all 240 comments

[–]magnora7 30 insightful - 3 fun30 insightful - 2 fun31 insightful - 3 fun -  (18 children)

Thanks wizzwizz.

I appreciate you all who are being real and honest and well-spoken, and responding to the real core of what your debate "opponent" is saying when you get in a disagreement.

I've already seen some great debates happening on saidit where all the different sides of an argument were being stated very clearly and articulately, and it's amazing how much I can quickly learn! This is what saidit is for.

Sometimes we'll get steamed when we disagree with someone, but only engaging with the highest-quality arguments makes the culture of mud-slinging just naturally die out from people simply ignoring it because we know it's not worth our time.

It's a subtle thing to truly grasp, but I see lots and lots of people on saidit who "get it" and I'm proud of the community we've all built so far.

[–]HeyImSancho 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

I like to walk away from the computer. It gives me time to think about any post that for whatever reason I may not comprehend what was said, and how to respond.

Even a flaming post, a crap post designed to do nothing, but cause noise can be productive once viewed properly.

Life is an engagement in time, and time goes by fast. We as men, women, children, and people try to make plans on how to use our very important limited time, but whatever god is, he laughs....

I keep crap like that on my mind, and when a post 'steams' me, I just ask why did it, and contemplate to find any response if any.

Rules can be good, and rules can also stifle creativity, and inspiration.

[–]magnora7 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I agree, but we cannot have infinite tolerance of crap posts, lest saidit become voat

[–]sawboss 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

lest saidit become voat

You'll know that's happening when the front page is majority antisemitic and white supremacist. If I see that happen, I'll lose interest in SaidIt, because I can already get that at Voat.

[–]Zhohan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It was very disappointing trying Voat out to find out it infected the entire website. We need a real alternative to Reddit that is for the people.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've been searching for a Reddit alternative and already this site is looking great.

99% of the other sites are infected with racism and antisemitic speech and memes. I'm just trying to find decent memes and conversations without the racism and leftist bias. Is that too hard to ask?

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah at that point it's probably too late

[–]Shoh4685 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree

[–]Reddit_sucks_dick 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

white supremacist

mostly teenage edgelords trying (and succeeding) to trigger lefty snowflakes, lol

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

If it's true crap, then we should report, correct? Like:

I agree, but we cannot have infinite tolerance of crap posts

Tolerance! toleRNCE you smell

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah report bad posts and comments, selecting the 'dragging down discussion on the pyramid of debate' option on the window that pops up. That way they're flagged for mods to easily see. They won't always be removed though, it's just a flagging system to help mods and admins spot it quickly, and to give an opinion that you agree it violates the pyramid of debate.

[–]SonnyCrockett 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Voat was compromised by SRS/ChapoTrapHouse types, who deliberately poisoned that well a long time ago.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree. But I think even prior to that, when it was changing from whoaverse to voat, it was taken over by Stormfront/white-nationalist types to use it as a tool for their own purposes. It's just a mess on top of a mess.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Me too.

On some occasions I get a strong emotional reaction, whatever that may be. When that happens I find it's often a challenge to find the best words. And while it might be easy to just say whatever, I've found those are the best learning moments to try harder and go deeper to find where and why those emotions came in order to better articulate what's often my own resolution with confidence and peace again. Ultimately it's more on me anyway, and my choice to react or even step away and not react.

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

agreed!

[–]313337 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This reminds me... I meant to call you an asshat again yesterday but I lost my will to engage. So today I'm agreeing with you, asshat.

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I really feel sad for you.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, yes. Lots of people definitely "get it"; that's why I think it's possible to encourage more to. (Me, for example; I understand it, but still don't "get it".)

[–]sawboss 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

responding to the real core of what your debate "opponent" is saying when you get in a disagreement.

I suck at this. I know that my comments fall into lower tiers of the pyramid more often than I'd like. Can you guess why? (Hint: I don't blame SaidIt!)

I've already seen some great debates happening on saidit where all the different sides of an argument were being stated very clearly and articulately, and it's amazing how much I can quickly learn! This is what saidit is for.

I don't envy your position. As SaidIt grows there will be more, and more people calling for new rules they can weaponize against those who say things they don't want said. I trust SaidIt to do their best to resist the tyrannical impulse, so please don't make me regret that trust.

Sometimes we'll get steamed when we disagree with someone, but only engaging with the highest-quality arguments makes the culture of mud-slinging just naturally die out from people simply ignoring it because we know it's not worth our time.

Plenty of my posts get no votes or comments. Not gonna lie, that's a bit discouraging. As you've implied though, it ought to be my perogative to reel in my own chaotic impulses.

[–]sawboss 8 insightful - 9 fun8 insightful - 8 fun9 insightful - 9 fun -  (13 children)

I have no respect for people who enter a fun sub and then just complain. Bring your fun pills people!

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

If you don't want people to complain in your sub, don't put it on /s/all. There's a box you can tick; if you want to police what people can say, take it off /s/all.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

So, self-censorship is your proposed solution to things you don't care to see?

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Yes. If you don't want people to comment on things you post, don't show the things to them in the first place.

It's a bad solution, but better than keeping it on /s/all and still censoring it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That interesting.

You seem to assume that censorship is a valid and ethical option.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This argument proves too much.

If not showing things to people is censorship, and censorship is unethical, then that means that any privacy of any kind is unethical – which it obviously isn't.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

If not showing things to people is censorship, and censorship is unethical, then that means that any privacy of any kind is unethical – which it obviously isn't.

Wrong. Censorship is the supression of information.

Everything submitted to SaidIt is voluntarily added to the community by the individual who submitted it. The same principle applies to submitted comments.

This has nothing to do with privacy.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Wrong.

Exactly my point. Your argument, when applied to something else, doesn't apply.

This has nothing to do with privacy.

Since your argument proves too much, it can be applied to anything, even privacy, and result in an outcome that you disagree with. I'm trying to show you the flaw in your cognition, as I expect you to show me the many, many flaws in mine instead of calling me names.


Everything submitted to Saidit is voluntarily added to the community by the individual who submitted it.

Yes, I agree. So I should be permitted to say bad stuff about something "fun".

However, if a person is insistent that I shouldn't be permitted to say bad stuff about their content in their sub, they should not put their sub in /s/all; instead of telling me not to criticise their "fun and games" that they're showing me, they should instead not show it to me. It's not censorship if you're willingly, without fear of retribution otherwise, "censoring" your own content.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Since your argument proves too much

What does this even mean? How can anything be proven "too much"?

