (though, i'll take em for the points).

It seems Steam is purposely trying to further, what they tell others not to do.
Rid the Public Shaming, Steam.

I see no benefit in showing "banned" beside someone, besides giving the trolls a reason to highfive each other, and gaslight/bully the user at a time they're unable to reply or report.
therefore, remove it.

alternatively, go the other way, more transparency, show WHY they were banned too.

Which will it be?

[The Commendatore]

Originally posted by Psymon²:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Someone brought up a decent point, in that showing someone "banned" on the forum, is in fact shaming that person, that may only bring that user future harassment.

Why not just ban the person? Why should they be publically shamed, something in fact TOS tell us NOT to do, yet, Steam does it.

We do not need to know other peoples moderation history or affairs. That should be a Steam matter, not for we to see. And those goes for Jesters as well (though, i'll take em for the points).

It seems Steam is purposely trying to further, what they tell others not to do.
Rid the Public Shaming, Steam.

I see no benefit in showing "banned" beside someone, besides giving the trolls a reason to highfive each other, and gaslight/bully the user at a time they're unable to reply or report.
therefore, remove it.

alternatively, go the other way, more transparency, show WHY they were banned too.

You see no benefit (even though there are plenty) but you want transparency to see why someone else got banned? LOL.

[Aachen]

Originally posted by Psymon²:

…. alternatively, go the other way, more transparency, show WHY they were banned too.

Why? For what benefit is that information made public?

A scarlet note lets me know not to expect a reply, at least for the moment.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by Psymon²:

alternatively, go the other way, more transparency, show WHY they were banned too.

I mean i'm not against that, when someone is arrested for instance the charges are public knowledge. Then again i don't get banned and follow the rules so it would have no impact on me