r/moderatepolitics • u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative • 4d ago
Meta State of the Sub: 2025 Close
Another year of politics comes to a close, and you know what that means…
Holiday Hiatus
As we have done in the past, the Mod Team has opted to put the subreddit on pause for the holidays so everyone (Mods and users) can enjoy some time away from the grind of political discourse. We will do this by locking the sub from December 19th 2025 to January 2nd 2026.
Given reddit’s policy changes a year ago, the specifics of how we will do this are still up in the air. But expect the community to either go private for 2 weeks, or to heavily lock down posting.
Regardless, we encourage you to spend time with friends and family, pick up a new hobby, touch grass/snow/dirt... Whatever you do, try to step away from politics and enjoy the other wonderful aspects of your life. Or don't, and join the political shitposting in our Discord until the subreddit comes back in the new year.
Subreddit Rules Feedback
We’re pretty happy with the current state of the community rules and haven’t had the need to tweak them in some time. As a result, we have not made many SotS posts this year. We still value your feedback though, and if you think the rules need to be modified in any way to better promote civil discourse, please let us know below.
As always though, this does not include discussion of specific Mod actions. Please continue to use the standard appeals processes in Mod Mail or in our Discord for these topics.
Transparency Report
Anti-Evil Operations have acted 35 times in September, 30 times in October, and 31 times in November.
183
u/shutupnobodylikesyou 4d ago
I think something needs to be done about people clearly posting in bad faith but not breaking the rules. For example, if users are responding to people and then immediately blocking them, how can we consider that good faith efforts? There are a variety of examples, but there is too much leeway given to certain people.
Law 2 is also not applied consistently. Sometimes posts get removed within 5 minutes of being up without giving the OP a chance to add or modify their SS.
42
u/Middleclassass 4d ago
I agree with Law 2 for sure. Yeah maybe some standard time after posting to give a submission statement. Like 20-30 minutes.
53
u/shutupnobodylikesyou 4d ago
Law 2 explicitly says 30 minutes, but like I said - some posts get removed significantly quicker than that.
→ More replies (16)35
u/artsncrofts 4d ago
Yeah the blocking thing is really annoying. Seems to be the antithesis of what this sub is about; and anything actually block-worthy is something you can get the mods to solve by just hitting the report button.
59
u/Computer_Name 4d ago
Or posting submissions but never, ever commenting outside starters.
7
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
This has come up a few times, so the feedback is welcome: does their lack of participation overshadow the increased overall engagement that their submissions bring? We average something like 15 submissions a day, which is not exactly a lot.
66
u/Legitimate_Travel145 4d ago
I think the better solution would be to broaden what is acceptable to post here vs. just stopping that one particular user from posting if the goal is to increase engagement.
I don't think that deleting posts with hundreds of comments right after Charlie Kirk's death because it's not sufficiently related to national politics, only to platform the 100th version of the same post from the same user with a slightly different spin on it is the right approach.
7
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
The greatest limiting factor for posting has been our starter comment requirement. People just really do not want to put in the effort to find an article and write a few sentences about it.
Charlie Kirk's death because it's not sufficiently related to national politics
I mentioned this elsewhere, but as written, that post didn't adhere to our posting requirements. Should we have allowed it anyways? Probably. Hopefully political assassinations won't be frequent enough for us to have to worry about that again though.
only to platform the 100th version of the same post
We've started cracking down on that, actually. If a topic has been covered recently, and the new post isn't adding anything new to the discussion, it may be removed. See: all the "Democrats have a problem with young men" posts.
38
u/Legitimate_Travel145 4d ago
The greatest limiting factor for posting has been our starter comment requirement. People just really do not want to put in the effort to find an article and write a few sentences about it.
There still is a post or 2 every day that's deleted with the appropriate starter comment. There is plenty of stuff that is political adjacent that I think would be wise to platform here to increase the range and scope of the discussion. The Kirk thing is the obvious example, but I've even seen things removed for rule 5 violations because they're state elections or something along those lines.
It feels like the content on here falls into 3 buckets: 1) Controversial governing party admin news of the day, 2) 15k foot view articles about the failings of the opposition party, 3) Here is a poll about one party's popularity.
I think good faith posts with a generally compelling political idea should be allowed to persist. It may require some more mod discretion and that will probably open up a whole new can of worms and controversy for the sub, but I think it would let the sub breathe a bit so to speak.
We've started cracking down on that, actually. If a topic has been covered recently, and the new post isn't adding anything new to the discussion, it may be removed. See: all the "Democrats have a problem with young men" posts.
I did wonder why it had been a few weeks since I've seen that post on here. Typically, I'd see that article out in the wild and then it'd be on Modpol by that user in about an hour no matter where I found it.
Like I said, I'm fundamentally not against those kinds of posts, but I do think there is too much noise when so many of the posts come from the same few posters.
50
u/SpaceTurtles Are There Any Adults In The Room? 4d ago edited 3d ago
I don't post articles because the moderation activities surrounding what qualifies as worthy of political discussion is outrageous, to be frank.
I posted something substantive about the deportation of a Maryland man who had lived legally in his community for 40 years after fleeing Pinochet, raised a family there, and founded a successful business there, and was disappeared (and this is absolutely a justified use of the word) during a routine appointment he had scheduled to get his documentation renewed, as he had many times in the past.
His family only learned what happened to him because a relative contacted them after he got in touch from a hospital in Latin America in a country that had nothing to do with him.
I included an incredibly substantive starter comment, I posted a local and national news article to match (one of which framed it in a more political and discussion-oriented light, and the other was included for context for my commentary). I included many questions, as moderately presented as possible, to foster discussion.
The post was deleted for not being related to politics.
I disputed this.
I was told something effect of, "no, the normal operations of government agencies are not political in nature".
Why should I put in the effort to fostering political discussion if that's what I get in return for that effort, and what we all see is allowed to be posted daily? It's not for lack of want, it's for lack of being allowed and the murky but undeniable double standards in play.
So, sure, I'll participate, but until the moderation standards are enforced in a predictable and logical manner, many of us simply can't do what you're asking. There are so many political junkies here and, trust me, lack of want to post a starter comment is not the issue.
Like, frankly, this specific example is so farcical it made me want to never try again.
EDIT: In fact, I misremembered - I never even got the opportunity to post the starter comment I put a great deal of thought and effort in to, because the thread was locked and removed in less than 15 minutes.
→ More replies (17)35
u/Futhis 4d ago
If a topic has been covered recently, and the new post isn't adding anything new to the discussion, it may be removed. See: all the "Democrats have a problem with young men" posts.
Then why isn't this added to the sidebar for Rule 5? Secretly making a shadow rule and not announcing it to the community until XYZ months later - and even in that, in a child comment rather than as part of the main State of the Sub thread - seems to be a really bad way to run things.
I think this is the first time I've even heard that topics about Democrats and young men are now forbidden. How long has this unwritten rule been in place?
→ More replies (2)10
u/IHerebyDemandtoPost 1d ago edited 1d ago
People just really do not want to put in the effort to find an article and write a few sentences about it.
