This doesn't match my experience. From what I've seen, prominently displaying rules has the opposite effect of increasing compliance. It just tells all the angsty children how to stick it to the...
This doesn't match my experience. From what I've seen, prominently displaying rules has the opposite effect of increasing compliance. It just tells all the angsty children how to stick it to the man instead.
The people who harass others on the internet don't care what others tell them is acceptable behavior. They will do the opposite of whatever you say, because that's how they feel powerful.
The only example this article cites is /r/science, which I'd guess has far fewer angsty children than the rest of reddit. Not a good place to start.
Your comment and @Cosmos 's comment are a pet peeve of mine. You're absolutely welcome to your own opinion and you're certainly welcome to criticize the study that was conducted, but it feels like...
Your comment and @Cosmos 's comment are a pet peeve of mine. You're absolutely welcome to your own opinion and you're certainly welcome to criticize the study that was conducted, but it feels like what's being stated here is more presented as 'fact' from your own experiences.
But a study was conducted here. Someone spent the time to contribute objective data to help move the field forward in understanding human behavior. To sit here and discredit it (without offering any solution or criticism) based on your own experiences accomplishes very little but convince others who already hold your view that they are correct in spite of the evidence.
If your intent is to drive discussion towards very valid concerns, such as whether this increases or decreases the moderators workload, or whether this will hold valid on other subs or other websites, then please raise those concerns instead of dismissing the study.
This "study" goes against what most internet moderators know from real life experience. I have been moderating internet communities for years and every one where I had an actual list of rules just...
This "study" goes against what most internet moderators know from real life experience. I have been moderating internet communities for years and every one where I had an actual list of rules just ended up with me wasting time arguing with people telling me how technically they never violated the rules if you take them exactly how they are written.
The communities I run which have no written rules have gone much smoother because any problem users have been removed. I don't have to wait until they have made a clear violation of the rules or start writing new rules to remove someone. As a human I simply know which users are making the group unpleasant to be in. Unpleasant users tend to be the hardest ones to remove from a group with rules because you can never quite put your finger on what they have done wrong other than just bring down the mood of the group and make you not want to be there.
Once "I just don't want you here" is a valid ban reason the quality of your community goes way up. Never feel like you owe people the right to be in your group, you created it and you are free to choose who gets to stay. If people don't like it they are free to create their own.
I did critique the study. It looks like it was only looking at /r/science, which is not at all representative of the site as a whole. I don't know how you can form any broad conclusions by only...
I did critique the study. It looks like it was only looking at /r/science, which is not at all representative of the site as a whole. I don't know how you can form any broad conclusions by only looking at that sub.
I understand this from the point of view of those who are running the discussion platform, and it's clear that civil comments are unlikely to be removed, but man does this sound cold and...
We reserve the right to ban any user, for any reason. Generally we ban users we think fail to make a positive contribution, but we may ban you for absolutely any reason, or no reason at all, at any time. Don't bother complaining about our decisions, we never promised they would be fair. We have zero tolerance for nonsense
I understand this from the point of view of those who are running the discussion platform, and it's clear that civil comments are unlikely to be removed, but man does this sound cold and uninviting.
I imagine a good AI will be able to show a badge if the comment is gonna be allowed or removed (why), while user is writing it.
Not having a rules list is actually more natural and humane. If you join a group of friends and you start acting like an ass you aren't going to have someone pull out a book and say "On page 42 it...
Not having a rules list is actually more natural and humane. If you join a group of friends and you start acting like an ass you aren't going to have someone pull out a book and say "On page 42 it says that your joke was insensitive and mean therefore you must leave the group for 4 days". They will instead silently stop inviting you around if you are unpleasant.
It works well other places too, so long as the mods have automoderator set up to automatically remove every response to the rules comment. Otherwise it becomes just a meta-nonsense placeholder at...
It works well other places too, so long as the mods have automoderator set up to automatically remove every response to the rules comment.
Otherwise it becomes just a meta-nonsense placeholder at the top of every single thread for those who're angry and invested in meta-issues of that subreddit to bellyache.
I think the ideal solution is what Tildes plans to do. Have the users get semi-automatically promoted to different levels of moderators as they prove themselves to be aligned with the site's...
I think the ideal solution is what Tildes plans to do. Have the users get semi-automatically promoted to different levels of moderators as they prove themselves to be aligned with the site's goals.
The article mentions that human psychology tends to have people conform to norms they see others participating in. If nearly every commentor is playing the role of part time moderator then there will be constant pressure from newcomers to conform or leave.
