So, new here and looking around but haven't seen this addressed yet (though could be wrong! Happy to be linked if I missed something)

One common failure I've seen in online communities of various sorts is that moderation tools don't get grown in parallel with user tools and abilities, rather they lag behind, and are often in the end built by third parties. This is the case with Reddit, but also in a bunch of other areas (e.g. online gaming, admin tools were often built to basically provide functionality that users realised were needed but makers did not).

I get the impression there are plenty of reddit mods here, so can we discuss what are the key features needed to moderate communities that would be better built in than coming from third party tools (RES, toolbox) . A lot of these aren't needed with 100 users but with a million they become pretty crucial.

My initial thoughts:

• Something not dissimilar to the automod
• Group user tagging (shared tagging visible to all mods, tags can be linked to specific discussions/comments)
• Ability to reply as a 'tilde' not as an individual
• Ability to have canned responses/texts (for removals, for replies to user contacts)
• Some sort of ticket-like system for dealing with user contacts to mods (take inspiration from helpdesk ticket systems)
• (added) space per tilde for storage (tags, notes, bans, canned text etc) of reasonable size.

Plenty more to add I am sure but wanted to open the discussion.

Instead of a tree hierachy, perhaps groups would be better off based on a DAG - a Directed Acyclic Graph. This would allow groups to have multiple parents as well as multiple children. For example, ~mazda might have ~cars and ~japan as parents, and ~tolkein might have ~fantasy and ~linguistics as parents. I think this could maintain the benefits of the hierachical system while making it easier to find a group that suits the post.

While potentially complex, a good UI which effectively visualised the DAG to allow a content submitter to hone in on the correct group-node, and potentially create a new one on the fly if none was appropriate, could make this concept reasonably intuitive. This problem has already been tackled by creators of git GUIs, so perhaps some ideas could be adapted from that space.

One issue is that a node in a DAG is much harder to identify with a text string than a node in a tree-based hierachy. One solution would be that the submitter could choose a 'primary path' which would be displayed to readers, which, upon being clicked, would display the full DAG, including all the potentially numerous paths which would lead to that group-node. For example, I might choose ~linguistics.tolkein.quenya as the primary path, but upon clicking, the reader can discover that ~fantasy.tolkein.quenya and ~linguistics.conlangs.quenya and ~writing.worldbuilding.quenya all lead to the same group-node [edit: ugly illustration]. I feel that this solution could potentially be powerful enough to remove the need for tags entirely. Viewing the homepage of any particular group-node on the DAG would aggregate posts to all child groups, meaning that the effects of community fragmentation are mitigated. Even a post to a really specific group-node, like ~cars.mazda.mx5.na, will still enjoy the same status and priority to the readers of the ~cars homepage as a post made directly to the ~cars group-node.

I know similar topics have been discussed, but I'd like to talk about removing the vote count OR, having the count appear after you've voted. To be clear, I'd like to keep the voting mechanism as-is, just reduce the visibility of the actual number of votes.

It's not foolproof, but it might reduce the "bandwagon" voting we're trying to avoid. I realize that vote count could still be guessed based on sorting by "most votes," but I think this is a worthwhile discussion to have.

*Edit 2: Removed the joke I made about spamming as I think it detracts from the conversation.

One of the very frustrating things for me on reddit is the way crossposting works, essentially making it a karma whoring feature more than anything else.

Can crossposting be simplified? For example: I just posted a topic in ~tv, however I realize it applies more to ~comp (sorry, I was premature on posting it somewhere - maybe it can be moved?) but could fit in ~tv as it's related, even if being a 3rd cousin from the groups intent. It would be nice to be able to pick the groups I'd like to publish it to, so the discussion is centralized and consistent - if that makes sense?

*Removed a word

I'm fairly new to the site as I came in from the hackernews post a fortnight ago. I enjoyed the fact that this site doesn't have downvotes. However, when I am reading through posts I am seeing the noise tag on multiple posts that don't seem to merit it, with examples linked below. The comments aren't literary masterpieces by any stretch, but they are concerning the topic on hand. The noise tag appears to be getting used as a downvote or "I disagree" button.

I know the user that was the first ban also used the noise tag this way, but this seems to be a more wide spread issue than one user. We can't prevent a de facto downvote tag from appearing organically everywhere. Eventually sub communities will form around a tilde and adopt a tag as a downvote, the same way all online communities change the meaning of some word or tool they already have. I don't think that we want this to be a standard tildes wide behavior however.

