hexbear

slowly starting to process everything that has been said across the threads about this and I have questions. I would prefer to wait to process things more before posting, but I'm worried the thread will get locked before I'm ready.

(if you have DM'd me, I will reply eventually ❤️)

I have concerns and questions about the way mistakes are handled here that will echo things said during the Great -Tank Comms Struggle Session of two weeks ago. this is not an attempt to reignite it; the possibility of doing it is terrifying, but I feel compelled to try to get at the heart of the problem expressed by many neurodivergent comrades therein, and I have fresh personal experience with the importance of this problem.

we make social mistakes because social difficulties are part of our disability. punishing people for crossing hidden and ill-defined red lines is ableist, especially when there's been no other reason to doubt that person's good faith.

Questions & Concerns:

• can someone help me read this quote

For active hexbear users, we do encourage a mod sending a warning message, however that is not required. We frequently give 1 day temp bans without such a warning and while we do wish we had more mod tools available, we work with what we've got.

from @CARCOSA's comment here in a way that isn't contradictory with @Lyudmila's statement that you would not be banning users for a single upvote anymore?

this indicates to me that the exact same thing could happen again if I'm not exceedingly careful with my upvotes, which absolutely I will try to be, but I just know myself well enough to know that I'm going to fuck up again eventually. 🤷 if perfection is the standard to not have my RSD triggered to that degree, this is not a safe place for me.

• did none of the other upvotes I made in that thread matter or make anyone question whether I actually agreed with that comment?

I looked back at the thread this morning, and I see that I had also upvoted queermunist's reply to the objectionable comment (most of the other replies to it were made after leaving the thread to read other things and then go touch grass, sometime after which I was banned)

other comments in the thread that I upvoted:
https://hexbear.net/comment/5659695 (and several replies)
https://hexbear.net/comment/5659596
https://hexbear.net/comment/5659550

idk if there's a way to check the timestamp of when I voted on these things to prove that it was during that same initial viewing of the thread, but I hope so, especially when you're using a "pattern of activity" for bans.

afaik, I don't have a track record of consistently problematic upvotes, but I know my AuDHD self well enough to know that I've probably similarly marked a thing planning to come back to it and then totally forgotten, or just been autistic or uneducated enough to not understand the subtext that a better-informed mod is getting, or just not noticed that my thumb hit the button when I browse with my phone on night-mode, which is grayscale and makes it impossible to tell if I voted unless I see the little bear spin.

• is it not policy to look at contravening comments in the thread and see how many of the problematic upvoters voted on them, too? would that not indicate something other than support for reactionary views and merit deeper consideration?

the description of the "vote audit" process makes it sound like a fair bit of work, only a single comment at a time that was specifically requested (a process which includes both mods and users??), and names that stick get punished, except sometimes it's a first offense and that's okay but also it's not.

getting context sounds onerous, but it seems unfair and misguided to ban people for poor upvotes without taking them into context with their other upvotes. how do you establish a "pattern of upvote activity" without context? being highly selective in your choice of data points does not demonstrate a pattern. and apparently you don't actually need a pattern of activity for a one-day ban anyway because those shouldn't matter that much to anyone.

• is there a threshold number of upvotes on a terrible comment that triggers a vote audit? it seems like lots of things get removed without triggering an audit and collective punishment. is it based more on the awfulness of the content? is it entirely up to the mod removing the comment or are there rules for when something must be audited? how do users request an audit and action against the upvoters?

• it seems like even if a single upvote wouldn't merit a ban anymore (except it might!), going for a ban based on a "pattern of upvotes" when their upvote action is removed from the context of their other upvotes and actions and when someone has given you no other reason to think they're secretly a reactionary bigot is still misguided and cruel. especially when there were so many of your neurodivergent comrades telling you in the Great -Tank Comms Struggle Session of two weeks ago that we would welcome being called out on things so we can learn, because difficulties with social cues is an inherent part of our disabilities, and we want to both Be Better but also just not accidentally hurt anyone.

we're constantly getting accidentally hurt ourselves, we know what it's like when nobody gives a shit about your feelings, we are your allies or we wouldn't be here.

Hexbear: you want to be a safe and welcoming place for leftists, especially leftists from marginalized communities, but you are so quick to reject even the perception of bigotry that you are inherently unsafe to many comrades attracted by that expressed ethos.

I would like to believe that a single poor upvote will no longer be enough reason to ban someone, but that's super unclear, and also I guess I'm confused why it ever has been, or why there isn't further investigation of activity around questionable votes if mods are presuming intentions from them.

• is the power to ban vested in each mod individually, or does it require consultation? I think I had assumed the latter but am coming to understand that it might be the former, which feels like a giant lightbulb moment for my understanding of site dynamics and interpersonal issues.

