Suggestion for new special tags
I would like to suggest the implementation of two special tags: sensitive (read below) and support. The reason I am calling them "special" is that I am also suggesting that those tags have a special appearance that makes them more visible on the website, similar to the NSFW tag.
The Read below.sensitive tag should be applied to posts about sensitive topics that are likely to create intense emotional discussions. To avoid turning this very post into an example of what I am talking about, I won't give any specifics about the kind of topic that should receive that tag. But, generally speaking, those tags would be added to inherently controversial posts about issues of a political, personal, or otherwise sensitive nature.
The support tag is successfully used in /r/daddit. It is meant to disallow responses that serve primarily to gratify intellectual curiosity to the detriment of emotional support. A support tag means "this post is about providing emotional support to OP first and foremost".
I understand that many people don't really need tags to know what kind of post they are engaging with, and how they should respond. I certainly need those, which is why I am suggesting them.
This post is related to my previous submission.
EDIT
The word "sensitive" was a bad choice from me. For the purpose of the ongoing conversation, please consider the suggestion to be instead for a contentious tag (or something to the effect which I describe below).
The word "contentious" better embodies what I am trying to convey, which are subjects requiring greater care and consideration than what is usually required given the site's history. So you would give this tag to subjects that were actually shown to be contentious based on multiple previous discussions, and not on the subjective sensibilities of anyone in particular.
Additionally, given the elevated concern of some responses, I believe it is valuable to highlight that, unlike labels, only the poster and mods can edit or add tags. So it is unlikely for someone to maliciously tag your content as contentious.
I'm all for the support tag, though I haven't personally encountered any egregious comments in that respect. In general I've found that tildes users tend to be good at filtering their responses based on which group it's in -- much more support in ~lgbt and ~health.mental than in most other groups ime. But I can see the utility if it's indicated clearly what the tag means (something I think would need to be more than just the word "support" as a normal tag imo)
I'm not sure how I feel about the "sensitive" tag though. Tagging a post with NSFW and such makes sense, but a tag that just means "this topic is likely to start an argument" seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than a warning. I can also see it being applied unevenly in the wrong cases -- you could argue the entire ~lgbt topic is controversial depending on who's part of the conversation. I don't really see its utility tbqh, especially since opinions on what "counts" are gonna vary WIDELY.
This could be a tag available exclusively to mods, possibly reducing the amount of locked posts by giving them a moderation resource other than locking or removing the post.
I should add that currently only mods and the own poster can add tags, so the risk of malicious tagging is already quite reduced.
Tags on Tildes are largely supervised by mods. So if someone decides to overuse a tag, there's a good chance that mods will remove it.
If someone thinks ~lgbt in particular is too sensitive for them, given that it is already a group, they could simply leave the group. The tag wouldn't have a big effect on already existing groups because you can already "filter" them.
Okay but like... what's the legitimate use case for this tag that isn't basically inviting hostility in the resulting topic?
I believe you are overestimating this effect. I really don't think people will read "sensitive" and think "Oh! Time to cause some trouble!". I just don't think about Tildes users that way.
I think the other effect is way more likely. People will think "Oh! Time to be overly considerate and respectful!". Or, maybe, "That is not for me right now!".
I think this accurately reflects my current perspective, but it doesn't change my mind. I would need an example of a situation in which you think a tag like this would accomplish something positive, I think.
I'm not lou, but many of the posts that I comment on tend towards the more contentious. Things like the middle east, economic policy (when it gets politicized), and social issues.
I would hope that folks would see a "contentious" tag as a reminder to be careful on their tone and language, and opt out if they aren't interested in doing so.
But I personally doubt the tags are prominently displayed enough for folks to key off of it.
I just don't see a situation where someone is going to go into a thread on such contentious issues without already knowing it's a contentious issue. So I think best case scenario the tag does nothing, and worst case it attracts conflict.
All depends on how it's presented I suppose. Reminders to follow rules do work in some contexts. But I doubt a tag, as they are currently presented would be sufficient. It would need to trigger a more obvious reminder.
If anything I would liken it to talking with someone you just met at the airport, or in any other public setting. You shouldn't need a reminder to be civil in a public space, even if presented with a topic you have strong feelings about. We are expected to manage ourself and leave if needed. I don't see online as much different. But, here we are.
Have a good night!
Unfortunately, it is not possible to provide such an example without inviting to this topic the same troubles it addresses. You cannot really evoke a troublesome interaction without reenacting whatever made it troublesome in the first place.
...I mean, the very fact that you don't think you can do that here only argues my point for me. Surely the context of this discussion is far more effective as a "hey, please think before you start an argument" warning than a "sensitive" tag would be, and you still fear that even mentioning an example of a controversial discussion would invite arguments within this thread.
It is of course valuable to communicate at length on our perceptions and expectations for an interaction. A tag serves as shorthand for the occasions when such communication does not take place for one reason or another.
That seems more like a situation wherein Deimos should lock the thread, then. Unless it's only to mark the potential for such discussions, in which case I think at best it's pointing out the obvious. No one is going to see a thread on, say, Israel/Palestine and be unaware it's a sensitive topic. Nor am I particularly convinced seeing such a tag would change their choices when commenting (or not).
I know that is not your intention, but you are causing me to feel ashamed of my difficulties and neurodiversity. I 100% get sucked into sensitive topics which I do not perceive to be so, and, when you assume that everyone will always have the same awareness that you have, it gives me the impression that my needs and difficulties are not valid.
I am so glad that it is always obvious to you when a topic is sensitive. However, that is often not the case for me.