How should we go about preventing the use of tags as downvotes like this? Stricter moderation? Removing tags with negative connotations? Making tags visible only if they reach a certain threshold?

https://tildes.net/~talk/105/mozilla_to_remove_meritocracy_from_governance_docs_because_its_problematic#comment-6kb
https://tildes.net/~talk/105/mozilla_to_remove_meritocracy_from_governance_docs_because_its_problematic#comment-6mh
https://tildes.net/~misc/10r/furries#comment-6pq

Hi all. Registered several days ago and this is my first post.

After reading around this group and the blog, I'm very excited for the tildes project. It's not just another reddit-style forum but actually one of its own taste and style. I have some suggestions for the project and would like to share them with the community. They are the result of years of redditing with numerous frustrating experiences and few shower thoughts.

1. Voting power should not be taken for granted. The ability for me to vote must be in some way tied to my contributions to the discussion. This can be implemented in a sort of formula that takes into account the user's 'score' and 'activity' which results in a finite number of votes at the user's disposal. The more you contribute the more voting power you get, and the more quality you provide in your contributions the more votes you get to use.
2. Deleted posts or comments must be reflected in a user's score. One of the bad effects of having a user score is the tendency to 'karma whore' in order to increase that score no matter what. The result is low effort posts and comments. Having a system in place that removes from the user's score if their posts/comments get deleted would act as a constant reminder to the minimum level of quality required.
3. Mods should not have dictator power over their groups. Sure they must have elevated accounts to run their groups, including the power to remove or ban, but they should not be invisible. There has to be an approved system where users can have the collective power to revoke the elevated account powers of a Mod if they reach a certain threshold. Not sure how to implement this exactly, may be through voting by the users of a group who have high scores or reputations. One of the cancerous ailments of reddit is the invincibility of Mods.
4. The availability of formatting tools and embedding in posts. This is 2018 and inserting a photo, video, table in the body of a post should be easily implemented. Constrictions on the use of certain attention-grabbing formats (eg. large fonts, ascii art, emoji) should be also be implemented to deter low effort contributions.

Here's to hoping this project flourishes into a much-needed hub for quality content and discussions on the internet.
Cheers

Edit: Not sure why the first point is indented or how to fix it.
Edit2: Fixed.

When posting a comment, the width of the text seems limited. When I removed the max-width from the p and li element, it filled the box as I expected it to. (Source)

To me, the second one looks better. Some padding left and right could be added, but I certainly wouldn't use a fixed maximum width there (A percentage would be fine, I guess).

Edit The seems seems to apply for posts as well.

Instead of fading the replies after clicking on "Mark as Read", it should just remove it immediately. It's really, really time consuming to have to mark 40 something replies as read. I know this can be solved with a "mark all as read" button, but I do actually want to go through and read all of them.

18-Nov-2011: Updated to include the latest markdown changes.

####Contents

1. Basic text formatting (Italics, Bold, Strikethrough, Super^script, inline code, Quoting)

2. Linking
3. Line Breaks & Paragraphs
4. Lists
5. Tables
6. Block Code
7. Headlines and Horizontals

####1. Basic Text Formatting

Italics are created using either a single asterisk (*) or single underscore (_).

Example:

This is *italic text*, this is also _italic text_.

becomes:

This is italic text, this is also italic text.

Bold text is created with double asterisks (**) or double underscores (__).

Example:

This is **bold text**, this is also __bold text__.

becomes:

This is bold text, this is also bold text.

Strikethrough text is created using a double tilde (~~).

Example:

This is ~~strikethrough text~~.

becomes:

This is strikethrough text.

Superscript text is created using the carot (^).

Example:

This sentence contains super^script.

becomes:

This sentence contains super^script.

Note that you cannot leave space before the carot, and there is no closing tag.

Superscript can also be stacked^like^this.

inline code (monospaced text) is created using the backtick (grave accents) (`).

Example:

This sentence contains inline code: `javascript:alert("hello world");`

becomes:

This sentence contains inline code: javascript:alert("hello world");

Quoting is achieved by starting a line with an Angle Bracket (>)

Example:

>Here's a quote.

>Another paragraph in the same quote.
>>A nested quote.

>Back to a single quote.

And finally some unquoted text.

becomes:

Here's a quote.

Another paragraph in the same quote.

A nested quote.

Back to a single quote.

And finally some unquoted text.

