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.
My thought is leave them be. Downvotes and blocking should be sufficient if it’s bad enough.
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.
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
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
I think it needs to be defined with more specificity than “blatant doomerism”, both to make it more clear when to enforce rather than “I know it when I see it” and also to prevent unfair bans to people talking about something that’s a bummer in good faith.
I don’t think an environment of toxic positivity is healthy and I fear such a broad definition could foster one, i.e. “oh I can’t say that or I might get banned”
on the whole though I like the idea of an additional rule added of the sort. it doesn’t seem like the person(s) in the first examples given was saying anything in good faith.
I also think the punishment should give a lot of grace, like first a warning and comment removal before any ban.
edit: a word
I absolutely agree that it should be defined specifically, I’m just can’t quite figure out how it can be articulated more clearly. I’ll think about it more and then update the post.
I also think the punishment should give a lot of grace, like first a warning and comment removal before any ban.
Yes, indeed. I think ban is justifiable if the person in question caught doing it under every post. Other than that, comment removal and warnings are enough
