top 100 commentsshow all 150

[–]trytonotjustlurk 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"No removal of good faith and on-topic posts/comments." seems like a good rule to me. I think it's would be unfair to post loads of stuff against a subs base position but good faith discussion should be welcome.

[–]JasonCarswell 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Short and simple and perfect. d3rr said it best.

[–]poestal 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

i'm so glad your taking measures on this topic. iv'e seen extreme biases from moderators within reddit's neutral subs and extreme cases of nuked comment sections [removed] creating eco chambers or criticizing the subs agenda.

but my question is how can "No removal of good faith and on-topic posts/comments" work when the mods believe that your comment is "negative" or "hate filled"? for instance I criticize say the lbgt community about advocating for children and hormone therapy. obviously it's a heated topic that some strongly believe or disagree with. but it would be based on personal beliefs of it being bigotry and deleting such comments.

also we need to talk about moderators (including yourself) that having a bias monopoly with popular subs could lead to eco chambers within neutral subs or turning into a "spez" moderator that removes and edits comments of wrongful thinking.

[–]magnora7[S] 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

I'm glad you see the importance in taking action here, because it is a very big deal. And it would be easy to turn a blind eye, as sites like reddit and voat have, but we've all seen the problems that causes.

but my question is how can "No removal of good faith and on-topic posts/comments" work when the mods believe that your comment is "negative" or "hate filled"?

It all comes down to the pyramid of debate. https://saidit.net/static/debatepyramid.jpg

If you say "I think children having horomone therapy is wrong for moral reasons as well as these other reasons x, y, and z" that is fine, because it does not drag discussion down the pyramid of debate.

However if you say (pardon me) "I think those faggy idiot adults shouldn't convert these retarded children" then that is at the bottom of the pyramid of debate because it's needlessly insult-laden.

So if a sub moderator deletes the first example, there would be problems if they kept doing it. However if the moderator deletes the second example, then that's fine because it's already at the bottom of the pyramid of debate.

So we would police moderators who show a censorship bias against good faith comments (as judged by the pyramid of debate).

It's great all the modlogs are public because that means there are no secret mod actions or secret mod removals. This applies to me too, if I make an action as an admin, it shows up in the modlogs in that sub. For example, here's the mod I mentioned in the OP removing, then me adding my comments, over and over: https://saidit.net/s/Libertarianism/modlog

You can see my admin actions just as well as his mod actions in the modlog, so everyone including myself is accountable in this system. I think this revolutionary public modlog transparency, plus this rule for mods we're discussing now in this thread, combined will be a key part in keeping saidit from failing in the same way reddit did, which got overtaken by highly-polarized little mod fiefdoms on every subreddit.

[–]poestal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

ok this looks very promising.

and what would be the rules for removing or overthrowing an overreaching moderator? three strikes your out? is it a singular moderator that can choose to remove another or some form of moderation hierarchy that will vote to remove such moderators?

[–]magnora7[S] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

and what would be the rules for removing or overthrowing an overreaching moderator? three strikes your out?

That's how we've been applying the rules to users, so I guess it would make sense to continue that system for the moderators. And every "strike" gets a warning from me with a reason for the strike, in reply to the offending material. In public view.

I think it'd probably be best to let the admins (me and d3rr) act as the judge for moderators, so that way there aren't power struggles between the moderators trying to usurp each other by abusing this system. However any user or moderator can raise the issue with the admins if there are problems, and then we will investigate.

Being a mod comes with responsibilities to the community, and I think this is a system that will keep everyone accountable. It's all out in public view for everyone to see, so there's no crafty "behind closed doors" moderator/admin stuff going on like there is on reddit and voat.

[–]fred_red_beans 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think you and d3rr as the main developers have the right to refuse service to anyone you deem necessary. I think keeping your actions transparent help the saidit community understand your actions whether a user agrees or not. I've only removed one comment so far in my subs for threat of violence. I think your position is right in avoiding sub mods from infiltrating and using the site purely for their own purposes. I think you guys have done a good job so far in trying to keep a balance here. Thanks for that.

