Owning his own instance would probably work better for him, so removing himself from the communities where he was the sole contributor seems like a good decision.
Blaze
joined 6 months ago
As usual, feel free to bring receipts when you make such statements about other instances so that people can have a look
If Piefed was more widespread, mods would be able to only allow downvotes from subscribers, making brigading more difficult.
One day...
Here’s the approach I’d take now:
You didn't answer for !movies@piefed.social. Would you do the same?
On that point, I see it differently. The way I see it, I’m providing these communities with an audience, not the other way around. A lot of people join in or comment because they’re already familiar with my Akkoma account first.
It depends on the community. For !fediversenews@piefed.social it might be true (and I say might because active posters like @Sunshine@piefed.ca maybe just discovered your community here on Piefed, not from Friendica)
For !movies@piefed.social, !movies@lemm.ee was among the top 100 most active communities on the Lemmy/Piefed, so it's definitely different.
But just as important, I’ve been an early adopter of Piefed and probably one of its most vocal evangelists. When I create a new community, it often gains traction quickly simply because I’m already out there championing the platform.
That’s really why I start new communities—to keep momentum going and to help Piefed grow.
You're not really addressing the distinction I made: either communities are for a wide target audience with more laxist rules, like !movies@piefed.social (by the way, if someone called someone else 'bro', would they not be considered civil on !movies@piefed.social ? What if they call you 'bro' ? ), or they are more of a smaller community thing with tigher rules, like !videogames@piefed.social seems to be based on the current activity, especially compared to !gaming@lemmy.world or !games@sh.itjust.works
!fediversenews@piefed.social seemed like it was a general community, but your decision about it made it more of a small community with stricter rules, and it seems this is where the issue comes from. If people had known from the start that it was mostly your community with your rules, they would have probably posted on !fediverse@piefed.social and let you do whatever you want on !fediversenews@piefed.social
In other words, if you want a community to reach a wider audience, the rules need to be acceptable by a wider audience as well
Let me ask you honestly—not rhetorically—what would you see as both practical and kind in a situation like that? I truly want to understand.
"bro" is a commonly accepted term on the Internet today. If I had to ban it on my communities, I would add this in the rules, even potentially with a link to a post with an extensive list of banned terms. That way it's clear for everyone.
From that point on, I promised myself that if something wasn’t clear, I’d do my best to make it clear. At first, I did that with public notes, but then I was told private messages were kinder. So I shifted. Then I listened to more feedback—but this time, things still didn’t work out.
The context were probably different. For moderation decision regarding brigading with non subscribers downvotes, private messages can work better, as users prefer to keep their votes private.
For rules decision, public communication is better, see above.
And this is where the challenge comes in: moderation takes time, it’s unpaid, and when you step into it, you often end up facing dogpiles and harassment.
I'm well aware, but a lot of mods can still mod and step in without being considered power tripping. One important part is to make the rules you apply public, as I said already.
The truth is, I’m the main contributor in most of my communities. I spend hours every day creating original posts to keep them alive. Given that, it’s hard to see what purpose it serves me—or anyone—if a wave of people shows up only to harass.
There are two options for you
- Join communities where other posters are already active, so that you don't feel like the other person in charge of keeping them alive. Those communities will probably have other mods and rules that you'll have to follow.
- Be transparent about the fact that the communities are mostly your blogs with comments, and state that clearly in the rules. Something like "This is my community about X, here are the rules". That way people clearly know what to expect.
No, you're correct.
Just like how they walked back we need to give flat earthers equal attention to actual science. (ie say will provide update then never do)
For people curious: https://lemmy.world/post/24135976
I said it elsewhere, private messaging shouldn't be used for communicating rules, those should be made public, but if you decide to use private messaging to explain a rule, expect it to be made public, that's just fair play with the users.
ChatGPT can't be used to make polite and kind a message that cannot be made that way due to its unreasonable nature.
I didn't try to reach out to you as you never made any problematic decision on !movies@piefed.social . What you do on other communities are your decisions, I didn't feel like I should intervene on that
We just discussed it on the Piefed Zulip space, a warning is going to be added, potentially even removing the possibility as you suggested
None of them had a large following. The one potential exception could be !fediversenews@piefed.social, but it wasn't that active since @Sunshine@piefed.ca switched to !fediverse@piefed.social