1. Am I missing something obvious, or is the new upvote policy and the motivation for it not in any way explained in this post, or in the proposals post, or anywhere visible? I had to trawl through a bunch of posts to even find out what's going on, from what I could see, the policy is explained and introduced in this comment, in a now locked thread, in a comm we've only had for like 3 weeks, that has a grand total, of, uh, 64 subscribers? Is this what we mean by transparency?

   Like, imagine if someone was, I dunno, hiking in the mountains for the past month, and they suddenly come back to some new moderation policies that will be entirely incomprehensible if you haven't gone through 10000 comments worth of site lore. I mean, I actually did fucking follow the tanks drama, but I guess I miss like one fucking thread and now I might as well be completely out of the loop.

   For a site where we often tell people to touch grass, we sure as hell seem to expect everyone to be terminally online enough to keep up with our incessant stupidity if they want to have any chance of understanding why any action is being taken.

   ⠀

2. I'm also throwing my hat into the ring as a habitual upvoter. Like, I don't quite use upvotes as a "read" button, but I definitely don't think too much about it. I upvote pretty much anyone who responds to one of my posts, unless they say something particularly disagreeable, I dunno, it just feels like... a courtesy somehow? Sometimes people will make some joke or obscure reference that goes completely over my head, and I'll just sit there and ponder it for a minute... and upvote it anyway

   I dunno, it sounds stupid, but am I expected to treat every button press through a purely rational and analytical lens here? I'm not the site's fucking UX designer, I'm just a monkey who clicks on things.

   I do use it as a "read" button in exorbitantly long threads (which, you know, we do get a fucking lot of), sometimes I'll see that a response descends into , upvote it, scroll down to read some other, shorter subthreads, and then come back to finish reading the first one. Now, sometimes I'll get tired and give up on reading the rest of the thread, and thus obviously not upvote the remaining comments in it, but this isn't any sort of indication that I agreed with the first few responses and disagreed with the remaining ones, it's just an indication of where I lost interest and gave up .

   I will also often upvote both sides of an argument too (as long as, again, one side isn't being particularly disagreeable or impolite, and it should obviously be noted here that the line between "I mildly disagree with this but will still upvote it" and "I definitely won't upvote this" is inherently vague, arbitrary, and vibes-based, I'm not a Sentiment Analysis algorithm, I'm a human being, with moods, and headaches, and various petty attitudes that I may or may not even be consciously aware of). There isn't much rhyme or reason to this, the idea of "upvote = agreement/support" is just entirely disconnected from users' behavior here.

   ⠀

3. I pretty much stay out of struggle session discourse (aside from, occasionally, uh... lurking the threads and silently upvoting the side I agree with , but I guess I'll have to stop doing that lest I end up backing the losing side in one of those ), this is maybe the first time I'm posting something serious in one, but this is genuinely starting to wear on me, it's been what, 3 weeks of near-permanent revolution struggle? Every time I see a new pinned thread a sense of dread comes over me, how long is this going to fucking go on for? Can we just like, put a fucking moratorium on policy changes until things calm down a bit?

   ⠀

4. I'll link a couple of @Frank@hexbear.net's comments from the past thread, since he's way more eloquent on this than I'll ever be, and I'm not sure how many people have even seen that thread (refer to pt. 1): on the inversion of mod/user roles and on discipline requiring trust.

   The last one in particular I will reiterate - discipline requires trust. At this stage, I am not sure if I can reasonably trust the moderation team: the mod statements from the previous drama, the embarrassing "self-crit" of one of those mods that followed, the fact that you made someone an admin with the reasoning of "well, they used to be an admin before!", said person proceeded to completely mismanage the situation, start randomly handing out bans as some form of humor (?!), and just casually nope out of the mess they created and delete their entire presence here (I don't care how many times you say "we disagree with her decisions", the fact that this was allowed to happen in the first place is such a severe lapse in judgement that I don't even know what to fucking say), the attempt at some kind of Tom Clancy scheme of manipulating other lemmy instances for some reason... given all of this, just this general caliber of decision-making competence on display here, how am I supposed to trust the moderation team to actually pore over individual users posts and upvotes and engage in some kind of internet psychoanalysis in order to discipline them fairly?

   I understand and sympathize that lemmy's moderation tools are lacking, but that's not the fault of the users. In fact, the general attitude of a lot of the userbase seems to be broadly critical of this site being a reddit offshoot! Although this is of course difficult to objectively judge (some of this is just ironic "phpBB forums... they don't make 'em like they used to *sip*" posting, and many users don't actively comment so their attitude is unknown), the broad popularity of the megathreads does seem to indicate the posters yearn for a different kind of site structure than the one we have. Now, at this stage it's of course not really an option to just throw the site away and begin anew as something else, but still, being stuck with a shitty website that lacks functionality isn't something the users should be punished over!

what was the point of the last few weeks?

Show