上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 482

[–]skybelt 59ポイント60ポイント  (16子コメント)

I really hope the "this is not a news subreddit" rule enforcement loosens up a bit. Too often, the line between posts that remain and posts that are deleted seems to be "this is a news topic the mods think is worthy of discussion" versus "this is a news topic the mods think is silly."

The idea that "political discussion" is something that can be divorced from "discussion of political news" is silly and should be abandoned. If there is a political news story that is on the front page of most major news outlets, I absolutely expect to be able to have a thread about it here. I understand removing posts with loaded titles, but many large breaking news stories will contain plenty of fodder for discussion built into them by virtue of simply being a big news story. These discussions are only harmed by posters bending over backwards to try and generate half-hearted discussion questions that will pass muster with hostile mods. This is particularly a problem given that the moderation is slow - it may take an hour or more for a mod to decide to delete a thread, and by that time something will have triple digit comments that just get erased from the subreddit. I guarantee that on November 9, there will be a post saying "Hillary Clinton was just elected the first woman President of the United States", and it will be left up- not because it contained great discussion questions in the OP, but because it is a news topic the mods deem worthy of general open-ended discussion.

I would ask that you guys ease up a bit and allow for more general discussion topics, including about breaking news. Aggressively removing all threads on certain topics that are all over front pages makes this a worse, not better, place for political discussion.

*mobile typo edits

[–]DarrenX 42ポイント43ポイント  (0子コメント)

The idea that "political discussion" is something that can be divorced from "discussion of political news" is silly and should be abandoned. If there is a political news story that is on the front page of most major news outlets, I absolutely expect to be able to have a thread about it here. ...These discussions at only harmed by posters bending over backwards to try and generate half-hearted discussion questions that will pass muster with hostile mods.

I couldn't agree more, especially with the bit I put in italics.

Perhaps the name of this forum should be "PoliticalScience", not "PoliticalDiscussion", if the aim is to have a tone of discussion that is more academic and less topical. (I'm not saying that would be a bad idea... but the new name would more accurately convey the purpose of the subreddit and avoid a lot of confusion).

I think of this subreddit as /r/Politics, except populated by people who read books and can express themselves civilly in complete sentences, instead of 12 year olds.

In my opinion, the solution is simple. "News story. Discuss" posts should be completely fine. Get rid of this rule and keep everything else exactly as is: "Submissions should raise at least one highly substantial question that will elicit thoughtful discussion. " This rule is not necessary because the kinds of people this subreddit is trying to attract do not need a half-hearted, carefully worded "discussion question" to guide them (if there's a more interesting avenue to explore we'll crowdsource and find it together), and the ones who were going to write crappy comments will not care what the discussion question is.

[–]jayme0227 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

Whenever there is political news that comes up, you can watch it get posted at least a half dozen times before someone manages to find the exact right wording for the mods to allow it. It's all getting to the same place, and people are going to ignore the way the post is worded to discuss the particular piece of news regardless.

[–]zryn3 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

We talked about this lower down in my comment, but I want to reiterate that when threads are up on major news for a time then removed, it suppresses discussion because people are polite enough not to clutter the sub by making their own thread when one exists and instead comment on what people are already saying about the topic.

[–]DarrenX 41ポイント42ポイント  (21子コメント)

I'm not sure if this comment thread is a good place to quibble about the rules, but I see a potential problem with the "low effort posts" rule, in that it doesn't work for news stories which defy any effort at unbiased summary, and there have been a lot of those lately. Let's say a presidential candidate says "the world is flat". If I wanted to post the NY times article on this, what do I say? I can't say "discuss". I have to summarize it. What do I say? "This is interesting, I was not aware that opinions on the shape of the earth differed. Should Congress appoint a special Commission to study the matter"?

In particular, I'd like to see examples of how the Manafort and Bannon stories could have been posted so as to avoid breaking the rules.

edit: here is the Bannon submission that was deleted as a 'loaded question': "Now that Breitbart's chief is officially running Trump's campaign, is any and every avenue of attack against Clinton now available to Trump?"

So... how could that be different? "Now that Breitbart's chief is officially running Trump's campaign, does this expand the range of attacks against Clinton now available to Trump?" Would that pass, or is it also "low investment"?

[–]amici_ursihates fun[M] -6ポイント-5ポイント  (6子コメント)

Let's say a presidential candidate says "the world is flat".

We would remove that post regardless of how it's worded. It's just a "a politician said something stupid" post. It doesn't raise any political topics, and it's low effort crap.

[–]DarrenX 17ポイント18ポイント  (4子コメント)

We would remove that post regardless of how it's worded. It's just a "a politician said something stupid" post.

Fair enough, however I'd point out that the end result of this policy is that in principle some news events cannot be submitted for discussion in this subreddit at all. It's not a question of how much effort (low/high), civil, uncivil... doesn't matter. It cannot be talked about here.

And that's OK, but in that case it might be clearer if you were more open about acknowledging that when discussing the rules, even at the cost of opening yourselves up to charges of bias. (and in fact, no offence but when I read the two different mod responses I receive it even seems the mods are not quite in agreement about the implications of the rules. One mod says "that would be an example of the form of a good submission" and the other says "that would be a shitpost").

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

some news events cannot be submitted for discussion in this subreddit at all.

Yes. Exactly. We've been saying that for months. We're not a news subreddit. We're a subreddit for high effort discussion of political topics. Not everything a politician says raises "in depth questions that guide the discussion towards thoughtful exchanges" as this post puts it.

If you can scrape together an effort post about political theory or in depth political topic raised in the news, then by all means post it. If you're just polishing a turd because it's popular in the news, then we're not going to approve it regardless of how hard you try.

The keys are, "is this just stupid shit" and "can you emphasize the political points raised by the news, rather than just relying on 'x happened. thoughts?'" Even topics with potential often fail that second test.

[–]DarrenX 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

"the nature of some political news events is such that they cannot be submitted for discussion in this subreddit at all". Yes. Exactly. We've been saying that for months.

OK, fair enough, and I see where you're coming from. If you can't compose a substantial question about something that just happened in the campaign other than "Candidate X just said something incredibly stupid - is this a new low?", that's probably a sign that no high-quality discussion of that story is possible.

However, I would very strongly suggest that you say this in the rules, explicitly. Here's a direct quote from /u/skybelt from a long and thoughtful post above:

If there is a political news story that is on the front page of most major news outlets, I absolutely expect to be able to have a thread about it here.

If the official policy of this subreddit is that some political news stories are not suitable for discussion here, no matter how big they currently are, that's fine, but you need to very clearly say so. I can see why you'd prefer not to be explicit about this as it seems to introduce the possibility of mod bias, but I think you have to be.... otherwise you're leaving the false impression that if only we follow the rules carefully enough, we can submit any news story we want, and if our submission gets nuked, it must be our fault, because we're stupid/biased/soapboxing/lazy/low-effort/can't read the rules. I think it shouldn't be surprising that this results in a lot of confusion and frustration.

[–]skybelt 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

OK, fair enough, and I see where you're coming from. If you can't compose a substantial question about something that just happened in the campaign other than "Candidate X just said something incredibly stupid - is this a new low?", that's probably a sign that no high-quality discussion of that story is possible.

I don't think we should accept this that easily. Some of the topics that the mods seem to think don't generate "high quality discussion" really matter. The fact that Donald Trump said something stupid ("She didn't say anything. Maybe she wasn't allowed to say anything.") is an actual news story that had actual effects in the world. It almost certainly shaved a few points off his poll numbers and convinced a substantial portion of the population that would have otherwise been open to voting for him that he was unsuitable for office, including many people in his own party. If the mods don't think that dumb things candidates say are suitable topics for discussion, then they are wrong.

If reputable news sources uniformly consider something to be big political news, it should be discussed here.

[–]digital_end 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

I get it that hunting down any politician that made a stupid statement just make a particular political party seem stupid is not a contribution... But if Trump said the world is flat, that's still relevant because he's one step away from the presidency of the United States.

Likewise if Clinton released a statement saying that she's really only in it for the dolla dolla bills, that would be relevant... Again, she's up for the presidency, not local den mother.

That absolutely should be discussed.

[–]antiqua_lumina 65ポイント66ポイント  (7子コメント)

Can we get some clarification on removing topics for being loaded questions, which I think is the most vague and unwisely applied rule in this sub? I have seem quite a few posts removed recently that are technically "loaded" because they assume some fact, but the infraction is very slight and the tenor of the question is not biased or aggravating.

For example, this recent thread on Manafort reportedly being listed in a Ukraine dirty money ledger. You have to squint very hard to see anything loaded, and overall the tone of the question was very neutral. That thread was removed and as a result this sub lost a discussion on arguably the biggest news story of the week. There is a huge harm to the community when threads are removed for overly minor and technical rules violations because all the discussion is lost with it, and that discussion usually never returns even if a similar topic is reposted.

Is there anyway to clarify what qualifies as a loaded question in this sticky thread, and in the rules sidebar?

Additionally or alternatively, would the mods entertain a qualification to the rule that only loaded questions that would tend to incite/aggravate reasonable people will be removed? This could balance the need to remove inciting and overly argumentative questions with the value to the community in preserving discussion and keeping it wholly focused in one thread rather than multiple deleted threads as happened with the Manafort Ukraine money story.

[–]adrzz113 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is so true. I'm pretty annoyed that a post I made yesterday was removed because it was asking if democracies make countries rich or the other way around and I opened it up for discussion. I thought it was a good question and many international relations scholars actually debate this vigorously.

I thought it was a nice break from all the low effort questions that somehow aren't removed in this subreddit about the US elections.

I honestly think I'm just not going to go on this subreddit until the elections are over because in my humble view, they've really lowered the bar.

[–]DarrenX 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

Additionally or alternatively, would the mods entertain a qualification to the rule that only loaded questions that would tend to incite/aggravate reasonable people will be removed?

How can this rule be applied to discussing the actions of one of the candidates, when their entire strategy is to be "aggravating to reasonable people"?