To remove formatting you will need to use a Backslash (\)

Example:

This sentence escapes \*italic text\* and \*\*bold text\*\*.

becomes:

This sentence escapes *italic text* and **bold text**.

####2. Linking

Creating a link

Example:

[Reddit](http://reddit.com)

becomes:

Reddit

You cannot begin a link with "www", it must begin with one of the following URL schemes:

• http://

• https://
• ftp://
• mailto:
• steam://
• irc://
• news://
• mumble://
• ssh://

You can also provide title text for links:

[Reddit](http://reddit.com "what's new online!").

becomes:

Reddit ← (hover!)

Title text can be used to hide spoilers:

[spoiler](/s"The spoiler text goes here")

becomes:

[spoiler](/s"The spoiler text goes here") ← (hover!)

Reddit now recognises when you want to link to a subreddit.

Example:

This is a shameless plug for /r/BritishTV!

becomes:

This is a shameless plug for /r/BritishTV!

If a URL contains brackets you will need to escape these.

Example without escaping:

[Cube](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_(film))

becomes:

Cube ← (note the surplus bracket!)

Example with escaping:

[Cube](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_(film\))

becomes:

[Cube](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_(film\)) ← (no surplus bracket!)

####3. Line Breaks & Paragraphs

Line breaks in comments are achieved by adding four spaces (shown using ░) to the end of the line. Simply hitting return (shown using ↵) will not work.

Example:

First line↵
Second line

becomes:

First line Second line

but:

First line░░░░↵
Second line

becomes:

First line
Second line

Paragraphs are formed when you hit return (shown using ↵) twice.

First Paragraph↵
↵
Second Paragraph

becomes:

First Paragraph

Second Paragraph

####4. Lists

To create Unordered Lists each item should begin with either an asterisk (*), plus sign (+) or minus sign (-).

Example:

* Item 1
+ Item 2
- Item 3

becomes:

• Item 1

• Item 2

• Item 3

Ordered Lists are created with a number and period. It doesn't matter which number you start with, as markdown will always start with 1.

Example:

3. Item 1
2. Item 2
1. Item 3

becomes:

3. Item 1
4. Item 2
5. Item 3

The markup for Nested Lists has changed slightly:

Example:

1. This is Item 1
2.
░░░░1. This is Item 2.1
░░░░2. This is Item 2.2
3. This is Item 3
4. This is Item 4

becomes:

1. This is Item 1
2. 1. This is Item 2.1
   2. This is Item 2.2
3. This is Item 3
4. This is Item 4

Lists should be clear of any text in the line immediately above and below, the same as making a new paragraph:

This is the wrong way to make a list

1. lorem
2. ispum
   reddit doesn't realize it should listify...

becomes:

This is the wrong way to make a list

1. lorem
2. ispum
   reddit doesn't realize it should listify...

Place lists in their own paragraph:

This is the correct way to make a list

1. lorem
2. ispum

reddit realizes it should listify!

Paragraphs in Lists and Nested lists using a combination of ordered and unordered lists, are no longer supported.

####5. Tables

Tables are created using pipes (|):

Example

Left align | Center align | Right align
:--|:--:|--:
This | This | This
column | column | column
will | will | will
be | be | be
left | center | right
aligned | aligned | aligned

becomes:

Note that by default the first row is always bolded.

Column Alignment is determined by the second row.

Use ":--:" for centre aligned text, "--:" for right, and ":--" for left.

You can also leave the top row empty, as long as you have the correct amount of pipes:

||
:--|:--:|--:
the|top|row
is|now|empty

becomes

| |
:--|:--:|--:
the|top|row
is|now|empty

####6. Block code

Displaying block code, without formatting and in monospaced font, is as simple as starting the line with four spaces (shown using ░).

Example:

░░░░line of code
░░░░░░░░line of code
░░░░░░░░░░░░line of code
░░░░░░░░line of code
░░░░line of code

becomes:

    line of code
        line of code
            line of code
        line of code
    line of code

####7. Headlines & Horizonal Rules

Headline text can be created by using a number of hashes (#) corresponding to the tag you want. Headline tags will format all text until it encounters a Line Break or new Paragraph.

# Headline 1
## Headline 2
### Headline 3

becomes:

#Headline 1
##Headline 2
###Headline 3

NOTE: Markdown supports up to six headline tags, but only the first three have default formatting.

To create a Horizontal Rule, simply add three asterisks (*) to an empty line.

