hexbear
Hexbear Proposals chapo.chat matrix room.
This will be a place for site proposals and discussion before implementation on the site.
Every proposal will also be mirrored into a pinned post on the hexbear community.
Any other ideas for helping to integrate the two spaces are welcome to be commented here or messaged to me directly.
Within Hexbear Proposals you can see the history of all site proposals and react to them, indicating a vote for or against a proposal.
Sending messages will be restricted to verified and active hexbear accounts older than 1 month with their matrix id in their hexbear user profile.
All top level messages within the channel must be a Proposals (idea for changing the site), Feedback (regarding non-technical aspects of the site, for technical please use https://hexbear.net/c/feedback), or Appeals (regarding admin/moderator actions).
Discussion regarding these will be within nested threads under the post.
To gain matrix verification, all you need to do is navigate to my hexbear userprofile and click the send a secure private message including your hexbear username.
view the rest of the comments
On #1 the problem that I see is that the userbase does not agree on what the site should be, and admins, from what I've seen mostly don't feel comfortable making that decision for us except where there's an additional clear overriding purpose behind the decision (ie getting rid of the dunk tank). I don't see a ton of users pulling either of these cards, though it has happened more in the past. And "when users care about something it is treated as a bigger deal on the site than when they don't" isn't the own you think it is. There isn't a cabal of mods and powerposters that determines what gets talked about here, besides literally just enforcing a relatively minimal set of rules, its just organic interaction. Is there a specific actionable policy change (or several) the admins could make to fix this issue?
On #2, again, they aren't "drowning out" other posts just because there's sometimes a lot of them, they also have to get upvotes and comments to be featured, and they all decay in the rankings in the same way, it's all going through the same simplistic sort algorithm. This case could be made about any of our posts not just the most frivolous ones. Don't post or upvote or comment on anything even remotely unserious, because other things are more important? Is that the kind of site we want to be, or what brought people here? I agree mutual aid is important, as are a lot of other serious topics, but banning silliness won't work and won't make the site better. Maybe you could do a rate limit on new posts to prevent outright spam, but beyond that I don't see this as being helpful. I don't know what "obvious op-sec reasons" you have for not signing in, especially as you can trivially use a throwaway account just for mobile if you like (and other opsec concerns are almost all shared whether you log in or just browse), but overall this ask just seems like a personal preference thing, and we've moved away from hidden comms because it just ends up making them wastelands and ostracizing the people who wanted them in the first place (ie c/furry used to be hidden). If we want mutual aid posts to be boosted or pinned by default, we could do that, but those aren't the core aim of the site, despite being very important. In fact the Gaza fundraisers have been pinned lately sitewide, which is far more effective than "hide posts I don't like".
On #3, don't you think it's cruel to call out specific people for having an "addiction" in your words, and using the site to cope? I guess you're just built different, but a lot of people here are struggling or have been, and while there is a standard of behavior that we should all be held to, having hobbies and interests and senses of humor that you don't share isn't against the rules and shouldn't be, no matter what bluesky people think of it, and neither is commiserating or nostalgiaposting, which you needlessly pathologize. Again, if we can set a standard of how many posts is too many in a given time period, fine, but banning content that does no harm and in fact gets engagement from other users, goes too far for no benefit.
Yes I already suggested it in my original comment: make those low effort comms invisible by default (i.e. opt-in) so that people who are just lurking/logged out/newcomers don't get bombarded by them.
They are, they absolutely are. This didn't happen a year ago, or two years ago. The number of super low effort "shit" posts has absolutely increased. And making it a "personal responsibility" thing by saying "just don't upvote" is very patronizing. We don't tolerate that when it comes to racist/misogynist/etc. stuff by saying "just ignore that stuff don't upvote it." That's some reddit shit.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I've seen users describe other users as XYZ/whatever based on their comments so why am I not allowed that same right?
Because those things are actually harmful. The point isn't "its your responsibility not to upvote them" it's "the upvotes show that other users actually do enjoy them". It's the opposite, it's nobody's responsibility to cater their posting or upvoting to you.
This is some actual reddit shit. I'm not saying you don't have the right, I'm not a mod, whatever, it's just a shitty thing to do.
Edit: also your suggested change does not resolve the contradicition between trying to be Serious Leftists and a shitposting site. it just hides some of the shitpost genres that you don't like, it's almost unrelated