[–]magnora7[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks, glad to hear from you. I agree it is necessary to prevent mod infiltration. I am glad the transparency is appreciated. I think this move to add this rule will end up being a great safeguard against the mod fiefdoms that ruined reddit, and ensure a good mix of viewpoints and information. Like reddit circa 2007. Thanks for your continued support.

[–]OmegaUser296 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

Hi, this is off topic but just wanted to ask about a possible rule, limiting how many subs one person can moderate that way we never get someone like N8thegr8 from reddit, I'd say 100 would make for a good limit that way it's high enough that any one person would only hit it if their hoarding subs cough u/JasonCarswell is getting close to hoarding subs as of late cough

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Yeah an absolute limit on subs might not be a bad idea.

[–]Yhvr 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe have no limit to modding some things, like CSS. But limits on others, like banning.

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's an interesting idea too, I like that.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for that great idea.


To no one in particular:

I'm not interested in hoarding subs. I'm not interested in wielding power. I DEFY ANYONE to prove otherwise.

I like having subs to put things in. If there was a Justice or Law or Legal or Unfairness or RiggedSystems sub then I could post stuff there - regardless if I made it or not. I'm only making them where I see voids. Plus a few projects.

I wanna do design on the subs to make them custom and build a better community. If you think my designs suck you can tell me and I might take in your ideas and improve them. If everyone wants to vote on the aesthetics of SaidIt and ban all the banners and CSS, I'll vote for my choice but go along with what ever happens.

I have one more good day on my CSS before I can say they are all "done". I have already started by I'm also inviting people to co-mod. Many of the subs in "my list" are already shared by many others. The number of subs is not NEARLY as important as what you do with them.

Tell all those empty sub people to fuck off before anyone tells me how to live my life. I'm totally sick of whining slackers.

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I've been here longer than you. I didn't make all those subs. I was invited into many of them. I'm adding CSS to them, adding banners, and trying to find mods to share or give them to. I am not hoarding them and I resent you saying that, obviously without knowing anything about it. Further, if I was some kind of malevolent mod hoarder I would have actually used my all-mighty mod powers by now. I don't even know how yet. I'M NOT A REDDITOR and I reject any notions to conform to that site's failed culture or your limiting opinions on what I can or cannot do. So check yourself before you come at me again.

Also, I'm not against a democratic decision to determine a limit, though no one has adequately given a rational reason why, other than abuses. If someone abuses power they should be dealt with, regardless of whether they have one sub or a thousand. A person who kills another should be dealt with, regardless if they did it by accident, or in hate, hate for their skin, religion, or an ex-girlfriend. Just deal with the crime, not the what-if bullshit.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think he was trying to be malicious towards you. Just pointing out that you sit on a lot of subs and in the future someone else could abuse that type of influence. You've be an amazing person and very helpful so far and I support you. Reddit certainly has some user that abuse their influence/sell it, etc. We are all trying to watch out for that.

[–]OmegaUser296 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I understand all of that but if your there to help with the CSS and not the moderation then leaving the subs after awhile would be a good course of action that way it dosen't seem like your sub hoarding.

I am not trying to limit opinions or anything I only stated that due to a DM where you stated you would prefer more subs over credit which made it seem like your intent was partly to hoard subs, I am sorrry if that wasn't your intent in any way I had misunderstood.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

So stop telling me how to mod and trying to put limits on me.

Who fucking cares if me or some chucklehead hoards subs? Why is your nose up his ass? As long as he's not a dick. If all of a sudden he turns into some CIA shill then M7D3 can pull his plug and he can start trying to hoard again under another alias.

I'll finish my fucking CSS when I finish it. I'll give my subs away when I'm 1) done, 2) ready and 3) can find some worthy people to hand off to. And while there seems to be no shortage of whiners here all the worthy folks are busy doing and building and making shit happen so the slackers can sit back and suck on our works and complain about it.

I don't know what DM is.

I want way more subs to better organize the content on SaidIt. If I have a post that fits under Law/Justice/Injustice/Legal/RiggedSystems/Voting - there's nothing for it. I'd be happier with metatags or categories but we don't have that yet. Subsaidits are the systems I'm working with. I don't give a fuck if I made the sub or not. If I made the sub then I'm sure as fuck going to put my "Ergonomix " CSS on it to make it easier to read and use.

