This post was approved by the administration and is posted collectively under our name
Lemmygrad becomes what you make of it. We strive to be a disciplined Marxist-Leninist space, not a second Reddit.
For some time, we have noticed a lack of discipline taking hold on Lemmygrad. This isn’t a space to get a quick quip in before dipping out, or to admonish someone for not sharing your opinions. This is a space to grow. To discuss things you can’t discuss elsewhere, ask thoughtful questions, and submit your ideas for comradely consideration, with the understanding that others will engage with them in the same spirit.
Clarifying what “be respectful” means in practice
Our sitewide rule 3 states: “Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome; this includes a warning against uncritical sectarianism.”
We need to clarify what “respect” means here, in the context of a disciplined political space. It’s not just politeness; rule 3 extends to disciplinary failures in engagement, including:
- Making undisciplined, low-effort comments, especially in tense or theory conversations.
- Entrenching oneself to prove a point rather than to discuss an idea.
- Insulting or disparaging comrades.
- Trolling or acting in bad faith.
- Refusing to budge on one’s held beliefs and lashing out as a consequence.
From now on, we will enforce this rule more heavily. This is also a moment of self-criticism: in wanting to be hands-off and promote self-moderation, we have let things slide that we shouldn’t have. To address this, we are recruiting more community mods and discussing adding new admins alongside making this post.
The core principle: struggle against ideas, not individuals
This is the foundation of comradely struggle. If you can’t make a comment without resorting to pettiness, strawmanning, or attacking the individual instead of pointing out the flaws in their ideas, we urge you to step back. Not everything needs an immediate reaction.
Conversely, you are expected to start discussions in good faith so that you receive the same treatment.
Why draw this distinction? Debates struggle against individuals, using underhanded tactics to “win” in front of an audience. Our method is to struggle against incorrect ideas, with the goal of helping each other grow and develop our place in the struggle.
A concrete historical example
During the Long March, Bo Gu was removed from command of the Red Army at the Zunyi Conference. Mao and others argued that Bo had rigidly applied USSR Red Army tactics, leading to excessive, avoidable losses against the KMT.
The decision wasn’t about the committee liking Mao more. It was a recognition that the tactics were incompatible with reality and needed to change. Crucially, was Bo Gu solely to blame? No. He had been put in command by the Politburo, which shared responsibility for believing those tactics would work. This wasn’t primarily an individual moral failing, but a collective responsibility for a flawed line that needed correction. Notably, Bo Gu continued to work alongside Mao and Zhou afterwards.
This is our model. We critique the line, the strategy and the idea – not the comrade’s worth. Leave the ego at the door. We work for the community, we don’t commandeer it.
New policy in moderation
Guided by this principle, our moderation will change.
We will now more readily delete comments that break rule 3, and we will use short, temporary bans (1-2 days) more often as a “cooling-off” period. These bans may be local to a specific community or instance-wide at our discretion.
We know nobody likes bans, but experience shows these short breaks effectively defuse tense situations. We also count on mods to use this tool within their communities. If a dispute spills outside of the original comment chain, we will consider it harassment and issue longer bans.
We also want to add a word in regards to serial downvoting. Downvotes can be used as harassment, and we urge you to consider before issuing a downvote on a post or comment. Ask yourself: is it helpful to downvote? Is it productive? What does it communicate?
These standards also apply to users from other instances. We expect you to apply them when you post on Lemmygrad.
Your responsibility and how to report effectively
We appreciate your cooperation if a temp ban is issued to your account. If it happens, the best thing you can do is reflect on it privately (or with comrades if you feel so inclined) and then move on from it. Making a post to complain about a ban after it’s passed has shown through experience that it’s rarely productive - this is not us telling you not to appeal to be clear, just that the best thing you can do is to simply carry on after a ban. So thank you for cooperating with the admin team and the community on this.
Moderation is a partnership. When you report something, we see only the specific content, your username, and your reason in the report. Understanding the full context requires significant labor. Therefore, your role is critical:
- Your first tool should be disengagement. Step away from unproductive conversations. You do not need to have the last word.
