I think this sub has come a long way in the past year or so, but there is always room for growth. So, we are calling on you, the subreddit community, to share your criticisms with us.
What do you think of the state of this subreddit? Are the mods doing a good job? Are there any features you'd like to see added or taken away? What do you envision this sub being like?
Feel free to be honest but respectful.
Posted May 22, 2014, 4:15 PM UTC
I would like it personally if the moderators had a greater presence on here.
Unfortunately it appears as if moderator duties take up so much time that it may not leave much time for them to actually spend time debating and contributing posts.
If moderators were more vocal and people got to know them better, I think it would be less complaining from both sides because it would help humanize the moderators more. Versus them being a anonymous username that people see but never hear from until a rule is broken.
I don't believe I have ever seen u/holyphuck debate anyone.
u/ssurebrec is the most active mod by a wide margin.
It would be great to have more from the mods, to show that they are part of the community and not just the rule enforcers.
Otherwise, I have no complaints.
The moderation has been fair and answered all of my questions, even if I disagree with them, they seem impartial and they care enough to respond to requests.
Good job overall, I just wish they were more involved as contributors overall.
Really? Who would downvote this. This was well written! Good suggestion!
probably missing 7 ...hahahaha
I probably did it out of habit.
;)
That's all well and good, but if a mod is actually debating can we have other mods actually moderating it? I tried having a discussion with someone on here that I didn't realise was a mod and, when answering a question that I was asked, suddenly my answer deleted with the comment "Deleted, ad hominems" and no recourse or appeal available. It makes debate a little one sided when the person that you're debating has the ability to make your arguments simply dissappear.
If a post gets moderated and they tell you why, change the post and ask to have it reinstated. Better yet, change the post and message the mods. Just let us know you changed it and you're all good.
Just a heads up - this typically doesn't happen. There's only been one instance where I thought one post of a debate I had with someone should be deleted (personal attack). I didn't delete it but I asked the other mods to intervene. I think that's fair.
Unless it's something obvious like "FU SsurebreC" then I'll delete it.
I can message you my post if you like, but all I got in the way of explanation was "ad hominem" which it wasn't.
Please don't but you can message the mods. I don't want to be someone's personal mod.
Agreed. I had a drama-filled run-in with u/missing_7 and u/holyphuck, which was handled in about the least professional way I can imagine. Frankly, I'm annoyed that none of the other mods took notice or stepped in. I have precisely zero respect for either of those two as a result, though my only disappointments with other mods are due to their silence as that drama unfolded (and I do not think the failures of u/missing_7 and u/holyphuck are representative).
Apart from that, I have no issues with the mods, but it seems clear that unilateral moderation where there is not a clear violation and when the judge, jury, and executioner is also the plaintiff is inappropriate (or at least gives rise to accusations of impropriety).
I disagree that it is a problem, obviously. It isn't a problem because, as you know, you can appeal the decision and any mod can overturn the other. None of the other mods stepped in because none of the other mods agreed with you. So, if I hadn't removed your comment, one of the other mods would have. Your comment wasn't removed due to partiality on my part. It was removed because you violated the rules, as confirmed by moderator consensus.
We moderators are afforded a large amount of autonomy for the very fact that we have such a very easy appeal process. When you click "message the moderators", you are initiating an exchange that every single moderator can see. We can all see what is said, and we can all see the comments in question and their context. And we can all overturn the actions of the other. If a moderator action stands even after appeal, then there is no partiality, unless you want to accuse all of us.
Case in point: u/missing_7 seems to also be missing the good judgment to leave this the hell alone, and to instead let (or encourage?) a mod who was not involved in the affair in question handle it instead.
It isn't a problem because, as you know, you can appeal the decision and any mod can overturn the other.
Has a decision ever been overturned?
Have you guys considered a "watch-mod" group like they have in r/debatereligion? Not saying it's a good idea or not, just wondering what the thought on that would be. It seems to work over there but the mods on that sub are not nearly as engaged as you guys are.
Personally I've never had any issue with the mods here and for the vast majority of the times I see any of you step in it seems to be pretty clear why you're stepping in. I know others have had run ins with the mods that they found less than satisfying but I would think that is going to be an issue no matter how impartial the mods actually are.
none of the other mods took notice or stepped in
Two things on this:
other mods have other things to do, like moderate the rest of the sub. I personally try to debate too not just moderate. I'm here to learn!
no mod can actually do anything without the other mods unable to see it. You can always click to "message the mods", it'll go to all of us, nobody can delete it (it's not like an email) and we'll see which posts were deleted to see if we also disagree. This has come up in the past and reasons were given why a mod deleted the post and other mods chimed in with their opinions.
