Ask Lemmy

No

On Lemmy? No. Banning is almost pointless here since it would be very hard to track a user across multiple instances.

Having moderated a number of online spaces over the years, sort of. It's usually the harshest thing a moderator can do, but it does not have very much real world impact on most people. In many parts of the internet, it isn't even very effective at keeping the same person from coming back with another account, which isn't a big deal if they don't come back with the same behavior.

I'm not particularly shy about reaching for the permanent ban if it seems like someone is being an asshole on purpose. I'm not getting paid for it, and I do not have much patience for dealing with people who don't want to be respectful toward their fellow humans. There's usually a way to appeal if it's a misunderstanding. That's especially true in systems like Lemmy and unlike traditional web forums where one account and UI provides access to many communities, leading to drive-by comments.

I'm also fond of somewhat ambiguous rules like "be excellent to each other" or "don't be an asshole". Without that, if a community gets active enough, someone will show up, act like an asshole, and argue about the rules when they get banned.

Permabans are akin to life sentences or death sentences. They should be reserved for serious "crimes" or multiple repeat offenses and not for breaking a rule or two. Something that Reddit mods can't wrap their heads around.

I was permabanned from r/college for trolling once. Like wtf! I was also permabanned from Reddit as a whole for calling out reverse racism, but that's another story.

imo, permaban should be reserved for bots and spam accounts. and people committing crimes using the platform.
everyone else max 30 days, but no limits how many times you can get banned if you keep repeating the bad behaviour

In my approach to it, I'd argue something like this. A misdeed done by a human does not have any infinite qualities because we're not capable of that, so what am I supposed to feel if I issue a ban that does? Unless a ban occurs according to conditions which exist on behalf of someone higher than me, I never "permaban" anyone from anywhere without intention of unbanning them under certain conditions. No clockwork runs on "unconditional" aspects.

Usually yeah. Unless it's something like trying to break a server or posting CP. People can do stupid things if they're having a bad day, mental health issues, etc.

Old forums usually had a system where you only got banned if you got a certain number of warnings within a certain time period. That usually worked well.

People are incredibly ban happy on Reddit, I got banned from the JimmyDore sub Reddit despite never visiting it, I don't even know who Jimmy Dore is.

Harsh? Yes.

Necessary? Often.

Now why would an account created 1 hour ago be asking something like this?

No. But I think that it's often poorly used.

Most users are reasonable and should be treated as such by default; a simple warning goes a long way. Sometimes an overall good user is being really shitty so you ban them for, like, a week? Just to let them chill their head.

Permaban is for the exceptions. It's for users who cannot be reasoned with, will likely behave in a shitty way in the future, and have a negative impact on the community.

Kinda like the idea of incrementally longer bans for each offense.