/s/Passports seems to be breaking rule 4a) "Mods cannot remove user comments that are both in good faith and on-topic."

submitted by ActuallyNot from self.SaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Further, if I restore that comment and return to /s/All, may I keep ActuallyNot and socks banned because they are already proven bad actors? Or must I restore them too? This remains unclear.

You must restore them too. You can only ban/censor people from an /s/all sub if they are off topic or are commenting IN YOUR SUB in bad faith.

Here's an example of bad faith: https://www.saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/w6s/saidit_rules_for_moderators/

Be skeptical of /u/socks and /u/ActuallyNot misinfo as they support harmful big pharma tyranny."

This is low pyramid unless you provide links to comments or posts where they do so. ARGUMENTS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AKA DEBATE.

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

Well that's something I guess.

We can caution folks and call them out by name WITH supporting evidence.

Better than nothing. Hopefully I can think up some more. Too tired now. All this is tiring too, or maybe it's just the hour.

I'm not thrilled that our proven bad-faith actors can still smear up the place with their "good faith" nay-saying posts as it does grant them more liberty than they deserve in this case, but it errs on the side of caution and is thus generally a fair and good policy - for SaidIt, potentially for my future projects, and for anyone else who can utilize these developments.

By optimally organizing the wiki list citations of repeated misinfo we might also prove when they are bad-faith shilling misinfo after being corrected (maybe repeatedly). Thus continued lying should obviously be bad-faith.

I'm not sure if there's anything to do about "legitimate" sources vs "illegitimate" sources, which some moot issues may revolve around.

And even with outright lies, many of them can be excused away as common hyperbole (ie. You always* say this. You never* do that. Etc.).

These proposed wiki lists may seem like an impossibly tedious task for an individual to track another person, but as a community, with a good system, we just might be able to help self-regulate. In developing the system, the first few will certainly be the most challenging, making it up as we go and working out the kinks - and making it clear, idiot-proof, abuse-proof, and fair. After the initial hurdles we should arrive at a methodology with patterns to emulate or templates.

I've unbanned/restored the shill, the comment, and the sub. And I'll draft up a post as soon as I can to share. This week may be busy too. Winter is coming.