Hi everyone!
As a mod, I started getting some reports on people commenting doomer stuff under posts. They’re not really great, they’re demotivating and most importantly not really fit this communities vibe. I’m not fond of them, but I can’t go removing comments and banning people left and right, because technically, they not breaking any rules. So I feel that the community discussion is in order.
If we going to implement a rule against doomers, I think it is very important to define the rule clearly, for it not to be too broad. So I propose the phrasing “blatant doomerism”. Here are examples:
- Blatant doomerism\doomer trolling (comment gets removed, user banned if spams to many comments like this):
- adequate discussion with some doomerism (nothing gets to be done by mods, discussion in the comments goes as usual)
So, the discussion is welcome. If I missed anything, or even if it’s not needed and there should be no change to the rule set, or you have anything to add, feel free to comment.
Yes. What would be the point of this community if there are people purposefully just bringing the bad side of everything?
I think the examples given are definitely worth deleting but I don’t think a harsh punishment should be given, ex. a ban that’s 1 week or longer
Im a doomer by belief and I see it as fine. obviously this is hopeposting, heck the picture even plays on the breathing hopium thing. I would be fine if a negatie post by me were removed once I realized where I had put it and I would avoid and have avoided commenting negatively in this community because. duh.
How would you distinguish between doomers, activists, and truth tellers?
There’s a lot of crossover between all three. Would you just ban them all?
Truth-telling is obligatory in all social settings, it’s not the same as having a “yeah, honey, you don’t know The World” attitude in interactions with others.
I woudn’t ban people unless they are repeatedly spreading doom. Most of those comments are coming from all feed. Comment removal and a warning would be sufficient.
Hope is a choice, if a comment doesn’t indicate that they want a reason to hope or they refuse to hope I would remove that comment. If they want to hope but their doom is so overwhelming that they can’t even think about it I would leave it so someone could provide a reason to be even a little bit more hopeful for the future.
My propositions for different levels of moderation:
- If the comment or post has purely depressive outlook at the future without real facts to back it up it will be removed.
- If a comment or post including depressive outlook at the future doesn’t include question asking for a reason to be hopeful about something it will be removed.
- If a comment doesn’t include a word hope it will be removed. /joke
My thought is leave them be. Downvotes and blocking should be sufficient if it’s bad enough.
I am not part of this community, this post just happened to land in my feed. My opinion here doesn’t really matter. That said, this feels like a good way to build one hell of an echo chamber. Just because you feel your examples aren’t in good faith doesn’t mean you are correct, or that future comments people want removed will be the same. If what you guys want is an echo chamber where no one is allowed to go against the grain, this is a fantastic idea.
