10
11

Meta[Meta] Subreddit updates (self.Christianity)

Eastern Orthodox OCAoutsider が 投稿

Last week we adopted a formal flair policy. Please follow this link if you wish to request flair. This week we are addressing our crossposting policy following a recent spat of confusion relating to it. We have been discussing it internally for a little bit and my plan is to move forward with the update in about a week.

2.4. Crossposting

Incoming cross-links that are associated with, or seem likely to be associated with, substantive negative brigade activity are contrary to our policy.

Examples:

1. Pretty much any link to /r/atheism or /r/SubredditDrama.

2. Links to other subreddits if the hive mind there seems likely to negatively react in a way that we or our subscribers will notice.

We discourage brigade activity because it is disruptive.

Cross-links that single out a user for mockery, criticism, or abuse, or that result in significant presence of the aforementioned reasons in the comments of a thread, are contrary to our policy. We support discussion of controversial views here, and we discourage this kind of cross-linking, which inhibits free expression within our subreddit. Moderator-distinguished content is explicitly not covered by this.

We will try to judge intent and unforeseen circumstances charitably, but if our subscriber is victimized by your link, we will take that seriously. If you must post drama, endeavor to make your thread be about something higher than the perceived failures or shortcomings of an easily identifiable individual.

Cross-links that create a "wall of shame" by linking a thread and/or listing "bad" comments from that thread are contrary to our policy, because these are more complicated examples of the previous case.

Our policy applies to links, NP links, screenshots, links to archive sites, and so on. NP is seen as a nice gesture, but if a link is contrary to our policy, it is contrary to our policy, with or without NP.

We will judge outgoing links as if they were incoming links, and we will also cooperate with the mods of linked subreddits if they think our link thread is or will be disruptive. We aren't anyone's personal army and we will remove links that try to cast us as that. This explicitly includes links to threads in "crisis" subreddits, since these links, while well-intentioned, often violate the rules of the linked subreddit.

Depending on the nature off the crosslink we may ban immediately or we may contact the link submitter and try to get them to take the link down first.

This change mostly is bringing our wording into better accord with our practices and to clarify our position on crossposting/brigading behavior.

Off-topic stuff will be removed so this submission can remain about the crossposting policy update. We are aware of a variety of criticisms. If one feels the need to bring something up other than crossposting, please do so in its own submission.

全 164 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 29ポイント30ポイント  (7子コメント)

Cross-links that single out a user for mockery, criticism, or abuse, or that result in significant presence of the aforementioned reasons in the comments of a thread, are contrary to our policy. We support discussion of controversial views here, and we discourage this kind of cross-linking, which inhibits free expression within our subreddit. Moderator-distinguished content is explicitly not covered by this.

If you are willing to ban people for criticism of an idea, you don't support discussion of controversial views; you protect them for holding them. If you supported discussion, then there should be no issue with one person sharing a link with another for criticism of someone's position. In fact, you should welcome that if you support discussion, because the cross-link would bring people to the discussion (assuming the optimal situation in which they remain on topic).

All I'm hearing here is that you know some ideas are unpopular and/or bizarre and you want to give them special mod protection against people who are critical of those ideas, since you know that those truly special ideas generate crosslinks.

EDIT: Clearly I focused on criticism; abusive crosslinkers should have consequence. Not sure about mockery.

[–]Christian (LGBT)PrincessAmnesty 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its one thing to debate controversial views, its another thing to tread on a support thread to bash someone over the head with your controversial views.

[–]Eastern Orthodox OCAoutsider[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's OK to voice theologically controversial stuff in the realm of Christianity here. It's less OK to go somewhere else to mock holders of those controversial issues in a way that has a strong possibility of funneling negativity at them. Our policy point about pestering/following people (1.1) does mean you can't make it your mission to counter all of those views of a user. Our policy on doing too much of one thing (3.6) limits a user from having infinite umbrage for their theological views. Attempting to force debates (2.2) should also address leading questions designed to elicit a response which will be easy to target.

