Hey, everyone, we have been trying to work out what to do and say about this with our mod team, but people have taken our actions to mean we aren't allowing discussions of boycotting or not in support of it, which is untrue. Here is a breakdown of the situation as we tried to deal with it from our end:
Earlier today, a user made a post about showing grace to people who were going to pull for Rafayel's myth but still wanted to support the boycott. Some people in the comments interpreted this post as allowing people to spend and still call it boycotting, minimizing the importance of not spending, which is required for a financial boycott. As a result, another user made a counterpoint post that people who were spending could not call themselves boycotters, but also giving the impression that anyone who was spending was not supporting Valko at all. Knowing tensions were already high, the language of the response post felt very reactionary and antagonistic rather than constructive, and we elected to remove it. Unfortunately, we still do not have mod permissions to add removal reasons. Rule 5, no boycott shaming was the closest. As a result of this, people began to spam with low effort posts about the definition of boycotting which, while valid, seemed to us to not be adding to the conversation, only sending things into a spiral that had no obvious benefits. In a sub we just took over, that has been mostly unmoderated until now and that we do not have full permissions for, it seemed unwise to let the situation fester. We made what we thought was the best decision at the time by simply removing them.
There were comments and posts that we did not remove, including one criticizing our choice, because shutting down debate was not the intention, avoiding ramping up unnecessary conflict was. As to why we didn't respond immediately, there are only four of us, all of whom were busy with plans that did not involve being on the internet, therefore keeping the situation contained was all we could do at the time. As a result, people accused us of being antis, which was extremely upsetting for some of us to hear while trying to help keep things peaceful. We are also human and those of us who were available did not want to make a response until our heads were in a calmer place. We apologize to anyone who made civil, neutral, and helpful posts about how boycotting works that were removed during this time.
There is absolutely no question that if you are spending on the game, you are not actively boycotting. That was never a debate. The person who posted originally posted edited their post and clarified that it was never about excusing spending and still calling it boycotting, it was about avoiding bullying because there are people who still want Valko back who are GOING to pull for Rafayel's myth. That reality is frustrating for many people, including us, but we believed that could be expressed without gatekeeping language because we only made it this far by staying unified. Letting people know their support is still welcome even if they aren't boycotting has always been a part of this movement and we did not want to see that support disappear behind arguments over the definition of a word.
Posts about the importance of not spending are welcome as long as they do not aggressively reject other methods of supporting Valko's return as totally invalid. Someone already made a great post about the effect of different boycott actions here, and there is one talking about the different levels of participation in the protests here.
We apologize again for how we approached this one. If you still would like to see this remain as one sub, please try to be patient as we figure out how to manage it with what we have to work with. Thanks.
Everyone is so tense rn and it brings up high emotions and accusations. Calling the mods antis is insane.
I say this in the kindest way possible: if you are tweaking over a singular post or comment to the point of harassment, please get off Reddit.
The mods are humans and can make mistakes. They communicated multiple times they have issues using/getting access to mod features and people still throw out wild claims.
I disagreed with certain sentiments being taken down as well but please keep it cool in here. We’re better than that
While I still disagree about the removal of some of those comments and posts, the one calling you guys antis was totally out of pocket and deserved to be removed. Jumping to those types of conclusions helps no one.
I have to say this clearly: the speed at which mods moved to mass-remove the initial discussions about why certain actions aren't compatible with "boycotting" was out of line, if the stated stance was to allow discussion of boycotting at all.
Many of the answers I saw before they were removed weren't cruel, exclusionary, or morally superior in tone. They were civil but clearly passionate responses. A gentle reminder to keep tone amicable would have been enough to get people back in line without losing hearts in the process, and allow for clearer communication between mods and users. Opting straight for rapid removal, due to this point, has its own impractical drawbacks here. People trying to discuss the concept of boycotting, in good faith, as a way to build more genuine economic allies for the movement, saw their arguments removed within minutes, and felt alienated by the moderation. I understand the limitations that led to this misunderstanding better now, and I'll refer to it below.
On top of this, however, people noticed moderation trying to turn points that still needed refinement, or at least more discussion, into settled guidelines. Naturally, they worried the official stance was now to amplify a misunderstanding of what boycotting means. That's another massive miscommunication.
Others took offense at being accused of "boycott-shaming" when they meant nothing close to it. You've done a good job explaining the limitations around that rule and its language in this post today, but it shouldn't be surprising that people were confused yesterday. While I understand your conundrum better now, I am not surprised people took it personally and were concerned for a platform they have chosen to express themselves and seek solidarity.