When you see something on here that you think doesn't belong you should speak up. Even without any power to remove the post yourself.
Percent or percentage points? If it's percent, then first-time commenters became 56.9 percent (52.5 * 1.084) compliant. If it's percentage points, then first-time commenters became 60.9 percent...
Matias designed a message that ran at the top of each discussion between August 25th and September 23rd, 2016. It simply read: "Welcome to r/science. Comments will be removed if they are jokes, memes, abusive, off-topic, or medical advice (rules). Our 1,200 moderators encourage respectful discussion."
"Without posting the rules, a first-time commenter ... has a 52.5 percent chance of complying with community norms," he writes. "Posting the rules causes an 8.4 percent increase in the chance that a newcomer's comment will be allowed to remain by moderators."
Percent or percentage points? If it's percent, then first-time commenters became 56.9 percent (52.5 * 1.084) compliant. If it's percentage points, then first-time commenters became 60.9 percent (52.5 + 8.4) compliant.
And how much of that came from reduced harassment? I think it's more likely there was a big reduction in jokes and memes.
This doesn't match my experience. From what I've seen, prominently displaying rules has the opposite effect of increasing compliance. It just tells all the angsty children how to stick it to the man instead.
The people who harass others on the internet don't care what others tell them is acceptable behavior. They will do the opposite of whatever you say, because that's how they feel powerful.
The only example this article cites is /r/science, which I'd guess has far fewer angsty children than the rest of reddit. Not a good place to start.
Your comment and @Cosmos 's comment are a pet peeve of mine. You're absolutely welcome to your own opinion and you're certainly welcome to criticize the study that was conducted, but it feels like what's being stated here is more presented as 'fact' from your own experiences.
But a study was conducted here. Someone spent the time to contribute objective data to help move the field forward in understanding human behavior. To sit here and discredit it (without offering any solution or criticism) based on your own experiences accomplishes very little but convince others who already hold your view that they are correct in spite of the evidence.
If your intent is to drive discussion towards very valid concerns, such as whether this increases or decreases the moderators workload, or whether this will hold valid on other subs or other websites, then please raise those concerns instead of dismissing the study.
This "study" goes against what most internet moderators know from real life experience. I have been moderating internet communities for years and every one where I had an actual list of rules just ended up with me wasting time arguing with people telling me how technically they never violated the rules if you take them exactly how they are written.
The communities I run which have no written rules have gone much smoother because any problem users have been removed. I don't have to wait until they have made a clear violation of the rules or start writing new rules to remove someone. As a human I simply know which users are making the group unpleasant to be in. Unpleasant users tend to be the hardest ones to remove from a group with rules because you can never quite put your finger on what they have done wrong other than just bring down the mood of the group and make you not want to be there.
Once "I just don't want you here" is a valid ban reason the quality of your community goes way up. Never feel like you owe people the right to be in your group, you created it and you are free to choose who gets to stay. If people don't like it they are free to create their own.
I did critique the study. It looks like it was only looking at /r/science, which is not at all representative of the site as a whole. I don't know how you can form any broad conclusions by only looking at that sub.
I understand this from the point of view of those who are running the discussion platform, and it's clear that civil comments are unlikely to be removed, but man does this sound cold and uninviting.
I imagine a good AI will be able to show a badge if the comment is gonna be allowed or removed (why), while user is writing it.
Not having a rules list is actually more natural and humane. If you join a group of friends and you start acting like an ass you aren't going to have someone pull out a book and say "On page 42 it says that your joke was insensitive and mean therefore you must leave the group for 4 days". They will instead silently stop inviting you around if you are unpleasant.
It works well other places too, so long as the mods have automoderator set up to automatically remove every response to the rules comment.
Otherwise it becomes just a meta-nonsense placeholder at the top of every single thread for those who're angry and invested in meta-issues of that subreddit to bellyache.
I think the ideal solution is what Tildes plans to do. Have the users get semi-automatically promoted to different levels of moderators as they prove themselves to be aligned with the site's goals.
The article mentions that human psychology tends to have people conform to norms they see others participating in. If nearly every commentor is playing the role of part time moderator then there will be constant pressure from newcomers to conform or leave.
When you see something on here that you think doesn't belong you should speak up. Even without any power to remove the post yourself.
Percent or percentage points? If it's percent, then first-time commenters became 56.9 percent (52.5 * 1.084) compliant. If it's percentage points, then first-time commenters became 60.9 percent (52.5 + 8.4) compliant.
And how much of that came from reduced harassment? I think it's more likely there was a big reduction in jokes and memes.