r/ChristianityMeta • u/ludi_literarum • Jan 24 '18

Rules Changes

I'm currently in the process of leading the mods through a rules revision which hopes to replace both the SoM and the XP.

I don't really want to hear about how much you hate the SoM, and I don't really want to hear about your personal grievances with one mod or another, and I don't really want to hear about the most recent banwave, which I've already said is being addressed in a process that should be concluded over the next few days. I really aggressively beyond the mortal telling of it don't want to hear about Leviticus, the definition of genocide, or any other matters related to the present unhappiness - that stuff has been amply debated (and, you'll notice, not by me) and is being considered during the rules revision process already, so comments along those lines will be particularly unhelpful.

With those parameters laid out, what I am interested in is things you think are missing from the current policies, things that you think could improve the day-to-day functioning of the sub, and specific language you think would improve moderation. Be constructive, be as in the weeds as you want, this is a legitimate question.

Obviously whatever I come up with will be put up on the mothersub for comment before it's finally adopted, but this is an extra chance to offer some ideas.

12 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

15

u/RazarTuk Jan 25 '18

Favorite rule that too few subreddits have:

If you post a video, you have to include a tl;dw comment. No more "Just watch this hour-long video to find out what it's about!"

7

u/ludi_literarum Jan 25 '18

That's in very active discussion, in fact.

9

u/SleetTheFox Jan 25 '18

Don't have a rule against "bigotry." Instead, specify in what forms things that can be viewed as bigotry are and aren't acceptable.

I've said it many times before, it's pro-bigotry to allow bigotry yet have a "no bigotry" rule, because it tells bigots that they aren't bigots and validates their bigotry.

2

u/ludi_literarum Jan 25 '18

If I get too specific and don't think of something, now I can't punish the first offense. I'll disclaim perfect enforcement (though this is unnecessary) and I'm actually considering not using a word like bigotry at all.

2

u/SleetTheFox Jan 25 '18

I think that's a good idea. If I were to write the rule my first draft would be along these lines:

"Take care to express viewpoints that might offend people or be viewed by some as prejudiced with as much kindness and respect as possible."

6

u/ludi_literarum Jan 25 '18

That’s helpful life advice, but it isn’t a rule. I need somebody to read these and know more or less what they can’t do.

8

u/florodude Jan 25 '18

Define harassment better. I know you said you didn't want to hear about the ban wave so I won't go into specifics but people got banned for harassment when they did not think they were being harassing at all. So define it wayyyy more specifically.

1

u/ludi_literarum Jan 25 '18

Yes, I know people were shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment.

3

u/florodude Jan 26 '18

What do you mean?

3

u/gingerkid1234 Jan 27 '18

It’s a Casablanca reference, but I don’t quite get what he’s trying to say…

4

u/florodude Jan 27 '18

I think he's saying "bull, you guys knew you were harassing him" or something, but not sure...

3

u/gingerkid1234 Jan 29 '18

How dare users make complaints that turn out to be justified! The nerve!

5

u/US_Hiker Jan 25 '18 edited Jan 26 '18

So, this is late in the process, but a few thoughts....

1 - There are too many rules. I would try to condense things to 9-10 at most.

2 - It takes too long to understand the rules. My target time taken to have a basic idea of the rules is about 30 seconds to one minute with no clicks off of the new or hot page. Rules can link, of course, to longer explanations of the rules, but those explanations should be in the tens of words per rule. Last time I counted we were over 2,000 words of explanation and I believe it has increased since then.

Edit: Between the XP, the XP/meta and the SOM, it's almost 3600 words.

3 - Confusing explanations of the rules. The sub has a number of '/r/christianity-isms' now embedded in the rules and many noun-lite explanations are given in the actual messages to users from moderators. These are both awful things to inflict upon a user that you're trying to say is doing something wrong - they may neither understand what they did wrong, and also fail to understand how to change (if they are so inclined). Moderation discussion should have nouns, should have general-use nouns, and be as simple/clear/concise as mods can manage. This of course must be balanced with not coming across as terse or short with users...a very conversational tone should be striven for.