The synonym for "proves to much" is irrefutable.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No. "This argument proves too much" means "this argument proves too many things". We can both agree that the government shouldn't limit people's speech, can't we? (For the sake of argument, at least, let's assume that this is right.) But can I say "the government shouldn't limit people's speech because speech allows people to express themselves, and things that allow people to express themselves shouldn't be limited"?

No, I can't, in case you were wondering. We agree that murder is bad? Well, by this same argument, "the government shouldn't limit people's ability to murder because murder allows people to express themselves (e.g. their anger towards others), and things that allow people to express themselves shouldn't be limited." This argument proves too much; it proves too many things. It proves things that are right, and things that are wrong.

"This argument proves too much" is a handy way of explaining why an argument is wrong, without getting into complicated details that just sound pedantic (e.g. "false premise"). If you like, I can spend hours explaining the specific problems with your argument, but "this argument proves too much" covers them all.

[–]JasonCarswell 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (42 children)

I'm gonna vote how I want not how someone tells me is proper.

Unless there are flags, I'll keep voting for everyone on a busy post - even if they are not insightful - because I need to mark them as read.

If you want to change my voting habits then feel free to code and add the features that will encourage better voting from me.

Also while you're at it, I'd love ranked voting, say from 0-10 for both insightful and fun.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (33 children)

Ranked voting is a slippery slope.

[–]Stoner 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

How?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Shills can disproportionately out vote ideas they are paid to suppress, while impartial voters who haven't been exposed to quality evidence are influenced by the shills.

Deviating from basic voting methods can be exploited by parties who have an interest in seeing the public uninformed.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

And what's stopping them now?

I'm not buying it.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

And what's stopping them now?

Nothing. That's why I've posted 2 PSAs in the last week, and will probably post more, despite being a guilty hypocrite.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I hope you're joking.

I don't think they're really helping.

MHO

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

39 people disagree. Though I see why you say that… I'll tone it down a bit.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Don't tone it down. Find the right ideas and the right tone.

I've realized a lot of folks just like to debate here. And so often it's a lot of vague subjective opinion crap.

Whatever it is, there's a market for it. Apparently 39 for it. How many against?

Regardless, you do you.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

How about this: I'll post what I think is necessary, when I think is necessary, but I'll also get into insanely contrived arguments about whether it's necessary to post something which should limit what I post to only what's actually necessary.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I recsll an oldmanCorley being concerned about exactly this. I'm concerned as well. Most people remain anonymous fire a reason. I

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And...?

What is the reason? And why does it matter or make any difference?

What is your point?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What's stopping then is a lack of a down vote.

Weighted voting will be used by shills to Astroturf and maximally up-vote pro shill comments.
The goal is to create the appearance of support for unpopular ideas.

Why should any individual get more voting influence, just because they are passionate about a comment?

How will adding additional voting make the system more resilient?

It cannot; it can only make it weaker.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your logic isn't sound.

What's stopping then is a lack of a down vote.

Okay. Solved.

Weighted voting will be used by shills to Astroturf and maximally up-vote pro shill comments.

I thought it was down votes that were the problem.

The goal is to create the appearance of support for unpopular ideas.

That can be done now. It's not different.

Why should any individual get more voting influence, just because they are passionate about a comment?

It's about quality not quantity. Everyone gets the same 1-10 vote. Everyone gets the opportunity to be passionate or not about all of them.

Yes, the scores will change. A lot. And you will get used to it - like coming from Reddit with no downvote.

And we might see, not just the most popular, but the best of the most popular rise to the top. Maybe.

Or maybe after we all get used to it, the numbers will be different but everything else will be essentially the same.

I really can't see it getting worse. But I can see it getting worse if more people come who aren't high quality - but that's not due to the voting.

How will adding additional voting make the system more resilient?

That's not a proper question.

If I say, "How will adding additional voting NOT make the system more resilient?" - it's the same.

How is resiliency and voting related?

It cannot; it can only make it weaker.

Flawed logic from a flawed question.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

absolutely correct. Especially in gangs.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Ya how?

If anything it would improve the quality of the votes and metrics. Admittedly there will still be subjective limits. A group of idiots will have idiotic voting. But folks on SaidIt are not closed minded illiterate Luddites.

And you'll know if you're just kinda funny or really funny.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

The SaidIt voting structure is a rigorously tested format.
The current format is elegant in it's simplicity.

If it's not broken, then don't fix it.

Certain parties are seemingly obsessed with other people's voting habits, which is one more unsurprising coincidence to add to the list.

Changing the voting structure led to the on-going demise of Reddit. The SaidIt voting structure is sound, which is probably why there is pressure to change it.

People are here because the system works. Contraversial posts get attention because the system is working as intended.

The addition of a potentially confusing voting system will not produce an atmosphere for community growth.
I doubt that an individual exists on the planet who would recommend a forum to a friend, based on it's wide range of custom voting options, so they could customize their level of voting interest for each submission.
That's the worst kind of nonsense fluffery.
Can you imagine being asked why you voted a 6, instead of an 8? Who cares about that shit, unless your interested in tracking certain individuals interests, or opinions. This creates an entire new set of risks, that I've described in the past.
We don't want our votes tracked.

Organic free-speech platforms should be allowed to develop freely, and without unnecessary complications.

[–]sawboss 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

"The SaidIt voting structure is sound, which is probably why there is pressure to change it."

Now everyone read that again, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO THINK I HAVE OVERREACTED!

"which is probably why there is pressure to change it"

Which is why I resist such change.

Organic free-speech platforms should be allowed to develop freely, and without unnecessary complications.

Agreed.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's flawed logic.

The sky is blue, which is probably why the grass is green.

There's no causality.

I want better voting options. And I want better voting statistics. Not because the structure is sound or because I want to break it or because I want to rig the system.

If a moderately semi-funny meme got a lot of votes and a profoundly excellent article got a lot of votes they may seem equal under the current system.

Under a better voting structure we would see that one was moderate and the other profound.

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Do you envision the possibility of hierarchical categories of posts? If so, please stop.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hear your opinion and will not obey.

Posts and comments are already hierarchical in a couple ways: Date, Votes, Insightful, Fun

There's already flair for a very limited form of labeling/categorizing.

