Re: 6, I disagree that irony and sarcasm are necessary for anything good. Sure, it's something we all indulge in, but it seems more like a bad habit, particularly online where it can easily be misinterpreted. (Still, I wouldn't want to be too strict about it.)

It sounds like you think Tildes might be a bit too tightly moderated in places, but this is more a concern than something that's ongoing?

I found it funny that you say you’re just a regular user and then suggest vim/emacs key bindings for shortcuts.

But in all seriousness, notifications would be welcome.

As for moderation of content coming with an explanation, I think that’s good in theory. But it also opens up the conversation for people to start arguing over individual decisions more and more. I don’t know that that is a good thing.

With regards to 6, and the implication I read in 4 and 5 that moderation is too strict and opaque: one of the beautiful things about the internet is the diversity in how its different sites are organized and run. Instead of trying to discuss how Tildes should be run in isolation, supposing that it should include all discussion of value, I would propose that we see it in relation to other sites run in different ways.

Spaces for heated language and fought-over moderation abound elsewhere on the internet. We should let Tildes be a space, instead, for decent discussion and trusted moderators. If there is some discussion of value that is by consequence not possible on Tildes, there are no shortage of other spaces where those discussions would be welcomed.

This is quite the idea list! Thanks for being so thoughtful and constructive.

I'll second my support for #9. I tried to find some older posts of mine recently and found myself wishing I could do a full user-search of all my content here, rather than going page by page in my history. It's an issue that's only going to get worse for me as my number of comments on the site grows.

I'll also push back on #6. I think a lot of sites take a very individualistic focus on discussions, in that they are hesitant to limit the actions of any one individual without strong reason. In my mind, the goals of Tildes make this a place where we prioritize the collective, in that we are hesitant to permit the actions of any one individual when they are doing collective harm.

There are merits and downsides to both, but I think the latter is the way to go if we want to cultivate the kind of community we desire here. I think one of the harder things to understand about hostility, sarcasm, irony, and combativeness is that their negative effects are often hidden. They feel effective because they're powerful and at times satisfying, but they also deal invisible damage. For example, I think it's probably safe to say that all of us have been in a situation where we have wanted to say something but didn't out of fear of hostile responses, either here or elsewhere. Probably all of us have felt the sting of someone responding to our honest and heartfelt beliefs with dismissive sarcasm. It's likely that everyone here has been put through the wringer for something they've said, when all they wanted to do was engage in casual conversation or make a quick point.

Even if we're not party to the conversations, these things still have effects. It's not uncommon for us to read someone else's combative back and forth and feel angry, frustrated, or even steamrolled afterwards, despite us not even being involved! Conversations here create a feeling not just for the site itself but in the users of the site directly. When I read something delightful, I'm delighted, but when I read something awful I often feel, well, awful. Sometimes that awful feeling is necessary (e.g. a tragedy in the news), but sometimes we create it when we don't need to (e.g. when two people are bickering over semantics).

Unfortunately, all these intangibles are largely invisible, and we don't have a meaningful way to account for them (and likely never will -- they're intangibles!). How many people have left this site because they encountered hostility from another user? How many people have limited their own posting so as not to potentially provoke someone else?

In other forums, the focus would be on the rights of hostile or combative people to say their piece. I think it's important that we realize that there's a chilling effect to that, and we maybe need to think about the rights of all the other people who want to speak but are fearful or hesitant to do so.

It's a hard thing to think about because absence is invisibility. The voices of the self-assured, the argumentative, and the sarcastic are already present all across the internet. You can barely get away from them. But what about everyone else? People who are unsure of things, have questions, are meek or mild-mannered.

When it comes to moderation I feel like too often the question is "what voices are cut back when we moderate too strongly?" We're all familiar with the answer, because we've all seen the types of posts needing moderation on every internet forum since they first became a thing. What I think we need to ask, and what I hope Tildes will eventually have the ability to answer, is "what voices would be better enabled to speak and be heard if we moderate strongly?"

I agree with the point about comedy. Humour is an important part of community building, and it will increase activity to the site. I think it should be kept separate from actual discussions and put in it's own group.

re: irony/sarcasm - you will never change anyone's mind with irony or sarcasm, you'll just drum up support amongst people who already agree with you.