Looking for opinions on how to moderate a community
Hello.
I moderate a reddit sub with about 450 thousand people and we have had trouble with transgender people facing abuse from idiots in two different threads. In one of them, a woman chimed in and it got ugly (4 bans in the first 12 comments), in the other a trans woman took part and got shit for it (also featured a few users banned).
Now, each of them had a very different approach. The first got defensive and stopped participating, while the second took the time to respond to the stupid but not offensive ones, trying to educate them.
So even if this is something that bothers me a lot and makes considerably angry, I realised that maybe I should take a more nuanced view on this, and I should actually ask for more opinions on how to handle thiS, instead of simply applying my own standards and maybe making things worse and/or missing a chance to make things better. And since Tildes has always provided me with intelligent, thoughtful and interesting points of view and opinions, I thought this would be the best place for this question.
And so here I am, asking anyone that would care to give an opinion: what would a good moderator do? How harsh or lenient should we be with ignorant but not offensive comments? Should we get involved at all if the discussion is not offensive? What would make our sub a nicer place to everyone? Any other thoughts?
Thank you very much to all.
I can't give you anything but my own personal perspective on this. That personal perspective is informed by being a moderator on various subreddits for 6 years, including a gay-related one. I also moderated /r/ModHelp for a couple of years. And I'm a gay man (but not a transgender person, even if I have known a few transgender people over the years). But, in the end, this is still my own perspective, and not necessarily best practice or common practice.
There are two types of "ignorance" on Reddit: actual naiveté and deliberate trolling.
There are people who are legitimately naive and uninformed about transgender issues. After all, it's not the kind of thing most people run into regularly. They won't know the right pronouns to use, they'll say the wrong thing, and they'll probably offend people - but they're doing it from a place of innocence, like a baby who doesn't understand why the dog is growling when it pulls on the dog's tail.
There are people who are deliberately antagonistic about transgender issues. They know exactly what they're doing, and why it's wrong. They may ask questions that seem innocent, but those questions are just traps to entice victims into a bad-faith discussion, wherein the bigots can start spouting their bigotry under the pretence of just asking innocent questions. This is sometimes called "concern trolling", but I don't like that term.
And, to add more confusion to the mix, some transgender people can take offence where none is intended. I refer to this as the "abused puppy syndrome" (which I've previously explained at length elsewhere). This makes it difficult to know if someone is truly being offensive, or whether the supposed offence is just the result of an abused puppy growling at a random passerby.
So... what does this mean for you and your subreddit?
The first step is to moderate harshly any direct personal attacks: any comments where it's clear that one person is insulting or attacking another person. It doesn't matter who's attacking whom - whether it's the bigot or the trans person. The instant one of them stops discussing the issue and starts attacking the other person, they've crossed a line. You stamp that behaviour out, quick-smart. That reduces the side effects of offensive behaviour turning into a flame war. Of course, you'll cop flak from both sides when you do this:
If one of those people is an "abused puppy" transgender person, they'll assume you're being transphobic, rather than trying to enforce civility.
The bigot will assume (or pretend to assume) you're shutting down their free speech and their innocent attempts to learn, rather than trying to enforce civility.
People are often unable to see beyond their own personal feelings but, as a moderator, sometimes you just have to be the "bad cop" for the good of your subreddit. You don't want people hurling insults at each other - that's bad behaviour and, if it takes hold, it will create a toxic culture in your subreddit.
On this note, also clamp down on any offensive language. If you're in doubt what language is offensive, look to the people being offended to tell you what's offensive and what's not. For example, the word "tranny" is offensive, even if the person using it tries to tell you that it's just a neutral abbreviation for "transgender". Transgender people have decided that "tranny" is offensive to them, so it is offensive - end of discussion. They have the final say in this matter. When you see offensive language, remove it immediately.
The harder part is assessing the motives of the people who are causing the offence: are they naive or trolling? Look for a willingness to learn, or a willingness to dispute. If someone accepts what they're being told, they're naive and uninformed. If someone disputes everything they're told, they're a bigot who's trolling. If they're throwing around offensive language and won't change that language, they're a bigot. Feel free to ban the bigots! They're not going to change, and they'll continue to stir up trouble in your subreddit.
This is obviously only a broad overview. Please feel free to ask specific questions if you have them.