[–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'll read over your thoughts and try to get back to you more fully in a minute. I want to note off the bat though that the submission you linked is heavily edited to aim at more neutrality. At the time it was removed, it included these statements:

There's nothing in this that is especially shocking to anyone who knows Manafort's history at all—Yanukovych was a corrupt kleptocrat, Manafort advised Yanukovych, so it's unsurprising that Manafort received illegal cash from Yanukovich. But it's still pretty damming, especially in the midst of the image of Trump as a puppet of Russia.

.

Considering that Trump's biggest argument has been that the US government, Hillary Clinton, and the media are corrupt and working for our enemies, it seems like having big news come out about a campaign chairman being under investigation for corruption by a foreign country could be pretty damaging.

.

and hilarious to compare it to the tweet right before it

.

since it means that one of the most high-profile Trump surrogates on cable news wants to bring this up due to his long-running feud with Manafort.

[–]antiqua_lumina 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

The first and third of those statements are troubling to me since they indicate a bias and would be aggravating to a Trump supporter. I think my "tends to aggravate reasonable people" standard would be met here and justify removal.

My recollection too is that the author of that post resubmitted and the resubmission was also removed, no?

Even if that particular example was bad, I have seen other threads (which of course I can't find now) where removal due to loaded question seemed unwise even if technically permissible. Or maybe most loaded question removals are inflammatory like that, and I just don't have the vantage point to appreciate it?

I suppose part of the issue is what is the purpose of the loaded question rule? I am assuming it is to keep questions facially neutral and thus palatable to people of all political leanings.

[–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'll definitely give a closer look at your "tends to aggravate reasonable people" standard. It may be the case that that's the de facto standard we aim for, but have different standards than some posters. In a political sub, everything is, by nature, very political and what aggravates one reasonable person might not aggravate another. It's always tough.

I suppose part of the issue is what is the purpose of the loaded question rule? I am assuming it is to keep questions facially neutral and thus palatable to people of all political leanings.

The loaded question, in my opinion, importantly contributes to keeping this subreddit from becoming a circle jerk. If you're a regular here and elsewhere on reddit, you'll see frequent references to /r/whateversubreddit is a circlejerk for xyz while /r/whateverothersubreddit is a circlejerk for abc. If we allowed loaded questions, those reinforcing the majority viewpoint would absolutely dominate the front page of this subreddit. When that's the case, it becomes very tiresome for minority viewpoints to constantly play defense and you end up with a highly, highly lobsided userbase.

[–]zryn3 115ポイント116ポイント  (124子コメント)

I want to say, post removal has been somewhat severe bordering on censory recently. For example, the post about the change in leadership in the Trump campaign and what kind of new direction can be expected as a result was removed even though that is literally discussing politics.

Other examples are discussions on Manafort's position in the campaign in light of the reports out of London and/or in light of the change in leadership. ("Will Manafort be dismissed?" is not a leading question when a new campaign manager is being brought in. Frankly, it's not a leading question when one of the most circulated papers in the world reports he's involved in a scandal, it's a natural question. The discussion isn't, ultimately, if he's a corrupt monster who should be executed for treason, it's if he will be removed from the campaign as a result of public perception and if that will change the course of politics in the US.)

Edit: Mods, you're being down-voted because you're not contributing to the discussion, not (necessarily) just because people disagree with you. You fail to explain why countless posts like this one on DWS are not loaded questions while posts about Manafort are.

Edit 2: Actually, I think there was an announcement that rules would be getting more severe in between. If so, then the former rules were probably better. That thread might be somewhat anti-DNC biased, but it's a legitimate topic for discussion even if the prompt itself isn't very good.

If the mods are afraid a topic is inflammatory, they should make their own sticky thread about it. Major news will not just go away because you delete a thread and it results in a lot of discussion being rehashed every time a thread is made.

[–]Cakeob 42ポイント43ポイント  (1子コメント)

Agreed. It's been up since this morning and was the most discussed thread today by far, but seems to have been deleted recently for a still-unknown reason. I would support a "Week in news megathread" sticky much like the weekly poll thread (Speaking of which, why does that one constantly disappear?)

A presidential candidates comments regarding the second amendment was something that warranted plenty of discussion, which it did. But there was an almost daily clampdown of that topic which made discussing it completely off-limits. Whether its soapboxing or low quality, a veiled violent threat by a presidential campaign provides plenty of discussion about that type of discourse in modern elections.

One of the biggest developments of the week involves a presidential campaign manager's past financial history with foreign adversaries, almost unheard of in electoral politics. Yet discussion about that is clamped down.

The same with discussing a change of leadership within a presidential campaign and a legitimate question on if it will change the campaign narrative.

And those are just three examples in the last seven days. In the meantime, while I'm not complaining of the actual topic, one of the biggest threads today is about a story written a month ago.

[–]eFrazes 6ポイント7ポイント  (9子コメント)

Why is it necessary to delete threads anyway? What does the community gain when a well discussed thread is deleted? What does the community gain when an obscure thread is deleted? Are mods being paid to curate this material? Is there some ultimate goal of creating a perfect compendium of only well thought discussion?

[–]VodkaBarf 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

By removing bad posts the community only sees good posts. This makes it easier for them to recognize what belongs. Thus is especially important for new visitors. It's been a problem in a sub I mod for quite some time, but I've been more strict lately and while the quantity of submissions is down, the quality is up. Most mods, I think, prefer that.

I don't know what you're on about asking if mods are being paid. That implication just fans a lot of the wild conspiracy theories coming out during this cycle.

[–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] 9ポイント10ポイント  (56子コメント)

The posts that you're talking about generally have these similar elements:

  • They are posts relating to political news
  • They use loaded language ("After Trump's disastrous interview..." "With the campaign being in shambles...")
  • They don't have substantive questions attached. The questions amount to "Thoughts?" and "How will this affect the race?"
  • They are highly upvoted and highly commented
  • They are removed by the moderators

All of these points combine to really frustrate users. It's political news, it's fresh off the press, it's gotten tons of upvotes, and it was removed. What's the deal? It feels like censorship, but it's not. It's impartial enforcement of the rules. If we let highly upvoted news posts with loaded language stand, we would be moderating in accordance with the dominant bias of the sub by letting popular posts circumvent the rules and thus reinforcing that bias. We don't want to do that.

If the mods are afraid a topic is inflammatory, they should make their own sticky thread about it.

This gets into issues of selection bias. If you're worried about the mods being dictatorial, you don't want us playing the megathread game more often than we do, because it's going to be constant decisions that unintentionally will reflect our own biases. Was Trump's slip up big enough to warrant a megathread? Was Hillary's? There's no easy way to standardize that and so, for the sake of impartiality, we can be much more consistent by just enforcing the rules as they stand for all threads as opposed to picking winners and losers.

bordering on censory recently

When you see a popular topic repeatedly getting removed, there's an easy way to get a thread up and going on it. (I can't emphasize this enough) Message the moderators: "Hey mods. XXX happened today and I'd like to get a thread going about it but am having trouble linking in substantive questions going and want to make sure my language is adequate for the sub's rules. Here's what I've got so far..." When you do this we will always work as quickly as we can to get back to you and to get an approved version of the post in question going. It requires some effort, but it really, really works. Please don't accuse us of arbitrarily quashing discussion until you've tried to work with us to get discussion up and going.

[–]Peregrinations12 14ポイント15ポイント  (9子コメント)

For clarity sake, how don't those issues apply to the post on Aetna leaving the ACA? It was largely news and not really political. In the title it said there was an 'exodus' of companies leaving the exchanges, which is hyperbole at best. The questions were loaded: "trend of companies abandoning it', when some companies are announcing expanding participation. Other questions were overly general: "what could Washington do?"

[–]CrapNeck5000[M] 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

linky linky?

[–]Peregrinations12 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4xzolg/aetna_has_announced_it_is_leaving_the_aca/

I'll say I don't object to these types of posts being allowed, but it does seem that a lot of similar posts are deleted.

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[removed]

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

    This one is very loaded and stays as well. I don't know if the one Peregrinations posted is really loaded, but the one I linked absolutely is.

    Neither should go, though.

    [–]Peregrinations12 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Except the title is accurate in describing the motivation as 'alleged', unlike the inaccurate and loaded term 'exodus'. The overall language of the more recent post is much more neutral and factual. Honestly it seems like the mods have kind of painted themselves into a corner with allowing the first post remain, so they now need to allow other posts on the situation remain.

    [–]Peregrinations12 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I was wondering if you could still clarify to me why the Aetna post was allowed to remain?

    [–]msx8 23ポイント24ポイント  (31子コメント)

    Would you not agree that it would also be helpful for moderators to alert the OP (via a top-level comment or a direct message) when a post has been deleted, along with a reason why it was deleted. I would even be fine of those reasons/explanations were generic and pre-written, perhaps one such explanation per rule.

    I am a pretty active poster and commenter here, and occasionally I've had a submission removed without an explanation, so I had no idea it was gone until hours later when I noticed it was nowhere to be found in the sub.

    Perhaps you already do this and I missed it, or it's not universal across all mods, but I think at least some transparancy about the reason for removal would be very well received. It would also help people learn how to submit within the rules of the sub.

    Thanks for reading.

    [–]CrapNeck5000[M] 11ポイント12ポイント  (7子コメント)

    I am a pretty active poster and commenter here, and occasionally I've had a submission removed without an explanation, so I had no idea it was gone until hours later when I noticed it was nowhere to be found in the sub.

    For the record, we hate this. Personally, my goal is to never do that.

    [–]gloriousglib 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

    I think you mods are pretty great and work hard as a team to help users create productive discussion and improve posts that have been removed, if they're willing. But posts do get removed without comment, unbeknownst to users; not always, but it has happened to me. It might be worthwhile for you to bring this up to other mods in the modmail - always to send users a brief message about the reason of their post's removal - because it's pretty annoying when your post is removed and you have no idea why.

    [–]amici_ursihates fun[M] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It might be worthwhile for you to bring this up to other mods in the modmail - always to send users a brief message about the reason of their post's removal

    Yeah, we have. I have. All but two or three of the mod team use the same Removal Reasons when possible.

