Source
r/PoliticalDiscussion•
starryeyedsky

Rules Explanations and Reminders

READ ME!

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.

Keep it Civil.

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.

  • OK: "Your argument ignores X and grossly simplifies the issue because..."
  • OK: "That is simply not true because..."
  • Not OK: "You are an incompetent buffoon and don't belong in this sub."
  • Not OK: "People like you are exactly what is wrong with our country. Fuck off you cunt."
  • What will result in a perma ban: Discriminatory remarks like racial slurs.

Do not submit low investment posts/comments.

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:

  • Memes
  • ITT - stands for in this thread; they are generally used to be condescending and usually never add to the conversation.
  • Comments like "Trump will stump", "Feel the Bern", or "Jeb!"
  • Comments that just say "You're wrong" with little to no other content.

A good rule of thumb for determining low-investment content: if it doesn't add to the discussion, and more importantly it detracts from or derails the discussion, it is likely low-investment. This often includes comments less than 5 words.

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:

  • Post with just a link and no text
  • just adding a line or two or copy/paste content from the article may not overcome this.
  • ELI5 (Explain like I'm 5)
  • TIL (Today I learned)
  • DAE (Does anyone else)
  • CMV (Change my view)

Posts need to start a discussion. If it doesn't ask a question or give a prompt for discussion, it will likely be removed.

Post Submission rules

We strive to be a quality discussion sub so we have a few rules governing submissions including:

  • Don't use all caps
  • Don't use tags (like [Serious])
  • Don't use derogatory, demeaning, or otherwise inflammatory titles.
  • Do not ask loaded questions.
  • No Soapboxing/Ranting - really doesn't add to the conversation on politics.
  • Campaigning falls under this as well. This sub is not for campaigning for a particular candidate.

The above generally just end up with commenters complaining about the OP without actual discussion on a topic.

Rule Breaking in General - Consequences

To shed a little more light on what happens when something breaks the rules:

  • very minor infractions: Will just be removed.
  • a comment that just says "What?!"
  • minor infractions: warning, usually by comment from a mod.
  • Most civility infractions will fall here as well as many low-effort posts
  • More major infractions: temp ban
  • continued breaking of a rule despite warning; consistent spamming of low-effort content
  • Egregious infractions: permanent ban
  • racial or other slurs; telling someone to kill themselves

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?

Posted Feb 4, 2016, 8:48 PM UTC · edited

8783
Miskellaneousness•

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!

11
amici_ursihates fun•

That's a good idea. We have a couple things we're in the middle of. One those are settled, we'll come back to suggestions like that.

7
somethingratherother•

I think a weekly vent/praise thread could be interesting. Especially if it had a focus on local/state politics.

2
UncleStevie•

A weekly vent could be a modern take on the "Two Minutes Hate" from that book 1984.

1
Miskellaneousness•

Fuego!

1
Daedalus1907•

Is calling someone a cunt in the same vein as racial slurs?

10
amici_ursiMODhates fun•

They both break the rules, yes.

11
MeowTheMixer•

You have a "hates fun" tag -_-

7
amici_ursihates fun•

Yes.

8
MeowTheMixer•

Ha ha ha okay that made me chuckle. Totally reads different with out the context

3
starryeyedskyOP•

So that is where that flair comes from. If only you could include a link in flair so when people clicked on it, it would go to that comment string.

3
starryeyedskyOPMOD•

Both are insults, though one has a much greater history of hate behind it than the other. Racial slurs will get a user perma banned pretty quickly. Calling a user a cunt will likely get the comment removed and a warning regarding the civility rules (assuming no other rule breaking occurred in the comment and this is the first time the user has been warned about it).

So short answer to your question, Yes and no. Both are however against the rules.

9
GuyAboveIsStupid•

What if said user is Australian and is in fact actually a cunt?

3
starryeyedskyOPMOD•

The vast majority of our users are from the United States (with some in Europe). Almost all political topics are about US politics. As such, the vast majority of users will be using it as a derogatory term.

I realize it is not used as such in Australia, but there are definitely trolls out there who would claim they were Australian so they could hide their insult. If someone is Australian, there are other ways to express that you approve of the person's comment/post.

