-4
What would you do in this situation?
(lemm.ee)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
-4 points (25.0% liked)
Casual Conversation
3048 readers
137 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I wish I had this kind of thing figured out. There is a "side" of me where I go by my instincts, and people criticize me for it, saying it is inconsiderate to how perspective works (because they say they aren't seeing any acknowledgement, and this is related to a lot of the dark triad accusations I get). Sometimes (especially in the context of what people might call my anhedonia) I might shut all that down and out inside me (constituting another "side") and do things completely based in cold hard analysis, such as with the code of honor system I showed you that one time, and people say it comes off as too robotic and "recklessly inhuman". And sometimes, like here, one might find a third "side", one where I can be found asking people for their input and not reflecting on my own, which has to do with what you have seen here, and people accuse me of being a weak enough decision-maker to potentially go back to those dark triad accusations. People even pejoratively/derogatively call these "[Leni's] tripartite autism" (as well as claiming it reflects duplicity like anything is of a concealing nature). And then there's a fourth "side" which has me trying to be an "opportunist" about things, especially as an alternative to being objecting to so much that I experience, and people flip, calling it "manipulative" to make lemonade when life gives you lemons. If you have a secret to your success with people, I'd love to know it.