The thing I'd want most is for people to be able to state a reason why posts are reported.

This is an example of a feature that could drastically cut down on moderation costs, and also lead to healthier communities where bad actors are naturally disincentivized. Ideally it would help combat the way in which the internet has become a natural home for the anonymous, parasitic rabble-rouser. — Leontiskos

As much as this would help remove perceived trolls from discussions, it would also act as a vehicle for trolling. I think it's better to ignore sub-discussions that aren't to your interest. It would also be nice if Plush had an innate user blocking feature for members. But it does not.

I also am sorry to go. I don't want to! — fdrake

I could submit the command to remove my own admin privileges — fdrake

Even in your exit you leave us with with a philosophical dilemma to ponder - the self-determined command defining your own identity, versus some other determiner defeating what "I want" once again.

Thanks for your time, insights and just for sharing a bit of who you are. Look forward to hearing from you again.

The thing I'd want most is for people to be able to state a reason why posts are reported. — fdrake

That’s a fairly modest request. :sweat:

In general I think part of the essence of a moderator is the possession of coercive force. Because the average Plush moderator can only delete a post or a thread, their ability to wield coercive force is highly limited, and hence their authority is also quite limited.

As much as this would help remove perceived trolls from discussions, it would also act as a vehicle for trolling. — fdrake

I definitely think the forming of cliques could become a problem, and perhaps also a kind of indirect trolling. I think you would need rules such as, “No quoting or referencing users who are not permitted to post in the thread.” But enforcing that would of course introduce new moderation costs.

For me a philosophy forum is in essence a place where I can go to create or enter a thread on a philosophical topic and earnestly engage with other users on that topic. The feature I proposed would allow one to do such a thing. Bad actors could not derail threads, even if they could still troll from afar. This is but another modest goal, and the feature requires no immediate moderation. To give one prominent example, currently on TPF there is so much anti-religious trolling that a user who wants to create a religious thread is effectively prevented from doing so. The effort would be futile.

On my view if someone wants to have an earnest philosophical discussion, and they have the power to invite others who are interested in the same goal and exclude those who undermine that goal, then earnest philosophical discussions will occur. This is exactly why many of us prefer private message groups or real life groups over conversations in the trollspaces.

I think it's better to ignore sub-discussions that aren't to your interest. — fdrake

In the real-world parallel this would be like saying that one should just ignore the protesters who are yelling during the meeting. It’s possible in theory but not in practice. Granted, the ignore extension is great, and almost every user responds appropriately to being ignored, namely by slowly ceasing to engage with the person who is not responding to them. (Although I agree with you that a native Plush ignore feature would be better.)

The problem of limited moderation is a general problem that the internet needs to think harder about. There are all sorts of societal precedents. A simple one is the very concept of “disturbing the peace,” which is basically, “Conduct and self-moderate your behavior appropriately or else you receive a vague, general, and low-moderation-cost infraction.” A more complex one from older legal systems is, “If you bring a facetious suit against someone, you pay the price you intended to inflict.” Or in forum language, “If you don’t have a damn good reason to report a post, you will be punished for creating an undue burden on the moderators.”* In my proto-forum I drew up a rule where users who make petty reports would simply lose their ability to report posts. Those sorts of rules are intended to protect the moderators’ time, and they are intended to sustain systems with limited legal/moderation resources.

If TPF moves onto a newer forum system I would be happy to help write open source plugins that aim to achieve a lighter moderator load. Indeed, if I host my own forum the software will be chosen primarily according to its ability to leverage user plugins and foster healthy internet environments that are more effective for users and especially moderators. Large forum softwares like Discourse or NodeBB have a large number of contributing developers who can collaboratively spit out features like this at the drop of a dime. Anyway, the point here is that moderator burnout should not be inevitable.

Do you have any thoughts on ways to lighten moderator load to avoid burnout or disillusionment?

* Incidentally, anonymous post-flagging strikes me as an insanely bad feature.

And I apologize for any irony in which I contributed to your burnout. — Leontiskos

I didn't step down because of burnout.

- Okay. I shouldn't have assumed.

I didn't step down because of burnout. — fdrake

I hope you stepped down because of something good, and not something bad.

You are one of the people I respect most on TPF. I can't remember ever seeing you lose patience, which is more than can be said about many, including myself. I wish you well and hope you continue to contribute.

I can't remember ever seeing you lose patience — Janus

Thank you!

It has happened a few times. Luckily my anger is quite milquetoast. It's sufficiently British online that it counts as a barbed comment or passive aggression, which for some reason are more socially acceptable than being a sweary swear swear.