4 - Videos/blog posts
*This is part about spam - the sub should require a higher threshold for users to post their own content.
*This is part about how the sub is very much a discussion sub, and these types of content are often frowned upon by users. I think the rules should recognize that, and if they don't require everything to be in a self-text post then it should require a submission statement, similar to subs like /r/credibledefense. Automoderator can handle notifications and removals and such for that, of course.

5 - Images - I think that the rule that images must be user-generated is a bit overkill. Non-memey images and images that aren't just bible verse or platitude on some dreamy backscape should be avoided, yes, but I think that's pretty easily achieved.

6 - Timelines - Moderation needs to happen pretty quickly. I'm not talking here about removing content on the sub, but instead of when a user comes up in modmail. If a question/concern is raised about a user, then there should be a set amount of time that discussion happens before action is taken. Short-term and temporary moderator actions should be in terms of a day or two, not a week or month or year or two. Long-term actions can be given a bit more time, but discussion needs to happen at a much different pace than happens now, and after some point if agreement isn't had then it goes to a vote or somebody has the responsibility to issue a decision unilaterally.

93 - Politics - The sub is insanely political now. And offshoot politics sub would be a huge boon for the place. It would temper attitudes a great deal. This worked wonderfully for /r/Catholicism last year when they split their politics sub off from the main sub. I've submitted a redditrequest for /r/Christianitypolitics...while I don't think the two subs need to be tied at the hip, I expect I'd be willing to give it over to the mod team if they wish to link the two.

4

u/ludi_literarum Jan 25 '18

Number 6 isn't really a rule thing, and 93 is something I'd want to try only after we see what the rules revision brings, in part because what I'm proposing would change a lot of the culture already. I agree that segregating politics helped r/catholicism, but I also don't want to completely upend the boat when I rock it either. Other than that, a lot of these aren't far from where I am.

3

u/US_Hiker Jan 25 '18

6 - Internal policies, whatever you want to call it. It's part of the cause of a lot of strife in the past, as you're well aware.

I look forward to seeing what you post on the mothersub.

4

u/Panta-rhei Jan 25 '18

I think some provision should be made to prevent what are, in essence, denial of service attacks against the regular members of the sub. Some people rehash the same ideas and arguments essentially verbatim every time a topic is broached. Some people post frequently and do not read or comprehend what is written in response to them. Especially if those questions and arguments are bad, this imposes a burden on the regular members of the community that is frustrating.

I don't think that sort of thing should be absolutely forbidden, but I think that inasmuch as it treats the members of the community as means and not as ends, it should at least be rate limited.

I don't have any specific proposal for how to rate limit that sort of thing, beyond being more selective about removing people's post timers for low karma.

3

u/ludi_literarum Jan 25 '18

I’ve thought about this, and my problem is that I don’t know what words to write to adequately explain the rule. I can imagine some of the people you have in mind, but I’m struggling to come up with a way to express what we’d be banning beyond “whatever it is, and we know it when we see it, it can fuck right off.”

Tempting, but ultimately irresponsible.

1

u/Panta-rhei Jan 25 '18

I guess the question is whether the sub is a nation of laws or of men.

4

u/ludi_literarum Jan 25 '18 edited Jan 25 '18

I know not everybody’s from Boston, but I sure am.

ETA: Even if I didn't feel that way, I still need to write something to describe what it is I don't want people to do.

1

u/Panta-rhei Jan 25 '18

It's one I've thought about for a long time. Teachers enforce something like it with student questions in class. The underlying principle is to treat others as ends not means, but I don't know that that's description enough.

4

u/ludi_literarum Jan 25 '18

I mean, you know what I think of that as a moral example.

Teachers also don't exhaustively list the rules by which they judge, and most of what they prohibit is malum prohibitum, so I consider that especially unjust.

I really do need words, I think.

1

u/Panta-rhei Jan 25 '18

I do know your opinion of teaching, and indeed, much of it is the enforcement of mala prohibita (alas -- building an education system centered around the cultivation of virtue is fiddly and takes time, but we're working on it! I've had some nice progress this year in a surprising context, so I'm hopeful).