- When reporting, provide context. Explain why in the reason box. What happened, and why exactly are you making a report? Reports used as a “super-downvote” or for revenge don’t help.
- Understand that we see this from an outside perspective. We can’t know how you feel in the moment of a heated conversation, and through experience we find that usually both parties have some blame by the time we get the report. This is why we ask you to step away and report instead of participating in a conversation that is spiraling out of control.
tl;dr: commenting and posting on Lemmygrad ought to be thoughtful, principled, good faith and Marxist in nature. Diamat means that both parties should abide by these principles with the other to make a new dialectic emerge.
Please feel free to ask questions in the comments.
I’m not 100% sure what brought about this policy change because this website seems the same to me as it’s always been. I’m probably missing something, idk, I’m not a mod. But I’m worried about punitive moderation because that has been pretty disastrous for hexbear.
People will absolutely remember when you ban them, even years in the future, even if it was temporary, even if it was ostensibly educational. A ban will shut someone up in the moment, of course it will, but I’m not so confident that it’s an effective tool for guiding our own community members (ban the random libs that wander in here all you want though). I’d say that it breeds resentment more than it prompts reflection and if it becomes common, we’ll definitely be seeing arguments about petty banning, mod bias, censorship, etc. I just don’t understand why this is happening when most posts get single-digit comments, if any.
Agree with this sentiment 100% and also came here from Hexbear after the moderation team there starting behaving in ways that killed the community.
This is mostly a clarification on how rule 3 should work, with most of the responsibility being on us as we are the ones who are supposed to enforce it (as well as community mods but because lemmygrad is still small enough, most actions will have to be taken sitewide.) Instead we’ve been slack with it, letting things slide on the basis that it “wasn’t our responsibility”. But then whose responsibility was it? Keep in mind that while this isn’t something that happens too often, it’s something we’ve been letting slide for several months - over time, it builds up. In fact, it’s very likely most people won’t even notice anything different; we count on our comrades to be more mindful when they post with this explainer on what rule 3 means in practice.
In our opinion what builds resentment is letting arguments spiral out of control instead of both parties engaging on the right basis. If we can stop them before they spiral out, they will become more productive and resolve better. This is also something the community can participate in, users can step in and urge both parties to keep cool heads. In particular those fanning the flames as we say might also get a community-wide ban or their comment deleted, on the grounds that they make unhelpful comments that don’t help resolve the dialectic but instead only put up a higher wall. This can be considered a form of wrecking, even if it’s done unintentionally.
In our experience short 1-2 day bans, either community-wide or sitewide as needed, work very well to diffuse these situations. After one day emotions have calmed down and after that people are allowed to argue again in the comment chain if they want, provided it stays comradely this time. This is why we also urge comrades to remember they can step back and reply later if they don’t feel like they would be able to make a ‘worthwhile’ comment in the moment.
Keep up the good work comrades, thank you all for what you do.
I think this is a good policy change. I think starting a higher respect for people who have incorrect ideas will help educate, and hopefully, this also encourages asking questions when one doesn’t understand something. I see myself needing to err more on asking questions when not having a good analysis, so I appreciate this being made.
deleted by creator
To a large extent this will continue to operate as it implicitly has been, though we also get much fewer out of instance commenters since most liberal instances have defederated or closed down (for those that were still federating). Approach people in good faith if they show good faith, and if they start trolling or don’t behave in the way we expect in this post (which applies to anyone on lemmygrad), they will get banned. We won’t do ‘zero tolerance’ i.e. ban a troll comment made to a troll comment, and some out of instance liberals come in specifically to troll so they are more ‘fair game’ in that in this case they are reaping what they sow.
We may however moderate Lemmygrad comments that instantly get combative with out of instance liberals if the comments are made on the basis that they’re liberals and thus not worth engaging with, even if the liberal is asking in good faith. Likewise if liberals come in and start spouting anticommunist propaganda (which is rule 1), we’ll ban them permanently and sitewide.