We've actually discussed categories as a meta-level above Subs to help organize content.

There's even an initial colour-coded category scheme: https://infogalactic.com/info/SaidIt_Subs_Ending_2018

Among all the jibber jabber is great information. And if we can organize it for ourselves and others and the future then all the better.

No one is forcing you to be organized. Don't deny me the option to be.

Organization is good.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

IMDb is not broken with movie rankings 1-10

If we don't try we'll never know. If it sucks ass we can revert.

I agree with him that we could use better voting. I don't exactly align with how he's proposing it.

The second I arrived here 6 months ago I saw there was room for vast improvement to the over simplified Reddit model. If anything it's simplemindedness that has ruined Reddit. Ranked voting is not overly complicated.

potentially confusing voting system will not produce an atmosphere for community growth

Really? You have statistics, studies, evidence, and citations to prove this or is this just a malformed hunch?

Actually I keep recommending more advanced features like on the QxR forum. I even asked if we could port SaidIt to another forum that is still being developed by a wide community - Joomla, Drupal, TikiWiki, CopperMine, etc (the ones I know from 12 years ago - but I'm sure there are newer ones as good or better too).

That's my kind of fluff. Better statiistics.

I've never asked about peoples voting habbits. And I won't if/when we get ranked votes.

I'm not interested in any one person's votes. I'm interested in the hive mind results. Two posts that may get 20 votes now might have very different results with ranked votes. Then you could really separate the cream of the crop.

Sure there will be the few who think their stuff is 10/10 every time. Maybe it won't make a difference or maybe it will be a problem. Maybe it can be solved by turning off self votes or just ignoring them. Or force self-votes to be at 5/10 or maybe it's just the default. There are options and solutions.

We don't want our votes tracked.

"We"? Speak for yourself. And who said anything about that?

(I still don't see why not, but that's not what we're discussing.)

Organic free-speech platforms should be allowed to develop freely,

Yes. It should.

and without unnecessary complications.

Like roadblocks to progress fearful of complications without even seeing them.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Edit:. IMDb is a movie rating group. They do not discuss issues that affect state power, or corporate power.
IMDb probably doesn't have a free-speech platform.

Movies are often propaganda devices, so there's probably not a lot of supressive activity.

What rating does the movie "vaxxed" have at IMDb?

We don't want our votes tracked.

"We"? Speak for yourself. And who said anything about that?

Only a handful of people logged in here use their real names. I would consider it reckless, but to each their own.
Many come here because there is no email requirement.

Why do you suppose that is?

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Why would IMDB have or need or want a "free-speech platform"? Apples and oranges.

Votes are still votes and whether its simple or complex it can be politicized.

I don't see what the Vaxxed votes have to do with the price of tea in China.

Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe (2016) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5562652/ 5.5 / 10 from 3,686 votes.

I bet some are sock puppets. I bet some are brainwashed sheeple. With all the honest votes I bet there are A LOT of 1 star votes who haven't even seen it.

I've seen censorship on the Amazon owned IMDb. I used to read a lot of stuff about the movies I watched. Now I don't watch movies much anymore and certainly don't read IMDb when I have more interesting stuff on SaidIt.

IMDb is full of aliases too.

I don't know what your point is.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You had brought up the IMDb voting format and stated that it wasn't broken with it's ratings.

Your follow-up indicates that IMDb has shill vulnerabilities, and suggest that they are likely exploited.

Having acknowledged this; why would we want to expose SaidIt to these same voting vulnerabilities?

These vulnerabilities do not exist with the current system.

We need to remain advocates for maximally resilient submission, commenting, and voting structures.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

SaidIt already has the same exact vulnerabilities, only different in the tallies.

Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.

If anything getting better quality information about the voting process will expose infiltration.

If you see a bunch of 1/10 votes then you know it either sucked or a group is trying to game the system. Knowing that much at least then we can determine ways to solve that. Not knowing may allow unkown problems to fester.

We need to remain advocates for maximally resilient submission, commenting, voting structures, improving the site, and finding new and better ways to be transparent with information and statistics to better defend ourselves and provide quality experience and content.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

SaidIt already has the same exact vulnerabilities, only different in the tallies.

?

If you see a bunch of 1/10 votes then you know it either sucked or a group is trying to game the system. Knowing that much at least then we can determine ways to solve that. Not knowing may allow unkown problems to fester.

These are contradictory statements.

There are obvious differences.

[–]HeyImSancho 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

good post, and way to stand up!

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The features you want are incredibly hard to implement; not impossible, but difficult. We're all working on getting through the list.

Until then, vote how you think is proper, not how people tell you to. It's advice, not instruction, that I give.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Sorry but your tone sucks. Your advice sounds like instruction and I'm guessing what you really want is motivation to be better. I don't think too many here are not trying to do their best. But I do think folks might like motivation to supplement their best.

If you're interested, you could draft up potential posts on the wiki and ask for feedback (or even allow others to work it over - like on Wikipedia) and after folks are done, you feel its done, or some time limit passes then post it. Maybe you'll get a stronger message out. Maybe not. Maybe it's a waste of time and energy. Or maybe its something that can be refined over time.

I'm super glad that you're helping the code.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Sorry but your tone sucks.

Thanks! I see that now, rereading what I wrote. Too many people seem to shy away from saying stuff like "your tone sucks", but it's really important.

Maybe when I have more time, I'll see if I can help with the wiki.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't know if it needs help.

I'm suggesting you use it as a tool.

For example take a look at /s/SaidItSurveys/wiki/drafts These are for developing unrefined ideas openly. Some are more finished than others, some are already old news, some are still relevant.

Maybe you and your fan club can discuss and develop your PSA series like this, another way, or not at all. Up to you.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I still don't understand what that wiki is and what it's for, but I'll look into it. Thanks!

(This PSA thing isn't supposed to be a series, by the way. It shouldn't need to be.)

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If it's not obvious then it's not as it should be.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I read the index and that cleared things up a bit.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

One man's circle jerk is another man's best post ever.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

LOLS

I've jerked so hard so many times. And then when I'm not even trying.... BOOM!

[–]send_nasty_stuff 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Just let the site culture become what it's going to become. Posting a bunch of PSA won't do shit. You build a good social media site with people that need to use the site to do important political work. Reddit use to be about fast information spreading until it got sold out. Let this site find it's niche naturally. If you want to make is a good site be a good mod.

