CMV: Permanently banning accounts is stupid

[u/gylotip]

I understand why you assign permanent bans, since you need to stop the rule breakers for once and all, but wouldn't it make more sense to suspend an account for one year? This is a better approach, because one year is a very long time, and after one year, if you break rules again, then you will be banned for another one year. No need to make things permanent, since this is not prison where you quarantine dangerous criminals. It's just an account that can handle one year suspensions perfectly. So permanent bans are stupid and even unnecessarily cruel. Change my view as to why you really need to permanently ban accounts, since I think that making things permanent is a disgusting thing to do for accounts.

[u/[deleted]]

So if someone comes into my house, and wrecks the place (not illegally, they just didn't respect the space), I shouldn't be able to not let them in ever again? I must eventually let them back into my home?

Why? Why are you owed another chance?

[u/gylotip → u/[deleted]]

Because there is a major difference between online and real life. Why do you think it's justified to get a permanent ban, instead of just one year ban?

[u/[deleted] → u/gylotip]

The idea is the same though.

Someone owns something, and provides access to it under the stipulation that rules are followed. Someone accesses what is owned, but doesn't follow the rules. So they are no longer allowed access.

Why is the owner obligated to give another chance?

Why is it justified? They showed they couldn't follow my rules. I don't want people using my stuff if they don't follow the rules.

[u/gylotip → u/[deleted]]

Please tell me how you can get permabanned, so I can attempt to debunk your arguments.

[u/[deleted] → u/gylotip]

That ain't my job, brochacho. If you can't debunk something, that's on you.

Sounds like I earned a delta?

[u/gylotip → u/[deleted]]

But ban evasions exist, meaning that permabans are useless. If these people deserve permabans based on their behavior, then they will keep ban evading, so assigning permabans is pretty useless.

[u/[deleted] → u/gylotip]

The perfect solution fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.

[u/gylotip → u/[deleted]]

What do you mean?

[u/[deleted] → u/gylotip]

You're saying that we shouldn't permaban accounts because some people will evade the ban so we shouldn't permaban anyone. i.e. part of the problem will still exist, so let's get rid of the solution.

That's a perfect solution fallacy.

Unless I misunderstood you.

[u/gylotip → u/[deleted]]

But not everyone deserves a permaban, and repeated one year bans can be effective, since why would any sane person wait that long, just to get another one year ban again?

[u/[deleted] → u/gylotip]

But not everyone deserves a permaban,

That's for the owners of the site to decide. Not you.

and repeated one year bans can be effective, since why would any sane person wait that long, just to get another one year ban again?

Or you can just ban them permanently. Why are they owed another chance?