The plain and simple of it is that I’m not a good moderator. I have no idea what I’m doing. I wanted a community where people could post conservative stuff without it getting overwhelmed by lefty stuff, and then you could have discussions/arguments in the comment section. Bring to light stories that wouldn’t normally be seen on lemmy. Since that didn’t exist on lemmy, I had to do it myself.
Right now, there’s a lot of toxicity, some straight up telling people to kill themselves. My whole moderation policy was basically “So long as it isn’t a straight up slur, you could comment it”.
You’d think it’d be simple, just ban those who do that. Well, what about those who defend baby murder? I know lefties genuinely believe it isn’t, but I do. How do you tell what is horrible shit, when lefties act like horror movie monsters?
What about those who I’m like 90% sure are arguing in bad faith? I want to encourage discussions and arguments, and if I’m wrong, what then?
Me doing keyword-based moderating was a bad idea, but I am at a loss of how to do better, without breaking what this sub was supposed to be about.
I need ideas.
How should I moderate this community?
I find rehashing the same arguments over and over to be boring, especially when they come from very different worldviews.
I’d rather discuss finer points of conservativism without people yelling about us not caring about the poor or women or other such nonsense. Because we all know that it’s nonsense.
This I agree with, even though the policies conservatives support invariably harm the people they purport to support.
deleted by creator
And your problem is not asking “what is the basis of your argument?”
I mean, everybody seems to think that discussions are just a series of unsubstantiated assertions, but, imho, most discussions, especially with those with which you disagree, should mostly be clarifying questions and answers.
In other words, baseless attacks are only baseless because you don’t know the base. That is a ripe circumstance for a discussion.
deleted by creator
My first comment explicitly said to provide incentives for the kind of participation Throwaway wants. If that’s not relevant or related, then idk what is.
I also defending “bad faith” arguments as at least contributing to the argument half of discussion/argument that Throwaway said he wanted.
My response to you suggested that users of the community should be able to identify when they don’t understand something and simply ask about what they don’t understand. That also facilitates the discussion/arguments about conservative content that Throwaway wants.
I feel like you didn’t even read my comments, or you’re just blinded by your perception that I argue in bad faith to bother understanding anything I say at all.
Prove me wrong.
deleted by creator
Well, if you don’t track a ball I toss at you, I suppose we’re not playing catch.
deleted by creator
There is a problem there. The “finer points of conservatism” includes things like defunding social programs. There is no way to destroy the social safety net and not get called out for hating the poor.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too, not without an echo chamber.
This is what I’m talking about.
As if our current government programs are the only way to care for the poor.
Charity is not enough.
Agreed.
Government assistance is also not enough.
Then maybe we make rules based on the structure of arguments.