15
16

/r/BestOfLegalAdvice has already lost over 5,000 subscribers since last night, and this subreddit has only gained 230 subscribers since creation. (self.legaladviceofftopic)

spiritcrusher77 が 投稿

Last night, before I signed off, I mentally noted that BoLA had ~38,000 subscribers. As of the writing of this post, it now has 32,863. So within the span of less than 24 hours, that subreddit has lost over 5,000 subscribers, possibly more (as many may have left before I went to sleep). Unfortunately for the community, there are only 230 subscribers in legaladviceofftopic, proof positive that readers of BoLA are by and large not joining this community, instead of joining it as anticipated.

Is this evidence that the new changes to the LegalAdvice community are unsustainable? Will we continue to see losses at this rate in the future? Will this post be removed by the mods?

全 31 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

[–]blackbirdsongs 16ポイント17ポイント  (5子コメント)

Several starred users were incredibly rude, condescending, arrogant, and borderline patronizing in the discussion post made in BoLA. They made it clear that those who are not them are not welcome in either sub, and that they believe both subs would be better off without anyone who isn't a starred user. Why would they come here? There's no reason to continue trying to engage in a community that has made it clear that you are seen as and will be treated as an unwelcome pest.

At this point it's not just the mods. This whole thing has created what is essentially 'classes'.

[–]Thus_Spoke 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

Several starred users were incredibly rude, condescending, arrogant, and borderline patronizing in the discussion post made in BoLA.

Yeah, they're like that in most of their responses on /r/legaladvice, too. At this point the star is more or less a warning.

[–]blackbirdsongs 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

At least in LA there's still some useful information being offered up. In this case, it's just aggression.

Look, honestly I don't care that much about what happens with this/these subs, but it's clear to anyone who has been here regularly that a lot of people do.

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]Deacon_Steel 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Will we continue to see losses at this rate in the future?

    Probably not for more than 6 more days.

    [–]rslake 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yeah, it's almost like the BOLA mods have made an incredibly stupid decision. Too bad literally nobody predicted that, or told them in no uncertain terms, repeatedly. Yup. They had no way of knowing this would happen. Nooooooo way.

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

    It's all good, we can be Kings of the Rats here in this subreddit.

    [–]UsuallySunny -5ポイント-4ポイント  (21子コメント)

    I am still completely mystified as to why moving discussion from BOLA to this sub is such a devastating, untenable change. It's a one-time move to a different sub. I seriously do not understand why it's such an impossibly difficult thing to ask people to accept, or to get used to.

    Other than the update posts being discussed here instead of on BOLA, that's the change we're implementing. And the concerns raised about that (finding the post here, letting the OP know of the discussion) will be addressed by automated cross-posts.

    [–]spiritcrusher77[S] 10ポイント11ポイント  (4子コメント)

    It's because, at least for me, the decision seems completely arbitrary. Many of my fellow redditors have even assumed malice, simply because the decision seems to have been made completely out of the blue. And the antagonism by some of the starred users towards the BoLA hasn't exactly helped. We just don't see why this is necessary, or why it's even happening.

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

    It's not arbitrary.

    When the plan was to move discussion of update posts to BOLA, people complained. They said not all updates were bestof material. So instead we decided to create a sub that was more open and flexible than BOLA with respect to discussion, move updates there, and have it as an open forum for all off-topic discussion related to legaladvice. This also satisfied those who felt that the purpose of BOLA -- to highlight true all-time bestof material -- had gotten lost in discussion of whatever was vaguely interesting that day.

    These issues -- the update posts, the purpose of BOLA -- may seem "out of the blue" but they've been discussed for quite some time among the mod team. You may not feel it's necessary, but we do. And frankly we don't understand why a one-time sub move is such an impossible thing to accept.

    As for the behavior of individuals -- the only people who speak for the sub post in green, and there are only a few of us. While I may not agree with the reaction of every person, it certainly doesn't justify the name-calling, threats, and other horrible behavior the mods have been subjected to the past few days. If the anonymous cowards who used the "report" function to say these things had said them with their names attached, they'd have been banned from Reddit for life, and they know it. I assure you that nothing said in any of the subs comes close to what's been hurled at us in private.

