you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (7 children)

1) The OP is clearly shilling in BAD faith.

It's not clear at all, and the only context you should be considering as a mod here is the comment that zhe made in your sub.

2) May I first put this to a public vote for SaidIt to decide what to do with the community /s/Passports sub?

No, the weird ass rules here are not up for debate.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

No, the weird ass rules here are not up for debate.

That wasn't my aim.

I want to ask SaidIt weather to make /s/Passports public (restore the comment) or semi-private (take off /s/all).

You cannot make a sub rule that violates saidit sitewide rules.

While I'm at it I should ask you and SaidIt how to improve this rule:
1) No spam, sealioning, STABs (shills, trolls, and bots), nor liars.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

While I'm at it I should ask you and SaidIt how to improve this rule: 1) No spam, sealioning, STABs (shills, trolls, and bots), nor liars.

This rule goes against the moderator policy. You must allow debate from shills unless you hide from /s/all

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

It seems there's a conflict between how we define things.

Some shills can be part of a scam operation. Some shills can sell products via advertising. Some shills can be good, ie. shilling for decentralizion, peace, fairness, etc. And some shills on social media push agendas and propaganda, good, bad, and ugly.

Bad and ugly shills do not post or comment in good faith.

It all boils down to subjective views on what constitutes good, bad, and ugly regarding types of comments and their faith.

How can we finetune our definitions?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

there is no fine tuning. i already removed your sub from /s/all. Continued violations of the moderation policy will result in a ban.

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

This is hypocritical in several ways.

I already said I'd comply with one of the two options. I wanted to know if I could /s/AskSaidIt which option they would prefer for /s/Passports. You haven't answered if I could ask or not, and subsequently your impatience now results in warnings.

(As you know, I am trying to develop a bottom-up self-regulating management system that is FOTPACH (fair, open, transparent, peaceful, accountable, consistent, honest) and can be used on social media platforms among other things (off-grid prepper communities, freedom rally organizing, etc). Your haste is an example of the issues of top-down management rather than having a community discussion in a designated forum to resolve things. But I digress.)

This is not about SaidIt's policies and I'm not here to change M7. But I am trying to clarify what the existing SaidIt policies are and fine tune our collective understanding of them.

Clearly you and I have different definitions of what "bath faith" means. I can't follow the rules if I don't know what they actually mean.

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.

Also, I would have tried this first, had I thought of it sooner, as it may be less controversial than outright censorship/trash removal, though less effective. Here it is, on the chance you or M7 have issues with it, especially were I to go big in a post asking all willing mods to add a bold sidebox message: "Be skeptical of /u/socks and /u/ActuallyNot misinfo as they support harmful big pharma tyranny."

Alternatively, "Be skeptical of shill and sealion misinfo as they support harmful big pharma tyranny." linked to /s/SaidItCommunity/wiki lists (or better that the lists be on Projex.Wiki with more robust wiki tools and history) of who is potentially an infiltrator shill with supporting citations linked.

Why is this even worth discussing? You know we and others hope to develop platforms beyond SaidIt. Even /s/FreedIt may have to determine what is spam and what is free speech. If I hope to host a Lemmy forum I aim to have the manifesto, rules, and guides worked out first to remove confusion and to be as self-regulating as possible. This includes navigating the grey areas. I've also expressed the idea of open-developing terms and conditions templates and standards for all indie sites to employ and build on - and make easier for users to follow (much like CreativeCommons licenses).

You've expressed interest and support for decentralization. Having this conversation to clear some things up would ultimately indirectly help toward that in a small way. I hope you see that now.

And lastly, whether SaidIt grows or not, whether it's on this platform or not, whether they bring more STABs (shills, trolls, and bots) and sealions, we need to be developing better defenses, because they won't stop.

Maybe my approaches here are not good. Maybe there are existing better ways or other new ways we can develop. Maybe, now that I've drafted all this up, as so often now longer than initially intended, perhaps I should make a new post on this to get feedback from everyone.

Thoughts?

[–][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.