Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
@x0x7 I strongly advice against trying to mold the community aggressively by hellbanning users. First of all it does nothing to make the message clear. Users aren't warned beforehand and neither are they notified of the reason for their ban, instead they just discover that their posts are invisible to other users after the fact which is scummy, indirect behaviour. Hellbans were meant to trap spambots, not humans.
Secondly, the community is small. It doesn't matter how long or short the list of rules is, what matters is how aggressively it's applied. Bans happen in big communities out of necessity. In small ones they should really be a last resort. It's very off-putting to get censored and is guaranteed to turn users away, users you need now even if you want to take the website in another direction long-term.
Moreover, this is currently the only website that houses the Saidit community. By censoring and hellbanning users, you are splitting that community apart. I know you had other intentions with this website but I feel like there should be a sense of duty to house the existing community that currently isn't concentrated anywhere else. Not because that was planned but simply because of how things are panning out. We're fugitives in a web that's dominated by big tech. We should band together. Right now this is a friend group of sorts. Why is a private group on Whatsapp freer than this website? Also, there are parties now. Why can't Goatmatrix be the Saidit user party?
Thirdly, if it's about frontpage diversity there are other ways of achieving that. Such as combining "post now" with the queue and automatically queueing posts that were submitted in a short span of time. Or by fixing a certain percentage of each sub's representation on the frontpage, so that it can't be dominated by a single one.
Please stahp.
(I posted this in chat but note that the third paragraph is an expansion that wasn't posted there.)
If we're going to have a conversation about this, I feel that there's something I need to add.
I really like the minimal guardrails that have been placed on this community. The few rules (that I'm currently aware of) are both good and acceptable. But I must admit that I may not know all of the rules as of yet, since I have no idea what the rules for gvid are, or even where to find them.
But what I like far better than minimal governance
is transparency when that minimal governance has to be utilized.
There's definitely something to be said for administrative silence when handling issues. It makes sense when there are thousands of active users, since nobody would want to have long protracted debates over every single infraction or how it was handled.
But at this time we are merely dozens of active users, not thousands.
We're not a long string of anonymous names, yet. We know each and every regular contributor to the community. So when just one of us is silenced, it's very noticeable.
Without transparency on these actions, I've found that it creates a "users vs administration" mindset that isn't going to help us at all.
It's quite likely many or most of us would agree that the action was justified, if only we knew what the reasoning was.
I agree that transparency is key, one of the things I loved about Saidit is that modlogs were public and mods were reprimanded or even removed for abusing their authority.
Agreed.
I'm shocked and thrilled that the good ones from SaidIt ended up here. IMO, this would pretty much be my dream TrustedTeam if I were to dev a new forum from.
Feedback = interactive communications with the community for policy. And with violators.
City Hall does it (or pretends to) to keep the peace.
Warnings and transparency.
We're still too small.
OCD micromanaging while small is not productive.
If we set up branding, improve/fix the extant features, dev a strong campaign, and unleash PR with influencers - then we'll have hands full to steer.
Am I banned?
Yes, I literally cannot see this message.
Your situation sounds like it's in a band.
I've been trying not to post political post, and more tech posts because x0x7 said in chat he is showing Goatmatrix to investors who are smart and liberal. I've been hellbanned before for posting politcal stories that are not pro-left wing. I don't want Goatmatrix to end up like Reddit where you post something that isn't leftist in nature, you get voted down and banned from the sub.
Wait, is this real?
I think he means on other sites. These folks aren't necessarily liberal. I don't know their politics. But I shouldn't need to know their politics to invite tech people to a tech forum.
We are going to avoid what happened to saidit and voat. That's why I posted so many "Why did _____ quit" posts. Hoping there would be a Socratic realization on how things actually work.
What each of these people didn't understand was the gravity well they were in. They wanted to do X. All of these sites had mission statements and intents for what the project was for and why they were doing it. But they made the mistake of thinking that expressing this intent was enough, and things would naturally happen that way just because they described it to people.
