So long as Hubski is based around following people, those that are followed MUST be entitled to control who can and cannot contribute to that content. Don't want to be muted? Don't be an asshat. Muted for being an asshat? APOLOGIZE. That's the thing that blows my mind - all the been-here-for-20-minutes Redditors are arguing vociferously for their "right" to piss on someone else's cheerios. Not. One. Of. You has recognized that un-muting is every bit as easy as muting, actually feels better and builds community. I moderate /r/movies. We probably ban a dozen people a day. We probably un-ban a half-dozen people a day. Do you know how good it feels to unban someone? Do you know how good it feels to be un-banned? Probably not. Because you think you have a "right" to urinate on whatever street corner you want.
Whew, that's dense! Let's break that down a little! Well, no. Doesn't follow. I'm curious about your justification for that, though! And you and you alone are the perfect arbiter of who is and isn't an asshat? Naw, let the people contributing to your threads come to that conclusion themselves, dole out points to the unasshats, and put the asshats on ignore. I can tell you for certain that your idea and my idea of what a good commenter is are a bit different - And that's likely to be true of nearly everyone you're currently curating for! I... How... nice for you? I really don't understand why you've brought this up - Good moderating has very little to do with whether doing something feels good or not. You keep the best interests of the community in mind, reasoning and making educated guesses about what the best course of actions to take are. A few years back, I ran a Minecraft server. We probably had a comparable number of daily bans, although fewer unbans and drastically fewer active users. I know what it feels like to ban and unban people - Although I wouldn't qualify either one as a good or a bad feeling. I know less about the other side of the coin - My behavior is usually innocuous enough that bans are rare. On the few occasions it has happened, though, I haven't been inclined to try to change anyone's mind about the situation. My goodness, what tasty words you've put into my mouth! I'm not sure why you keep comparing unrestricted speech to urine, but I'm not sure it reflects well on you. I've run places without restrictions on freedom of speech - Any forum for public discourse I'm in charge of, I generally provide explicit "Free speech enforced here" rules. Biggest examples of that are the minecraft server I mentioned, and the (still quite small) community for the game I'm coding. In both cases, the community has ended up being mature, varied in age, varied in type of people, etc. etc. Heck, the community on the minecraft server turned out so well that it lived past my involvement - Still running with my original pro-free-speech rules, last I checked. Cheers!MUST be entitled to control who can and cannot contribute to that content.
Don't want to be muted? Don't be an asshat. Muted for being an asshat? APOLOGIZE.
all the been-here-for-20-minutes Redditors
You say redditors like it's a bad word. I don't really get that, since you are one yourself.[un-muting] feels better
Do you know how good it feels to unban someone? Do you know how good it feels to be un-banned?
Because you think you have a "right" to urinate on whatever street corner you want.
'cuz Ragan Fox is a professor of media studies at CSULB who happened to be a contestant on Big Brother. This was one of his tenure articles. It didn't used to be. I might have downloaded it once long ago, but I'm not finding it at the moment.
eightbitsamurai _refugee_ LET ME BADGE THIS KID PLEASE PLEASE LET ME BADGE HIMklein really isn't worth your time, from what I've gathered he's a college kid who thinks he's an internet badass.
i dont have enough badges to badge ironically, I'll have to save up and then decide between that and paying for a Sugar Ray concert. Sugar Ray's ironically cool now, right?
I propose BitBadge, where you can earn hundreds in an instant and then lose it all.
Heh you and me both here. Although I'd change " The third is that I won't shut up about my opinions with respect to the mute functionality" to just MY OPINIONS but that's whatever man, I agree 100% here. people complain about me being an asshole, but I don't drop half the bullshit this guy does. The difference is I'm new and I came from reddit, 2 red marks. The third is that I won't shut up about my opinions with respect to the mute functionality and it's effect on the site.
