Why was a post about "What's the worst Lemmy community you've run across?" removed due to rule 2 when it seemed kinda weaksause compared to what is normally here?
Why was a post about "What's the worst Lemmy community you've run across?" removed due to rule 2 when it seemed kinda weaksause compared to what is normally here?
Just wondering what the limit is on rule 2 as I see things like covid vaccine effect questions, what scams are still around and other spicy topics. Don't want to make anyone upset but it seemed odd.
You're viewing a single thread.
Asking about the worst Lemmy communities is an easy way to share negative sentiment which has no real value and causes a lot of work for the mods. We're a small team and looking at the comments that had already been posted, it wasn't something that was worth our time to keep up with. Hence rule #2.
I would like to know peoples opinions on communities, what would be your advice on how to ask that here? Also is this the plan going forward to remove any post that could turn into a fight? And what of the people that put the insult comments in? Do they just continue on maybe bullying any post they don't like until it is removed?
The discussion on communities is better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.ml.
See rule #2 - we specifically are careful around offensive topics because we don't have the bandwidth to moderate them carefully. That can mean allowing a conversation to run to see where it goes if one of us has bandwidth - if it goes well, great. If not, it gets locked or removed, depending on the amount of interaction and the tone of the comments. Actively following each thread and removing comments as they come up isn't possible due to bandwidth and tools, so it's a question of looking at the value to the community and overall tone.
A post that is unnecessarily provocative or won't lead to a good discussion is generally removed early.
Regarding bullying, that's very much on our radar. There isn't a hard and fast rule and needs to be dealt with on a per situation basis.
Feel free to take a look at the mod log (link is in the sidebar) for examples of how we handle tougher conversations.
why are you going to bat for someone posting provocative things because they're upset they got banned for posting anti-homeless bullshit?
How do you figure? I have not even commented on any bullshit, just want to know if and how I can without being approached by pickforks. I would also be asking questions if it was the other way around.
I'm the only hexbear in this post. There's no pitchforks yet.
The post removed misrepresented itself, the premise being they had a bad time on a post on hexbear wherein they were reprimanded for anti-homeless rhetoric. you are now trying to relitigate this, adding yet another needless layer to everything. Why?
You both seemed to have made a big deal of it them here and you guys on dunk tank. I was am just trying to figure out why one gets pulled right when people started to engage with it and the other is still up. I think they did answer my question satisfactory so I would say that was the reason why.
Also what is a "volcel police" as I am not down with hippity and the hoppity?
we enjoy it as much as you, I don't think we're the ones stoking the flames here though.
the "other one in the dunk tank" is hosted on the hexbear instance, not here on asklemmy.ml, they're not run by the same moderators.Oh I get the different instances and mods at play, and I would have made a similar post over on hexbear asking about it if the situation was reversed. I might feel my brain cells dying when reading stuff on the dunk tank but I still think people should be aloud to make posts.
the premise was bad and facilitated inflammatory interaction, just as with this post, and was removed. I don't see the issue here
'Anti-homeless' = they said the transit authorities should crack down on people smoking meth on the train and who generally make commutes unsafe and uncomfortable for passengers.
Are you people going to chase this poor person all over this damn site? Get a grip lol.
No, thats not what they said. They used specific words and they provided an entirely different meaning. You've even replaced very important keywords.
I'm the person who commented this. I took the train in LA for a long time since I want to stop using cars. My experiences there with the lack of security made me realize why hardly anyone takes it. My problem was with the smoking meth part. All I got for my trouble was someone accusing me of not really living there and a ban before I could explain myself.
I've alread apologized about the way I said it and tried to clarify yet all I get is more hate and people saying to let them smoke it in peace. Hardly anyone wants to have a real good faith dialogue and instead just reactively dunked on me for uttering the word "homeless" for someone who is clearly doing illegal things in public. If a single adjective is enough to be considered inflammatory then I'm worried we'll ever be able to have civil discourse that goes beyond an echo chamber.
The comment didn't appear to be good faith dialogue. If you thought it did, that would explain your confusion. No one owes you any sort of good faith dialogue after that point. You take the lesson about being less careless with words and they can have their strict peace. I don't see the value in the complaints and whining after that point. It seemed like you had a particular axe to grind with one specific event and chose to try and goad them elsewhere. Why else call a bunch of far leftists conservatives if not trying to kick the bees nest. Your whole approach with your question was extremely intentional to try and attack them. It was not done harmlessly and it was even kind of childish.
Not everyone needs to like you. You will gain nothing of value and simply add negativity into the world with your continual pestering about it. Like what is even your end goal? What do you want to actually happen?
Give us the quotes then. You are interpreting them in the worst possible way, rather than how the average person who has to commute would.
It wasn't drug users. It was homeless people. It's in the screenshot that's on this forum. He said they should be chasing homeless people off the trains. "Clarification" was later. It was pointed out to him homeless people and drug users aren't even one and the same (a poor mistake I saw you made in your comment as well).
If you didn't even see the comments, why are you defending them? You're interpreting them (oddly without having seen them I guess) in a braindead way to assume no malice or negativity were in the comments.
Co-signed