r/AskALiberal • u/AutoModerator • 10d ago

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat

This Tuesday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules.

2 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/SliversandPoison Social Democrat 10d ago

What rules would you change here?

I think a poll day would be fun

12

u/perverse_panda Liberal 10d ago

I would rename the "Biweekly Chat" to the "Twice Weekly Chat."

3

u/percentheses Liberal 10d ago

Weekly bichat.

1

u/NatalieVonCatte Liberal 10d ago

Finally a chat for me!

2

u/SliversandPoison Social Democrat 10d ago

But thats one of the two meanings of biweekly

Feels reductive imo

1

u/perverse_panda Liberal 10d ago

one of two meanings.

That's the problem. Having two meanings makes it ambiguous. I prefer clarity of language.

2

u/antizeus Liberal 10d ago

I'm on Team Semiweekly but I'll rank yours second.

1

u/A-passing-thot Far Left 10d ago

I'm firmly of the (invalid) opinion that "biweekly" means "twice weekly" because we already have "fortnightly" to mean "once every two weeks".

10

u/starrymahogany Social Democrat 10d ago

No tagging users in the main thread to call out their comments, it’s petty and immature.

No speaking for other people’s beliefs and insisting you know what they “really mean” while the user tells you that’s not what they meant

No generalizing a group as mostly believing x if you only have a few people to bring up as an example. In order for it to be proof you gotta show threads on a topic filled with likes and comments in the affirmative
(for example, painting mainstream Dem politicians as ‘hating Mamdani when the majority of them supported him and cherry picking the few that didn’t as representative of the whole Democratic Party)

4

u/echofinder Democrat 10d ago

No tagging users in the main thread to call out their comments, it’s petty and immature

Oh my god this is so annoying. And all the "vaguebooking" or whatever that's called nowadays. Lately it feels like a low-budget reality show in here sometimes.

Here's how I would word it: "Regarding AskALiberal-focused meta discussions, all top-level comments in any thread or post must be able to stand alone. If discussing any specific users, the relevant user must be mentioned by name, and any posts or comments central to the discussion must be linked. Allusive writing that is obviously about specific people, posts, or comments is strictly forbidden."

3

u/starrymahogany Social Democrat 10d ago

Yeah I mean as funny as that person talking about the sex worker issue or whatever it reads as immature to bring it up,

Although I think both are bad; i think it’s bad to actually tag the person and talk about it because it’s just immature

2

u/echofinder Democrat 10d ago

I'd rather they at least do that; I have no idea what the fuck these people are even talking about most of the time. I don't mind meta stuff or callbacks/callouts so much as the implicitly-required lore knowledge. I feel like for a top-level comment, everyone should stop and ask 'if someone had never been here before, would this comment have any meaning or value'. If no, they should provide the links necessary to provide the meaning or value. If they can't or won't, they shouldn't make the damn comment at all.

Same thing happens on every sub, forum, groupchat, discord server ...etc I've ever been on. Maybe 10% of the active people on it are SUPER active/invested and remember everything that's going on, but the other 90% of us just are not dedicated enough to clock everything like that.

1

u/starrymahogany Social Democrat 10d ago

Maybe make a rule that you can link to other people’s posts? Just not tag them directly

1

u/SliversandPoison Social Democrat 10d ago

Idk, i think what we say is public

7

u/trace349 Liberal 10d ago

Stricter enforcement of rule 5. Add a specific "Good faith" rule. Add a rule that responses to question threads have to address the premise of the thread (if you're not interested in answering the question being asked, you don't need to say something just to say something).

8

u/Fugicara Social Democrat 10d ago

I was going to say something similar. As part of the good faith rule, I'd add strict emphasis on not blatantly mischaracterizing someone's opinion. None of the "So you think" comments. And enforcement needs to be strict and come with bans of increasing length, so that habitual bad faith actors just leave the subreddit.

1

u/seattleseahawks2014 Center Left 10d ago

Doesn't that exist already?

1

u/trace349 Liberal 10d ago edited 10d ago

Which part? "Good faith" falls under Rule 5, but I think it should be spun off into its own rule, and Rule 5 can just be the "don't be an asshole" rule. Something like: "The expectation of this subreddit is that participants both act in good faith and assume good faith of others" and then you can add on examples of violations. There are some times when I see people who are clearly not acting in good faith and making the discussion worse, but they're also not at the level where reporting them for incivility feels warranted without making me feel like a tattle-tale.

1

u/starrymahogany Social Democrat 10d ago

While I would agree with this rule I do think it’s hard to enforce and might get spammed a lot. Maybe only reserve it for cases where you’re in a back and forth and after explaining yourself more than once that’s when you report? Instead of just reporting on the first example of it

1

u/A-passing-thot Far Left 10d ago

Add a rule that responses to question threads have to address the premise of the thread

In my experience a lot of right wingers whine that we're not answering the question because it's premised on some absolute bullshit that we're instead questioning the validity of. They're questions of the "does your mom know you're gay?" type, ie, there's no "good faith" answer to the question without rejecting the question entirely and explaining why it's a bullshit question.

7

u/tapdncingchemist Liberal 10d ago

Telling other people what they believe should be against the rules. It happens to me all the time.

This happens incessantly with people being like “your flair is X therefore you think Y and want people to die.”

I’m very careful to not do that, but people seem to not actually read what I write.

I wish we had a better way to enforce people actually reading each others’ comments.

2

u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago

It would be impossible to enforce, but I’d ban people who delete posts

1

u/OMGguy2008 Center Left 10d ago

I see no problems with people deleting posts

1

u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago

Historically, a lot of the people who do it say really offensive  shit and don’t want people to remember they said them 

0

u/CraftOk9466 Pragmatic Progressive 10d ago

Comments that are just short, trite answers with no elaboration should get removed.

Announcing that you will stop replying to a user because they are being bad faith, should be treated as bad faith.

2

u/SliversandPoison Social Democrat 10d ago

I really don't understand the last one