I understand that messages to mods go into a queue from which all mods can view them, but apart from u/holyphuck's response to my complaint -- by telling me he hadn't read the thing -- none of the other mods bothered to respond.
I don't know if you were or were not a mod at the time, and I don't presume to know your schedules. I prefer to think that you (collectively) don't always see everything, and if you can tell that one mod had handled something, you probably assume it's been satisfactorily handled.
This one wasn't. u/missing_7 took offense to a pun on his username, which pun clearly suggested that something was missing from his argument or his stated position, and then donned the mod hat to respond. That's impropriety already, on my view. When I complained, u/holyphuck responded to my message to the moderators by saying he didn't even fucking bother to read the message. That's inexcusable.
So I get that you guys are busy, and I completely appreciate it. This is indeed part and parcel to why mods should not act unilaterally in cases in which they are also involved, and sure as hell whenever a moderator deigns respond to a complaint, he should fucking well read it first.
That said (especially considering the gravity of especially u/holyphuck's failure), I do not accept silence as tacit approval. Doing so would seem to be suggesting that the entire moderation team thinks it acceptable to respond to complaints about moderation by telling the complainant that the complaint was not read.
I would say that u/missing_7's action was inappropriate; unilateral moderation in cases in which the moderator is directly involved is clearly unnecessary given a team of moderators.
I would further say that it is at the very least extremely disconcerting when a complaint about moderation receives a response from a moderator explicitly stating that the complaint was not even read.
Yeah, I don't particularly trust the judgment of either of those two moderators.
I will reiterate the fact that I have no reason to think the rest of the mod team is a problem here, but yes, it is disappointing to say the least that none of you took notice of that incident, or that none of you chose to respond. I don't know why there were no responses, but I daresay that a rule forbidding a moderator to act unilaterally in personally-involved cases would easily have prevented the whole thing.
Again, I have no problem with the other moderators in this sub -- and I was unaware until the exchange in question just who those moderators were (which is mostly irrelevant, but it does suggest that I had no reason to question the mod team). In fact, I rather enjoy your own contributions very much. I nonetheless seriously question the judgment of any moderator who would have the gall to respond to a complaint about moderation by saying he didn't bother to read the complaint, and I likewise question the judgment of a moderator who actually thinks it is a good idea to unilaterally moderate cases in which he is personally involved, given a team of available moderators.
I would love to hear an otherwise uninvolved mod's views of my affair, via PM if desired, because from where I sit its handling was atrocious.
never considered this...uh oh
You can appeal moderator actions to the moderator involved or by clicking "message the moderators" on the right.
There doesn't seem to be much point in appealing to the person who deleted my comment as they are unlikely to decide that they were wrong, but my point was more that it skews the relationship in a conversation when one party can silence the other without repercussion.
You should give us more credit. I've been convinced to undo a few of my own moderator actions. And, again, you can always appeal to the moderators as a collective rather than just the one. Because of that, there are repercussions. We can't run around doing as we like. We have a check and balance system. But I understand your concern for bias if the acting moderator is also a participant in the discussion. I've just never seen that to actually be the case.
I understand what you are saying...but I mod another site, and let me tell you...at least for me, it is very difficult to both mod, and get in a debate without looking biased. Hell, there were times I would just do my job silently because I didn't want anyone to know I was there. Then the PMs start flying in..."this person called me a dookey head, you didn't delete his post because you like him more than me, I thought you agreed with me, you're supposed to be on my side, you deleted my post because I'm conservative, blah blah boo hoo". All things considered, I think the mods here do a really good job. A lot of people just don't realize what a thankless, time consuming, pain in the ass, UNPAID job it is. Sometimes, letting yourself get fully involved in a debate only makes it harder to do your mod job. No one can turn into a robot, and be completely emotionless so as not to appear to give off a bias towards any certain group all of the time. Then you have to deal with direct debate...someone says something inappropriate directly to you. You either leave it, letting them break the rules, but not give off a mod abusing their power thing, or you delete it, and it appears you are abusing your power and the board turns on you (especially people who didn't even see what and why something was deleted).