***

becomes:

---

Problem Summary

• "Vote" might not be the best word for tildes, since it implies choice
• 0 might not be the best number to start votes at

Solution

• Call the score "Score". It feels really natural: This has a score of 5. My submission has a great score.
• Call the act of voting +. It feels mostly natural: I give this +. I + this post. I got a +.
• Start score at 0. Things start at zero.
• When someone submits something, have them auto+ their own post. + is removable, but see next point - user will never see a 0.
• Hide scores until you have voted on something. This is potentially controversial, but I think it makes sense. Just show a big + in a box for the vote.

I think this checks off most of the concerns around things that were brought up in both of those threads (listed below).

Sources

For posterity, here are both the previous links on this topic:

• https://tildes.net/~tildes/b1/suggestion_find_a_new_name_for_vote_button
• https://tildes.net/~tildes/b3/suggestion_default_posts_to_1_vote_since_0_votes_can_be_disheartening

(0) Background

This is coming off a discussion in today's thread on forming new groups around whether or not to add a group for politics. I expressed there that, given my moderator experience on /r/ChangeMyView and /r/NeutralPolitics, I opposed making such a group given how Tildes currently stands.

(1) Political discussion is nearly always garbage.

I don't think anyone needs reminding of this, but political discussion almost uniformly fails to achieve anything positive in almost any social media platform. Your uncle's facebook rants? Garbage. Political sniping on Twitter? Garbage. The endless repetitive point scoring and outrage fest on most political subreddits? Garbage.

So, we have to ask, why is this content garbage?

(2) People want to be heard, but nobody wants to hear.

I do not think political discussion is garbage because of bad faith trolling. That certainly exists and does not help, but usually it's not hard to ID the trolls, and excepting egregious stuff like doxxing or threats, to ignore obvious bad faith absurdity.

The much bigger issue is that what people want to do is to be heard and validated in their political views. This is not merely that they want to proselytize or to win converts, but that they're seeking validation and a sense of rightness or righteousness in their statements.

This desire is toxic to a neutral forum, because invariably on any divisive issue, you will not merely be heard and validated, but will be challenged and denigrated. Indeed, often the challenges and denigrations themselves are the same performance in reverse. Members of each team trying to dunk on the other and earn validation for how hard they owned the other side.

(3) To overcome this, a successful political forum must have a purpose other than mere commentary.

On /r/ChangeMyView and /r/NeutralPolitics, we have been able to build forums which have large amounts of productive and non-hostile political discussion. The key to this is that neither forum allows for being heard, or general discussion, as its reason for being.

On /r/ChangeMyView we limit posts to views people genuinely hold, and are open to changing (CMV rule B). This requires that OPs cannot come to troll or soapbox. It is by far the most frequently used rule of ours in terms of removing submissions, almost always on the soapboxing side.

On /r/NeutralPolitics, we limit posts to neutrally framed questions about political subjects, which can be answered with facts. By doing this, we narrow the scope of discussion away from soliciting feelings (which is an invitation to people posting just to be heard) and towards bringing forth factual information, where people might learn something.

I don't know what purpose a political forum on Tildes might have, but to succeed it must have a clear purpose, and that purpose must be one which excludes people posting merely to be heard.

(4) In addition to a purpose beyond being heard, a political forum must have extreme civility rules.

Both CMV and NP have extremely similar rules in this regard, and they are absolutely crucial to the success of the fora.

In general, any comment or post which in any way denigrates another user should be removed. This is an extremely broad civility rule that is well past what most subreddits do. Calling another user a liar, or accusing them of bad faith posting is banned on both CMV and NP for example, even when such accusations are true.

The prohibition on what even may be seen as justified rudeness is I think the key to a civility rule. It immediately removes from the moderation process any discretion around the substance of the politics, and makes it a neutral rule which can be applied evenly to all parties.

It is also necessary because nothing productive ever happens after bad faith is accused. Almost uniformly, once someone is rude, if there is a response back to them, the response will be rude in kind, usually more severely. People love to try to get the last word in, and a clear, objective rule banning "they started it" spats is also an important component. CMV's wiki has a really good overview of how we enforce this rule there.

(5) Conclusion/TL;DR

I don't know exactly what political content should exist on Tildes. I do know that a general politics group will not work, and that rather a politics channel should be focused on a discrete purpose other than just discussion.

I would almost certainly ban link posts from any politics group, since inherently they're going to act as just headlines for people to pontificate on, without guiding discussion towards a particular goal. I would also obviously enforce civility, and have much stricter moderation of it than I might on a non-politics forum.

Edited for formatting