These were very expensive mistakes. The amount of time and money sunk into these projects ultimately to create no value for their creator, not just monitarily but also subjectively, can't be repeated.
The problem is a site is sitting on a slope. And if one doesn't turn on their thrusters in the opposite direction, they will find they will have to use even more force later to get to the spot they want to be. To use minimal force while meeting the end requirements means force has to be used now. Sufficient force to not make negative ground. I don't think we are making negative ground now. I think we are making positive ground. But do you see how much was needed? It shouldn't have gotten there.
There is an alternative and better way to apply force. The first layer of the immune system is your diet. But it's an optional layer. But if not used, sickness and discomfort must come. On a site, the first layer of an immune system is the users. Specifically via downvotes and social feedback. If I don't see that layer is operational, then I am the only quality control. A lot of people don't like the admin being the quality control. I don't either. That's why it should be the users.
But I need users to understand in what way I need them to be an immune system, or I have to be. And just like a fever isn't fun, you don't want me to be the immune system.
The shape of the ground beneath us, at least where we are, is such that every site in our region is pulled into becoming an alt-right shit-pit. Now I'm right-wing myself. So I'm not anti-right. But I really think it is important that we share concepts and think in the same conceptual space. Every group has sub-groups and overlaps. The majority of the cultural movement of the internet shit-right isn't even right-wing. They think they are because the internet distorts people's understanding. They are just assholes who needed a camp to latch onto. And unfortunately, they ruin every product they touch. They want to ruin every product they touch. And I'm not doing it, even if that violates someone else's undernuanced romantic notions of how the internet should work.
I don't want to violate those notions, even as incomplete as they can be. But principles have layers, contradictions, and priorities. And it's more important to find the correct principles than over-attach yourself to ones which, while positive, don't work everywhere and aren't the only ones. Here is the top principle. It has to be good. All other principles are secondary. If conditions make it inevitable that it can't be good, then it is better to shut down now.
Alternatively to shutting down. I could just do what is needed that others didn't. If this causes a reduction in numbers from people who can't get on board with the intended end product, that is fine. It is better to fail with 20 users than to fail with 50,000. Because 50,000 is a really expensive way to fail. And if the reason why someone created something doesn't happen, that is a fail. Do you think M7 saw Saidit as a failure? You bet he did. Do you think Atko saw Voat as a failure? You bet he did.
So why do these sites fail? Because the devs quit. Why do the devs quit? Because there are forces on the internet to turn everything to shit, and they had two conditions to be true. One was not having a userbase that pushed in the opposite direction of the enshitification. And two was them not having the balls to respond to their projects getting ruined. For me, if failure is inevitable, I'm going to at least seek a different failure mode. I'm not going to follow the exact same steps.
The problem is that the anti-social right is a fungus. It takes so much effort to convince them that a space isn't for them. Did you see how much work YogurtStains took? And I got very little backup. But if the anti-social left were a threat, do you know how easy it is to get them off a site? Just ask them to leave, and they actually leave. Or say anything that would have been common to say 30 years ago, and they are gone. Which means that they are significantly less of a threat to product quality or a time drain because the second they are you can get rid of them easily.
But because the anti-social right doesn't act this way, they are a threat. Again, it's not their politics I have a problem with. It's their behavior. If they didn't intentionally try to make products as off-putting as possible, they could go onto more sites. But because they act the way they do (their core ideology is not right, but is actually an anti-social ideology centered around enshitifying), any site with brains keeps them off. That's not on me. That's on them. If they don't want to be pariahs, they can not act like one.
So if you don't want me to be aggressive in shaping things, I need to see some muscle, some capacity, to downvote or diswelcome actors that push us downhill in this gravity well. Because every inch we go down, there is more work that has to be done later. And I'm already sinking more time into Matrix than I should. And I want to work on programming. So I need to see that users are helping, or I will act as aggressively and efficiently as I can to get it done with time to spare.