I think it’s more that … how on earth are other people supposed to usefully intuit what you and every other person would find sensitive? How am I supposed to practically engage with this tag, if you can’t even describe what it means? And that’s within the context of a discussion about the tag. How is this going to be useful and comprehensible for people who haven’t even seen this conversation?
You wouldn't need to think of it on a philosophical level or take into account anyone's subjectivities. Just make a conclusion based on past discussions that got out of hand.
So it's "sensitive" within a context, not "sensitive" on a broader philosophical, ethical, or psychological level.
You could easily replace it with the word "contentious" to express the same thing. So you tag those subjects which are often contentious based on the site's history, not subjective notions of what is sensitive and what is not.
Personally for me, it would be a bigger flag to just not open the post to begin with.
There's a post right now about racial realignment between the American political parties that I opened because I was curious, but ended up in threads about gun control. And then I just have to give my opinion, even though I'd really rather avoid it entirely.
Had I had the foresight to know it would be a more contentious thread, I would have skipped it altogether.
In my opinion that would be a positive consequence of this tag. It would help those who are not up for an intense debate to more easily avoid getting tangled in such discussions.
Should have clarified, I consider it a positive as well.
I'm not even really sure how a tag like this would solve that, tbh, unless the tagging system were wildly reworked to apply to individual threads or comments. Either all American political topics would be marked controversial, in which case you'd ignore it to click on an interesting post, or this post wouldn't be because the overarching topic isn't controversial in the way the thread you found was. I don't think it's feasible for mods to mark a whole topic as controversial because people are having a debate on a tangentially related issue in the comments -- it's just not practically doable even at our current size imo.
For the most part they're pretty good about it, but they're also human and I've had to remove tags from my posts that were inaccurate a handful of times, so it could also go the other way.
So you're saying I shouldn't have used "ohthehumanatee" as a tag on my manatee rescue post?
Looks like the mods fixed it and added a bunch of good descriptor tags as well. 🙂
Lol I once finished my tags with something like "I know im going to get all these tags wrong so im not even going to try."
I generally try to include a few tags, but sometimes I don't have a clue
I strongly support the 'support' tag. I think it would add to the Tildes experience.
Edit; @lou, I think the support tag, possibly evolving into groups life.support or talk.support would be a good way to signal that counseling and or encouragement is what is wanted rather than discussion. There are a number of reddit groups that focus on support and I used to participate.
\
A
sensitivewould be overwhelmingly more helpful to some in the neurodiverse spectrum, such as those with autism or ADHD (my case).For some people, it is not at all obvious when a post is sensitive or not :/
I wonder whether it would be possible to get some statistics on which topics lead to locked threads.
I suspect my assumptions would be close to accurate, but I don't know for sure. Also I'm american so a majority group member on this website.
Reading your edit now. Due to the way Tildes was designed, and from all indications given by @deimos, groups that are entirely dedicated to support are unlikely to occur, as they are antithetical to Deimos' idea of what the website is meant to be.
Ok. However, ask.support as a tag seems comparable to ask.survey, ask.advice etc and useable across groups
That's a good idea, actually.
We only just recently started testing #downer for more depressing sort of news, but I could see that #sensitive could be more effective and understanding for something along these lines and open it up a bit more.
I have no real input for #support as I tend to prefer the more logical(?) approach to those kind of discussions (especially in text form) than the emotional. But I suppose it could be effective.
In that case, the tag would help you filter out discussions in which you wouldn't wanna participate.
The word "sensitive" was a bad choice from me. For the purpose of the ongoing conversation, please consider the suggestion to be instead for a
contentioustag (or something to the effect which I describe below).The word "contentious" better embodies what I am trying to convey, which are subjects requiring greater care and consideration than what is usually required given the site's history. So you would give this tag to subjects that were actually shown to be contentious based on multiple previous discussions, and not on the subjective sensibilities of anyone in particular.
EDIT: Additionally, given the elevated concern of some responses, I believe it is valuable to highlight that, unlike labels, only the poster and mods can edit or add tags. So it is unlikely for someone to maliciously tag your content as
contentious.Although I welcome your valid criticism, the words and phrasing you employed are dismissive, demeaning ("Sigh"), and personal, making me uneasy going forward. This kind of interaction makes me very anxious, causing emotional distress. Because of that, I do not feel comfortable giving you any substantive answer.
Considering the sites rules. I don't think either tags contribute anything of value.
It is expected of us to be reasonable. Adding significance 'here' will just remove it from 'there'.
I prefer site wide rules, it should not be up to OP to pick-and-choose what sort of comments are allowed. (They shouldn't have to)
Tildes has one major rule; Don't be an ass.
And I can't imagine any situation where that doesn't cover our bases if enforced properly.
That is a valid and relevant observation.
My intention when proposing the tag is not necessarily to inhibit troublesome behavior by bad actors but rather to assist well-meaning users in adequately modulating their language on contentious topics.
Speaking from personal experience, and especially because I am neurodiverseTM, I often fail to correctly identify posts that would require greater care and consideration, leading to unfortunate outcomes.
I can see a use for a tag (possibly later a group) ask.support, much like we have ask.survey and ask.discussion.
We already have a repeating thread for mutual support in ~health.mental
I used to contribute to subreddits such as askwomenover30 where people went looking for personal advice. It was understood that they weren't looking for debate or intellectual discussion,
Maybe instead of #sensitive, we just paint a color on #trigger or #tw.* ? This feels kind of like a revisit of that issue, the gravitational well of a topic under a topic where all the discourse happens. Apologies if this turns into one of those.