Soviet red star and hammer and sickle displayed alongside swastikas during a victory parade, joint Soviet-Nazi Invasion of Poland, 1939
Soviet red star and hammer and sickle displayed alongside swastikas during a victory parade, joint Soviet-Nazi Invasion of Poland, 1939
You're viewing part of a thread.
I generally permaban them if they say anything suss
Please elaborate on this. Everyone has an opinion on what constitutes a suspicious action, and also defining tankies on case-by-case basis.
This would be just the right point since it is especially after publicly claiming use of moderation actions on users.
Please elaborate on this.
Things like "The Yankee Dogs(tm) forced North Korea to adopt Juche" or "Soviet secret police torturing people to extract confessions for execution were just acting in self-defense against the bourgeois pigs!"
Things that are both vile and untrue, but don't relate to a singular factual statement (unlike, say, "The Soviets didn't commit the Katyn Massacre", which would be vile and untrue AND relate to a singular factual statement)
Do mean something like ground setting, prior-discussion-terminating stances taken through provable-or-refutable-almost-solely-through-statistics without providing such statistics, or do you also mean a use of particular lingo?
I don't have any questions for the second part.
I would probably take a closer and more critical look at their statements if I saw someone using some of the more distinctively tankie lingo, but that wouldn't be worth a ban or a warning or any sort of action.
"Stalin's big spoon" and other such euphemistic jokes excluded. Those are definitely worth a ban, fuck 'I was just joking' about genocide denial shite.
Thanks for the elaboration. It's always good to know if anyone with any kind of power to do something can explain how they interpret the basic rulesets and what the vague things like common sense or suspicion means to them in a context.
Honestly I find moderation is often too prescriptive and thus leaves openings for bad actors to be disruptive while going “I didn’t explicitly break any named-rule” as they find ways to constantly skirt them deliberately. I am all for moderators going “you’re just disruptive or otherwise bad for this community so I don’t want you around.”
In my experience, moderation rules for unpaid volunteer mods are worthless except as a guideline to users as to what to do or not to do.
The purpose of rule of law in real life is to ensure adherence to it by overlapping systems and oversight. As most moderation groups don't have overlapping systems or oversight, and sometimes don't even communicate with each other when taking action, strict 'rules-based' moderation pretty invariably turns into "moderator roulette" as each mod interprets the rules differently and prejudicially without any mechanism for being called out on it or corrected. So, you know, no different than 'rule by leader' other than the potential of abuse of the proclaimed rules-based system by bad faith actors.
Especially since many moderation teams 'close ranks' or blow it off if any of their's is accused of wrongdoing.
Had a mostly good experience with mods on Lemmy so far, though. I've stayed far away from .ml, so that might have something to do with it.