Feedback: no more ‘fuck tankies’ in banner or rules. It’s divisive because it has no consensus definition and I think we should make all leftist feel welcome and just use mod action if someone is being harmful to the community.
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
272 points (97.2% liked)
196
1471 readers
3464 users here now
This community only has one rule.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 days ago
MODERATORS
The only experience I have is small leadership roles in some discord (🤮) communities, but I’d be willing to try my hand at moderating here. I’m trans, I like to think of myself as a good listener, and while my neurodivergence sometimes makes me “not get the joke” I generally think it forces me take a step back from my emotional response to things and look toward community reaction for guidance on various posts and issues. First and foremost I’m glad this community was made to help us stay on LBZ, and I’d love to help contribute to it even though I’m not a frequent poster.
I guess I’ll add a strong affinity for privacy, opt-in centric policy, self governance, and mutual accountability, as core tenants of digital communities. Especially in leadership roles I want to hear from my members, and create systems that work for them, not work the way I maybe envision them.
same but for guilded instead
I vow to make this comm 1000% more trans and leftist if appointed mod 🤓
I am in cahoots with the international trans mafia. I will not show anyone any quarter. (I already mod shit on here)
o7
load more comments
(1 replies)
One rule I think might be a good idea is that mods aren't allowed to moderate their own posts/comment chains. Not that it's really been an issue on 196 in the past afaik, but there are some communities where the mods will get into an argument with another user and then remove comments for incivility or a similar rule which obviously has massive potential for abuse. Assuming there are enough mods where it's not an issue to do so (which seems very likely based on the number of people interested in moderating) preventing situations like that entirely seems beneficial.
I cannot agree more. Good call, I appreciate the input.
The canonical name being written out in words makes sense if you or Ada didn't want to take over the existing community (which IMO would have been preferable). But I would strongly prefer that the display names of both communities make it clear which it is. So !196 would become "196 (archive)" and !onehundredandninetysix should just display "one hundred and ninety six", or at least "196 (new)". This is just so it's very clear at a glance, regardless of where in the UI you're seeing it, which community you're looking at, and helps differentiate it visually from the LW one.
load more comments
(9 replies)
I'm a bit late on the wagon, but if you're still in need of mods, I would gladly help curate this community and do my best to maintain onehundredninetysix as we know it ^^
Lemmy UI shows this as 196@lbz in the feed which is amazing UX xd
Ah yes, one nine six at lesbianz. Truly an inclusive experience. 🏳️🌈🤗
I will not lie, 100% intentional.
I hope the old one can change their display name For clarity when browsing all but if that can't happen maybe you could add even just a single character somewhere.
Name it 196 (Legitimate)
It shows as this in Eternity as well. No idea why.
Literally didn't know there was a blahaj 196, and now you guys are my entire feed lol. Love this fediverse lore
Also if you read this I wish you a wonderfully fulfilling day
[email protected] used to be the only (or at the very least largest) community of the type. Recently, its mods unilaterally decided to move the community to [email protected] and lock 196@LBZ (essentially squatting on the name). [email protected] is a replacement under new management.
It was the main one.
trans lover of memes and progressive politics here!
I would love to help out 
Feels like it should have been 197 😅
nah that one's the kid friendly. 196 is for antagonizing children and authoritarians
You could always just copy the old 196 rules. They work pretty well.
I wrote these rules for a venting room on the blåhaj matrix, perhaps they could be of some inspiration here. A venting room on a different medium will have very different needs of course from a community like this.
Rules
User rules
- Assume others have good intentions. Strive to keep this a safe space to vent.
- Tangents are allowed, but the primary purpose of the room is venting.
- Don't respond to vents if the venter does not wish to be interacted with. You can mark a vent with /dni to signify this.
- Keep mature vents in 18+ rooms if possible. Use https://trggr.link/ if such rooms are unavailable.
- Censor/spoiler sensitive issues and provide content warnings as appropriate. https://trggr.link/ is an excellent way to censor something. Some clients support surrounding text in || on either side of it to censor it like this: ||spoilered text||. Some clients may have a spoiler command: /spoiler spoilered text.
Issues you probably should spoiler: Slurs, racism, ableism, bigotry, suicide, self harm, abuse, drug/alcohol abuse, blood and gore.
Moderator rules
- Use a gentle hand, don't reprimand!
- Assume good intentions.
- When moderating, use DMs or moderator rooms for anything beyond single-comment moderation and for anything serious.
- Don't leave moderated users in the dark regarding issues they are directly involved in.
