LB ACTUAL REAL CYBERLOCAL NEWS: Vote In The Actual Poll That Might Change The Fed!

@Gargron as a user it feels kinda... patronizing, imo? when being asked to delete something. i'd rather mods actually be responsible for taking the action instead of the software pressuring the user to take action. it's one of the things twitter does that feels icky

Option 1. is what Instagram seems to do and option 2. is what Twitter seems to do, though as someone who doesn't use the former and has not been suspended from the latter I am half-guessing.

Motivation in both cases is to reduce the number of permanent suspensions in situations where an offending user is willing to change, and minimize moderator workload by having to keep up with appeals through e-mail.

@Gargron I'm not entirely sure about post deletion. Archiving a post might be useful for accountability.

It all depends on the nature of the offending post. If it's a personal feud between two users and the tone is rising towards insults, I believe deletion with a warning is correct.

However, if we're dealing with obviously transphobic people, suspending account is extremely necessary.

So... both, I guess?

@Gargron This is a bit of an example of asking a question which results in the possibility of having mixed feelings where you have decide on multiple things at the same time. To me you have two different binary choices: deletion of posts (yes or no) and suspension of accounts (yes or no). But reduced it to two options (for 4 values).

@Gargron how about option 3? you face me in the octagon

@Gargron I voted to 2. but I need option to unsuspend from moderrater by hand and no delete the incident toot.

@Gargron hi, mod here.
no users on my instance have required these things.
when you're designing for a group of people who aren't a community it's going to be different...

would prefer both exist, I guess. why not? they're not mutually exclusive

@Gargron Neither of them. An administrator's task is to keep the platform running technically and not to act as a moralizer. The user has sufficiently strong mechanisms at his disposal with muting and blocking. Who considers his role as an administrator so that every contribution must come through the personal moral head filter of the administrator, who should rather offer no instance for the public. Because that is already worse than an algorithm of commercial platforms.

@Gargron Let the admin or the moderator decide, depending on who is on the other side: so, both.

@Gargron Seeing as we are talking about instances run by someone, it makes sense that that someone can manage the content. It helps if they've post community guidelines of course. Instance owners/managers don't exist to let anyone spout anything... they exist to give other users an opportunity to be free from Big Data.

@Gargron From a user perspective, I'd prefer to have my post deleted with an explanation why, rather than getting a message asking me to unpost. What happens if I don't? Probably the post gets removed _anyway_, so the whole process is just theatre. Plus, getting a post that I posted, thinking that it won't be problematic, only to discover the Mod thinks it is, gives ME a clearer picture of that community/state of the instance, and I'd likely just go elsewhere.

@Gargron oh yes finally
Sheet Mastodon getting good stuff while time flies by

@Gargron I'm pretty new to running a server, so take this with a grain of salt. Personally I like how option 1 keeps the mod options focused on real actions and doesn't try to automate the moderator role. To me that seems to encourage keeping servers small enough that they can be moderated by humans using direct communication, which imo is generally a good thing.

@Gargron

honestly these both sound useful to me

@Gargron Both sound like necessary tools. Deletion without suspension for minor infractions and unescalated accounts, suspension requiring deletion for major infractions and escalated accounts.

@Gargron neither..

But don't you think 2 needs a counter also?

@Gargron in the case of 1, would the internal strike count include the deleted posts that coincided with the actions taken against that user? What about if that post was made as part of a thread? I feel like that could better help mods contextualize a user's behavior and whether it's part of a broader pattern, if that makes sense.

@Gargron i would post deletions. but yes, these with user-access... i think its more "humanish"

@Gargron How about if a post is flagged by an admin, the author gets a countdown to hide the post as sensitive and it only gets deleted if this is not done by the user, after a certain period of time? (like e.g. counting down 72 hours to take action)...?