8
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
starryeyedskyOPMOD•

They both fall under that rule. One will just result in an automatic ban (racial slur) and the other a warning.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
SixBiscuit•

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).

9
amici_ursiMODhates fun•

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).

starry's post kind of touches on that, pointing a comment at a specific person. If a comment says, you are... then it's on thin ice. we're not here to talk about specific users. we're here to talk about politics in general. you can make your point without directing it at a specific user.

2
starryeyedskyOP•

Yup, I like to distill all that into the phrase "Attack the argument, not the user."

1
SixBiscuit•

That wasn't exactly my point. It was a slightly different wrinkle on that of:

Discuss politics, not your or other's political opinion.

2
starryeyedskyOP•

That is something to consider, though I get the feeling most users won't be too fond of that considering how personal politics is to people.

What laws are passed and politicians do more directly affects people's everyday lives than a sport does. It would be hard to moderate things if people had to discuss politics without bringing up their personal opinions.

2
unkorrupted•

What I'm hearing:

"It's OK to attack and insult Sanders supporters - as long as you lump them in to a group first."

1
krabbby•

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 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.

Are you guys willing to have a conversation about enforcing the low effort rule a little more expansively?

8
amici_ursiMODhates fun•

For some context, I've been moderating here for a month or two.

It seems like not many/any mods actively troll threads looking for comments to remove or users to ban. We're getting better about staying on top of reports and modmail, but I don't think it's realistic for us to screen every comment that goes through the subreddit.

Instead what we do is investigate complaints and clean up messes when we come across them. If someone is constantly making an ass of themselves, then we're going to think hard about whether their contributions are worth the mess. If they aren't, then they'll be shown the door, regardless of how many microns they think they're on the safe side of the line.

Like I said, in another comment, we have a diverse team. I think that leads to more broad decisions across ideological boundaries about stuff like this.

3
krabbby•

Well then this question isn't directed at you because thankfully he left before you, but why was he allowed to continue pulling that type of shit for years? I know that the moderators were aware of him and how he was, yet the most that happened to him was a few posts that got removed. He rarely contributed in good faith and it was so frustrating because his dickishness technically wasn't breaking a rule. He's not even the only one, he's just the worst one I've noticed.

1
MomentOfXen•

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.

7
The_seph_i_am•

Edit: upon review of the post in question, which occurred months ago, it was not as bad as I had built up in my mind. Apologies but this post has no way to back up its claim. That said I still think we have to find a difference between detract and just an unforeseen branch of the conversation.

Could we apply that in reverse as well to socialist supporters?

We need to make its actually distracting from the topic at hand.

You should see the stuff people posted when I've asked for alternatives to raising minimum wages that wasn't based on a socialist solution. Everyone was so made I didn't want their precious UBI that that's all the conversation was about.

Which completely defeated the whole point of the question/thought experiment.

Point is we have to be careful what we deem "making fun of and a distraction". And what we deem simply a unforeseen branch of the discussion.

1
MomentOfXen•

I think I've seen considerable improvement since the auto-stickied comment and these rules went into place. Would you have some examples of what you're referring to?

2
The_seph_i_am•

Oh this was before the rules were posted.

But going through the comments and rereading them it appears it wasn't really as bad as I remembered. And apparently I never put the whole "non socialist" disclaimer like I thought I did. I am very sorry if this caused concern. The post in question.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/3fokbf/what_are_the_alternatives_to_raising_minimum_wage/

2
Matt5327•

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.

6
starryeyedskyOPMOD•

It's not exactly as harsh as other ad hominem's you are probably more concerned with

Yeah, we see a lot worse. When we see something like that we just remove. If that sentence was then followed up by an explanation on how they are naive and why this means they support a candidate, that is likely OK.

The problem with a lot of this is it is going to be very case-by-case and context specific. The examples I gave above are the more black and white items. Anything that is reported we will review. You can also drop us a line in modmail if you come across something that you think is borderline but should be reviewed.

I promise we don't bite. Well, unless you stand in between me and the once a year I can get girl scout cookies. Even then not much :-P

3
Matt5327•

I get girl scout cookies, too. 'Sall good.

I'll try to be more proactive in reporting when I see those things, too. It's just not something I'm used to doing (and I imagine I'm not alone).