We can support discussion without also supporting invitations for backup intended or perceived.

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

Right, but I asked about criticism of an idea. You gave me information about how we should treat users, which pretty much danced around my question entirely. I know what the current rules are. Your proposed rule prevents simple criticism of an idea. I'll give you an example. For the purposes of this example, let's pretend I work somewhere like Biologos, so I know many people who believe that evolution is God's tool.

I find young earth creationism to be a mostly unsupportable idea at the least, and it really irks me when people come to this subreddit to talk about young earth creationism in such a way that if I don't agree with them, I'm failing to honor God/Jesus/the Bible/whatever. That happens. If I share a link to that post or comment with my coworkers, and each one of them critically but civilly engages the user's idea.

That doesn't like a bad thing - it brings high quality, critical discussion of theology to the subreddit. But, as far as I can tell, because the subject is something that isn't very popular to believe, I'm not allowed to link people to it and invite them to the discussion. Under this rule, I basically couldn't invite experts on a subject that I know to weigh in on a subject, which seems completely counterproductive if the mods are attempting to build a subreddit of good discussion about theology.

The rule mentions "free expression," but you've essentially written into the rules that some ideas are unpopular, and we aren't allowed to link those in order to critically engage them. If someone holds an unpopular theology, and they post it here, they shouldn't get special mod protection of their belief. If I want to link to /r/brokehugs with a post that says, "This theology is so flimsy that a strong wind would knock it apart" and those users who read it want to engage the user's theology, there is no harm in that.

tl;dr: You should remove the protection of ideas and keep the protection of users. It doesn't make any sense if your stated goals is free expression. If people on Reddit come to post about their theology, then they should be willing to have people, even large groups of people, be critical of their theology. That's how discussion is supposed to work.

[–]Atheistbrucemo 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

You are passionately supporting our policy, but this is being framed as passionate criticism because you have pointed to the word "criticism" in the policy.

You have a point, which we can address. I would like to start by pointing out that the policy mentions criticism of a user, not of an idea. It's possible that there is confusing or wrong to distinguish between criticism of a user and abuse of a user, but you are agreeing with the intent of the policy.

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree with the intent of the policy - protecting users. I also think some things that have been pointed out as criticism of users are not actually criticism of a user, but criticism of an idea or belief. For example, I don't think a wall of quotes from a thread is being critical of the users so much as the idea they expressed, and I don't think there's anything wrong with people pointing at an idea through the internet, even a cherished theological belief, and saying, "Well that's silly."

I also think there are some instances in which user criticism is acceptable. A user who uses poor logic or who converses badly should be criticized, because it's through criticism that we learn our flaws and grow. Granted, this criticism shouldn't be abusive or mocking, but criticism itself shouldn't be banned.

That's pretty much my only critique of this policy. I think it's potentially overreaching, because there's some overlap between users who tend to me viciously mocked and users who hold controversial ideas. Those users shouldn't be protected from criticism of their modes of addressing other users or of their ideas.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    If you notice, I'm against the idea of offering protection from criticism. If people are making abusive or mocking comments because someone crosslinked a post for that person, the person who linked it should receive consequences.

    [–]US_Hiker 52ポイント53ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Given the long history over 'harm' and 'brigading' being overdramatized by mods and victimization being blamed on other subs where there is no evidence of this nor any actual harm being done, I read this as basically 'if we don't like it, you're banned'.

    The wording in particular is so open as to allow a ban for crossposting anything.

    What will keep the moderators from abusing this rule, given the recent abuses of ban powers? Everything is sooooo subjective.

    [–]Homeschooled316 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Why did I already think it was a rule that xpost was auto-ban here, no matter the intentions? Is that just something people said?

    [–]US_Hiker 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's not uncommon, but no, it has never been quite auto-ban, and less and less auto-ban over the last 2 years or so.

