To be clear, not talking about this community, obviously 😛.

What’s the point of writing down rules, if mods just do what they want? But I suppose that’s the risk you take when you call someone a liar in a small community; they might be a mod.

Edit: I’m not trying to say that mods suck, they perform a useful and often thankless job. Just that it can be difficult for small communities to get a healthy number of good mods, which can become a problem.

  • eltimablo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That should be in the rules instead of “bootlicking,” then. Well-defined rules make it harder to enforce them unfairly. The fewer questions the community has to ask about guidelines, the easier it is to follow them.

    Thank you for answering in good faith, by the way.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Bootlicking’s easier for people to type and say, and most people do have an understanding of what it means. It’s just not really officially codified yet.

      And it’s all good. There is far too much bad faith bullshit going on on this platform that goes unabated for me to not at least try to speak in good faith. I wish the others would learn to do the same. 🤦

      • eltimablo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It may be easier to type and say (as are most words in comparison), but “antidisestablishmentarianism” has a well-defined meaning that would make for a less-vague rule. “Bootlicking” means a lot of different things to a lot of people, and not all of those people have common sense, to put it nicely. I’ve been called a bootlicker for saying I don’t want to tear down the entirety of every government everywhere, ever, for instance, which I imagine isn’t what that rule is trying to convey.

        There’s a reason “legalese” is the language laws are written in. It’s very specific, with any potentially ambiguous words given clear definitions before any of the rest of the law is presented (at least that’s the intent in the US, anyway). If you were to, say, define “bootlicker” in the beginning of the rules to mean “excessive praise for police violence,” then I’d say it’s quite safe to use elsewhere in said document. Leaving such a vague word undefined in what amounts to a paralegal document opens up avenues for abusive interpretation, both from moderators and community members.

        TL;DR: Clear definitions of what your rules mean leads to a healthier, easier to moderate community overall.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or just accept that bootlicking is synonymous and stop quibbling over semantics.

          There is no definition that will be clear enough for bad faith actors and pressing the issue just makes you look sus. Using language requires some effort on your part. It is impossible to just be on us.