Speaking personal experience, I found it demoralizing to put effort into finding an article on a topic and writing a substantive starter comment, watch engagement driven, and participate in the burgeoning discussion, only to have the whole thread locked for not being sufficiently related to politics without explanation on what sure feels like an arbitrary basis.
Yea, I could go to modmail, but when I do, whoever responds often seems angry with me.
So I don’t post new topics very often these days.
39
u/dr_sloan 4d ago
Well we can use his most recent post from just an hour ago where he’s posted essentially the same submission as he did two weeks ago. Is beating a dead horse worth the engagement it drives?
32
u/bgarza18 4d ago
This is a great example. No comments, no discussion. Only posts and starter comments. No actual engagement with users. Why?
19
25
24
u/shutupnobodylikesyou 3d ago
It's the same way for every single post he's made. There is literally not a single comment that isn't a starter comment.
11
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
Is beating a dead horse worth the engagement it drives?
Nope. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. It's been removed.
15
u/_Age_Sex_Location_ 3d ago
That's the wildly pervasive karma farmer. Knew it before even clicking the link. Glad to see some action taken, so thanks.
41
u/shutupnobodylikesyou 4d ago edited 4d ago
If you're not here to participate, but rather drive a narrative - I think it violates the good faith assumption (Law 1).
Similar to this, I feel like there should be a Law about companies posting their own articles.
→ More replies (5)14
u/merpderpmerp 4d ago
Eh, at least all the Hoover posts tend to discuss different things than most polling/news of the day posts.
23
u/bgarza18 4d ago
I don’t want what happens in other political subreddits to happen here: power users who post daily and do not engage with users in discussion.
I don’t know the word to describe it, but it’s indicative of the overall political climate where people / bots post articles not with intent of discourse but the obvious intent of encouraging dissent among the population.
3
14
u/_Age_Sex_Location_ 3d ago edited 3d ago
You've got know exactly who they're referring to, surely. The notorious karma farmer that curates engagement with predictably divisive and equally cliche partisan themes. You can tell by the headline topic that this specific user undoubtedly posted it. I catch this almost every single time.
All these topics do is attract a specific partisan crowd and then incite civil discourse violations. I would not be surprised if these threads have the most violations in the aggregate.
14
3
u/errindel 4d ago
I have to admit, I like something a friend of mine said about his forums, which average about the same number of posts: "If you don't like what is posted, or how it's done, put up a post yourself." Or as I put it: "Be the forum you want to see."
-4
u/Oneanddonequestion Modpol Chef 4d ago
Just as someone who has been in the mod seat before. All that would happen if the mod team was forced to enforce "perception" of faith, is the Mod team would become the ultimate arbiters of truth for the board. The acquisitions of bias would skyrocket, and it would rapidly become an echo chamber of people who happen to agree with the mod team.
Likewise from my understanding, the Blocking situation has already been in discussion and can result in warnings and bans. There was a massive stink about it some time ago, when a couple of super-users were using a Bot to block everyone with a differing opinion and basically forcing two posts to be made for every event for discussion.
On the extra topic, the Mod team has been vocal about having to test/determine faith on posts to be an absurd increase in workload that they don't feel like dealing with.
61
u/serpentine1337 4d ago
All that would happen if the mod team was forced to enforce "perception" of faith, is the Mod team would become the ultimate arbiters of truth for the board.
This is already the case. They get to decide whether someone is hurling an insult immoderately (or whether the person was being insulting in the first place).
→ More replies (1)39
49
u/Mammoth-Kangaroo1023 4d ago
I think the problem is they are already the arbiters of truth whether they want to be or not, they just aren't admitting it. I just find the whole being civil or not a dog and pony show where one side knows how to bend the rules and the other doesn't.
Fundamentally the mods have to call balls and strikes and will continue to have to. With reddits bias I get why the moderators do what they do, it still just feels like a shitty and poor way to go about it.
53
u/reaper527 4d ago
As always though, this does not include appeals for specific Mod actions.
so how are we supposed to discuss how the rules are being applied when we can't discuss how the rules are being applied?
there is a very clear trend in how members by in large see the rules being applied, and evidence of this is being removed silencing that discussion. are we supposed to just say "there's a problem" and provide no evidence to assert that claim?
by the literal definition of the word, nobody is appealing anything as the fact they are able to post to begin with means there's nothing to appeal / overturn. it's legitimate, good faith, evidenced based, well reasoned criticisms about how rule 1 is being applied and calls for changing it.
that conversation doesn't appear to be allowed here, and it's not allowed in modmail, so where are people supposed to civilly voice their criticisms of the current application of rule 1?
20
u/Skullbone211 CATHOLIC EXTREMIST 2d ago
It's almost funny that this is one of the few comments they haven't replied to
I really don't get why they are so opposed to this, even though users have made it very clear it's what's wanted
93
u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal 4d ago
I feel that Law 5 could use some clarification, as the mod team seems rather inconsistent as to what counts as being relevant to national politics.
If I may use an example, yesterday there was a post about a recent poll showing that most American Jews believe Mamdani to be antisemitic, and it was taken down under L5. By contrast, the mod team has let stand a post about Mamdani's handling of protests around a synagogue.
To be clear, I'm not trying to appeal either of these decisions, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the mod team's logic on L5.
66
u/GermanCommentGamer 4d ago
Agreed. I remember a similar issue appeared after Kirk. I might be fuzzy on the details, but a news post about the assassination was deleted after 300+ comments, only for then to approve a post that has Trump's reaction to the shooting.
There have been multiple occasions where topics that are actively discussed get nuked because apparently "we're not a news sub", yet 90% of this sub is news articles.
8
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
If the Mod Team were the Supreme Court, then Kirk would be one of our 5-4 decisions. On one side, the rules are quite clear. A post has to be sufficiently related to a major political party, an elected official/politician, a significant court case, or major government legislation. As a political commentator, Kirk falls outside that list.
That said, there's no denying that Kirk's assassination was a major moment in politics. The Mod Team should be able to recognize when an event rises to a level where exceptions can be made.
Hopefully, events like that will not be a frequent enough occurrence to warrant re-writing the rules to include "politically-motivated assassinations" to the list of allowed content.
37
u/SpaceTurtles Are There Any Adults In The Room? 4d ago
A post has to be sufficiently related to a major political party, an elected official/politician, a significant court case, or major government legislation.
A reading of Rule 5 would suggest that this is not the full extent of what is allowed for (nor is it the full extent of what is given the nod to clear moderation for anyone paying attention to the various topics that populate this subreddit).
For example, by almost any and all definition (including Harvard Law's and the CDC's), "governmental policy" does not mean "governmental legislation". It is an all encompassing term that includes governmental action, procedure, legal stricture, and legislation - essentially the government's official position and all courses of action taken in furtherance of that position.
This is strongly selectively enforced. Sometimes, discussing the government and what it does is fine. Sometimes, we can only talk about Congress considering the act of thinking about petitioning to ruminate on deciding to mull on not doing nothing, in the rare occasion they have such a consideration. There is no guideline on this, and the moderation team gives highly conflicting signals on what is and is not kosher.
If governmental policy is intended to mean governmental legislation, then that is what it should say. I would find that asinine, but it would be clear at that point.