Great reply. One thing I want to talk about in it though:
Intended oversimplification? I think you have three people who fall in that category:
Those additional two categories of people are pretty important as well, IMO, in terms of education. The second one especially.
On Reddit, it's tough for sure, and I can understand that it is often the better solution to shut those people out. But you have to keep in mind that every time someone who perceives themselves as "right" (regardless of whether they are) is shut out of what they might perceive as legitimate discussion, that only reinforces their belief as them being right. "After all, 'they' don't have arguments, 'they' merely block me!".
A better solution is to cool the heated discussion, bring it to a level where having it at all is not problematic for either party. Try to understand where the person is coming from, what their beliefs are, and how it's possible to have them be more receptive to explanations, all the while not doubling down on being offensive / straight up accepting someone being offensive.
This takes a lot more work than people care to invest in... well, people who host pretty disgusting beliefs. But I get kinda demoralized when I think about how unlikely this sort of conversion is on Reddit, and how every single time it's not happening, it tends to push people further apart. This is how divides grow :/
Thank you for this nuanced clarification.
I'm not going to disagree with your three categories. They're valid. (Although, I'd contend that there's some overlap between your latter two categories and my "naive user" category.
However, from a moderator's point of view, they'll all probably have to be treated the same way. Anyone who comes into a subreddit and starts spouting offensive opinions about transgender people (such as the most common one, that a person's biological sex overrides their feelings) needs to be managed with the health of the subreddit in mind, not necessarily with regard to their individual circumstances. Whether they're trolling or have deep-rooted beliefs or are self-righteous, the outcome of their behaviour is still the same: they're dismissing the reality of transgender people and denying those people their identity. Eventually, they're going to offend some people and annoy others.
As a moderator, I can either pander to their refusal to learn, and allow the rest of my subscribers to be subjected to bigotry, offensiveness, and ultimately flame wars - or I can remove those people for the benefit of my subreddit.
I would also point out that, in many subreddits, a discussion about transgender people and issues is wildly off-topic, and could be dealt with in that way. Do I really need a discussion about a news item or a television show or a science study derailed by everyone's attempt to teach an intransigent user about transgender people?
Yeah, and those discussions (where transgender issues were not even close to the point) have been the worst ones, bringing out the worst a-holes...
My question is exactly that. When is it better to simply shut it down and kick them away and when we should try to educate and maybe convert, one at a time, and do some actual good to the world?
And the goal is always to cool the interaction without having to resort to drastic measures, if no lines have been crossed. But, as you said, lines are crossed pretty fast these days....
Yeah, the assholes and trolls are banned immediately, not just when dealing with trans and/or gays, but with anything. Name calling, generalising a whole group, that's all immediate removal, no questions asked.
But I think you hit it right in the head: the motive is the tough part and that's where we can make mistakes (which is also what I'm trying to avoid).
Your point about offensive language is well taken. Had not thought of that, and that's an obvious thing to do, simply ASK what is offensive to the people that can take offence from it. We do get anonymous reports about things being offensive, so although that doesn't help creating an internal database of what's offensive to whom, it does help learn what is offensive to someone and that's is probably good enough in terms of moderating, as we are not a trans-centric sub anyway.
Unrelated question, why did you quit /r/ModHelp, if you don't mind me asking?
Also, your puppy analogy is brilliant. And yeah, the suicide rates are scary as shit. I'm terrified of that, to be honest.
Like I said, watch their behaviour. If they just keep repeating their slurs and keep being offensive, kick 'em out. If they actually engage with people and back down (even slightly), let 'em be. We can't assess motives on the internet, but we can observe behaviour.
If there's noone around to ask, just do an internet search for the word or phrase in question. It won't take long to find a reference which will tell it's offensive. (I do this sometimes for some American terms I'm not familiar with. It's educational but disillusioning...)
Thank you.
A few reasons, but the short answer as to why I stepped down from modding /r/Help & /r/ModHelp is that I've mostly left Reddit for Tildes.
I wanted to switch fulltime to Tildes as well, but the main use I have for Reddit doesn't show up here, so I'd be talking to myself (which is less than great). But it's definitely a much nicer place for a lot of things, since the discussions are of a much higher quality in the majority of cases.
We are doing more and more modnotes on users to get a sense of who's who, because the sub is too large to know everyone these days and the known a-holes we have kicked out already....