• what is the policy on modlog deletions? how can your neurodivergent comrades hope to understand the rules when their application is often hidden and unequal?

and then my most important question:

• what is the Code of Conduct for the mod team?

there are people on the mod team with usernames that often appear above "deleted by mod", often for "hostility" – could you please help me understand how upvote activity is more impactful for creating a hostile environment than open hostility from mods? (are the people who upvoted those comments punished?)

it doesn't seem unreasonable for there to be higher standards for mod behavior, but it seems like they're actually lower. I completely understand wanting to give your friends/coworkers extra grace, but also, certainly you must understand how this fosters an in-group/out-group dynamic that contributes to a hostile environment.

I hope we can discuss these questions with assumption of good intentions from the people we disagree with and that the thread will stay unlocked long enough to discuss them.

it takes autistic people longer to process things. I know that is not convenient. 🤷

don't tell anybody, but sometimes I upvote comments that end in 9 because I want them to be nice multiples of 10. I await my flogging for promotion and platforming of reactionary content

so, I have an extreme anxiety disorder and would like to know something in particular. can mods see a time stamp of an upvote? because, it is possible to upvote a comment which is later edited to take a position that could be read as reactionary; it is also possible a seeming well meaning question can be hashed out in replies that make it clear such an innocuous post is in fact a brainworm of the poster and I am seemingly agreeing with the thread when I simply upvoted the earlier parts in a thread before later comments came.

honestly all of this seems so labour intensive and subjective in the sheer lack of context seemingly provided by a name in a list next to a comment, that I have to wonder the rationale at all in using upvotes as a form of moderation. just because it can be done doesn't mean you have to do it. the most consistent form of moderation will always be looking at what people actually post, and it is easy to just call it there. keep it shrimple 🦐

I'll say up front that I'm a bit confused by everything. It seems like I log out for a day or two and a bunch of wild stuff happens and I just feel lost.

It seems to me that the site has largely been fine as is, and that it doesn't really need the amount of tinkering that the mods & admins seem to think? To whatever extent the people running the site want to change its functionality or culture in some substantive way, my impression is just that the rest of the users want to be a part of those choices, rather than a feeling of "us / them", where it feels like the people with admin & mod credentials operate like a wholly separate entity.

I notice a lot of people commenting on upvote-policing and stuff of that nature, and I'll say that more than half the time I use this website I am literally high and will sometimes just zone-out and upvote everything I see without reading it. If I notice the comment is shitty, or that it's some of our users getting needlessly aggressive with each other, I will remove my upvotes, but that's only if I actually notice.

I wish you all the best and hope this site stays cool and good. It is my favorite place online.

1. Am I missing something obvious, or is the new upvote policy and the motivation for it not in any way explained in this post, or in the proposals post, or anywhere visible? I had to trawl through a bunch of posts to even find out what's going on, from what I could see, the policy is explained and introduced in this comment, in a now locked thread, in a comm we've only had for like 3 weeks, that has a grand total, of, uh, 64 subscribers? Is this what we mean by transparency?

   Like, imagine if someone was, I dunno, hiking in the mountains for the past month, and they suddenly come back to some new moderation policies that will be entirely incomprehensible if you haven't gone through 10000 comments worth of site lore. I mean, I actually did fucking follow the tanks drama, but I guess I miss like one fucking thread and now I might as well be completely out of the loop.

   For a site where we often tell people to touch grass, we sure as hell seem to expect everyone to be terminally online enough to keep up with our incessant stupidity if they want to have any chance of understanding why any action is being taken.

   ⠀

2. I'm also throwing my hat into the ring as a habitual upvoter. Like, I don't quite use upvotes as a "read" button, but I definitely don't think too much about it. I upvote pretty much anyone who responds to one of my posts, unless they say something particularly disagreeable, I dunno, it just feels like... a courtesy somehow? Sometimes people will make some joke or obscure reference that goes completely over my head, and I'll just sit there and ponder it for a minute... and upvote it anyway

   I dunno, it sounds stupid, but am I expected to treat every button press through a purely rational and analytical lens here? I'm not the site's fucking UX designer, I'm just a monkey who clicks on things.

   I do use it as a "read" button in exorbitantly long threads (which, you know, we do get a fucking lot of), sometimes I'll see that a response descends into , upvote it, scroll down to read some other, shorter subthreads, and then come back to finish reading the first one. Now, sometimes I'll get tired and give up on reading the rest of the thread, and thus obviously not upvote the remaining comments in it, but this isn't any sort of indication that I agreed with the first few responses and disagreed with the remaining ones, it's just an indication of where I lost interest and gave up .

