I find it hilarious that every single time I've been admonished about civil conduct, it's because I'm reacting to a bunch of assclowns who somehow evade any oversight.
maybe start taking the reports as self indicators?
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
All posts should follow this basic structure:
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
Some acronyms you might see.
Relevant comms
I find it hilarious that every single time I've been admonished about civil conduct, it's because I'm reacting to a bunch of assclowns who somehow evade any oversight.
maybe start taking the reports as self indicators?
I’m ok with a penalty box. Pointless bickering gets this sub off topic. It’s tough because people come here ready to air grievances so I think that pre-charges the atmosphere and makes it that much easier for things to get off the rails
It’s tough because people come here ready to air grievances so I think that pre-charges the atmosphere and makes it that much easier for things to get off the rails
You put in to words what I was struggling to find. People are often already a little charged up when they show up here, that's the nature of this kind of board.
Yes please I need one 🙏🙏🙏🙏
How about a automated system if someone downvotes a comment and then responds to that comment (or reverse), then they get tar-pitted and banned from the community for 1-hour
It would slow down people being nasty to each other and egging on a fight.
That would be nice
My suggestion is to warn the user first, and then if they don't comply a 3d ban. Because:
Trolls are a different can of worms. I think that users who are blatantly trolling should be removed = permabanned; there's no place for those.
Happy cake day!
[Replying to myself to avoid editing the above again.]
Ah, I propose an explicit rule for this comm: "off-topic is only tolerated if non-divisive, non-derailing, and in the comments". That gives people some room to chitchat, but would do a quick work of "ackshyually u don't have rules against flamewars right".
Short bans are like spritzing a cat in the face. It's Skinnerian conditioning. It works.
Just make sure the behavior you're conditioning for is the behavior you want. Trolling doesn't mean "harsh language." Trolling is the infuriating nonsense that makes reasonable people reach for harsh language. Sometimes, a rude response is entirely deserved.
Trolling doesn’t mean “harsh language.”
... right. that's incivility.
Trolling is the infuriating nonsense that makes reasonable people reach for harsh language.
what is the criteria when clear incivility is justified?
Fuck civility. "Be nice or die" is a gift to cautious bastards. It's a formula for bait.
People need the ability to bluntly call horseshit, when faced with horseshit. Polite phrasing of said horseshit makes it worse. It creates the dynamic of bullying, where an honest response to abuse is treated as justification for that abuse.
Demanding that every response should take ten times more effort, all of which will be ignored, is a rule crafted for trolls. If someone can keep going 'oh so you mean [not what you said]? wow that's ridiculous and awful and pushes me further right,' and any sane reply like 'shut up, troll' is what gets banned, then the rules favor and protect fffucking obvious trolling. And yet: that's what too many moderators choose. Spotting rude language is easier. A forum free of blunt responses feels like you're helping.
But it's fundamentally not rewarding honesty, accuracy, or actual constructive conversation. It's pretending that bad faith doesn't exist.
oh so you mean [not what you said]
this is the definition of bad faith. just report it.
Well, this is drama heaven because it's for users who aren't legible to post in fedidrama (because they're involved themselves) and then they end up here. And IMO the posts kind of set the tone. You often start out with a negative impression after reading the post, and then you're likely to be negative. And it doesn't help that other comments are negative or low quality as well... Then it's super easy to drop what's left and just shitpost.
I'm not sure if I want to continue reading anyways. It's several posts a day of people whining about something they brought upon themselves. Often something completely insignificant like one removed post/comment or a one day time-out from shitposting. And half the people don't listen or get anything, neither does OP, and the commenters just flame about arbitrary things, or attack each other for their strongly held opinions... I'd say a bit more moderation would be worth a try. But don't listen to me, I'm probably not the target audience of this community.
The amount of trolling and debatemebros keep going up each thread and it looks like people are just trying to start drama here now rather than report actual mod abuse. I'm not sure how you could improve this, it seems like every one of these kinds of communities turn into drama communities with people at each other's throats each thread lol. I think temp bans would help for the most egregious offenders, but locking threads after a certain timeframe might be better? Considering the comment threads keep going on and on for some of them.
What would that timeframe be though? A week? A month? A day? Ultimately, what would that matter even - why is it bad to respond to something three months later, e.g. asking a follow-up question "was this matter ever resolved - did you manage to get in contact with the admin/mod and what did they say?"
The problem with that approach is that it penalizes people other than the offender (I assume here you mean locking the entire post, not just a comment chain underneath it?), e.g. if you take time to think about the scenario, read it thoroughly, go gather some additional references, type out a reply, and not even necessarily to the person inflaming the conflict but others who happened to respond more quickly, but then bam, your well thought out and crafted message is rejected, bc you did not deliver it quickly enough, and because while you were treating the matter seriously, a flame war was breaking out, but it's not like a chatroom where you can see the messages coming in live?
It makes sense for the people involved in spreading drama to be affected/penalized, but why discourage discourse elsewhere by others in the community? And all the more so the ones delivered more slowly, while allowing the most hot-headed quick replies to go through before the post can be locked.
Any abuse reporting or appeals system will invite some general "they're saying things I don't like" complaining, that's just human nature for some people. And the fact that this is a open forum makes that a hundred times worse, and makes it harder to keep an outsider perspective.
That said, some people just need to think before typing. I don't think locking stuff would work on such a small community
I dont like the idea of banning people for speach that isnt calling for actionable violence.
U could just delete the whole comment thread (from point of off topic onward) for reason "off topic" and that would solve almost everything.
Im not sure how reporting works never done it and nobody has reported anything on the community i mod. But i can see that people would abuse it it an attempt to silence their opposition. I think bans for clearly bad faith reports is fair.
U think people should at least be warned prior to being sent to the sinbin.
Does Lemmy provide a council/consensus type voting system on bans? How do you arbitrate it by yourself on what is or isn't "rudeness" or "trolling"?
Imo let downvotes and reports sort it out, instead of being proactive, until there is a multi-headed arbitration system in place.