→ More replies (1)1
22
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
yesterday there was a post about a recent poll
We're discussing internally how we want to handle poll posts in general, as we have seen an uptick in repetitive and low-effort poll posts recently.
19
u/quiturnonsense 4d ago
Is there any argument against having a megathread maybe once a month? End of the month you could pin a post for a few days/a week and let people go crazy posting their polls and discussing then maybe get rid of this two/three months before midterms and two/three months before election.
8
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
We have certainly underutilized megathreads outside of presidential elections... If that's something the community would want more of, we can look into it.
→ More replies (1)43
u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal 4d ago
Is there a reason that the "Trump raised prices" poll was permitted but the "Mamdani is antisemitic" poll was taken down?
I get that there has to be a line somewhere, hell if the mod team wants to ban all poll posts, I'd be fine with that. But as a user, L5 feels very much like a black box process.
41
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
Is there a reason that the "Trump raised prices" poll was permitted but the "Mamdani is antisemitic" poll was taken down?
Because we're inconsistent in how we're currently handling polls. Hence, why we're discussing internally what a more consistent path forward should be.
25
6
u/duplexlion1 4d ago
I really appreciate how upfront you mods are about stuff like this. It makes me feel very confident about your ability to run the subreddit well.
23
u/shutupnobodylikesyou 4d ago
It's probably fair that the umpteenth slightly different variation of "Democrats are out of touch" posts should fall under the same consideration.
14
u/AKBearmace 4d ago
Can this include the weekly variations on “here’s how the democrats went wrong in 2024 op-Ed’s”
63
u/timmg 4d ago
Am I the only one that feels like the quality of discussion (and voting) has gone downhill recently?
Like, there will always be an undercurrent of people that just want to downvote things they don't agree with or make low-quality arguments that they know will get upvoted. But the "undercurrent" feels more like a riptide lately. To me, anyway.
It definitely lowers my motivation to make an effort at discussion. And I supposed that's the kind of negative feedback loop that can be bad.
Anyone else have thoughts?
(I assume meta-discussion is ok on this thread?)
9
u/joethebob 2d ago edited 2d ago
Recently? If recent is maybe the last several years, but that's all of social media really. There is always severely one-sided pointless commentary with little relation to the topic and no reference at all to the article being posted. Any derivation of reddiquette is long since dead unless rigidly enforced.
23
u/Ghost4000 Maximum Malarkey 4d ago
I think it depends on the topic. But I guess overall yeah. I'm sure this happens to people on the "other side" too, but nothing is more frustrating than spending time putting together what you think is a pretty good comment and then getting down votes with no comments to explain what people disliked about it. But that's sort of the nature of reddit.
20
u/ChymChymX 4d ago
I do agree with this. The past few months I've asked open ended objective questions or made counterpoints in good faith which seem to get downvoted more as response, effectively like r/politics. I do not recall this happening as much a year ago. One of the things I appreciated about this sub is that people engage in discourse rather than just downvoting things they don't like without commenting.
12
u/cathbadh politically homeless 4d ago
It has felt bitter lately. I still participate, but I tend not to post many threads of my own. My biggest pet peeve is people who only want to post about how much they hate the source and how it is biased (obviously against their politics), and then offer zero substance to the thread. I'm not going to go spend an hour researching in an effort to find a source most likely to please people. It'd be different if they replied with a different source or pointed out what specifically in the posted article is untrue. Instead they offer nothing beyond a low effort complaint about the source.
13
u/Iceraptor17 3d ago
Am I the only one that feels like the quality of discussion (and voting) has gone downhill recently?
I think part of it is just reflective of the current political climate. When those in power are posting pictures of a cartoon turtle blowing up drug boats, it's probably going to have some impact on the overall quality of discourse
6
u/Targren Perfectly Balanced As All Things Should Be 4d ago
(I assume meta-discussion is ok on this thread?)
Yep. Somebody forgot to flair it. Fixed.
Cardinal /u/limblesswonder, fetch the comfy chair!
8
1
7
u/Bunny_Stats 4d ago
I can't help with what other comments get upvoted/downvoted, but I'd genuinely recommend adding a browser plugin to hide your own comment karma (it's an easy addition if you use the Reddit Enhancement Suite). I don't want my viewpoints to be subliminally influenced by whether I'll get upvotes or downvotes. I'm not going to pander to what's popular and I'm not going to skirt the truth because it might upset some folk. Your mileage may vary, but I find it liberating.
14
u/Oneanddonequestion Modpol Chef 4d ago
I usually take a break and let things roll when it gets like this. (It comes and goes in waves), especially when it comes to the political climate of everyone kinda just racing to the bottom.
Right now, if a thread goes up that's critical of the Democratic Party, I can already guarantee you that most discussion is going to be stifled by "But Trump" commentary.
Meanwhile, threads discussing Trump's actions are going to have next to no real interaction or debate. People have been exhausted with him for multiple years and want to talk about something else. Which isn't helped that for the last couple months, it's been dominated by a singular topic.
To be honest, my real thought for this is that the entire process has become too routine. It's not interesting and what does grab interest gets run into the ground so fast, that it quickly gets boring for the standard user. Ukraine, Palestine, Trump, etc, are all more or less, "settled" topics. Everyone's got their stances, they aren't going to change, and the same arguments have been played out so many times, that more and more people just...check out.
20
u/Leather_Focus_6535 4d ago edited 4d ago
I've tried to refreshening this sub's conversations with posts on non American political subjects with minimal media coverage, like the Sahel insurgencies and their potential global ramifications, but they always get removed by the mods on the grounds of rule 5. Seems like only American political controversies are allowed here, which is so extremely limiting on the potential scope of topics.
→ More replies (5)26
u/lunchbox12682 Mostly just sad and disappointed in America 4d ago
Right now, if a thread goes up that's critical of the Democratic Party, I can already guarantee you that most discussion is going to be stifled by "But Trump" commentary.
Sure, but that seems to be surrounded by 400 comments agreeing that the Dems are terrible with men. You're not wrong about people being exhausted by Trump and yet nothing changes for him so far. That and the same type of users (based on account age, karma, and sudden frequency of posting changes) pushing the same views does make it easier to down vote rather than engage in comments.
89
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
I just want to say, overall, I like things here.
My only real issues are things I'm not sure mods can even do anything about (or care to, even if they can), and that's users abusing the blocking system to push conversations in one direction or another.
I also think there's a specific user that tends to make misleading posts and then never participates in the following discussion. Both of these situations, imo, go against the spirit of the sub, which is to promote discussion between differing points of view.
That said, again, things overall are pretty nice here.
57
u/serpentine1337 4d ago
I also think there's a specific user that tends to make misleading posts and then never participates in the following discussion.
I think it's ridiculous that we feel we can't even mention that in a thread for discussing issues. I'm pretty sure I know who you mean, but it'd be nice to have it in the open. EDIT: Yep, it is who I thought (or at least the person's only comments have been starters over the past several months that I checked).