I think we are in a better place, where I can relax quite a lot. But I need to see any kind of sign that others are helping. There are two positive ways to act in this world, and both are needed to get good outcomes. You can't just do one. One is "reduce error," and the other is "multiply good". I think the multiply good strategy is often the better one. There is so much good content besides news and politics that is better. Help multiply it. Then we are less attractive to the fungus. But the reduce error part is what I wish I could see in others, existing at least a little and pushing in the same direction that I know it needs to be in. Because I need to mobilize the userbase against that fungus at least a little, or I have to be mobilized.
So why do these sites tend to shut down. Because users tend to not respect why creators create things. And they tie the hands of devs while not helping. You can help or you can tie my hands. Not both.
If an actually positive site sounds good to you, stick around. I think we are there now, but not without work on my end. But the effort of making something that stays out of the traps Saidit and old Voat fell into, the sausage has to be made. If you want vegan sausage it takes more labor and you have to help.
Parties should also help. But I had to get distracted developing them to keep us from falling too far down the hill while I was coding. If I had help I could have produced a technical solution in that time instead.
It seemed xeonix had very similar geopolitical ideas to mine. I'm not Left or Right. Voluntaryist.
magnora7 failed to cultivate anything - such as a TrustedTeam to help direct (besides fighting spam), or adequate open systems to report and log problems we could build upon, or social tools - or even a positive culture. His ego chose to take on the entire burden himself. That's why he failed.
If you dub some MatrixKnights or TrustedTeam folks with badges they may seem to have more authoritay with new users. These Hall-Pass Guards should try to link to the About#Culture as much as possible, repetitive as it may be.
I like the idea of 3 strikes, aka 3 warnings. Get three and you're out for a day, then a week, then a month, then for good because you can't get the message. This trains good behaviour. Strikes should expire after a year. Change these time-lengths as you see fit. This requires a ledger and open-log, but may be solved with a admin-applied metatag for all users, viewable by all users. The log views generate discussion that should include links to logs and rules and further foster awareness of these.
Feature idea:
I suspect most folks don't care too much about the number of votes posts and especially comments have. So I don't know how effective downvotes are without additional explanatory commentary.
Currently on the left are randomized colour bars.
Instead, they could start a dull grey-neutral, but as they increase or decrease with votes they could warm to yellow, orange, and even red (bad) or cool to green, blue, and even violet (good).
Alternatively, the comment text could be dimmed or brightened.
I was a moderator of s/news when Edward was spamming it with attacks and nonsense. I saw a need and filled it. After that it was Socks and his enemies ruining the sub. Socks thought I was targeting him, but didn't notice I did the same to his enemies who told him to kill himself. How did I do as a mod, it was my first time as a mod on a Reddit alternative.
Most any moderator in those days was extremely helpful. It only got bad when the sub was in s/all and they banned users for disagreeing with them, and then there was the u/TheAmeliaMay fiasco where she was the de facto site moderator when M7 disappeared for a while, and she started implementing her own rules. I think she meant well, though.
Edit: I should have put disappeared in quotes. ; )
Sorry, I don't specifically remember /s/news, or any specific subs, with the chaotic elements.
The problem is that a trusted team needs to be a time saver rather than a time drain. I want to be nice about it, but while ideas should flow both ways, they need to flow more from the person with the central vision than the other way. That's the only way it saves time is if it allows them to communicate a plan and then have people on the team act on it, rather than just one more place for them to hear 5 new and competing plans from others. Hearing about other ideas is great, but I can do that here generally, and do. My idea of making some phpBB inspired view options is really derived from some Larry ideas.
So if a team can be put together that can be instructed on a plan then it can work. Then those people can share some ideas the other way as well. But the later can't be all it is.
It's true that it must save time. Over the long run. It won't short term.
It also requires some training and gradual ramping in. Over that hump, the training wheels can come off when things run smoothly - and when they are trained to be able to train the next layer of TrustedTeam. They also need ways to keep each other in check, politely - and if necessary thank some for trying but not fitting.
Check your chats.