As Grain Eater said we also make comments for others to read, so an explanation to a low-effort troll is not completely lost. The troll gets banned while other comrades can read the comment response and learn from it.
But one of the best things to do with malicious out-of-instance wanderers is to report them and not even give them the time of day because they’ll keep going at it until they’re bored. We can ban them and instantly cut their time here short.
deleted by creator
Truthfully for out of instance trolls (which we get fewer and fewer of) it will likely not change much. It can also be productive when they come out trolling right away to bear some fangs as dissuasion. Though in our experience the wall of text is usually the coup de grace over the trolling back.
So I do have a question or two, primarily about the issue that can occur on forums where one person provokes another (but does it subtly enough so as not to appear like the instigator at a glance) and then when the provoked one goes off, they get actioned against for personal attacks.
Basically my question is, what is your position on that kind of behavior and is it something you keep in mind as a possibility when looking at situations?
In my time here, it hasn’t really been something that has seemed like an issue. But given you appear to be saying you’re moderating conflicts more strictly now, I want to ask. It is an issue I’ve seen on a lot of other forums over the years. And the general problem of it on those other forums is that you end up with people who continuously get away with poor behavior, while other posters who they provoked build up a record of having been actioned against, which only entrenches the perception of the provoked as the cause of the problem, rather than the other way around.
Another aspect of this, which is not exactly the same thing but can be related, is I find it can end up feeling infantilizing, if in the face of conflict, the only thing you’re allowed to do is either ignore provocation or report it to a mod and trust they’ll do something about it. I admit I carry some baggage in that way because my experience with it has not been great on a lot of online places, nor in life in general, for that matter. But it does concern me not only from a personal standpoint, but also from the standpoint of what people are learning and how they are learning to respond to conflict. Forum mods are not generally mediators and I wouldn’t expect them to be, considering they are volunteering their time, have limited of it, and so on. But without mediating and without any attempt to hash things out even if it’s not always the cleanest back and forth, conflicts can stay unresolved and resentment can build. You could argue letting stuff go on too dirty can have the same effect or worse, so it does require some amount of maturity of behavior. But still, my concern remains.
I don’t know what the answer is there. I’m just not sure about the capability of temp bans and the like to meaningfully address these things. I get the value of a “cooling off period” but some things go beyond heat of the moment.
Another thought that strikes me is, in cases of instance-wide temp bans, if there is any way you could set it up to do this while excluding a particular “community”, I would recommend having https://lemmygrad.ml/c/mutual_aid as a default exclusion, since there are people here who need it to ask for help and it could be a problem for them if they are banned due to a conflict and can’t post there.
Very valid questions and while I hope my co-admins will chime in (I promise it was submitted for review and the half that is active on the matrix approved of it lol) I can offer a first response.
In the first phase we hope that this post will do enough as a reminder to cut down on this behavior that we’ve noticed and we won’t have to step in too much. We trust in the community to self-moderate but there have been excesses that we have let slide that we shouldn’t have.
In general we want this to be a principled ML space where people put effort in, so unhelpful or low-effort comments will likely be moderated more heavily in the described situations. Don’t forget the dialectic: to be antagonistic means to have broken rule 3 first, which is why dialectically both parties ought to remain disciplined in exactly what they are attacking and disagreeing with, and therefore put some effort and thought in what they decide to post. This, if successful, should work out by itself. We won’t do ‘zero tolerance’ e.g. someone replying to an insult with an insult would receive the same reprimand.
And the general problem of it on those other forums is that you end up with people who continuously get away with poor behavior, while other posters who they provoked build up a record of having been actioned against, which only entrenches the perception of the provoked as the cause of the problem, rather than the other way around.
I can’t give specifics on this but we are aware of what goes on on the website so if this sort of situation happens I feel confident saying that we’ll figure them out.
Another thought that strikes me is, in cases of instance-wide temp bans, if there is any way you could set it up to do this while excluding a particular “community”, I would recommend having https://lemmygrad.ml/c/mutual_aid as a default exclusion, since there are people here who need it to ask for help and it could be a problem for them if they are banned due to a conflict and can’t post there.
