Rule 4?

submitted by fschmidt from self.SaidIt

https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/w6s/saidit_rules_for_moderators/

Suppose I start a sub GreatPizza for people to discuss how to find or make great pizza. Then pizza-haters attack the sub posting in the sub that pizza is disgusting. Would it be a violation of rule 4 to ban such people without removing this sub from /s/all?

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

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

No response yet, and I have an additional question. As human IQ plummets into the abyss, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine what is "in good faith and on-topic". For example suppose I have an astronomy sub. An increasing number of morons believe that the Earth is flat. Suppose these morons flood the sub with moronic posts arguing for this. Would it violate rule 4 to ban them?

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

I think your example is the same as the earlier one, right? It's still an opposing opinion (your sub claims earth is round, others are claiming othewise). Hence 4b applies.

Also may want to see the earlier post, there was much discussion on rule 4 there

https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/w6s/saidit_rules_for_moderators/

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

I think your example is the same as the earlier one, right?

Not exactly. In this case the issue is stupidity. So even making a true statement but using stupid reasoning would be grounds for banning, while making a false statement intelligently defended would be fine.

I want to understand the relationship between rules 4a and 4b since they seem to contradict each other. Does 4b override 4a? Does 4b only apply to opposing opinions or can it apply to bans for any reason (like stupidity)?

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

So even making a true statement but using stupid reasoning would be grounds for banning, while making a false statement intelligently defended would be fine.

It's only a false statement because you say it is and you would be moderating to remove that opposing viewpoint. So 4b would still apply.

Note that Saidit itself leans anti-moderator, and it also leans heavily into conspiracy theory. So while I get what you're saying that there's a real true/false, you're basically wanting to ban people that tell you their theory is correct and yours is wrong (yes I know, it shouldn't even be a theory but this is Saidit after all). And technically you can remove those posts/comments but you'd need to follow the rule 4 conditions.

Flipping your example around, it's like a flat earther having a sub and you keep posting trying to explain the earth is in fact round. Those mods could leave your posts up & it might dilute discussion of a flat earth if the sub is just filled with opposing viewpoints. Or those mods could remove all those posts & adhere to the rule 4 conditions.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'd be interested in a pizza sub, or pizzas are always welcome over in s/cooking.

This is how I think that's likely to play out, if you start banning people like you thought you were on reddit, someone's probably going to complain to magnora7 and then he decides if your actions were appropriate.

Although practically speaking, if someone is posting on your sub at all, it's probably not a good idea to ban anyone who isn't a spam bot. We just don't have the numbers treat users like they're disposable, which imo is a good thing considering how many times reddit has done exactly that to me. That's my take on the situation anyways.

[–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

The problem with reddit isn't sub moderators. The problem is reddit itself banning subs and users. A good platform would just leave subs to be managed by their mods. I am tired of fascist scum telling everyone how to manage their own forums/subs. If magnora7 is just another fascist, then I want to know so that I can leave this platform.

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

fascist scum telling everyone

fascists cum telling everyone

Wait, I didn't know that my cum could talk

( •_•)
  ( •_•)>⌐■-■
    (⌐■_■)

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

I feel they're both problems. I have personally had most of my issues with sub mods, but when the admins do something the scope of their bans is of course sitewide. And I also take issue with reddit censoring subs. I was a huge fan of WPD (which is here now) so I obviously didn't care for ths but I also don't agree with banning Trump's sub even though I am not a fan. I didn't even think they should ban the incel subs because that just scatters them to other subs.

There's a lot of issues with reddit really.

Magnora7 seems cool to me.

[–]fschmidt[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What is WPD?

Why do you want to be where you aren't wanted? I am banned almost everywhere, and I have no problem with that. Most of humanity is scum, so I really don't need to deal with them. Let them have their echo chambers. But leave the few reasonable people to organize reasonable subs/forms. If this is allowed here, I would organize a sub for nonmorons, as I did on reddit, where all views are allowed but obvious morons are banned to protect the quality of the sub. So anyway, what exactly is the problem with allowing mods to mod their own subs?

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

WPD

Muskrat probably is referring to WatchPeopleDie

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

Would it be a violation of rule 4 to ban such people

Yes. Per rule 4b

Mods CAN remove opposing opinions that are high on the pyramid of debate, and ban those users on that sub, if and only if the 2 following conditions are met: 1: The fact the sub removes opposing opinions is announced in the sub's sidebar. 2: The mods uncheck the sub setting "allow this sub to appear on /all"

So if you don't meet those two conditions then you would be in violation of the rule if you remove/ban those people.