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>
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>
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.