Per the discussion in these two posts:

https://hexbear.net/post/6569239

https://hexbear.net/comment/6630485

As mod on that (gossip) comm I agree. To be honest, I also think it’s unnecessary to have two separate dunking comms based on whether someone is a public figure or a random person. A lot of times that distinction can be quite blurry, and I don’t blame people for choosing to post in Slop instead, as that is the more active comm.

Reunite El Chisme and Slop to a single comm, and remove slop’s rule #8. “Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip”

  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    They’re separate because in one you’re allowed to post literally fucking anyone, like lemmy users writing complete garbage, whereas on the other you’re only allowed public figures.

    I think some people wanted the public figures content, but did not want the random dipshit lemmy users content. The separation enables having one instead of the other. It also makes searching for content easier because it narrows down searches, if you know you’re looking for public figure you know it’ll be there, if your memory is of a random dipshit you know it’ll be in the other. I very very very regularly use the search function for old content by hazy memories I have.

    The issue is not that there are 2 comms but that the names don’t really stick in your memory and people get confused about which one to use. I don’t remember how the names were chosen but I’d guess they were named by someone that wanted to remove dunk tank’s content from the site entirely until the drama it caused.

    Merging the comms won’t reduce content, you’ll just have the same amount of content but without separation so any public figure stuff will be drowning under the random lemmitor stuff.

    My take is that the name could benefit from being changed. No merge.

    • somename [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      i don’t think there was a strong user push to separate them in the first place. Not that it means everyone has strong views against them being separate, but the split was pretty mod originating in the first place.

    • Marxism_Sympathizer [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      i think this is the perfect use for post tags when lemmy 1.0 comes out. if you can block all posts with a certain post tag you will be able to have one community and people who dont want to see 5 upvote comments can block that tag out

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        That’s a moderation issue rather than a policy issue though. Part of that is that hexbear mods don’t really want to be petty tyrants about content and another part of that is no ability for mods to just move the content to the correct place themselves. If the ability for mods to move the content existed, none of this would happen because mods wouldn’t be reluctant to do that like they are with outright removing things. I’m absolutely certain that mods look at stuff, know for a fact that it’s rulebreaking, then move on and pretend they didn’t see it, because I have done that myself in my own communities outside lemmy.

        • buckykat [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 days ago

          No, actually enforcing the split, when that was being done soon after it was instituted, only resulted in deleting a bunch of posts that already had comments and pissing people off, especially because there never was, and never could be, any kind of objective measure of who is and isn’t a public figure.

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Right and I’m not disputing that, but that’s still a moderation issue. Mods not doing the moderation because they don’t like it when their moderation actions cause people to be upset is very much a moderation issue.

            • buckykat [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 days ago

              A rule being unenforceable both because there is no consistent criteria for enforcing it and because enforcement is near-universally disliked is not a moderation issue, it’s a bad rule.

              • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                If a post gets upvoted and used, people always get mad at removal. This is always the case for literally any post removal on the entire site. It’s not limited to the dunk tank drama. It’s not even a unique phenomenon to hexbear, it’s how it goes with literally every content removal on reddit when something is placed in a sub with content rules if that content also got upvotes/comments, it always upsets the users if something that got upvoted gets removed.

                That doesn’t make the content rule bad. Just means mods didn’t get there early enough to remove it before people would start upvoting and using it.

                They’re not mad about content enforcement or they’d be upset at the 0 comment threads being removed, what they’re actually mad at is having their activity disrupted. That’s not actually the rule, it’s the existence of rules altogether.

                • Bob_Odenkirk [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  If users are upset about a post getting removed, maybe mods shouldn’t have removed it?

                  This site had dreams of democratic moderation when we started, and I know that’s far easier said than done, but there’s still been too much paternalist, “its for your own good”-moderation since then that has always upset the user base. No one here is ever upset about racist/misogynist/wrecker/etc posts getting nuked, we’re only ever upset about mods being weird about stuff.