    [–]spiritcrusher77[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    So instead we decided to create a sub that was more open and flexible than BOLA with respect to discussion, move updates there, and have it as an open forum for all off-topic discussion related to legaladvice. This also satisfied those who felt that the purpose of BOLA -- to highlight true all-time bestof material -- had gotten lost in discussion of whatever was vaguely interesting that day.

    While that's all well and good, I don't see why you didn't just make a new subreddit for "true bestof material", as the people demanding that were clearly in the minority. Additionally, you offer no explanation for why commenting was disabled on BestofLegalAdvice. I might actually be in favor of the changes, were it not for that. Because all we want to do is discuss the material of LegalAdvice, in a thriving community. If BoLA was getting too offtopic, and it might have been, I would have welcomed sensible changes. I urge the moderation team of Best of Legal Advice to reconsider removing commenting, or at least offer a better explanation as to why it was removed.

    These issues -- the update posts, the purpose of BOLA -- may seem "out of the blue" but they've been discussed for quite some time among the mod team. You may not feel it's necessary, but we do. And frankly we don't understand why a one-time sub move is such an impossible thing to accept.

    That's not what's so difficult to accept. There seems to be a big disconnect between the userbase of BoLA and the moderators. We're angry that we can't have discussions in Best of Legal Advice anymore. And while you say that we can just have those discussions here, we absolutely can. But you must have foreseen that a large, large percentage of the Best of Legal Advice community wouldn't participate here, and it pretty much tears apart the community. Just look at the numbers. 5,000 gone when I posted this thread, probably more by now.

    As for the behavior of individuals -- the only people who speak for the sub post in green, and there are only a few of us. While I may not agree with the reaction of every person, it certainly doesn't justify the name-calling, threats, and other horrible behavior the mods have been subjected to the past few days. If the anonymous cowards who used the "report" function to say these things had said them with their names attached, they'd have been banned from Reddit for life, and they know it. I assure you that nothing said in any of the subs comes close to what's been hurled at us in private.

    And I realize that. I absolutely disavow the actions of these users, because it's preventing any civil discourse. And it's clear that even in these threads, where you're getting a tirade of downvotes for little reason, that the users are very angry. I have no doubt that reports are being spammed with hurtful, hurtful messages, because anonymity absolutely emboldens people to say horrible things just because they can get away with it.

    Look, I know that many of us have acted unreasonably, but many of us feel like the moderators "went behind the backs" of the BoLA community, so to speak. And I realize you probably don't agree with that, because "you've discussed this for quite some time". I think if commenting was returned to BestofLegalAdvice, but perhaps there were more stringent posting guidelines so it's really only "Bestof" material, it would benefit the community as a whole. It hurts to see this great community coming apart at the seams, and I hope you can understand that. This may seem like a bunch of people just seeking entertainment from the legal troubles of people, but I can assure you that, to us, it's more than that. I can safely say that I love this community, and I want it to prosper. I hope that you can understand why we feel that way.

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

    Okay. I hear what you are saying. I think it would be better to have all discussion in one place, but I hear what you are saying.

    Honestly, I'm exhausted and sad and just at the end of my rope for discussing this. I love this community too, and the horrible behavior of a not insignificant number of people this week has been incredibly depressing.

    [–]gratty 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

    I think the exodus is a combination of two grievances: inconvenience and the lack of a request for permission (of the subscribers) for the change.

    [–]UsuallySunny 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    The "inconvenience" is a one-time clicking of buttons or changing of shortcuts/bookmarks... doing all of which takes, what, a minute? As inconveniences go that isn't much of one.

    Making administrative decisions is the job of mods.

    [–]gratty 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Didn't say I agreed. :)

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

    No, I know.

    To me, neither of those seem to justify the tremendous level of drama this change has caused.

    [–]rabiiiii 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Not you, but some of the starred users users, one in particular, really seem hell-bent on adding fuel to the fire. When they post comments saying things like no one on the mod team likes the BoLA community and they're glad that people are angry it really doesn't help.