[–]HopeThatHalps 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

To the extent that this is basically pre-corperate reddit, the level of discourse is going to drop. You're going to get power posters and lots of peons who upvote their reposted memes.

The only way to stop it is with rules, and then moderation to enforce those rules, a level of moderation which, tbh, can't be had free of charge. The people who are willing to moderate for free tend to be power trippers who relish the opportunity to exercise that power.

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The people who are willing to moderate for free tend to be power trippers who relish the opportunity to exercise that power.

This is exactly correct. The downfall of reddit was the little mod fiefdoms

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Mod actions are 100% transparent.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Now, I disagree. That's not the only way to stop it. But… probably the most practical. Consider our userbase, though; scrolling through these comments will show you how many are absolutely, fundamentally opposed to rules of any kind. We don't want to inadvertently drive them into a rebellion that results in their ban which will make the site quieter, but less diverse, so less useful.

Yes, this sounds manipulative. It is.

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

scrolling through these comments will show you how many are absolutely, fundamentally opposed to rules of any kind.

Well there are rules, and so far so good. IMO, the rule-hate is reactionary, anti-authority sentiment. In a democracy, people theoretically make their own rules by voting, but on a website you have an autocrat at the top making the rules. Of course, this is how it has to be, because the guy at the top pays the bills, the users don't. If you have a model where users pay a memebership fee, suddenly their opinions become a lot more relevant, because losing users sucks, but losing money sucks much worse.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actually, the users do pay the bills for this site. Just about, mostly, through donations.

We do need more rules, and they need to be enforced. But they should be enforced primarily through community consensus. When we're at a point where nobody is voting on the low-quality content, we'll— Ok, I heard it that time. I see now why people are arguing against this proposal. I'll see whether I can re-word it to clarify my meaning.

[–]StalwartJames 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

[–]HurkaDurka 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Wow, I just lost a ton of respect for this site. I don't even see what the rule violation was with those goofballs.

[–]magnora7 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's an entire sub based entirely around the lowest level of the pyramid of debate: Low-information hatred

This isn't voat. They're openly hateful racists, wishing death on others and dehumanizing them. They're not "goofballs". We have to draw the line somewhere, or we will just become voat.

[–]Snow 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Why banned coontown?

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Because it was a troll sub, and various site members petitioned for the ban – to which /u/magnora7 said "only if it starts up again".

(Though I might be wrong.)

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yeah it's a sub based entirely on the lowest level of the pyramid (low-information hatred) so we decided it's not worth allowing on saidit.

[–]slabgreen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What was on it...?

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's a sub that's well-established on other sites. It revolves around making fun of black people, about how stupid and ugly they are, and how they wish black people were dead. It's an offshoot of voats /v/niggers. It's the exact type of low-information group-hatred we created saidit to avoid.

[–]slabgreen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Wow, thanks for telling me. That sounds bad.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, we dodged a bullet tbh.

[–]Troll 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As one of the founders of coontown on reddit, let me clarify:

It revolves around making fun of black people: - Lots of places do this. It's a part of comedy.

about how stupid and ugly they are - With links to abberant behavior.

and how they wish black people were dead - These sentiments were primarily voiced towards criminals, rather than "all blacks."

Can't avoid me brah!

[–]poestal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

no he just banned it because he believed it invited trouble to saidit.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Source?

[–]poestal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]poestal 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/jzs/deleting_new_subs_that_are_just_trolling_or_spam/

I believe it's complete bs they can just ban it without violating any rules. (even though I was banned from coontown from making a joke)

[–]Wanga 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (98 children)

I think maybe we need a longer list of social norms/guidelines.

Wikipedia has the strongest, most resilient culture of any major web platform. It gets stronger as everyone else decays. I think part of the reason is that they have a long wiki list of guidelines, so they can say, "You're using weasel words", or whatever specific violation people are using.

The pyramid of debate is fine and dandy, but it's not enough to cover all situations.

[–]sawboss 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Wikipedia has the strongest, most resilient culture of any major web platform

It's a tyranny. That's how they maintain their culture. If SaidIt wants to promote a monoculture then SaidIt also must become a tyranny.

[–]Wanga 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

Wikipedia is a mashup of majority-democracy, consensus-democracy, monarchy, anarchy

[–]JasonCarswell 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Was.

Now Wikipedia is a tyranny of the "majority" via an army of CIA and Mossad led propaganda admins.

[–]Wanga 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (9 children)

I'm skeptical of arguments that claim everyone who argues against them online is a government agent.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

I'm skeptical of arguments that claim I said everyone who argues against them online is a government agent.

Feel free to go through my Wikipedia history and look at the conflicts and tell me they all make sense.

[–]Wanga 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If you only edit the safe topics you won't have a problem.

If you push the limits whether frequently or infrequently you'll see what I'm talking about. I haven't been super active on WP for all dozen years solid, but I'm pretty familiar with it.

On the other hand, I'm still learning Reddit culture.

[–]Wanga 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Reddit culture is about memorising a list of memes and then doing this with them

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why did you link to the Wikipedia article on stimming?

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Skepticism is a fine muscle which everyone should exercise more.

[–]JasonCarswell 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

Wikipedia sucks ass. They banned me for a year for being "another polite truther". Last week I was trying to add to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitChute and met irrational resistance because they're trying to suppress new freeing technologies like BitChute's Comment Freely app : https://github.com/BitChute/commentfreely

Because it's "not notable". There's a FUCK TONNE on Wikipedia that is not notable.

"Not notable" = weasel words if ever there were.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah not notable is insane, that's as subjective as they come, and it costs like a penny a year to have an extra page.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

If only they were constantly begging for money to support their propaganda campaign, then maybe we could afford some freedom and solutions to include "fringe" and "fancruft".

[–]Wanga 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

What's a polite truther?

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

Truther: https://infogalactic.com/info/User:JasonCarswell

9/11 was an Anglo-Zionist-Globalist inside and outside international snowjob followed by Athrax to scare everyone into silence. https://steemit.com/september2001/@jasoncarswell/never-forget-sept-2001-six-events-reclaimthenarrative-fightelitesnoteachother

If you act nice and don't let their bullshit bug you (because they'll toss you out) then they call you "polite".

