Before beginning, I know this is not apprpriate question, and there may be better places to ask these questions. I also know that I as a mod am kinda abusing my powers 9not pinning the post, but still breaking the 1 important rule - to post a uplifting news, and this post is neither upliftiing nor a news. I also do not know how it is decided in other communities, I am a relatively new mod, so I do not know how to act in certain situations. But by the powers that have been vested to me by the gods (previous mods), I want to ask a lot of questions.
Also for the time being, lets say the world has 2 major groups, martians, and venusians, there are other minority groups too, but if funded govts can not bother to listen to them, how can i, a under paid corrupt mod do that. (/s just in case people do not get it).
What I am basically asking is, is please help me make a ‘constitution’ (for the galactic rulings, obviously) on how should I (or maybe others if they choose to accept it) moderate, certain galaxy.
More seriously, please help discuss democratically, what should be the rules. To you questions may seem to have obvious answers, they did to me too, but what was not obvious, that different people have different obvious things (mind blown /s). And you all will get a chance to be “immortalized” by getting your name in the constitution drafting committee.
- What deserves a deletion of content (a comment or a post)?
-> my current understanding -> anything that breaks obvious rules. Lets say a martian, non sarcastically says - all venusianns are morons, illeterate wild animals who do not deserve to live. I would consider this as hate speech, and delete it. If someone posts something nsfw, but does not mark it appropriately, i should delete it. But what if someone posts something stupid - lets say someone thinks venusians have seven legs, when they actually have 4, and say, i want all 7 legged venusians to die. What should i do - should i upvote it, considering it is a attempt at humor, and support them, or delete it since they are still killing “hypothetical” venusians, or ignore them (that is what i have been doing right now for some reports)
- what deserves a ban?
-> similar to prior, so not explaining any further. Sometime back, i had a discussion with another mod, that we should have a strike system - something like, post hate speech 3 times, or something alike, then we ban, because you were given ample chances to figure out that you are doing something wrong (there comments would still be deleted, they would still get the downvote beating, just not a instant ban)
these questions were general, and not community specific, but following are
there are going to be lots of situations, to which you have to vote yes or no, is it uplifting or not (you are welcome to write 20 para replies too, but atleast 1 letter is required, something like 1 y, 2 n)
- a female dog gave birth to ten little cubs
2a) cure to cancer has been found, and the researchers have patented it, and selling it for 1 million usd (for each patient) (and i know there is no 1 single cure to cancer, consider a hypothetical situation)
2b) cure to cancer has been found, and they make it free for all
3a) linux market share grows by 5 times, used by 30% of desktop users
3b) microsoft windows is now open source
3c) apple makes all their hardware designs open
Also, for the following part - any resemblence to reality is purely coincedental and unintended, i do not even live in mars or venus to know much about their politics. 4) (this question requires context) - We all know about the martian leader, he is currently leading everyone, some martians love him, others are ok with him, but he absolutely hates all venusians, and does not even acknowledge existence of saturnians, and calls them confused folk (because saturnians wear rings on them). He lies, he robs, he takes away the very last saved bite you keep while eating the food (the best bite™).
4a) the martian leader is defeated in a peaceful manner
4b) the martian leader has been taken down in a millitary coup
4c1) people march to martian leaders door, and he leaves under pressure
4c2) people march to martian leaders door, and he leaves after a bit of riot (a “few” people become “martyrs”)
4d) the martian leader today opened amusement park
4e) the martian leader finds cure to cancer, and makes it free
4f1) martian leader is sad because his house has been a lot less “dusty” lately (he loves sand, because it coarse, rough, and gets everywhere)
4f2) martian leader is sad because his house has been a lot more “dusty” lately (he hates sand, because it coarse, rough, and gets everywhere)
4g) he is sad because his dog died
4f) he is sad because his business is making less profits.
I will not reveal my answers here, not to bias you people, but i would leave my general strategy in the spoilers section below
spoiler
To me something is upliftng, if i can tell it a youngling, a growing learning mind. Their brain is pure, maybe not ready to comprehend the vast world. To them, there are only simple rules - you see someone injured, you dress them. You see someone crying, ask why, if you can not help, ask someone else, and so on. This should be enough to get most questions answered from my perspective
I don’t think we need a rigid constitution or anything complicated. This community has been chugging along well so far.