                  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Anyone who is a brand or working for one, or anyone who is part of a public-interest news event. Everyone else is not a public figure?

                  • Bob_Odenkirk [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    They do not want to have mods. They do not want to have admins. Any action taken by a mod or admin is going to immediately be met by negative feedback.

                    We like when you nuke wreckers or racists or transphobes. We don’t like when you stop our fun just because you’re not having fun. It’s not that complex.

                    Like if no one is actually being a piece of shit just stay out.

                  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    Yeah I think anyone that has moderated a space anywhere would realise this.

                    I really think that the people that are like that just need to be bullied a bit about it. Some moderation is good and needed. I think some of it is just general anti authority sentiment in the left and sometimes users in a leftist space allow their behaviour towards cops to leak into their behaviour towards moderators when that’s an absolutely inappropriate way to react or behave. Not that mods aren’t guilty of mistakes either at times though.

                  • Speaker [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    As the One True Egoist of Hexbear and famous rule hater, I simply cannot remember having any moderation action taken against my posts due to rules. Complainers should simply post better. 💁

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Anyone who is a brand or working for one, or anyone who is part of a public-interest news event. Everyone else is not a public figure.

        • Is a musician a brand? Heather Morgan wasn’t one I would recognize, though Thom Yorke is - and is certainly better known. Is helping launder billions of dollars of stolen property a public-interest news event? Is being a Zionist?

          Is running for elected office a public-interest news event? Does the level of office matter? Does it need to be a current campaign? Maria Danzilo ran for state level office. Zohran Mamdani is running for city level office.

          Chris Geidner works for BuzzFeed. When TNOQuoProQuid reposts his photo of the east wing of the White House being destroyed, is that a public interest news event?

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Is a musician a brand?

            Yes.

            There’s an argument that your garage band is not a brand, but it is aspiring to be one. It is a startup brand.

            Is running for elected office a public-interest news event?

            Yes and anyone doing so is also a brand. Zohran Mamdani is a political brand.

            Does the level of office matter?

            No

            Does it need to be a current campaign?

            Yes. Someone who has exited politics ceases to be a brand, except where they continue to cultivate a public image as an influencer or transition that public image into some other grift, then they’re still a brand and thus still a public figure.

            Chris Geidner works for BuzzFeed. When TNOQuoProQuid reposts his photo of the east wing of the White House being destroyed, is that a public interest news event?

            It’s a person working for a brand who uses the fact they work for that brand for their own interests as an influencer (another brand), therefore a public figure.

            • Maria Danzilo may not be actively running for office any longer, but she doesn’t seem to have exited politics.

              TNOQuoProQuid is “design lead for @TNOmod” which I knew nothing about until recently, but is apparently a pretty well known game mod within some communities. The question IMO is more about whether the content was a “public-interest news event” than the specific person posting about it being a “brand” though.

              In short, it sounds to me like your definition doesn’t actually change any of the content recently posted here, though I can simultaneously justify removing most of it or keeping all of it depending on how I choose to interpret your definition. Are there recent posts here that would have been removed if the mods were following your criteria?

              • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                but she doesn’t seem to have exited politics

                Still a brand then.

                The question IMO is more about whether the content was a “public-interest news event” than the specific person posting about it being a “brand” though.

                Easier to identify whether people are brands or not than whether an event is public interest enough, that is a much looser thing to identify than whether someone or something is a brand which I think is actually very easy.

                  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Yeah for the most part I just think the people that get upset at content moderation need to be bullied a little bit because content moderation needs to happen even if it is inconvenient at times. For me the convenience of two comms for separation is higher than the inconvenience of moderation.

    • Chana [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Does Lemmy support per-comm tagging requirements (automated so mods don’t have to review everything)? For example, a checkbox for “is this a public figure?” I’m guessing no but that seems like a better way to deal with wanting to filter subcategories.