PSA: Our site culture is dropping.

submitted by wizzwizz4 from (self.SaidIt)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Wanga 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (28 children)

I think maybe we need a longer list of social norms/guidelines.

Wikipedia has the strongest, most resilient culture of any major web platform. It gets stronger as everyone else decays. I think part of the reason is that they have a long wiki list of guidelines, so they can say, "You're using weasel words", or whatever specific violation people are using.

The pyramid of debate is fine and dandy, but it's not enough to cover all situations.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (27 children)

Before that, we need a stronger… less toxic, honestly, userbase. And we need to work together to decide our norms, with some help from our resident dictators /u/magnora7 and /u/d3rr.

[–]Wanga 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (26 children)

I don't think we should 'wait' for the userbase to improve before drawing guidelines.

Guidelines should help the userbase improve.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (25 children)

Oh, darn, I'm not following my own guidelines, am I? This'll be harder than I thought.

Yes, that has merit, and I think makes more sense than what I was saying. Want to make a sub? Something like /s/SaiditForum, perhaps? And then the finished guidelines can be posted somewhere, all nicely in one place, by someone who's going to stick around.

[–]sawboss 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

The reason it's so hard to follow these ideas through to their logical conclusion is because, assuming you are capable of self reflection, some part of you must understand that the monoculture you are promoting can only be implemented via censorship and force. I didn't come here to be lectured by moral authoritarians!

[–]happysmash27 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I personally hope to make the culture good by promoting the existing good culture, bringing people closer together and reducing toxicity.

[–]sawboss 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

bringing people closer together

sounds immoral

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

This is a well-designed trap; any attempt by me to argue against it will be labelled "incapable of self-reflection".

I'm not trying to promote a monoculture. I'm trying to promote a better culture – a culture better for the purposes of discussion and debate. And it's my firm belief that, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, a culture can be self-sustaining. We'll have to put the effort into build that culture – I certainly have not been playing the part necessary for creating that culture. But once established, only a flood of new users can knock it down.

[–]sawboss 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

This is a well-designed trap; any attempt by me to argue against it will be labelled "incapable of self-reflection".

Not a trap, just me overestimating you.

I'm trying to promote a better culture

Better according to you. Because you know what's good for everyone, right? Because you are a good person, and therefore everyone must think as you do. Isn't that right?

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Better according to you.

No. Better according to my metrics according to me.

Our problem here is clearly not that one of us cares about the site and one of us doesn't. Our problem is probably not that one of us is insanely clever and one of us is unimaginably stupid. No, our problem is that we disagree on what counts as "better".

What's your definition?

[–]Zombi 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Why not go the middle route. Not guidelines, but principles? Encourage, but don't moderate, content that agrees with principles and ignore those that don't. They aren't strictly followed rules, but ideals we should follow.

You could say the debate pyramid is one of those principles, but maybe we should add more? That way we don't run into /u/sawboss' problem of this becoming a dictatorship while satisfying your problem with the lack of culture. We don't need to ban or punish those that go against our principles, just follow them (the principles) and promote them throughout the site.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sounds good.

Though we must make sure to consider each comment and post on its own merits. We mustn't blindly support what one person says. I'm a good example of this: I post some high quality content, but if you were to blindly vote "insightful" to everything I say you'd be supporting a lot of drivel.

[–]sawboss 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No, our problem is that we disagree on what counts as "better".

What's your definition?

SaidIt is already better than Reddit or Voat, and I believe it will remain that way as long as SaidIt can resist the establishment of a monoculture. At this time I do not have specific recommendations for additional rules/guidelines to secure the site against such.

I created my SaidIt account with the understanding that many people here, including SaidIt oldbies I suspect, actually dislike my ideas and would oppose me. GOOD! As long as we can have those disagreements openly, honestly, and with as little interference from mods/admins as tolerable I'm satisfied. I'm happy to be called out when I say something stupid, even though it can be irritating.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I agree with what you have said. However, you still haven't given a definition for "better". Read The Categories Were Made For Man, Not Man For The Categories and then see if you can say what counts as "good" and what counts as "bad" for this site's culture.

At the moment, we're using the same words to argue different things.

I also make the additional proposition that things can always be improved.

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

It's not that bad.

[–]sawboss 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'll remember this.

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

Yet.

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

/s/IdeasforSaidit

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

That will do. That will do nicely.

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

https://i.imgtc.com/zYFs3z7.gif

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

Good boy.

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

Re-read this post. There's already stuff in place.