On his posts, and his alone. It's amazing, it's like that's why everyone has their own ability to choose who they mute. Don't like his curation? Don't follow him. Don't like the fact that some people can't comment on his posts? PM them the link and ask their opinions if you're so inclined to hear them. Congratulations, we have reached the point in the discussion where we realize that people are capable of having different opinions. translation: "God, I really don't like your metaphors, and so I'm choosing to believe they reflect on your character" ??? You get muted, you can't comment on a given user's posts. You want to keep up with the free speech? Make your own damn post. Title it "[Article Name] For Those Muted By [Submitter]" if you want, you can have a whole damn party. Upset the discussion is split? Link to it. Why is this so hard. There is no limitation on free speech site-wide here. It is on a user-specific basis.And you and you alone are the perfect arbiter of who is and isn't an asshat?
I can tell you for certain that your idea and my idea of what a good commenter is are a bit different
And that's likely to be true of nearly everyone you're currently curating for
Although I wouldn't qualify either one as a good or a bad feeling.
I'm not sure why you keep comparing unrestricted speech to urine, but I'm not sure it reflects well on you.
Ahhh, there's a point of difference. Ownership! You have a very defined sense of ownership - I suspect it's pretty obvious to you who owns what. I think it's pretty clear to you that the original poster owns their post. But my concept is... much muddier, much harder to pin down. As an example, I couldn't even tell you who owns my house. I have a certain level of interest in it. So does the bank. So do the rest of the people living in it. So do my neighbors, and so does the city as a whole. When I make decisions, I try to balance the wants and needs of all of these groups. But just like I couldn't tell you who owns the house, I couldn't tell you who ought to own a post. Clearly the original poster has some interest in it, since he took the time to post it. But then it flies out into the community, and the community adds content to it, votes on it, etc. By the time all this is done... Who has majority ownership? It's likely that the time spent working on it by the community outweighs the time spent by the original poster. A certain amount of curation is good - Put the posts largely thought good near the top, allow the rest to drop down. But here we're talking about something else. Here, a single person gets to pick and choose what I get to read. I don't want that from anyone. Doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with them, like or hate them as a person, or whatever. I want to hear what people besides that one person have to say. That's why I'm on a site that allows comments! Oh, and the PM thing is silly - I have no such list, and even if I did, it doesn't allow others to chime in after the muted people make their points, or allow upvoting, or any of the nice hubski features which helped bring me here. Hey, more words in my mouth! They're tasty, but I'm a bit of a picky eater - Mind if we leave 'em on the plate in the future, so I can just pick out the ones I agree with? Klein's urine metaphor didn't make a huge amount of sense to me. We're talking about something whose value is widely disagreed on by many people, but urine is almost universally reviled. Maybe graffiti art would have been a more apt metaphor. So you're right in that I didn't much like his metaphor : ) But when I say I'm not sure if it reflects well, I really do mean that - I can see a multitude of reasons for choosing urine for free speech. Some are innocuous, but most are less so. For example, maybe he just sucks at choosing metaphors - That's pretty innocuous. Or maybe he could revile the concept of speech uncurated by himself. That'd be a pretty unpleasant opinion. Perhaps he thinks that what he reviles is universally reviled - That at least shows a certain inability to think outside the box. Or, a small step better than that, perhaps he thinks what he finds disgusting matches up exactly with some other subset of humans, who will follow him. But the truth is likely to be more muddled, a confusing morass containing bits of each of those, and many more I couldn't think of. So yeah, I'm not sure! Well, ok, but since I have a problem with all mutings, I guess I'd have to copy and link every piece of content that comes along. That seems like a lot of repetitive work - Maybe we should set up a bot for that. Oh, but a bot seems silly, when we have a responsive site dev. Maybe we could have him stick the muted comments on a separate page, and link them from the main page. Oh, but that still doesn't allow muted comments to be made easily in response to other people's comments. Maybe we should just hide muted comments by default, and allow each user to switch them on and off at will. Oh, shucks, we've just arrived at wasoxygen's suggestion! Cheers!On his posts, and his alone.
Don't like his curation? Don't follow him. Don't like the fact that some people can't comment on his posts?
translation: "God, I really don't like your metaphors, and so I'm choosing to believe they reflect on your character" ???
Make your own damn post.