- Warn, then kick, then temp-ban, then perma-ban (avoid), in that order, when dealing with non-compliant users and serious infractions. Skip steps if necessary for larger infractions.
- Users may appeal your decisions and some arguing should be tolerated. Attempt to deescalate when this happens. Harassing you however is never okay.
- If you feel yourself become angry at or get a bad relationship with a user you are moderating then pass on the issue to another mod if they are available.
- Take care of yourself. You are moderating voluntarily after all.
Proper guidelines for moderators is probably key, and then for users a quick summary of the purpose of the community is important, followed by any additions to the instance rules.
Ahem. Can I propose a dumb rule in the spirit of the community's name?
- All numbers shall be written out in full here.
One hundred and ninety six.
Two thousand twenty five.
The Kessel Run can be run in less than twelve parsecs.
The universe was made thirteen point six billion years ago and was widely considered a bad move.
This is a great idea
load more comments
(3 replies)
Sorry, but I have to withdraw my offer. I am currently struggling with mental health and can't handle any more toxicity or drama.
The last few days have shown me that stuff like this is not good for me at all.
So, good luck and happy rules.
~~Hello! It's me, Roflmasterbigpimp! The lovable rascal from communities like [email protected] and, since yesterday, [email protected].~~
~~And to some degree even [email protected] for a whopping two days, until feddit.de (and therefore my account) died.~~
~~Even though I have barely done any moderation at all over at [email protected], I still want to help out and perhaps sort things out further. I tried to do my best on the .world 196. I encourage you to check my comment history about this topic and form your own opinion about me.~~
~~I can 100% understand if you decline my offer, but I really like this community and want to make this work.~~
~~Furthermore, I would advise adding a rule along the lines of "All decisions affecting the community and its members as a whole must be backed by a public vote." This is something that could have prevented this whole disaster in the first place.~~
I just saw your update. Sorry you're having a rough time. I hope your struggles lessen and feel free to reach out if you need support. Even if I can't do anything directly, I'll do my best to wrangle up something for you.
Good luck!
This is part of the deal you make when joining a community with active mods, admins, and rules. Not everything is up for debate. I know firsthand that this can be quite frustrating sometimes, but we can’t act like everything else has always been subject to election up to this point. It simply was not.
https://lemmy.world/comment/14556651
Not sure that really shows you under the best light
load more comments
(4 replies)
"All decisions affecting the community and its members as a whole must be backed by a public vote."
Is there a way on Lemmy to distinguish who is or isn't a community member? Is there a way to prevent me from rigging votes with a bot army or a group of bad actors?
I've been thinking recently about chain of trust algorithms and decentralized moderation and am considering making a bot that functions a bit like fediseer but designed more for individual users where people can be vouched for by other users. Ideally you end up with a network where trust is generated pseudo automatically based on interactions between users and could have reports be used to gauge whether a post should be removed based on the trust level of the people making the reports vs the person getting reported. It wouldn't necessarily be a perfect system but I feel like there would be a lot of upsides to it, and could hopefully lead to mods/admins only needing to remove the most egregious stuff but anything more borderline could be handled via community consensus. (The main issue is lurkers would get ignored with this, but idk if there's a great way to avoid something like that happening tbh)
My main issue atm is how to do vouching without it being too annoying for people to keep up with. Not every instance enables downvotes, plus upvote/downvote totals in general aren't necessarily reflective of someone's trustworthiness. I'm thinking maybe it can be based on interactions, where replies to posts/comments can be ranked by a sentiment analysis model and then that positive/negative number can be used? I still don't think that's a perfect solution or anything but it would probably be a decent starting point.
If trust decays over time as well then it rewards more active members somewhat, and means that it's a lot harder to build up a bot swarm. If you wanted any significant number of accounts you'd have to have them all posting at around the same time which would be a lot more obvious an activity spike.
Idk, this was a wall of text lol, but it's something I've been considering for a while and whenever this sort of drama pops up it makes me want to work on implementing something.
I'm always wary of how such systems can be gamed and how they'll influence user behavior, but the only downside to trying is your own efforts. Even if you fail miserably, I imagine the exercise itself would improve our understanding of what works, what doesn't, and how to form better approaches in the future. To succeed in making a system which improves user interactions would be a truly wonderful thing, and may even translate to IRL applications. I would urge you to follow through with this for as long as you feel it's something you'd like to do.
