How to improve the culture of Saidit

submitted by Zapped from self.SaidIt

TL:DR If Saidit is to maintain the culture that M7 desires, there must be structure and people willing to help.

With all of the talk about the direction u/Magnora7 should lead this website towards, I think we should all think about why we are here at Saidit. I, personally, am here to learn and hear others' experiences and to share my experiences and what I have learned. It is important for me to have access to that arena, but I think there should be checks and balances to keep some from trying to disrupt that communication. I think M7, being the founder, has the right and responsibility to take Saidit in whatever direction he feels proper. I also think he needs help from the community here. Let's continue to offer help and opinions while debating such. I am very optimistic about the growth (not in user numbers but structure) here and how many of us will step up to be part of something bigger.

Here is Wikipedia's take on culture. It seems to be geared more towards business culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_culture

I find this more relevant to what we are going through. https://gothamculture.com/what-is-organizational-culture-definition/

I see Saidit at a point where it is important to better organize by cementing a solid structure where everyone knows what that is. While I think there is a place for "the wild west" attitude, that is better left for the temporary sites, as they are always popping up every few years, like a warehouse party. I think M7 and d3rr have created something special and I would rather see it attract more information seekers than to simmer with a small, dis-jointed group.

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]send_nasty_stuff 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Attempting to force a culture onto a group or organization is a way to subvert it and direct it to other means. The only 'culture' I'm willing to promote on saidit is a culture of truth.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I agree. I'm not sure Saidit will ever stop posting misinformation, and referring to it as truth, but that's for a different discussion, on which I am sure others will disagree with me. Concepts of 'truth' and of 'Truth' have always been subjects of debate, though with similar interests in mind. But something we all share are concerns about govenrment overreach, social problems, &c. My view is that we should look at the approaches of so-called 'open societies'. For a time Reddit was a relatively open society. And though Saiditors might not like the early association of open society with liberalism that association is a very early concept of the open society, c. 18th century - to 1950s, and remarkably different from so-called neo-liberalism today, which is of course seriously problematic. In any event, groups, societies, and organizations I've worked with required a basic set of rules and a lot of freedom for the organic exploration of ideas. A series of texts I'd recommend on the history of open societies is Karl Popper's 'Open Society and its Enemies', which hasn't been surpassed as an important historical resources, in this case written by a science historian.

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

Culture is not forced, it is nurtured. One way to do that is to maintain structure. If people are acting in a way to block truth, then the structure handles that in the form of rules, stated values, consequences, etc.

[–]Rastafoo 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Should add a TL:DR for the people with short attention spans

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Did you have an organizational structure in mind?

[–]Zapped[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I think u/Magnora7 has to lead us there and make the big decisions on implementation. I do think he has the right idea, but I see more defined rules and admin/moderator roles needed. There should be very few questions on how things operate here and if something ambiguous sneaks through, there should be a quick process to handle that. I have mentioned to M7 that I think he should have a hierarchy to maintain the systems he wants to put in place.

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

I feel like the direction he wants is what we were already doing, with less emphasis on name calling, something nobody particularly enjoyed enforcing anyways. The people that were the anti-spam mods could just get bumped up to admin and do what they were already doing.

More direction than that and I think we'd need leadership boots on the ground so to speak.

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

If he doesn't want the inmates running the prison, he'll need to get a more solid system in place with better definitions of bad-faith trolling and a stand on name-calling. "You're a jerk!" may be against the rules, but "You're a jerk because you....." may be acceptable. Tweaking the way the site runs, such as the proposal of letting the OP censor comments is not part of the systems I am talking about. If he's ok with floating along, and there's nothing wrong with that, then let it ride.

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

/s/SaidIt/comments/8wao/saidit_content_admin_rules_clarification_page/

Never remove users who are name-calling but still trying to debate in earnest with actual ideas and facts. Leave them alone, they're just upset.

[...]