    [–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] 2ポイント3ポイント  (22子コメント)

    Yes, I absolutely agree. We try to offer the OP an explanation for their removal 100% of the time. When posts slide by, do feel free to message us for clarification.

    [–]clvfan 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

    But mostly it says it was deleted for being "rhetorical" which is a meaningless standard

    [–]msx8 9ポイント10ポイント  (17子コメント)

    Thank you for responding. I hope that you will consider making it mandatory for mods to post a sticky-ed, top-level comment reply to posts that they delete so that OPs and users can understand why it was deleted, and take steps to resubmit that topic or submit other topics within the acceptable parameters of the sub. I recognize that this would ask for extra effort by the mods, but on the flip-side many of us put a lot of thought and work into our posts only to have them removed sometimes without explanation.

    Again, thanks for reading and for allowing for a very necessary meta conversation in this sub.

    [–]geekaleek 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Are you guys not using toolbox? It's an extension that lets you have standardized removal reasons for the subreddit. It's VERY helpful in heavily moderated subs when you're often removing things for the same reasons.

    /r/competitivehs mod

    [–]eukomos 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Could the mods maybe put up posts you find permissible for major news events then? Because it seems like nothing is good enough for your standards in this Manafort issue the past few days, and so we are all but incapable of discussing it here. It's one of the biggest deals in American politics right now, is it really not worth discussion? I've all but stopped checking this sub the past few days because of it. If we cannot discuss major political events here, why do we have this sub?

    [–]ClockOfTheLongNow 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I sometimes wonder if the mods shouldn't "get the hint" as it were and put up a post themselves that conforms to the standards if they're seeing so many posts go up about it.

    [–]clvfan 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Thanks for writing this out. I was very frustrated with how that situation was handled but now I see your perspective. I appreciate you guys preventing this place from becoming a dumpster fire amid a shithole

    [–]ClockOfTheLongNow 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The mods could do better in leaving a message in the post explaining why it was removed. Perhaps in more detail, perhaps without a cut and paste job. I'm still finding threads I participated in being nuked without any indication as to why (and no, flair isn't enough since we can't see the text once it's removed), and I've been told that the mods don't want to discuss posts that are removed, so....

    [–]CrapNeck5000[M] 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

    I just want to say, when it comes to breaking news items, we get absolutely flooded with pure shit posts on the topics and we remove them in droves.

    The removals have nothing to do with the topic, its simply that we don't allow shit posts.

    And while people are sending us massive amounts of modmails accusing us of being censoring shills that feast on the flesh of infants, we are usually working in modmail with one of the users to get their post to a point where it can be approved.

    Yes, there are a TON of posts that get removed when some breaking news happens, but we are also working with the user base to get a post up that is within the rules. Quality takes time, and we ask that you bare with us in those circumstances.

    [–]ClockOfTheLongNow 8ポイント9ポイント  (7子コメント)

    I just want to say, when it comes to breaking news items, we get absolutely flooded with pure shit posts on the topics and we remove them in droves.

    I watch /new enough to confirm this, but the mods should consider keeping the popular one around or posting one that conforms to the standards instead. Follow our lead.

    [–]6ickle [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    That’s not entriely true. You guys remove threads that have active discussions with lots of comments. Don’t you see how there isn’t thing to be gained by doing that? Even if in your opinion there was something ’shit post’ about the post it garnered some interesting discussion and the community thought it was a worthwhile discussion to have.

    [–]PenguinTod -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Wait. Do you mean to imply that you do not, in fact, feast on the flesh of infants?

    [–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] -7ポイント-6ポイント  (25子コメント)

    Mods, you're being down-voted because you're not contributing to the discussion

    Can you really say in good faith that we're not contributing to the discussion? We're certainly working hard to respond to concerns, clarify policies, and offer more transparency. Should we take from your response that these feedback sessions aren't helpful?

    [–]zryn3 30ポイント31ポイント  (21子コメント)

    Well, you're repeating the rules, but the issue is with the judgement of the moderation team. Then you tell us that you want to avoid the judgement of the moderation team from affecting the subreddit.

    That isn't really contributing, no. At best it's deflecting the issue.

    [–]twoambien 18ポイント19ポイント  (1子コメント)

    This is not very helpful, no. Because you guys have the attitude of "this is the way it is, we're right, and we're here to explain to you why we're right." If you were taking our feedback and making changes or even suggesting you might make changes, that would be helpful.

    [–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    There have been a ton of suggestions and throughout this thread, all of which we will discuss amongst ourselves and some of which we will implement in coming weeks and months. I'll try to tally up some of the main suggestions tomorrow and get a sticky at the top so we can see what's being suggested.

    But you're also right that there's a lot of explaining going on. The OP goes over a ton of stuff, a lot of it relating to clarifying current policy. To hopefully do that we're roaming the comments and trying to address questions, concerns, explain why rules exist/are enforced as they are -- I guess at risk of seeming defensive. So we're trying to have a bit of a back and forth...hear from you and let you hear from us.

    [–]LustyElf 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Re: the news, I feel like you'd increase the quality of this sub by allowing one post about a particular topic (Trump's team shakeup, Manafort & the black ledgers, etc.), even if the post is imperfect. There's clearly a gap between what the users understand about the rules and how the mods see the rules, and I don't think that explaining them over and over again will improve anything.

    It's a strategy you would be doomed to repeat anyway simply because the userbase will keep growing.

    Just sticky a comment like 'This is the one, don't submit any more about this topic' at the top of the thread, and let your users have the discussion they're itching to have. At the end of the day, it's one thread on this sub and a lot less moderating for you to do. Currently, the incentive to produce high quality comments is diminished because there's always this looming threat that the thread will be deleted, and nobody will see your contribution. Having this reassurance would help increase the level of discussion because users won't be afraid to commit to it.

    [–]msx8 31ポイント32ポイント  (48子コメント)

    Another piece of feedback is the idea of a daily/weekly news megathread. After some discussion, we don’t have plans to institute such megathreads. There are a number of reasons for this that won’t all be laid out here, but one important factor is that some pieces of political news are highly significant and do deserve their own threads for dedicated discussion, as opposed to being relegated to a megathread where fewer folks will see it and discussion is made a bit more difficult with comment tiers.

    Today, many discussion posts about Donald Trump's campaign shakeup received hundreds of upvotes and comments before being deleted, seemingly without warning or explanation, by mods. The same happened on Monday with the breaking news of Paul Manafort's Ukraine cash payments. Presumably these submissions were deleted because they were considered "soapboxing" or not neutral discussion kick-offs.

    Can you provide some additional guidance, or even an example, of how sub users can create a post about a breaking news story within the rules in order to avoid deletion? Perhaps use the "Trump shakes up his campaign" story as an example.

    To me, breaking news stories such as this are very legitimate discussion topics, but even users' attempts to raise the subject with a "How does this impact the election" often seem to be met with deletion. Unfortunately I just don't see any other reasonable way for someone to kick off a discussion about a major breaking political news story by saying anything other than "how does this impact politics", or by inventing some other specific question that the OP is only including to try to discuss the subject at all without getting the post deleted.

    Thanks for reading.

    Edit: Adding some detail for clarity.

    [–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] 7ポイント8ポイント  (22子コメント)

    Can you provide some additional guidance, or even an example, of how sub users can create a post about a breaking news story within the rules in order to avoid deletion? Perhaps use the "Trump shakes up his campaign" story as an example.

    Yes. Hopefully this post and the resulting conversations will provide some of that, but we are actively working on a more in depth post (with examples) of to dos and to not dos (to don'ts?) in terms of posting on major political news. Keep your eyes out for that in the near future.

    Unfortunately I just don't see any other reasonable way for someone to kick off a discussion about a major breaking political news story by saying anything other than "how does this impact politics"

    The problem with submissions where the main question is "how does this affect the race" or something to that effect is that...users then focus on that question and most often it doesn't result in great discussion because it's so one dimensional. I would encourage users looking to post about such events through as many political lenses as possible:

    • What are the policy ramifications of xxx...

    • How will this demographic, which has previously supported blah blah blah, react to this...

    • What historical precedents exist in terms of...

    • Does this indicate a new modus operandi in American political campaigning...

    • Do these remarks reveal that...

    • How will political oppositions attempt to respond to this remark...

    • What are possible strategic goals accomplished by this event from a political perspective...

    • What agenda is advanced by...

    • Does this raise constitutional questions about...

    • Do these comments represent a rise of utilitarian ideas in mainstream...

    Economic. Ideological. Tactical. Legal. Historical. Theoretical. Media. Legislative. You get the idea. Open up as many avenues for substantive discussion as possible, and try to do so in a neutral way, and your post should be good. It definitely takes some work to do so, but it'll keep the thread up and the discussion great.

    [–]DarrenX 11ポイント12ポイント  (16子コメント)

    The problem with submissions where the main question is "how does this affect the race" or something to that effect is that...users then focus on that question and most often it doesn't result in great discussion because it's so one dimensional....Economic. Ideological. Tactical. Legal. Historical. Theoretical. Media. Legislative. You get the idea. Open up as many avenues for substantive discussion as possible

    I think this sort of thing is better to leave to crowdsourcing in the comments, where through discussion we find the most interesting angles for ourselves, rather than trying to shoehorn into the submission. (when I see a news story, I ignore the submission and skim the comments to see if anyone is saying anything interesting). We shouldn't need the submission to "open up avenues for discussion", we should be able to do that for ourselves. So there's not much benefit to requiring a submission question.

    There is however a major cost: submissions on news stories that are noooooot quite perfect get nuked after hours of high quality investment in the discussion.

    [–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] 2ポイント3ポイント  (15子コメント)

    First I'll say I appreciate the feedback you've been providing throughout the thread. I also understand that a big point you're making is that moderators need to use more discretion about quality discussion and less modding-by-technicality. I hear ya.