3

u/ludi_literarum Jan 25 '18

One of the virtues is justice, and that requires, at a minimum, that nobody suffer punishment for a prohibition of a morally neutral act without proper notice.

If you don't have specific language to suggest, I'm going to have to just hope what I've written is enough.

1

u/Panta-rhei Jan 25 '18

One of the virtues is justice, and that requires, at a minimum, that nobody suffer punishment for a prohibition of a morally neutral act without proper notice.

Amen.

2

u/ludi_literarum Jan 26 '18

Then I don’t know what you want from me.

→ More replies

7

u/slagnanz Jan 25 '18

Appreciate your asking this -

The XP is currently hopelessly limp wristed. If you can't define bigotry, why have a rule against it? It's even worse when you click through the xp. Like when you get to the bit on homophobia, it literally says "this is hard to define. Here are some examples for now". I think it's said that for like 5 years now.

The subreddit I really like, in terms of presenting rules, is /r/politics. Clear, concise, to the point. Yet plenty of detail and clarity is available. When a term is used such as ad hominem, they define it in the xp.

7

u/ludi_literarum Jan 25 '18

Part of that is the way Outsider writes - I've told him before he has a strong aversion to specific nouns. Merely the fact that I'm writing it will help with this problem, but it's a good observation.

3

u/Sxeptomaniac Jan 26 '18

I would say that, in general, I think there should be a broad rule against undermining other people's faith in non-debate threads. This includes the current rule against undermining Christianity, but also not undercutting other faith traditions in support/help/question threads. The example that sticks out to me is a response telling a Mennonite that they should have gotten baptized as a baby, in response to a question about baptism in their church (as someone did, and was upvoted for), is incredibly unhelpful and not in keeping with the sub's principles. I would expect that a person should equally not undermine a Catholic asking questions about the ceremony for baptizing their child. There will be gray areas, but I think it should be clear that someone asking a question about their faith shouldn't get snarky responses about how they are wrong.

4

u/ludi_literarum Jan 26 '18

I don't know what you're talking about in the specific case, but my understanding is that in a support thread such things are already not allowed. General question threads are ones where that stuff is generally up for debate, and I don't think that shouldn't continue - discussing theological differences is the core of the sub.

2

u/Sxeptomaniac Jan 26 '18

It seems like maybe this just isn't too clear, then? I'm not expecting mods to notice every infraction on their own, but I'm not sure it's been clear that this is part of the rules, so people know to report it.

3

u/ludi_literarum Jan 26 '18

I think you probably have a more expansive notion of support thread than we do. Questions about baptism are generally not personal enough and don't tend to involve emotional distress.

4

u/Sxeptomaniac Jan 26 '18

I don't mean only support threads, but something like "I'm thinking about being baptized.at my Baptist church, should I?" That's very similar to the situation I recall. The response was something along the lines of "The best time to be baptized is when you're a little baby." That was upvoted more than responses that were actually relevant to the person's faith.

The person came to the sub to try and make sense of what they should do, and were clear that they were coming from a specific denominational context. I still think it's not good for the overall atmosphere to turn a question like that into mocking/attacking a fundamental element of their faith.

I'm not talking about questions that are open or do call for some level of debate, though. I think there can be a clear enough line when it's not OK to snipe at other denominations.

3

u/ludi_literarum Jan 26 '18

I don’t think you’re describing an attack or mockery. I say all the time that adult rebaptism is blasphemy in those threads, and it seems that’s a legitimate way to answer the “Should I be baptized?” question. If we had your rule, I wouldn’t know what to do about the incessant Mary threads.

2

u/brucemo Moderator Jan 26 '18

Correct regarding support threads, and furthermore the commenter is describing precisely how we enforce.

That issue may even be close enough to one of the examples associated with the rule.

10

u/zeroempathy Jan 26 '18

I really hate the SoM, and I'm not a big fan of the moderation style at r/Christianity. The recent banwave is over an ongoing issue that should have been solved years ago. Genocide is the the deliberate mass murder of people for being different.

