Personally I feel the value of sharing things to Tildes and most other communities is to generate conversation. If a discussion goes off the rails then that is the reason why moderators can lock a...
Personally I feel the value of sharing things to Tildes and most other communities is to generate conversation. If a discussion goes off the rails then that is the reason why moderators can lock a conversation, if we allowed prematurely locking conversations this will create a deficit of conversations and inspire posting far more adverse topics than any of us would prefer.
Yeah, this would definitely encourage the posting of more controversial topics which OPs know would ordinarily cause a shitstorm in the comments. Some shitstorms are totally justified though, and...
Yeah, this would definitely encourage the posting of more controversial topics which OPs know would ordinarily cause a shitstorm in the comments. Some shitstorms are totally justified though, and by having such topics locked from the start it only ensures there will be no counterarguments being presented, so the only thing to judge the topic by will be votes (which are easy to manipulate). And to top it off, by allowing OPs to preemptively prevent shitstorms, it will also be harder to justify banning any who continually post intentionally inflammatory topics.
IMO, this idea is a recipe for a disaster. It would help enable political extremists taking over of the site, by allowing them to drive off everyone who disagrees with the arguments being presenting in the topics they submit.
p.s. Since Tildes doesn't yet have a mechanic for users to report submissions, this idea is especially problematic.
I vehemently disagree with the idea, not because it would allow political extremism to take over, but because locked threads stifle discussion and are actually one of my prime complaints with...
IMO, this idea is a recipe for a disaster. It would help enable political extremists taking over of the site, by allowing them to drive off everyone who disagrees with the arguments being presenting in the topics they submit.
I vehemently disagree with the idea, not because it would allow political extremism to take over, but because locked threads stifle discussion and are actually one of my prime complaints with Reddit, because all it takes are a few people to post nasty comments and a large thread gets locked down in true "y'all can't behave" fashion.
Locks are just a crutch for lazy moderation, which is all-too-rife on Reddit. This is by no means an attack on the people who run Tildes, just my observations from being an 11-year-long Reddit user.
Tildes also isn't the kind of place for topics that would "ordinarily create a shitstorm in the comments." Last I checked this site was still an invite-only community that has higher standards of user behaviour than Reddit or other Reddit-likes. Someone trying to astroturf this site into political extremism would be quickly purged, along with anybody they invited and likely the user who invited them in the first place.
p.s. Since Tildes doesn't yet have a mechanic for users to report submissions, this idea is especially problematic.
That's... actually a glaring oversight that I'm surprised hasn't been plugged yet. I imagine it's because Tildes will probably stay an invite-only community where just one or two admins are all that's necessarily to lock down a problematic post.
I think a reasonable version of this idea might be starting with a stronger rate-limit on a sensitive topic. If the topic is known to be a bit of a minefield, slow the conversation a bit to...
I think a reasonable version of this idea might be starting with a stronger rate-limit on a sensitive topic.
If the topic is known to be a bit of a minefield, slow the conversation a bit to hopefully calm tempers to prevent continual escalation requiring a lock.
I'm petty sure there already is some sort of Malice label based rate-limiting, since I suspect I have been hit with it in the past (I deserved it), and others have mentioned experiencing similar....
I'm petty sure there already is some sort of Malice label based rate-limiting, since I suspect I have been hit with it in the past (I deserved it), and others have mentioned experiencing similar. But I'm not exactly sure how it works, where it's located in the code, or if it even is in the code anywhere (it might be manually implemented). The only thing I can find in the code is rudimentary rate and burst limits:
Additionally, it will just push the discussion somewhere else, like on the Discord server or other alternate boards and Tildes will regress to a drama generator.
Additionally, it will just push the discussion somewhere else, like on the Discord server or other alternate boards and Tildes will regress to a drama generator.
Why post the content, except to create what is basically a soapbox topic? I'm likely jumping to the worst interpretation here, but that also seems sort of what posting content without encouraging...
Suppose, for example, that I want to share something that is relevant and within the rules and philosophy of Tildes, but which might generate nasty and unproductive arguing in the comments, leading to it likely being locked anyway. Why not prevent the infighting from the start?
