/s/AltRight_Memes has banned me, without explanation. Read on..

submitted by JasonCarswell from self.censorship

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Yes we have 4 mod rules that we enforce, in order to prevent the echo-chamber mod-fiefdom situation that occurred on reddit: https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/w6s/saidit_rules_for_moderators/

The subs belong to the users, not to the mods. Letting mods go nuts with power is why reddit is now so broken.

[–]TheJamesRocket 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Moderators should have the right to choose who participates on their forum. We shouldn't be forced by default to listen to the inane drivel of leftists. Their rhetoric has subsumed the entire internet and been enshrined. Why does it need to be given a place here on Saidit? Especially when SJWs are responsible for getting so many of us banned from other websites (thus necessitating the creation of Saidit in the first place)?

This website is a bastion of free speech, true. But the only people who have been systematically denied that privilege has been conservatives. That is where Saidit draws its core audience from. We are being done a disservice by being forced to tolerate SJWs and their verbal diarrhea.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

subs only have to tolerate it if it's on topic and in good faith. it seems that jason got banned after an on-topic good faith argument with a mod took a turn for the worse.

if a sub really wants to keep out dissenting opinion, it needs to be clearly stated in the sub rules, like /s/incels does (rule 3)

edit: imo. this is my interpretation on the existing policy, it's not up to me.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

if a sub really wants to keep out dissenting opinion, it needs to be clearly stated in the sub rules

I agree with this, but then I think maybe the 'show on /all' box should then be unchecked for the sub, also similar to incels. Maybe we could make this official policy if you agree.

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

Fine with me, I donno what's best. This is the old "changing topics with sub rules" discussion from the mod rules launch.

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

Alright we'll give it a try then. Maybe once we get the similar 'show on /new' sub checkbox, we can add it to that same rule

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Here's the mod rule I just added. I changed 4 to 4a, and then added 4b:

4a) Mods cannot remove user comments that are both in good faith and on-topic.

4b) Mods CAN remove opposing opinions that are high on the pyramid of debate, and ban those users on that sub, if and only if the 2 following conditions are met: 1: The fact the sub removes opposing opinions is announced in the sub's sidebar. 2: The mods uncheck the sub setting "allow this sub to appear on /all"

What do you think?

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

I'm still on the fence about requiring hiding from /s/all. The rule reads clearly though.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Alright, we can try it out and if it sucks we can change the part about /s/all, not a huge deal. I'm just trying to be consistent with what IP2 and incels have already done, more or less, just putting it in to writing.

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

Yeah the inconsistency needed to be addressed for sure.

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

I like this idea, a lot. Makes all this hyperdrama almost worth it.