Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
There is now an Actually Infuriating community on Lemmy! Post things that are beyond just mildly infuriating. It's only mildly infuriating that someone didn't make this sooner!
!actually_[email protected] for anyone from a different instance (fitting, considering the community we're in lmao)
Most needed in this dire times...
I recommend reading "I'm Starting to Worry About this Black Box of Doom" to find out why you shouldn't sub to this
There is no way this doesn’t turn into an utterly toxic battleground for people to scream at each other about politics lol
That would be infuriating.
Mildly I might add
I hope not... but I really don't know!
Sorry I’m being needlessly negative 😅
Some unsolicited advice from a very seasoned mod: the ban hammer exists for a reason. Don’t be too prescriptive with your rules and don’t be afraid to ban somebody just because they didn’t explicitly violate a rule. The community comes first. Don’t let a couple of people hold it hostage.
I appreciate it. I have some experience modding here, but not in a community like this, which has the potential to bring our the worst in people! I set rules that should be broad enough to do exactly that. I have high hopes, and it fills a need.
Good luck!
How is this upvoted so much? This is fucking insane.
"Oh, just ban whoever even if they didn't break any rules"
Do I really need to explain how grossly oversimplified to the point of flagrant misrepresentation that is?
Oh I'm sure you have a way to justify your corrupt authoritarianism. I don't care what your reasoning is. If you ban people without them breaking rules, then the only actual rule is "don't upset the power tripping bastards", which I strongly disagree with.
“Corrupt authoritarianism” my god dude you can’t be serious. You’ve clearly got a chip on your shoulder or are otherwise grinding your axe about something that happened to you (or because of you?)
Oh, it's hyperbolic, but it gets the point across.
No it really doesn’t. You sound ridiculous.
I mean, I think you sound ridiculous... So agree to disagree there.
Apparently I don’t if you have to have a total meltdown over people agreeing with me. I can’t believe a couple of magic Internet points set you off so much. You are a petty, small person. Leave me alone. Go run your idyllic community and watch the trolls pour in. You can bet your ass I would ban you in a heartbeat, you’re a great example of the problem here
::shrugs:: we both agree that the other is the problem. Have fun with your power tripping.
whatever
Reply to edit:
Nope. Just don't like petty authoritarians.
So you grossly misrepresented what I wrote, ignored the other comments And conversation with other people, and just start calling me a petty authoritarian?
Yeah dude you really have a chip on your shoulder. You could actually try talking to me about this but it seems like you just want to grind your axe and be indignant all day. Have at it.
The statements
"don’t be afraid to ban somebody just because they didn’t explicitly violate a rule"
And
"Oh, just ban whoever even if they didn't break any rules"
Use different words but end up in the same place.
So how is it grossly misrepresenting anything?
Perhaps you can give an example of when someone didn't break any rules and you felt justified banning them and why, and maybe I'll sympathize a little.
Not explicitly banning over a rule =/= banning for no reason.
If I have a rule that says “no racism” and you exhibit sexism, I’m fucking banning you
To give a more concrete example that’s actually happened, we banned somebody on our server recently who every single time he entered the conversation, ithad a massive chilling effect on the conversation. He would not directly attack people with insults, but his entire tone and cadence and language was hostile and spiked conversation. It was ruining the entire server. We repeatedly told him to cool his jets. He didn’t, so we banned him. We didn’t have a specific rule to cite, we just told him to stop being an asshole and he refused.
None of this matters. You’ve already decided I am some horrible tyrant. So fuck off
No, I decided that your statement was something a horrible tyrant would say. There's a difference. I'm guessing you're actually pretty decent, but wanted to address what I felt was a horrible statement that only an insane person would utter.
Your example is pretty vague, and I can't say for certain that the user in question was in the wrong, but it at least sounds like you did the right thing.
Initially it sounded like you were banhammering people without them knowing what they did wrong, but at least in this example, you warned the user first, so it seems as though you did right. If it was always like that, my apologies for misinterpreting what you said.
Have a good one.
Whatever
If people can get away with harming the community without breaking the rules, then just change the rules.
If you can't think of any reasonable rules that would ban their behaviour, maybe they aren't doing anything wrong and it's just that you personally don't like it.
This is why so many moderators fail.
Everyone tries to reinvent the wheel over and over again. They get excited about starting a new community, they have very lax rules such as “be nice” and then are worried about banning and/or changing the rules because they don’t want to be perceived as inconsistent, fickle, or otherwise unfair. Then it crumbles or they burn out.
Prescriptive rules work for communities with narrow missions (askhistorians for example) but then they need to ban and remove content constantly as well (hence their post removal rate and comment graveyards and very large, expert mod team).
No you need broad rule sets and a mentality of “no one gets to hold this community hostage.”
"be nice" is a broad rule set. You need rule sets with clear expectations. If your rules are clear, then you won't feel guilty for banning someone, and they don't have a good excuse when they appeal. If you choose vague rules, people will submit perfectly good appeals which you have to turn down, and you'll waste everyone's time.
A ruleset is a machine. Video games are machines made out of rules, and so are board games. Board games just run on brains instead of microchips. A legal code is exactly the same, just more important. Make a good machine and moderation won't even require your conscious mind. You can breeze through it according to the process without expending any mental energy.
Spend mental energy judging every situation individually, and you'll either burn out or become a tyrant. Break your rules, and you either break your community or break yourself.
“Be nice” is not a broad rule set it’s no rule set unless you plan on truly banning people and removing comments for hostility.
There’s a line between broad and aspirational.
I ran a 2mill person sub with 5 other moderators. We removed probably 30% of what was posted. We used auto moderator, a few specific rules (“no list posts”) and a few broader rules (“no rants”). It ran great because we were ruthless, frankly. We also did not burn out because we did not get bogged down in fights with people or constant discussion with each other about what was or wasn’t rule breaking the rules.
And responsible ruthlessness is only possible with robust rules.
Robust =/= prescriptive and you let everything fly that doesn’t meet those criteria. Specificity becomes a cage very quickly.
Good. Moderators need limits on their powers. You should need to make the cage bigger in order to deal with the edge cases. And when you make the cage bigger, the community should have an opportunity to question that. That's anarchy. That's responsibility.
It's better to have an unmoderated community full of trolls than a community with tyrant mods. That's the same philosophy as "it's better that a hundred guilty go free than one innocent is imprisoned". Obviously a community with good mods is best, but if mods can't follow their own rules, they shouldn't follow no rules.
The entire point of making a community and being a moderator is to establish a rule set and to use the tools available to you to run the community. If you don’t like how they do things, go make your own and run it in your idyllic, naïve way.
Askhistorians works because it’s ruthless. Yet do you see people complaining about “power tripping mods” over there? No, it’s considered one of the best subs if not the best. The quality is virtually unmatched. And that’s because they have a very firm, decisive hand. This whole “power tripping Jannie” caricature is simply propagated by people who get banned from communities for not following basic rules and etiquette. If you don’t like the community, leave Make your own. It’s very easy to do that on Lemmy, Reddit, wherever you go. The best, longest lasting communities are typically heavier with their moderation than the baseline. And the ones that are too lenient barely make it a year.
Ruthlessness is good, and responsible ruthlessness requires following through on your own intentions and the rules you created for yourself.
It's like how Batman doesn't kill. He decided that was the line and he sticks to it, even if it's hard. Because he knows giving in would be worse.
I agree with this comment. I do not agree with the previous comment.
Thank you, we needed this.
At first I thought this was a post about Meta being only just mildly infuriating for a change.