https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/
created by starryeyedsky on 04/02/2016 at 20:48 UTC*
97 upvotes, 17 top-level comments (showing 17)
As we get closer and closer to the November election, this sub is likely to see more traffic. In an effort to encourage constructive debate we just wanted to explain some of the rules a little bit in more detail to help users determine whether something should be reported.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Politics is a heated subject and people don't always see eye to eye. It is the nature of politics. To keep things on topic and focused on the issues in a constructive debate we ask that people keep things civil. Attacking an argument is fine, attacking the user personally is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated, we encourage constructive debate. In order to get to the very root of an issue, it can be useful to have both sides present their arguments and rebuttals. To not detract from this and throw off the discussion we do not allow low investment posts/comments.
Low Investment Comment Examples:
Just a reminder, **the downvote button is not a disagree button and the report button is not a super downvote button.** Downvote things that don't add to the conversation, upvote things that do (or just don't vote at all if you really really disagree and write a comment instead explaining why you feel differently).
Low Investment Post examples:
Posts need to start a discussion. If it doesn't ask a question or give a prompt for discussion, it will likely be removed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We strive to be a quality discussion sub so we have a few rules governing submissions including:
The above generally just end up with commenters complaining about the OP without actual discussion on a topic.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To shed a little more light on what happens when something breaks the rules:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of all, just use common sense. We want this to be a place where everyone can discuss politics, from all parts of the political spectrum. Wouldn't be a very interesting debate if one side or another was just discussing things amoungst themselves now would it?
Comment by Daedalus1907 at 04/02/2016 at 21:16 UTC
14 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Is calling someone a cunt in the same vein as racial slurs?
Comment by [deleted] at 04/02/2016 at 23:41 UTC
11 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I made this suggestion to /u/starryeyedsky yesterday and you guys should look into how /r/baseball manages to keep fans of 30 different teams from going crazy on each other while maintaining a high level of discussion and civility.
I'll be even so bold as to say that we should be able to flair up with who we support. I think bias is inherent in political discussions and it's best to have it transparent and out in the open.
Another good idea (in my own mind and it kind of goes with the campaigning) is that we're supposed to be talking about politics and not about the personal politics of the people posting here. So I feel like saying things about Sanders supporters, because that's a legitimate political story and narrative this cycle, is legitimate because it's discussing the supporters as a whole. However, getting into someone's personal politics or referencing specific people's points/comments isn't maintaining that 30,000 foot view. You're no longer talking about BernieBros as a group but on one particular person's personal political feelings (which really don't matter in the big world of politics).
Comment by MomentOfXen at 05/02/2016 at 18:53 UTC
10 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Do not submit low investment posts/comments.
Do these apply to the top comments in any topic on Sanders threads that are just making fun of Sanders supporters? They seem to be hiding and killing the actual discussion to be had.
Comment by BagOnuts at 04/02/2016 at 22:00 UTC*
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
1- DO NOT REPLY
2- REPORT THE COMMENT/SUBMISSION
3- PROFIT!
Comment by Miskellaneousness at 04/02/2016 at 21:41 UTC
12 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Thanks mods! Things definitely get heated with the elections, but you guys still do a great job keeping things civil and high quality.
On a side note, would there be a possibility of getting a suggestions megathread thread going? I think it might be cool to have like "no campaign Fridays" or something where all campaign related stuff goes in a megathread leaving all other threads to be issues related.
That idea might be lame, but I'm sure other people have some winners!
Comment by krabbby at 05/02/2016 at 01:50 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I feel like this has been enforced pretty leniently/poorly in the past. I've talked about this with david in the past in a random conversation, but it feels to me like only the worst/most blatant stuff will get removed, and even then it will take a while. There have been specific users who consistently seemed to be here just to put the other half of the sub down and devolve every conversation into hostility, but since they *technically* weren't breaking any rules nothing seemed to happen. Since he doesn't seem to be around anymore, I'll call him out. This guy[1] was the absolute worst offender. He was consistently hostile to people who didn't agree with him and couldn't resist the chance to insult people. Now I know a lot of his stuff was removed because I started saving his comments out of curiosity and checking while he was around, but a lot stayed.
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/n2rs3/im_a_marxist_nazi_and_thats_ok/
Are you guys willing to have a conversation about enforcing the low effort rule a little more expansively?
Comment by Matt5327 at 05/02/2016 at 03:22 UTC
7 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Could you provide specific examples of the degrees for infractions (such as "What?!")?
Mostly I'm interested to know where the line is drawn. I feel like this sub has slowly gone downhill over the past year, and I'm hoping that this will start pushing things back.
For example, a comment I'll see up voted from time to time is something along the lines of "Young people support Sanders because they are naive." This comment is low effort, and though it's not directly attacking a particular user, it is definitely an attack on the character of any young Sander's supporters (some of whom I'm sure do participate in the sub). It's not exactly as harsh as other ad hominem's you are probably more concerned with, but I do still think it deteriorates the sub's quality nonetheless.
Comment by Fractoman at 22/02/2016 at 19:46 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Just wanted to say that you mods are doing a great job. The sub has improved quite a bit over the past month. There's far more engaging, intellectual debate and far less logical fallacy threads and leading questions. You guys are making this a place for actual discussion and I appreciate that.
Comment by Roll_Easy at 17/02/2016 at 04:09 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Can we make the auto-moderator posts in every thread more compact? It doesn't need to have a joke in it or big dividing lines.
Comment by AutoModerator at 04/02/2016 at 21:18 UTC
5 upvotes, 2 direct replies
A reminder for everyone[1]. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/
Violators will be fed to the bear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2: /message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion
Comment by davidreiss666 at 04/02/2016 at 21:02 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Great post /u/starryeyedsky. I have not checked mod mail in a while and figured I would see if you guys had put up the rules update/reminder post yet. And you just put it up about 12 minutes ago and I get to be the first to post.
Just want to thank my co-mods here:
They are all great users and great moderators. This place would not function without them.
Thank you.
Comment by luster at 04/02/2016 at 21:07 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
What is this? The final draft. If so, it looks fine to me.
Comment by KabIoski at 05/02/2016 at 05:40 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I'm sure this sub will only become easier to moderate as November approaches. Good luck and keep up the good work, Mods.
One question: Can we say "Jeb! can't stump the Bern?"
Comment by [deleted] at 04/02/2016 at 21:12 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Thanks for posting this!
Comment by [deleted] at 05/02/2016 at 05:43 UTC*
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by throwaweight7 at 05/02/2016 at 00:22 UTC
-5 upvotes, 3 direct replies
I don't understand why this is necessary. You just arbitrarily decide what is and what isn't appropriate? Sometimes condescension is appropriate, sometimes insults are appropriate. How can you decide what is and what isn't appropriate without being fascist? There's a mechanism for the community here to decide what is and what isn't appropriate, why can't we stick to that.
Sure outlandish, grotesque or redudant submissions should be removed, but by cloistering the community you censor an entire political philosophy. You risk turning this into the type of echo chamber /r/politics already is. In fact attempting to censor submissions and comments can only lead an uneven application based on political agendas.
This kills the community.
There is no reason to change the way this community is moderated now. If you're worried the oncoming elections will bring about a tidal wave on inappropriate content, I say let that happen and assess how to deal with it in real-time instead of proactively. A proactive approach threatens to undue what it is a mature and active community.
Comment by [deleted] at 05/02/2016 at 00:03 UTC
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
So, question for the mods regarding this whole "low investment" comments.
Do you guys approve or disapprove as to how the town hall thread went last night?