!pleasantpolitics@slrpnk.net is live! If you missed the previous discussion, it’s a community with a robot moderator that bans you if the community doesn’t like your comments, even if you’re not “breaking the rules.” The hope is to have a politics community without the arguing. !santabot@slrpnk.net has an in-depth explanation of how it works.

I was trying to keep the algorithm a secret, to make it more difficult to game the system, but the admins convinced me that basically nobody would participate if they could be banned by a secret system they couldn’t know anything about. I posted the code as open source. It works like PageRank, by aggregating votes and assigning trust to users based on who the community trusts and banning users with too low a trust level.

I’ve also rebalanced the tuning of the algorithm and worked on it more. It now bans a tiny number of users (108 in total right now), but still including a lot of obnoxious accounts. There are now no slrpnk users banned. It’s a lot of lemmy.world people, a few from lemmy.ml or lemm.ee, and a scattering from other places.

Check it out! Let me know what you think.

  • auk@slrpnk.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I am sorry to tell you that I’ve redone the tuning and your user is banned now.

    I looked into it some, because it bothered me. I’m still not sure if it got it right. If you want a detailed breakdown of what its evaluations are based on, I can send you one.

      • auk@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Sure. Here are some offending comments that it picked out:

        They’re unpopular in a way that motivates a ban decision, with the last two being severely unpopular.

        I think I agree with your first two comments, so it irritates me a lot that they’re motivating a ban. That’s exactly the kind of silencing of an unpopular viewpoint that I don’t want it to do. Your last comment is different. I’ll just say that a lot of what I want to do is look at the type of discussion that particular comments cause, and in this case that last comment definitely caused a lot of yelling and not a lot of evidence-based reasoned discussion from either side.

        The reason the determination changed is that I retuned the bot such that it’s a lot easier to get banned if stuff like those comments above is all, or most, of what you post. And it does look a lot like that applies to you. Even if any one comment isn’t a deal-breaker, most of your comments are like the above, so you’re starting to look like a rabble-rouser primarily, and a political participant calmly speaking your mind only occasionally. It’s not that any one of the comments is a deal breaker, but that stuff is the majority of what you post.

        I’m not sure how to feel about it. When I looked over the whole history I did see quite a lot of controversy which usually isn’t good. But it’s hard for me to say that I agree with the bot’s determination in this case, especially because a good bit of what you say, I agree with.

        • Kaboom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Thank you! I think right now, there’s some specific misinformation going around. And I have a tendency to really want to correct misinformation.

          And I totally get the fact that my views aren’t really in line for most of lemmy, so some of what I say is going to unpopular.

          So who knows, maybe for the health of the community, I need to go. It’s definitely borderline, and I don’t envy you.

          • auk@slrpnk.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            I would suggest that what is to you “correcting misinformation” can easily be received as just being cantankerous or offensive.

            If you accept that the other person has a choice whether or not to agree with what you are saying, and show respect for both their ability to make up their own mind about it and the possibility that you might be the wrong one, I think you will be more successful at correcting the misinformation. As it is, I think you’re gathering a lot of downvotes because you’re airing deliberately combative opinions in places they aren’t welcome, and often not much more than that.

            I think a better solution would be to find a way to present your opinion in a way that still preserves the health of the community as you say, and stay, rather than to either hold on to your current way or else go. I didn’t read your entire profile, just that parts of it that the bot took issue with, but even those, I agreed with your unpopular opinion a lot of the time. But I do think the bot has a point that you’re creating your own unwelcome reception by the way that you are presenting them.