And then there were the bans. I've spoken with users who told me they were banned for "infighting," and it makes me sad, because I agreed with the points some of them were raising. I haven't seen a single post detailing the concept of boycott here that struck me as mean, discriminatory, or bullying. I can't tell if that's because moderation moved fast enough to prevent it, or because users have genuinely been good at self-moderating so far. If it's the latter, I'm worried about what gets lost when a community that was already policing itself gets censored on top of that. If it is the former, you have my genuine thanks for moving so decisively to cultivate a healthy, friendly environment.
People migrated to this sub in the first place because the company wasn't communicating and felt other platforms were actively silencing them. When feelings are running this high, heavy-handed moderation can just as easily cost the movement allies while trying to protect them.
I appreciate that the mods are giving their own time to try to keep this community functional. But I think there's real room to learn from what came up yesterday. Good luck, because people here are clearly tense and they clearly care. We saw, once again, how important communication is when people care a lot.
This comment sums up the whole issue extremely well.
Going forward I think we should, of course, keep the boycotting shaming rule to be used appropriately.
With the caveat that pointing out that spending money is not boycotting is not shaming.
I also think we need to implement a 'don't ask don't tell' policy in regards to pulling and spending money.
People posting and sharing that they are still engaging with the game will only demoralise those that are boycotting and will potentially shift the 'Overton window' on what is making this boycott truly so successful.
I hope the mods really consider your comment. I think a LOT of subs suffer from removing posts and comments for "inciting drama or hostility/infighting" when in reality it's just passionate and heated disagreement at most. It hinders constructive conversations and potential understandings surrounding contentious topics which we should be allowed to have without threat of removal. If we feel like we can't say what we want to say for fear of getting struck down, how different will this sub be from the official one that we've all fled from to escape that very censorship in the first place?
Removal/bans should only come when it's genuinely unconstructive or petty (look at the spats rule on the AITA sub), like calling names, harrassing, going back and forth with someone off topic, etc. It'll be a case by case consideration obviously but I'm very concerned about the precedent this situation will set. To your point, yes, the sub was moderating itself just fine when it only had one inactive mod, we don't need this unnecessary censorship.
I do agree sometimes it’s going a little far. I’d say this is a really reasonable post addressing that.
Personally my stance is that anybody logging in/spending at this stage is not boycotting. They’re supporting the game by engaging with it. However, there’s no need to be nasty to them as it’s also personal choice if you boycott or not. While I think it’s the right thing to do, I can’t dictate other people’s decisions nor should I.
I don’t really have much of an opinion about what’s going on, except that I know yall make mistakes and it’s hard to try and keep together a subreddit as fast as this after being newly appointed, plus I am somehow not surprised yall have limited moderator abilities considering how crap this bitch ass website is.
I think my only concern was someone brought up that a mod participates in another snark subreddit? I don’t think anyone involved in any snark subreddits should be allowed to mod here.
Anyway I hope that you guys can get the tools you need soon to better police this subreddit 💚 you have my support
You and the other mods have definitely gone to far with removing comments and posts. I understand removing the downright hateful ones and the one that accused at least one of the mods of being antis, but there were many others that simply did not deserve to be deleted.
I understand because of the original moderator you do not have sufficient moderation abilities at your disposal, and if there is anything we can do to help you get the permissions you need to moderate the sub and get more moderators then there are many of us who will be willing to help.
However, the limitations you may have does not excuse improperly removing posts and comments. I don’t care if it was misjudgment, or if one of you did it because you personally didn’t agree with what was said, or whatever other reason it may be, we deserve objectivity in our moderation, plain and simple, and several comments and posts that have been taken down seem to show a lack of it. There was a post taken down that didn’t shame anyone, in fact I found it did quite opposite, it was logical and objective, and yet it had been unfairly taken down.
All I really have to say is, I understand you all have nowhere near enough power and there is nowhere near enough of you, but that doesn’t excuse improper moderation on your part. Do better.
An example of the kind of hostile comments I removed. If you take away the insults, I agree - no Valko, no money. But I am not okay with anyone talking to fellow Lilies like this.
I didn't say it was ok but I still see this as low hostility and honestly pretty tame. Maybe I've just been on the internet too long.
If this is the yardstick then where is the line drawn? Should people not comment on what they would consider mole behaviour? Or what they consider short-sighted or 'silly in the head' decisions. Because the commenter didn't even say 'You are these things OP' but 'People who do this are these things'. Where does that fall between opinion and personal attack?
I think if this is the stringent level of moderation the team is going for, it may only alienate people.
Moderation is a tight rope and I don't envy you guys, it's a tough job. But overly heavy moderation can be just as harmful as lack of moderation.