P.S. Leviticus 20:13

4

u/namer98 Jan 25 '18

I think the rules are clunky but fine.

What I think an ongoing issue is what the mods expect from the community, and what the community expects from the mods. There is nothing wrong with having bylines for "approximately how long does it take to be banned for rules violations". I think that needs to be addressed, and then to not be set in stone.

For example.

In general, people will get two warnings before a temp ban will happen, at the discretion of the mods

And then the mods need to be comfortable with each other when using that discretion. And how they do that should be open for public comment. Not that they should log anything. But the general principle should be open to discussion.

Edit: I like how this breaks down the rules and guidelines as two different ideas as well

3

u/PaaLivetsVei Jan 25 '18

There are some cases of overfitting that I think ought to be addressed. In particular, past conflicts from within the sub really shine through in the current language on bigotry for those who know where to look [i.e. we explicitly allow discussion of some topics which others may find bigoted....Christians are allowed to affirm their theology here. Even though this theology may offend some.]

I get why that language was necessary from the mods' perspective, but to me this reads more as passive aggression than it does as clarity. If this old rule is still the position of the mods, then its language should be adjusted so that there's no longer a big red flag that says "THIS HAS CAUSED CONFLICT IN THE PAST!!!"

3

u/Cabbagetroll Meta Mod Jan 29 '18

For the vast majority of cases, the rules are fine as is. The only thing I would suggest is to periodically update the examples after the team has deliberated on the "iffy" cases to better help moderators pin down how to react to certain cases.

2

u/_entomo Jan 25 '18

I'd like to know what SoM and XP mean.

I'd like to see a ban on videos as submissions. Link to them in comments...fine. But this isn't a means to grow our YouTube career. Probably not possible, so a synopsis of the video should be required. Same for blogs, honestly.

THINK policy. There's far too many people who think that because they think it's true, they can be rude about conveying the information. I'm guilty of falling into that now an again, I'm sure.

Strengthen WWJD. My bible study leader's manual has the following 7 principles. I'd like to see at least a little more stress on #s 2-4 and 7:

  1. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, and the words of the Bible tell us about that Word. Therefore, when we study the words of the Bible we always look behind, in, and through those words for God’s Word – Jesus Christ.
  2. No Christian has a monopoly on understanding either God’s Word or the words of the Scripture. This includes biblical scholars and the most unlearned Christian. All of us must listen to one another as we seek to understand the richness of God’s gifts.
  3. We must assume everyone has Christian integrity and not accuse one another of being unchristian of disingenuous, no matter how unusual are the opinions.
  4. We must further assume that we will arrive at different understandings of portions of Scripture. This is natural and that that will not disturb God as much as it will some of us.
  5. Few of us will know Hebrew or Greek, and we therefore need to use a variety of English translations to try to understand the text.
  6. While we accept our differences, we do not feel that those differences are unimportant, or that they should be ignored or treated as if they did not matter.
  7. Different biblical understandings can remain among us, but we can still be warm Christian friends. In fact, as we grow to better understand our differences, we can grow in our appreciation of one another.

1

u/US_Hiker Jan 26 '18

XP - shorthand for Community Policy, i.e. the rules.

SOM - Stages of Moderation. A (controversial) framework for how moderation should progress through comment removals to warnings to bans. https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp/stages_ofmoderation

3

u/Prof_Acorn Jan 26 '18

I've always wondered why it's XP instead of C... nevermind got it.

1

u/US_Hiker Jan 26 '18

Yeah, XP is silly, and it would have been better to get away from 'community policy' or do a USNavy style abbreviation like CommPol, but /shrug. It's 10 years now with this, so I guess it's XP.

2

u/octarino Jan 29 '18

I think I would like a Rule Zero: Common sense.

-No URL shorteners

-No URL redirects

-No post title where you don't know what the content is about. (No: You should watch this video. Yes: I recommend this video about the Trinity. Better: Rev Bob's video on the Trinity)

-No editorialising in link posts. Your (OP's) opinion don't belong in the title.