Yeah those are basically my thoughts too lol. Even if it ends up not working out the process of trying it will still be good since it'll give me more experience. Those aspects you're wary of are also definitely my 2 biggest concerns too. I think (or at least hope) that with the rules I'm thinking of for how trust is generated it would mostly positively effect behaviour? I'm imagining by "rewarding" trust to recieving positive replies, combined with a small reward for making positive replies in the first place, it would mostly just lead to more positive interactions overall. And I don't think I'd ever want a system like this to punish making a negative reply, only maybe when getting negative replies in response, since hopefully that prevents people wanting to avoid confrontation of harmful content in order to avoid being punished. Honestly it might even be better to only ever reward trust and never retract it except via decay over time, but that's something worth testing I imagine.
And in terms of gaming the system I do think that's kinda my bigger concern tbh. I feel like the most likely negative outcome is something like bots/bad actors finding a way to scam it, or the community turning into an echo chamber where ideas (that aren't harmful) get pushed out, or ends up drifting towards the center and becoming less safe for marginalized people. I do feel like thats part of the reason 196 would be a pretty good community to use a system like this though, since there's already a very strong foundation of super cool people that could be made the initial trusted group, and then it would hopefully lead to a better result.
There are examples of similar sorts of systems that exist, but it's mostly various cryptocurrencies or other P2P systems that use the trust for just verifying that the peers aren't malicious and it's never really been tested for moderation afaik (I could have missed an example of it online, but I'm fairly confident in saying this). I think stuff like the Fediverse and other decentralized or even straight up P2P networks are a good place for this sort of thing to work though, as a lot of the culture is already conducive to decentralization of previously centralized systems, and the communities tend to be smaller which helps it feel more personal and prevents as many bad actors/botting attempts since there aren't a ton of incentives and they become easier to recognize.
Hey wow thats an awesome Idea! I'm currently in training to become a Software developer myself and this sound really impressive!
Did you already started?
I've been looking at the Lemmy api and stuff, and into some existing libraries/implementations of trust networks but that's about it so far tbh. I think I'm gonna start working on some implementation later today maybe, this whole mod drama and the discussion it led to make me really want to start lol.
Nice! If you post progress or so to any programming community @ me :D
I haven't read the response to you quite yet (though skimmed, and saw some cool words I like), but IME, not really/not as well as you might like.
I know some instances (well, only one I know of - the instance I'm at) have a voting system that hinges around instance membership and declaration by post. It's not perfect, but it gets around the more obvious stuff (bot instances - if you're not a sh.it.head, it doesn't count; admins can refer to unusual patterns in registration around vote time if something seems amiss, etc.)
But in that case, it's about decisions at an instance level. In this case, it's a little trickier. I don't know if people want the vote to be blahaj users only (though I support that), or if admins are interested in facilitating that/watching for signs of obvious screwiness.
It's a tricky proposal to ensure it's 100% fair and resistant to manipulation, though I'm sure there's a way to do it. Still think it's important to attempt, though.
As far as I know, yes. There is some sort of trace from where the Upvotes came. But I'm not deep into Lemmy-Tech so I don't know much.
But it would still be possible for me and a number of trolls/bots to make accounts here and participate in voting, right?
I completely agree with the sentiment of involving the community, I just remember having problems with direct democracy on Reddit and question what the best implementation is.
People on other instances can be community members as well, which is an extra complication on top of Reddit's problems in the "Who's allowed to vote?" question.
But it would still be possible for me and a number of trolls/bots to make accounts here and participate in voting, right?
We had a vote on sh.itjust.works on whether or not to federate with threads and it seemed to go just fine. They had a bot that checked validity.
I guess so. 🤔
But it would at least open the discussion Instead what ever just happend.
The thing is I'm quite sure moss and the other Mods plan was not
-
Move Community
-
get backlash
-
Change Plan
-
???
-
Profit
Thats why some rule like you just can't do that should be in place so People can discuss this. Because if accidentally or not it caused massive drama and rift and could have been avoided so easily.
No, I agree that there must be a rule(s) to prevent just this sort of thing. I'm only objecting in an attempt to help moderation craft the best version of the rule for the desired effect. And even with that said, an imperfect solution is better than no solution, so my objection should be disregarded if there's no way around it.
Possibly there should be new systems in place, such as registering membership with communities beyond simply subscribing, and then it would be very clear who should vote on community issues.
load more comments
(1 replies)
if i have any feedback then i would say that we need some proper rules in place, yeah we can just default to the instance rules but i think having some solid set of rules for moderators and users alike to follow would be a good idea. if you need help modding im interested.
view more: next ›