26 upvotes, 5 direct replies (showing 5)
I'm not sure if you're just asking *me* to define it, or if you mean if we're planning on formally defining it somewhere in the site rules or something. I'm going to assume the former, since I don't think the latter makes very much sense to ask me specifically (that would probably be more for the community managers).
But the way I think of "brigading" is generally as anything that causes a significant number of users to go into a subreddit or thread where they wouldn't have naturally ended up participating, and then vote or comment. That is, it results in the "natural progress" of the thread/subreddit being disrupted due to something external bringing in more people. Note that this isn't inherently a bad thing, the disruption caused by a brigade can be a positive one or a negative one (and can even cause both at the same time).
Comment by phrakture at 08/07/2015 at 03:15 UTC
30 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I'm not sure if you're just asking *me* to define it, or if you mean if we're planning on formally defining it somewhere in the site rules or something. I'm going to assume the former, since I don't think the latter makes very much sense to ask me specifically (that would probably be more for the community managers).
I mean the plural "you", as in "you and the other admins". I find the threat of shadow banning for "brigading" when people link me to various threads over IM to be over the top.
But the way I think of "brigading" is generally as anything that causes a significant number of users to go into a subreddit or thread where they wouldn't have naturally ended up participating, and then vote or comment.
Doesn't the "related discussions" tab do precisely the same thing? Doesn't reddit do this to every site it links to? Isn't the *fundamental state* of reddit one of brigading **all** linked content? I would never in my life browse a website dedicated to the local paper for Jobroney, OK but through the magic of reddit I can easily browse these things.
Comment by [deleted] at 08/07/2015 at 17:16 UTC
13 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by SPONSORED_SHILL at 08/07/2015 at 04:52 UTC
15 upvotes, 1 direct replies
But the way I think of "brigading" is generally as anything that causes a significant number of users to go into a subreddit or thread where they wouldn't have naturally ended up participating, and then vote or comment. That is, it results in the "natural progress" of the thread/subreddit being disrupted due to something external bringing in more people.
This definition is honestly pretty close to useless. What in the world is "natural" participation? What is a "natural progress" of a thread or subreddit? On a website that's ENTIRELY about linking shit for other people to go and check out, what makes some linking and participating natural and other link and participating unnatural?
Comment by TotesMessenger at 10/07/2015 at 11:55 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
3: /message/compose/?to=/r/TotesMessenger
Comment by hughk at 10/07/2015 at 12:44 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
A post normally decays over time, i.e., loses "hotness" but not karma. If it is a post that should be discussed more widely, isn't it just fine to link it for others. Reposting happens, but isn't it ultimately better for comments to be in one place rather than split up?
OTOH, we have the kind of brigading that happened between Russia and Ukraine over the conflict. One side would see a post, typically in /r/UkrainianConflict and invite their side to pile in. This could typically result in a massive up or downvote.Definitely not good as everyone is voting in one direction.