    [–]Atheistbrucemo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    When the subject of brokehugs was discussed in mod mail here two years ago or so, there was a strong argument that we should let brokehugs do whatever it wanted as long as people there used NP and as long as the brokehugs mods allowed it.

    There was a case where one of our unpopular users was directly targeted there, where not only did mods here want to allow that, they wanted to prevent me from removing the material that was linked, which is something that we frequently to do protect cross-posted users.

    Moderators also occasionally cross-posted users to /r/brokehugs or /r/sidehugs.

    That's where all of this is coming from. So when you ask if cross-posting was always auto-ban here, that's more or less true, in that if you cross-posted to /r/atheism you were probably dead meat, but it was not true if you were a member of a certain set of cross-posters who are subscribers here, posting to places populated by them, and if you were targeting a certain set of subscribers.

    The cross-posting rule has been enforced in relation to who you are and who you target, and we can't continue to do that. If we are going to have a rule against cross-posting, we can't allow some of our subscribers to get away with doing it to some of our subscribers.

    [–]Eastern Orthodox OCAoutsider[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    https://www.reddit.com/r/XtianityPolicy/comments/nw0ze/bans/

    ctrl-f: karmajacking

    It's old terminology for jacking up a users karma. The effects used to be far worse and could net someone -240 or so votes. That's all stuff older than 4 years ago and not super organized. It was my early efforts at transparency.

    [–]Anglican Communioncoveredinbeeees 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

    For the purposes of this policy, what is the "hive mind" of a sub and how will the mods go about identifying it?

    [–]Eastern Orthodox OCAoutsider[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    For the purposes of this policy, what is the "hive mind" of a sub and how will the mods go about identifying it?

    Something that operates essentially as the Wikipedia entry for groupthink. We continue to discuss this sort of thing internally to try to stay on the same interpretive page overtime.

    [–]Anglican Communioncoveredinbeeees 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I have never seen that sort of phenomenon happen in a sub - can you elaborate?

    [–]Christian (Chi Rho)X019 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Depending on the nature off the crosslink we may ban immediately or we may contact the link submitter and try to get them to take the link down first.

    This was never fleshed out in the draft versions. The wording here doesn't necessarily seem cohesive with the SOM. Can we add more to make it easier to understand?

    [–]Eastern Orthodox OCAoutsider[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (2子コメント)

    It's that at moderator discretion we can do ban first and then unban when the user removes the crosslink or we can ask a user before banning the user.

    [–]Christian (Chi Rho)X019 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Isn't moderator discretion what caused the SOM in the first place?

    [–]Eastern Orthodox OCAoutsider[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The SOM is more the product of removing indiscretion.

    [–]Christianthemsc190 22ポイント23ポイント  (50子コメント)

    I'm not sure if this new articulation of the rule meets satisfies the overwhelming consensus when this was discussed in /r/ChristianityMeta that it's still unclear. I don't want to come across as rude, but are you actually listening to the community when you make rules like this? Like I said, (roughly) this was discussed and largely rejected. How can us subscribers be sure we're being heard?

    [–]Jewish - Torah im Derech Eretznamer98 17ポイント18ポイント  (79子コメント)

    Links to other subreddits if the hive mind there seems likely to negatively react in a way that we or our subscribers will notice.

    What does it mean to negatively react? What does this reaction look like?

    Cross-links that create a "wall of shame" by linking a thread and/or listing "bad" comments from that thread are contrary to our policy, because these are more complicated examples of the previous case.

    I don't understand what it means to be contrary to policy. Does that mean such posts are not breaking the rule as they are an aggregate and not one specific user being quoted, or that they super break the rules because it "targets" multiple users? I believe you mean the second, but I don't find that wording clear. Edit: I understand now what "contrary to policy" means, but this doesn't at all explain why comment aggregation is worse than direct links.

    screenshots, links to archive sites

    Why are these not allowed? Or in what circumstances are they not allowed?

