Context: Voyager shows these options which results in a large amount of reports just being “Breaks community rules” with no info or reason whatsoever.
</rant>
You must log in or register to comment.
Perhaps if it’s hard to tell, that’s a sign there are too many or unnecessary rules
I just looked in Voyager and that’s one of the options, so I’m guessing people press that before seeing that they can enter a custom answer.
Explanation invites argument.
A mod who is an ass is generally obvious, as is a commenter who gets banned/deleted.
Do mods realise how little it narrows things down when they do the mod thing and don’t even say what comment or post was problematic?
funny thing, when I first saw this post I thought it was about mods doing that very thing.
Please dont tell me there are angry mods here too. I left Reddit because of mods over there.
This is a lemmy issue - lemmy doesn’t have customizable report reasons. “Breaks community rules” = mods should handle, “spam or abuse” = admins should handle. I’m open to better alternatives but they should make it clear whether admins or mods should handle, and they should have some prefilled options (not everything should be custom response)
I mean, I rarely hear about mod who explains why something was deleted or someone was banned, so what’s the problem?
Even though it’s a different DR Phosphorus I still read it in Alan Tyduk’s voice
Spam or abuse is the other one.
Aaaand reported
I would assume the mod seeing the report would, you know, read the reported post/comment and be able to tell what rule it breaks.
If there are no posted rules then the reporting user is just mad at the person they’re reporting.
I imagine it’s a question of scale and giving the mod a little bit more information to make their knives easier ☺️.
How does it make anything easier, even at scale? They still should be reading the stuff to make sure it actually breaks their rules or not and making decisions. Not just taking the reporter’s word for it.
“make their knives easier”? Goodness! Reported for advocating violence!
Honestly, that’s one of the funniest autocarrot errors I’ve seen in a while, because it almost makes sense.
their knives
Banhammer is out. Banstabber is in!
LOL. Lives not knives. But I like that typo so will keep it in.
Everyone wants to be bonked, no one wants to be stabbed.
someone posts a meme, it follows all the rules
it gets one downvote and a report
Reason: Inappropriate
😐
Yeah. How hard is it just to specify the rule number?
deleted by creator
Unfortunately, when you report something for breaking community rules, Voyager does not offer the option to specify. So no, I cannot.
I know, I opened an issue on Voyager’s GitHub last year to suggest changes
What’s the significance of this syntax with regard to it not rendering?
[//]: # (r1: Posts must be ...) [//]: # (r3: Posts must not be ...) [//]: # (r2: Posts must be ...)I’ve long wanted a somewhat standardized way to define community rules so I could do exactly what you were describing in your issue, but I’m not clear on how/why that syntax doesn’t render.
I tried it in Tesseract, which admittedly use a different markdown renderer than other apps, and the first line shows but the second and third don’t.
If other apps can get on board with that, then I may need to understand what’s happening in that syntax to make sure it doesn’t render.
It’s been a while, but I think it’s based on a trick to add comments to Markdown. I tried it with Tesseract, and none of the lines rendered, but only if I add an empty line in front.
It’s a bit of a hack, but it can use existing endpoints and only needs some minor changes on the client side. The alternative would be implementing support for it in Lemmy, Mbin, PieFed, etc. but that probably takes a while and can also be done later when it has proven its usefulness.
Edit: I think I found the explanation behind the syntax https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4823468/comments-in-markdown
Cool, thanks. I’ll give that a read and see if I can make it work cleanly. At this point, it’s just an experiment, but I’ve wanted to have some mechanism for a standardized machine-readable community rules for a long time, specifically to put into the report and moderation workflows. If I can make it work cleanly, and if it’s not something already planned for Lemmy 1.0, I’m absolutely willing to make that a Tesseract feature.
Click Other and it lets you write a custom reason. Kinda klugy, but that way you can specify which rule is being broken.
I already commented on this under the other comment saying the same thing.
This is why i always choose “other” and give a reason. Though it would be nice if you could always get the fill-in section and it be added to the report if used.
I usually do that, but often enough I just think: it’s obvious.
Also I had a little conflict with an instance mod who mingled in some community modding and told me my reports were incorrect, useless and annoyed them (community mods said the opposite though) and the easiest way to go around that mod was to use the “breaks community rules” option.
The second image in your post seems broken.
It was an image from this GitHub issue, but it seems GitHub now adds a JWT to image links that expires?
