hexbear

I just hope the current leadership (who have done a great job over the last few years) put a lot of effort into vetting new mods and admins to retain the proper class-character of the website which safeguards it from reactionary wrecking.

If they find auditing upvotes to be a useful tool towards that end, so be it. At the end of the day mods and admins will have certain powers. Making those powers transparent is an acceptable compromise which I hope can build more trust between the users and mods.

It would be better to let inactive comms close/lock rather than insert mods that aren't properly vetted out of desperation.

:ah-shit-here-we-go-again:

The upvote problem can be easily solved by having a range of emotions as response to a comment instead of a singular upbear, like what Telegram/Whatsapp have been doing, but we can do without the negative emojis.

Thumbs up = GOOD post!
Heart = Send love
Laughter with tears = that’s funny
Hmm = not sure I agree but thought provoking for sure
Angry face = I’m pissed reading that!

The final score is then tallied by adding up all the different responses. Just a suggestion.

We should seriously consider implementing special conduct rules for struggle sessions, to make them less toxic.

The reason most of us hate struggle sessions, the reason so many of us lay low until these things die down, is that struggle sessions are too fast and chaotic to be dialogue. Everyone gets too heated and pressed and defensive to actually listen or reach an understanding, so it turns into people talking past each other, sometimes building up personal resentments that last long after the struggle session ends and have little to do with the original disagreement. If you wade into it, you risk making enemies, and you don't chance making friends.

Just as spouses should approach conflict constructively because they care about their marriage, hexbears should approach conflict constructively because they care about the site.

If someone can’t do that, they should be kicked out of the struggle session.

Slow down. Listen patiently to each other. Try to understand where the other person is coming from. Acknowledge them as a person. Respond in good faith without attacking. Maybe spend a few minutes collecting your thoughts and processing your emotions before you start typing. The frantic pace and hostile tone of a struggle session put pressure on you to respond fast and become hostile to defend yourself, but when you do that you make the thread even more frantic and hostile, in a runaway feedback loop. It’s a collective phenomenon where no single person has the off switch—and, consequently, no one feels responsible for their behavior.

Which is why we need rules, and a site culture of conflict resolution, to change our behavior on a collective level.

Ideally we would have an actual dedicated thread mode, “slow mode” or “struggle session mode,” which would limit the pace of comments and encourage thoughtful effortposts over whirlwind bickering, but that would require new code, and we would still need civility rules on top of that anyway, so let’s start with the rules.

How embarrassing is it if no one needs to wreck the site because we fucking wreck it ourselves? How bad does that make leftists look? Conflict resolution is a vital anti-wrecker skill, it should be part of leftist culture online and in person. It’s so fucking terminally online and shameful that we can’t work things out like adults.

to our efforts to reduce racism and misogyny on the site

Of the hexbear users that were banned for an upvote on the reactionary comment, four had she/her pronouns, three had they/them pronouns, three had he/him pronouns, and two had any/no pronouns. Now before someone misinterprets my comment, I'm not saying that women and non-binary people cannot be sexist or racist, I'm just saying that our renewed efforts to combat this undesirable behaviour appear to be hurting those we aim to protect. Maybe we need to re-evaluate our strategies given this reality, and the events of the past week(s). Using the same methods we used in the past to combat undesirable behaviour (in regards to voting bans) are not working and just causing more tension between the userbase and moderators/administrators.

to our efforts to reduce racism and misogyny on the site

I'll say it again and again. The Code of Conduct states:

We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, or other similar characteristic.

Do better. These struggle sessions, and the admin response, have weakened my confidence that you truly care to uphold this.

For instance, in this current struggle session, the admin team (Alaskaball's statement that carries a disclaimer that it is their view alone doesn't count) has failed to acknowledge how this action has made our users feel less safe. Many comrades called out how disabled/neurodivergent users can be disproportionately impacted and your response doesn't even come with an apology, let alone enough to reassure me that using the upbear button, perhaps in conjunction with a poorly phrased comment, isn't going to get me in this kind of situation — I have a hard enough time as it is ensuring that I've phrased comments acceptably and clearly (although feedback when I have erred in doing so is useful) or put posts in the right comm, etc.

For instance, Yukiko doesn't feel safe upvoting comments anymore, and the response to her comment about how the interaction between this and her ADHD makes her feel less safe is to remove it for being "hostile", instead of acknowledging the underlying concern. How is that commitment to welcoming regardless of disability?

P.S. If you feel like removing this comment, just permaban me. I would sorely miss the community, but in that case, I would know I'm not welcome.