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 →

[–]HopeThatHalps 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

To the extent that this is basically pre-corperate reddit, the level of discourse is going to drop. You're going to get power posters and lots of peons who upvote their reposted memes.

The only way to stop it is with rules, and then moderation to enforce those rules, a level of moderation which, tbh, can't be had free of charge. The people who are willing to moderate for free tend to be power trippers who relish the opportunity to exercise that power.

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The people who are willing to moderate for free tend to be power trippers who relish the opportunity to exercise that power.

This is exactly correct. The downfall of reddit was the little mod fiefdoms

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

Mod actions are 100% transparent.

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

Now, I disagree. That's not the only way to stop it. But… probably the most practical. Consider our userbase, though; scrolling through these comments will show you how many are absolutely, fundamentally opposed to rules of any kind. We don't want to inadvertently drive them into a rebellion that results in their ban which will make the site quieter, but less diverse, so less useful.

Yes, this sounds manipulative. It is.

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

scrolling through these comments will show you how many are absolutely, fundamentally opposed to rules of any kind.

Well there are rules, and so far so good. IMO, the rule-hate is reactionary, anti-authority sentiment. In a democracy, people theoretically make their own rules by voting, but on a website you have an autocrat at the top making the rules. Of course, this is how it has to be, because the guy at the top pays the bills, the users don't. If you have a model where users pay a memebership fee, suddenly their opinions become a lot more relevant, because losing users sucks, but losing money sucks much worse.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actually, the users do pay the bills for this site. Just about, mostly, through donations.

We do need more rules, and they need to be enforced. But they should be enforced primarily through community consensus. When we're at a point where nobody is voting on the low-quality content, we'll— Ok, I heard it that time. I see now why people are arguing against this proposal. I'll see whether I can re-word it to clarify my meaning.