moderation — 21 things I got wrong before I got it right
Thinking out loud about this: moderation — 21 things I got wrong before I got it right.
Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here.
Edited a wiki page for the first time and nothing bad happened, which is apparently the point.
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
This. Modmail first is not bureaucracy; it stops individual cases turning into a public pile-on.
[deleted]
Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.
A rule-change proposal needs replacement wording because that is what can be evaluated. Without it there is nothing to compare against the current text.
modmail first, always, and the thread second
Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.
That is a complaint rather than a proposal. Bring wording and it can actually be discussed.
What breaks if we make that change?
sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.
Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments. That keeps a three-year-old thread from being reopened with a reply nobody will see in context.
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?
Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything. The formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering.
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
I would not archive earlier. The old threads are the most-searched thing on the site.
I would not archive earlier.
Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.
Correction: that rule applies to the vendor boards specifically, not site-wide. The wording is on the rules page.
Moderation of individual cases happens in modmail rather than in threads, because a public discussion of one person’s removal is worse for that person than a private one.
The ranking functions are published: the hot ordering combines score magnitude with age, and the controversial ordering weights total volume by the balance between up and down votes. Both are reproducible from the numbers on each submission.
Vendor source pages carry an outbound link to the supplier’s own storefront, marked nofollow and sponsored, disclosed on the page and again on the funding page. Nothing is received for it.
Not convinced by the proposal as worded. It would remove the specific thing that makes the vendor board usable.
- 1Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what…13 comments in this branch · started by u/hub_ops