12 upvotes, 35 direct replies (showing 25)
View submission: Let's talk content. AMA.
Right. This isn't different from what we have right now, but we really need to enforce it better.
Comment by Elan-Morin-Tedronai at 16/07/2015 at 20:46 UTC
426 upvotes, 10 direct replies
Its just a really vague rule. /r/fatlogic continually critiques posts on social media made by fat activists, is that harassment? What about /r/subredditdrama? All they do is make fun of other redditors. /r/justneckbeardthings is pretty much devoted to picking on random fat people with beards. The line you drew is just incredibly vague.
Comment by JamisonP at 16/07/2015 at 20:45 UTC
219 upvotes, 6 direct replies
...I think you need to figure out what it is before you start enforcing it. People cry harassment and bullying all the time now, they've realized it gets people banned and/or fired. It's abused. How do you combat that without a more fleshed out policy.
Comment by twominitsturkish at 16/07/2015 at 20:49 UTC
36 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Yes but *how* will it be enforced is my question. As of now, the only enforcement I can see comes from the mods (who I presume will continue to enforce under more guidance from the admins). Will enforcement become uniform across subs, or will mods still have leeway to make their subs more or less stringent with rules?
Also, and this is really the most important thing between Reddit staying Reddit or Reddit turning into Tumblr, exactly **WHAT QUALIFIES AS HARASSMENT**? What is your line for what people can say or not say? Obviously a reply stating "I'll kill you, you faggot," is harassment, but what about a reply stating "OP is a faggot", in a thread about the word 'faggot' or "OP you fat fuck." in a thread about obesity? Please give us a direct answer.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 21:27 UTC*
23 upvotes, 1 direct replies
TL;WR This shows promise, my favorite sub is slandered unfairly, I hope you will see through the lies about us despite potential disagreements. Could you read our history impartially to see that we aren't a sub dedicated to harassment?
Hello sir, I applaud you for taking steps to make Reddit better for the average user. Neither the status quo nor mass deletion seems right, I have high hopes for this third option. I believe you're a good person trying to do what's right.
We at /r/kotakuinaction largely share your values, but we have a problem with people abusing your goodwill for their own ends. I'm sure you don't aim to silence our discussion , we very much have openness and honesty on our minds as we discuss anti-censorship efforts. We aim to bring the truth to light about shady behavior in our hobby.
We rightly fear that our opposition will accuse us of harassment, with no evidence or doctored evidence ([our thread on this] (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/39n0km/a_linebyline_review_of_ghazis_open_letter_to_the/[1])). Will you clarify whether you consider our sub and our movement a movement purely for harassment?
I would ask that you consider the evidence presented by our group's actions (a timeline of which should be located in our sidebar, should you decide to look into the issue). I would hope you do not uncritically echo the perception spread by our opponents. They control media outlets and have a vested interest in protecting their reputations and revenue streams, and have gone to great lengths to cover their deplorable behavior. I believe we should be judged in aggregate, by our behavior, not by the demeanor of the worst people who associate with us.
I love reddit, but I hate lying and deception. I don't want the two too mixed, if you can believe it. Even if the lie is supposedly for a good cause. Open, honest discussion is the way to go, and please understand if we have some well entrenched cynicism in the face of reddit's latest debacle. The internet is forever, and we would all do well to remember Gaben's view on it.
With clear communication I believe this whole flap could have been avoided, and you stepping up to the plate is a big move in my opinion. I have hope at least, thank you for your time.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:45 UTC*
28 upvotes, 4 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by Jinxes at 16/07/2015 at 20:43 UTC
52 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This isn't different from what we have right now
Then why add it lol?
but we really need to enforce it better
Then enforce it better without the vague addition.
Comment by boobookittyfuck69696 at 16/07/2015 at 20:44 UTC
12 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So if a new SRS pops up, are they going to get banned? How far does a circlejerk have to brigade to get wiped off the face of Reddit?
Comment by roadrunnermeepbeep3 at 16/07/2015 at 21:01 UTC
8 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It's arbitrary. If, for example, I criticize a user for their support of the Democrat Party (say, for example, if I point out that the Democrat Party is racist), they can argue that "I'm being harassed." Mods who clearly support the Democrat Party might delete the post as "harassing."
It's an open-ended recipe for arbitrary censorship of opinions that aren't favored.
/r/shitredditsays is clearly designed to harass commenters they disagree with politically. And yet, you aren't about to ban them ... because they're Democrat progressives.
Comment by OneBigBug at 16/07/2015 at 21:13 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is a problem that society has faced for centuries. I strongly doubt you're going to get feedback on the language that can make it not a giant black box of discretion for those empowered to enforce it.
