this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
-14 points (29.4% liked)

Quark's

1097 readers
1 users here now

Come to Quark’s, Quark’s is Fun!

General off-topic chat for the crew of startrek.website. Trek-adjacent discussions, other sci-fi television, navigating the Fediverse, server meta (within reason), selling expired cases of Yamok sauce, it’s all fair game.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

EDIT 3: **Due to some bugs we're delaying this feature until Lemmy 0.19.6 is released! **

The goal of c/Quarks has always been to help foster a sense of community for StarTrek.website, but it is just a generic "offtopic" community and does not really have an identity of it's own on the Fediverse.

Thanks to the new feature in Lemmy 19.4, we can create true "local only" communities. And Quark's can be what it was originally intended to be, a place for our users. This will allow us to better discuss what kind of experience users of this instance wish to have (not just provide) without all the dorks on less cool instances coming here and ruining our weather control network.

Smiling

EDIT: to those of you concerned about missing out on "trek-adjacent discussion" @ValueSubtracted@startrek.website has indicated they plan on loosening the "on topic" rule of /c/StarTrek to include more of that.

EDIT2: If anyone is interested in growing and operating a community on our instance, please feel free to reach out or comment here!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] millie@startrek.website 7 points 4 months ago (12 children)

Goofy decision. I have an account here, but I rarely use it because of the ratio of spam to genuine posts on the instance.

You could always just defederate from those toxic instances? It seems like this isn't a popular decision with the community. Might be worth rethinking it.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

If you don't like the content hosted on this instance, why do you have an opinion on this at all?

[–] Admin@startrek.website 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

~~I think she's saying she's upset we don't remove enough content from other communities (federated with us but not originating) on this instance. Which is correct, the admins here generally leave content on other communities alone if they are actively moderated.~~

Ok nevermind she's apparently saying /c/StarTrek and /c/Risa are "spam"?

[–] millie@startrek.website 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I was actually specifically referring to Value Subtracted constantly spamming empty threads and ST:O ads.

[–] Admin@startrek.website 0 points 4 months ago

Per instance guidelines, submitting on-topic content to relevant communities is not considered spam. But if you want to stay subscribed to /c/STO and block ValueSubtracted's "spam" StarTrek.website has a block feature you can find on their userpage.

[–] millie@startrek.website 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I do like the non-spam content on this instance, such as Quark's and Daystrom. I'm subscribed to it through other accounts, but occasionally I poke my head in on the actual account I have here.

Personally, with most of the instances I actually use, I find it easier to just look at the Local feed. On this instance, however, a significant portion of what gets posted is just repetitive spam, so it's hard to really do that. It's much easier to subscribe to individual interesting communities, such as Daystrom and Quark's, through other instances that I'm more likely to actively use.

I suppose if you don't care what kind of experience anyone has on your instance, that's your business.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] millie@startrek.website 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm referring to your constant advertisement posts.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website -2 points 4 months ago

Gee whiz, it really sounds like this instance isn't for you, and also like you don't know what an advertisement is.

Best of luck in...all that, I guess.

load more comments (9 replies)