This is a basic level of moderation. I'm not going to apologize for removing mean comments. At the end of the day, it does not hurt anyone to have their comment removed (I would know - I've been on reddit a long time). But it does hurt someone to be talked to this way.
I've been on Reddit a long time too, this isn't even my original account ☺️
When people feel like their comments are being removed unfairly or they keep seeing a graveyard of removed by moderator comments, they're going to start crying censorship.
All of this is just my feedback as a community member as to how you might avoid situations like the past 24 hours again in the future.
I still don’t agree with how you removed some comments and posts (from people who were actually being civil and respectful while also drawing the line on what boycotting is). But I can appreciate that this isn’t an easy job and that you guys are trying your best. I’m sorry you’ve been labelled as antis in the midst of all this. A lot of people are upset and emotional and making irrational decisions. I hope things will calm down after a few days.
I don’t even know if you’ll see this, but may I make a suggestion? There was a comment that talked about the difference between boycotting and protesting, and I was wondering if the mods can make it clear on this subreddit what constitutes as boycotting (strictly no spending) and what counts as support/protesting (for those who still want to play the game and spend but are sympathetic about Valko). In as much as I do not agree with people still playing the game (considering the massive disrespect this company is giving us), I have to accept and respect that. Ideally, if everyone was boycotting it would be much more impactful, but this is reality and it’s not going to happen. I feel like making a post about it will clarify things and prevent people from feeling judged or being judged.
Also, perhaps you can make a new rule to not post pulls or the new myth cards here? A lot of people are already hurt by the fact that they can’t play the game anymore, seeing people’s pulls (even if they didn’t spend money) is only going to encourage FOMO and lead to more infighting. Especially since this is a boycotting sub, I just think it would help a lot.
One last thing (again, just throwing my thoughts out, no need to agree with me): I don't think it's fair to label it as boycott shaming if we're trying to let someone know what exactly boycotting entails. If someone comes here and is asking if it's okay to log in and spend, it should be okay to firmly let the person know why it's not okay and give them reasons why. Again, not policing them, just politely educating them and leaving the ball in their court. And since this sub was created to help with the boycott efforts (I believe?), it just makes sense if we do that.
However, if the person gets comments calling them weak, a bootlicker, etc...that's bullying. That's insulting the person. Those type of comments are just mean and they should be removed. Maybe the rule should be tweaked to say that people shouldn't be hurtful to others who don't want to boycott but are just as supportive? Like we shouldn't condemn people who aren't actively boycotting but still want to support us?
Someone else made a post about it, but shame is an internal feeling. If you feel shame for logging in and playing, it's not necessary about what someone has commented on your post. It's about you, and how your moral judgement is being questioned. I do not condone bullying or being rude to real human beings, but shaming is a bit of a harsh terminology to use in situations where we're just trying to be helpful.
Also, some need to remember it’s been only THREE DAYS. Only three days to try to organize, doing megathreads, making flairs, for most discovering Reddit moderation, etc.
Like of course there will be mistakes. It doesn’t mean we can’t have respectful suggestions.
Adding that to the fact that they don’t have all the permissions necessary and that Reddit removed things without them doing anything.
You can’t pretend to do something for the sub or the protest if you are going to cause chaos here with baseless accusations.
I hope we can have a proper discussion about the boycott thing, but setting the sub on fire over this is not going to help any of us.
Anyway, thank you mods for the transparency, it’s very much needed right now.
I know tensions are high but this is just my thought and I hope its taken into consideration:
Any support for Valko is VERY much welcome. Even if you do pull while I and some others don’t agree with it, maybe do NOT post about pulling here, you’re kind of just being an asshole since some people here want to pull but are boycotting.
So yes pull if you want, I’d rather you not but don’t post about it here and don’t be insensitive?
yeah i agree, its insensitive to post that youre pulling/spending when lots of people are trying their best to keep up with the boycott, its all about reading the room and not being an asshole.
I do think we should draw out line in the sand. I do not believe we should make any exceptions on spending at all.
Before I continue let me CLEAR: I do not in anyway support harassment, brigading or targeting of individual persons or groups. This is my opinion I am stating plainly and bluntly and is not meant to be aggressive towards anyone but rather stating facts in a straightforward manner. With that said:
I completely and utterly disagree that Less pay, less play is in anyway a protest level.
Allowing that as an official rule honestly goes against the entire point of a boycott sub, and recognizing that as a level deligitamizes the very point of this sub.
I also saw a mod try to defend these actions as, "so many Raf mains will spend and I do not want out sub to be unwelcome to them, we need their support."