    I'll push back on your first point, though, about "leave it to the commentors." We look through tons and tons of threads and it's simply not the case that a simple prompt + the upvote/downvote system produces quality discourse. As an example I'll just point to this removed thread from today. (Note that it was removed for being loaded: "...that no other sane candidate would touch," but I think it's also relatively low investment.)

    I'd say at least 50% of the comments in that thread -- even highly upvoted ones -- are so low effort that they should be removed. Probably another 20-30% might not require removal but still don't really contribute significantly to the discussion. Maybe 10% of the posts in there go for in depth discussion and they aren't necessarily at the top. It's mostly a lot of jokes, quips, agreeing and one-upping. That approximate level of discourse is not very unusual for relatively similar threads.

    Compare that to some popular threads from today which, in my opinion, had more substantive questions. Here's one and here's another. I won't ballpark %s of high/low investment comments for those, but I think even a quick look through reveals that these threads have generated far more substantive discussion.

    I'm not sure if this is persuasive to you at all, and it may simply be the case that you prefer a more laissez faire environment and don't mind scrolling through jokes or quips. I can totally respect that. We might just have different visions for the sub--agree to disagree. But if you also come down on the "foster quality discussion" side of things as we do, maybe these threads will offer some indication that prompts matter. We notice this pattern time and time again. And that's not to say we're striking the perfect balance (your feedback is noted) -- hopefully it gives a bit of clarity about why we crack down on low investment posts though.

    [–]ClockOfTheLongNow 9ポイント10ポイント  (11子コメント)

    (Note that it was removed for being loaded: "...that no other sane candidate would touch," but I think it's also relatively low investment.)

    Wait, so a nearly 400 comment thread was nuked because of seven words? Am I reading this right?

    Here's one

    So let's use that standard for the "Near the end of the primaries, George W. Bush" post. In the post:

    • further fracturing of the Republican party due to the Tea Party movement and the Trump election

    Soapboxing.

    • Could the Republican Presidency as we know it really be done for

    Loaded question.

    I don't think it's a bad post. The opposite, in fact. But, based solely on the standards your team has offered, this should have been removed as well.

    Or, to put it another way, there's a reason I rarely post original questions or topics, and it's because the effort surrounding the whack-a-mole nature of original post content isn't currently worth my time.

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

    Or, to put it another way, there's a reason I rarely post original questions or topics, and it's because the effort surrounding the whack-a-mole nature of original post content isn't currently worth my time.

    Thank you for articulating so well concerns that I share. (In your other comments in this thread also.)

    I would add that I am becoming wary of even commenting. In the last 7 days I have participated in 13 threads by posting comments. Eleven of those threads were removed by mods - several after reaching hundreds of comments. That is absurd. It wastes everyones time.

    [–]clvfan 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I also understand that a big point you're making is that moderators need to use more discretion about quality discussion and less modding-by-technicality

    I think this is the key thing that we're all bothered by

    [–]DarrenX 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'd say at least 50% of the comments in that thread -- even highly upvoted ones -- are so low effort that they should be removed. ... It's mostly a lot of jokes, quips, agreeing and one-upping. That approximate level of discourse is not very unusual for relatively similar threads.....But if you also come down on the "foster quality discussion" side of things as we do, maybe these threads will offer some indication that prompts matter...-- hopefully it gives a bit of clarity about why we crack down on low investment posts though.

    I would argue that the prompts had nothing to do with it, and that the comment thread for that particular news story ("Trump's campaign is now officially being run by Breitbart") would have looked more or less the same no matter how it was submitted. I'd assert those kinds of comments are a function of the story itself, not of the submission (especially in this 'more crazy than usual' election year). It would be difficult to convince me that more "investment in the submission" of that story would have made any difference.

    I'm not accusing the mods of being biased for/against Candidate X/Y/Z, but as I've argued elsewhere in this thread, the fact that so many otherwise intelligent people fail to successfully submit some news stories for discussion suggests that for some news stories, submissions are impossible exercises in "squaring the circle". The effect (and perhaps, the unspoken purpose) of the current submission guidelines is to prevent such stories from being submitted at all (because I would agree that there's a good correlation between "stories which are practically impossible to submit under the current guidelines" and "stories which will certainly result in a lot of so-called 'low effort comments'").

    Since that was easily the biggest political news story of that day, this unacknowledged conflict between what the users expect to be able to do on a "Political Discussion" subreddit (civilly discuss politics) and what the mods want them to do is leading to a lot of frustration.

    [–]DarrenX [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    As an example I'll just point to this removed thread from today. (Note that it was removed for being loaded: "...that no other sane candidate would touch," but I think it's also relatively low investment.)

    Following up on my earlier argument that "it's the story that matters, not the submission".....I'll bet you nobody even read the submission. Why on earth would I use a bowdlerized submission from a fellow redditor as my starting point for what to think about and discuss when I can use a New York Times article?

    [–]msx8 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

    This is a very thoughtful reply with good suggestions for how to create posts within the rules of the sub. I suggest that it might form the basis of an elaboration of the submission rules in, perhaps, a wiki page that the mods could maintain to help users like me participate constructively here. Thanks again.

    [–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    a wiki page that the mods could maintain to help users like me participate constructively here.

    That's a good idea and definitely something for us to think about. I'm not sure exactly what form our rules guide will take, but that may be a good option.

    [–]ZimZimA1 41ポイント42ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Thank you guys for reinforcing sane discourse. Although the removals can seem pretty arbitrary at times...

    [–]lecturermoriarty 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Although the removals can seem pretty arbitrary at times...

    Very. Sometimes posts clearly get approved and even flaired by some mods, then another mod comes in to take it down 12 hrs later.

    [–]AnxaPh.D. in Reddit Statistics[M] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Although the removals can seem pretty arbitrary at times...

    Some judgement always plays into it for sure, but we're going to have a guide online soon for how to submit according to our rules with breakdowns for most of our non-obvious rules in the very near future which should hopefully help users formulate rule-abiding submissions on the political topics they want to discuss.

    [–]clvfan 21ポイント22ポイント  (4子コメント)

    This really needs to happen asap. Most people are considerate of the rules but it seems like posts are being removed because someone misused a semicolon. It's really harming the sub

    [–]ZimZimA1 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Again, thank you for that.

    [–]AzoriusAnarchist 8ポイント9ポイント  (6子コメント)

    In regards to what happens when a major political story breaks, might it just be better to have a mod-created post on the subject that meets your standards? Not that the topic would blocked from further submissions, but at least there'd be a thread that you know is decent because you made it yourself. If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself, etc etc.

    It seems like you guys end up taking a long time sifting through the pile of submissions to find one that meets your level of discourse/neutrality, when all people want is to be able to discuss the topic quickly as the news breaks.

    [–]US_Election 11ポイント12ポイント  (6子コメント)

    I have a real question about low investment removals. I submitted a topic for discussion two days ago, asking people what countries Trump might ban immigrants from? Asked for opinion and thought it would be a good discussion but it was removed for 'low investment' and I got no reason as to why. I mean, I asked the same question on Quora and got answers, and very thoughtful ones, why not here. Are Trump posts just forbidden or is it too sensitive a question for some mods?

    [–]tank_trap 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

    I think the moderator team is biased for Trump. Please refer to my post below. Any thread that questions Trump or his campaign is usually removed. It's a shame because so many topics related to Trump have been removed from discussion but they are valid discussion for this sub reddit.

    [–]Trump-Tzu 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

    What? This is the most pro Clinton sub on reddit. The mods remove stuff good about trump, what are you smoking?

    [–]Srslyjc 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    There may be a disconnect between the userbase and moderators.

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

    Usually, complaints on this thread get responses but for some reason, mine is being ignored... Guess they had no reason and a mod was just having a bad day and took it out on me. I cant wait till Hillary wins and every butt hurt person who can't stand a girl in the White House goes on vacation.

    [–]DarrenX 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Submissions should raise at least one highly substantial question that will elicit thoughtful discussion.

    Sorry for posting twice, but I thought of a better way to articulate what I'm trying to get at.

    Personally, I like most of the rules here but I disagree that the above rule is a necessary or sufficient condition for the existence of high-quality discussion, and I think that overly strict application of the above rule does more harm than good. I think the quality and volume of the comments in some of the recently deleted stories bears me out.

    1. Many high quality comments in a news story thread have little to do with the question posed by the OP, which implies that the question posed by the OP was not a prerequisite for those interesting comments.
    2. As others have pointed out, many submissions have "substantial questions" that are boring and generic and destined to lead to desultory conversations, if any at all. What's the point of the rule if the rule doesn't work?
    3. Some news events related to the current US election are frankly outrageous enough that it is difficult to frame a "highly substantial question" about them. Does that mean that they should not be discussed here even if there is a substantial appetite for civil discussion of them? These are plainly momentous, election-moving stories.

    [–]clvfan 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's very obvious that the "substantial questions" are only included to comply with the rule and they are swiftly ignored in the comments. Shouldn't that indicate to the mods that the rule is largely worthless and only does harm to otherwise great discussion in the comments?

    [–]thatnameagain 23ポイント24ポイント  (10子コメント)

    There is a common theme to all the responses so far here, which is that mods have been removing too many posts, and have been doing so in ways that often seem to only selectively enforce the rules. A lot of people are asking for clarification on the rules, but I think it's more important to address the fact that the rules, as written, put the mods in an impossible position that essentially requires overt censorship given the subject matter here.

    I think the rules need to be made less strict.

    And I think the judgement used in enforcement of those rules needs to be less strict.

    Soapboxing - moderators take a more strict interpretation of the rules (in particular over the course of the election season) and require that users aim for neutrality in content and tone of their submissions.

    It's hard to understand why one would come to a subreddit called "Political Discussion" and rationally expect to have to strip themselves of personal bias and opinion when choosing to invite discussion. This is completely counterintuitive and serves no purpose for the benefit of the sub other than to essentially whitewash all the posts into basically being reiterations of recent headlines or common-sense banalities. The idea that there needs to be a separate subreddit for political opinions outside of "Political Discussion" is almost prima facie ridiculous.

