all 62 comments

[–]OmegaUser296 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

Okay regardless of "In good faith & on topic" what about the individual sub rules? We're still allowed to ban based on those right?

Example: If a comment or something is in good faith and on topic but breaks a subs individual rules can they be removed?

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

If a comment or something is in good faith and on topic but breaks a subs individual rules can they be removed?

Good question. No it cannot be removed or else that mod would be breaking the site rules. Subs cannot "undo" saidit site rules in their own sub rules. Otherwise the rules are useless because anyone can circumvent them.

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So if I make a sub /s/OnlyMonsterTruckPics and state that as a rule, and then someone posts a monster truck video or Wikipedia article (good faith and on topic, I think), can I remove it or not?

[–]magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You would have the choice to remove it or not. If you decide you want the sub to have only pictures and someone posts a video, then you can remove that because it's off-topic, as the topic is pictures, not videos. The enforcement of this would be up to the mods of each sub.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

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

    That's a great way for someone to harass @d3rr and ruin his vision for his sub.

    (btw if the topic is monster truck pics, isn't a video or article off-topic? IANAL)

    [–]OmegaUser296 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    So if it is on topic and in good faith but breaks a rule of the sub we can't remove them? Then what is the point of individual sub rules.

    [–]d3rr 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I think you can remove based on sub rules as long as the sub rule does not conflict with any mod rules or site rules. See https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/w6s/saidit_rules_for_moderators/1jjc

    [–]OmegaUser296 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Okay well look at s/unc0ver for example. It has rules that don't define off topic and could be broken while staying in "Good faith" and "On topic" so can I remove if they break the rules of the sub even if their still supposedly "On topic" and "In good faith"?

    [–]d3rr 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes you can remove. The official explanation is that your rules are changing the topic, so your off topic is not the global sitewide off topic. You have a more restrictive topic because of your rules.

    [–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    To determine the scope of what is on-topic and what isn't.

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

    so subofsnow banning me for answering his question about why people don't like him with a comment about him breaking the dark mode css would be a not OK ban?

    not that I care in that case, but I'd really like to be able mute irritating subs. At the moment even if I block them they still turn up in my feed and sometimes I get a faceful of bright white from that particular sub.

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

    We're working on a mute system, it's in the pipeline. I'm not sure on the ban, I'd have to see more about it.

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

    wasn't a big deal.

    https://saidit.net/s/UserSnow/comments/vma/intellectual_discrimination_discuss_thread/1ig7

    snow just wants to have his little fiefdom, still thinks this is reddit.

    [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

    That's literally what reddit does. That would eventually ruin saidit.

    [–]OmegaUser296 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    So allowing moderators to have specific to community rules would ruin Saidit? As long as their rules are within reason the rules of communities are meant to guide the community and avoid un-wanted or repeated discussion.

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

    No, allowing moderators to not follow admins rules.

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

    Agreed, the Saidit mod rules as currently written by /u/magnora7 seem to indicate that repeatedly posting the same topics is allowed and sub mods would be forbidden from removing them.

    e.g.

    • Multiple people, or the same person, posting links to 10-20 different news articles about the same topic
    • Multiple people, or the same person, posting the same questions multiple times per day/week/month/whatever

    That is the type of thing that would often be moderated/removed by sub mods in other sites (e.g. with a "keep it fresh / search before you post" type of rule) but in the Saidit scenario those are considered "in good faith AND on topic" thus cannot be removed.

    Seems easier just to remove sub moderators from the site if Saidit doesn't really want moderation anyway.

    [–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    If they're actively posting repeated information in bad faith, with the intent to destroy the sub, then it's not in good faith, so the mods can delete it under the rules I've posted. I hope that helps clarify.

    [–]MaximilianKohler 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    It doesn't have to be in bad faith. Think a "duplicate" or "repost" rule. Often there are dozens of articles released by different websites covering the same issue. Some reddit subs resorted to removing them in favor of containing them all in one thread.

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

    We want to develop a crossposting system eventually. The informal rule has been a limit of 3 reposts maximum, allowed every once in a while (not every post is posted 3 times)

    [–]magnora7[S] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    I'm excited to release these 4 simple mod rules, d3rr and I, along with many members of the saidit community, think having reasonable limits on mods will make for a much more friendly and useful website in the long run, hopefully avoiding each sub being a little fiefdom filled with powermods like it is on reddit.

    I've added these mod rules to the main terms and content policy page: https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/j1/the_saiditnet_terms_and_content_policy/

    [–]fred_red_beans 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Sounds like a good idea, thanks for keeping Saidit cool!

    [–]OmegaUser296 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

    Not to rat but rule 2, u/JasonCarswell I believe you've violated the law.

    [–]dark_devil_dd 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

    Not to rat

    ...or so you say

    [–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    He's already agreed to stop acquiring more I believe, so don't call him out please. PM me any future issues please

    [–]OmegaUser296 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Understood

    [–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Thanks

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

    You can fuck right off.

    You lured me into your story of trying to help with the /s/HolocaustSkepticism by inserting yourself unnecessarily in drama where you shouldn't have been not knowing anything about the matter, and to further add insult to injury you fucking locked the sub so that I can't even un-mod myself with a fucking /s/TINFOILHAT in the corner - as if it's a fucking conspiracy.

    Half of that is my fault as I mistook shit-disturber OmegaUser296 for the good Optimus85 as I wasn't paying attention, and to be honest I'd forgotten about your CSS and jailbreak sub in limbo.

    For the record I'm not up to date on everything that's happened since, much less checking my messages.

