On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 11:00 AM, Sarah k Alawami wrote:
I don't tell the user they are baned either, I just do it, and I have my own reasons.
-
Which I've already acknowledged is fine, although I vehemently disagree with that practice.? I believe in transparency when it comes to administrative action.
?
My main concern is that having been banned from a group is:
1. Preventing access to public archives and group home pages that can be accessed by the entire world, and the banned member if they are logged out.
2. The message saying, "You are not a member of this group," is directly misleading.? If someone has been banned from a group, and the decision to prevent access to it is maintained, the message should be telling them why.
?
Group owners can choose to communicate, or not communicate, with their members as they see fit.? That's what it means to be an owner.? But the 开云体育 software should not be misleading nor should it block access for reading from a banned member that it does not impose on members of the general public.? That makes no sense, as the banned member can still gain access when logged out, so that block is not preventing anything in reality.
?
If the general public can read it, then a banned member should also be able to read it.? If the group is set to be private, then members of the general public have no access, and neither should a banned member.? Things have to fit together in a logical, consistent, and rational manner.? Right now, they don't.
--
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
???? ~ H.L. Mencken
