Saidit Content Admin Rules Clarification Page

submitted by magnora7[A] from self.SaidIt

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (15 children)

Very well-written m7. Not to bother you, but just a couple concerns (for Saidit, not me):

1) Repeated adhominem and name-calling can be quite common with a number of the users and would get them banned by an admin who properly follows these rules. I can go through responses to my posts that are ad hominem and name-calling repeatedly, without much additional comment, and thereby locate users who've been on Saidit for at least as long as I have (15+ months), who are very active members of the community, but can't handle comments by me and others (some of them long gone) that disagree with their posts. Some of these snowflake users normally receive no reaction from the mods, or they get a 'please don't do that' comment. So here's the rub: any rule involving ad hominem and name-calling on Saidit will have to be much more explicit and explanatory, as this is one of the ongoing problems at Saidit with mod and user abuses. Moreover, the type of temporary ban will have to be considered, and the number of temporary bans that can be allowed before a permanent ban. Regardless of this rule about ad hominem and name-calling, users will continue to violate the rule, and mods and admins will play favorites and not bother the users they like. Some of this cannot be stopped, but if there is to be an enforceable rule about it, it will have to be much more explicit and informative than what is written here. Or perhaps set up a wiki where admins can update the rule in order to improve upon it in due course. The reason I mention this is that Saidit loses users who are on both ends of the ad hominem and name-calling harrassment. It's something that Saidit can address now, with the new admins and rules.

2) This statement:

It means that an individual user or comment, relative to the thread they're participating in, is denigrating the quality of the thread in an obviously downward direction on the pyramid of debate.

This is one of the most violated rules by mods and admins on Saidit. Some of them really don't understand this. They see disagreement as forum sliding or dragging down the discussion, when it certainly is not. Not everyone can write beautiful point/counterpoint arguments, and will merely note what they think is not accurate or arguable, without qualification or sugar coating. It's normal, even if primative. If you want to kill debate and discussion, apply this rule. To fix the problem with this rule, I recommend specifying that it be considered only on very rare occasion.

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

This is stupid. It’s a form of censorship just as bad as Reddit.

I mean come on. Sometimes it’s fun calling people a cunt.

People come online to kick back and do whatever.

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

I am referring to the need for less censorship, not more.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Well I didn’t read cause it was too long. You know, on the ban pyramid. I fall pretty low. 😂😂😂

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

username checks out. 😂

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I've been active on Saidit almost daily for 15+ months.

I remember that.

You showed up to push the pharma narrative during the experimental mRNA gene therapy "vaccination" trials.

The initial 3 month trial data is now available.

According to the Pfizer data there was a 3% mortality rate (DEATH RATE) within the first 3 months of the trial.

https://telegra.ph/PFIZERS-SHOCKING-TRIAL-DATA-Pfizers-Own-Data-from-the-First-3-Months-of-the-Vaccine-Rollout-3-Death-Rate-02-07

Out of 42,000 trial participants 1227 died in the first 3 months. At a death rate of 1% per month the human race would be extinct in less than 10 years. This cannot be written off as 'no proof of causality'.

In addition, 31% of adult participants experienced long term adverse effects and among children the figure is 40%!

Concerning your admin input..

I'm not sure if Saidit wants an admin who often disagrees with misinformation, but I've seen that an occasional disagreement builds discources and avoids some of the circle jerk nonsense that drives normal users away. I of course could be wrong

Some of the evidence you like to classify as "misinformation" has cost people their lives.

Edit: socks notably avoids addressing the 3% of people who died in the 3-month Pfizer trial.
1227 died from a total of 42000 people.

No mention of how many others died in the year since the trial ended (late 2020).

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I've never really cared about any of it. Much of Saidit is obsessed with anti-vax bullshit, which has become politicized and takes up much of the conversation here, and really hardly anyone else in the world cares about the anti-vax mental difficulties. One political conversation about anything non-vax will often move to anti-vax craziness. It's easy for any user visiting Saidit to note the normal information about vaccines, and yet be the only person saying it on Saidit. The anti-vax misinformation on Saidit is REALLY BORING, and it's really stupid, and is one of the reason there isn't much interest in the front page posts. As you note here, in response to my post about Saidit rules, there is a claim that I give a fuck about Big Pharma (only because I've noted what 99.9% of the world already know about vaccines) is unrelated to my post in the current thread about rules. Regards.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Much of Saidit is obsessed with anti-vax bullshit, which has become politicized and takes up much of the conversation here, and really hardly anyone else in the world cares about the anti-vax mental difficulties..

According to PFIZER'S OWN DATA:

3% of the people who were in the initial trial died within 3 months. 1% a month.

40% of children had long term effects.

Numerous insurance corporations reported a 40% increase in mortality among prime ages (18-65) for third quarter last year vs the same period in 2020 (the deadly pandemic).

The anti-vax misinformation on Saidit is REALLY BORING, and it's really stupid, and is one of the reason there isn't much interest in the front page posts. As you note here, in response to my post about Saidit rules, there is a claim that I give a fuck about Big Pharma (only because I've noted what 99.9% of the world already know about vaccines) is unrelated to my post in the current thread about rules.