I want way more subs as options to file my posts. That's it. I don't care who owns them.

I would say you can take most of mine but you're being a dick so I'd have to wait and see whether you are a dick or not. If you did take them then maybe you'd see a bunch of folks irrationally shitting on you for simply having subs, regardless if you're a maniacal malevolent mod or an absentee mod, or even something in between.

[–]OmegaUser296 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Okay I'm not trying to personally attack you, your just an example because you own a high amount of subs without any intent to stop.

DM = Direct Message

And all I'm saying is that there should be a hard limit of subs per user of ~50 or something so no one person can mod to much of the subs and in turn not have to much control over the narratives.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I will attest that at least one of the subs jason has is modded by me and I invited him and he has been helpful. He wasn't pushy or anything to come over and be a mod. We are just a very small site right now so a lot of the new power users just look very busy with forming lots of subs.

[–]OmegaUser296 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I understand and u/JasonCarswell (I pinged because I want you to know) if your willing to once the right users come along and this site grows give those subs to other users, then your doing nothing wrong.

I'd only used you as an example due to your high Sub count I understand your not Hoarding for personal gain.

Edit: Improved content and Format

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Even if I kept them all and more I'd still be doing nothing wrong.

When I do something wrong, only then will I have done something wrong.

We do not need pre-crime police here.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's fair.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

The Autobahn became famous for not having any speed limits.

Q: If you add a speed limit to the Autobahn, what do you get?

A: You turn a free-way into just another shitty highway.

It may be riskier in some ways. In other ways not. Between Toronto and Windsor is 4 hours of the boring-est highway and LOTS of people die every year from falling asleep driving it.

Fast or slow, if someone fucks up, survives, and is responsible, then they must be held accountable. Not before. Not preemptively.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear of crime itself that hasn't happened yet and making up silly limits." ~ J.F.D.Rooseveltbergensteiniki

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Thanks for the support. I haven't forgotten you. You are still in my messages. I've had a shitty 2 weeks.

Meanwhile, bust my balls when I do something wrong. Not before. Don't let your imaginations go wild over numbers of subs, empty, full, busy, or trickling.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I wasn't the one ball busting. I just agreed with the sub limit rule idea. I think it's natural for people in our truther/dissident community to be hyper skeptical of people so it doesn't normally bother me when people challenge me or question my motives. In fact I expect it. We've been gaslit for years by the media/corporate/military machine and we are all a bit on edge. I think a lot of the men in the movement are also trying to find their masculinity again so it's a space with people that like to challenge and be a bit aggressive.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know you weren't. I still want people to call me on my shit so I can learn from it.

But I don't want limits put on me or anyone out of fear of crimes they haven't committed.

If this was my own site would anyone tell me how many articles I could write?

Are there limits on YouTube about how many videos you can make? (Actually I think four a day - but that could go on accumulating for years, like Pewdypie.)

I already have the 1 sub/week limit and will abide by that. I don't agree with it but I will respect it.

I have asked people what subs they are going to make and most people don't even think about it. I could count on one hand how many have asked about my future plans. I find that shocking. No one here has any foresight or ambition to plan things out or to find ways to cultivate this community and culture. Maybe it won't matter. Maybe it will bite us in the ass fatally.

I embrace skepticism. But fear and limits aren't that.

Lastly with all this energy wasted, someone could have learned to code and build metatags or categories for SaidIt and I would no longer want any subs, kinda like Steemit.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I agree and 50 is probably enough.

[–]OmegaUser296 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah above 50 would be overboard.

[–]Vulphere 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think we should encourage good faith and on-topic posts and discussions, so I support this.

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for your vote on the issue. Seems like most people are happy with this rule so we'll probably implement it soon.

[–]IdleHands 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"I don't think this post is made in good faith. My sub, my judgement."

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's what the pyramid of debate is for. So it's not arbitrary like that.