    Depending on the nature off the crosslink we may ban immediately or we may contact the link submitter and try to get them to take the link down first.

    Is this at all defined on what is considered better or worse?

    If you must post drama, endeavor to make your thread be about something higher than the perceived failures or shortcomings of an easily identifiable individual.

    Why is this some kind of exception? Either it breaks the rule or not. Is this saying links not intended to cause drama are better? Or are screen shots with user names erased not break the rule?

    This really does sound like an attempt to shut down /r/brokehugs given the recent banning (and unbanning) of two regulars from there which are regulars here and the threads in the meta sub to discuss them. Edit: I would link to the threads on /r/christianitymeta about these bannings, but that might break the new rules. :P

    [–]Eastern OrthodoxLuluThePanda 1ポイント2ポイント  (61子コメント)

    /r/brokehugs is private. I'm not sure how we could possibly try to shut something down we have no access to.

    [–]Jewish - Torah im Derech Eretznamer98 8ポイント9ポイント  (60子コメント)

    If you make an attempt to punish the users there (you guys have screenshots, you know what goes on), that would effectively shut it down.

    [–]Eastern OrthodoxLuluThePanda 0ポイント1ポイント  (59子コメント)

    I have no idea where youre getting these 'screenshots' from, but apparently you know something we dont. The sub is private, we have no idea what's happening there, nor do we have access to the sub. And I rather enjoy it that way.

    [–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 17ポイント18ポイント  (2子コメント)

    One of the mods has shown that at least he had access to screenshots. Namer is telling the truth.

    [–]Eastern OrthodoxLuluThePanda 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Screenshots of the current brokehugs sub?

    [–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yes. Someone (can't recall who) mentioned something that happened after the sub went private.

    [–]Jewish - Torah im Derech Eretznamer98 6ポイント7ポイント  (42子コメント)

    Being that a mod (not in mod mail, so I won't say who) said the exact opposite, I am not sure who to believe.

    A mod in brokehugs got similar confirmation.

    Outsider has screens of brokehugs. Edit: This thread was made while /r/brokehugs was private, so the screenshot was taken, and in the hands of a mod, while /r/brokehugs was(is) private.

    [–][削除されました]  (12子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]Jewish - Torah im Derech Eretznamer98 5ポイント6ポイント  (11子コメント)

      Off-topic stuff will be removed so this submission can remain about the crossposting policy update. We are aware of a variety of criticisms. If one feels the need to bring something up other than crossposting, please do so in its own submission.

      Shunting it aside. I can guarantee you that if I were to make a meta post*, I would be accused of many things, none of which would be "trying to improve the community". So, I have to hope others will make such posts.

      [–][削除されました]  (10子コメント)

      [deleted]

        [–]Christian (Evangelical)Cabbagetroll 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

        We didn't delete that.

        [–]Eastern Orthodox OCAoutsider[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

        You can tell because it says deleted instead of removed.

        [–]Christian (Evangelical)Cabbagetroll 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

        I didn't know it differentiated that for everyone. If I'm on another sub and it says [deleted], then the user got rid of it?

        [–]Atheistbrucemo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        You're drawing conclusions.

        [–]Atheistbrucemo[M] -6ポイント-5ポイント  (16子コメント)

        Your comment is hard to respond to point by point without creating an unreadable wall.

        It is okay to cross-link if the cross-link is not intended to cause negative effects, and does not cause negative effects. Examples of negative effects are annoying brigade traffic, and negative remarks about our subscribers in the other subreddit.

        Cross-linking is not limited to direct links with NP, but includes NP links, screen shots, and links to archive sites. The things other than direct links either try to reduce harm or reduce culpability or jump through some linking subreddit hoop, but they don't reduce harm very well if at all.

        Anyone who cross-links exposes themselves to a ban here. This has always been true. Those who are banned tend to be unbanned quickly if they speak to us about their ban, except in cases where cross-posting is particularly egregious, e.g. cross-posting an individual to a quarantined sub.

