1. Invite a lefty mod to moderate the leftists commenting in bad faith (I have someone in mind for this). I’m doing this because my bad-faith-o-meter is completely broken for lefties.

  2. Grow a pair, and start moderating properly. Yes there will be borderline cases, that’s the hard part. No more ignoring “a short drop and a quick stop” because it doesn’t have a keyword in it. ( I got so many reports on that one, and eventually an admin from another instance stepped in. )

  3. Implement proper mod rules. Things such as “Always send a message or a comment reply when taking an action, because lemmy doesn’t do that and having to check mod logs is bad ux” and “on the first instance of a rule breaking comment, warn and let them edit their comment, because removing a comment is effectively the same as deleting and they can’t edit a removed comment” I’ll probably fuck up at some point, but damn it I’m trying.

  4. Try and make peace with lemmy.world because somehow lemmy.world blocked this sub without defeding from lemm.ee (No seriously, check out this link, https://lemmy.world/c/[email protected]) I’m also banned from lemmy.world, never got a message about either, but that’s a bit off topic.

  5. Get rid of rule 3, The one about the keywords “Nazi” and “Fascist” being not allowed. The bad-faith rule should cover what rule 3 was trying to do, but better.

  • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    33·
    1 year ago

    #1 Would need to have a transparent framework for what bad faith means. A lot of problems stem from ambiguity. The greater clarity, the more likely folks will follow the rules.

    #2 I’m…not really sure what “moderating properly” means…

    #3 sounds fine.

    #4 The person that said lemmy.world just doesn’t want to see conservative views may be right. Idk.

    #5 That rule kinda facilitates discussion actually, but does so in the negative and forces the argument to be roundabout by precluding vocabulary. I think those words have meaning and can be relevant with an attending argument. And, again, a bad faith rule would need to be transparent.

    • Throwaway@lemm.eeOPM
      11·
      1 year ago

      What would you say to a bad-faith definition of “insult with no substance or argument”?

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        21·
        1 year ago

        Well, it would permit insults along with arguments or substance.

        I think some of us would get hung up on the insult and completely ignore the argument.

    • Throwaway@lemm.eeOPM
      12·
      1 year ago

      Regarding the meaning of bad faith, that’s the tricky bit. It’s something I was trying to avoid by doing keyword based moderation. (Again, in hindsight, that was a bone headed idea). Coming up with a proper definition that’s both clear and doesn’t screw up the point of the sub is difficult to say the least. The main thing is intention, but I can’t read minds, and it’s just not as transparent as I’d like.

      As for moderating properly, I mean moderating like every other moderator. Using my brain instead of acting like a poorly made automod. I’m not sure if that makes sense, but I hope it does. I’m not joking when I say I was doing keyword-based moderating, I was literally only taking action when it had a slur or the words “Nazi” or “Fascist”, which was not a good thing.

      As for lemmy.world, I know they probably just don’t want conservatives on there, but fingers crossed they will let this sub back on there.

      • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
        22·
        1 year ago

        which was not a good thing.

        I am pleasantly shocked you are owning up to your mistake.