SaidIt

SaidIt

top 100 commentsshow all 108

magnora7[S] 19 insightful - 3 fun19 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 3 fun 4 years ago

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 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun 4 years ago

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

OmegaUser296 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun 4 years ago

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] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun 4 years ago

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.

[deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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] 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun 4 years ago

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.

Fleursdumal 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun 3 years ago

S/lesbians only wants lesbians (or at least people who we assume are lesbians) posting or commenting. So we can have that rule but need to make it clear in the side bar and remove from all?

[deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

[deleted]

Ian 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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.

[deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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 4 years ago

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"?

magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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

bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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.

Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun 4 years ago

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

OmegaUser296 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun 4 years ago

No, allowing moderators to not follow admins rules.

brickfrog 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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.

bobbobbybob 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun 4 years ago

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

magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

Appreciate it. You're welcome.

OmegaUser296 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun 4 years ago

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

magnora7[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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

OmegaUser296 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

Understood

magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

Thanks

[deleted] 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun 4 years ago

Not to rat

...or so you say

JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun 4 years ago

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.

Wrang1er 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun 3 years ago

I wish there were downvotes for people like you.

JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun 3 years ago

You should know about what that shit-disturber did (/s/HolocaustSkepticism) before you judge "people like me" whatever that might actually mean. Also note that while I told the self-confessed rat off I did not call him names and spoke my truth while abiding by the Pyramid of Debate (my graphic design, as with the SaidIt logo). That stupid arbitrary limit rule came AFTER all that shit and while I was away dealing with the fallout of all his manufactured bullshit and as you currently can see I am NOT in violation if that's what your exceptionally ambiguous beef is about. If you want downvotes you are free to start your own old-Reddit-based federated site and downvote me there as much as you want. Meanwhile, continue to be a 12 days old agro-comment sniper that you seem to be if you must, but if you continue to attack folks and drag down the discourse you will certainly be dealt with by M7D3.

Ian 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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.

Drewski 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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.

bobbobbybob 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun 4 years ago

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.

[deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

Can we have this as a pinned thread?

magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

Sure, done

[deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun 4 years ago

Awesome!!!

zyxzevn 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun 4 years ago

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] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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 4 years ago

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

Ian 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun 4 years ago

A popularity contest is quite different from ideological censorship.

RatMan29 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

The reddit downvote is a helpful mechanism we ought to have. At least under RES each reader can decide for himself whether, and at what vote total, unpopular comments should be hidden, so it's not comparable to deletion.

magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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.

teelo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

So, speaking of the moderator logs. I've noticed that its kinda useless for checking moderator actions when removing comments, when I can't actually see the comment that was removed anymore. The links in the moderator logs just direct to a "there doesn't seem to be anything here". How can I check if a moderator followed rule 4 if I can't see the comment they removed?

magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. Just leave the comment up? If we leave every comment up that's removed, then what's the point of having moderators at all? You see what I mean?

teelo 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun 3 years ago

Have a separate page that is only accessable via the moderator log to see what the comment was. Even just an expand button JSON query within the moderator log.

magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

Not a bad idea. We've got a to-do list that's already 95 items long, and your project idea would probably take 5-10 hours minimum. I'll add it to the list. If someone wants to help, our code is all open source and we could use help to develop useful features like this.

teelo 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

Sure I can jump in and help. Just point me to the repo?

md_saidit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun 3 years ago

I'm new here but I second teelo's suggestion, sounds like a good idea.

Vigte 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun 4 years ago

Sounds good to me!

Void 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun 3 years ago

why 40 subs thats way too much it should be 5 at most. powermods are ultimately what ruined reddit

Wrang1er 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

I think 10 is a good number

md_saidit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun 3 years ago

Yeah who needs to moderate 40 subs! Who even wants to? One type of person: the powermod.

VantaFount 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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

potipharbreen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

Nice - that's exactly what I told them at reddit. All you need are site-wide rules that are enforced.

Otherwise every sub will be under the sway of some jobless teen loser to run as his/her own little personal fiefdom.

The 'Stanford Experiment' showed how even highly educated, intelligent college kids can turn in Junior Hitlers when given a tiny bit of power over their fellow students.

Reddit failed to recognize this basic psychology of human nature.

teelo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

What are the Saidit admins views of the Reddit moderator guidelines (which the Reddit admins never enforce)? Specifically, this part:

We know management of multiple communities can be difficult, but we expect you to manage communities as isolated communities and not use a breach of one set of community rules to ban a user from another community. In addition, camping or sitting on communities for long periods of time for the sake of holding onto them is prohibited.

Its incredibly common for Reddit moderators to ban users for things they posted on other subs. Sometimes its other subs they moderate. Sometimes its other subs they're just posters of but didn't like what they saw. Sometimes they run bots that just ban everyone who participates on rival subs.

This is a practice that is supposed to be against Reddits moderator guidelines, but, well, have you ever heard of the admins actually enforcing it? I sure haven't.

I don't see anything like this in your mod rules, but maybe I missed it. Is it a policy you will consider, and actually enforce (unlike Reddit)?

Ian 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun 4 years ago

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] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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 4 years ago

Me breaking unenforceable rules makes you look dumb.

Me disregarding a kind request makes me look dumb.

magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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 years ago

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. :)

Snow 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun 4 years ago

You moderate more than 40 subs.

magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun 4 years ago

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 4 years ago

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] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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 4 years ago

Okay, I'll post on your sub then.

magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

Cool, sounds good

teelo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

The 40 sub limit still seems excessive. If even just a couple of them get popular theres no way a moderator could keep up with being consistent across them.

tuesday 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

<3 <3 <3

THANK YOU

zabaru 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

Ok, some great rules, and some not so great, but still a LOT better than reddit!

Thanks!!

Nummnutzcracker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

What about brand bashing? Does that counts as bad faith?

magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

Nah that should be fine to bash corporate brands, as long as it's not violent or just outright hateful with no other redeeming qualities. Basic pyramid of debate stuff

Justin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

Is there any way for Saidit admins to change the mod staff on subs? For instance just replacing an inactive mod with an active user?

[deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

Yes but this is a highly contentious process with waiting periods.

magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

Yes it's possible

critias 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

How are moderators supposed to moderate their subs when the admins just undermine them at every turn based on any person's complaint?

Why are average idiots on this site allowed to undermine moderators?

What's the purpose of mod controls if we can't use them?

In good faith doesn't mean shit because everyone claims good faith

magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

The purpose of mod controls is to remove spam, not to remove opinions you disagree with.

If you are unable to distinguish between the two, you don't belong as a mod on saidit.

Stop censoring people who simply disagree. Last warning. If in doubt, don't censor. Simple as that.

RatMan29 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

So subs are not allowed to have a point of view (for instance a pro [candidate x] sub)?

magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun 3 years ago

Subs are allowed to do that: https://www.saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/w6s/saidit_rules_for_moderators/

But they must also declare that bias openly in the sidebar of the sub, and they must remove their sub from /all because they're not interested in the pyramid of debate. Once those conditions are met, it's 100% allowed

critias 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

which is what i did

now the admins are changing my sub settings behind my back without consultation

magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

Because you're breaking mod rules. The fact you can't respect the mod rules means you shouldn't be a mod on saidit. All you have to do is stop censoring others

Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

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.

What is someone says, "kms the Houston Oiler's"?"

IwatchEm 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 4 years ago

what in the fuck is rule 7