/meta/ - Site Discussion

hm, that's an interesting idea for a compromise! it could help address the "hidden activity" point, yeah.

I guess what I'm wondering is: what do the people asking for sage want it for? in my mind, sage is mainly used for people who want to reply but don't want to give attention to OP (often to make spiteful replies). is that something that we want to encourage?
there's also "courtesy sage", like "I don't think my post deserves to bump this thread", but my feeling is that we probably don't need to be so careful about bumps like that, especially if the site's activity continues to speed up some more.

i dont think that performative sage guy should have been punished...
is this gonna be like a strict hugbox now?
those sites make u feel like ur walking on eggshells
u want me to fear u marzimin & marzimods?

>>225
I was on the fence about it, so I appreciate your feedback. I've lifted the ban (previously was 2 days).
>is this gonna be like a strict hugbox now?
>those sites make u feel like ur walking on eggshells
I don't want that to be the case here, of course.
but I do want to create a space that's less antagonistic than a lot of imageboards. so when someone comes in and their first post is hostile and accusatory, it makes me a bit wary. the site's culture and userbase are still in their early stages, so things like rule 10 exist partially to help guide it in the right direction - I don't want the site to become a space where people feel like they have to keep a strict guard up, you know? or one where people stop putting effort or vulnerability into their posts because they know someone might come in and stomp all over it, or suddenly start flamewars.

I realize that this sentiment alone will turn off imageboard users who are looking for a more no-rules, unfiltered sort of environment (ala 4chan), which is okay. I'd almost say that's the default for imageboards, so there are lots of places like that already!

I can see how this time I was being overly wary, though. I should've given them more leeway. sorry, anon (^^;)

>>226
adding onto this thought - in situations like this, it's really better to just let users respond first, as things will often de-escalate and any overly mean behavior can be discouraged that way, without need for intervention. so I regret reaching for the mod hammer; it was far too early.
>>225
>u want me to fear u marzimin & marzimods?
hope this doesn't scare you off! :^p
we're learning as we go m(_ _)m

This is a good example of how it's impractical to change the overall level of hostility in a social environment, you're just shifting it around and disguising it as something else. Even if you didn't ban him, a warning or the threat of intervention is equally stifling just more disguised. What you want is impossible, what you're getting by striving to achieve the impossible is increasingly verbose copes for why being politely, indirectly, or secretly hostile to others is necessary. I hope this post isn't interpreted as hostile because I'm not emotionally invested

>>228
hmm, I don't know about that.
maybe that's true if you're talking about a fixed group of people whose behavior doesn't change much. if those people want to be hostile, and you hold intervention over their head, I can see the argument that the hostility has just changed shape (become "secret" or "indirect", perhaps, like you say).

but in this context, I don't think the main purpose of moderation is to change how individual people will act. certainly there are some people like that - people who maybe had the wrong initial approach, but when prompted can "switch modes" and engage with the space in a positive way without feeling cramped.

but I reckon for the most part, the role of moderation in "steering" the environment is to warn or remove users who seem to be a bad fit; i.e., people who will consistently bring in hostility, antagonism, meanness, et cetera. and I'd argue you can definitely change the level of hostility in an environment by controlling who is in that environment.

>>229
Warning and removing users is also a form of hostility even if well-intentioned, and its indirect effects can be compared to the effects of the overtly hostile and antagonistic culture seen on typical imageboards. People won't feel free to fully express themselves or take pride in this expression if they might be banned for negativity or using rude words (or in the case of 4chan, suffer mockery or get their thread derailed).

You can't win here if your goal is to create a uniquely non-hostile space. Most overmoderated fandom spaces with similar intentions are about as welcoming as 4chan, just with different permitted speech and enforcement mechanisms. I think removing people who don't align with the goals of a community is important, but the goals of this community aren't coherent.

By attempting to steer the environment in a seemingly "less hostile" direction, you're only policing overt hostility which directly requires passive-aggression and exclusionary social behaviour via moderation actions, and also selects for/incentivises the same type of behaviour from users. The message you're sending isn't "be nice", it's "don't make your malice too obvious". If you've ever tried to edit Wikipedia and had a dispute with another user this will make perfect sense but you probably don't accept my argument, whatever that's all I have to say.

>>226
don't apologize. Marzichan will remain cool as long as you stay true to your ideals and follow your dreams!

>>230
turn of GPT, and go away.