        The major changes here are:

        1. Confusion about whether NP is immunizing should be gone. We've seen several subreddits suggest to their subscribers that we are okay with the kind of linking present in those subs if NP links are used, and that's not true.

        2. Confusion about whether it is okay to cross-post someone you don't like, or someone who you think has said something stupid, to various meta subs in order to make fun of them there has been removed: We regard that as being bad.

          /r/brokehugs has been a problem in this regard, but they are by no means the only place that people cross-link to. Off the top of my head I can think of eight subs whose subscribers do this, plus /r/bestof, whose subscribers don't tend to do this, but sometimes that is the result because they are very large.

        [–]Jewish - Torah im Derech Eretznamer98 12ポイント13ポイント  (7子コメント)

        Your comment is hard to respond to point by point without creating an unreadable wall.

        You could do a quote-response segment. While I admit it is not the easiest to read, it does work.

        It is okay to cross-link if the cross-link is not intended to cause negative effects, and does not cause negative effects.

        How do you define negative effects? Voting patterns? Comments from the brigade? Reputation damage?

        screen shots, and links to archive sites.

        This mitigates voting and comment brigading, but not reputation damage. But is reputation damage a quantifiable thing?

        Anyone who cross-links exposes themselves to a ban here. This has always been true.

        Right, which makes sense, to a degree. My question is one of timing and what appears to be a needlessly wordy rule, as opposed to the rule itself. If it is always bannable except when a mod is all "it could be worse", just say so. Right now, it just seems like words for words sake.

        Confusion about whether NP is immunizing should be gone

        Excellent clarification.

        Confusion about whether it is okay to cross-post someone you don't like, or someone who you think has said something stupid, to various meta subs in order to make fun of them there has been removed

        I was not aware this wasn't already against the rules. But what about comment aggregation of multiple users? A "worst of x thread" sans links or user names?

        but they are by no means the only places that people cross-link to.

        Which is simply why I question the timing of this rule, not the point of the rule. As far as bestof v. SRD v. other, does the subreddit rules and enforcement matter? SRD does enforce their rules pretty strictly regarding cross posting, but I can understand why you view them as intrinsically more hostile.

        [–]Eastern Orthodox OCAoutsider[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (6子コメント)

        How do you define negative effects? Voting patterns? Comments from the brigade? Reputation damage?

        Pointing a funnel at someone you don't like for people you do like to go mess with in about any form. People who post here shouldn't have other subreddits directing ridicule, groups of people, or other crap at them.

        This mitigates voting and comment brigading, but not reputation damage. But is reputation damage a quantifiable thing?

        Screenshots and archive sites do little to dissuade some of the traffic that comes over from various crossposts.

        I was not aware this wasn't already against the rules. But what about comment aggregation of multiple users? A "worst of x thread" sans links or user names?

        I believe this is addressed in the 'wall of shame' section.

        Which is simply why I question the timing of this rule, not the point of the rule.

        This rewording arose following three crossposting bans just about a month ago. We have been discussing it internally since the apparent confusion.

        [–]Jewish - Torah im Derech Eretznamer98 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

        I believe this is addressed in the 'wall of shame' section.

        I get that it is mentioned, I just don't understand it.

        [–]Eastern Orthodox OCAoutsider[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

        Because it's the theological equivalent of making fun of a group of jocks or goths or the like. It funnels an often presumable adverse audience to a conversation they otherwise would not be a part of.

        [–]Jewish - Torah im Derech Eretznamer98 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

        they otherwise would not be a part of.

        This was already the case and the rules don't add anything here. My concern is brokehugs, because most of the people there are already here anyways. So, if the person is a regular on both, will this line of thought be discarded and a ban might be mitigated to a warning?

        I just want to reiterate, the rule makes sense, it is the timing that is concerning.

        [–]Atheistbrucemo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Our cross-posting rule has never specified a group of people that may violate the rule without being busted, and it has never specified a group of our subscribers who may be targeted with our tacit approval.