    Like it or not your starred users are perceived by the sub at large as the voice of the mods. I think this would have calmed down much quicker if there weren't people actively engaged in creating animosity.

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

    As I said to someone else, the only people speaking for the sub do so when their names are in green.

    As we've grown, BOLA has had some issues, as have the main sub. This was an honest attempt to address some of them.

    [–]rabiiiii 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    You guys do say that, I'm just telling you what the general perception is, I'm not trying to argue.

    The fact is, a lot of subscribers do feel that starred users often act hostile or condescending and that the stars send a message that the mods condone their actions. One of the starred users claimed repeatedly that he's glad people are upset and that the community they've invested time in is garbage.

    You asked why people are getting upset so I'm trying to give some perspective. Again, not looking for an argument. I see your point of view as well.

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

    All I can say is that if some inflammatory comments by one guy who's not a mod is enough to drive someone away... well, that's their choice, I guess.

    All I want to do is communicate what this change means, and what it doesn't mean.

    Just to tl;dr patman's post:

    /r/legaladvice: Virtually no change. See above rule explanations for more details, but in general this will go as it always has.

    /r/bestoflegaladvice: This subreddit will act as a repository for the best posts and comments from /r/legaladvice. This will be for the people that just want to see the best posts without having to comb through the normal posts in the main sub. . . . There will be no commenting in this subreddit, as we intend it as a repository and nothing more.

    /r/legaladviceofftopic: This is a new subreddit that will serve to take over some of the things that were previously done in /r/bestoflegaladvice. . . . The point here, though, is to allow for off-topic discussion of legaladvice related posts. That discussion goes here, not in the main sub.

    [–]rabiiiii 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    He's not a mod but he has a mod-issued flair. It literally shows up on mobile saying "Quality Contributor." That's going to be perceived as an endorsement of the things they say, whether you guys intend that or not. That's all I'm trying to point out.

    I know what the mod team stated but people are seeing what you're saying and contrasting it with what mod-endorsed users are saying and drawing their conclusions. The statements don't exist in a vacuum.

    Again I'm not looking for an argument I'm just trying to explain the perspective. This is message control 101. It's the same reason why companies make rules about what their employees can post on social media. Because they know people will see what those employees are saying as something representative of the company whether that's fair to the company or not.

    I'm not asking you to change or do anything differently. You and the mod team should do what you think is best.

    [–]mizmoose -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Because

    a - people in general hate change.

    Subsection 1: See grammas and soccer parents lose their shit when Facebook makes any minor change. You'd think that FB was kidnapping their first born and making it into long pork jerky.

    b - people think they always have right to be informed ahead of time. Look at all the LA posts that say something like "My boss says that as of today I now make $5 less. They didn't warn me ahead of time." IIRC, 99% of the time the legal answer to that is, "Bummer!"

    c - For whatever reason, Redditors think they have some "right" to demand how any sub is run, believing that their say has some bigger value because they are the consumers of the sub. This uses the same logic as people who throw tantrums over My Tax Dollars being used for things they don't like.

    And in confusion, Your Sunnyness, I will make two last points:

    • When it comes to change, you cannot win. No matter what, there will always be a mob insisting the change is wrong and you must repeal it.

    • Someone elsewhere, in a different discussion topic, suggested that the correct way to handle such a thing might be to say, "I'm sorry you don't like this. You're free to start another sub. This policy, however, is not going to change."

    So sayeth The Moose. I wish I drank beer, 'cause I think I need one.

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

    Someone elsewhere, in a different discussion topic, suggested that the correct way to handle such a thing might be to say, "I'm sorry you don't like this. You're free to start another sub. This policy, however, is not going to change."

    I'm sure you're right. But a significant part of my life basically revolves around trying to get people to understand each other. It frustrates me when I see massive misunderstanding over simple things.

    [–]mizmoose 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Oh, I forgot another point. The one that will get me downvoted to Satan's basement toilet's sewer system.

    You can't fix stupid.