[–]HopeThatHalps 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Some people, such as this mod, and some who come here from reddit think saidit it a free-for-all, anything goes, when the mission statement of the forum clearly states otherwise. This type of moderation behavior is contrary to the purpose of this forum. But as I've opined, in order to made saidit a utopia of discourse, it would take LOTS OF WORK, DONE FOR FREE, so the reality is that over time, as the user base grows, this forum is likely to devolve into a low brow, fascist circlejerk, just as other, smaller current events forums have. Arguably it has already happened.

[–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It will take work. It has not happened. Look at voat then saidit. They're not even close.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Deputize everyone. Who watches the watchers? We all watch the watchers!

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The first part is well said. The second part seems pessimistic.

LOTS OF WORK, DONE FOR FREE

Means that everyone everywhere always has to call out the shit when they see it. Self-reliant self-authority modding, regardless whether you made the sub or not. We all need to police each other to maintain a modicum of civility.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Means that everyone everywhere always has to call out the shit when they see it.

That's not realistic. What you will get subs that claim to be committed to some virtuous ideology, but quickly turn into fascist hate subs that decent people want nothing to do with, and so they devolve into their worst possible form. To put it another way, this website is not voat, but I see no reason why it won't become voat.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If we aren't active we will be rolled over. Don't depend on police or soldiers or mods to do it for you. Don't be lazy and don't be a coward. Stand up, if only behind your keyboard.

Be active or lie down and die.

So what is your solution?

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Arguably it has already happened.

It's not very far gone at all, actually. I think we can still make it work. (Though there are still times when I'm just ready to bail out.)

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I hope you don't bail and choose to make it work.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

We're in this together, no matter how annoying we find each other. At least for now.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

[–]Mnemonic 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Well just to leave a comment: Yeah I think it's best. We expect of users to be pyramid shaped, so are the mods beholding to the pyramid.

Off topic replies can go, Ad hominem replies can go etc. (please do as mod give a PM shout out to how/why)

Where to draw the line between a sarcastic ad hominem remark wrapped into a 'on point' remark stays a bit for the mod to decide, I would handle it:

Like a post not belonging into a sub: PM the commenters say what's what and all. if they don't edit within a (normal) amount of time (12-24 hours) okay delete.

Then there is the "I'm going to reply' side, well stay strong within yourself, calling someone stupid (mild example) doesn't change anything and stupid people are going to believe that they are more right just because you call them stupid.

okay, and that's from a drunk Dutch person, you can shape up to be like me... NO! BETTER than ME! It's easy, very easy, and if it's so easy, you'ld be STUPID not to.

Also: This is what Wikipedia gives on ad Hominem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (THAT'S RIGHT, THE PYRAMID!)!

[–]happysmash27 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Alternative idea: Subs that break this rule are kept off the default front page.

I think the original idea seems good though; if it is not, for some reason, there can always be a later discussion about changing it.

[–]roc 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think that is too much like the Reddit solution of quarantining. It hides problems but doesn't solve echochambers.

[–]happysmash27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Great point!

[–]FormosaOolong 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's an interesting solution that could be quite effective.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Could be. Or it could just create a corner that turns into an echo chamber cesspool.

IMHO one of the best things about SaidIt is the minimizing of divisions.

[–]FormosaOolong 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

totally agree. there are plenty of outlets for people that want to spew.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To be more specific, I'm guessing you're talking about the rule: "No removal of good faith and on-topic posts/comments."

Others are also floating a "Limit number of subs rule."

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

don't allow them to censor at all, let vote system take care of it

[–]magnora7[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

That's what I originally thought too. But I then realized that if someone is posting, for example, nazi propaganda on a sub devoted to something unrelated like a comedy TV show, then the mod should be able to remove that nazi stuff because it's unrelated. Even if it happens to be high on the pyramid of debate.

Off-topic things should be able to be removed if the mod chooses to run their sub that way. Most mods don't, but some do, and I think a sub should be allowed to have a tight focus if it so chooses. But they can't just remove dissenting opinions all the time, that's not allowed.

If mods couldn't remove anything, then there'd be no point to having mods, tbh.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

don't allow them to censor at all, let vote system take care of it.

