Submitted 2 days ago by avidamoeba@lemmy.ca to support@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/123c4e76-0bbe-40aa-97b4-64d85e5ec0a5.png
Hey folks, is this a new interpretation of Rule 3 in /c/selfhosted? We’ve had a lot of threads about storage, pools, filesystems, hardware related to self-hosting over the years and they’ve been plenty useful for me. I’ve also helped people with such issues when I have the expertise.
Today I asked a question related to filesystem setup for a server and that post got removed citing Rule 3. I looked at the modlog and it appears a few other posts have been removed too. Is this right?
Gatekeeping communities that get like 5 posts a day seems utterly pointless and counterproductive to me.
Torn about this one. The rules do explicitly say about selfhosting, the software specifically. So, yeah against the rules. However, I think that’s pretty pedantic when we’re talking about an average of 6 posts a day, quite a ways from spam. Storage is a natural issue when it comes to selfhosting, choosing which storage can have large ramifications on how your services run above.
It’d be nice if they at least removed it with a suggestion, like where to post it instead.
I had a look at rule 3, it is really vauge, about making it clear that you are self hosting.
When I look at the modlog screenshot you posted, the rule seems to be applied way to broadly.
They either need to make a rule denying posts about storage server, or start enforcing it fairly.
If they had a rule like that, I could accept it, as selfhosting to me implies more of running a service on the internet rather than a “simple” or “standard” storage server.
I could see the mods being annoyed at seeing the same questions being asked time and time again, especially when the community was created with a different focus in mind.
But that needs to be communicated clearly and not just randomly enforced.
TL;DR: Looks like a combo of bad rules, bad communication and too eager mods.
They either need to make a rule denying posts about storage server, or start enforcing it fairly.
If they had a rule like that, I could accept it, as selfhosting to me implies more of running a service on the internet rather than a “simple” or “standard” storage server.
That would be better but storage is a fundamental part of self-hosting, given that commonly used services need significant storage (e.g. Immich) and storage redundancy is vital to the reliability of self-hosting these srvices. And it’s not just storage either. The compute hardware also has a fairy tight connection to what’s being self-hosted. E.g. GPU, RAM, has significant bearing on the ability to self-host LLMs. Because these topics are interlinked, the knowledge exists in this community’s members’ minds. Trying to separate it means these same people have to figure out another place to gather to talk about that subsection of self-hosting. I’m not aware of such a community and historically (here since 2023) /c/selfhost has been the place for it.
anticonnor@lemmy.world 2 days ago
This exact thing has happened to me on c/selfhosted. Made a post asking for help on setting up my storage for a proxmox vm and got a couple helpful replies before the mods removed it, simply because I failed to mention what software I was planning to host in the VM. Pretty silly, and I think it hurts the community by removing those helpful responses.