WelcomeWEFreedomWindsorEssexCounty-ActionCommunicationsRalliesResourcesSocialEventsWednesdayNightMeetings-ActivismAgoraAgorismCanadaCommonLawCommunityDataCentersDataCentresDoocracyFarmersMarketIntroductionsNaturalLawNewslettersOntarioOrganizingOutreachProjexProjexWikiRalliesResistanceAnalysisSoireesSoiréesWikiSpooksWindsorElectionsTop Subs
3
Help - - (+3|-1)
Post got deleted?(self)
5 commentsbyLarrySwinger

I submitted a link to a video on YouTube but the entire entry on this site goes 404 now. The title was "Trump directed attention to his shoes after getting shot. Empty shoes are a masonic sign that the people involved were safe. Proof the shooting was staged?". Here's the URL. @JasonCarswell noticed the post and commented on it.

Comment preview

[-]Neol1(+1|0)

I guess this paragraph is about your post:

If you don't apply rules consistently then the second you do want to apply a rule you have to apologize for it. So what do you do instead? You apply the rule consistently from day one and you never apologize for it. The other thing is only removing the item doesn't work, especially if a user knows the rule. Because then you are having it placed on you to sort through everything. You need users to be a t least a bit self enforcing. You always have to do a little bit extra, even if it is the tiniest amount. So I'm sorry but if you break a rule the post will be removed and you'll get a 24h shadow. It's literally the smallest thing I can do. At least if you've shown no interest in self enforcement despite knowing the rules.

https://goatmatrix.net/c/MatrixDev/EkBX7Z4p3D

parentlinkreply
[-]LarrySwinger2(+2|0)

Well I was a bit puzzled on why it got removed in the first place. Reading over the rules again I can tell that it's for posting a depiction of extreme violence. Meh. It feels completely arbitrary. There was no malicious intent in posting the video and it isn't against any laws. You're free to post this sort of shit on Reddit, you're just expected to tag it as NSFW and that's all. So this makes me wonder why we have that rule in the first place.

@x0x7 care to comment on why that rule is there? And separate from this: I really think you should inform users about their posts being removed if you want them to learn from it. (But I don't think there's any lesson to be had from an arbitrary rule.) And definitely don't hellban them, that mechanic was meant to trap spambots originally. Directing that weapon on humans is part of the toxic modern Internet culture that we should escape. I suppose it wouldn't be a real hellban if you inform them of their mistake.

parentlinkreply
[-]x0x72(+2|0)

It's there because I want to shape the content in a particular way. It doesn't have to have malicious intent or be illegal. It just has to break a rule. You are calling it a hell ban but a 24h shadow is literally the lightest extra action that can be taken and is necessary to emphasize that a rule exists even if you don't like it. You literally knew about it but still think there is a problem with removing the post because you disagree with the rule, as if disagreement makes a rule not exist. It is supposed to be annoying. That's what gives it weight. If I can't impose something someone doesn't like then everything continues forward with someone thinking a sites rules don't exist if they don't agree with them, and the worst cost they have to pay is a post being removed. Then the cost is on me to do that moderation and have to explain why something was removed every time. It's much better to do that only once.

That's the one reason why I kind of don't want to put it in the TOS. It should suck balls. And it sucks balls less if someone has a heads up. The point of punitive enforcement is to make things suck balls. Now I don't want to produce ball suck for people who just don't know the rules. Like I said in my longer post I don't expect realistically that most people read the rules before hoping on a site. So that kind of thing is unlikely to happen for someone who simply steps on a crack. But if some knows and then has to ask "do rules we just talked about really apply to me?" Then yeah, I should be trying to create maximal suck. And a 24h shadow is actually closer to the minimal end.

Look, I don't want to be a nice moderator. I want to be a very strict moderator with very few rules compared to most sites. That's what produces less work for me, so we don't have to have continual discussions about it.

On most sites there is zero dissuasion about these kinds of things. Moderation just happens. Moderation does what it thinks gets messages across, usually doing 2x-3x what they think they minimally need to for the estimated skull thickness of the person they are dealing with, for good measure, and then they don't explain anything; or have negotiations of if they are right or wrong to apply rules.

I really only give these explanations for the benefit of other people. Yes I can apply rules. Yes I'll remove a post. Yes I'll do extra things in a few cases depending on the attitude read. If they have a problem with it I'll do more. This is how sites work. Let's move on and enjoy more positive things.

parentlinkreply
[-]JasonCarswell2(+2|0)

Excellent outline.

What is a "24h shadow"?

parentlinkreply
[-]Neol0(0|0)

Account shadow ban for 24 hours - that's how I noticed this, LarrySwinger's posts were not visible on front page (and yet were visible from profile).

parentlinkreply