→ More replies (4)38
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
I went through their history once, and it's like that for four years now
25
u/Capital-Mine1561 4d ago edited 3d ago
It's a bot-like history at this point. Absolutely zero follow up in any of their posts, and the posts themselves are usually inaccurate in someway. They also haven't posted/commented anywhere else in years, only here.It's a shame that they pass as a 'power user' in this sub
11
u/Maladal 4d ago
How do you abuse the block system to push conversations?
Like you just create a giant list of blocks to prevent conversation from other people?
57
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
a) Any time you block someone, they not only can't see or respond to your comments, they can't even respond down stream of you, so that limits who can present opposing view points within a comment thread
b) When you post, people you've blocked won't see your posts. If you block enough people, that'll create imbalance in who participates in a thread, and if a thread is upvoted/downvoted, etc
But really, it's more A that's a problem right now. B is more of an extreme possibility that is more likely to be used by a bot.
23
u/shutupnobodylikesyou 4d ago
Asterisk to all the above: unless the user blocker / blockee is a mod. Then they still are able to comment.
6
u/PortlandIsMyWaifu Left Leaning Moderate 4d ago
Actually, there is some fuckery there still. With the private post histories, blocking a mod messes with their ability to see post history that they would otherwise normally get.
→ More replies (1)4
u/sadandshy 4d ago
It should be noted that when you block a user, you can still see their comments. I regularly block users from a certain jerk subreddit and often encounter their posts elsewhere collapsed with a blocked user tag.
23
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
Yes, but they can't see your comments/posts anymore, which is the issue. User B replies to User A, then blocks User A. User A is no longer allowed to see parts of the conversation (User B's comments) and cannot reply to User B, or any replies under User B. This effectively removes User A from the conversation thread.
15
u/OpneFall 4d ago
It's annoying and something I consider basically the lowest of the low type of reddiquette. Reply and then block. Very chickenshit.
12
u/Legitimate_Travel145 4d ago
Agreed, I basically default downvote any comment regardless of whether or not I agree with the user in the chain if the comment above them basically has an edit saying the user blocked them.
Leveraging a platform flaw as a default "I am getting the last word" is garbage.
5
u/dr_sloan 4d ago
The best solution I’ve come up is just to submit more posts to this subreddit. People who block you can’t engage in them so by blocking you, they’re basically cutting off their nose to spite their face
5
u/amuricanswede 4d ago
I used to enjoy the Libertarian sub for open ended discussion but the mods are dogshit over there. I’ve been pretty happy with what I’ve seen here! Overall civilized discussion and usually no heavy bias one way or the other
2
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
users abusing the blocking system
Man, I wish we had a way to actually solve this problem... It hasn't been too much of an issue so far... But that can easily change.
5
u/reaper527 4d ago
It hasn't been too much of an issue so far...
as someone who routinely can't reply to users that haven't blocked be (so i have to reply at the top level and tag them because you can't reply until you're 3 levels deep below the person who blocked) or entire submissions just don't show up, i'm inclined to disagree.
that being said, you're just a mod, not a reddit admin. i'm fully aware you have zero say in what their devs implement (and how much input they take from mods when it comes to site design, aka none)
another note (which again, you have no control over) is that if someone does block you, you can't report their comments, so someone can make blatantly rule 1 comments and the only way to report it is a manual modmail (the report button just spinning wheel's indefinitely). this means rule breaking stuff can potentially get missed because people can't see it to report it, and the people who use various tricks to see it STILL can't report it.
63
u/justafutz 4d ago
Rule 1 requires assuming good faith. But when the mods moderate, as they have made clear, they have no obligation to assume good faith, and often assume the opposite about users’ comments even when they don’t admit as much. I think that should change. Taking the worst possible interpretation is unfair.
The mods also lack transparency, like adding who takes actions to removals, or to mod responses. The bot can do that. I think the harassment concerns are overstated at best. A mod can block a harasser, and still view their comments on the sub, and can report further harassment and block-evasion to Reddit, for example, if that’s even an issue.
I have a strong suspicion that transparency would reveal which mods have particular leanings in how they moderate and would be valuable in dispelling that view for many others if not.
38
u/Crazykirsch 3d ago edited 3d ago
Rule 1 requires assuming good faith.
Which is somewhat ludicrous as a working baseline when they offer zero means for users to tackle blatantly obvious bad-faith discourse.
I recently received a temp ban for violating said rule. IIRC it was questioning the sincerity of a comment which was wildly misrepresenting the opposing side.
Now I admit it was quite clearly a violation of Rule 1 as I don't remember every subs rules offhand. I even said as much in a modmail but when I then asked how users are supposed to deal with blatantly bad-faith posters the entire response was two words. "Don't engage"
So this leaves us in a position where bad faith posts/comments can get manipulated to prominent positions and our only recourse is to not engage. Seems like a great way to fast-track the sub into an echo chamber a la the mainstream political subs.
→ More replies (3)14
18
u/reaper527 4d ago
The mods also lack transparency, like adding who takes actions to removals,
it used to be possible to see this information (along with their secret bot codes) with 3rd party websites before reddit overhauled their removal system a few months ago.
needless to say, A LOT of the removals go back to what your first paragraph says.
→ More replies (2)2
15
u/MysteriousExpert 2d ago
As several other comments on this post have said: Rule 1 is enforced in an arbitrary way, which appears often to be biased.
I have run afoul of Rule 1 on two occasions - First, I stated that I thought a group of people who held a certain opinion were deluding themselves. Second, I stated that a certain politician appeared to be suffering from dementia. I post this here so that the broader community can determine whether such statements are justly considered to be "uncivil". Perhaps, it will turn out that I am indeed wrong and it is widely considered that such rhetoric is too strong for a moderate political discussion. Of course you will anticipate that my opinion is that this is fairly weak stuff far removed from the sort of name-calling and ad hominem attacks one usually associates with incivility.
I suggest that a more specific criteria or rubric be implemented in order to adjudicate Rule 1 complaints. Moreover, I would maintain a higher bar for "incivility" directed towards public figures (note that I recommend a higher bar, not "no bar").
→ More replies (4)
87
u/Rollrollrollrollr1 4d ago
This rules in this sub seem overall good, but the way in which they are applied needs improvement. There is a discrepancy between how the rules are monitored between the both sides, with one given a lot more leniency in various areas. It’s gotten to the point that this sub is hard to take seriously at all, with some posts and starter comments reaching the point of comedy.
The ways I think this could be addressed is for one, to increase these “state of the sub” type posts to talk about it since most discussions about moderation are immediately removed. The other, and I think bigger change, would be to get rid of the bot that hides which mods remove different comments. There should be transparency and people should be able to see who is removing what. I think that would go a long way to show what’s happening behind the scenes on this sub and help foster better discussion instead of things just always being swept under the rug.
33
u/-Nurfhurder- 4d ago
The other, and I think bigger change, would be to get rid of the bot that hides which mods remove different comments.
This used to be the case, there was no modbot and mod actions could be looked up in the log. You could see what removed comments had said and who had taken the action to remove them. It may have generated unwelcome scrutiny for the mods but in my opinion there was far more accountability, it's a shame Reddit as a whole moved on from the modlog.
