Comment on Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal I’ve gotten through (I believe) a
non_burglar@lemmy.world 1 day agoYeah, that tracks fine.
It’s the recent one where a person told this group about their app, asked if anyone was interested in beta testing in exchange for full paid app access for free.
I don’t think that person posted in bad faith. But the crowd here acted like an absolute mob, calling him names, telling him to f*ck off, etc.
That was handled poorly. And I don’t think your rule would address the abuse part, regardless of how much “community interaction” you made a requirement.
That’s my problem with these new guidelines, they don’t address the venom people have towards folks for not much justifiable reason. You can’t just bend to what the crowd wants, sometimes they want blood.
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 1 day ago
Thats… Unfortunately another issue to be addressed here.
I also absolutely don’t like people commenting “slop” for anything within spitting distance of ai/llm’s, regardless of how it was used. For the record, there were months of backlogged reports about comments, despite tons of “rule 3” violations on posts never reported on, which I’ve now cleaned up.
I do think it does address it somewhat, in that there is no reason to dogpile if there is a valid rule to remove on, or its clearly permitted. It also clarifies on approved posts, and provides a valid reason to remove unhelpful and off topic comments for what is definitely a valid, rule abiding post.
Will of solve everything? No, but I think putting a rule like this in place is certainly the right direction overall.