I basically agree with /u/trevmon.

A bit of level setting with the mods from a public booing from the admin and other mods will typically do the trick. It may have been a better idea to pm the mod with a set of admin expectations of future mods.

Is this deletion issue/concern something that you identified yourself?
Or, were you notified of the deletions by someone and encouraged to consider action?

A) If this is something that you personally identified, then I'm confident in your judgment and experience. Deciding that your operation needs a new procedure/rule, is your prerogative.

B) However, if someone contacted you about a new sub posting suspiciously high volume of posts, and then deleting multiple comments; which is likely to draw attention, then that it's a different situation. I'd recommend stepping back for a second and critically assessing the progression of events for any problem-solution-reaction style activity.

C) Error on the side of caution, and go ahead and critically assess the progression of events for a problem-solution-reaction style activity anyway for scenario "A" just to be safe.. There's no downside.

I'm much more concerned about the consequences of the accumulation of many small well-intentioned rules.
Multiple small rules can accumulate and create a moderation technical disaster.

Whenever possible, it's better to have a self-policing culture. This won't happen if mods are policed. However, if certain mods do not demonstrate the necessary set of free speech principles then those cases will have to dealt with based on the situation.

It's worth considering that the Reddit mods that we criticize, are doing exactly what the admins are requiring of them. This is a fact.
Corporate Reddit is pleased with the activities of the current/remaining mods.

In this very way the moderator culture will be what you make of it, or accept from it.

Conversely, the general community will learn to get out the pitchforks if doing so continues to be an effective strategy for creating changes that various outspoken community members may eventually push for.
This isn't meant as a criticism of anyone, as it is human nature.

Just saying.

Fortunately, the community is still small enough that you can address new mods in a direct and earnest manner.

I'd recommend a free speech authoritarian approach.
It may sound like a contradiction, but that captures the reality of your position. I respect that you don't seem to like/want this degree of responsibility.
Fortunately for the rest of us, this makes both you and d3rr eminently qualified and capable. You gentlemen are two of the few who deserve it.

  • Free speech is the priority.
  • Minimal rules/constrains
  • Voting takes care of the majority of issues.
  • Mods ensure content is relevant; deletion minimized but used for clearly defined criteria {other than a single dank meme™ exclusion}
  • Admins deal with mods.

I would like to suggest creating an admin rules log that contains specifics about the antecedent factors that led to any given future rule, or even the discussion of rule implementation even it it didn't get implemented.
It's useful when looking back at previous events to know the history.

I would recommend that you and d3rr should do this, but keep it private.
It could be examined and used by some group to conspire to pull the strategic problem-solution-reaction playbook; in the same way that you could use it to plan for what had worked in the past.

I might sound a bit paranoid about all of this, but who cares about my paranoia. Privacy exists for a reason. It should be valued.

[–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It's something I discovered myself. Thanks for the feedback.

The history would be evident through the public comment replies I would leave, and the existing modlog. So the system we plan to do is very similar to what you said here

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Luscious. ;-)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

The history would be evident through the public comment replies I would leave, and the existing modlog.

Make them compile it on their own.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Make them compile a modlog on their own? That's a bit excessive, surely, considering that it's extra work for no benefit when the automated system can just list everything that the mod does.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I'm sure you'll do it for them, right? And keep a copy for yourselves.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This.

[–]Optimus85 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

As long as it brings fodder to the debate no comment should be deleted unless obvious trolling that is intrusive and distracts from the core point. Then again, I'm against any kind of deletion/censorship. Let's just have flame wars left and right and let everything set settle itself out! But seriously, I agree that comments posted in good faith, on-topic and meant to further the debate should not be deleted.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yesterday we discussed having the [deleted] link to the already transparent mod-log where it was deleted for anyone curious to see what it said.

[–]Optimus85 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's an interesting concept. So even though the comment shows as deleted, [deleted] would be a hyperlink to the actual comment?

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thought of it myself. No great feat. I think they implemented it.

[–]Optimus85 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Cool!