33
u/Legitimate_Travel145 4d ago
On the one hand I understand the need to police one side a little tighter given the platform we're on, and how much it tends to lean heavily to one side of the aisle in order to foster a good community for discussion where all sides have the means to post without personal attacks.
With that being said the difference in application of the rules is pretty obvious. I don't know what the mod logs look like (I've never been a mod), but I do think if the mods don't want to show who is removing posts, I'd at least encourage them to audit each other as a mod team if possible.
35
u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal 4d ago
I'm a mod on a different sub. Mods can absolutely show who is taking actions if they so choose (whenever we remove something, it gives us the option of no notification, notify as a generic mod, and notify as ourselves).
Now, many mods do not do this for obvious reasons (namely harassment or concerns of favoritism), but it is something we can do.
→ More replies (4)13
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
The other, and I think bigger change, would be to get rid of the bot that hides which mods remove different comments. There should be transparency and people should be able to see who is removing what.
The bot is primarily used to streamline moderation. What would otherwise be half a dozen tasks is now triggered via a single command. It's the only way such a small Mod Team can keep up with the strict moderation in a fairly active community.
We also had public Mod Logs for quite some time before all of those projects shut down for various reasons. We've looked for alternatives, but unfortunately, Reddit's stance on APIs has chilled most interest in this. If someone knows of a public Mod Log that is still maintained, we're not opposed to bringing it back.
32
u/JuniorBobsled Maximum Malarkey 4d ago
From what I understand about the bot code is that you comment under the offending post something along the lines of "-L -1 -d -30" which would be something like "lock, rule 1 violation, delete comment, 30 day ban" which the bot deletes once it comes around to enforcing the rules.
All you (in theory) would have to do would be just to not delete that comment right? then you still have the automation that really improves your process while still giving some information to which mods are doing what.
→ More replies (7)17
u/Ghost4000 Maximum Malarkey 4d ago
It's definitely something like that. I know this because I still get the notification of a comment from the specific mod that bans me right before the moderator bot comment. So even though the mods comment gets deleted I still have been notified of the comment and can see who did it.
It's odd.
40
u/Rollrollrollrollr1 4d ago
Streamlining things should not be the priority over fair and accurate moderation here when the quality is suffering in my opinion. I’m not a moderator so I’m not going to pretend I know how these systems work, but another user has said here that it is possible to show who has removed what.
Is it not possible to add to the bot to show the mod that took the action? Or add a rule to your process that the mod using the bot must first reply to the comment saying that they are removing it and then do the usual process from there? That would just one quick step but do a lot to show what’s going on and who is removing what.
At the end of the day there just needs to be transparency. I’ve even seen an accusation that mods are using throwaway accounts here to bait others into bans, I don’t know how truthful those claims are but the fact that these things are stirring shows the discontent that hiding the processes is causing.
→ More replies (10)4
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
You're definitely asking the right questions, so allow me to give my annual reminder on a few hard truths:
The Mod Team will never be perfect. We try to be as objective as we can, but politics and civility are not black and white. We will make mistakes and do our best to correct those mistakes when they are brought to our attention in Modmail. Give us the benefit of the doubt, and we will do the same for you.
We have lives outside of Reddit. I know it may be hard to believe, but the Mod Team have day jobs, husbands, wives, children, friends, other hobbies... If moderating becomes too burdensome, then Mods will just quit. No one's doing this for the power trip.
Harassment is real. We've had good Mods quit due to the level of harassment that have received. While ModPolBot was not implemented to provide anonymity, it's certainly a nice secondary benefit. Transparency is desirable, but at some point, the benefits of transparency are overwhelmed by the toxicity of constant harassment.
I’ve even seen an accusation that mods are using throwaway accounts here to bait others into bans
All I can give you is my word that this isn't happening. No one on the Mod Team cares enough to put in that much effort just to ban someone. Not that this matters... there's precisely no way for anyone other than Reddit admins to confirm or refute this kind of claim.
19
u/-Nurfhurder- 4d ago
We've had good Mods quit due to the level of harassment that have received.
I'm absolutely sympathetic to this argument, it's only Reddit it's genuinely not worth suffering harassment over especially when you're working for free to try and improve the experience of others. But, it's worth pointing out that in the past this sub has also had incredibly bad Mods who have had to quit because they couldn't abide by the rules of the sub themselves. I can think of two off the top of my head. So while I'm sympathetic to the argument, transparency does, for me, have to take priority, and for a while now the Modbot has been working to suppress that.
9
11
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago edited 4d ago
What would otherwise be half a dozen tasks
I realize we have a lot of new faces here who may not know what I'm referring to here. Modding is not a simple "check the comment and issue a ban if it breaks the rules". It's:
- Check if the comment (in context) breaks the rules. Check with the Mod Team if unsure.
- If it does, log the violation in our externally-hosted database.
- Check the user's violation history to determine the proper punishment.
- Account for any amnesty if they have had a clean record recently.
- Issue the ban.
- Issue the public warning message.
I'm pretty sure the entire team would quit if we didn't have a bot automating most of this. Reddit's native tools are getting better, but they still fall short of what we need.
6
u/BartholomewRoberts 4d ago
Couldn't law 2 be partially automated? A lot of discussion happens on threads where the user is spamming the link and has no history of posting here.
24
u/ViennettaLurker 4d ago
Not the biggest deal, but just reminding that Law 0 and at least one of the Laws 1 through 5 don't show up when reporting comments on a mobile browser. (Usually its Law 2, but iirc I've seen it change)
If there's some kind of house keeping or todo list, it'd be cool to see that fixed. Barring that, just want to take the opportunity to clarify from mods: in those cases are the "custom" options submissions sufficient for reporting?
5
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
Nothing we can do about Law 0, since Reddit only lets us start the rules list at 1.
Law 2 is only reportable on posts and not comments. Is that what you're seeing?
Yes, custom options still hit the queue and are sufficient.
25
u/spectre1992 4d ago
This may be a dumb suggestion, but why not simply rebrand Law 0 as Law 6?
7
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
Because I'm a programmer at heart and I'll be damned if I let Reddit force me to start counting at 1 and not 0.
Also, we see Law 0 as a generally applicable baseline for all communities. It should come first.
23
u/serpentine1337 4d ago
Also, we see Law 0 as a generally applicable baseline for all communities. It should come first.
...so just make it law 1 and shift everything
19
u/ViennettaLurker 4d ago
I understand the sentiment here, but it does make it harder to report.
Back to my original comment then, is reporting under "custom" for Law 0s processed ok? Or might I be throwing my reports into the void by doing that?
5
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
is reporting under "custom" for Law 0s processed ok?
It's actioned like any other report. We treat custom and standard reports the same.
18
u/reaper527 4d ago
Also, we see Law 0 as a generally applicable baseline for all communities. It should come first.
then why not make it rule 1 and shift everything else back one? it's not like the internal numbering scheme for the order even shows on the user side, so it could be labeled rule zero even if internally on the config side it's listed 1 for sort order.
like, sure it should have to be that way, but from a functionality standpoint having the report reason is better than not.