I know that is a bit of a rant...but I happen to know from experience what a pain in the ass the balance is. You almost have to remove yourself from being a high profile debater in order to do your pain the ass volunteer job effectively.
i've never been a moderator so I don't pretend to know.
Here is what I do know, many people don't meet most of the mods until they violate a rule.
outside of one mod who is a very active participant, most of the mods only showup whenever you step out of line. Sometimes, not even then, they just delete your comment without telling you.
You make a comment, they don't think it's constructive, BOOM.
gone with the wind.
it makes then seem like censors and holier than thou people who don't need to debate themselves, but are merely here to dole out justice.
forget worrying about biases, we already know their biases. their biases are apparent. they target atheists. christian get protected. this is already established. if you don't like it, go somewhere else. that isn't going away.
my point is that if they debated more and submitted themselves to the rules as well, then it's harder to criticize them as censors.
If xyz mod calls someone a troll, that's a violation of the rules (as I have been informed). It shows that they are more than just biased, they are hypocritical. They delete comments of others but they themselves are above the rules.
BUT...if the mods can come on here and debate under the guidelines of the subreddit...then they have showcased that not only are they part of the community but also that the rules here are reasomable because they are capable of debating under them themselves.
To sit back, watch debates, and play judge, jury and executioner on what can be said without ever stepping into the fray yourself is far more frustrating for a user to watch a mod do than just be 'biased'.
I think that the reason why the mods do so rarely debate is because they can't bothered to be engaged, they have too much to do. Fine. But when you come and delete my comment and I get upset...I don't know what it is they expect to have happen.
I just got done talking with another mod and I pointed out that I have never seen a mod admit he was wrong and undo a mod action. Apparently it happens all the time, but since I don't know it or ever see it, appearance are that the mods rule with an iron fist and they never think they are wrong.
The built up false perceptions case more problems than anything, and that's because they serve to alienate not trolls but actual contributors who occassionally step over the line and then become upset when they feel targeted or censored.
You cannot feel targeted whenever you know the mod and he is a good dude and you just had a debate with him that was fair and balanced.
I have a couple of comments:
I think this subreddit reflects a circle-jerk sometimes when top-level posts don't answer the OP's question (from a Biblical point-of-view) but instead state something like "OP, you're totally right, this shows why the Bible is false."
This subreddit is "DebateAChristian" not "DebateAnAtheist" or "DebateCircleJerk," and these circle-jerky answers diminish the quality of this subreddit, in my opinion.
I personally am in favor of a rule which states that top-level posts should reflect a Biblical point-of-view that actually answers OP's question.
We do remove the worst of the circlejerk top-level posts. Usually the ones that are more mocking than anything. I take it you are in favor of us moderating such comments more heavily? Do you think atheists should be allowed to post top-level responses that offer biblical support?
Do you think atheists should be allowed to post top-level responses that offer biblical support?
If an Atheist answers the question from a Biblical point-of-view, then that is fine. Usually, however, their responses aren't supported by scripture or they mis-interpret scripture. It would probably be better to have Christians actually answering questions since Christians tend to know the Bible better than Atheists who probably have not read the entire Bible.
I would be in favor of removing any top-level response that doesn't actually answer the question from a Biblical point-of-view. These types of responses are circle-jerky, and they aren't helpful at all.
If an Atheist answers the question from a Biblical point-of-view, then that is fine. Usually, however, their responses aren't supported by scripture or they mis-interpret scripture.
The problem you have here is that Christians don't all agree on the same interpretation of scripture themselves.
When Jesus said "love thy enemy" what did he mean?
If an atheist takes the literal meaning, then you may complain that they misinterpreted it and according to the rules you are pushing for would have his comment removed.
If an atheist takes a non literal meaning, then you may complain that they misinterpreted it and according to the rules you are pushing for would have his comment removed.
It's a lose lose situation.
This sub is "DebateAChristian," not "DebateAnAthiest." I personally think top-level posts should come from actual Christians.
As an aside, I do agree that not all Christians interpret the Bible identically.
It would probably be better to have Christians actually answering questions since Christians tend to know the Bible better than Atheists who probably have not read the entire Bible.
God damn. The prejudice against atheists is thick in here. Do you have any stats to back up your claim?
This based on my personal experience with many atheists that I know. Most of them have not read the Bible.
As I said, I don't care if atheists answer the question. I just wish that top-level posts would reflect a Biblical point-of-view.