   I will also often upvote both sides of an argument too (as long as, again, one side isn't being particularly disagreeable or impolite, and it should obviously be noted here that the line between "I mildly disagree with this but will still upvote it" and "I definitely won't upvote this" is inherently vague, arbitrary, and vibes-based, I'm not a Sentiment Analysis algorithm, I'm a human being, with moods, and headaches, and various petty attitudes that I may or may not even be consciously aware of). There isn't much rhyme or reason to this, the idea of "upvote = agreement/support" is just entirely disconnected from users' behavior here.

   ⠀

3. I pretty much stay out of struggle session discourse (aside from, occasionally, uh... lurking the threads and silently upvoting the side I agree with , but I guess I'll have to stop doing that lest I end up backing the losing side in one of those ), this is maybe the first time I'm posting something serious in one, but this is genuinely starting to wear on me, it's been what, 3 weeks of near-permanent ~~revolution~~ struggle? Every time I see a new pinned thread a sense of dread comes over me, how long is this going to fucking go on for? Can we just like, put a fucking moratorium on policy changes until things calm down a bit?

   ⠀

4. I'll link a couple of @[email protected]'s comments from the past thread, since he's way more eloquent on this than I'll ever be, and I'm not sure how many people have even seen that thread (refer to pt. 1): on the inversion of mod/user roles and on discipline requiring trust.

   The last one in particular I will reiterate - discipline requires trust. At this stage, I am not sure if I can reasonably trust the moderation team: the mod statements from the previous drama, the embarrassing "self-crit" of one of those mods that followed, the fact that you made someone an admin with the reasoning of "well, they used to be an admin before!", said person proceeded to completely mismanage the situation, start randomly handing out bans as some form of humor (?!), and just casually nope out of the mess they created and delete their entire presence here (I don't care how many times you say "we disagree with her decisions", the fact that this was allowed to happen in the first place is such a severe lapse in judgement that I don't even know what to fucking say), the attempt at some kind of Tom Clancy scheme of manipulating other lemmy instances for some reason... given all of this, just this general caliber of decision-making competence on display here, how am I supposed to trust the moderation team to actually pore over individual users posts and upvotes and engage in some kind of internet psychoanalysis in order to discipline them fairly?

   I understand and sympathize that lemmy's moderation tools are lacking, but that's not the fault of the users. In fact, the general attitude of a lot of the userbase seems to be broadly critical of this site being a reddit offshoot! Although this is of course difficult to objectively judge (some of this is just ironic "phpBB forums... they don't make 'em like they used to *sip*" posting, and many users don't actively comment so their attitude is unknown), the broad popularity of the megathreads does seem to indicate the posters yearn for a different kind of site structure than the one we have. Now, at this stage it's of course not really an option to just throw the site away and begin anew as something else, but still, being stuck with a shitty website that lacks functionality isn't something the users should be punished over!

what was the point of the last few weeks?

In this post

https://hexbear.net/comment/5665490

I made several statements that the mods had acted in violation of the Code of Conduct and quoted several lines from the Code of Conduct.

I have discovered that I was quoting an older version of the CoC and so my statements were incorrect. I would like to issue this correction and apologize. The quoted lines are not from the current version of the Code of Conduct and should be disregarded.

i am upvoting everything in this thread at my own risk

Why don't you make any of this shit democratic?

Just do a poll. Let the people decide.

Regardless of what you decide, I hope you can slow down on these larger changes soon. As someone who casually browses Hexbear, I don’t want to have to read through pages of patch notes just to know how to use the website.

Im not opposed to change but it feels a bit much in the last few weeks- thats all

Every announcement by the mods here prepended with some communist quote before posting the worst ideas for managing hobby politics webforum is some level of larp I don't think I'll ever reach without a solid brick of methamphetamine in my bloodstream.

Why are you doing this to yourself, i will never know. to watch though

Here is a proposal: don't remove posts with some amount of comments in "wrong" comms, like nerds. Your labor in removing that thread is less than a comment, its goal is roughly meaningless, and its result is annoyance. But some mod can have some no-fun-allowed fun i guess.

Want to show how much you care about comm sorting? make the mod repost and reprint all comments in "correct" comm, so that people can continue conversation.

another proposal:

Make upbear only visible to the poster own comments, hide them and only use them for sorting reasons otherwise:

pros: those who like upbears will still see them.

cons: that would require work

I now appreciate your overreach even less now as I’m being treated like shit for this by other users. If this shit doesn’t let up, I’m fucking leaving. I don’t need to put up with this because my brain can’t easily process walls of text.

EDIT: I’ve spoken more in depth with one of the folks and it seems to be a case of mistaken tone, but I definitely have caught flak for this already from another.