I did say "mostly". :) I'm still active on Reddit (as you can see), just in a greatly reduced manner.
Mod notes are great! I love the mod toolbox, if only for that one feature.
Yeah, I get that. It's just that I'd like to hang out over here full time, because it's much nicer...
/u/Algernon_Asimov describes an excellent approach to moderating on reddit.
While being concerned with educating those who may not know any better is certainly a noble approach, I think a moderator ultimately needs to prioritize the health of their community over trying to teach someone who likely isn't even interested in learning. My experiences in moderating on reddit have generally followed that approach -- /r/me_irl, for example, has a very strict ban-first ask-questions-later when it comes to questionable content, and that has worked fairly well in keeping edgy /r/dankmemes - style memes out of the sub.
It may be a good idea to compile a list of learning resources, and linking banned users to those resources. The bigots won't read them, but it's always possible that someone unintentionally being offensive will be able to learn something from them.
That's a good idea, thank you. I'll try to compile a nice list of resources to have ready.
I'm a devout christian and my evolution and understanding of trans/gay issues took me forever to find a place where I felt comfortable with my religious view points and how to have proper conversations about lgbtq topics. I was lucky enough to deal with this from 2004 to 2014 before the US got hyper polarized. I'm really concerned when I see people assume that those asking questions are of bad faith. I had to ask a lot of inflammatory questions and put myself out there to learn. I'm worried that if we don't give people that opportunity to grow many people won't have a path for growth.
I guess the practical implication is, do you want your sub to be a place where people can learn and grow or a place that prioritizes the feelings of a marginalized community? If you allow learning and growth then you will surely attract trolls. To me both answers are fine but each has an opportunity cost.
I think you'll find that for most forums, if you're actively seeking to engage and understand others, there will be people willing to be patient and educate so long as you are clearly trying to operate in good faith. If they can't initially detect a willingness to learn and engage respectfully, then it's difficult for them to separate the bigoted from the naive. Basically, if you're interested in learning in a forum for marginalized groups, then the burden is on you to distinguish yourself from a troll. The burden is different in other places, but in places where the priority is the health of the community through heavy moderation, it isn't necessarily appropriate to automatically assume good faith from someone saying offensive things.
There is another consideration here. Remember that we're talking about moderating a subreddit, not just about educating people. Let's make this specific: I moderate a subreddit about Star Trek. There are a couple of Star Trek episodes which deal with transgender issues, albeit very lightly. Sometimes, people will want to discuss an issue related to those episodes, which is all well and good for a subreddit devoted to discussing Star Trek.
However, occasionally someone will pop into those discussions and start talking about how we shouldn't be pandering to mentally ill people who want to mutilate their genitals. Sure, the topic of discussion is transgender issues, and this is extremely relevant to that topic, but... is it really the sort of conversation I want in my subreddit? Do I really need a thread in my subreddit derailed while half a dozen people try to explain to this one person that transgender people aren't mentally ill? Is that an appropriate conversation for my subreddit about a science-fiction television show? I wouldn't allow off-topic conversations about other subjects; why would I make an exception for this one?
I'm all for people learning, but I'm also the moderator of a subreddit - and part of moderating that subreddit means ensuring that people stay on-topic. We are /r/DaystromInstitute, after all, not /r/AskTransgender.
That is an excellent point and part of the struggle that I faced when properly judging motive and intent.
However, the questions I considered in bad faith were in the vein of "what sort of mental illness would make a man become a woman?" and crap like that. I can't consider that an honest attempt at learning. I'm guessing that's not the type of question you asked, was it?
The main goal is to not allow any group to be marginalized within our sub. If users are afraid to interact with others for fear of the subject (which has NOTHING to do with gender, it's important to note) turning into a hatefest against them, then yes, I rather not allow people to learn about it and protect the interest of others. There are many avenues to learn and our sub is not dedicated to it, so if someone needs to hurt others to learn, that person is going to be gone.
Well it seems like you have an excellent answer to your question as long as you can define 'hurt'
Also to answer this,
I don't know if I quit phrased anything like that but I certainly inquired about gender dysphoria and what role that has played in transgenderism. I'm honestly surprised that you consider that a bad faith question. This is one place where liberals are desperately getting out of touch. I live in a small rural town and growing up I had very little access to diversity especially lgbtq and I had no one in my life to give me good advice on these things. Poor rural teenagers and young adults often lack the opportunity and ability to converse carefully about sensitive topics.