Why post the content, except to create what is basically a soapbox topic? I'm likely jumping to the worst interpretation here, but that also seems sort of what posting content without encouraging discussion is: "I want to say a thing and not allow any discussion of it. Hear me and don't talk back." My understanding is this action runs counter to what Tildes was designed to do. Being an asshole is also counter to the intent behind tildes, and assholes tend to be dealt with swiftly here. In a way knowing your audience is the first step to posting content. If I found something I thought would lead to unproductive infighting, I would simply avoid posting that content.
which might generate nasty and unproductive arguing in the comments
Which is why moderation is a thing. AFAIK Tildes lacks a lot of moderation functionality, and even moderators. Deimos and a few other trusted users step in when appropriate, but they also rarely need to step into a conversation. I think the better solution would be more robust moderation features if the site gets big enough to warrant it, or even before that to make things a bit easier for the people who what counts as moderation around here.
Personally I feel the value of sharing things to Tildes and most other communities is to generate conversation. If a discussion goes off the rails then that is the reason why moderators can lock a conversation, if we allowed prematurely locking conversations this will create a deficit of conversations and inspire posting far more adverse topics than any of us would prefer.
Yeah, this would definitely encourage the posting of more controversial topics which OPs know would ordinarily cause a shitstorm in the comments. Some shitstorms are totally justified though, and by having such topics locked from the start it only ensures there will be no counterarguments being presented, so the only thing to judge the topic by will be votes (which are easy to manipulate). And to top it off, by allowing OPs to preemptively prevent shitstorms, it will also be harder to justify banning any who continually post intentionally inflammatory topics.
IMO, this idea is a recipe for a disaster. It would help enable political extremists taking over of the site, by allowing them to drive off everyone who disagrees with the arguments being presenting in the topics they submit.
p.s. Since Tildes doesn't yet have a mechanic for users to report submissions, this idea is especially problematic.
I vehemently disagree with the idea, not because it would allow political extremism to take over, but because locked threads stifle discussion and are actually one of my prime complaints with Reddit, because all it takes are a few people to post nasty comments and a large thread gets locked down in true "y'all can't behave" fashion.
Locks are just a crutch for lazy moderation, which is all-too-rife on Reddit. This is by no means an attack on the people who run Tildes, just my observations from being an 11-year-long Reddit user.
Tildes also isn't the kind of place for topics that would "ordinarily create a shitstorm in the comments." Last I checked this site was still an invite-only community that has higher standards of user behaviour than Reddit or other Reddit-likes. Someone trying to astroturf this site into political extremism would be quickly purged, along with anybody they invited and likely the user who invited them in the first place.
That's... actually a glaring oversight that I'm surprised hasn't been plugged yet. I imagine it's because Tildes will probably stay an invite-only community where just one or two admins are all that's necessarily to lock down a problematic post.
I think a reasonable version of this idea might be starting with a stronger rate-limit on a sensitive topic.
If the topic is known to be a bit of a minefield, slow the conversation a bit to hopefully calm tempers to prevent continual escalation requiring a lock.
I'm petty sure there already is some sort of Malice label based rate-limiting, since I suspect I have been hit with it in the past (I deserved it), and others have mentioned experiencing similar. But I'm not exactly sure how it works, where it's located in the code, or if it even is in the code anywhere (it might be manually implemented). The only thing I can find in the code is rudimentary rate and burst limits:
https://gitlab.com/tildes/tildes/-/blob/master/tildes/tildes/lib/ratelimit.py#L309
I believe it's manually implemented. If it was automated it would be prone to abuse by an organized group trying to brigade a discussion.
Additionally, it will just push the discussion somewhere else, like on the Discord server or other alternate boards and Tildes will regress to a drama generator.
Why post the content, except to create what is basically a soapbox topic? I'm likely jumping to the worst interpretation here, but that also seems sort of what posting content without encouraging discussion is: "I want to say a thing and not allow any discussion of it. Hear me and don't talk back." My understanding is this action runs counter to what Tildes was designed to do. Being an asshole is also counter to the intent behind tildes, and assholes tend to be dealt with swiftly here. In a way knowing your audience is the first step to posting content. If I found something I thought would lead to unproductive infighting, I would simply avoid posting that content.
Which is why moderation is a thing. AFAIK Tildes lacks a lot of moderation functionality, and even moderators. Deimos and a few other trusted users step in when appropriate, but they also rarely need to step into a conversation. I think the better solution would be more robust moderation features if the site gets big enough to warrant it, or even before that to make things a bit easier for the people who what counts as moderation around here.
I would suggest you post that to linklonk. People who like it would see more of your content, and people who dislike it could just filter it out.