Gregory's Server@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.
|
6 comments
Nick
@Gargron cool cool, just wanted to be sure. Option 1 seems to encourage mods to engage more personally with users, while option 2 seems to scale to more users. One appeal of Mastodon for me is the idea of small communities, so option 1 seems to encourage keeping a server small (because it may not scale to large user bases). OTOH I understand the appeal of scalable mod tools. Do you have a preference at this point? 
Eugen Rochko
@nick I have a preference for 1 now but I don't see how it makes mods engage more personally. I just click delete posts in the mod interface and the user gets notified, and maybe next time I see an indicator that tells me it's worth clicking suspend instead
Nick
@Gargron That's a good point. I was imagining a workflow where a mod deletes a post, and separately messages the user explaining why. This is really only possible on a smaller server, where the mod can feasibly engage with individual users. But I see now how it wouldn't play out like that in practice, particularly on large servers. Disclaimer: I have no experience being a community mod so don't take me too seriously. |
@nick But option 2 is a moderator action too