This is a good idea and I wish Lemmy had more moderation tools, we could really use them. On our end unfortunately we depend on what is merged in the Lemmy codebase and don’t want to fork away from it. So more programmers will have to join the project on github and help build out these tools. We only have the tools we have and can only make the best we can with them, but I would definitely appreciate more moderation tools especially as Lemmy is growing. If bans are given out,
Thanks for the reassurances.
I can’t give specifics on this but we are aware of what goes on on the website so if this sort of situation happens I feel confident saying that we’ll figure them out.
That’s fair. I do trust that you keep an eye out in general. I think for me, it’s mostly past experiences causing me to want to pre-emptively bring it up.
The limitations of the tools you have on hand is real. And uh, I’m not sure quite how to put this, but I have to remember that the character of a tool in the hands of principled MLs is not necessarily the same as the character of a tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie, i.e. to use this temp ban thing as an example, a temp ban in other contexts might be intended as a punishment, but you seem to be (can correct me if this misrepresents the intention in any way) wanting to use it as a means of helping with regulating emotional collisions. So in other contexts, a person might be inclined to view it as saying “you did bad” or even “you’re bad” when in this context, there are times it may be intended as simply “hey, cool it, come back when you’re feeling calmer.”
Which is one of those things where existing connotation can get in the way of intention. But it should help that you’re being very clear about the intention going forward. I don’t know if that makes sense, but I think what I’m trying to get at it is the distinction of policing in an ML context vs. otherwise and how important it is for people who are used to policing in a non-ML context to remember that there is a difference.
I like the example you (whoever all put it together) gave BTW, with Bo Gu.
In particular:
He had been put in command by the Politburo, which shared responsibility for believing those tactics would work.
This is something I think about now and then, but I don’t always know how to put it into words. The shared responsibility of things, which normally gets neglected under the individualist framework.
There are many many specifics, and I understand (being a user too) that there are questions about what is allowed to say or not and if they’ll suddenly get a ban out of nowhere for making a comment they thought was good, but the admins disagreed (and have the power to enforce that disagrement).
I think most of us [even admins] are trained to see administration on websites or in life as adversarial, only there to put up barriers and admonish us. But this is not how a party should work - lemmygrad is not a party, but we should treat it more like one. It’s not admins vs users, it’s working for the health of Lemmygrad together. You’re right that in some instances it’s good to hash things out, but we also want to prevent having to hash it out. Dialectically these situations spill for a reason, and if we can target the root cause we will overall improve site health.
In the totality, the idea is to redress Lemmygrad culture and show what we are capable of. This requires the userbase as a whole (including the admins, including newcomers who just made an account, including out-of-instance users, etc) to play along and be more mindful of when they might get into - because there have definitely been instances of harassment that, even if the offending user did not feel was harassment, we should have stepped in. So part of the clarification in this post is also to explain how much rule 3 extends and to keep it in mind when posting, because the rule itself can be nebulous to interpret.
This is totally something users can participate in too, this is part of the cooperation angle I mentioned. As part of our ‘life training’ in liberal society we come to believe some things are our responsibility and others are not. all of Lemmygrad is our shared responsibility, and users are completely allowed to step into heated conversations and urge calm or help resolve the issue. Likewise users who step in only to fan the flames and make things worse could legitimately be considered to be wrecking (poisoning the situation instead of helping solve it), even if they don’t realize it. This is why there’s a huge personal aspect to it - how we carry ourselves in a party is not how we carry ourselves in liberal society.
I like that, will try to keep this in mind for myself and for the culture as a whole. Thanks for taking the time to go through it.
Basically my question is, what is your position on that kind of behavior and is it something you keep in mind as a possibility when looking at situations?