    Many users interpret this to mean that submissions simply cannot be rants or overt campaigning.

    Yes, many users interpret the rule this way because that makes sense, and is reasonable. This is what the rule should be. And I disagree that it is any more difficult to determine if a post is "too editorialized" as opposed to simply "is it editorializing at all?" Those are both complex questions if you get down to it, but require essentially the same amount of mod effort. If anything, I'd say it's easier to ID and nip overt campaigning or ranting than try and comb through each post for a whif of bias.

    But the idea that initial posts must be bereft of opinion still seems absurd.

    Low Effort Posts - Posts that boil down to “Thoughts?” or “Discuss” will be removed

    Why? That's why we're here.

    Yes, I get that good questions make for better discussion, so that should be encouraged, and outright lame-brain posts can and should get the boot. But the issue shouldn't be about whether there is low effort in how the post is written, but whether the post proposes a sufficiently worthy and complex topic of discussion.

    Today you had people bending over backwards to craft acceptable opening posts about Manafort, just so they would stay put so that the users here could do what they come here for which is to dig in and discuss. It really makes no sense that someone should have to phrase the question as "...is there any precedence for this", creating the conceit of it being a historical query, when in reality what everyone wants to do is talk about the actual issue. This is how the newish rules actually harm discussion here, they make people not say what they mean and start conversations awkwardly, and frustrates posters who have their legitimate questions removed for reasons that are arbitrary to the actual health of discussion.

    Meta Posts. This one is simple, but there’s occasionally still confusion. Do not make comments or submissions that discuss reddit, other subreddits, this subreddit, downvotes, threads, posts, comments, or anything else referring back to this subreddit. Full stop.

    In my opinion, this rule should be completely removed, full stop. Why on earth can't we talk about our own sub? Why can't we talk about r/the_donald when it's being reported on as a noteworthy political force by major publications? Why can't we talk about the state of political discourse on reddit in general? Why can't we discuss concerns about things like paid commenters on other subs? Reddit is not an internet backwater, it's a place where a lot of political ideas get tossed around and it's often worthy of discussion.

    The presence of the occasional meta post or two in the subreddit does not distract from political discussion, especially if it itself happens to pertain to a political issue.

    Your Feedback Is Important To Us!

    Please act on what you're hearing from other users here. I don't expect you to grant all my wishes or anything, and I recognize that I'm staking out a more extreme position here than the median. But the writing is almost-literally on the wall here that the level of mod removals is unwelcome by your user base, and we do not simply want to be told that the solution is to adhere more closely to the rules. The rules are boxing in both users and mods and frustrating both parties. The simple and obvious solution is for everyone to lighten up, and instead of telling people to be quiet, to discuss.

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

    In my opinion, this rule should be completely removed, full stop. Why on earth can't we talk about our own sub?

    I've been here quite a while, I am 100% certain this was borne out of legitimate complaints about /r/politics, especially when /r/politics was shunting their users over here when they ended self-posts or ended self-post Saturday. It resulted in an influx of terrible users and brought down sub quality for a time.

    We're overdue for a look at that rule, I think, but I at least understand where the mod staff comes from on this.

    [–]twoambien 18ポイント19ポイント  (16子コメント)

    I think I've submitted here five times. All five were removed. It's unlikely I'll go to the effort again. You can try to turn that around on me but you said yourself you guys remove tons of submissions. I think you should stop being such nazi's about it. Your circular 'we require rule abiding submissions' argument is not convincing. Maybe the rules need to be relaxed. It's very frustrating putting all that work into something and finally thinking you have something the moderators will allow and it gets taken down yet again.

    You'll deny it but I can't help but see bias against certain types of content. Several of my questions have been about Donald Trump and they weren't of the 'Trump is literally Hitler' variety and the alleged rule violations were spurious. I have no doubt the same question about Clinton would have been allowed. People think this sub is a Clinton circlejerk and that sort of biased modding just re-enforces it. You should allow threads about any candidate, whether it's good, bad or neutral for them.

    [–]RapidCreek 32ポイント33ポイント  (14子コメント)

    Why did I get the following message from a moderator?

    "Your post is a low investment attempt at Trump bashish. Trump's request for Russia to find (he did not use the word hack) the emails was tongue-in-cheek. Clinton's email server is in the possession of the FBI and would be impossible to "hack". "

    Why did the moderator say "tongue-in-cheek" when that was the public excuse and his opinion? Am I to think that ,moderators are impartial? Or, do they make judgements based on their own political opinions?

    [–]CrapNeck5000[M] 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Direct message or modmail?

    [–]RapidCreek 12ポイント13ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Modmail.

    [–]CrapNeck5000[M] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Thanks.

    My assessment is that the first sentence is your removal reason (low investment trump bashing) and the rest is extracurricular. Us mods do have political opinions, although views vary across the team. I myself will sometimes engage on the topic of a post with a user in modmail if I feel like it for whatever reason.

    Also note that, all mods can see all modmail messages; and if we feel a mod has done something inappropriately or in error, another mod WILL call them out. I actually did that with another mod within the last couple of hours and got a ban changed from permanent to 3 days.

    [–]RapidCreek 13ポイント14ポイント  (3子コメント)

    So, I suppose that his fellow mods did not disagree, since then I asked the same question as above, I was notified that I couldn't contact the mods for a week. I guess I must of asked a 'wrong' question'. Sorry for asking it again.

    [–]gray1ify 13ポイント14ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Hello and thank you to new mods! I'm sure you will be able to keep up the quality moderation that makes this sub great. I understand that with such a large sub discussing such contentious topics, moderation can be difficult at times and I truly appreciate what each of you do.

    That being said, I do have a couple questions.


    Please also note that just because your post has a flair does not mean it is immune from removal.

    I have noticed sometimes that clearly low investment posts, i.e. "why is Trump a Racist", "Clinton killed 20 people, why is nobody talking about it", soapboxes, and/or posts with a single sentence and links are often given flairs.

    I have often (wrongly I see now) used the flair system as a way to see if a post was "approved". A moderator has clearly read it and given it an appropriate flair, so why not just remove it if it does not meet the guidelines for submissions? Posts like this can stay up for long periods of time and often lead to less than civil discussions in the comments section, mainly with the OP, which is not beneficial to anyone.

    Is it possible to change the flair system to only assign posts that are "approved"? Tying into this, are posts removed after the fact due to other reasons, i.e. poor comments, etc.?


    Recently, there have been several news threads regarding hot topics in American politics that have been removed. I understand that the goal of moderation here is to ensure that users post comments and submissions in a neutral light, but if a submission about a big and important news story has 2,3,400 comments (most of which are real, civil discussion) should it be allowed to stay to promote general discussion?

    Many of the news threads I have seen did not seem to be leading, low investment, or otherwise in violation of the sub rules. As a frequent user of the subreddit, it can be very frustrating when highly productive threads are removed solely due to the submission quality of the OP. In many cases, multiple threads pop up after one is removed, often leading to their removal and users giving up on submitting the topic.

    Is there any chance of changing the position on these news threads to immunize them from removal (assuming they are not blatantly opinionated or very low investment ex: one or two sentences) if they reach a certain comment threshold? As I said, it can be very frustrating when a thread with many quality comments that include additional information and informed analysis are removed, for myself and many other users as well, I'm sure.


    Thank you,

    u/gray1ify

    Edit: phrasing

    [–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Thanks for the welcome and the feedback.

    I have often (wrongly I see now) used the flair system as a way to see if a post was "approved". A moderator has clearly read it and given it an appropriate flair, so why not just remove it if it does not meet the guidelines for submissions? Posts like this can stay up for long periods of time and often lead to less than civil discussions in the comments section, mainly with the OP, which is not beneficial to anyone.

    We'll take that into consideration. A big reason that happens is because I (and I assume other moderators) flair posts as a way of moderating "on the go"...as in from our phones. It's easy to flair a post from a mobile platform but we don't have access to the automated removal reasons you'll have often seen so removing is a much bigger project from mobile.

    Is there any chance of changing the position on these news threads to immunize them from removal (assuming they are not blatantly opinionated or very low investment ex: one or two sentences) if they reach a certain comment threshold? As I said, it can be very frustrating when a thread with many quality comments that include additional information and informed analysis are removed, for myself and many other users as well, I'm sure.

    First, I want to acknowledge that it's frustrating when a thread gets nuked. Before I was a mod here I was a poster for a long time and I fully sympathize with dropping a thoughtful comment, heading out to the front page and browsing for a while, then trying to find the thread you'd just posted in and...it's not there. Go back into your comment history, find the thread, and it's been removed. It feels like you've wasted time and energy.

    The other side of the coin is that if we get lenient with popular threads we will be institutionalizing (to the extent that this sub is an institution?) the majority bias of the subreddit. The explosively popular threads are, in not all but definitely most cases, highly popular because they comport with the views of the majority of users in the thread. So if we let those threads stand we're bolstering the already dominant viewpoint and, by not allowing the same leniency for threads popular with the minority viewpoint, stifling the non-majority opinion users. That's something we really, really want to avoid, and at present that may mean nuking already big threads.

    We'll keep working to think of better ways to communicate with users about why these threads are being removed and if an acceptable thread is in the works and all that. We'll also try to get to the threads quickly. I don't think we're willing to make exceptions at this time, though, for the reasons about.

    [–]no-sound_somuch_fury 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Mods, I really think that the blanket ban on meta posts is a big part of what causes the resentment toward the mods that we are seeing here.

    This is basically due to the power structure of reddit. Each subreddit is essentially an unelected parliament. I think that this is for the best. However, this means that the only power that regular users have is protest. So when you ban meta posts, it makes users feel entirely powerless, particularly when you, as a mod team, are being more active than usual in removing posts. It also blocks any potential feedback about how the actual users of the subreddit feel about the subreddit.

    Plus, I often enjoy positive meta discussion, because it can give a subreddit a feeling of community.

