Notice the one thing this user didnt ask for - to get unbanned so they could contribute to any of those communities
Has anyone done so since you started doing this? Given the general circumstances here I don’t expect many would try (esp. w/silent instance ban), nor do I expect a happy mutual outcome.
Currently it does not, if someone really dislikes a community enough to down vote a post and then go through the effort to open it and also downvote the only comment, it’s a strong signal they are not a good fit for the community
This is only helpful for very small niche communities that get lots of negative attention.
I’m sure it was [email protected], the other comms don’t draw so much ire. There are 3-5 active posters and commenters in that community, we haven’t even reached dozens yet. There are 75 active vegen communities on Lemmy, and 1 carnivore community. So, is it helpful for the 75:1 group to remind the minority group they don’t like them very much every post?
When I was tuning in the behavior, anyone who opened posts to downvote comments would repeat the behavior every new post, and many went through the backlog of posts to do the same. So I took that as a very strong signal it’s a bad community mismatch. Pruning optimization
So far zero people have asked to have the moderator action reversed so they can contribute, or debate… the only feedback has been like this one where a angry person is angry they aren’t allowed to continue to be angry at a tiny community
Currently it does not, if someone really dislikes a community enough to down vote a post and then go through the effort to open it and also downvote the only comment, it’s a strong signal they are not a good fit for the community
My educated opinion as someone writing such automation, is that this is a very flawed approach. All it would take is a post against the community ethos, to ban community regulars who downvoted it. If it has no comment threshold and no validation of the general sentiment of the post in the comm, it can easily lead to false positives.
My take is someone writing this sort of automation is sick of spending hours each day doing the bans manually
What sort of false positive are you worried about when it only bans people whose only interaction has been negative? Regulars have upvoted stuff if they like the community.
Do you ever visit a community and down vote the first thing you see and intend to return?
It sounds like a helpful tool, but you might have to use some manual review because I don’t think an automated system can easily avoid all the false positives and false negatives.
I was experimenting with similar stuff that counts mass downvotes, and I think it yields some interesting results.
Does it do any good for all the atheists to down vote every catholic post? Nobody is benefiting from that behavior
Thanks for the insightful reply!
To me, the potential issue could be if it wasn’t a very active community, the user might not even recognise they were doing so from c/all, so you might end up banning someone who didn’t know they did anything wrong. But you’re also right, it could certainly have adverse effects on the community, so totally I get where you’re coming from as well.
I’m not a great programmer,
This ban message only happens when someone downvotes a post then opens the post and downvotes all the comments.
Is there a bug? Sure, lots! I haven’t double checked the logs against this user yet. After work
Notice the one thing this user didnt ask for - to get unbanned so they could contribute to any of those communities
If somebody consistently does that, they are not having a great Lemmy experience and they should block the community
Does it do any good for all the atheists to down vote every catholic post? Nobody is benefiting from that behavior
Has anyone done so since you started doing this? Given the general circumstances here I don’t expect many would try (esp. w/silent instance ban), nor do I expect a happy mutual outcome.
No one.
Does it have a comment threshold? I.e. it feels it would be fairly easy to trigger if there’s just 1 comment in the thread.
Currently it does not, if someone really dislikes a community enough to down vote a post and then go through the effort to open it and also downvote the only comment, it’s a strong signal they are not a good fit for the community
This is only helpful for very small niche communities that get lots of negative attention.
I’m sure it was [email protected], the other comms don’t draw so much ire. There are 3-5 active posters and commenters in that community, we haven’t even reached dozens yet. There are 75 active vegen communities on Lemmy, and 1 carnivore community. So, is it helpful for the 75:1 group to remind the minority group they don’t like them very much every post?
When I was tuning in the behavior, anyone who opened posts to downvote comments would repeat the behavior every new post, and many went through the backlog of posts to do the same. So I took that as a very strong signal it’s a bad community mismatch. Pruning optimization
So far zero people have asked to have the moderator action reversed so they can contribute, or debate… the only feedback has been like this one where a angry person is angry they aren’t allowed to continue to be angry at a tiny community
My educated opinion as someone writing such automation, is that this is a very flawed approach. All it would take is a post against the community ethos, to ban community regulars who downvoted it. If it has no comment threshold and no validation of the general sentiment of the post in the comm, it can easily lead to false positives.
I strongly suggest you tweak this approach.
My take is someone writing this sort of automation is sick of spending hours each day doing the bans manually
What sort of false positive are you worried about when it only bans people whose only interaction has been negative? Regulars have upvoted stuff if they like the community.
Do you ever visit a community and down vote the first thing you see and intend to return?
Oh I’m sorry, yes, the ban only applies if the account never comments, posts, or upvotes. A strictly negative interaction signal.
I did notice a few accounts upvote something really old before they started to downvote, so my secret sauce has already been guessed
It sounds like a helpful tool, but you might have to use some manual review because I don’t think an automated system can easily avoid all the false positives and false negatives.
I was experimenting with similar stuff that counts mass downvotes, and I think it yields some interesting results.
Thanks for the insightful reply!
To me, the potential issue could be if it wasn’t a very active community, the user might not even recognise they were doing so from c/all, so you might end up banning someone who didn’t know they did anything wrong. But you’re also right, it could certainly have adverse effects on the community, so totally I get where you’re coming from as well.
They are not doing anything wrong, but helping people disengage from a bad situation is healthy for Lemmy
I would like better vocabulary around it, instead of a ban, we should have a community unsubscribe, or community block vocabulary
I tried to soften the vocabulary in the mod message. This is not the right community for you