Where is the line between keeping space nice / comfy for everyone and abusing your power to shut people who argue with you?
Attacking someone’s expression of emotion is not an acceptable way to deal with them. If their goal of expressing said emotions is ultimately malicious, then it’s perfectly fine to remove them from a situation where they are not contributing. There’s ultimately a gray area, where you have to determine someone’s intention and make a call on whether they are trying to contribute or trying to disrupt.
To make matters more complicated, sometimes people are trying to contribute but end up disrupting and a judgement call may also need to be made here about whether one person’s contributions are helpful at that time and place, or whether removing the person from the situation is more helpful. An easy to understand example of this is a kid who wants to help an adult do something, like cooking, but may end up hurting themselves or causing a mess or compromising food safety. If you’re the parent of said kid, you might likely still let them participate because it’s a good learning experience. We should all strive to be like the parent, but sometimes we have other obligations and aren’t the only other person participating in an event and need to keep that in mind.
deleted by creator
Disclaimers
Please, while discussing focus on the situation when tone policing is acceptable; let’s not overly focus on situations when it’s not acceptable: everyone of us has those examples
Once again, It’s not a thread listing examples of tone policing.
This thread aims to find a line between helpful mediation and harmful invasive overstepping of your power.
It has nothing to do with any particular Lemmy instance; it’s my personal question
It has nothing to do with any particular Lemmy instance; it’s my personal question
we both know this is a lie
Well, I think in general admins/mods should not comment on the nature or quality of posts or comments. It’s not their job to step in and say, “Hey your comment was not helpful,” which itself is not a helpful comment, lol. That’s what downvoting is for, although I think Beehaw hides downvoting. Either way, mods should only delete content if it really, truly goes against the rules.
Beehaw does not have downvotes enabled indeed. Partially because folk might hit it for disagreeing, partially to prevent people to use it out of spite against communities or individuals. Perhaps there are more reasons but I wouldn’t know them precisely.
I can use it though because I’m not on Beehaw technically
I know. Basically d-votes from other instances get hidden, while BH accounts can not use the feature. On the upside, no-one can accuse BH (users) of d-vote brigading, lol.
A lovely bunch altogether!
In my opinion all votes (gamification) should be hidden by default. just keep the upvote button to allow for content sorting based on what people like. What do you think @admin@beehaw.org @alyaza@beehaw.org @Gaywallet@beehaw.org
I personally enjoy some level of feedback from the community to understand how the community feels about a particular comment or post. Completely turning off upvotes makes it very hard to know if content I’m posting is welcomed, unless behavior changes. It also makes it tough for me to have some kind of judge on whether a moderation action or warning a user was appreciated by others or whether I was out of line.
how does one actually know “how the community feels about a particular comment or post” once one’s disable downvotes (when it only tells one how much people liked it, not how much they disliked it) and there is no limited scale to measure against (e.g. 0 to 10)? in any case, if one really wants to see upvotes, then one can just opt-in seeing upvotes for one’s account, while by default gamification/votes are hidden as to decrease its influence in people. even though commenting requires more effort (https://www.nngroup.com/articles/reputation-managers-are-happening/), i feel it could provide a better place for authentic discourse.
Seeing numbers relative to other comments in a thread, based on when it was posted can give an idea of how much a community agrees with a particular viewpoint. It’s not a perfect measure, and it gets even more hazy when downvotes are included, but it gives an idea. I’m not looking for a perfect capture of sentiment, but seeing a thread where a lot of people agree or upvote a particular comment gives me an idea of what content to focus on. Normal sorting methods miss highly upvoted comments in response to not upvoted content, which can be useful for me to see.
In the end while I agree more heavily with removing the ability to vote things down or dislike them without voicing your opinion, I believe that seeing things are liked or voted up does not cause for a hostile environment. People who struggle with approval on the internet will likely look to other sources of approval, such as replies or praise instead and I do not believe that removing positive votes will solve their problem.
it’s been considered and proposed before, but it’s not necessarily something we have the ability to do currently even if we wanted to (and there are definitely concerns about how well turning off all votes would work despite the issue of gamification). while downvotes are toggleable, lemmy literally doesn’t allow for turning off all votes, so that would need to be coded by someone first.
concerns about how well turning off all votes would work despite the issue of gamification
Can you link me that?
doesn’t allow for turning off all votes,
Admin options? At least on my account settings i can turn them off.
Admin options? At least on my account settings i can turn them off.
you can turn them off in your personal settings, but only downvotes can be turned off on the actual backend, not all votes.
Why the image though, it doesn’t make sense in context. Its pointless to needle.