Liberal folks often torch people for "hate speech" and "bad faith" arguments when often these folks don't have a better way to communicate their ideas. Trolls constantly take advantage of this issue to drag uneducated rural folks into the deep right who otherwise would be much more centrist.
First of all, let's not use meaningless labels. "Right", "left", "liberal", "conservative" are absurdly limiting descriptions of complex people, so let's not use those.
That's a bad faith question because if you want to learn about it, you phrase it very differently. That's is an attack in the guise of a question, not a sign you want to learn more. You can ask the same question, about what part mental issues can play in any decision, without it being an attack. I myself have had to do so unfortunately in my work and the difference in what happens next is stark.
The line between what you can say before you start hurting people is not based on who's talking, it's based on who's being hurt. Some people have a higher tolerance to it? Yes, most definitely. You can call me anything you want, it's not going to make me angry. I've heard plenty of abuse before and I don't care one iota. My sister, however, I've seen lose her shit completely if you call her one specific thing. Why? I don't know. But she turns into the Hulk, basically.
So I do believe that we are responsible for the words we speak and as long as I'm moderating the sub, I will not allow people to say things that hurt others under the guise of "I didn't know better". If someone is unsure on how to proceed, they should take a hint from the other members of the community (that's why customs are a source of law in lots of places). And it doesn't take much to learn how to deal with people who are different than you. If you can access a reddit, you should be able to tell the difference between what's acceptable and what's not (and if they can't we have a very detailed set of rules for posting and it goes into this sort of thing in pretty nice detail).
And we (the mods) do warn and talk to people if they are violating rules for the first time unless it's really bad (like this user who started a comment with "you dumb fucking n***er" and went downhill from there). That sort of thing doesn't get a warning. Same with one guy that commented on a story about a gay person with a lovely "f***ing fag". There is no room for people who think that sort of thing is ok, no extenuating circumstances exist for that.
I think it's debatable whether labels are useful or not, but I suppose it's not the point.
I'm very curious about your perspective on the opportunity that people have had to learn and grow in regards to how they talk to others.
Do you think it's true that some people have not had the opportunity to learn and to be taught about how to talk to other people about sensitive topics ?
Do you think there are people who have never been exposed to diversity and need more help than others?
Do you think there are people that have good faith questions but have a hard describing that they are presenting them in good faith?
I really sincerely have these questions and appreciate the time your are taking to discuss these issues with me. This is a very important subject for me.
Wow, this is a very thoughtful and super helpful answer. I definitely agree with many of your points. However, I do not agree with this point.
I think ignorance and genuine curiosity are not the same trolling. My definition of trolling is someone with malicious intent the stirs up arguments using negative stereotypes and inflammatory language. The most important part of the definition is the intent. Bad outcomes do not equal bad intent.
This is a near genius way to instruct people on how to improve their civil discourse and avoid inflammatory remarks.
I think as a society -- this is not the job your subreddit -- we need to find a way to take people who are unable to participate in friendly discourse and help them upgrade their skills and think differently about how their words affect other people. I think it's a huge mistake to take ignorant people and cast them out as trolls/racists/bigots and whatever else. I also think the folks most at risk of becoming extreme bigots are people with few economic and educational opportunities and when we segregate them from discourse we drive them into the loving arms of the most hateful radical groups that exist.
Once again this is not your problem to solve, but maybe this should become part of high school and middle school curriculum. Some kind of class that gives all kids a tool set that will allow them to have discussions without starting flame wars and/or riots.
Thanks again for the incredible discussion and insight. I feel like I understand the issues much better and I feel like I've learned a lot.
Semantics aside, when the end result is the same for the communities in which people make their ignorant/curious/trolling comments (arguments, derailed conversation, tolerating intolerance leading to a perception of the community and those who run it validating bigotry or even tacitly supporting it, etc), does it really matter what a comment author's intent was?