This method of subject dismissal as "boring" is a classic shill tactic.

A smoking gun from a confirmed pharma shill.

cc: /u/magnora7
/u/AXXA
/u/d3rr (salute)

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Anti-vax misinformation is boring, not to mention really stupid because it's based on lies and an anti-science propaganda movement led by a few rich folks who've become rich because of the spread of COVID and want to see it continue, and want to see these anti-vax people vote for Republican authoritarians who will only make themselves richer while making sure that the 99% continue to suffer in their part-time, minimum wage jobs, without any chance at a good standard of living. Follow the money. Look at the big picture. Avoid the misinformation.

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

Anti-vax misinformation is boring, not to mention really stupid because it's based on lies and an anti-science propaganda movement led by a few rich folks who've become rich because of the spread of COVID and want to see it continue

Tell that to the people who died during the trial, as admitted by Pfizer.

Check any obituary.
Roughly 30% of the dead are below retirement age.
Children and athletes are having heart attacks.

Follow the money.

Pfizer forecasts $100B in sales, fueled by COVID-19 vaccine, pill: Published Feb. 8, 2022

Look at the big picture.

Prime Age Mortality Up 40%, Majority of Deaths Not From C0VID-19′

Avoid the misinformation.

Bad comedy.

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

Tell that to the people who died during the trial, as admitted by Pfizer.

misinformation

Check any obituary.

Sure - reading obituaries at the moment

Roughly 30% of the dead are below retirement age.

Most people are not retired

Children and athletes are having heart attacks.

People do have heart attacks for various reasons.

Pfizer forecasts $100B in sales, fueled by COVID-19 vaccine, pill: Published Feb. 8, 2022

That's what happens when drug companies sell drugs - a very old tradition. Fewer people should take drugs.

Prime Age Mortality Up 40%, Majority of Deaths Not From C0VID-19′

Misinformation - particularly if you do the math: In that group, "43 percent involved COVID". Hence it's not a very big group, 57% of which are dying for reasons that are not fully studied in this case.

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

misinformation.

What you're doing is not without consequence.

You willfully promote actions that cause great harm to foolishly trusting people.

You will have to live with the karmic consequences of your actions.

You think you're alone with your thoughts, but there's no escaping karma.

I don't know what motivates you to perpetrate this fraud on others, but I assure you it isn't worth it.

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

You willfully promote actions that cause great harm to foolishly trusting people.

This is the kind of bullshit the spreaders of misinformation use in order to gaslight anyone who tells them they're the ones who are "willfully promoting actions that cause great harm to foolishly trusting people." This is exactly what the anti-vax campaign is doing. The big problem I have with Democrats is that they are not challening this stuff when it happes. The US majority is too mellow about this stuff, and should stand up to the minority of assholes who are actively responsible for seriously hurting -and in some cases killing- a large number of Americans who do not vaccinate, quarantine or wear masks and thus spread COVID among themselves and others. The majority understand this, but won't do anything to stop it. It's one reason I respond to anti-vax posts on Saidit. It's worth challenging these abuses.

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

'Anti-vax ' led by a few rich folks who've become rich because of the spread of COVID

Comedy Hour. Yeah, you know. That powerful "anti-vaxx" lobby that rakes in billions of dollars of profits a year. Cite your sources, shill/dolt.

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate your kind words.

1). I agree this is a tenuous area at times, which is why I took so much care to deter content admins from taking action based on ad-hominem classification. And if any content admins do overstep bounds because of this (which seems like the most likely reason an admin acting in good faith would run afoul of the rules) then they will receive some coaching about how to do it better. If they do not improve then they will be limited to deletion of things not related to the pyramid of debate (illegal things and spam, which is easier to detect and is less subjective in nature). So while overstepping might happen, we have a mechanism in place to correct that behavior, and then we can also further clarify these misunderstandings in the FAQ in the OP of this page.

I would like to again emphasize that the rules themselves have not changed one iota in the last 3.5 years. This page merely outlines the exact method of enforcement that was already being implemented. It is simply for clarity, so content admins can be trained properly, and understand the boundaries of their position.

2). I agree this rule is only to be considered on very rare occasion and I basically stated that in the FAQ. It is an extremely careful balance, and this is among the most difficult aspect of the rules to enforce consistently. But like question 1) above, I will be closely enforcing the rules on to the content admins to make sure they're not changing the character and culture of saidit by acting on the rules in a manner that's extremely different from what we've done the last 3.5 years. We are not looking to change saidit with these new content admins, we are doing this all merely to break up the existing work among more people. So ideally the average user should have no different experience on saidit now than they would've a year ago. Although I'm sure there might be a few bumps in the road here and there while we find a good groove with all the new admins. But once things get settled, saidit should be even more stable than ever before.

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

Thank you for this thoughtful assessment. I agree in principle to all of this, because the theoretically simple PoD rules do work in general. In practice, however, interpretations of PoD tiers above ad hominem have varied remarkably, and the enforcement of rules for all tiers has been uneven. But this may improve with more admins, depending on their experiences and interests. Because of Saidit's size and simplified rules, there are more opportunities. I've been curious about this, to see how Saidit develops.