![[META] Actually Infuriating Community](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c10a5de4-1d27-4398-ae65-45fb0230926f.webp){kind=link}
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.world
There is now an Actually Infuriating community on Lemmy! Post things that are beyond just mildly infuriating. It’s only mildly infuriating that someone didn’t make this sooner!
There is now an Actually Infuriating community on Lemmy! Post things that are beyond just mildly infuriating. It’s only mildly infuriating that someone didn’t make this sooner!
I hope not… but I really don’t know!
Sorry I’m being needlessly negative 😅
Some unsolicited advice from a very seasoned mod: the ban hammer exists for a reason. Don’t be too prescriptive with your rules and don’t be afraid to ban somebody just because they didn’t explicitly violate a rule. The community comes first. Don’t let a couple of people hold it hostage.
How is this upvoted so much? This is fucking insane.
“Oh, just ban whoever even if they didn’t break any rules”
Do I really need to explain how grossly oversimplified to the point of flagrant misrepresentation that is?
Oh I’m sure you have a way to justify your corrupt authoritarianism. I don’t care what your reasoning is. If you ban people without them breaking rules, then the only actual rule is “don’t upset the power tripping bastards”, which I strongly disagree with.
“Corrupt authoritarianism” my god dude you can’t be serious. You’ve clearly got a chip on your shoulder or are otherwise grinding your axe about something that happened to you (or because of you?)
Oh, it’s hyperbolic, but it gets the point across.
No it really doesn’t. You sound ridiculous.
I mean, I think you sound ridiculous… So agree to disagree there.
Reply to edit:
Nope. Just don’t like petty authoritarians.
So you grossly misrepresented what I wrote, ignored the other comments And conversation with other people, and just start calling me a petty authoritarian?
Yeah dude you really have a chip on your shoulder. You could actually try talking to me about this but it seems like you just want to grind your axe and be indignant all day. Have at it.
The statements
“don’t be afraid to ban somebody just because they didn’t explicitly violate a rule”
And
“Oh, just ban whoever even if they didn’t break any rules”
Use different words but end up in the same place.
So how is it grossly misrepresenting anything?
Perhaps you can give an example of when someone didn’t break any rules and you felt justified banning them and why, and maybe I’ll sympathize a little.
I appreciate it. I have some experience modding here, but not in a community like this, which has the potential to bring our the worst in people! I set rules that should be broad enough to do exactly that. I have high hopes, and it fills a need.
Good luck!
If people can get away with harming the community without breaking the rules, then just change the rules.
If you can’t think of any reasonable rules that would ban their behaviour, maybe they aren’t doing anything wrong and it’s just that you personally don’t like it.
This is why so many moderators fail.
Everyone tries to reinvent the wheel over and over again. They get excited about starting a new community, they have very lax rules such as “be nice” and then are worried about banning and/or changing the rules because they don’t want to be perceived as inconsistent, fickle, or otherwise unfair. Then it crumbles or they burn out.
Prescriptive rules work for communities with narrow missions (askhistorians for example) but then they need to ban and remove content constantly as well (hence their post removal rate and comment graveyards and very large, expert mod team).
No you need broad rule sets and a mentality of “no one gets to hold this community hostage.”
“be nice” is a broad rule set. You need rule sets with clear expectations. If your rules are clear, then you won’t feel guilty for banning someone, and they don’t have a good excuse when they appeal. If you choose vague rules, people will submit perfectly good appeals which you have to turn down, and you’ll waste everyone’s time.
A ruleset is a machine. Video games are machines made out of rules, and so are board games. Board games just run on brains instead of microchips. A legal code is exactly the same, just more important. Make a good machine and moderation won’t even require your conscious mind. You can breeze through it according to the process without expending any mental energy.
Spend mental energy judging every situation individually, and you’ll either burn out or become a tyrant. Break your rules, and you either break your community or break yourself.
“Be nice” is not a broad rule set it’s no rule set unless you plan on truly banning people and removing comments for hostility.
There’s a line between broad and aspirational.
I ran a 2mill person sub with 5 other moderators. We removed probably 30% of what was posted. We used auto moderator, a few specific rules (“no list posts”) and a few broader rules (“no rants”). It ran great because we were ruthless, frankly. We also did not burn out because we did not get bogged down in fights with people or constant discussion with each other about what was or wasn’t rule breaking the rules.
And responsible ruthlessness is only possible with robust rules.
Robust =/= prescriptive and you let everything fly that doesn’t meet those criteria. Specificity becomes a cage very quickly.
Good. Moderators need limits on their powers. You should need to make the cage bigger in order to deal with the edge cases. And when you make the cage bigger, the community should have an opportunity to question that. That’s anarchy. That’s responsibility.
It’s better to have an unmoderated community full of trolls than a community with tyrant mods. That’s the same philosophy as “it’s better that a hundred guilty go free than one innocent is imprisoned”. Obviously a community with good mods is best, but if mods can’t follow their own rules, they shouldn’t follow no rules.