I understand and agree with your point about how failing to make the distinction can potentially drive those genuinely ignorant/curious people towards extremism, but at the same time why should they take priority over the minority voices in that community who are made to feel less welcome and safe there by allowing ignorance/bigotry to be expressed in the first place and the views directly targeting them to be validated by allowing debate over them? IMO this is especially problematic in communities that are only tangentially related to the issues being discussed, e.g. anti-trans comments appearing in a community dedicated to Star Trek merely because an episode featured a trans character, as Algernon gave examples of.
If ignorant/curious people truly want to be educated there are places explicitly for that, e.g. /r/ChangeMyView, /r/AskTransgender, etc. but I honestly don't think the distinction between ignorance, curiosity or trolling matters at all in communities not dedicated to debate or education, nor should the treatment of those ignorant views be any different regardless of the author's intent; Remove the comments and Ban the user if they fail to heed the warning and continue to express their ignorant/bigoted views.
I'm not sure how encouraging folks to be more careful about their language and explaining issues to them makes are other people feel less safe. It seems to me that many interpret this as a zero sum game. Like every time we engage with something who is wrong we are hurting someone who is marginalized by that view. This math does not work out for me. If a community clearly labels an offense and tries to correct it I don't know why anyone would feel unsafe or uncomfortable.
How does debating something validate it? In my experience debating usually does more to invalidate an argument because a person can offer a more nuanced and data filled explanation of why the other person is wrong. Refusing to debate often empowers people who are wrong by making them feel correct and/or superior in intellect.
Once again I agree completely that many sub-reddits do not need to host this type of discussion. It might be a great community practice to point them at the correct sub-reddit and provide etiquette based reminders.
It absolutely is a zero sum game IMO. Providing a platform for hateful ideology to be expressed unequivocally does hurt minority members of that community regardless of whether the ideas being expressed are generally accepted by the community at large and regardless of whether those ideologies are being challenged. There is absolutely no way to play neutral host to debate over hateful, discriminatory ideas that some deserve less rights, dignity or equal treatment than others without marginalizing those the ideas target and allowing the community to become a recruiting ground for hate towards them.
By allowing debate over an idea to take place you are granting it legitimacy by implying that it has enough merit to be worthy of debate to begin with, which absolutely is validation. As an example of this being the case, just watch any debate with a young earth creationist, evolution denier or flat-Eather involved. They don't care that their arguments are nonsensical or that the opposition is systematically tearing them apart using logic because they know they have already won by being granted a seat at the table and being given a legitimized platform to preach their nonsense on. They also don't care because they aren't trying to appeal to the logical in the audience, their arguments are largely circular and rely on appeals to emotion, and their recruiting ground is those in the audience who that works on.
And to give a more concrete example of all of this, here's a quote from the /r/Askhistorians mods on why they banned questions related to holocaust denial:
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/facebook-is-feeding-the-holocaust-deniers-it-should-shut-them-down-1.6294410
I agree with this and definitely did not advocate this. It seems that you equate allowing people to ask insensitive and/or leading questions with "Providing a platform for hateful ideology"
I also didn't suggest that anyone should play neutral host. "If a community clearly labels an offense and tries to correct it" <--- me
From your excerpt, I think this is great.
I personally know several flat Earthers and ignoring them only makes it worse. This could be a difference between real life and online discussion. I've found by politely engaging them and actually listening to what they have to say I can shift their stance a tiny bit at a time.
Finally, the holocaust deniers are a great example it's a super concrete issue and we know for sure what the truth is. So it's an easy issue to de-platform. But who gets to decide what issues should be de-platformed? that's a harder question.
Because IMO they are essentially equivalent, especially online where an author's actual intent is often incredibly hard / impossible to determine and results in same outcome for the community hosting those questions regardless of the author's intent. Which has lead me to come to the same conclusion as the AskHistorian mods which they spelled out in the paragraph previous to the one you quoted (emphasis mine):
Fair enough... but that is still a form of neutrality since even with labels (which is unrealistic to expect to be applied in every instance) it's still granting those positions legitimacy by allowing them a space to be espoused on the platform and implying they have enough merit to be worthy of debate. There is no getting around that fact.