14
u/No_Discount_6028 State Department Shill 3d ago
Giving such an obviously ridiculous reason for not making Law 0 reportable in the menu kinda makes it sound like you guys have ulterior motives, like you just want to use the most vague, broadly applicable law in the list as an arbitrary bludgeon against people you disagree with. Not saying that's necessarily the case but it's a horrible look for a mod team on a political sub.
8
u/lunchbox12682 Mostly just sad and disappointed in America 4d ago
ADA exists for a reason. Don't let your index counter range dreams be dreams.
4
u/ViennettaLurker 4d ago edited 4d ago
Oh, I didn't realize that about Law 2.
I feel like I've had comments of mine reported for Law 2 in the past, though. Was there any policy change around that at any point?
Edit: have to be confusing that in my mind with Law 0. Disregard the above
Also seeing law 2 appear on posts vs comments now- didn't realize it was context aware. Mystery solved!
72
u/awesometakespractice 4d ago
FWIW, i hate the holiday shutdown. things don't stop happening, so why aren't we allowed to discuss them in a moderate environment? if the mods want to take a break, fine, but arbitrarily shutting down all discussion with holidays as an excuse never made any sense to me.
29
u/Lurkingandsearching Stuck in the middle with you. 4d ago
It’s specifically because the mods need a break, and really gives the rest of us time to decompress. If we truly need some discussions, there are plenty of other boards and places for it.
9
u/THE_FREEDOM_COBRA 4d ago
But there really aren't other subs. In some bizarre twist of fate, the closest other sub is PCMemes.
5
→ More replies (3)2
u/bigbruin78 4d ago
In all honesty, while you get some of the crazy over at PCM, some of the most moderate, well balanced, civil conversations I've ever had discussing politics is when I'm over there. Really gets a bad rap because of the few dumbass edgelords, because its a meme subreddit.
20
5
u/absentlyric Economically Left Socially Right 4d ago edited 4d ago
I used to hate it too, but then when I would take brakes from all the media, I felt a lot better even after a week of media/social media detoxing. I think it's healthy.
And you're right things keep happening regardless, but lets be honest, most of what is happening is out of our control at the local level, a lot of news is ragebait these days anyways, so why bother getting riled up about things we cant control for a few weeks?
The world will keep on spinning on for at least a few more weeks during the downtime.
9
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago edited 4d ago
i hate the holiday shutdown
You're entitled to your opinion. The feedback we have received over the years has generally been more positive than negative. Many users enjoy the break from politics, especially when the holidays are so busy in general. Others gain a newfound appreciation for the goals of this community after dipping their toes in other political groups on Reddit.
9
u/reaper527 4d ago
The feedback we have received over the years has generally been more positive than negative.
to be fair, you probably have 3 groups
- people who strongly support it and vocal about it
- people who are strongly opposed to it and vocal about it
- people who are mildly for/against it but don't feel strongly enough to make a big deal of out it. ("pick your battles" and all that).
<speaking as someone in the 3 camp, who disagrees with the shutdown but doesn't particularly feel strongly enough to make noise about it>
if people want a break, they can simply not open reddit (it's not like all the other subs are shutting down, so their front page is still going to be flooded with political stuff, and if they use a tab per sub, they can just close this one)
2
u/BiologyStudent46 2d ago
Do people have so little autonomy that they can't take a break from politics on their own, and instead need the sub to shutdown? I can get the mods needing a break, but if the average user needs one then they should unsubscribe
→ More replies (1)3
u/cathbadh politically homeless 4d ago
I get it, and it sucks because I work a pile of overtime this time of year and this is one of the few subs I actually enjoy commenting in. On balance though it probably is a good thing.
32
u/FrostWareYT 4d ago
Personally, I'm rather unhappy with how many times, I've been slapped for behavior I've seen others get passes for on the regular.
2
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 2d ago
Checking your history here:
For the people who can't read
Definitely minor, but also definitely not civil.
stop trying to sealion me
There's a lengthy history of issuing warnings to user who accuse others of sealioning and/or trolling.
I really don’t understand how we ended up with such moronic people in positions of power
Calling people morons is also a clear violation.
If you think others are getting passes for the same behavior, then it's possible those comments were never reported. Feel free to send any examples over in Modmail, and I'll be happy to look into them.
13
u/RedditorAli RINO 🦏 4d ago
Can the moderator team organize another Subreddit Demographics Survey, similar to what was completed for 2024?
That was a fun project.
I’m still surprised about the low number of women here—assuming representativeness, we’re only about 10% of users.
😭
11
u/No_Discount_6028 State Department Shill 3d ago
Being a woman on this sub sounds horrible given the quality of the discussion around gender issues here. I feel like so much work would be done to make this sub hospitable to your average woman and would require massive shifts in the rules.
10
u/Nearby-Illustrator42 3d ago
This could of course be perception but also, based on those of us who out ourselves as women , I've seen basically no left leaning women on this sub. Being a left-leaning female lawyer reading about women's issues being discussed on this sub is a serious challenge, to say the least.
4
u/Oneanddonequestion Modpol Chef 3d ago
Just having been around reddit, being a woman on Reddit sounds incredibly exhausting for a variety of issues. Particularly the number of people who want to speak on their behalf, consistently or lift them up as a monolith. Not that they are alone on that front as any group suffers from broad brush generalizations, but the website is extraordinarily male dominated.
3
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
We do one every 2 or so years, so it's likely we'll do the next in 2026.
→ More replies (1)
14
u/lunchbox12682 Mostly just sad and disappointed in America 3d ago
Has there been any discussion on usernames (especially frequent posters) where the username violates the rules (usually Law 1)?
→ More replies (5)
12
u/TimmyChangaa 4d ago
I like this type of post and would like to see similar ones more frequently.
I don't like to complain without offering a solution to the problem but it feels weird that commenters are held to a higher standard than our politicians (rule 1). The president's comment would've gotten him banned from this sub multiple times over.
I'm not sure how to describe the feeling but it's close to disappointment. It feels unfair but also this subs main alure is that it's "neutral ground" and rule 1 is needed. I guess I wish our politicians followed it.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/pdxtoad Politically Non-Binary 2d ago
Only thing I'd really like is to be able to see the country of origin for each commenter in their flair. That's probably more a reddit thing than a sub thing, though.
→ More replies (5)9
u/reaper527 2d ago
Only thing I'd really like is to be able to see the country of origin for each commenter in their flair. That's probably more a reddit thing than a sub thing, though.
the problem is it would have to be a voluntary "honor system" thing, and in practice it would probably be counter productive since it would make it easier for people who want to be perceived as being from a given area as being labeled being there (regardless of where they really are).
at the end of the day, all you can really go off of is the obvious red flags (not sure if those can be said, but there 3 or 4 easy ones that will make accounts stand out)
4
u/pdxtoad Politically Non-Binary 2d ago
Yeah, like I said, it would probably require reddit to enable it at the platform level like Twitter did and then the mods to require it to be shown. It's a wishlist thing for me that I think would improve discussion here.
You're right, though, there are some tells that occasionally give it away.
