It is only active in the sense of a moderator removing a reported post or comment, noticing it has a notable amount of upvotes and asking us for a vote audit. It isn't frequent and so names that appear often stick in our minds, prompting us to further look at a mod-log and post/comment history.

There isn't a continuous bot that checks it or even a place where upvote patterns are logged. It is more so, "hm this is the third reactionary post user x has upvoted, lets see what the modlog is like oh wow a bunch of removed comments too it's time for user x to go."

The upvote data is not hidden by lemmy, and is accessible with the API. Part of the reason we did not federate with mbin/kbin is because of this as well as mod-log deanonymization

No we are only able to see votes on a specific post/comment

we would definitely put this to a vote before implementing, just investigating if it is even possible.

Great ideas, there is a current lemmy git issue regarding the marking a comment as read. The latter function you are describing sounds like the star "save" icon under a comment.

very true and an excellent idea

The "Show Upvotes" setting in your user settings will remove upbear amounts being displayed

I think the code of conduct is fine, as ThermonuclearEgg pointed out earlier, but we are making it clear that upvotes will be taken into consideration when a moderator acts.

The new proposal room will have the tools to help slow down the conversation about site change proposals, feedback, and appeals. I agree with you completely and hope that these changes will actualize that.

If someone wants a chapo.chat account you can request one via direct message, it was targeted by wreckers in the past

Please reach out to me on matrix or check out https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy

These are some issues the community has asked for

Modmail: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/5110

User notif when mod action: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/4572

Being able to mark comments read: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3597

post tagging / tag filter: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3788

user-side word filter: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3710

top-level comment lock: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3842

comment-tree removal: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3841

Notify user when a comment/post is removed: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3816

Allow user to disable DMs or only allow local user DMs: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3640

report context link and mod action UI buttons from the /reports page: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3841

I agree with you 100%, and I am truly sorry that you got caught in them. One of my goal with these changes is to work towards stopping struggle sessions from occurring.

More than one person requested the admin vote audit, both mods and users.

Only admins can see votes, we are seeing if we can change that setting so all users can.

For site moderation issues, yes a mod often says "I banned this user from the community and think they need a site action"

Hexbear DAU is heavily tied to current events, we are currently having a higher DAU than we did for months before the united states election. We have undoubtedly trended towards growth when looking at hexbear's numbers over the past years.

You are correct that all websites have shelf life and am grateful for anyone choosing to spread word about hexbear but I've been clear for years that I don't particularly care about growth/numbers with regard to site priorities.

The site always has a period of doomer vibes after a struggle session, and then the site pops off when a news event happens. Im hoping the changes we are making can ensure the health of the site for as long as it exists.

We were the fourth most active site during the election (.world, nsfw, .ee) when we have been the fifth for most of this year (.world, nsfw, .ee, sh.it)

This isn't a constant thing, the process is someone says: "Hey this really reactionary comment got a lot of upvotes can you check that?"

A user that shows up on a few of these requests are going to get closer attention, this is what we mean by upvotes are used along with modlog and post/comment history when determining the appropriate mod action to take against someone.

As per the previous struggle session, we have changed the way that site changes are discussed and enacted to give more transparency/user interaction.

We still have hundreds of daily active users, more than we had months ago, that being said this site has never prioritized growth or user count. What we have prioritized is making this as protected of a space possible for our marginalized comrades.

These comrades have asked for the recent changes, and without a doubt I could have communicated better. To that end we seek to improve the transparency process and allow more user engagement with said process

that would be really neat, however outside the scope of our capabilities due to the extensive amount of development required to make that work. Thanks for the suggestion

Thank you!

This was an older proposal

The admin has recently changed the sign up process, and the instance was readded.

Also it was not a hexbear user, rather a long-time wrecker

We have in the past used upvote auditing to determine mod actions specifically to address the CoC clause you are quoting, and we will continue to do so in the future.

I recognize that many users upvote everything in a post to mark as read, as well as mistakenly upvote while scrolling on mobile which is why a single upvote will no longer be enough for a mod to act on, but it will continue to be used in conjunction with a user's voting patterns, mod-log, and post/comment history to make an appropriate action. Sadly, any feature request, like a way of marking a comment as read rather than voting on it, is not within our capabilities.

When multiple people of intersecting marginalized communities say to us "this comment that made me feel unsafe has a lot of upvotes, which make me feel worse, can something be done about this?" we acted. I'm sorry if those actions made the recipients feel unsafe, which is why we are asking mods to have more than a single upvote as evidence for an action.

For active hexbear users, we do encourage a mod sending a warning message, however that is not required. We frequently give 1 day temp bans without such a warning and while we do wish we had more mod tools available, we work with what we've got.

The previous struggle session was a result of the mod team wanting to uphold the code of conduct and received pushback for what was done. We have changed our site proposal process to give more transparency and opportunity for user interaction with the process.

If you have specific ways that we could improve, please comment here or use one of the other avenues provided.

Thank you for the comment, I won't be removing it.

https://hexbear.net/c/degrassi

We would love to hear you and other users thoughts on what needs to change. Part of this new change is to make it easier for users to do so