[–]FlamethrowerDeluxe49 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Any user can only mod up to five subs. This is meant to prevent mod cabals.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This might be a problem if we become a Reddit clone. Most of us don't want that, even if we don't agree on what we want.

And it depends on the function of those subs.

I've created a few subs that I intend to think outside the Reddit box.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

HoppeanAncap.

You should probably be part of this discussion.

Do you have any helpful suggestions?

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(cc: /u/hoppeanancap)

Tom, ping people by writing /u/ and then their username.

[–]HoppeanAncap 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

magnora7 has no knowledge of ancap whatsover, he should be banned from our subs

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I also have no knowledge of ancap. Should I be banned? What if I want to learn about it and ask quest— whoops! I'm banned.

This is a fine line you're walking.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

On his platform he seems to know when you're being infiltrated by Republicans and Libertarians pretending to be AnCap, and you don't, so...

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

so we need a superset of moderator moderators.

Hmm.

Can we leverage AI to do it, or will humans have to be involved?

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's no need for hierarchy.

We need a public forum for all the drama.

Someone could make /s/SaidtItConflicts to be our open crowd-sourced Colosseum and/or Senate Floor and/or Judicial Tribunal.

(The 3/tri in tribunal would be magora7, d3rr, and public opinion.)

[–]Yhvr 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No AI is perfect. Just keep that in mind. We can train AI to be close to perfect, but perfect? No.

[–]HoppeanAncap 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

you were posting bad faith comments with no knowledge whatsoever of anarcho-capitalism, as indicated by your " I see it as neo-conservatives role-playing as anarchists to trick people", so he was justified in banning you. Please post better faith comments that follow your own rules next time.

[–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

They were not bad faith, and they were not lacking in knowledge. You cannot just delete anyone who disagrees with you by calling them anything you like, as you are currently trying to do.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

That was not a bad faith comment. That's how I see much of it too.

[–]sawboss 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

I like Hoppean Snake memes.

If you want a site-wide rule, take biased human judgement out of it. Just disable site-wide the ability for moderators to delete comments. That way:

  • everyone's freeze peaches are protected
  • I don't have to trust a moderator removed my comment "in good faith"
  • I don't have to trust that you reversed a moderator action "in good faith"

[–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Some of them were funny, I agree.

But mods should be able to delete some stuff, or else the mods are pointless. And I don't want to have to moderate literally everything on the site by myself.

[–]sawboss 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

I don't want to have to moderate literally everything on the site by myself

Right. So you don't want a site-wide rule which requires you to work harder. I don't blame you. Which way requires you to work less?

  • allow mods to moderate as they see fit
  • you review every mod action

[–]magnora7[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

No the real options are:

  • let this site get taken over by echo chambers like reddit

  • regulate mod actions a little more tightly, and review reports about it

The first is obviously easier, but we're doing the second because it is the best thing for saidit.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Adjust or reject as you see fit:

Create: /s/SaidItConflicts

Create: link [deleted] to the mod-log for review

Create: "report moderation" button

"Report moderation" button does 3 things:

1) Creates a new text post in /s/SaidItConflicts by /u/reporter (censored or witness)

2) Message notifies /u/reportee (moderator)

3) Text post includes includes links to the [deleted] location within context, the mod-log location, a triple dash, and maybe the [deleted] content.

Anyone who cares can surf that sub for all the open public drama they want.

Flair may help mark the status on the "cases". User flair may also be good indicators.

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A "report bad moderation" report option might not be a bad idea

[–]sawboss 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Based on this, I assume you won't mind if I create s/ImpeachTrump and make 100 posts per day.

[–]magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

Based on what you wrote you wanted before, that also would be allowed, so I don't get your point

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Your concern seems to be that one sub, ruled by a tyrannical moderator, will take over the site by flooding the front page. If the concern is the creation of a site-wide monoculture via echochamer effects, I agree that can be a serious problem. So rate limit per sub and per user, by imposing two site-wide rules.

  • each sub is limited to N posts per day
  • each user is limited to M posts per day

In this way, the rules require no biased human intervention and the rules are applied fairly to all subs and users.