Whether or not you are Christian or atheist has no bearing on biblical knowledge. There are plenty of atheists (like) myself who have read the bible many times and were even forced to memorize a lot of it. There are also plenty of Christians who have never actually read the bible and only know what they have been told in their church.
On top of that, no one agrees on how to interpret the Bible, what parts to take literally and what parts to consider allegorical.
Simply claiming to be Christian does not make you an expert on the Bible.
I think there's a difference between contributing by piggy backing off of the OP and making further points that are salient to the issue and making low quality circle-jerky posts.
I'm an atheist so I may be biased, but I am okay with atheist comments that further the topic as long as they aren't inflammatory or insulting.
I wonder if Christians can tell the difference.
Inherently, Christians are going to feel as if any agreement between atheists is them teaming up together.
The reality is that atheists really aren't a team, they just all share the same disbelief and tend to agree on somethings not because they carry a common ideology but because there are some objective facts about religion and faith that are apparent to all atheists.
If you have a specific thread in mind, I think I know which one it is, and I'm inclined to agree with you. We'll have to deliberate on where to drawn the line though.
I found one comment, which is a good example:
Yes (kind of). They do promote the Bible along with their own book. I would not say they are EXACT Christians though. Just more of a branch-off, I would say, which isn't bad. I have a few Mormon friends. Although some of what they believe is rather odd, I respect all of it, like all other religions.
This is a very liberal perspective on Mormons. I think most Christians would not consider Mormons to be Christians.
If an Atheist answers the question from a Biblical point-of-view, then that is fine. Usually, however, their responses aren't supported by scripture or they mis-interpret scripture.
Who do you think should be in charge of making sure atheists don't misinterpret your scripture?
Perhaps we need a "True Christian" to service such needs?
I don't even mind if scripture is misinterpreted, because that by itself can offer good content, discussion wise. I just don't like the posts of atheists "representing" Christianity in the most condescending way they can.
Do you think atheists should be allowed to post top-level responses that offer biblical support?
If you are asking that question in all seriousness it is disturbing and suggests a bias in favor of Christians.
Please tell me you're just kidding.
I was asking someone what they think. How does that show any bias on my part? I wasn't expressing an opinion there. I was asking what his was.
You formulated the question. Albeit the question was based upon the redditor's comment. But, if you were being even-handed, you should have also asked the redditor...
Do you think Christians should be allowed to post top-level responses that offer biblical support?
Yes. The question would have been rhetorical. And, hopefully, the answer to both questions would have been revealed to be the same.
We do remove the worst of the circlejerk top-level posts.
I think all people should be free to contribute to either side of a debate topic, even if it supplements the OP. For example, I've seen people accuse atheists of a "circlejerk" when all they have done was offer additional evidence or links to additional info that happens to supper the OP.
Not OP, but I was going to post a similar thing -- I feel like nearly every thread I come across as a top-level post that's only affirming the OP. I don't think it would do much harm to institute a rule that makes top-level comments be responses to the original topic, as opposed to supports or expansions of the original point. Those are fine to have -- but I don't see any compelling reason why they can't come in once someone else responds. In a debate, one side presents their side, and the other responds, etc., etc. One side doesn't get to come up with a litany of arguments before the other side has a chance to respond, you dig?
If you want to speak with just christians and make sure you retain favored status (automatic at the top as you request), why don't you post on r/christianity? If you post here, then atheists are going to reply.
In addition, how are you going to know who is Christian and who is not? I could easily fake being a Christian. I did it for the first 30 years of my life.
If you read my later comments in the same thread, I said that it would be more feasible to just delete the circle-jerky posts.
Who decides what is "circle jerky"? Anything that conflicts with the Christian viewpoint?
I think top-level posts should reflect a Biblical point-of-view supported by scripture.
An example of a circle-jerky response would be something like this: "OP, this is such a good question! This totally proves the Bible to be false!"
Somewhat separate from FAQ-type questions:
I would like to see mods periodically make posts for the frequently asked about sections of the Bible:
and any others
I agree completely.
Are the mods doing a good job?
Yes. Thanks again to you, Zyracksis, SsurebreC and the other mods for your service as moderators.
We're nothing without you, the community :]
Thank you for being here and for all your contributions!
gee, when's the wedding?
I would like to change the "No ad hominem attacks" rule to a plain old "no personal attacks" rule, since most personal attacks here are not technically ad hominem attacks. I would so like to see degrading remarks dealt with more severely. Maybe we would need watchmods similar to r/debatereligion to actually be able to carry this out.