    I'll address my shit when I get to it, when I feel like it. There's not much fucking point though is there. Regardless, keep your nose in your own shit.

    So, ya. You can fuck right off twerp.

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

    Power corrupts. I'm a terrible mod. But you, u/magnora7, are good at this. Thank you.

    [–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Appreciate it. You're welcome.

    [–]Ian 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I suggest changing "good faith" to "following the pyramid" or something. Posting in bad faith (trolling etc.) could very well be on topic AND adhering to the pyramid.

    [–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    This is true.I can confess to deliberate on-topic, pyramid of debate trolling, when a person refuses to engage with that pyramid.

    Its a little more satisfying that just reporting bad users/mods.

    I think it should be allowed. Learning how to ignore clever trolling is a life skill.

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

    I'd prefer to err on the side of not removing here, I've seen many people labeled a troll or a shill in order to disrupt or shut down a conversation.

    [–]dark_devil_dd 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Can we have this as a pinned thread?

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

    Sure, done

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

    Awesome!!!

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

    But how do we prevent comments that are forum-sliding or meant to stir emotions?

    And some people will keep on spamming that all moon-landings or all shootings were a hoax. How do we bring that back to normal discussions?

    Solution? - such replies could be marked with a "funny" or "alternative" flag to show that it is not the main goal of the sub or post.

    [–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Moderators can crack down on those things if they choose to do so, that's still within the bounds of what's allowed.

    Deciding what's an acceptable narrative and what isn't, is the purpose of the voting system, so I don't think we need an additional flagging system. I appreciate the ideas though.

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

    Deciding what's an acceptable narrative and what isn't, is the purpose of the voting system,

    wait wat

    I thought an up and down votes on reddit was used to make users adhere to the group narrative or be banished to [HIDDEN] while the insightful/funny was specifically designed to avoid group narratives?

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

    We can vote up., not down. That still allows things to rise to the top, just not get pushed under and drowned.

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

    A popularity contest is quite different from ideological censorship.

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

    I'm emo though, and not popular.

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

    Yeah that's also true. But it's true the number of votes something gets determines how high it is on the front page or the comments page, that's all I meant

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

    While I don't think spamming is acceptable, if the topic is moon landings or shootings, someone should be able to argue whatever their point of view is on it, hoax or no.

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

    Saying the shootings were exercises is a normal discussion. Reddit and YouTube censored more videos exposing psyops than any other user content. If someone talks about the shooting as real, I have the right to discuss why it is fake.

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

    Sounds good to me!

    [–]Ian 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

    Rule 4 example: If a thread is "What's your favorite sports team" in a sub you moderate, and then someone comments "The Bengals" you are not allowed to ban them, even as a joke. It's on topic, and not dragging discussion down the pyramid of debate and so is in good faith. If someone comments something like "kys dummy Bengals are best idiot" then you have the option to ban them because it's not in good faith as per the pyramid of debate, despite being on topic. As a final example, if someone comments in that thread "Gouda cheese melts well" you have the option to ban them, as they're not on topic, despite not dragging discussion downward on the pyramid of debate. However if someone posts something both on topic, and in good faith, you CANNOT delete this type of post repeatedly or else you will lose all moderator privileges on saidit after a couple warnings.

    I can understand why you'd need a wiki for all these intricate rules.

    Edit:

    One person cannot moderate more than 40 subs. Creating multiple accounts to bypass this is not allowed.

    Unenforceable rule? Why not just ask if people could not, pls?

    [–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Why not just ask if people could not, pls?

    That's what we are doing. Isn't that exactly what rules are? :)

    [–]Ian 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

    Me breaking unenforceable rules makes you look dumb.

    Me disregarding a kind request makes me look dumb.

    [–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Consider it a kind request, then. Not sure how else I am supposed to communicate this to thousands of people for years on end, other than by making it an announcement.

    And later people can say "Why did I get in trouble? It was just a suggestion" when I actually have to enforce them. So your idea doesn't work in practice, but I get what you mean.

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

    when I actually have to enforce them.

    If you can convince me that you can enforce rule #4, I won't try to convince you that social means is the best way to stop asshats. :)

    [–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Enforcing 4 will be easy, you just watch for mods who repeatedly delete comments that are both in good faith and on topic, and users will also report bad mods to me, and I will take action. It's not complex, tbh.

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

    brain fart, I meant #2.

    [–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Oh yeah, it's definitely possible to circumvent 2. It's just another roadblock for them to have to deal with though. But we still have access to IP addresses and login/logout timestamps and other information, so it's still possible to figure it out in most cases. It's just one extra step to help prevent powermods, it's not a complete end-all-be-all solution to everything. There is no silver bullet to a lot of these problems, just small steps that add up to make it harder for people to game the system.

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

    I'm sure we'll be reporting mods who get out of line.

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

    You moderate more than 40 subs.

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

    Yes, as does d3rr, but we are the admins who built the site, and had to fill it out a bit when it was first starting off, so there were enough places to post to.

    [–]solder0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Sounds fair. I currently moderate two subs, but I'd be interested in sharing, or ceding modship to anyone that asks. There was no martial arts sub, so I made it. I didn't know that there was a 3D printing sub even after searching, so silly me made one of those too. Can you delete the duplicate sub?

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

    Nice. It's okay to have a duplicate sub, there's really no way to delete. Just use one sub and let the other fade away, that's the best I think

    [–]solder0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Okay, I'll post on your sub then.

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

    Cool, sounds good

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

    I accept these terms.
    And I would like to see the Canary.