These are old and need updating and major cleaning up:

https://infogalactic.com/info/Truther_(disambiguation) - partly banned

https://infogalactic.com/info/Trutherism

Wikipedia won't allow articles like those or like these:

https://infogalactic.com/info/Pedophocracy

https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_acknowledged_pedophilia_elites

https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_alleged_pedophilia_elites

https://infogalactic.com/info/Conspirophile

https://infogalactic.com/info/Dynamic_silence

https://infogalactic.com/info/Eating_You_Alive - banned

https://infogalactic.com/info/InterPlanetary_File_System - partly banned

https://infogalactic.com/info/IOTA_(technology) - banned

https://infogalactic.com/info/James_Corbett_(journalist) - banned several times

https://infogalactic.com/info/Joseph_Atwill

https://infogalactic.com/info/Lionel_(radio_personality) - mostly banned

https://infogalactic.com/info/SaidIt

https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Great_NHS_Heist - banned

https://infogalactic.com/info/Tigole


EDIT: I added "banned" after the ones that were banned from WP. The others I didn't even try.

[–]Wanga 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

wew lad

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That's 'cause they're written in a very biased way. The IOTA article was just an advert, "list of acknowledged pedophilia elites" I can tell from the title is not written neutrally (despite that being a perfectly understandable stance, it's not the Wikipedia way)…

Wait, they banned the Saidit article? Huh. After reading it, I see why; it's written like an advert:

Within the "subs" members may contribute titled "posts" with text or a link (to a webpage, image, video, etc (now supporting SVGs, BitChute, PeerTube, and DTube[6])).

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I didn't write the IOTA article, I rescued it. Wikipedia didn't even give it a fucking chance.

In the old days a dozen years ago folks would add and help and contribute and build better articles. Now they get slammed down right away - especially if they are suppressed content.

They LIE LIE LIE LIE all day long about politics. The government is SCREWING people left right and center.

And yet every single new tech is suppressed because it MIGHT be a scam.

The Wikipedia was is now BULLSHIT CULTURE.

I can tell from the title is not written neutrally

What's wrong with "List of acknowledged pedophilia elites" and "List of alleged pedophilia elites" ?

These pedo elites have been publicly accused or prosecuted. HOW is that not neutral?

NOTHING on Wikipedia is neutral. The aim is for neutrality but in reality it's impossible.

If you read any other article about any major tech company they will write it like an advert without skepticism and in glowing terms. I did no different with the SaidIt article - except I mentioned things forbidden on Wikipeida - like the tabboos and skepticism stuff.

I never even tried to start a Wikipedia article for SaidIt as they will say it's "not notable'. I never said it was banned, though some of them were, I said "won't allow articles like those".

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The IOTA article was… terrible, to be frank. Back when this was all going down, I wrote an answer on IOTA Stack Exchange about this.:

The IOTA page on Wikipedia was deleted because it wasn't a great Wikipedia article). It was poorly sourced, contained much information that wasn't in the sources given... They just decided to rewrite it from scratch because the article was so terrible. The only arguments in favour of keeping it) seem to be about IOTA's notability. And IOTA is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article... just not that article.

The article has been deleted, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia has no intention of there being an article about IOTA. Here's the latest draft) of the new article... which isn't much better to be honest. Why can't people just get together and write a decent Wikipedia article about IOTA?! This draft, being practically identical to the original, has been deleted. We'll have to wait a bit for an IOTA article.

And it was terrible, because IOTA people kept coming on and making it spammy, advertising it as something it's not. And Wikipedia gave it another chance, and that was ultimately taken down too.


They LIE LIE LIE LIE all day long about politics.

I'd like to see some of that, actually. I was under the impression that Wikipedia stayed away from politics. Or does the staying away count as lying?


What's wrong with "List of acknowledged pedophilia elites" […]?

What's an "elite"? Why are you using "pedophilia" as an adjective? What's "acknowleged"? "List of high-profile convicted paedophiles" might be a better title for the article.


If you read any other article about any major tech company they will write like an advert without skepticism and in glowing terms.

Like the article on Microsoft which discusses EU fines, government surveillance and hypocrisy, and links to the Criticism of Microsoft article three times? The Apple Inc. article could be better, but even that has several sections of criticism and even (a small) one entitled "Criticism and controversies".

The quality of those articles is significantly, significantly higher than the IOTA one.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I didn't write the IOTA article. I'm not defending it. You missed my point. Wikipedia used to build and improve things. Now they just censor things.


I was under the impression that Wikipedia stayed away from politics.

WTF? Every page about every politician is sure to be loaded with crap. WP doesn't stay away from politics AT ALL!

The 9/11 page is lies top to bottom. Russiagate. You name it. Wikipedia only repeats "legitimate" corporate lies news.


What's an "elite"? Why are you using "pedophilia" as an adjective? What's "acknowleged"?

Don't be dunce.

"List of high-profile convicted paedophiles" might be a better title for the article.

Maybe. That's more or less what it's become - anyone with fame and/or power. A wider view shows the broad scale and deep extent of it's all pervasive corruption that is ignored by the elites and those with power, if not participating in it.


All good articles have criticism sections. But if the IOTA can't even get a foothold then how can you even write a criticism. MS and Apple have been around since the 1980s. Has IOTA? Worth billion$. Is IOTA?

You can find a criticism section on the James Corbett and SaidIt articles too.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Every page about every politician is sure to be loaded with crap.

Interesting. I forgot about actual political issues. A brief survey suggests that many of these are a little biased in their wording, but not quite poor quality; I might touch a few of them up when I've got time for the inevitable debates in the Talk section that follow.


Don't be dunce.

I'm not. Seriously, what counts as "elite"? You're expecting short inferential distances (something I do significantly more than you, so I'm quite chuffed that I can finally call you out on it) and neglecting the vast spectrum of what that word means to different people.

Maybe.

Then maybe you can try making that article on Wikipedia. If you're incredibly careful to tiptoe around with the wording you use, you might get it past the "filter". Focus on wording it so that it doesn't trigger the reflexive "this is bad" response in the new article reviewers and, at least at first, only include people for which you can find:

  • Actual court documents showing the convictions; and
  • At least two news articles from reputable (rightly or wrongly) groups with different biases.

You're targeting an audience, like I am when writing this comment. Make concessions in what you're writing to get your core point across; sure, people will be able to "take you out of context" more easily, but it will be about the trivial ancillary things, not the core ones.


But if the IOTA can't even get a foothold then how can you even write a criticism.

