Saidit Rules for Moderators

submitted by magnora7[A] from (self.SaidIt)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]OmegaUser296 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (26 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] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 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.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 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] 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 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.

[–]Fleursdumal 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

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?

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

Yup that's correct.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Ian 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 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 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 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.

    [–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 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"?

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 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] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 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] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 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 -  (9 children)

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

    [–]OmegaUser296 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 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 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    No, allowing moderators to not follow admins rules.

    [–]brickfrog 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 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] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 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] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 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)

    [–]RatMan29 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    To me it doesn't. Then again, the frequent-reposting issue can be resolved through flairs, if sub mods are allowed to add those to posts.

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

    the frequent-reposting issue can be resolved through flairs

    How do you figure? I don't follow

    [–]RatMan29 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    In RES you can filter on flairs. And there are several subs on reddit (for example roadcam) where posting something already posted within the last few months causes the mods to add a "Repost" flair on your post.