    To be clear though, I do not think that you should repeal the rule altogether. Complaining about downvotes, or bashing /r/politics are a waste of everyones time, and really don't belong here. I just suggest allow meta discussion about /r/politicaldiscussion. I understand that those discussions are technically off topic, but they fill a key role in giving the users any voice at all, as well as building a stronger sense of community.

    Thanks for all the work you do to keep this subreddit running. This is just a friendly suggestion to keep the mobs under control.

    [–]MysticSnowman 22ポイント23ポイント  (6子コメント)

    I understand that you want to keep what could be thought of as low effort posts out, but sometimes your post removals can go too far and border on censorship of an entire political issue.

    Many times these are actual political developments that spark insightful discussions among members. These political developments deserve to discussed, and these posts deserve to stay up.

    [–]CrapNeck5000[M] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    If users make posts on the topic within the rules it will stay up. We don't want to be in business of judging how important a topic is as that is highly subjective. All we do is enforce the rules.

    If its a topic that deserves to be discussed, then it deserves the proper investment when submitting the thread.

    [–]ReasonableTrumpGuy 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I strongly think that the rules are entirely too vague. I understand that you want a quality subreddit, but the moderation seems completely arbitrary. If you're going to be this strict with the rules, then we users need more detailed information about what exactly the rules are, beyond stuff like "no low-effort posts".

    Give us extremely detailed rules with lots of examples so that we can understand how to post better.

    [–]DarrenX 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

    We don't want to be in business of judging how important a topic is as that is highly subjective.

    I'm not entirely sure if that's true. If a news story draws 500 comments in two hours, that might be a gauge of how important it is?

    [–]CrapNeck5000[M] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That is a recipe for a circle jerk.

    [–]OccupyGravelpit 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I've seen incredibly high effort, reasonable posts (not mine!) removed for absolutely no reason on dozens of occasions. Mods have been throwing little temper tantrums in full view of the public, and I would say that the quality surrounding this sub has dipped pretty severely in the last month or two.

    Just my two cents. Seems like you guys aren't at all on the same page and a few of you are pushing a very specific agenda about what's worth talking about. The subjects of discussion don't feel organic or natural, but too often function as weird workarounds to deal with someone who is determined to keep a subject off the main page.

    [–]BuckminsterJones 12ポイント13ポイント  (29子コメント)

    Any thoughts on switching over to a system where posts must get mod approval before they become visible? I'd prefer to know if a post will stay up before I comment.

    [–]ClockOfTheLongNow 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    If anything, I'd like to see some sort of moderation rule in place where a post that has survived for X hours doesn't get removed.

    [–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] 7ポイント8ポイント  (18子コメント)

    It's definitely a double edged sword. A lot of moderators are concentrated on relatively similar time zones which may mean that overnight posts could be waiting to be approved for hours. And as most moderators work, even daytime posts could have some delay which can certainly be frustrating for OPs itching to get talking about a topic.

    But we also understand that it's obviously frustrating to have an hours old post that you've been posting in removed also. I can't say we have plans to move to the approval system, but we hear your feedback. Hopefully as we take on new moderators we'll at least be able to get to removals with relative speed.

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

    Is it possible for posts to require mod approval, but get automatically approved after a few hours? That way shitposts still won't see the light of day for a little while, but if the mods are busy then the sub won't grind to a halt

    [–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Good question and probably worth looking into.

    [–]CrapNeck5000[M] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (15子コメント)

    I'd be curious to know if users would prefer to have to wait hours to maybe even a day for their post (or really any new post) to show up, or if they prefer the way it is now.

    Please let me know.

    [–]msx8 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I would be opposed to that. Such a system puts too much pressure on mods to validate posts efficiently, and in the case of breaking news it could limit discussion.

    Additionally, I don't have a problem with sub mods deleting posts that don't fit the rules. My main concern has been posts being deleted without much or any explanation to the OP or published within the thread.

    [–]BuckminsterJones 13ポイント14ポイント  (4子コメント)

    I wouldn't mind waiting. The most frustrating thing for me is putting time and effort into composing, what I think is, a quality reply, and then the thread gets deleted two minutes after I submit it. I haven't had much luck guessing which posts will make the cut.

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

    I haven't had much luck guessing which posts will make the cut.

    This is a common theme in this thread.

    [–]Precursor2552Keep it clean[M] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Note hours is the bare minimum. On a good day (with heavy moderation) I will be removing posts that are 2-12 hours old. On bad days (people are busy) I will be dealing with posts that are 2-3 days old.

    If this rule was in effect there are times this month where there would have zero new threads for at least 24 hours (I want to say 48, and then very few for 72 hours). Now that is not our ideal, but it is the cost for that. If you are ok with that please let us know, it is something we consider, although I'm not sure most would agree.

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

    Fair enough. I just thought I'd put it out there.

    [–]Precursor2552Keep it clean[M] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It is something we definitely consider and in an ideal world I would turn that on immediately so that the exact situation you described doesn't occur.

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

    Strong oppose here. I almost exclusively use /new and it already feels too slow.

    [–]twoambien 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Add more mods. OOTL manages it fine. That would certainly make it less frustrating to have something removed.

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

    I would prefer to wait for mod approval of a post before discussion starts. That's what we're doing already anyway, except our posts get removed while in the middle of having a good discussion. Also, maybe the mod reviewing it could provide feedback on how to make it an acceptable thread if it is rejected.

    I think it's a fantastic idea.

    [–]amici_ursihates fun[M] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Good gods we're not going to do that right now. The workload is immense as it is.

    [–]BuckminsterJones 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

    I'm confused. Is it more work to go through the posts to see which ones to approve than it is to go through them to see which ones to delete?

    [–]ReasonableTrumpGuy 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yeah, look at it that way. There's only a handful of threads in /new/ each day that make it through the mod axe already.

    I bet if you did this it would actually discourage the obvious shitposters and reduce your workload, because they'll know their submission will not go anywhere or be seen by anyone.

    If people know their posts have to get mod approval, people are going to put a lot more thought and effort into them.

    [–]Fnhatic 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I imagine the quantity of posts would go down.

    [–]no-sound_somuch_fury 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I probably wouldn't post as often. I love getting fast responses, while I'm still engaged in a topic.

    [–]balorina 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Low Effort Posts. Submissions should raise at least one highly substantial question that will elicit thoughtful discussion.

    You should probably clarify this point. Do you mean low investment COMMENTS will be removed or simply low investment SUBMISSIONS? If the former, there is a lot of leniency going on in that regard. Simply saying "What do you expect from an idiot like Trump?" or "What do you expect from a criminal like Hillary?" or "Republicans are liars, what do you expect?" are all low investment yet fairly common.

    [–]OPDidntDeliver 15ポイント16ポイント  (13子コメント)

    You guys are really arbitrary with removals and let a lot of low-effort comments by (especially anti-Trump ones) while tons of pro-Trump stuff gets removed. I say this as someone who is vehemently anti-Trump. Also, posts that are obviously soapboxing often stay up while I've seen many posts that are valid, if biased, get removed.

    [–]CrapNeck5000[M] 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Please report them!

    Especially comments, we can't possibly read all the comments. We rely heavily on users reporting rule breaking comments.

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

    You're right, my bad, I hadn't even thought about that. There are so many posters and not too many mods.

    [–]BagOnutsExtra Nutty[M] 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Oh, trust me, we remove a lot of anti-Trump comments. But the thing is, it has to break the rules, too.

    Look, it's pretty obvious that the majority of users here aren't pro-Trump, but that's really not something we as mods can control. We can't just ban people for liking/disliking a certain candidate over another.

    However, you can help us out by reporting comments that break the rules, regardless of who they are for, against, whatever. While we do like to keep eyes on active threads, we can't see everything. Reporting rule-breaking content ensures that we will review it. We keep the mod queue pretty clean, so if you report something, it should be addressed in a fairly reasonable amount of time.

    [–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    We aim to be impartial in removals, but even if we were perfectly impartial it's possible that the discrepancy you've noted is occurring. That's because if the subreddit has a strong bias in one direction users will tend to report low investment comments they disagree with while not reporting ones they agree with. In turn, rule-breaking comments expressing minority viewpoints are nearly always brought to our opinion while ones expressing majority viewpoints are not.

    I talk about this in the "Be judicious with reporting" in the OP above (I know, it was long and boring). We really need help from the users on this one.

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

    That's very true. On a related note, you guys should say WHY posts get removed, especially popular ones. I have had posts removed without explanation that were put back up when I asked why. And I also think you guys should have more meta discussions, maybe even once a week as the election gets closer, because it's hard to give feedback on the subreddit.

    [–]Miskellaneousness[S,M] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    On a related note, you guys should say WHY posts get removed, especially popular ones.

    We aim to do this 100% of the time. Some posts slip through, but we give a reason for the vast majority of thread removals.

    And I also think you guys should have more meta discussions, maybe even once a week as the election gets closer, because it's hard to give feedback on the subreddit.

    We really don't have the time or the will to do that. All the moderators are (obviously) unpaid volunteers who have real-life obligations (work, family, weddings, relocations, etc) and it's enormously time-consuming to not only spend hours a week trying to keep the subreddit high quality but then to have to defend your volunteering and be accused of censorship. Note that the top comment in this thread says that the moderators in this thread are not contributing to the discussion. Despite this, we do try to check-in and hear from the users when we can. But getting reemed out once every two months is enough I think -- no need to make it every week.

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

    Okay, fair enough. It's hard to remember that people on the Internet are in fact people. Thank you for doing what you do.

    [–]Fnhatic 15ポイント16ポイント  (6子コメント)

    The 'soapboxing' rule is total bullshit. It allows a moderator to zap out a post for basically any reason, without any transparency, based on a completely subjective interpretation of byzantine, unknowable rules and criteria.

    This is Political DISCUSSION. This isn't /r/neutralpolitics, and it's not /r/changemyview.

    If I want to discuss a topic, what logic is it that my post has to be neutral? This 'rule' is used as nothing more than a cudgel to disappear things that a given moderator just might not want to see discussed.

    I mean, I don't get it - what exactly is the point of this sub? 90% of the submissions now are just "[RECENT NEWS ITEM] ABOUT [TRUMP/HILLARY]! WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THEIR CAMPAIGN?!".

