[-]VelvetJustice 3 points (1 children)
I hate to say it, but it seems like these deletions are politically motivated - only certain types of threads are deleted.
You cannot possibly see the reports we receive nor the comments/submissions we remove, so you don't know what we are or aren't removing. Unfortunately some people either aren't familiar with this subreddit's rules, or are familiar with them and simply refuse to abide by them - and that's why their comments/submisions get removed. Unfortunately there's always a small subset of individuals who seem to believe there's a conspiracy to remove their posts for some convoluted reason... usually this manifests in an accusation of alleged personal bias, or some alleged shadowy agenda on behalf of the Moderating Team.
I can really only speak for myself on this matter, but when it comes to moderating a reported comment, I look at the content of the post, and if it is in accordance with the rules, I do nothing. If the reported comment is indeed in violation of the rules, regardless of who the poster is or what their comment is about, it will be removed. I don't play favourites and I don't care about the subject at hand: my one and only concern is whether or not the rules are being violated.
Of course, most people understandably become upset when their post is removed. We try to explain removals when posters contact us to ask, but even so many times posters simply refuse to believe us, even if the violation is clear-cut. You have no idea how many times I have tried to explain to people that there is no loophole that could possibly justify some of the vile personal attacks I have removed - and yet these posters will argue until they're blue in the face that they should have some special right to insult and harass others just because of a difference of beliefs.
Now to address your specific complaints:
For instance, this thread was deleted
Yes, it was removed as a violation of rule 6: Submission Content - Posts which relate to Canada only in passing (e.g. mens rights vs womens rights arguments) will also likely be removed. Although a Canadian citizen was featured in the article, the article was discussing events abroad and was only minimally related to Canada. Furthermore, the moderating team has learned that these "gender wars" types of threads unfortunately seem to bring out the worst in people and result in multiple reports, which is why in general these are removed. There are many other subreddits where interested individuals can go to debate gender issues, and unless the issue is very specifically related to Canada, you can continue to expect the removal of such submissions.
Or, this piece in the National Post by Rex Murphy
Once again, this seems to be clearly a violation of rule 6: Submission Content. The article in question does not discuss Canada, and in fact focuses primarily on the USA. The reason for the removal of this article should be obvious and clearly justified to anyone who is familiar with this subreddit's rules.
Meanwhile, other threads with similar (ir)relevance to Canada - but do not have similar political affiliation - are left untouched. Example: The inventor of pineapple pizza defends the pizza, after it is criticized by the Icelandic president: https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5vfnzh/canadian_inventor_of_hawaiian_pizza_defends/
To the contrary, that article very clearly references Canada. It is a relevant and appropriate submission and as such would not be removed. Nobody reported it, either. Just because you personally do not feel it is relevant, does not mean it should be removed, especially since this article is not in violation of this sub's rules.
Or this self-post complaining about the use of phrases like "libtard": https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5ropy0/it_really_saddens_me_when_i_see_political/
That self-post was also not reported, and although it seems to be somewhat low in content in general, it is relevant to this forum. We regularly receive reports from individuals frustrated with being personally attacked (in clear violation of the rules). The use of these terms ("cuck," "libtard," "conservitard," etc.) do not contribute positively to any discussion and are in violation of rule 2: Rabble-rousing - Don't be rude or hostile. & Don't conduct personal attacks on other users.
Or this post about a Canadian company's failed expansion into the US: https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5vjujs/til_canadian_tire_tried_to_expand_into_the_us_in/
This submission is relevant to Canada, was not reported, and I fail to see your objection to the submission.
I do not think that the rule should be used as a club to remove things that the moderators dislike.
Clearly this is not what is happening, as the members of the Moderating Team regularly approve all sorts of personal comments and article submissions with which we may personally disagree. So long as a comment or submission is not in clear violation of the rules, we will not take moderating action. However, those which are in violation of the rules, will be acted upon.
Hopefully this clears the matter up for you.
[-]Celda 4 points (2 children)
Thank you for replying. Edit: You are certainly right that I do not know what is being removed or not removed. Still, I am talking about my observations, which I acknowledge are not the same as a proven fact.
With all due respect though, I don't think you have the best judgment on this matter. There have been several times where you made antagonistic comments, and then you later deleted those comments.
For instance, in this thread where you deleted an entire chain of comments (including your own) where you talked about removing any comments that made accusations without sources - which would also mean that any accusations referencing The Rebel, or "alt-righters" would be against the rules if no source was linked, even if the claim was true. I don't think anyone wants that to be the case.
As I told you then, I genuinely felt threatened by your comments. There were a few others who should remember participating in that chain, like /u/zahlman for instance.
Yes, it was removed as a violation of rule 6: Submission Content - Posts which relate to Canada only in passing (e.g. mens rights vs womens rights arguments) will also likely be removed. Although a Canadian citizen was featured in the article, the article was discussing events abroad and was only minimally related to Canada.