The simpler and more straightforward the rules are, the better.
… What?
I find this post incomprehensible. The fictional veneer makes it more unclear what you’re trying to ask and the examples (?) seem like a random selection. The voting pattern seems to indicate that there are issues here for several people, maybe a clarification would be in order.
i am sorry, but the fictional stuff was necessity. Essentially the post is trying to ask you define uplifting things. But a subjective definition of a human emotion is very hard to base objective rules on, so i have posed many questions. basically questions would define a this is not uplifting limit for posts. It is mostly about politics, and when people bring in political preference and alignment for and against, they basically stop thinking. For more context, please go through other comments where i do go a bit more direct, but some amount of haziness was intentional.
Basically this post stemmed out from a post regarding “musk being depresssed” (now deleted) which is not uplifting to me, and so i asked in comments does this post belong here, and i also got down voted hard there. So i made this post trying to understanding what do people expect when they mean uplifiting. If i would have used words musk or trump people swing hard, and even if you make a statement not related to them, but somewhere they or anyone made any related statement, people swing hard again. I somewhat get why people do this, they are mad at them, which is fine, but they just do not really want to have a constructive discussion.
If you can help me draft a better way to put all this, then that would be very welcome and appreciated, languages (speaking and writing) is definitely not my best skill, i keep going away from my main points, and i really suck at drafting concise and neat stuff.
I think starting from a point of clarity in your own mind would help you here. “Uplifting” can mean many things, and the question is partially which concept of it you want this community to be about.
Is it good when someone responsible for so much suffering is experiencing hardship? Obviously. But the source of that goodness comes from a place where an evil person experiences something negative, and the only reason for this to be good is because of that starting evil. This also means that it is innately a bit of a reminder of the badness, which for many people can make it not-uplifting. There is no solution to this. Either reaction is valid, and you have to choose which type you want to foster here.
Politics is not a game and alleviating suffering is at its core political, and a staple of upliftingness. But this type of upliftingness is predicated on suffering. Choose, knowing that you can only ever please a subset of the population.
“Do you want this community to be about good things happening to people only or should it also include bad things happening to bad people?” would be more clear.
that is close, but that is not quite exact. To a bad person, bad can happen, but through a just way, what i look to say is, we should not loose our humanity in the worst situations, and one of its parts is empathy. so bad happening to bad person maybe is bad because it is not through a just action, but lets say someone causing them personal trauma. If it happens by their own doing, that may still be “just” (in a self serving manner).
thank you, that is very much helpful. You have put what i have been feeling in a very clear manner
Hello,
Not sure how to answer those questions. On !goodnewseveryone@sh.itjust.works there are only 4 rules
- posts must link from a reliable news source
- no reposts
- paywalled articles must be made available
- avoid politics
thank you for replying, for being the first to reply, we shall bestow upon thee, the title of law keeper, you are now legally eligible to add law keeper in your name (valid on fediverse, mars, venus, saturn, and a few other places)
on a more serius note, i think the 2 communities have similar but not same goals. first 3 are here too (kinda), but we do not have the 4th one, and that is where a lot happens.
That is why i added the 4 batch of questions, others are not that important, but i also have to add some dolly questions to judge the person replying (not in sense of judging their opinion, but just tto check if they are a troll or not, for example someone does not find a free caner cure a uplifting news, will not probably find anything uplifting, that i or others deem uplifting.
Politics will always get heated discussions in the comments. Personally I think there are enough communities on Lemmy to discuss politics, so that’s why I like !goodnewseveryone@sh.itjust.works and other communities like !casualconversation@lemm.ee to have that rule.
My 2 cents is that a community like this doesn’t need to take moderating too serious, since the content isn’t polarising or flammable anyway. I’d suggest just keeping an eye on the posts and comments - other users will also object if content looks out of place. Have a few simple rules maybe so you can point to them when you want to remove content.
Agree 100% on when to delete and when to ban.
- I’d say don’t delete, I wouldn’t care and not upvote so whatever. Doesn’t break a rule.
2a. Point out that it is not uplifting because the profit being made.
