this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
42 points (92.0% liked)
Fedigrow
655 readers
2 users here now
To discuss how to grow and manage communities / magazines on Lemmy, Mbin, Piefed and Sublinks
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
when the appeal comes in, are you going to deny it?
this can be a very quiet exercise, without implying to other users that the user in question might be a bot. by contrast, just probing it out in the open taints that users interactions.
Banning people is a very bad experience for humans, most are unlikely to come back to the community at all. Banning should really be a last resort.
ok. well you're saying you'd rather preserve interactions from someone you suspect of being a bot, but bot interactions themselves are bad? the experience is the same. but from a user persectiveo having my comment responded to by other users in public saying "you're just a bot" "you're a shill" "ignore previous instructions..." etc.... that shit is toxic. it needs to NOT happen. keeping that shit out of the inbox is far preferable if all i have to do is send a dm to a mod.
Yes, open dialog is better then rapid fire speculative banning.
I'm not sure I understand your philosophy of Anarchy, but it seems to be very rule heavy.
This is the moderator/admin meta community for lemmy, so if we want to hammer out a better way to deal with bots this is the place to do it, but we should have a protocol that is actionable without DMs (if I was writing a bot I wouldn't ever respond to DMs), and that doesn't require speculative banning.
maybe dm's are better than quick banning, but my banning preference is for shoot-first-ask-questions-later, but short bans. a 1 to 3 day ban is better in most circumstances for most offenses. even repeated bad behavior, i feel should see the same term unless the bans themselves become burdensome to the mods.
i can see the case for dm's for suspected bots though.
rules without rulers.