Ok...and then you say - "This submission is relevant to Canada, was not reported, and I fail to see your objection to the submission."
"Although a Canadian company was featured in the wikipedia link, the article was discussing events abroad and was only minimally related to Canada."
Do you see the disconnect here?
Once again, this seems to be clearly a violation of rule 6: Submission Content. The article in question does not discuss Canada, and in fact focuses primarily on the USA. The reason for the removal of this article should be obvious and clearly justified to anyone who is familiar with this subreddit's rules.
It is an op-ed, not a news article. True, it discusses events that happened outside Canada, but the overarching topic is still relevant to Canada.
That self-post was also not reported, and although it seems to be somewhat low in content in general, it is relevant to this forum.
It's not talking about the forum though. This is what it said:
Title: It really saddens me when I see political polarity and terminology that is used in the US start creeping it's way into Canada. Anyone else starting to feel this way?
Post: "Terminology like "repeal everything x did"; "libtard", etc... it's all just disgusting. While political parties have differing opinions on how best to serve Canada, simply going against EVERYTHING the other party is doing is simply childish and destructive."
The relation to Canada is tangential, at best. It's just complaining about use of certain political terms, that are not specific to Canada, and that the poster even says originated from the US. The OP is not even referring to those terms being used specifically in this subreddit.
Perhaps you can tell me about these submissions, while you're here:
This is literally an image of someone filtering out the_donald subreddit.
This is an American article (published in Tor Star, but written by Washington Bureau) about a former Toronto Star journalist (not even Canadian) accusing an American politician of sexual assault, outside Canada.
An image of a tweet from a former Canadian politician making a joke about an American politician.
An American article discussing a random, anonymous Canadian who publicized a video about Milo Yiannopolous. Granted this last one is less than a day old.
[-]VelvetJustice 2 points (1 children)
Warning: the kind of offensive accusations that you made against me personally will not be humoured, and if you persist it will be met with moderating action. If you wish to discuss your concerns about submission removals in a civil and rational fashion, without resorting to personal attacks, that is another matter.
Allow me to remind you of rule 2: Rabble-rousing - Posts which do nothing but dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations could be subject to removal and/or banning.
Don't conduct personal attacks on other users. Ad hominem and other distracting attacks do not add anything to the conversation.
This is why you have difficulties with article and comment removals: you seem to willfully refuse to familiarize yourself with this subreddit's rules, and even though these rules are patiently explained to you (and other "problematic" posters) time and time again, you stubbornly persist in refusing to abide by these simple rules.
"Although a Canadian company was featured in the wikipedia link, the article was discussing events abroad and was only minimally related to Canada." Do you see the disconnect here?
No, because the article about Canadian Tire is discussing a major Canadian company and its attempt to branch out from Canada to another country. It's a rock-solid submission. An article about a Canadian citizen that may or may not be actually doing something in a different country, is not comparable, especially when the topic at hand is specifically a reason for removal from this subreddit:
Once again, this would not be so puzzling to you if you took the time to familiarize yourself with /Canada's very few, very reasonable rules.
It is an op-ed, not a news article.
It's an article (which is defined as "a piece of writing included with others in a newspaper, magazine, or other publication") - it doesn't matter if it's opinion or news.
The relation to Canada is tangential, at best. It's just complaining about use of certain political terms, that are not specific to Canada
The divisive use of such terms, however, is a problem here in this forum, which is why the post was permitted to remain (as has already been explained).
That's a 10 month-old post. It was approved by another moderator who is no longer on the MT. I don't feel as if I should be held accountable for the actions of someone else, who is no longer currently a moderator, and furthermore should not be expected to explain something which happened when I wasn't even a member of the moderating team at that time.
Nobody appears to have reported it: that submission is also four months old. Furthermore the article goes on to discuss the complaint by the Canadian in depth. It seems to be a valid submission.
Another moderator has approved that submission: and I do not police or second-guess the moderating actions of other members of the moderating team. I probably never even saw it. You are again insisting upon complaining about another 4 months-old post.
https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5w188f/meet_the_16yearold_canadian_girl_who_took_down/ An American article discussing a random, anonymous Canadian who publicized a video about Milo Yiannopolous. Granted this last one is less than a day old.
Finally a complaint that is current... this article was (once again) approved because the majority of the article discusses the Canadian individual who was involved, their specific actions, and the repercussions of their labours.
Virtually all of the complaints about post removals could be avoided had the posters in question made the effort to become acquainted with the rules, and - much more importantly - mindfully craft their posts so that they are accordance with these rules. Furthermore, your own complaints about the articles which have not been removed, are also based on what appears to be some unfathomable refusal to acquaint yourself with this subreddit's rules.