However if a user is throwing out ad hominems or name-calling (which we can effectively merge with ad hominem), it has to be judged on the context of the thread. Usually it is wise to ignore 95% of the ad hominems, but if someone is going around just calling everyone awful things constantly, with literally no other substance of value added to any conversation ever, then they can be banned or those comments or posts can be removed.

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

But it's down to just us inmates.

You're a jerk!" may be against the rules, but "You're a jerk because you....." may be acceptable

When I was going through the old reports I was looking with an eye to preserve the old content as much as possible. Something like "cunt" alone is worthless, adds nothing. Calling someone a cunt in a multi-paragraph response gets saved. Erring on the side of preserving things.

Calling someone a cunt and it leading to a long conversation gets preserved too. That name calling generated content and nobody likes looking at swiss cheese threads.

bad-faith trolling

Even the people here who argue in bad faith lead to interesting conversations sometimes. They're a tool, a foil.

That's how I think things should be.

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

But it's down to just us inmates.

It appears that way. Kind of like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ushIsV0CaZo

It's better than the normal way prisons function in Brazil.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We may move to a hierarchy system, but there's currently nothing in the code to enforce such a system, so it'd be by the honor system if it were to exist. Perhaps content admins who enforce the pyramid of debate in addition to the list of illegal things could have a higher title, but I don't completely see a need for it as of now.

If you have any questions about being a content admin, please ask away and I'll add it to the FAQ. That's the procedure for when unknowns come up, we will add them to the content admin rules clarification FAQ.

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

A forum is a chaotic organization with different groups that want to dominate in influence both in positive and negative ways. So by trying to structure it, you will fight one group or the other.

My personal bias is towards quality, good logic real science, and fun.
But what is quality and what is good logic and real science? And I have been working on that topic a lot.

I do not see that "culture" anywhere in the article. Nor the culture of "critical thinkers".

You should know that people are unable to change their minds. Even with good information. Even if they can see it with their own eyes.

So discussions do not have much meaning. And changing someone can never be the focus of a forum. It would make it as worthless as twitter. Or as fake as a fact-checker.

What does make sense is mutual and friendly education. Why are you thinking a certain way, or why do you come to certain conclusions. Or why are you feeling a certain way. Is it logical? Does it make sense? Can anything make sense?

What did you personally find important of that long wikipedia article? And why is there a covid section in the wikipedia article? What narrative are they pushing? It reads like book on psychology with no actual information, just people listing their favorite writers.

Quality and friendliness start with a lot of freedom. Even the possibility for criticism and anger.
And this is counter the cancel culture and censorship that is being pushed now.
But at the same time there are also trolls, shills and activists (or even feds). People that disturb the friendly flow of information for different reasons

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

But at the same time there are also trolls, shills and activists (or even feds). People that disturb the friendly flow of information for different reasons

This is what those systems are for that promote that culture, along with keeping free and open discussion.

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

Why am I here at Saidit? To discuss the biological facts, hear the voices that are being censored on Reddit, and speak my mind without having to worry about being put on the naughty step for offending anyone.

I don't give a flying fishstick about most of the content on the front page of Saidit -- I'm just here for s/lgbdropthet, s/detrans, and s/gendercritical. As long as Saidit and u/Magnora7 don't censor these groups, I'll continue to use Saidit.

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

I don't think there is any push to censor here. This was M7's safe place for him and others when Reddit started to censor. I would like to see a solid system that keeps the discussions free and open. One must not mistake censorship for the rules that keep them from plans to derail this free and open discussion.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm fine with rules that ensure the free and open discussions aren't derailed. I just don't want censorship or an AHS-style group of vigilantes that try to censor opinions they don't like.

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

There have been efforts by those who wish to derail discussions by trolling. That would be handled by the systems I am speaking of.

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

That would be good. I don't want any trolls here either!

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

People seem to be ok with comedy trolls, but where do you draw the line? That would be one of those rules that would have to be worked out.