    This sub feels like just a rehash of /r/politics, except it's all self-posts, only self-posts about news items. The level of discourse is the same (meaning terrible), the discussions are garbage (meaning overwhelmingly biased), and I pretty much ignore most all posts now because they're just boring rehashes of TRUMP VS. CLINTON over and over. There's literally an entire subreddit for discussing political news already, and it's /r/politics.

    The completely unknowable rules and subjective moderation have contributed heavily to this just being a self-post election news aggregation, because posting a link to Huffington Post and asking 'WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THEIR CAMPAIGN?' is apparently the only thing that warrants being called a "discussion" these days. Any deviation from that formula and you're kicked to a dead subreddit that nobody posts in.

    At this point I would welcome a blanket ban on election posts, leaving moderators to make a post themselves about anything truly noteworthy. Not 'Trump wrote a nasty tweet!'

    [–]thatnameagain 16ポイント17ポイント  (2子コメント)

    You're mostly correct. Everyone else here is asking for "clarification" on when and why the mods are going to remove their mildly opinionated or potentially less-than-perfectly articulated posts when we should all be recognizing that these rules are largely ridiculous to begin with.

    I don't care if people just want to talk about the news of the day. Let them talk about the politics of it. Have a political discussion.

    The only thing necessary to improve this sub is for the mods to just censor less, for every given reason they think they should. Why everyone is asking for "clarification" on draconian policies is beyond me.

    [–]Mippipopolous 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

    They really push on the "not a news subreddit" thing, which I get to an extant—but all of the news subreddits are total shit and there's nowhere to discuss political news at an alright level aside from here. I think that's a reason for a lot of the friction and frustration. Being snarkily told to go to/r/politics doesn't really help, since that's kind of the point, it's terrible and people wanna have a space to have a decent discussion about things. I mean, at the least the mega thread idea doesn't seem like a bad one. On the whole I appreciate stronger moderation, it requires a lot of communication though, so threads like this are good start.

    [–]thatnameagain 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

    They push it when they remember to push it. Every day there are posts that remain up that are about the news of the day. Which is good. Then sometimes there will be a collective re-remembering that they're supposed to kill the news posts, and so you have a mass-removal incident like the day of Trump's 2nd amendment quote thing (which would never have happened if the mods had just accepted that, yes, for one day there will be 2 or 3 posts here about what Trump said and people will discuss it as if having a, how you say... "political discussion"!)

    It just seems like the mods are making more work for themselves for it's own sake. Why choose to be a politics sub that doesn't talk about recent news? It's just as irrational as deciding to be a politics sub that isn't allowed to talk about non-recent history.

    [–]no-sound_somuch_fury 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

    How many mod applications do you receive? I'm thinking of applying but if it's very competitive I probably don't have a chance since I don't have any experience.

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

    I just joined this sub after years of only frequenting /politics, and I just want to say that you mods clearly do a fantastic job keeping this place civil and on point. The top comments on any given /politics post will be either a joke, a one-liner, or an insult about 75% of the time. I always hoped that the /politics mods would moderate more similarly to how the moderators run /askscience i.e. remove comments that are effortless jokes, insults, and off topic.

    You guys seem to do that here, and I couldn't be happier about it. Keep up the good work!

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

    Well, I think you guys have done a good job. Figured I'd throw in my two cents, since there's so much negativity in here.

    Maybe post in deleted threads why they were removed, or give them a chance to edit it and be re-added if it can be salvaged? Subreddit Drama has a pretty good system for that, maybe someone there has tips you can adapt.

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

    Maybe post in deleted threads why they were removed, or give them a chance to edit it and be re-added if it can be salvaged?

    We already do both. There are some instances where a removal reason slips, and we are working on that, but the vast majority of the time we leave one (and I for one always leave one). And we are always are willing to work with users to get a post in compliance with the rules, and we have worked with users to get something in compliance in the past. Unfortunately a lot of times the user either doesn't message us after the post's removal or the message starts out in the vein of "why the fuck did you censor me, I did not break the rules, I'm not soapboxing I'm just stating my opinion."

    [–]A-VerySexyDisability 4ポイント5ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Can we end a lot of these low value questions being discussed, like "is owning up to ones mistakes an important of being president?". They are very generic and honestly not good questions.

    We should have more discussions of political theory, and be more inviting of (rational) fringe opinions.

    Lets have some rational socialists on here, nationalists, populists etc.

    [–]no-sound_somuch_fury 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Lets have some rational socialists on here, nationalists, populists etc.

    They'll be a lot more significant forces after the election (if I'm remembering right).

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

    Yeah, it's starting to get into the heat of the presidential election right now. It's going to get much worse for the next 82 days and then hit a crescendo of low effort shitposts before getting better.

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

    The last quarter of 2012 was abysmal, but it sorted out pretty quickly after that.

    [–]bellcrank 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The "low effort" rule is vague to the point of being useless, unless its purpose is to be a catch-all so broad that it gives mods the justification to remove posts they simply disagree with. If a mod wants to impose their own political bias into the content of the sub, all they need to do is declare any content they find offensive to their preferred candidate or party to be low effort.

    If that's how you want to run the sub, that's your choice of course. But it's the opposite of open discussion. That's how an echo chamber functions. I would think that with a topic as divisive as politics care would be taken to make sure moderators don't impose their bias on the content, but this sub takes the exact opposite rout through the "low effort rule" loophole. If you are going to have stringent requirements for making a post, you should consider the need to have stringent requirements for removing them as well, and for the same reason.

    The 2016 US presidential election is probably the most discussion worthy political event of our lives to-date, but this sub stifles worthwhile discussion by putting posters and commenters in a position where they might as well just assume a mod will eventually take any given thread and drop it down the memory hole for being "low effort". It makes it difficult to bother dedicating effort to making worthwhile content. When anything at any time could be declared low effort and removed, you might as well only make low effort contributions.

    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]CrapNeck5000[M] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      We only get two stickies....

      [–]DarrenX 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

      As for the imbalance of political leanings in this subreddit, I think that is almost unavoidable at the moment. This is a medium that rewards literacy and careful argumentation, and I think it's fair to say that people who like that sort of thing would tend to find one of the major candidates not to their liking.

      I do think we need to improve the "don't downvote people just because you disagree" rule. There are a few rational-seeming people out there voting for Trump and we should be encouraging them to post here, not downvoting them into oblivion.

      [–]krabbbyBernanke for President[M] 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

      We have no control over downvoting, we don't have the ability to stop it or force people to follow reddiquette.

      [–]DarrenX 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      This is true. My comment was meant more along the lines of "I wish people wouldn't downvote unfairly", not "the mods should do something about it"

      [–]Tenal 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Trump supporter here. Many of my posts have been downvoted to oblivion for giving Trump credit wherever needed. I am sick and tired of it.

      [–]DarrenX 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yes, that is unfair and is exactly what we should be trying to avoid. I personally will try to be mindful of this, and call people out when I see a reasonable pro-Trump post getting downvoted to hell. (and have an upvote).

      [–]silkysmoothjay 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

      Would the mods consider creating a spinoff sub that allows lower effort posts and meta discussion?

      [–]amici_ursihates fun[M] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Would the mods consider creating a spinoff sub that allows lower effort posts and meta discussion?

      r/Politics is right there.

      [–]CrapNeck5000[M] 8ポイント9ポイント  (52子コメント)

      ITT: Mods sacrificing karma to the reddit gods as payment for answering the user base's request for a meta thread.

      [–]clvfan 28ポイント29ポイント  (16子コメント)

      It shouldn't be surprising. You guys have been deleting threads and then deleting discussions about why the deletions are happening. This is the only outlet people have to release steam and raise valid concerns about your moderation rules

      [–]DarrenX 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

      This is the only outlet people have to release steam and raise valid concerns about your moderation rules

      True, but downvoting the mods is pretty shitty. The mods are volunteers for cripes sake!

      [–]AnxaPh.D. in Reddit Statistics[M] -9ポイント-8ポイント  (3子コメント)

      The feedback we're receiving is that the users reading our detailed explanations and responses do not appreciate us taking the time to have a discussion and provide our rationale in a public setting.

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

      Because of the downvotes? Or is it because this sub has already established a working "downvote = disagree" format (regardless of whether they should) and you should read the downvotes with that in mind instead?

      [–]CrapNeck5000[M] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (4子コメント)

      This is the only outlet people have to release steam and raise valid concerns about your moderation rules

      And they use that opportunity to discourage the mod team from doing it more? That actually does surprise me.

      [–]clvfan 23ポイント24ポイント  (3子コメント)

      You guys asked for feedback and there is a lot of justified frustration. I guess the mod consensus is you just shouldn't have bothered asking?

      [–]CrapNeck5000[M] -9ポイント-8ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Haha, I guess I just didn't expect this many downvotes for trying to be helpful.

      Its no big deal.

      [–]AnxaPh.D. in Reddit Statistics[M] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (3子コメント)

      release steam

      We're under no obligation to provide our users with a space to shoot the shit about the subreddit. We open ourselves up to this of our own volition.

      raise valid concerns about your moderation rules

      Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We get feedback practically every day in modmail and that leads to extensive backroom discussion amongst ourselves. Sometimes it results in major changes (i.e. submission flairs and the weekly polling megathread, before which submissions about polls were completely banned). Other times we may decide a change is not in our best interest but it gets major discussion anyway - we have discussed the breaking news topic to death amongst ourselves.

      [–]Khiva 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Right, but these are minor changes and the community on the whole seems quite dissatisfied with how the sub is being run, particularly in terms of deletions. So, while you acknowledge that you're getting feedback, it doesn't seem to be making any difference.

      In particular, it throws me off that some submissions will have moderators either commenting or regulating comments, which implies that they've seen the submission and thought it was worth keeping...only to find that later another mod has pulled it.