You can define harassment as something that is persistent against an individual from an individual, beyond the point they've asked those harassing to stop, but that definition doesn't work for groups.
You have rules against brigading, enforce those rules. Do it technologically, implement better systems for people to block harassment based on knowledge of the accounts participating. Don't give carte blanche justification to remove everything someone doesn't like. That's what the language of "anything that harasses, bullies or abuses" implies.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:42 UTC
25 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Right. This isn't different from what we have right now, but we really need to enforce it better.
That's fucking spineless.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:45 UTC
8 upvotes, 0 direct replies
How about /r/ShitRedditSays and /r/againstmensrights both of which are both primarily used for to mock and harass other users or are they still untouchable?
Comment by Skitrel at 17/07/2015 at 01:06 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
There's really nothing wrong with the rules as they are now Spez.
The current layout is fine - A broad top-level rule for the normal people that effectively defines the general idea of the rule followed by "OK" and "NOT OK" clarifications beneath.
The problem is that there are things missing.
The rules say nothing about conduct. They say nothing about telling people to kill themselves, attacking individuals, sustained messaging, following from subreddit to subreddit and so on.
Furthermore, vote manipulation is poorly defined leading to the negative hate you get for why SRS and SRD still exist despite the general population of reddit considering them brigades. It also confuses some mods causing them to err on the side of caution even with things that they really don't actually need to remove. This also occurs with personal information and witch-hunting, the confusion behind policy resulting in over-moderation for the sake of the site's rules. I've often thought some mods get off on exerting their powers and that these kinds of removals are a negative side effect. It allows mods to remove content and say "Reddit's rules, not ours" as well as causing all kinds of issues with communities not being able to tell anybody about negative things happening within the community. Once upon a time the natural thing that happened on reddit when poor moderation occurred was that a community would rally behind a new subreddit, that can no longer occur because everything is always removed for "witchhunting". /r/ainbow, /r/trees, and so on, I'm quite sure you remember how those all started... That doesn't happen now and is a serious problem that takes power away from the userbase and encourages a lot of negative behaviours in moderators, such as the power mod groups who offer one another favours and help in manipulating the wider community for their own power, egos and gains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL;DR: Just clarify vote manipulation, brigading and be clear what the negative bs in comments/messages is that will get you banned. Then the rules will be fine. The problem is that the written rules of reddit are simply outright missing rules that the admins have been enforcing for years now.
Comment by ShaneDLJ at 16/07/2015 at 20:43 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Maybe his first line of "Clarify" should be taken before any "Enforcement" happens?
Comment by saevitiasnape at 16/07/2015 at 20:42 UTC*
10 upvotes, 4 direct replies
Do you consider SubredditDrama and subs like it to be harassing others?
Comment by CSMastermind at 16/07/2015 at 20:44 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I feel harassed by your comment, let's ban /r/announcements
Comment by shakypears at 16/07/2015 at 20:54 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Your clarification in the edit really isn't a clarification at all. Of course there's a difference between not liking a group and saying you're going to go out and kill people in that group -- where do "I wish someone would go out and kill them" or "I wish they would die" or "I wish they would all kill themselves" fall?
Comment by tsacian at 16/07/2015 at 21:31 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
How about saying that instead of acting like there will be a wave of change in policy. No one has issue with enforcing the current rules. You could have dodged this entire issue if you were consistent about enforcing current rules instead of introducing chilling effects throughout the community.
Comment by Sopps at 16/07/2015 at 20:48 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
That didn't answer the question at all.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:58 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Perhaps the reason you can't enforce it right now is precisely because it's vague. It needs to be revised. You and I both know *anything* is offensive to *someone*. If you start censoring along those lines, then I'm afraid a lot of people will jump ship.
Comment by IAmAnAnonymousCoward at 16/07/2015 at 20:49 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Anything that harasses, bullies, or abuses an individual or group of people (these behaviors intimidate others into silence)
Would you apply this rule to anything that stays confined in the subreddit?
Comment by pubshitlord at 16/07/2015 at 20:43 UTC
7 upvotes, 1 direct replies
What about SRS.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 20:45 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
But HOW are you going to enforce it better? You can list problems all you want, but until you've solutions nothing will change.
Comment by ChesterHiggenbothum at 16/07/2015 at 21:06 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
You're trying to walk on a cloud. You need to come up with hard rules before you can begin enforcing them.
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 21:10 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
we really need to enforce it better.
No, you need to decide what it is that you're enforcing better.
Comment by knullbulle at 16/07/2015 at 21:37 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
What is "abuse"? If i call someone a dick or a cunt, have i abused them? Will i be banned?