        If someone is being victimized by a cross-post, I'll do something about it. I don't care who the target is and I don't care who the attacker is.

        If someone is banned they can talk to us about it, and if they take the thread down and say they won't do it again, we'll probably unban them.

        I don't know what brokehugs has been like since they went private, but before they went private there were some threads that I felt were victimizing and many that linked us that I thought were okay, and I don't care about the ones that I thought were okay.

        Yesterday I received two complaints about SRD threads. One I thought targeted users, and one I felt didn't. I asked the first guy to take the thread down, and posted in our chalkboard sub that I had done this. He ignored me for 19 hours, so he's banned as of 45 minutes ago. The other one I ignored.

        This is probably how I will do things from now on.

        [–]Eastern Orthodox OCAoutsider[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

        This was already the case and the rules don't add anything here.

        Yes, the policy itself is still basically the same. But we don't want confusion to raise its head when and where we can avoid it.

        My concern is brokehugs, because most of the people there are already here anyways. So, if the person is a regular on both,

        There is user overlap between /r/brokehugs and /r/Christianity but the two are not the same. It is still possible to funnel users from /r/brokehugs, which is a different set of demographics, to /r/Christianity. Even within the subreddit itself however there might be occasion that I would argue a user has violated the policy. If a submission was made directing users in /r/Christianity to a specific post in /r/Christianity to deride the target in some way I would see crossposting as one of the problems with such a submission. In practice our crossposting policy has applied nearly exclusively to the actual crossposter. There have been rare cases where a commenter has had some sort of moderator intervention (removal, comment, warning, ban, blacklist) for participating as a commenter in a crossposted submission. Those rarely happen because a lot of people post all over the place. Our policies apply to all users regular or otherwise. We don't waste a lot of time on non-regular users though and dispatch them quickly and usually quietly. People who invest time here get the chance to correct problems whether it is crossposting or telling someone off.

        So, if the person is a regular on both, will this line of thought be discarded and a ban might be mitigated to a warning?

        I believe it is still our policy that a crossposting ban can usually be undone by just removing the crosspost. It's not the most intuitive policy for everyone. It used to net a ban for every known instance of crossposting.

        [–]Jewish - Torah im Derech Eretznamer98 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Thanks for the clarification

        [–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

        It is okay to cross-link if the cross-link is not intended to cause negative effects, and does not cause negative effects.

        If I crosslink without intending to cause negative effects, and it does cause negative affects, what happens? I can't control other users' actions.

        [–]Atheistbrucemo -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

        I'd ask you to take the thread down because it's doing bad stuff that you didn't intend, but I can't fix it.

        [–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Sounds reasonable enough. Thanks.

        [–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

        [removed]

          [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

          [removed]

            [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

            [removed]

              [–]Episcopalian (Anglican)slagnanz 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

              Thank you for articulating this formally, this helps.

              My thoughts about this in random order:

              1. Brokehugs seems irrelevant to the discussion at this point. Two reasons: first, it is private. Second, all of those users are regulars here anyways. What they do hardly counts as brigading, since all their o votes have already been cast. It's just a forum for complaining. If they want to have a mean spirited sub to express dissent to ideas, threads, even particular users, fine. So long as nobody can actually see that stuff, who cares? The concern is that we don't want our users to feel violated or bullied by public denunciation. We can't stop user a from texting user b to say "Man, /u/slagnanz is such a prick, did you see his post?", and while that is mean, we can't see or punish that. Slagnanz will never know this happened and the bullying will not take place. I think brokehugs doesn't factor in anymore.

              2. Can you give an example in which it would be acceptable to post drama? I see no reason why not to ban it forthright?

              3. I like the principle that victimization here guides the moderating principle. That is good. I might like a little more clarity on intent though.