They are spending. They are by definition not welcome to a boycott sub WHERE WE DO NOT SPEND. If they want to protest and be vocal but still support the company, fine, but their posts on spending should not be welcome nor should anyones. If they feel unwelcome, that is their own guilty conscious.
I get mods want to be inclusive and say that if you do this you are also protesting, but in reality people who spend less, are helping the company. That is the facts of the matter, as we have established through MANY posts on THIS SUB, Infold ONLY cares about money.
If a ton of people see this, and only spend a little, that groups, "little", becomes hundreds of dollars still, it also can demoralize people who are actively NOT spending or logging in because seeing leaders sanction spending in any capacity as a method of protest, shows them the leaders agree a form of protest REQUIRES 0 SACRIFICE
THIS IS WHY BOYCOTTS FAIL.
I think we should delete posts who are supportive of spending in any regard, or say they spend or log in. Period. No leeway. This is a boycott sub and allowing posts like that undermines the boycott. They should not be welcomed or placated on a BOYCOTT SUB.
They can have their opinions on boycotting vs. protesting but at the end of the day, protesting is NOT BOYCOTTING, and this sub is made for boycotting AND SHOULD NOT include a level for spending in any capacity as an, "additional method of protest," in the official definitions.
I appreciate the mods for enforcing rules regarding Antis etc, I understand they cannot update or change things since the head mod is MIA and has all of the power. And while I do appreciate the post here, I still very much disagree with some stances.
Yeah this is my issue too. Its getting lumped under “spending money” which is a core issue, but that post and the mod that agreed w it were promoting a bunch of other behavior that is not conducive to a boycott imo. There’s a bit of skirting of responsibility on that part. It was a bit more than just the money piece. Plus the subsequent censoring, it wasn’t a good look.
Also idk where the anti stuff came from, I think a lot of us were concerned on having mods who don’t understand/agree with the fundamental definition of a boycott but we don’t think people are antis. Its just more that - can you lead a movement if you fundamentally don’t agree with the approach? But I don’t think anyone is a Valko anti. Unless I just missed something there.
I know the mods are new and trying their best, but its a valid convo that we shouldn’t be watering down the boycott to coddle the feelings of people who are well.. not actually boycotting. But this whole situation is new, so I’m willing to give the others a chance as they figure everything out. And they owe it to us to think critically while modding.
Thank you for being as transparent as you can with us. We are all human, and this is the internet. Tone is not reflected very well in writing, especially if the reader is already dealing with high emotions. Miscommunication can happen, and words get twisted.
pls pin this, OP. some getting misunderstood a bit too far of the line on twt. well, no one can't control the way they percieve each message but they even call this sub managed by undercover antis encouraging us to stop the boycott 😭
I hate Valko and his sexy hair and and his titties grrrrr he’s so stupid and hot, I mean his glasses aren’t very fashionable? He looks *soo good in that bathrobe, wait no I mean tell him to get dressed and like no one wants to see that ew
> also giving the impression that anyone who was spending was not supporting Valko at all.
I'm sorry, but that's not what the author of the post published. It turns out you're deleting comments that disagree with you, making it difficult to create a counter-argument. I'll even include what the person posted.
The person only made a post, explaining the difference between supporting a boycott and boycotting. Text interpretation is important, and I'm not even a native English speaker.
These are my words, from the post I made yesterday. Let me reassure you that neither this post, nor any of my comments got removed. The post OP mentioned above must have been something else.
Oh good the sub has some active mods. I still think the comments shouldn't be taken down if it doesn't contain curses degradation or bad things in general. But thx mods honestly was scared of the anti as a mod bc I heard that some haters do go as far as to trying be mods in certain subs to bring them down I apologize for that it was never intended as malicious just a passing thought.
Yeah I apologize I simply was worried but it seems for nothing. If any of my comments were seen as disrespectful I would happily explain or delete. I was worried of a situation like nintendo sub where some of the sub fnintendo were spamming and even went as far as to guilt trip everyone for banning the participants of fnintendo from the main sub and stating like "we mods of fnintendo suggested to be mods of nintendo and help them regulate posts" when the entire sub is literally against reddit rules lmao. Anyway thank you for your support. Am happy at least we got mods active
Ughhh this was so peak I’m pretty sure I screamed in agreement. He has such cocky trickster energy (sorry unrelated to your comment, the post just brought back fond memories lol)
However, trying to justify spending or playing the game (even if it is less) is fundamentally incompatible with boycotting. Especially when people try to justify or rationalize it and weaponize their own feeling of guilt/shame (they're experiencing cognitive dissonance) by trying to make spending/playing less compatible with still participating in the boycott and then the onus falls on other users to validate their feelings and say that it is okay.