I think it has gotten a lot better from a year or two ago, but we still have a long way to go.
I agree with this. It seems like we get a lot of drive by atheists who come here and spam a bunch of "Christians are stupid" type comments that add nothing to the debate. Don't know what can be done about this when they come and go like that, but it really derails good debates some times.
You can report such comments. If the person has a history of that type of behavior, they might be banned outright for being trolls.
I agree about the personal attacks rule. That said, I am against a large set of rules and instead articulating a clear expectation of civility.
I've also been thinking about watchmods lately. I like the idea, though I question the success of such a system. Any user can be a "watch mod" in a way. Just reporting bad posts will do it.
I would really like to see more of an emphasis on respect in this sub, not only for people (which I think is handled well), but for beliefs as well. I think a lot of people only ask questions because they think they're being intelligent and showing those fundies what's what, and that often leads to a disrespectful and toxic attitude in some threads. In my mind, r/debateachristian should be about genuinely wanting to learn more about the other's position (and that applies to Christians as well) and adapting one's stance accordingly, rather than just asking "tough" questions because "fuck you". If that's not what the mods have envisioned for the sub, I'm perfectly okay with that, it's just what I would like to see.
I'm not so sure how this could be implemented. Respecting people is one thing, but inherently respecting beliefs doesn't seem possible for a debate subreddit.
Is it the thought behind statements, or the way statements are presented. Can you provide some examples contrasting similar ideas in a respectful vs non-respectful way. I'll try below :
Christianity is a vile barbaric cult that propagates male genital mutilation.
vs
Christianity propagates male genital mutilation.
Is this what you're talking about? The bitter adjectives? Or is the "accusation" enough?
But it isn't about genuinely learning about the other's position.
it's about proving why you are right and why they are wrong.
Christians come here, and when they do they make a claim.
The burden of proof lies on them to defend or prove their claim.
Not to just explain what they believe.
I come here not because the Christians on here are masterful at explaining theology, I do it because they are willing to debate a topic with me.
It's rare. There is this thread and r/debatereligion. That's it.
try r/explorereligion if you want that.
Or r/Christianity.
Those subreddits do exactly that.
Maybe an outline of what is appropriate to post, comment wise. I have often reported comments that come off as mean spirited, but still contribute. I don't know what's tolerated and what's not. My thinking with reporting its just letting a mod make the decision of whether it's appropriate or not.
Also, if you see something particularly bad or perhaps skirting the line - message us in addition to the report. We are community responsive.
We have the sidebar rules and the infographic to help you understand what is appropriate. Are you asking that it be more specific?
BTW, reporting comments that you might think are inappropriate, even if you aren't sure, is encouraged. We need more people reporting comments.
Oh I haven't seen the infographic. My suggestion is somehow make it more obvious to see, or just have some text when you comment or post emphasizing reading the sidebar.
Thanks. We'll see about making the layout of the sidebar better.
have you looked at the r/debatereligion sidebar?
it's looks good, it is easy to read and looks professional
Addition of a [Practicing Christians Only] title tag or something like that. Because so many questions will wind up with 10 or 20 answers from people either mocking or what they remember hearing someone say, or from former Christians. I know the argument that former Christians could post from what they knew at the time, but it should still be an option to say only practicing Christians.
I've thought about this quite a bit. I've looked into a tagging system and forced moderation when utilized. Basically, we could set up the automod to delete top level posts by users who don't have matching flair to a tag. This would be very cool, but there are too many "snowflakes" here for it to work well...
Is it naive to think the mere presence of the tag would help a bit? I'm just thinking if someone specifies that, I'd think most people would respect it. Or at least it's worth a go?
there's a reddit functionality whereby it will automatically remove posts if they don't meet a certain criteria. THe tag itself is a "marker" that would limit it. ...
Though this isn't on the sidebar, we do already enforce this. But 99% of threads posted don't specify a specific target. So, it very rarely is enforced.
Because so many questions will wind up with 10 or 20 answers from people either mocking or what they remember hearing someone say, or from former Christians.
...or from Christians who do not know what they are talking about. These Christians exist. And they post here.
And that's something others can correct. In fact, it would almost be a good thing.
I am told by a fellow redditor that "an atheist responding to an atheist seems to be the big issue" the moderators oppose.
Assuming this is true, why are the moderators not similarly opposed to a Christian responding to a Christian? Because, from what I can gather, inter-Christian dialogue is just hunky dory from the moderator's point of view.