Since I wrote that answer on IOTA Stack Exchange, I always planned to wait a couple of years before writing another article about it, and hope that the article got grounded and started to develop a root system strong foundation of links before it got vandalised by those wanting it to be an advertisement.

You have to write things in the right way. And the only problem with the IOTA article was that it wasn't written like a Wikipedia article.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=elite

Elite : In political and sociological theory, the elite are a small group of powerful people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a society. More at Wikipedia

It's not a fucking obscure term. Everyone knows what it is. Except you apparently.

Yes, now that there's enough content gathered up, there might be a chance to create in on WP. I'm banned from doing political stuff there, but I still do little things and am always pushing the envelope - so far undetected since my 2016 ban - but also FAR more ineffective.

Feel free to copy paste the whole thing if you like and edit it down as you see fit. Many of the links and citations will be refuted and thrown out, and some major sections may be deleted but there's enough remaining to be a legit article, or at very least a heavily bulldogged stub. I salute anyone who tries - and I really hope they include the lists - which is why I started it in the first place - so see how legitimately systemic it was.

The article is targeting the truth. I have not said anyone was a pedo without citations. I've not said anyone was one unless they were convicted. The others are allegations - including now dead alleged pedos with hundreds of victims who will never see justice.

You have to write things in the right way.

This has become soft censorship. The authoritarians don't tolerate sloppiness on Wikipedia any more. This has pros and cons. A LOT of information is blocked. That's a huge fucking con.

They could dial it back a bit or a lot and still provide a quality resource, perhaps even far superior.

Reddit and SaidIt are anything but organized - yet they're still great resources.

[–]Arundel 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Great_NHS_Heist

Can I watch this online in full?

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know. I haven't seen it yet myself. Lemme know if you find it.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=The+Great+NHS+Heist

Looks like they're still going but stalled or something.

Official sites: http://selloff.org.uk/ + http://thegreatnhsheist.com/

The Great NHS Heist Documentary trailer No2 - Prof David Whyte Feb 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsQj9K-kzmQ

[–]Wanga 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Are you v4vapid on steemit?

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I am JasonCarswell in all things. Even on Steemit.

https://steemit.com/@jasoncarswell

Feel free to give me all your Steem bucks.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (42 children)

Before that, we need a stronger… less toxic, honestly, userbase. And we need to work together to decide our norms, with some help from our resident dictators /u/magnora7 and /u/d3rr.

[–]Wanga 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (27 children)

I don't think we should 'wait' for the userbase to improve before drawing guidelines.

Guidelines should help the userbase improve.

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree that we don't need to wait. But there is a process in place. That process is not carved in stone and you're welcome to improve it.

Fair warning. You may be ignored. I have been. I'm also surprised when something I find trivial gets a lot of attention.

The SaidItrons are fickle beasts.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (25 children)

Oh, darn, I'm not following my own guidelines, am I? This'll be harder than I thought.

Yes, that has merit, and I think makes more sense than what I was saying. Want to make a sub? Something like /s/SaiditForum, perhaps? And then the finished guidelines can be posted somewhere, all nicely in one place, by someone who's going to stick around.

[–]sawboss 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

The reason it's so hard to follow these ideas through to their logical conclusion is because, assuming you are capable of self reflection, some part of you must understand that the monoculture you are promoting can only be implemented via censorship and force. I didn't come here to be lectured by moral authoritarians!

[–]happysmash27 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I personally hope to make the culture good by promoting the existing good culture, bringing people closer together and reducing toxicity.

[–]sawboss 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

bringing people closer together

sounds immoral

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

This is a well-designed trap; any attempt by me to argue against it will be labelled "incapable of self-reflection".

I'm not trying to promote a monoculture. I'm trying to promote a better culture – a culture better for the purposes of discussion and debate. And it's my firm belief that, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, a culture can be self-sustaining. We'll have to put the effort into build that culture – I certainly have not been playing the part necessary for creating that culture. But once established, only a flood of new users can knock it down.

[–]sawboss 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

This is a well-designed trap; any attempt by me to argue against it will be labelled "incapable of self-reflection".

Not a trap, just me overestimating you.

I'm trying to promote a better culture

Better according to you. Because you know what's good for everyone, right? Because you are a good person, and therefore everyone must think as you do. Isn't that right?

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Better according to you.

No. Better according to my metrics according to me.

Our problem here is clearly not that one of us cares about the site and one of us doesn't. Our problem is probably not that one of us is insanely clever and one of us is unimaginably stupid. No, our problem is that we disagree on what counts as "better".

What's your definition?

[–]Zombi 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Why not go the middle route. Not guidelines, but principles? Encourage, but don't moderate, content that agrees with principles and ignore those that don't. They aren't strictly followed rules, but ideals we should follow.

You could say the debate pyramid is one of those principles, but maybe we should add more? That way we don't run into /u/sawboss' problem of this becoming a dictatorship while satisfying your problem with the lack of culture. We don't need to ban or punish those that go against our principles, just follow them (the principles) and promote them throughout the site.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sounds good.

Though we must make sure to consider each comment and post on its own merits. We mustn't blindly support what one person says. I'm a good example of this: I post some high quality content, but if you were to blindly vote "insightful" to everything I say you'd be supporting a lot of drivel.

[–]sawboss 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No, our problem is that we disagree on what counts as "better".

What's your definition?

SaidIt is already better than Reddit or Voat, and I believe it will remain that way as long as SaidIt can resist the establishment of a monoculture. At this time I do not have specific recommendations for additional rules/guidelines to secure the site against such.

I created my SaidIt account with the understanding that many people here, including SaidIt oldbies I suspect, actually dislike my ideas and would oppose me. GOOD! As long as we can have those disagreements openly, honestly, and with as little interference from mods/admins as tolerable I'm satisfied. I'm happy to be called out when I say something stupid, even though it can be irritating.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I agree with what you have said. However, you still haven't given a definition for "better". Read The Categories Were Made For Man, Not Man For The Categories and then see if you can say what counts as "good" and what counts as "bad" for this site's culture.

At the moment, we're using the same words to argue different things.


I also make the additional proposition that things can always be improved.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's not that bad.

[–]sawboss 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'll remember this.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yet.

[–]Wanga 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

That will do. That will do nicely.

[–]Wanga 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good boy.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Re-read this post. There's already stuff in place.

[–]poestal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

could you delve more into your definition of toxic users.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

There aren't many. I'll just namedrop Martin and let some others explain.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Looking back on that debate I can see the problem-solution-reaction strategy at work.