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

If the concern is the creation of a site-wide monoculture via echochamer effects, I agree that can be a serious problem

Yes that is the concern exactly.

Not a bad idea, we've thought of post limits before, it's an interesting idea for sure. But that still doesn't resolve the fact the mod deleted my comments because they disagreed with him. That's the problem that brought up this whole situation. Your ideas, good though they are, don't address this censorship-based mod behavior

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

But that still doesn't resolve the fact the mod deleted my comments because they disagreed with him.

I haven't seen your posts, but I'll err on the side of free expression and say IMHO your comments should not have been deleted. On the other hand, I can't help thinking that maybe you are just butthurt at having your comments moderated.

[–]magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Well assuming I did get indeed get censored for no reason other than to censor my opinion, what's your solution?

[–]happysmash27 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I was wondering why /u/Magnora7's comments were being removed, while mine were not, so I decided to look at them. Removing https://saidit.net/s/Libertarianism/comments/lgq/for_a_libertarian_altright/11od seems fairly understandable, but removing https://saidit.net/s/Libertarianism/comments/lbk/leftist_doublespeak_translator/11gx, not so much.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's not a solution. If anything there will be 30 AnCap subs not 3+ as there are now.

Further, if MidnightJoe uses up the allotment on the graveyard shift the rest of the day is fucked.

Sure you could complicate the rule more and make it per person but it still has many more flaws.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yesterday we discussed having the [deleted] link to the already transparent mod-log where it was deleted for anyone curious to see what it said.

[–]PikonParadox 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

What if therse is a body/committee of a bunch of users and mods of multiple subs, put together without bias and have them act as jury towards removing posts/comments? We could change the members of this body periodically so that the power would not stay with one group that could be trying to take over.

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Voat had something like this, called ProtectVoat. What ended up happening is those who wanted to take over the site, took over ProtectVoat, and then used it to ban everyone who didn't agree with them. It accelerated the decline of voat. I'm afraid of creating points of centralized power for this reason.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The less hierarchy the better.

[–]roc 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think hierarchy will always appear, so preferably organised and more democratic than to have outside groups organise to take power.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree that it's almost inevitable. But it doesn't have to go high. Especially if we can all self moderate each other. And if we can figure out ways to make it harder to corrupt that would be great. A transparent forum for conflicts for example.

Maybe we can start pitching ideas around about how this organization my be done. Starting now would be better than waiting until there was a crisis to implement something ad hoc. The more we hash it out the more we can improve on ideas.

[–]PikonParadox 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You're right. Increasing heirarchy will just shift the blame from one party to another more than fixing the problems. We should be able to work it out instead of having someone to look at or expect to fix things. However, if we do need to create some kind of collective activity, we could have something like a jury where users can volunteer to be a temporary mod and they will review the actual mods' actions and determine whether or not it should be done. We could also have a live debate from two sides, one supporting each action. Through logic and reasonable debate, with a conclusion that everyone accepts, we could have the final actions executed. Pretty much like a court but open to everyone and a hint of democracy. It's probably not practical on the internet for us tbh

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'd like to see a /s/SaidItConflicts be created where folks can openly see the issues play out. Maybe this open forum would succeed or fail for any number of expected or unforseen reasons, but it's worth a try, IMHO.

Whether you think it's a kangaroo court or a noble senate floor to air grievances, I don't see why it shouldn't be tried out.

Another benefit is that all those issues would be collected in one place, easy to find. And then folks can refer to other "cases" for precedent.

[–]PikonParadox 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It is worth trying yes. We need to find a way to create an unbiased and reasonable conclusion for as many conflicts as possible. We should not let a reasonable opinion get drowned in silly and meaning less counter comments. What if we find a way to implement the "debate pyramid" to measure a comment's value? We could create button like upvote but with the options from the pyramid and we can select the appropriate one for said comment. However, the problem arises when people use fake accounts or use more accounts to vote more for their own/wrong comments. Another option is, when you make a comment/counter in an argument/debate, you have to select which stage of the pyramid your comment belongs to. This will help identify comments' values somewhat easily.

Edit: spelling