I also recently had a comment deleted because it suggested that something in the Bible could be a joke. Meanwhile the comment to which I was responding (which asked if a topic presented by an atheist was a joke) was left unmolested by the moderators.
Unless we start seeing equal treatment of Christians and non-Christians, I have to conclude that this sub-reddit is morphing into r/Christianity2.
Reporting posts works. IF you see a disparity, then report and then message the mods.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with anyone answering questions as long as the main topic poster doesn't specify a target group. The quality of answers is far more important.
You may want to run this by the other mods.
I am seeing them take umbrage with atheists answering questions aimed at Christians that are top level responses.
Can you link me to an example so that i have context. The quality of the answer makes a larger difference to me than who is answering.
Note: this sort of thing is largely left up the the mod reading it. There are times when I see people using the opportunity to answer as a way of arguing a straw man or false representing the other side in an extremely negative light. When this happens, I consider it an infraction. When the user is presenting information in an impartial way or attempting to facilitate positive conversation, then I am much more likely to let it go and not worry about it. That's what I mean by post quality.
unfortunately I cannot link you to deleted comments.
What had happened was that Basilides made a comment about Christians and the bible, and I responded to it, saying that I wanted to see Christians address the point he made.
The entire conversation was deleted.
Missing7 explained it this way:
Basilides, a non-Christian, was answering on behalf of Christians with his typical twisted interpretation. Especially as a top level response, I didn't think it was constructive.
Well, before we could even explore if it was constructive or if anyone agreed with him, Missing had made the executive decision that it was not constructive and that no christian shared Basilides interpretation. He also knew that no Christian would want to correct Basilides or debate him on what he said. Apparently what was written was just so ridiculous that it didn't merit any attention, despite my own interest in the topic.
What Basilides wrote was completely dismissed and removed, before it was ever even addressed.
But here was the whole exchange I had with the mods (including you) via Private Messages. Hopefully this will jog your memory.
(it's too long, i gotta break it up into pieces.
[deleted]
[deleted]
IF you see a disparity, then report and then message the mods.
OK. Next time I see a disparity I will message the mods in general and hope the same mod who I perceive as committing the offense is not the only mod who replies.
Has this happened before? I'm reviewing our history and I see no evidence of that.
It wasn't our history. It was SsurebreC.
I would like to see people (Christian or atheist) have to make a claim for debate rather than playing the leading questions game. The "why do you believe X if Y" or even, using a current example "how accurate is the Bible?" aren't really claims to be supported and debated.
Questions seeking understanding or information certainly have their place in debate, but I think it would drive quality of discourse up if people had to make a claim and defend it rather than ask a leading question.
I would like the ability to set specific threads as being for two people, as more of a formal debate. How that could be accomplished (who would make the determination of which threads and which people)... Well, not sure.
My initial thought that is there be an option for each post, such that the OP could set that every thread response would then be between the OP and the responder.
edit: This might be better suited as an entirely new subreddit, where all posts function like this.
There is a subreddit for that. I can't remember what it is named, though. But I'm not opposed to seeing such debates here. I just don't think we have the man power to regulate them. At least not if there are multiple threads like that. Because we would have to stay on top of it and remove every comment that wasn't by the two intended participants. It would be nice if we could set approved submitters for threads like that. But that ability isn't built into reddit.
Because we would have to stay on top of it and remove every comment that wasn't by the two intended participants.
It would have to be programmatic, where the only people that are able to respond would be the two parties. Granted Reddit users seem pretty good at following the rules in general, but I'd agree it would probably be untenable to moderate it. It would require keeping track of who the "approved" people are for every thread...
If it's not currently programmatically possible, maybe someone can throw the idea further up the Reddit management chain.
I'll look into it. I'm no stranger to programming, though far from efficient. There might already be a code snippet out there to get it done. If not, I'll see about suggesting it to the admins.
Perhaps Automod. A distinguished post that has two usernames means that all other posts by users are automatically removed - yes?