      You seem to take a position on encouraging more in depth discussion, but you don't seem to quite realize the chilling effect these frequent deletions have on discourse. I often find myself considering a more in depth reply, and then refraining because I have no way of knowing whether the whole post will get nuked and all the effort will be for naught. As a result, I tend to leave shorter comments with less effort, and I suspect I'm not alone.

      You don't seem to quite realize that you are part of a feedback process that is working against your goal. Your goal is laudable, but I'm not sure that your collective actions are getting us any closer.

      [–]AnxaPh.D. in Reddit Statistics[M] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      the community on the whole

      The community as a whole seems to be flocking to our subreddit; our subscription numbers have been growing at breakneck pace and we are having difficulty just enforcing the rules we have with all of the enthusiastic users who are not yet familiar with the strict rules we enforce. All due respect, but we take feedback at face value, not by popularity in a meta thread that users happy with the sub are less likely to be perusing in the first place.

      chilling effect

      Again, the last problem we have on our plates is that users are being discouraged from participating here. To those who do feel that way, we simply can't please everyone. However we hear the feedback and will certainly discuss it.

      I'm not sure that your collective actions are getting us any closer.

      If nothing else, we have learned that the users who participate in meta threads do not value our input, and we likely will not be participating in the future - we will continue to discuss any and all feedback received amongst ourselves with the goal of subreddit improvement in mind.

      [–]ClockOfTheLongNow 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Some more transparency would be of value.

      [–]msx8 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

      For what it's worth not all of us are downvoting you. Thanks for taking the time to answer even if some immature users are downvoting you.

      [–]PM_ME_YOUR_DARKNESS 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

      Speaking of [meta] threads, can I get clarification on why the strict rule on no meta discussion? It seems like in an increasing digital world, political campaigns will will invariably seep into online communities like reddit. Why can't discussions be had about things like the_donald or Correct the Record when those items are in the news for potentially affecting the political landscape? Obviously things like "Edit: Downvotes, really?" and post like "[Meta] The mods are infringing on my free speech, discuss" shouldn't be tolerated, but I think there is reason for the occasional discussion of the impacts of political campaigns on social media, specifically reddit.

      Also, really like the polling megathread /u/Anxa puts up every week. Streets ahead of the endless posts about how such and such poll will affect the race.

      Anyways, you guys have a completely thankless job and I, for one, appreciate what you do, even if I don't always agree with the reasoning.

      [–]luster 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

      /r/PD was founded by the moderators of /r/politics when self posts were banned there. There are still a few of us left that were one time /r/politics mods. Meta posts were made constantly complaining about the moderation in /r/politics. These posts invariably became circlejerks and/or attacks on the /r/politics mods.

      Do not submit content that does not discuss politics (such as meta posts, discussion of other subreddits, other redditors or moderators).

      That rule was established as a result and meta posts were banned, and I don't see us allowing them again.

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

      Thank you for an actual response and not just dismissing my question. That is greatly appreciated. I personally see a little bit of distinction between "DAE hate the mods" and "the_donald is increasingly cited among news outlets, yada yada yada," but I understand why the rule is in place better now. Thank you.

      [–]no-sound_somuch_fury 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Just curious, how many downvotes are we talking about? The numbers are hidden to us

      [–]AnxaPh.D. in Reddit Statistics[M] -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

      It's real bad. Almost like no one bothered to read the actual text of the post and just went straight in to complain. (e: a lot of the very popular complaints here specifically betray that the user did not read the text of the post so, great.)

      [–]Prodigy-IIThe People's Mod[M] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

      I just woke up. Thanks for taking the hits I don't know what I'd do without my internet points.

      [–]AnxaPh.D. in Reddit Statistics[M] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Not get paid, Gilmore is paying us by the Karma.

      [–]Prodigy-IIThe People's Mod[M] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I work for Lord Gilmore for free, thus be the greatness of his being

      [–]Fnhatic 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

      Oh and nothing gets my goat up more than people who respond to a three-page dissertation with a six-word response selectively only attacking a single sentence, ignoring 99% of the rest of the post (or outright trying to deny it even exists), and then declaring victory. Fuck those people too.

      [–]no-sound_somuch_fury 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Unless you're actually having a full argument, I think this is fine in many circumstances. Sometimes little corrections are necessary. Sometimes you only have the interest/expertise to respond to a certain aspect of the argument.

      [–]-_-_-_M_-_-_- 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Can we please classify the type of posts whose discussion is purely speculative as low effort? I'm talking about the "How will Ted Cruz do in 2020" type of question that asks to speculate the dynamics of a political horse race between an imaginary field of candidates, 4 years in advance.

      Tbs I'm happy with the rules/enforcement as is and appreciate the mod team.

      [–]BagOnutsExtra Nutty[M] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yeah, I know what you're saying. Sometimes speculative submissions are very well thought out and create some good discussion, though. We'll talk about this and how we want to classify them. Thanks for the suggestion!

      [–]Tenal 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Trump supporter here.

      I've been loyally coming here to read about the political views of others, but I've been feeling so unwelcome it's ridiculous.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4y9qv9/you_become_a_campaign_manager_for_either_hillary/

      Look at the comments for that. For Trump, "I'd fire myself", "I'd disappear", "I'd drop out" ARE YOU SERIOUS? This is a low effort post because it's 4 in the morning but this is the reason why I'm starting to hate coming on here. Can I please read about politics in a rational format, reading views from everyone and not just Clinton supporters and not getting downvoted whenever I as a Trump supporter express my opinion rationally and maturely?

      God I hate coming on this subreddit but I would love frequenting the subreddit that this one claims to be.

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

      If you still don’t understand why your post was removed, feel free to message the moderators (do not PM individual moderators — message us as a group so we can all weigh in), but please do not message us to argue about your post removal. Moderators are intimately familiar with the rules and if your post was removed there’s a legitimate reason.

      Then when I have been waiting a week for a response to my PM to the mods. I wasn't trying to argue, I even admitted the thread probably should have been removed. I really just wanted further clarification, and I've not bothered with a fee ideas for submissions I've had to this sub since then because of the lack of response.

      [–]Precursor2552Keep it clean[M] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      We are often busy, if its been some time (a day) since you messaged us and you haven't heard anything either send a follow-up or send another. Unless you are particularly belligerent on that being reminded isn't a problem.

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

      The only comment I really feel needs to be added is that the posts of "X just happened. How does this affect the election?" need to be removed. It is very tiring to see this formulation reach the top posts in the sub all the time. The repetition is mind numbing and the answers are usually uninformative.

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

      This is perhaps going to be the other side of the coin, but regarding this:

      In our collective moderation experience, low effort news posts like “Trump just Tweeted … . How will this affect the election?”

      I'm sure it's no surprise to you that there's a political lean to this subreddit, and these types of posts, with egregious bias (eg. "Trump just tweeted this, how much of the vote will he lose?") get overwhelmingly upvoted and remain untouched.

      I know you can't change the userbase here, but to what extent do you try to enforce neutrality given the userbase is anything but?

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

      Hi, there is a bias of moderators supporting Trump in this sub and there is censoring of topics that are anti-Trump. I merely refer to all the threads removed when Trump made his statements that the 2nd Amendment people can "do something" if Hillary becomes President and picks the SCOTUS judges.

      It was a major point in Trump's campaign and 5 or 6 threads were posted about the topic. About 5 or 6 of the threads were removed until the mod team considered the last thread to be non-biased. I'm sorry but I read through a few of those 5 or 6 threads that were removed and 2 or 3 of them were worded neutrally and didn't deserve removal.

      Conversely, I point you to this thread about Hillary's e-mails:

      https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4rofhd/speaker_ryan_formally_requests_director_of/?limit=500

      In that thread, the statement "He points to (what he perceives as) contradictions in Comey's statement and how the evidence objectively contradicts some of Clinton's claims, among other things" can be considered a "low investment" statement and IMO, can be grounds for removal of that thread.

      Even though I don't support Trump, I don't mind that this thread on Hillary's e-mail isn't removed since there is nothing left to discuss if everything is removed. But I can say that in that thread, if we replaced the name "Hillary" with "Trump," the mod team would have found reasons to remove this thread due to the perceived bias against Hillary and pro-support for Trump on the mod team.

      I was extremely disappointed in the moderator team's handling of all the threads regarding Trump's controversial statements that the 2nd Amendment people can "do something" if Hillary becomes President. It really showed a bias among the moderator team. I hope the moderator team can reflect on this and correct their bias. Even though I don't support Trump myself, I wouldn't want a moderator team that is also anti-Trump. I hope that the moderator team can be neutral but as it stands now, there is a pro-Trump bias to the moderator team.

      [–]VodkaBarf 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

      We're seeing a different sub if you see a pro-Trump bias. Almost every Trump supporter sees the opposite. I've backed Secretary Clinton from the start, but even I feel bad for how poorly Trump supporters are sometimes treated here.

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

      Shout out to the mods for keeping this sub high quality

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

      Seconded, and shout out to the users who provide careful, substantive analysis of events; who link to sources; who include quotes; etc. I've very much enjoyed my time in this sub, and am glad to be a part of this community.

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

      You guys are great. The community is great. This place is great.

      [–]Trump-Tzu 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

      The low effort rule is stupid as its being enforced currently.

      When the San Jose riots happened at the trump rally in posted various clips of it and wanted to discuss whether violence against trump supporters hurts or helps trump.

      Nods nuked every topic on it. Eventually allowing one through, only to lock it.

      I know this is a pro Clinton sub but I still think we should allow topics that may be uncomfortable.

      [–]skybelt 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

      Anti-Clinton stuff gets nuked too, there is just far less of it.

      For example, when the DNC emails broke, the same shit happened - it was impossible to discuss here because dozens of posts were removed.

      [–]Trump-Tzu 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Fair enough I just hate that they will censor an entire topic seemingly arbitrarily.

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

      Mods, you've made this the only level-headed place to talk about politics. Thanks for your hard work.

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

      I eagerly embrace my new mod overlords.

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

      Considering the inflammatory nature of politics, you guys run a tight ship, and I commend you for it! Keep up the good work, from a fellow mod of a large-ish sub.