1
starryeyedskyOPMOD•

Thanks! Every little bit helps us. We try to catch as much as we can, but this is basically a hobby for us and we can't be online 24/7 and read literally every comment on the sub every day.

That reminds me that we should probably use the new reddit feature to add custom sub report reasons to line up with our rules.

2
Matt5327•

Sounds like a great idea! It also might make more users willing to use the function.

1
amici_ursihates fun•

the once a year I can get girl scout cookies

Seriously. What is up with that? I would buy two or three boxes a month if I could. Instead, I'm stuck buying five or six boxes in one week per year.

1
davidreiss666MOD•

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:

  • luster
  • BagOnuts
  • SpewerOfRandomBS
  • Aschebescher
  • NorrisOBE
  • Pallas-Athena
  • Amici_ursi
  • Starryeyedsky

They are all great users and great moderators. This place would not function without them.

Thank you.

3†
AutoModeratorMOD•

A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

  • Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
  • Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments that you disagree with.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

3
amici_ursiMODhates fun•

How meta. I knew edits could trigger AutoMod, but I didn't think about that in this context.

Anyhoo, AutoModerator will make this reminder on every new post for the foreseeable future. Hopefully this well help newcomers understand PoliticalDiscussion culture before they participate.

4
rabbitlion•

That's a fucking terrible idea, spamming up every single thread with this stickied nonsense that no one will care about.

2
amici_ursiMODhates fun•

Sorry you think so. It's cut down on the low effort crap that we had to remove. It's not going anywhere soon.

stickied nonsense that no one will care about.

That's a fucking terrible idea

Looks like you care.

4
rabbitlion•

I care about the fact that it makes the user experience terrible by adding a 200 pixel blank space between posts and comments. You should realize that this is a terrible feature for everyone who actually cares about discussing politics, i.e. the subscribers you should care about. If I would be shown it once it wouldn't matter, but now it's in every single thread.

Especially annoying that it's made by AutoModerator as I cannot ignore him without missing out on useful posts in other subreddits.

EDIT: Looks like I can block them with adblock with this filter: www.reddit.com##DIV[class*="stickied"][data-subreddit="PoliticalDiscussion"]

3
starryeyedskyOPMOD•

Automod is alive, it will soon take over all of Reddit, and then the world!

1
evanb_•

I'm only here for the memes, AutoMod.

3
[deleted]•

[removed]

2
luster•

What is this? The final draft. If so, it looks fine to me.

1
davidreiss666•

The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,

will not be televised, will not be televised.

The revolution will be no re-run brothers;

The revolution will be live

0
Cycloptichorn•

Thanks for posting this!

1
BagOnutsMODPaid Shill•

"I Spy a Rule Breaker! What Should I Do?"

1- DO NOT REPLY

2- REPORT THE COMMENT/SUBMISSION

3- PROFIT!

1
amici_ursihates fun•
  • Do not submit low investment posts/comments*. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort posts/comments will be removed per moderator discretion.

Take it back to r/poltics! Comments like this only serve to perpetuate the degradation of r/politicaldiscussion. This place is practically a (left|right)ist echo-chamber of shillaries promoting the berning agenda that trump can't be stumped about jeb!

YOU specifically are a conservalibtard who needs to gtfo and buy your mother flowers because she misses you. I'm going to make it my PERSONAL vendetta to further derail this thread by replying to your insincerity again and again and again and again, ultimately resulting in temp bans all around just to clean up the mess.

7
SixBiscuit•

To be fair you should buy your mother flowers.

5
amici_ursihates fun•

Look! You didn't even read what I said. Now I have to shuffle my sentences and words around to make it look like I'm contributing. Again. I'm helping by replying to the low effort comments. I'm not contributing to problem. It's the other person.

So here we are. I'm writing yet another comment totes not derailing the thread. Round and round we go. I could do this for dozens of comments.

Ooh. Let's do a pun thread! You go first. This way I can say, "but this other person did it!"

5
SixBiscuit•

I'm not contributing to problem. It's the other person.

I just realized that Bernie Sanders is an r/politicaldiscussion mod.

(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
KabIoski•

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?"

1
amici_ursiMODhates fun•

If you give it some context, sure. If your only contribution in the comment is the slogan, no.

1
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
Roll_Easy•

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.

1
Fractoman•

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.

1
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1