You even submitted the "SaidIt is becoming an echo chamber" idea.

Once again you've managed to stir things up.

You have been working at chipping away at this forum for some time.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You have been working at chipping away at this forum for some time.

I hope not. Either what I'm saying is true, and thus what I'm chipping away at needs to be chipped away so it can be replaced by something better, or what I'm saying is false and should be quickly and immediately argued against.

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be. But I don't think Saidit is one of those things.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Who crafted that pith for you?

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Face it. I'm not acting like a shill would.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You are.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Would a shill help to write the software running the site? If I can do that, I wouldn't need to be a shill because I could just get a job programming.

I still don't know why you make an exception to the debate pyramid to call me names.

[–]sawboss 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

No we don't.

[–]Johnytheanarchist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

What we really need is to bring in more users, said its biggest problem is it has just over 6k accounts with maybe a few hundred being active for more then a few days

[–]sawboss 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Then post more!

[–]HeyImSancho 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I was part of a forum once that thought bringing in more folks was the best idea ever; the forum went from about this size, maybe a little larger, down to nothing. There are some really dank, and dark spots on the web... lol

I think marketing is good when coupled with strong growth, but it takes participation from all to do that by way of good, or original content. I like the idea of steady organic growth.

No matter, I'll be here to see the experiment; I hope it thrives for all.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah exactly. I would MUCH rather grow slowly with quality users, than quickly with low-quality users.

[–]rockstarsball 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is a way to balance both. Thats part of what was great about reddit in the golden years. it was a place you could discuss a variety of different topics with people of various levels of intelligence and then pop into a few of the crappy reddits to roll around in the shit for a little while.

Keeping those users around but contained was what reddit failed at and restricting content and speech is the only way they can deal with the fallout of what they did.

Reasonable debate can coexist with retarded hate filled vitrol as long as the boundaries are clearly drawn about what belongs where and what the limits are.

everybody hates something and though we can personally make decisions and opinions on what is acceptable to hate and what isn't. Everyone deserves an outlet for verbal expression of that hate.

i think it is far better choice to just keep them off the front page and keep them contained in their communities, but let them exist for the freakshow appeal.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

What do you propose?

[–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Being a parent, I learnt that children love strong boundaries.

Setting arbitrary and strict guidelines will result in complaints, but happy users. If those guidelines prevent soy soaked group mind-horrors, then that's even better.

[–]Wanga 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I hate the way Reddit deletes posts for capricious reasons, e.g. "The title of your submission to /r/todayilearned did not begin with 'TIL'. Your post has been deleted." Makes me ragequit.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (13 children)

Those are the subreddit-specific rules. The only way to prevent that sort of stuff is by having site-wide rules against sub moderator rules

[–]Wanga 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

or by a cultural taboo against it, like Voat

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

True, cultural taboos can be powerful but hard to cultivate

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

I'm attempting with these PSAs, but it's not working. I should really look at the psychology papers to figure out a way to do this, but I keep having ethical issues with doing so.

[–]magnora7 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Well the thing is people don't like being told how to act. So the more you go "you all have to act like X" you get 20% who agree, then 20% who go "fuck that, no one tells me what to do, I'm going to do the opposite!" so in the end it's hard to tell if any real progress is made. The latter is called the "Backfire effect" in psychology.

This is also one reason I'm against having tons of rules, because it apparently just pisses everyone off and doesn't actually better define the culture of the site, and kind of just actually acts like a wedge. I think encouraging positivity is a more useful tool to the end of creating a good site culture, than trying to define ever-narrowing rules which just anger people who then feel attacked by those rules.

It's much easier to just group everything under the pyramid of debate, and give individual warnings as specific scenarios arrive, then do a '3 strikes you're out' system. Keeping everything low-pressure like this makes a better community, then trying to play "culture cop". If you see what I mean.

Voat used to have this thing called "protect voat" and it was basically a mob that descended on anyone they didn't like. It was one of the things that was supposed to stop the cultural backslide problem, but only served to intensify it. I try and learn from their mistakes.

This stuff is super tricky. I think it's one of those things where "less is more". And "If you do everything right, they won't know you've done anything at all". Both those quotes often come to mind when administrating or moderating. I haven't found a better technique, personally. But I do appreciate the PSA, everything said. The culture has to hold itself up, at the end of the day. But I think it works best by example, rather than by telling people how to act.

Anyway, that's kind of my take on this whole thing, because it is insanely complex and subtle to make it work right. So that's what I've figured out so far, hope that gives you food for thought.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Definitely food for thought.

Perhaps we could have a little poll thing, and then articles like Part I of this this, and then polls afterwards, and see what happens to people's opinions. We'd have to A|B test it, and have to throw in a tonne of groups and things that we're not targeting with the pseudojournalism to avoid tipping people off… It could be like a competition: who can be the first to spot it? We could run multiple ones at once, and have the polling being constant and ongoing (like chat: in a little box on every page, asking for people's opinions on a scale of 0 to 10 with radio buttons) and it'd encourage people to think critically about everything they read here.

That isn't quite relevant, but it's close.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Very confusing.

Very complicated.

Didn't read the article.

But there's a seed of an idea that is good on a few levels. Participatory community building, statistical analysis, and in this example, journalism quality assessment.

I don't know about the competition part or "radio buttons".

Sounds like you're going after fake news with a truth meter.

If anything this sounds more like a 3rd and maybe 4th vote. I broke "trust" into 2 for the example below, because you may not agree with someone you trust. It's still lacking because they may discuss several matters but it's better than a vague one.

  • Insightful : Y/N (0 to 10 in future?)

  • Fun : Y/N (0 to 10 in future?)

  • Source : untrusted 0 to 10 trusted (default 5)

  • Content : false 0 to 10 true (default 5)

Might be good if there was an option to participate or not in https://saidit.net/prefs/

If you create this system make it flexible to add more pref options in the future, assuming folks want it.

This may also be an opportunity to just start the voting system over from scratch. Yes there may be a lot of kickback but it may be worth it.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's not a bad idea, my hesitation would be that over-focusing on the rules as a site culture is going to lead to a rule-obsessed and legalistic site culture, and I'm not sure that's desirable. But that's probably one of the better approaches I've heard, I'll think it over some more

[–]Stoner 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wikipedia is known for having an elitist culture that bans wrongthink. Read up on the wikipedia untouchables.

