Wandering in, missing the rule sign, getting corrected, and apologizing is fine. I’ve done it; the mods there couldn’t have been nicer about it. It’s not an ideal system, no, but it works well enough; it’s the mods shouldering that burden more than anything.
…The problem is when the guys are corrected, yet keep talking anyway. Which I see happen a lot.
There is no excuse for that.
Is the best behavior to block any community you don’t or can’t participate in? I personally don’t love that behavior because I like seeing what everyone is discussing in threads, but that’s a reasonable solution.
I feel extremely mixed about this, yeah. I feel weird even talking about it.
I personally don’t love that behavior because I like seeing what everyone is discussing in threads, but that’s a reasonable solution.
The women’s space… doesn’t prohibit lurking? On one hand, the community is public, and I’m curious about the perspective in the discussions. I’m interested in understanding them so I can be a more respectful person myself.
I upvote their posts so they get more exposure.
…But I don’t want to violate their privacy either. Blocking is reasonable. Right now, I just upvote them but don’t enter the threads.
Obviously my current strat is just reading the community before posting (like not commenting negatively about Star Gate getting a new season in the star gate community as an example that happened today lol).
Read the room, yeah.
IMO TV fandoms shouldn’t worship their material. Negative discussion is allowed, otherwise the space gets toxic.
In fact, this kinda happened to one of my personal fandom spaces, /r/thelastairbender: among other things, they idolize ATLA (the original series) like a diety, to the point where anything different (including other material like Korra or the Netflix adaption) is demonized. Deeper stuff like the novels, fanfics or speculative lore is not welcome either.
That sucks. It’s all too common; the Star Wars fandom (for instance) is notorious for it. And its why some negativity and ‘outsider perspectives’ should be welcomed in such spaces.
The women’s space is different though. It’s basically a shelter from the shit this group puts up with IRL and online, so being more sensitive makes sense.
I completely agree. I just wish I could systematically prevent myself from making any mistake lol, or like anyone from making the first mistake.
Anyone doing it intentionally is a dick and should be blocked. This is just an interesting problem for the platform we’re on and I’m excited to see how the Internet develops overtime to fix this.
I just wish I could systematically prevent myself from making any mistake lol, or like anyone from making the first mistake.
…I guess we theoretically could, via a Lemmy or Piefed PR, heh.
As an example, we could implement an opt-in feature that pops-up community rules before one is allowed to post. Kinda like Discord, but less obnoxious.
That’s one reason why I like this place. If something about the site’s UX design in problematic, there’s somewhere to go to get it improved. With any corporate social media, your only assurance is that it will get worse with time.
I mean, I like the other reply to this comment as well, but if a man posts in an all women community twice in quick succession after being warned it’s pretty easy to assume their intentions are bad - right? Like there are things people can say or do that are so engrained in the behavior of bad faith actors that you can kinda spot them.
My point was just to reinforce that I agree with the notion that people can maliciously attempt to ruin a community or discourage individuals/groups from posting and that they should be banned. “No Nazi’s in the bar” kinda thing.
Wandering in, missing the rule sign, getting corrected, and apologizing is fine. I’ve done it; the mods there couldn’t have been nicer about it. It’s not an ideal system, no, but it works well enough; it’s the mods shouldering that burden more than anything.
…The problem is when the guys are corrected, yet keep talking anyway. Which I see happen a lot.
There is no excuse for that.
I feel extremely mixed about this, yeah. I feel weird even talking about it.
The women’s space… doesn’t prohibit lurking? On one hand, the community is public, and I’m curious about the perspective in the discussions. I’m interested in understanding them so I can be a more respectful person myself.
I upvote their posts so they get more exposure.
…But I don’t want to violate their privacy either. Blocking is reasonable. Right now, I just upvote them but don’t enter the threads.
Read the room, yeah.
IMO TV fandoms shouldn’t worship their material. Negative discussion is allowed, otherwise the space gets toxic.
In fact, this kinda happened to one of my personal fandom spaces, /r/thelastairbender: among other things, they idolize ATLA (the original series) like a diety, to the point where anything different (including other material like Korra or the Netflix adaption) is demonized. Deeper stuff like the novels, fanfics or speculative lore is not welcome either.
That sucks. It’s all too common; the Star Wars fandom (for instance) is notorious for it. And its why some negativity and ‘outsider perspectives’ should be welcomed in such spaces.
The women’s space is different though. It’s basically a shelter from the shit this group puts up with IRL and online, so being more sensitive makes sense.
I completely agree. I just wish I could systematically prevent myself from making any mistake lol, or like anyone from making the first mistake.
Anyone doing it intentionally is a dick and should be blocked. This is just an interesting problem for the platform we’re on and I’m excited to see how the Internet develops overtime to fix this.
…I guess we theoretically could, via a Lemmy or Piefed PR, heh.
As an example, we could implement an opt-in feature that pops-up community rules before one is allowed to post. Kinda like Discord, but less obnoxious.
That’s one reason why I like this place. If something about the site’s UX design in problematic, there’s somewhere to go to get it improved. With any corporate social media, your only assurance is that it will get worse with time.
I think that’s a great idea.
how do you measure someone else’s intention behind an internet post? other than your own arbitrary judgement of it?
That’s kinda the idea behind moderation.
It’s why it’s best done in small communites, as the narrow context narrows the scope of the arbitrary judgement.
I mean, I like the other reply to this comment as well, but if a man posts in an all women community twice in quick succession after being warned it’s pretty easy to assume their intentions are bad - right? Like there are things people can say or do that are so engrained in the behavior of bad faith actors that you can kinda spot them.
My point was just to reinforce that I agree with the notion that people can maliciously attempt to ruin a community or discourage individuals/groups from posting and that they should be banned. “No Nazi’s in the bar” kinda thing.