I noticed that the comment counts don't seem to line up with the total comments on this post, and a couple others. Do we already have shadow bans in place here, or is this just some delay issue?
- 23
- 3
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
We do, sort of, and also not sort of.
So, first, we have a similar comment filtering system that we had before. In theory we had it disabled but it turns out there's a hilarious bug where there's no "disable" option, and instead people with negative scores are getting filtered, which I think is hilarious and do not plan to change. (We'll be enabling it soon anyway.)
This means that top-level posts need to be approved by us before they go public, as do comments from new users. Turns out these still contribute to the reply count and so that's part of what you're seeing.
Second, if deletes their post, it doesn't decrement the post counter. We should probably fix that. I accidentally replied to someone with a test account and then deleted it and now that post eternally has an extra comment mark. Such is life.
Third, we do actually have shadowbans as well - it came with the site - but we haven't used any yet.
Do you solemnly swear to not use shadowbans?
Well I've actually shadowbanned a few trolls since then.
So . . . no. Sorry :V
Why not just ban them? What is so horrible about open and clear moderation?
Why leave reddit only to bring the worst parts of reddit along with you? You could make something better.
Banning them alerts them to the fact that they've been banned, which encourages them to start a new account, which makes our jobs harder.
The thing about dealing with trolls is that you need to do two things:
Make sure they're not having fun.
Spend as little of your effort as possible in order to spend as much of their effort as possible.
Shadowbanning is great for both of these; there's a point where they say "oh, wait, I've been trolling for two weeks and nobody saw any of it, that was . . . just wasted." And at the same time this means we get considerably more impact for our effort; we ban them half as often, or even a third as often.
I don't plan to use this for anything except trolls, but if someone is straight-up spamming (or, not-hypothetically, mass-downvoting), then I don't really feel bad about it; if they're going to play the game of Annoy The Other Person, then I will play that game too.
LOL. Amateurs.
Imagine trolling without keeping detailed spread sheets of your interact ratios.
Why even bother.
Just go back to being agreeable if you aren't going to put in the effort to be disagreeable
if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The block button exists for a reason. If someone feels user X isn't contributing quality comments, they can block them. Or just downvote them if it's less extreme.
For literal spam sure I get it. But "trolls"? Such a subjective reason to open the door to redditry.
I personally will never put effort into anything in a place where I know I'll be banned at the drop of a hat. Why bother? Especially if, like you said, it may be silently hidden from everyone.
And maybe you only ban low quality dumb troll comments to a reasonable standard. But all it takes is you appointing another janny who's slightly less fair about determining who's a troll. Maybe you appoint a janny team that turns out to all be trans, and they start shadowbanning anyone who questions transdeology.
I just don't understand how groups that have been run off of reddit can still be drawn to strong moderation. I'd take a blockable troll over a power hungry moderator I can't do anything about any day of the week.
It's not as though the moderation here is some great mystery. The mod team has a considerable history, and while they have their critics, I have found their actions to be exceedingly reasonable in the past.
More options
Context Copy link
Okay! If you change your mind, you're welcome to give this place another try.
Then I boot them and find new moderators. Seriously, the userbase has never been shy about complaining about moderators, and I have booted moderators before (okay, moderator.)
Because nobody has managed to make a good serious discussion site without strong moderation.
If you think it's possible, I encourage you to prove me wrong and do it. But I'm not convinced it's possible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In my opinion, shadowbans are an appropriate measure in only two circumstances:
the target is a bot, not a real human
the target is an alt who is attempting to evade regular public bans
Precisely because these are cases where a real ban is ineffective because the target will just try again with new accounts repeatedly, and the shadowness helps prevent them from knowing it's necessary. Shadowbanning a real human for regular rule breaking is sinister and evil, the only purpose it serves is to reduce transparency for mod decisions.
I'm willing to use it during periods of high new-troll activity; if there's a bunch of people making new accounts just to post bad stuff then I'll simply remove it. In a day or two we can turn the standard activity filters on, though, and that'll help things enormously.
actually maybe I should just turn those on now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link