As a lot of you guys know by now, I struggle writing rules. I’m looking to get feedback on some rules written by a helpful user, that I really think should be implemented because they are clear and actually show the intent I have.
-
No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee’s rules.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, anti centrist or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and pointing out the failures of our ideological interlocutors. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Be Civil. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but no personal attacks from either side will be tolerated.
-
No Extremism. Calls for violence, pushing a narrative of religious, gender, sexual or racial supremacy, or any other forms of extremist rhetoric will be met with a permenant ban. Extreme statements which label an entire group are also unacceptable and may result in a temporary suspension.
-
Be Excellent To Each Other. Remember the people you are arguing with are humans, and although you may disagree on the method, we are all looking to make a world where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is freely available to all.
What do you guys think?
A “no sensationalist titles” rule might be a good one. Otherwise you tend to get posts like “Obama is the anticrist” for wearing a tan suit or using mustard. Or you get posts insinuating that the V.A. is paying for migrant healthcare when in reality the V.A. is paying for processing.
Such a rule might be indistinguishable from a “no low quality news sources” rule.
You have to think about the overreaching goal of the sub. If I am correct, it is to foster conversation and debate about conservative views and politics. It is not to be an echo chamber for conservative thoughts or ideas but a place to discuss such ideas.
Think about the recent complaints and reports. Walk each of those complaints through the rules and see if the rules fix that situation or not.
It he rules are not fixing the issues then the rules are not good.
Well said.
The polite thing to do would be to actually credit the person who wrote that. Just sayin’.
It’s cool, I said I’m not looking for credit, I just wanted to help, but thanks :D
The vibe I got from his edit was he didnt want to be credited. But fair point, Ive gone ahead and messaged him, asking if he wanted credit.
deleted by creator
My feedback for you is to moderate everyone the same way. No special treatment one way or the other. Do that and we’re golden.
You would think that it’d be easy, but it’s actually really hard. Hell, that’s what led to my keyword based moderating, and that was about the dumbest decision I ever made, aside from not asking that girl out. I have peepin, a lefty mod, but even with his help I have a hard time getting it right. At least when it’s something obvious, like a slur, I can shut it down real quick.
I guess what I’m saying is I’m trying my best. It’s not particularly good, but I think I’m learning and getting better.
I’ve seen you chastise both sides. It’s been about as even handed as possible.
And yet you are still posting. Proof that this indeed just another conservative cesspool.
Fuck all of yall. You’re on the wrong side of history.
It shows he is even handed. So relax, go do whatever it is you to do to chill out.
Wanted to add a useful tip. If you are conservative, make sure you sort by new as the more relevant the topic, the more likely it is to downvoted by the liberals.
deleted by creator
Now my personal thoughts on each rule:
-
Very good rule to have. Might even adjust it to include lemmy.world’s rules too, since we’re supposed to abide by their rules too if we want to remain unbanned on lemmy.world but I haven’t done that already.
-
Pro-conservative is a very good term. I’m not about “pointing out the failures of our ideological interlocutors”, the people who comment here are generally in good faith, and not already knowing something isn’t a failure, or at least in my book. Maybe say “We are interested in promoting conservatism and having discussions that might not happen elsewhere” (As an aside, we have people here who’s first language might not be English, and perhaps we should keep rules to common words. Hell, I’m a native English speaker, I have a minor in English, and I still had to look interlocutors up.)
-
This rule while good, seems to start wrong. Lets cut the “Be civil” starting sentence, starting with “Dissent is allowed in the comments” Also, “will not be tolerated”, being honest, I’m very lenient, and I’ll probably end up tolerating the same amount of nonsense anyway.
-
“No extremism”, this is lemmy. We have actual communists, and I’m in ideological favor of civilian owned machine guns, tanks, and things like that. And I haven’t seen much in the way of “Calls to Violence”, and this entire rule could probably be wrapped into rule 1. But maybe it’s good to preemptively and explicitly ban calls to violence?
-
Very good rule.
Might even adjust it to include lemmy.world’s rules too, since we’re supposed to abide by their rules too if we want to remain unbanned on lemmy.world but I haven’t done that already.
Honestly, the quality of discussion nosedived when the .world crowd got access.
Lemmy service by default has a very heavy leftist bent and favours authoritarian or tyrannical rule against anyone who has the wrong opinion or a set of unapproved beliefs.
When it’s all children running a service and there are no adults who won’t cry from reading words on the internet, there’s only so much you can do regardig allowing wrong think and someone proving a person’s statement is false.
For that reason, Lemmy will never grow and catch on, and for that same reason Mastodon will never be an alternative platform, both Lemmy and Mastodon’s first rule is to censor and delete anybody that might use un-nice words and hurt people’s feelings. Federated plaforms are ruled by children trying to live out a fantasy of make believe world made or candy and chocolated where everybody accepts everybody, everything is happy, problems don’t exist, we all like each other, and nobody would dare disagree with anyone.
That is why you’ve seen a decline in users. Echo chambers end up dying. It’s why I like civil discourse.
People need need to learn that what someone believes in does not affect other’s people life. It’s only when someone can’t treat others with dignity that it becomes an issues.
A religious person and an atheist can be great friends if they have shared hobbies and interests they can connect on, and leave faith and spirituality out of their discussions when they talk. Don’t hide it, but don’t bring it up if it’s not pertain to something.
I dream of a society when a religious person can say to an atheist “I’m going to synagogue” or "mosque tomorrow, but afterwards do you want to meet up for a game together and we’ll having something to eat later?
I have found many atheists are not really atheists. They are anti-religious.
I go to mass on a regular basis and I am an atheist. I have no issues with religion. I just never believed or had faith.
-