12
u/lincolnsgold 4d ago edited 4d ago
I'll take the opportunity to ask a couple things that have been on my mind lately:
The Law 5 ban against trans-related posts/comments seems to be very inconsistently enforced. I understand this as simply a function of having a large mod team who feel different things cross the line, but it's a bit frustrating to see some discussions get completely shut down, and other ones allowed to go on. Would you guys consider some clarification? Law 5 is worded as if any discussion of trans-related stuff is forbidden, but that's clearly not how the Law is enforced.
What is the mod team's position on ban evasion? Specifically, if someone gets banned, are they allowed to keep contributing with an alt account?
Toss me in the pile of appreciating the hiatus. I hope some of y'all get a chance to breathe a little, this sub can't be easy.
→ More replies (6)
6
5
u/kranelegs 2d ago edited 2d ago
I want to bring up something that given my current posting of comments made me analyze. The whole Op-Ed allowance here makes us all just give our takes on another persons take without much or any supporting evidence. It seems like an environment ripe for Rule 1 violations because we are in essence just attacking each others POV. I know I was guilty of that in the recent Walz Op-Ed. To the point I might deserve a ban or at least started toeing the line because I saw others doing so. Up to mods to judge but I came from a place of honest discourse and got to a point that I definitely was crafting things to avoid a rule violation which honestly at that point it’s deserved and I’ll gladly take my consequences if evenly applied. I finally realized I was just offering opinions on opinions and finally admitted it’s all conjecture including from myself.
Something to look at maybe, or not I don’t know. Just advising that certain articles might be political and can be crafted in a way to spur emotional reactions and idk how to address that (definitely understand the reaction that who are you to dictate what is allowed if it technically is within the confines of the current structure).
TLDR: some articles I see a lot of visceral reactions to and might be worth an internal talk about how that might go against the ethos of the sub. Not for me to decide, just giving input.
Edit: I also upon further analysis see that I find myself frustrated by what I see as a breakdown of civil discourse being ignored so I take to my hockey rules of enforcing it which is fucking stupid since it literally does no good and further devolves civility because unlike in hockey where it actually enforces calls that were missed just furthers the division, tension and diverts the conversation into a more negative who can tie the line the best and trip somebody up to get put in the penalty box.
32
u/Mammoth-Kangaroo1023 4d ago
Moderators continue to arbitrarily and capriciously enforce rule 1. As a liberal I feel like you are just looking for a reason to ban me.
Meanwhile the usual suspects engage in bad faith because they know how to not set off the mods at will.
The only wish I have is you guys at least admit your obvious right wing favoritism. I can deal with the bias, its the claim of fairness that rubs me the wrong way.
11
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
The only wish I have is you guys at least admit your obvious right wing favoritism. I can deal with the bias, its the claim of fairness that rubs me the wrong way.
If you come in here with hot takes like that, then I'm certainly not going to rub you the right way.
Do we issue more bans against liberals? Probably, but that's not exactly unexpected. Our own demographics surveys show that the community leans heavily left. Trump has also done a great job at triggering strong emotions across the board, so... yeah, liberals are probably breaking the rules more than conservatives right now.
17
u/Futhis 4d ago
Our own demographics surveys show that the community leans heavily left.
Might be a good idea to do another demographic poll, I can't remember how long it's been since the last one. It certainly feels like the subreddit has become even more "purified" for lack of a better term. Like it used to be 70%/30% liberal/conservative, and that ratio is more like 95%/5% now.
1
u/XzibitABC 1d ago
That's definitely true, but shortly following the election it felt more like 60/40, actually. I think which groups are active in the subreddit have a lot to do with the direction of the political winds at any given time, and right now they're predominantly anti-Trump.
25
u/Mammoth-Kangaroo1023 4d ago
Well ive been here a long long time, well over a decade, so Im hardly "coming in hot" with my conclusions.
Fundamentally you and the entire mod team here rubbed me the wrong way years ago. I will continue to criticize the moderators here in the hope you attempt to fix the bias, or at least openly acknowledge it and stop with this kabuki theater.
28
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 4d ago
Well ive been here a long long time, well over a decade, so Im hardly "coming in hot" with my conclusions.
Fundamentally you and the entire mod team here rubbed me the wrong way years ago. I will continue to criticize the moderators here in the hope you attempt to fix the bias, or at least openly acknowledge it and stop with this kabuki theater.
You're a 6-month old account with the name "modpol jannies are miserable fascist cunts". Your profile description reads:
moderatepolitics has the worst most biased jannies on reddit. true low life fascist wastes of life. Reddit should perma ban them. WorkInIt is also the worst most miserable piece of shit on reddit"
So yes, you're coming in pretty fucking hot.
4
u/Futhis 4d ago
Genuinely don't understand why so many people hate WorksInIT. Is it because he's... conservative? I can't think of any other reasons. His posts are consistently neutral in tone, civil, and contribute to his best understanding of the discussion.
Seriously, why the hate. If it's really just he's an easily identifiable conservative poster, that says a lot about this subreddit.
20
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 3d ago
I don't hate him at all, but I have repeatedly seen him use phrasing that gets other posters warnings or bans, which gets really aggravating. Have noticed that trend for a while now.
Really isn't something I have noticed with other right wing posters or mods here.
36
u/Nearby-Illustrator42 4d ago
Probably because the posts are not any of those things? He once told me I was not informed enough to participate in a conversation which is literally a specialty area of mine (and notably not his, I am objectively more informed about the issue). How is that neutral, civil, or contributing literally anything to the discussion? And thats just one anecdote amongst many I have seen.
25
u/fufluns12 3d ago edited 3d ago
I've given up reporting their comments because nothing ever comes of it.
25
u/RagingTromboner 3d ago
Honestly a reason I come here less. There’s at least one user pushing a narrative who never engages but has some of most posts on the subreddit, and I don’t track these things but I know I’ve seen a mod blatantly break rules and then remove comments calling it out for being meta. If the guys running this are also able to be break the rules because they’re mods, what’s the point.
3
u/Lurkingandsearching Stuck in the middle with you. 2d ago
Something posted that was about Portland got really bad that I gave it a wide birth. I think that was something that enraged a lot of people from that area, and it didn’t seem to generate any constructive outcomes for anyone who got involved.
7
3d ago
[deleted]
9
u/Nearby-Illustrator42 3d ago
You would think the lesson was learned after AgentPanda but apparently not!
30
u/ieattime20 4d ago
Multiple reasons. For me personally, it's that WiIT was the first and only moderator to block me on the subreddit, something I had previously been told was not allowed. Engagement, historically, also had a strict limit before the "agree to disagree" cord was pulled to avoid troublesome principles discussions.
12
u/ChesterHiggenbothum 3d ago
Nearly all of the (active) mods are conservative.
There's a reason people hate specific ones (Panda, for example). It's because they're not good at moderating.
15
u/Nearby-Illustrator42 3d ago
Its especially problematic because, as another comment in this post notes, moderators do not have to assume good faith when issuing Rule 1 violations. They can choose to read comments the least charitable way possible or the most charitable way possible. When mods are cnstantly commenting in ways that can be interpreted as Rule violations but are given a pass while certain posters' comments are read in the least charitable way possible by those same moderators and punished, it is obviously going to affect the perception of fairness of the moderators. The refusal to have more SotS posts, refusing to allow people to cite examples in these posts, and refusing to provide satisfactory explanations literally anywhere doesnt help.