[–]Stoner 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

This post made me cackle so upvoted as funny. All the stuff you say is ridiculous to me so upvoted funny. See how subjectivity works?

D3rr said it best, one mans shitpost...

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's fine. Though, if you think it's ridiculous perhaps you should just ignore it, instead of voting it "fun"; I don't care how you vote, but fun isn't a downvote.

[–]Stoner 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Its fun to me, damn it!

[–]sawboss 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think this is the correct response to "ridiculous" posts.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, that's fine, then. Carry on!

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

This post really belongs in /s/IdeasForSaidIt

IMHO

SaidIt idea bucket - /s/IdeasForSaidIt/wiki/idea_bucket (Dump rough notes there if you're too busy/lazy to organize them and they'll be organized for you. I'm a lottle behind.)

SaidIt policy ideas - /s/IdeasForSaidIt/wiki/policy_ideas <-- What you seem to be talking about here.

SaidIt feature ideas - /s/IdeasForSaidIt/wiki/feature_ideas

SaidIt IRC chat ideas - /s/IdeasForSaidIt/wiki/chat_ideas

SaidIt community project ideas - /s/IdeasForSaidIt/wiki/community_ideas

SaidIt future ideas - /s/IdeasForSaidIt/wiki/future_ideas - long term goals

Then

You may discuss then draft up (/s/SaidItSurveys/wiki/drafts) proposals, collectively or individually, to submit (/s/SaidItSurveys/) to the community at large for their feedback.

[–]Wanga 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I can't seem to edit the wikis

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah. I'm pretty sure I set all my subs the same. I can't speak for other sub mods.

Under sub settings > wiki there are some options that I set like this:


wiki:

[ ] disabled = Wiki is disabled for all users except mods

[ ] mod editing = Only mods, approved wiki contributors, or those on a page's edit list may edit

[x] anyone = Anyone who can submit to the sub may edit

Sub karma required to edit and create wiki pages: 0

Account age (days) required to edit and create wiki pages: 0


But the default is

Sub karma required to edit and create wiki pages: 100

At this point I see no reason to be too paranoid of newbies who are usually escaping the Reddit and Voat gulags. If abuse ever becomes a problem I can modify these settings.

Also, FYI there's /s/OpenWikiTest to play with. If you can't edit that then you have other issues.

[–]Doob 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Maybe we need a downvote after all...

[–]sawboss 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

OH FFS NO WE DON'T NEED A DV!

[–]HorseMeat 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

Psst! Sometimes I feel like people use the fun button as a substitute for a downvote.

[–]Mnemonic 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

That would be stupid as it still boosts the post: bulb+2 fun =+1.

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

This is incorrect, so I'm voting it FUN.

[–]Mnemonic 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Getting paid while being wrong, feel like a greedy politician now.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Don't be destructive to prove a point. You're only harming the site by supporting content you seem to be bad.

[–]sawboss 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Don't be destructive to prove a point. You're only harming the site by supporting content you seem to be bad.

Eager to tell me how to vote?

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How to vote? Yes. What to vote on? No.

If you think that things are bad, don't vote for them. It's as simple as that; doing otherwise is harmful for the site.

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How to vote? Yes. What to vote on? No.

If you think that things are bad, don't vote for them. It's as simple as that; doing otherwise is harmful for the site.

It's not your perogative to tell me how to vote.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm merely repeating the instructions told to me by magnora7.

[–]HorseMeat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn't matter. You can't really control how people use it.

[–]sawboss 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree! In fact, I have done it already!

[–]HorseMeat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh you!

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

SAYING THINGS LOUDLY DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT!

I agree with you, but completely disagree with the way you're trying to put across your point of view.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think that would have a net benefit, since the long-term negative effects on the culture would more than balance out the short-term benefits.

Maybe once we've taught people to use the existing votes properly, we can add a new one. But we can't call it "downvote".

[–]Privacy_Advocate_ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree. That was the one thing reddit had going for it. You still had the option to see all the comments but all the trolls get pushed to the bottom which was kind of nice.

[–]happysmash27 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I expected this to happen, which is why meta posts like this are good, and why I have posted at least one of my own, in order to hopefully keep SaidIt a great place to be.

[–]Snow 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I think the result of "culture is dropping" is because of the number of members increase. For example, those stupid TV shows, they have to make the topic "suitable" for most people, therefore they must dropdown the intelligent of the viewer needed and sexualize everything. Because most people are not intelligent and not asexual. (But intelligent and asexual people would be dropout on there ) Maybe you can ask magnora7 for a stop to kick people in a while?

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What do you mean by "a stop to kick people in a while"?

[–]Snow 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I said he kicks people into saidit before.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I still don't understand.

[–]Snow 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

typos, I edited it.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I still don't understand. I don't see any edit.

[–]Snow 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

......................................

[–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think snow means that you can message magnora7 and ask them to deal with offenders.

kick/ban/warn is the same word in Chinese.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]wizzwizz4[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    (cc: /u/JasonCarswell I heard you saying this.)

    This is extremely hard to implement. It'll require lots of testing, taking the site down for a while and almost certainly several instances of massive database corruption because we didn't test the transition script enough.

    How much is this feature worth, and what categories should be around?

    [–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Good points. And also if it's not insightful or fun, why do we even want it on saidit?

    [–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    True true.

    Excellent point. I've swung back to 2.

    I still like hearing new ideas, even mediocre ones. They often lead to better ones. And maybe, just maybe, there might be a game changer. Or not.

    [–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I'm waiting for the game changers; I've seen a couple already but not early enough that they haven't already been acted on.

    Hey, by the way, what do you think of this idea? If it's good enough, I might write it up properly and post it on /s/IdeasforSaidit.

    [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Thanks for the shout.

    [–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I hadn't thought of the grim aspect of things. This is a good point. It's a slippery slope to add more options to be sure. It might help if you were to offer suggestions. For example a NSFW rating might be a start.

    Just yesterday I thought the system with a 1-10 rating for the 2 votes would have covered it all. Now, with all these gore subs, maybe another. Before WPD showed up this place was mostly either news or not and "not" was usually fun or entertainment on some level.

    I'd love to hear what others you think might be worth considering.

    There is something to be said for simple ergonomics. That said were not simpletons. It's a fine balance to be sure.

    [–]VestibularSense 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Interesting stuff