2b Upvote and comment how awesome this is
3a doesn’t break rules, do what you want 3b+3c Upvote if you like open source things
4 in general can be a problem because of it’s political nature, but if post doesn’t break rules let it be and worry about comments breaking rules. 4a-c2 it is news and people might be happy he leaves so I wouldn’t delete but watch comments. 4d+4e this is news and is good, let it be despite having a negative opinion (!) about the martian leader. 4f1+4f2+4g+4f(I think you wanted this to be 4h but I’ll just mention it and share my thoughts) I’d argue that you could say it is good news he is sad, but I’d argue his emotional state itself isn’t newsworthy and his dog dieing isn’t uplifting news so delete.
To me something is upliftng, if i can tell it a youngling, a growing learning mind. Their brain is pure, maybe not ready to comprehend the vast world. To them, there are only simple rules - you see someone injured, you dress them. You see someone crying, ask why, if you can not help, ask someone else, and so on. This should be enough to get most questions answered from my perspective
Yes 100%
Don’t worry about a potential ‘mistake’ you’re the mod and you’re human, you possibly making a mistake is part of the deal of participanting in an online community.
My 2 cents is that a community like this doesn’t need to take moderating too serious, since the content isn’t polarising or flammable anyway.
it sadly does get political and hence flamable, for reference, check one of the last posts about “elon getting depressed”. to me that is not uplifting, to a large section of community that is uplifting in a “cathartic” sense.
we agree mostly except for
2a) i would still consider it uplifting (source for question was yet another post about something relating to comfort for dogs in car being patented by some company)
i think we both know what i mean by martian leader here, and most of these question were either what has happened or what some people want to happen, with some amount of testing for what people consider uplifting.
for example, elon being depressed is 4h (yes i meant h, i don’t know why i midway through forgot abcd), and it got a huge number of upvotes, and when i go in comments and ask if this counts is uplifting, since we are being happy for someone being depressed, that does not feel right to me, most people just reply that he is getting what he deserves, but that was not the point. to my framework (as i explained), i can not tell a youngling that lets be happy about this man getting depressed, when i told him to be sad for other people getting depressed. Even when i tell the kid that someone is a bad person, i do not want them to leave their human conscience, but apparently people prefer catharsis.
Don’t worry about a potential ‘mistake’ you’re the mod and you’re human, you possibly making a mistake is part of the deal of participanting in an online community.
thank you. It has happened, when i got a pretty hatefilled personal message for a mod action, that i did not even make, and that kinda hurts. I do not know what to do. I am not a iron fisted guy who can always just roll on. So i wanted to just ask what should i do in various scenarios. But apparently popular vote is that i should just punch myself in face the next time i consider doing anything, but definitely not post here a “non uplifting non news”
I think the choice you have to make is wether you want to control the community or want to guide the community.
If you want you could for example make a rule like: posts that are neither news nor uplifting will be deleted. And then warn someome who posts non uplifting non news with a comment on that post, and ignore all the backlash. Next time the same person posts another non uplifting non news, just straight away delete it. If you would only do things everyone likes, you would have no function. You’re the boss, you make the choices. Everybody can disagree, but they have 0 power. They can go and make a non uplifting non news community if they want.
i partially agree, but there are times where my own judgement is not good, and hence i want a somewhat object ruleset, which a majority amount of poulation agrees to. If i do all i want all will nilly, i would be a dictator. Now i could be a benovalent kind, but lets be honest, most are not, and i am no special human
I think it’s good you started this thread, but I don’t think it’ll be easy to reach a democratic decision based on the comments in a post.
i don’t know a better way
If content breaks rule you can warn with a comment or act by deleting content, you don’t need the permission of someone else. It’s good you try to establish whether others agree with you, but you don’t need it in order to enforce a rule is what I mean as alternative.
I will try to message other mods before actually changing rules, but yes
With the context of the Elon post, I understand this one better.
I agree with you. You can maybe add a “no posts about other political personalities negative feelings” or something like that.
There are enough communities on Lemmy to talk about Elon.
thank you, i would not really add that rule, too specific, what i can discuss with other mods is too either add a no politics rule, or just add a no catharsis (or something) similar rule
add a no politics rule, or just add a no catharsis (or something) similar rule
Sounds good
Thanks for this. Unsubscribed.
I am sorry to see you go, would you like to fill a exit survey form? https://envs.sh/wT