Thanks! But I am aware of it, and that (type) of subreddit may be a better place for a feature like this. But I am suggesting a feature, rather than relying on "rules" and informal statements of intent.
good luck
[deleted]
i'd like to see holyphuck removed as mod, mainly because of his behavior on other subs. he frequently calls people names, deliberately antagonizes the mods, breaks sub rules, etc etc and then comes here and warns people for posting literally the exact same things he's posting en mass in other forums
he goes to another forum and say "shut up troll" to someone, then comes here and warns 3 people for calling someone a troll. He goes to another forum and says "shitty moderation is shitty" to a mod and then comes here and warns people for disussion moderation
he's begging for content on subs that don't allow begging, engaging in personal attacks over the smallest things, etc, and then coming here and acting like a total hypocrite about it.
just seems wierd to me, to have that going on
also, as long as we're talking i think a distinction should be made about threads addressed to Christians, ie to debate Christians and threads just made by 1 atheist to attract tons of other atheists to come and bitch about Christianity, ie not debating Christians
I would like to see mods periodically make posts for FAQ-type questions and answers. You can probably think of 10 or 20 questions (Zyracksis may have started a list), and do one per week, for example. That would build up the list on the sidebar within a few months.
I like that idea as well. The problem is, virtually no one reads them before posting threads. I'm sure you see the threads about Old Testament law that pop up all the time even though there is a FAQ addressing that topic. Because of this, it ended up seeming like a waste of time.
A mod could update the text on the submit page to say something like "Please check the r/DebateAChristian FAQ first to see if your question has already been addressed, for questions such as "Why don't Christians follow the OT?" or "How is hell just?" or "What about slavery in the Bible"? "
Good idea, thanks.
We could go a step farther -- if it's in the FAQ, it's not allowed as a question. I'm tired of the same topics innaduating the sub, and the people posting them acting like they've finally found the silver bullet that will end Christianity forever.
True, but then at least anyone can point a poster to the FAQ shortly after he's posted his new thread, and have something to point to rather than repeating ourselves.
Well, it doesn't really take much effort on our part. Just throw up a topic. I suppose we could look into posting a question of the week or month. Thanks.
First I want to say that I agree that the mods are doing a pretty great job. Thanks to all of them for their hard work, I'm on this sub most days and it's still way more work than I'd want to take on.
On your point about FAQ-type questions and answers, I am a little wary of giving the impression that it's not okay to rehash certain topics. Since it's a debate sub and not a "Why do Christians believe this or that" sub, I wouldn't want to stifle new debate with new people even if a topic has been debated before. Although there are definitely low quality questions that get posted over and over again here, I feel like these are the same people who would just ignore the FAQ anyway and make awful "Why do Christians believe dumb things" posts.
As long as it's more of a spring board to having new debates even about old topics I think an FAQ could be helpful, I just don't want it to seem like these topics are verboten now that they've been asked and answered.
Thoughts?
good point actually
I agree with you, but I would add that having a question addressed in a FAQ is not the same as having a question adequately or satisfactorily answered. The 'FAQ' regarding following OT laws is not really a FAQ at all, but a thread devoted to the question -- an eight-month-old thread with the most recent top-level comment from three months ago, and the most recent comment of any kind (without clicking a 'continue this discussion' link) from a month ago (by my possibly mistaken tally, using my phone).
There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not really a FAQ. When I see 'FAQ,' I expect a tidy list of common questions, with a likewise tidy list of high quality responses. There are in fact such responses in e.g. the OT law thread, but new subscribers are unlikely to find them without a concerted effort, and like it or not, questions concerning e.g. the divine endorsement of chattel slavery are not particularly well answered by anybody.
Add to this the fact that many users are loath to commit necromancy (self included), and it doesn't seem as though the current short-list of FAQs is adequate in its present format.
(Of course, it would take considerable effort to compile a list of appropriate FAQs and quality responses, which task I wouldn't wish on anybody.)
Would you possibly prefer a compiled list of scholarly answers to such questions with accompanying links to their source?
I also think this would be great. Again, I'm not sure it would alleviate the issue of low quality posts since those people probably won't bother reading our side bar, but it could be very helpful for everyone to point to in their answers as a sort of short hand response to some of the questions that get asked the most.
That would be awesome, but again I wouldn't wish that task on anybody -- not even you. ;)
I think that is a great idea. It would be awesome if every time somebody asked about Satan actually writing the Bible, we could just point to the sidebar.
did satan write the bible?
Two ideas on this, if the idea is a go:
Would a wiki be any good for that? I don't know how reddit wikis are activated or maintained, but I recall seeing them on a few subreddits. It might fix the problem brought up by cabbagery ITT.
Some reddits have a message on the posting page, like r/AskReddit. That could link to whatever or just sound a warning. I know that's what the sidebar is typically for, but clearly that's not doing it either.