I'm not denying that it's possible to eventually change peoples' stances over time... I know for a fact it can be done, given enough time and consistent effort. However IMO the negatives of allowing certain issues to be discussed in a community outweighs any potential positives for change, especially in communities not designed specifically for and with the intent of hosting such debates. And again, why should the rights of insensitive, bigoted, intolerant people take priority over their targets? When one side it preaching equality and the other wishes to justify discrimination I think who should be given absolute priority and support over the other is pretty clear from an ethical and even practical standpoint. See: Paradox of Tolerance
And yet even as a "super concrete issue" even humouring questions about it still allows those espousing those beliefs to recruit effectively, so imagine how much more effective recruitment is when the issue is not quite so immediately and obviously clear-cut, and so is more easily muddled using false-equivalence, gish gallop, whataboutism, etc... e.g. "race realism", "gender is innate and transgenderism mental illness", "preferred pronouns is post-modernist Marxism" , "leftists are as bad as the alt-right", etc. Which IMO is precisely the reason the alt-right is on the rise and their numbers have been growing... because there are countless incredibly wide-reaching platforms out there hosting such discussions and allowing their followers to "just ask questions".
And as for who gets to decide... the platform owner does, hopefully based on what we as the societies in which they are hosted determine to be acceptable. Hate speech laws exist in a great many nations (the majority of the Western ones in fact, excepting the US) for a reason... because it's been reasonably determined that certain issues are dangerous and detrimental to society to be allowed a public platform.
I wonder if there are any reliable statistics or facts to settle the issue of what's causing the far right to grow? Cause I think this is the root of the issue. We each have an opposing opinion of what is causing the far right to grow.
I believe that pushing folks on the border line out of public discourse and into the shadows is causing an increasing number of people to join the far right. I think you believe that we aren't doing enough to push those views out of the public arena and that causes is the cause of the growing far right.
All in all it would seem we would both prefer less hate and extremism but we disagree on how to get there.
I think we define the world neutral very differently. If you publicly make a value judgement about something you can't be nuetral, IMO. I think webster agrees with me. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neutral#h1
Thanks for a lovely conversation.
Indeed and you too. :)
p.s. Taking a completely ineffective stance against something isn't really take a stance, IMO. E.g. If I saw someone being assaulted and loudly proclaimed "I am against assault!" but then did absolutely nothing further to actually end the assault, that isn't really picking a side now is it? Adding labels to bigoted comments but still providing those bigots with a platform to disseminate their ideology and recruit others is no different as that's not truly picking a side or taking a stance against them. "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing." "Actions Speak Louder Than Words." etc. etc.
I really feel like you and I could literally go back and forth on this forever. I think at the end of the day we have to agree to disagree on this one. I have a retort to this comment as well, but it has to end some where. :)
Speaking generally, my two-cents on these points. There maybe more than one side to everything, but not every side has or deserves equal weight. For example, can you imagine someone showing up in a random thread and asking why women should have voting rights? How can this question be perceived to be in good faith (unless your in some really specific "what-ifs" thread or something)? Engaging at all suggests that there's still something worth debating about this topic, and in that way validates the question, and that is what can be damaging.
I believe talking to others and also watching how other people talk to each other is a massively important experience. It is how we learn to behave in our "groups", after all. And, it's one of the problems with the anonymity of the internet, where it's hard to grab those social cues. To all the other points: yes, I do agree with all of them, especially the lack of exposure to diversity. I have family in rural areas over here and they can be very isolated from stuff in the big cities, outside of the nightly soaps set in big cities, although those usually get a bad reception if they show too much "modern" stuff.
So I do keep that in mind. Not much you can do with a "f fags" type of message, I believe you can agree that there's no attempt to learn there. The ones that get tricky, what I did was I removed them (and we can reinstate things later, so I had that in my back pocket) and started a conversation with the users to get a sense of what was their thinking. A few of them were truly just ignorant of the way to approach something like this, so I just talked and explained what was wrong with what they posted. I believe 100% of them were ok, a few asked their questions again, but in a more pleasant manner. That was well received by the transwoman who was active in the thread, as I was in contact with her as well.
Others, unfortunately, either turned their curses on me, which was easy to deal with, or they tried very poorly to explain themselves, so I kept their comments removed, giving them the opportunity to ask their questions again, but didn't take any action against them. None of them took that opportunity, which I assumed meant they weren't interested in having a dialogue...
Oh, and we can discuss these until the cows come home. I'm always up for intelligent and productive conversation.
I'd have a look at MeatBall Wiki on types of trolls.Maybe start here and follow the links: http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/DissuadeReputation
Some of it only applies to wikis.
Thank you!