We will still look at the conversation’s context, and we’re still small enough that we’ll likely notice if a user is frequently involved in conflicts.
in the face of conflict, the only thing you’re allowed to do is either ignore provocation or report it to a mod and trust they’ll do something about it
You can still point out what you view as a provocation and reply in a manner that doesn’t break the “be respectful” rule. Criticizing a user’s analysis is still fine, we just want to avoid personal attacks and other unhelpful reactions.
This is what we should be doing with liberals from other instances too, not just commenting “you’re an idiot” and leaving; even if the person in question ignores it, others who read the conversation are more likely to learn something if we’re providing useful analysis in our replies.
if there is any way you could set it up to do this while excluding a particular “community”
I don’t think so. We’re usually going to default to community-local bans, “upgrading” it if the issue expands beyond a single thread. In the worst-case scenario, a temporarily banned user can create an account on another instance and use that if it concerns /c/mutual_aid exclusively (posting in other communities with an alt account will still be considered ban evasion).
Thanks to you also for the info and reassurances. I can see your point, it probably does help that it’s a smaller place overall.
You can still point out what you view as a provocation and reply in a manner that doesn’t break the “be respectful” rule. Criticizing a user’s analysis is still fine, we just want to avoid personal attacks and other unhelpful reactions.
So if I understand right (roughly speaking, not going to try to hold you to this being exactly valid/accurate in every circumstance):
Person says: “You’re stupid.”
If you reply: “Don’t talk to me that way. That’s disrespectful.” <- This is fine, is pointing out provocation without attacking in return.
If you reply: “No, you’re stupid.” <- This is breaking the rule in return and both will likely be actioned against.
This is what we should be doing with liberals from other instances too, not just commenting “you’re an idiot” and leaving; even if the person in question ignores it, others who read the conversation are more likely to learn something if we’re providing useful analysis in our replies.
Agreed. I generally try to approach it with a mindset that it’s possible to get through and like you say, if nothing else, have something to show for it that others can learn from (including myself, who sometimes gets more clarity from working through the stuff and writing it out).
I don’t think so. We’re usually going to default to community-local bans, “upgrading” it if the issue expands beyond a single thread. In the worst-case scenario, a temporarily banned user can create an account on another instance and use that if it concerns /c/mutual_aid exclusively (posting in other communities with an alt account will still be considered ban evasion).
Gotcha. Figured it’d be a long-shot with common tech design, but that’s good to know they’d have a means to do it through an alt if there was a crisis.
If you reply: “Don’t talk to me that way. That’s disrespectful.” <- This is fine, is pointing out provocation without attacking in return.
More or less, yeah. I don’t think we’d typically take action against the second case either, unless it escalates further from both parties, but it’s best avoided since “no, you’re stupid” isn’t meaningful criticism.
Thanks for clarifying, makes sense.
You said downvoting is harrassment so is it bannable?
Downvoting can be abused and become a form of harassment, but it’s not immediately harassment to downvote someone.
However investigating downvote patterns is difficult and can easily yield false positives if not done carefully. So at this time we are only reminding the community to be mindful of their own downvotes and self-moderate. We may want to contact a user if we notice a certain pattern and ask about it, but we haven’t planned on issuing out bans based on downvotes alone.
I think it’s reasonable to ban if someone goes around blindly downvoting every single post or comment in a thread, or if someone goes about stalking a specific user and downvoting every post they make.
idk if i agree about the single-thread stuff. for going through a single person’s history and downvoting all their posts, i think it’s reasonable in certain circumstances, but i don’t think votes should be something you have to think about deeply. they’re already not meant to convey a lot anyway
also because you shouldn’t have to think too much about it, i almost wonder if the mods should be making a point of looking at votes at all. maybe in exceptional circumstances like targeted harassment, but idk. it’s not like it disrupts the conversation or takes away points from your account
I meant more about mass downvoting everything threads and comments included rather then just doing it only one time in one thread but yeah.
even then idk. it’s not terribly disruptive so like what’s the point
Not gonna lie I kinda like being down vote stalked. Its a little reminder I said something that really got under someone’s skin but they can’t dispute it. So I was probably right and they are being petty.