              [–]Jewish - Torah im Derech Eretznamer98 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

              We can't stop user a from texting user b to say "Man, /u/slagnanz is such a prick, did you see his post?", and while that is mean, we can't see or punish that

              The mods actually can choose to punish it. Even though brokehugs is private, at least one mod can still see what is going on. There have been other confirmations from others.

              [–]Episcopalian (Anglican)slagnanz 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

              Bruce told me he agreed, that he really didn't care what happened there. Do you think it would actually be punished?

              [–]Jewish - Torah im Derech Eretznamer98 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Considering bruce is the one who strong armed the mods there into several of their current rules, and considering they have banned people for posting there, and considering that they still can see inside;

              Absolutely

              [–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

              I don't see why it wouldn't. If a user from /r/brokehugs is clearly violating a rule from /r/Christianity, then why wouldn't they? One doesn't make rules to not enforce them.

              [–]Atheistbrucemo 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

              The point of this is to protect our subscribers and encourage others to follow our cross-posting rules because our reasoning is good.

              I'm not interested in that panty raid stuff and I'm not going to seek it out. I don't go where I don't have access and if anyone is considering sending me screen shots, forget it. One of the things that annoys me about the Christian community here is that this happened in pretty large scale a few years ago, and I'd have a hard time condemning that if I took part in similar stuff.

              [–]Atheistbrucemo -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

              I agree with this.

              I've had a lot of concerns with brokehugs, but virtually all of them are addressed by their remaining private. My main concerns have involved people here seeing that people there are gossiping about them, attacking them, etc., especially if mods here are doing nothing about it, but if this is happening where the victim can't see, it isn't an issue.

              I don't know what they've turned into since they've gone private. I was disappointed to learn that they allowed a user's privacy to be violated there, but I assume that they are not violating Reddit's rules, and therefore I don't care what they do.

              Can you give an example in which it would be acceptable to post drama?

              I like the principle that victimization here guides the moderating principle.

              The second one is probably most associated with me and this has guided my moderation since forever. I take people being deliberately mean to someone a lot more seriously than I take someone breaking a rule. This is one reason our cross-posting rule has bothered me, because some of that is about being super-mean to someone.

              If someone posts a link to a dust-up we're having here and I can't figure out who is being attacked either intentionally or as some sort of side-effect, I don't much care about it. I don't like to make statements about trends if my evidence is subjective, but I feel that /r/brokehugs was more about that kind of thing, and less about "Hey, look at this idiot (or these idiots)" the further you go in the past. People were considerate of those they were talking about, and some of the conversation there that didn't focus on individuals was really very good. Some of the SRD stuff is in the same category -- people post about drama here and the comments are all, "Wow, what a nice sub," and then they just talk about whatever issue that we're talking about here and say roughly the same stuff.

              [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

              [removed]

                [–]Christian (Cross)FatherBeacroft 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Thanks for moderating!

                [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

                [removed]

                  [–]Atheistbrucemo -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  Formatting on point 2 is using "code" because it's indented 4. I don't know what the Wiki page will eventually do with that but we can assume we can fix that.

                  The second numbered point is voiced to mods.

                  I'm sorry I didn't notice that prior to now.

                  [–]Eastern Orthodox OCAoutsider[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  reddit markup works on reddit's wiki interchangeably. I think looking at it now that the examples can be a list in the XP/Meta. We should move the word 'Examples' to the bottom and link to the meta section.

                  [–]Atheistbrucemo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Yeah, that's good.

                  [–]beauty_dior 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Thank you for protecting our Safe Space.

                  [–]FFinalFantasyForever -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  I think linking to the badx subs should not be allowed either just like /r/atheism and SRD.

                  [–]Atheistbrucemo 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  Everything is covered. Those two I picked as examples of cases that are almost always bad, but /r/badreligion, etc., are in the same category.

                  [–]FFinalFantasyForever 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Oh, ok, just wanted to be sure.

                  [–]Eastern Orthodox OCAoutsider[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Our policy is written to include incoming and outgoing links and we have at least one warning on the books for a user linking from here to brokehugs.