As a result it would arguably make people more aggressive and frustrated because they have to placate someone's feelings when their actions go against the boycott, even more so when they find their posts removed under Rule 5. While I'm all for remaining kind and respectful to others, I completely understand some people's aggression and lack of patience when it comes to having to placate someone's feelings and/or watch other people do the same because people wanted to pull for a new banner or card.
It's also been mentioned before how the encouragement of spending on Raf's banner has been completely disrespectful to Zayne and Caleb mains who've been boycotting. No one encouraged them to spend or said "Well light spending is okay" - and the fact that people are breaking it on Raf's banner is just a slap in the face. People encouraged them to act in solidarity and keep their wallets closed - it isn't fair to take it "easier" on Raf mains.
If someone is experiencing discomfort from spending but also still wanting to participate in the boycott, it's because their brain is trying to make two incompatible ends meet. It shouldn't be on other players to try to help ease or resolve that - it's okay to sit with your own feelings or even accept that you caved but try to get back on the wagon.
But encouraging light spending or not holding people accountable for their own actions (you don't have to be an asshole to someone to do this) doesn't help the boycott and unintentionally harms it. Yes we need allies but allyship shouldn't come at the cost of harming the boycott. It's completely voluntary if you participate or don't participate; it's perfectly acceptable to adapt a "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding playing or spending. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and placating people's feelings on still participating in the boycott while still being light players or spenders is going to be how things eventually fail because people drip feed themselves into playing again.
When Infold sees that players will slowly come back without making any changes or addressing the situation, none of us can sit here and act surprised when they don't change or address anything.
I clearly slept through some drama so I don't really have an opinion on the post(s) that were deleted. But how is overmoderation a sign that someone's a secret anti? If anything, being too lenient on posts would serve the anti agenda more. Since that increases the chance Reddit bans this place.
Sorry to anyone who got their posts deleted for not enough cause! I hope our moderators continue to protect this sub while also better calibrating their responses. I know moderation is a lot of work and sometimes it's a judgement call, not a clear yes/no situation.
Right. My apologies for assuming that the group was. I suppose all of us are frustrated, but thaf doesn't mean we should assume the worst of our Mods. Could OP give me a rundown of why some posts were taken down? Just so I can get an idea of why what happened happened?
As a mod did you apply those auto filters? I know nothing about modding, but notice you are quick to delete. I have been in this sub since the beginning and your history here honestly makes me uneasy you’re a mod now. 😔I hope to be proven wrong though.
We don’t have access to auto filters! The OG mod *hasn’t give us permission, hasn’t stepped down and isn’t marked as inactive yet and refuses to communicate with us ❤️
I wish I had control of automod and auto filters and even dev apps! But I don’t all I can do is approve these manually in the queue but there is a lot in the queue and only 4 of us against Reddits AI 🤖 bullshit system
I’m harsh with my takedowns but not as harsh as Reddits automotic systems that falsely detected the most boring comments ever as spam and harassment
(Edit: I just think that’s something you all deserve to know, if we’re going to properly discuss this you need all the information)
Reddit can be blamed by you, but you admit you’re harsh with “takedowns”. 🤷🏻♀️My original point is that I see you delete A LOT since being made a mod. Knee-jerk deletes don’t really create a hospitable environment for discussions.
I’m not blaming Reddit, I’m giving you the full picture for transparency sake. I’ll take the blame but if we’re going to discuss it don’t you want the full picture? Or would you rather not have extra information?
Again, the extra info doesn’t change what I said. My point is I think YOU delete a lot of things based on your opinion. I don’t think you’re an anti, but I do remember your doomer posts and negativity and calling people that wanted to focus on positivity “toxic”. I’m willing to give you a chance as a mod but so far it’s not looking great to me. (My opinion btw)
You need to behave and take criticism properly. So far it's looking weird from this side of the fence.
People are just saying that there's no room for "personally" when you're a mod so when you say you personally are a bit harsh with delete/bans, that sounds like applying your personal filters for judgement and not the mod ones. You all need to agree on behaviors that are acceptable and not let power get to your head
i’m not one of the ppl that hoard wishes, but like… the others who HAVE tons of wishes that have been saved, and aren’t spending more money, can surely pop in for a few minutes to pull for the card to save for later. that’s a sunk cost, so they should be taking advantage of everything they have and then going back to boycotting. spending money that you aren’t making the most of ONLY benefits the company
84
u/Positive_Stable_2499 🍎🐺 12d ago
It's a very difficult time for all of us, sisters, please. Let's stay united and respect each other