Do you best to identify personal bias before moderating content (ie political oposition). Echo chambers are discouraged but poor behavior is not to be tolerated. IMO.
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
24 points (90.0% liked)
Lemmy Moderators
762 readers
1 users here now
A community for moderators of various communities to discuss moderating. Help others and get help yourself! Remember, there are no stupid questions!
If you have general questions or things you want to share about the Fediverse, then head over to !fediverse@lemmy.world!
If you want help with making a lemmy bot, then head over to !lemmybotsupport@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Be nice & respectful.
- Posts has to be on topic.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This ×1000! Accept different opinions that fit your community and don't violate the TOS.
Ban / Remove content with a reason and put it in the reason textfield. ( So no "." or "bruh", rather "Rule 1 - Insulted a fellow member" ... )
Avoid permanent bans and use progressive bans instead. 24 hour ban, 3 day ban, 7 day ban etc.. permanent bans just lead to the user making a different account and not learning from their mistake.
at first I was gonna disagree with
Avoid permanent bans
but your point on
permanent bans just lead to the user making a different account and not learning from their mistake.
makes a lot of sense👍
permanent bans probably makes sense when the person reapeatedly fails to learn after a couple of progressive bans(/suspensions?)
Permanent bans probably make sense when the person repeatedly fails to learn after a couple of progressive bans(/suspensions?)
Correct, let's encourage a community member to learn and grow. Perma banning causes instant anger and leads to more drama. With progressive bans, users understand the consequences of their actions and that they will get longer until they are permanent.
I disagree with this. There are some offenses from which we can't reasonably expect people to "learn" from - bigotry, death threats, doxxing, spambotting, ban evasion. These are what permanent bans are most often handed out for anyway. If I saw someone drop a slur in my community, my vote would be to permanently ban them.
There are some offenses from which we can't reasonably expect people to "learn" from...
People always learn something, though not always what one is trying to teach. Immediate permanent bans often teach them to make an alt and come back with the same attitude and a chip on their shoulder. Temp bans leverage their investment in their existing account to either encourage them to leave the community they're not welcome in or return with a better understanding of the rules.
Do temp bans work every time? No, definitely not. Are permanent bans trivially circumvented in a federated ecosystem with not even the barest of account verification policies? Yes, definitely... which means permabans are a much weaker response here than in other spaces with better account verification. I'd submit that escalating temp bans are a strictly superior in such an environment because investment in one's existing account is very nearly the only leverage mods have and should be maximized.
The exact behavior you describe with people circumventing permabans has already happened in my community with a temp ban. Person made multiple accounts on other instances to circumvent a temp ban for excessive self promotion of their own stuff (to the point of spam). We tried escalating temp bans and it didn't work, they just did that anyway.
I advocate for permabans for egregious violations for two reasons: acknowledgement that there's zero tolerance for truly abhorrent behavior and to decrease the bookkeeping of keeping track of multiple temp bans. An escalating temp ban system works for minor offenses where a permanent ban isn't warranted, though.
I advocate for permabans for egregious violations for two reasons: acknowledgement that there's zero tolerance for truly abhorrent behavior and to decrease the bookkeeping of keeping track of multiple temp bans. An escalating temp ban system works for minor offenses where a permanent ban isn't warranted, though.
I think your suggestion strikes a good balance as outright banning toxic behavior such as racism can act as a clear signifier that actions like it are contradictory and unwanted especially in reference(context) to the community's goals and TOS
CP too.
You think a permaban will stop that person from making a new account? or probably already having an alt(s)?
Not really, no. But it's less bookkeeping that way, instead of having to start a note system to determine how many temp bans you've given the guy spouting racism, and it sends a clear message to everyone else.
Well—some slurs are obvious no-go. Then there are slurs that are widely used thoughtlessly in high schools. Ex.—recently saw a poster call a rule "retarded." Removed, noted "incivility, disrespectful to people with developmental disabilities." No blowback, peace restored with minimal unhappiness.
Edit: oh nuts, this my alt account. Should have posted from 108beads@lemm.ee. Apologies.
For the record I actually agree with this. I had a similar policy toward "retarded" and the like in previous communities. Not because I thought it was "not as bad" but because it's more likely that people (especially younger people) could have incorporated this into their vocabulary passively without even really thinking about the implications. These people can learn, but most others who use slurs can't, at least not from a stranger over the internet.
Leemy at this time doesn't support temp bans.
Leemy at this time doesn't support temp bans.
- Don't be a dick
Too subjective of a rule.
One man's dick, is another man's pleasure.
It's subjective only when you're trying to be a dick.
I think one thing that will be important to stop this place from encountering the same pitfalls as Reddit (I know people are tired of hearing about em, but given the 1:1 similarities between Reddit and Lemmy, I think it bears mentioning) is to put a handle on the reach any one moderator can have. Moderators should be encouraged to mod communities that they have an interest in and not "collect" mod positions. This is not a problem now, but I foresee it being a problem in the future if the place grows. Limits on the number of communities one person can moderate at once may be good, or something more nebulous referring to good-faith moderation practices.
Discuss big new rules with your community before implementing them.
Be open to amending the rules based on feedback from community members.
-
Set clear expectations of what people can expect from your community.
-
Mark your community 'unofficial' in the sidebar if there are no ties with the company or brand.
Those are the only two that come to mind.
(2) sounds kind of weird for a decentralized service..
Yeah I understand, and we understand the concept of Lemmy. But some people in a highly expensive office do not really care.
I'm not getting the hint. Who are these people?
Big businesses in movies, economics, influencers etc.
Almost every community website require in some form to claim 'unofficial' if they have nothing to do with the brand of business itself.
Oh, okay. I'm not worried about those. Big businesses ruined reddit for me, so I'm okay with them not understanding Lemmy.
Will we still to allowed to phrase comment removals as [the rule they broke] + [snarky comment]?
Treat everyone equally good
Except bots ):<
But better than equal if they are a fan of Star Trek.
Android > bot
Be Civil - Respect your community members
I might have missed it. Did a new code of conduct get posted anywhere?