[-]Celda 2 points (1 children)
Warning: the kind of offensive accusations that you made against me personally will not be humoured, and if you persist it will be met with moderating action. If you wish to discuss your concerns about submission removals in a civil and rational fashion, without resorting to personal attacks, that is another matter.
I apologize, I did not intend that to be a personal attack.
No, because the article about Canadian Tire is discussing a major Canadian company and its attempt to branch out from Canada to another country. It's a rock-solid submission. An article about a Canadian citizen that may or may not be actually doing something in a different country, is not comparable
I don't understand your arguments. What is the difference between a Canadian company's actions outside Canada, and a Canadian citizen's actions outside Canada?
That's a 10 month-old post. It was approved by another moderator who is no longer on the MT.
Fair enough. But we agree it's not appropriate, right?
Nobody appears to have reported it: that submission is also four months old. Furthermore the article goes on to discuss the complaint by the Canadian in depth. It seems to be a valid submission.
How though? The article is about a former Toronto Star journalist. The article does not say if she is actually a Canadian, but let's assume she is. So if she was, then it's about a non-famous Canadian accusing an American politician of a crime that happened in America.
How is this related to Canada, when the other ones are not?
Another moderator has approved that submission: and I do not police or second-guess the moderating actions of other members of the moderating team. I probably never even saw it.
Ok, but as a moderator, how would you say it relates to Canada? I do not see how it does. It's literally just a tweet joking that Donald Trump's dad should have withdrawn, without any reference to Canadian events or anything else.
Finally a complaint that is current... this article was (once again) approved because the majority of the article discusses the Canadian individual who was involved, their specific actions, and the repercussions of their labours.
Ok, so the article is in an American publication, about a person, who publicized the video of a a British man currently living in America. It has nothing to do with Canada other than the fact that the person is Canadian - which you have said is not really enough to make something related to Canada.
I am sorry, but I truly do not understand your arguments here, that you have used to tell me that some things are related to Canada and some are not.
[-]VelvetJustice 0 points (1 children)
I don't understand your arguments.
The links which you have questioned us about have already been addressed and fully explained. I am not going to address the same matter over and over and over again, because my answer will not be different.
Fair enough. But we agree it's not appropriate, right?
This is a different question. I would most certainly have removed it for one of two possible reasons: rule 6: Submission content - Posts generally lacking any content will be removed. & rule 7: Image content - Low content posts and images will likely be removed.
That being said, the moderating team may make exceptions for image content under certain conditions (relevance to Canadian politics, society, etc. or in the interests of breaking the divisive and/or contentious nature of various threads and lightening the mood of the sub). Personally, I will also approve certain posts along these lines if there is demonstrable and pertinent precedent, in the interests of fairness.
I am sorry, but I truly do not understand your arguments here, that you have used to tell me that some things are related to Canada and some are not.
Once again, this seems to be connected to what seems to be a willful refusal to familiarize yourself with our rules and accept the explanations given to you by the moderating team. If you haven't done so already, I suggest that you take the time to carefully read this subreddit's rules, and perhaps then the explanations which you have already been given will make much more sense.
[-]Celda 0 points
The links which you have questioned us about have already been addressed and fully explained. I am not going to address the same matter over and over and over again, because my answer will not be different.
I get that, but I truly do not understand your arguments.
I promise you that I am not deliberately refusing to learn the rules or accept the explanations given.
I truly do not understand the arguments being made here and how they can be consistent with each other. Maybe I am just missing it and someone else will help me see it.
[-]zahlman 1 points - [removed]
>There were a few others who should remember participating in that chain, like /u/zahlman for instance.
Just want to confirm that yes, I do remember.
The repeated accusations that /u/VelvetJustice has made against you here of "refusing" to acquaint yourself with the rules, that you haven't "carefully read" them, that you don't understand the tireless explanations simply because you disagree etc. are, frankly, insulting. I have downvoted and reported all his comments here, because they bluntly violate the rule against hostility. That opening, baseless snipe about "a small subset of individuals who seem to believe there's a conspiracy to remove their posts" (emphasis his), likewise. That's beyond the pale. An accusation of bias in moderation is a different thing, and is not rude. Calling people conspiracy theorists in response certainly is, however. And no amount of reading the rules can tell me otherwise, because I speak the English language and know what the words "rude" and "hostile" mean, and the rules do not supply an alternate definition. This "conspiracy" thing especially galls because IIRC it was one of the accusations he also threw at you in that deleted chain. Repeatedly.
view more
NO CONTENT OR DATA IS HOSTED HERE!!! This is an API client written in javascript.
This is NOT reddit.com, It is the V for reddit client AKA snew Privacy Policy
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
Privacy Policy All code is licensed under WTFPLv2.
0%
 
10%
 
20%
 
30%
 
40%
 
50%
 
60%
 
70%
 
80%
 
90%
 
100%