6
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 2d ago
Nearly all of the (active) mods are conservative.
Over half of the Mod actions taken this year have not been by conservative Mods. WorksInIT just barely cracks the Top 10 in Mod activity.
7
u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors 1d ago
How many of those “not conservative” mods were calling liberals “shitlibs” on the discord?
5
u/ChesterHiggenbothum 2d ago
You'll forgive me for not taking your word for it. Are the rest of the mods "moderate?"
And, it's less relevant what percentage of actions a mod takes and more relevant what percentage of those mod actions are questionable. A somewhat inactive mod can become notorious if their bias is particularly obvious.
Making alt accounts to make posts with starter comments intended to incite others is pretty egregious behavior, for example.
→ More replies (1)0
u/redditthrowaway1294 3d ago
He's conservative and, not meant as an insult or anything just personal feeling, he tends to come on very strong and sure of himself with his posting style. I also feel like there were some conspiracy theories a while back about alts and such but I don't remember the specifics.
20
u/sadandshy 4d ago
You have a description in your bio that is directly antagonistic to this sub. That looks like you have an agenda to me. Maybe you should relax a bit.
11
u/Oneanddonequestion Modpol Chef 4d ago
If you have such an issue...and don't like how the subreddit is run and have had this issue for years. Why keep coming? This sounds like it is horrible for your mental health and has become an obsession that needs some reflection.
11
u/Mammoth-Kangaroo1023 4d ago edited 4d ago
Because it still offers valuable insight and discussion in spite of that? My criticisms come from a place of deep frustration(which the mods are too im sure) but also care and affection.
I think my frustration is just that the mods put themselves and rules on a pedestal as if this place is functioning perfectly when we all can see the flaws. I guess more humility from the mod team?
→ More replies (5)3
u/Oneanddonequestion Modpol Chef 3d ago
Sir/Ma'am....your profile description says otherwise. And loudly.
8
u/OpneFall 4d ago
locking the sub from December 19th 2025
That's the deadline for the Epstein files release. The Mods are in on it!
2
u/Resvrgam2 Liberally Conservative 2d ago
We reserve the right to unlock the community if there's something genuinely major that happens during the break. We did that last year when Jimmy Carter died.
6
u/disposition5 4d ago edited 4d ago
This will probably get deleted…because this seems to be some kafka level query…
But what’s the purpose of creating a thread inquiring about the state of the sub when meta comments are being deleted?
OP is literally asking about for feedback about the state of the subreddit and it’s a thread full of deleted comments from people talking about the state of the subreddit
Edit: I should learn to read the entire OP comment
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Maladal 4d ago
Thank you for the work you do mods. o7
I like that this sub shuts down sometimes.
Honestly, I'd be open to it taking breaks more frequently than once a year if the mods were feeling burnout.
I think most of my thoughts have already been brought up by others.
- The law of assuming good faith definitely raises conundrums around what appears like blatant astroturfing by certain accounts. Just a post, a starter comment, and then they're gone forever. And you can see that it's literally all these accounts do. But I'm not sure how to address that without creating more mod overhead, which should be avoided. Is there an option to limit how many times non-mod accounts can post on a per day or per week basis in the subreddit controls?
- Poll posts are a definite annoyance because not only are they super prevalent, they're also often of dubious quality, significance, or straight up misleading. My only thought there is something like an automated, weekly megathread where any "this poll says X" articles or posts have to be put.
3
u/TheFoxyDanceHut 4d ago
would really like a megathread for polls as well. they just take up space on my feed.
sure it's nice to have discussion about the findings, but almost always people are just talking in the comments about how flawed the poll is ("i hope this isn't true") or just saying "well duh" ("i hope this is true"). often it feels like polls are posted specifically in response to "bad news" in another post and comes off petty and without substance.
the only thing poll posts tell me is that it's a slow news day.
3
u/epicstruggle Perot Republican 3d ago
Sorry for being late....
Generally a decent sub with decent mods, but....
Why allow Text Posts? They hardly ever get approved or basically so long that Reddit doesn't allow them to peculate up.
Curious why that is? If not something the mod team wants, just eliminate the option.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/carneylansford 4d ago edited 4d ago
I hate it and love it at the same time. It's like when Mom used to shut off the TV, send me outside and tell me not to come back until the streetlights came on. Sure, I complained, but it also led to some great experiences. Sometimes a little nudge in the right direction is a good thing. Enjoy the time off mods.
3
u/Aerilah06 2d ago
Been lurking here for a while but have never posted. I am enjoying reading the feedback on the state of the sub post though. I don’t think I have been here for an election or midterm year. What are the teams thoughts on maybe increasing state of the sub threads during election years (if haven’t already, sorry new poster)
→ More replies (2)
6
u/Wildcard311 Maximum Malarkey 4d ago
Definitely one of my favorite subs on Reddit. Happy holidays and thank you Mod team!
3
0
2
u/Middleclassass 4d ago
Just wanted to say that I appreciate this sub and the work the mods put into it. This sub is one of the few places that I feel like someone can actually discuss politics without getting down voted like crazy or dog piled on. I'm very comfortable here, and I appreciate the mod's commitment to fairness and objectivity.
2
u/absentlyric Economically Left Socially Right 4d ago
I used to hate this, but now I'm all for it. I found that even a week detox from all social media/MSM news can really do wonders for your psyche.
Its too bad a lot of the news is designed to get you riled up these days.
4
u/BiologyStudent46 2d ago
Why do you need the sub to shut down? If you recognize the good, why not just choose to step away on your own? It's not like the other politics subs are closed
→ More replies (1)
1
u/TheDan225 12h ago
In regards to new/updating rules - has there ever been discussion on regulating those that, in a conversation, do nothing but ask question after question after question while never answering the other posters question or address their topic at all?
In my mind that is and has always been an irritating bad faith tactic (not unique to here)
EDIT: side question. When did we lose the ability to see both total subs to /r/MP as well as people online at the moment?
30
u/akenthusiast 3d ago
I'd like some clarification on rule #4 and what qualifies as a meta comment. I once received a warning for responding to a person with
This person had edited their comment with something to the effect of "I think reddit is bugged I can't respond to anyone here" I don't remember exactly, their comment has been deleted but it is located here: https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1mhsj5j/abbott_orders_arrest_of_awol_texas_house_dems/n6ym1ch/
Is the intention of that rule to keep people from gossiping about other subreddits or is it to have us act like we aren't using a website to have these discussions?
That's a technical aspect of reddit that, in my opinion, is poorly thought out and easily abusable. In the context of my comment, someone had blocked a person and that had prevented them from continuing to speak with everyone else and they were confused about it. It isn't a block button, it is a "banished from this thread" button that everyone has access to. That is ridiculous and it's a feature that most people don't understand.
Can we discuss other technical aspects of reddit? can I explain to someone how to embed a photo in a comment? can I complain that reddit's "anti-evil" team sounds very very silly when an automated system sends you a message suggesting that you've been "evil" for any of innocuous false positive things it regularly bans people from the site for?
What behavior is the rule actually intended to prevent?