I was thinking about a rule for this community biasing any flags from anyone that posts. It would create an outlet for the frustration felt by many types of people.

Still, the delay between the flag and moderator intervention, mixed with the apprehension about involving a third party mod does little to address the issues. So why not delegate the actual role of content removal to the OP?

The authoritarian potential of moderation attracts terrible people on both sides of the spectrum of inept handling of flags, and sadistic narcissists. Enabling the OP allows all users to decide who to interact with based upon actions of individuals posting instead of being victims of anonymous and random third party mods. If you don't like someone's comment, just remove it. If some OP is being silly, flag it for the mod to review. I care about getting real people to post niche content and engage openly far more than anyone else present, especially the toxic pedantism and reasons people get discouraged.

What are your thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago

You seem to think mods actually do stuff. All mod actions are harmful. If the community is not flagging stuff in the first place, taking acts is a shit mod every time. The job is to be a janitor. There are no people doing any of these things you are talking about at the level of mods. Admin, yes, mods, no. It is this type of misrepresentation of the task that is a primary problem that is addressed here. Anyone that believes themselves important or micromanaging is missing the point of social media. Such adversarial stupidity is what drives away real people. One demented self obsessed fuckwit in one obscure community is more than enough to drive most people away from an entire platform. When they make any genuine post or comments that result in abusive mod actions. Those drive people away. Every comment and post made in good faith is valid. I reject all authoritarianism. A citizen has a right to all information, a right to skepticism, a right to error, and a right to protest in all nonviolent forms aka the right to offend. They have no right to infringe upon the rights of others.

For instance, I do not like how you respond. Itemized attack is not being a good neighbor. If you were a neighbor IRL I would probably avoid you. As a mod, I will not address it, but that very well may be the difference of interaction that pushes someone away from participation, and if removing your comment produced another genuinely kind neighbor that is pleasant and positive, fuck yeah I am all for them doing so. Purge every interaction that leaves one feeling negative afterwards. That is a fundamental human right, just as much as it is to live with the consequences.

In game theory and the prisoner's dilemma, every negative action makes everyone worse off. I do not go looking to fight or take action. I will respond adequately when required, but every action taken brings everyone down because negative feedback cannot produce positive outcomes. It is always attenuation.

Often the best communities are the ones with inactive mods.

  • source
  • parent