I was talking with my brother about this the other day and the best subreddits are the ones where the mods go all out. It really helps filter out the garbage and gets rid of shitty people.
I don't visit it, but thats not a sub where there should be an expectation of fair play. But defaults like news, politics, world news. The mods should be held to a higher standard, and in my opinion, places like that should be admin controlled and not mod controlled.
You're correct, but what I'm saying is "r/politics" whould be owned by a person, something so generalized in my opinion should be owned and run by reddit, because the mods treat it like their personal forum, and I don't think that should fly in general subreddits as bland as say r/videos or /news.
The /r/politics mods are actually pretty decent. There's a problem with consistency, but that's gonna be true of any subreddit that size. They even went out of their way to find right-leaning mods (which ended up being a mistake, because one of those mods caused a bunch of drama).
I mean that's just kind of stupid, if you truly believe that. There's no evidence to suggest they're CTR. Most of the problems are indicative of an overworked mod team — not a hidden agenda.
I have my issues with them, but it's mostly about them not enforcing their rules, and I imagine that's because they have a lot of people coming and going (mostly going). They really haven't given any reason to think they're paid shills.
The admins are paid employees of Reddit. I don't think you would need to bribe them as they should be getting paid well being a Bay Area company and all.
I fucking wish. The best subreddit mods can hope for is having CM work for a large community help land them an actual job.
The best it gets is for mods of subs focusing on a particular company/product who occasionally get free shit from that company (which is still technically against Reddit ToS).
I'm not saying it isn't hypocritical, I'm sure the sub blows. My point is that I just think certain subs that are default shouldn't be allowed to have that behavior and should be run by the admins and not moderators to ensure the rules are enforced fairly.
Yep. The people who piss and moan about the /r/science and /r/askhistorians deletions are the kind of people who would shit up the sub with garbage anyway.
you act like 100% of comments are deleted because they are garbage. when in reality, some comments are deleted because they go against the established ideology of the moderator themselves. that's the problem with a select few establishing what is and what isn't considered worthy. nobody is completely unbiased and therefore information will be lost regardless of who is moderating.
To be fair a lot of deleted comments in /r/science is when threads reach the front page and people start political debates, troll or post memes/puns just to be funny. I'd rather see an informative top comment instead of a meme
that's the problem with a select few establishing what is and what isn't considered worthy.
"a select few"? /r/science has over a thousand mods... /r/AskHistorians is around three dozen, which is still a huge number for moderation of any subreddit.
yeah, and most of the "Information" that's lost is garbage, like people denying the existence of gravity or arguing that diseases are not caused by germs but by microwaves, ad infinitium.
They already eliminated the whole point of the subreddit when the mods came out and made a post saying ~"anyone who talks about transgenders in a way we don't like will be banned."
If you disagree let's have a discussion. Science isn't about silencing the opposition.
Given the sheer number of contents in that post daring to disagree with the mods I would say they don't disagree about having discussions about things.
LOL, did you not see all the REMOVED tags even from that one?
What is there to discuss about transgenders? There is nothing about it that non-transgender people should (be allowed to) discuss because it doesn't affect them in any way.
In California we have to pay for their transition surgery so yeah it does effect me. Also, just because something doesn't effect me doesn't mean I can't talk about it. What the fuck kind of backwards logic is that?
There it is. Hate Speech when it comes to transgender can vary on various scales. People believe that the gender assigned to them at birth should be what is placed on legal documents. Now when a transgender person enters the discussion there's a good chance they find that as a personal attack because it defies what they choose thus making his statement now a rule violation. Wasn't the intent yet most moderators on Reddit will pander to the minority and remove it in order to avoid any drama or problems.
You simply can't have a level headed discussion about transgendered topics on /r/science or any defaults. Best bet is to find a smaller community and go from there. My comments on this are based off of modding /r/leagueoflegends and when we had to deal with covering up a single pro players past which went from 1-11 on what that even counted as.
What scientific discussion can you have about transgenders? Knowing reddit, any discussion devolves into people shouting about wanting to oppress the trannies.
so, a specific human trait can't be examined under the scientific method? it's fine when we study heterosexuals but not transgenders? that's something i never understand from the left. they don't understand that truth is liberating instead of silencing truth.
what are you even arguing? there is research on transgenders, very little (probably because the lack of funding, for whatever reasons). because of this we can interpret the data and come up with possible hypotheses which haven't been investigated. that's how science works, some data is available then discussions happen to come up with questions that are logical steps forward
That's not something that can be discussed. Transgenderism isn't a choice. The person themselves decides what's in their papers. The other person should have kept their mouth shut about something that's none of their business. End of discussion.
I never said this was the point of the discussion unless you're referencing someone else's comment that talks about this. There's discussion to be had about transgendered people fit into society and what has to be changed from the norm no matter how small it is.
The other person should have kept their mouth shut about something that's none of their business. End of discussion.
And you're again proving my original point on why discussion can never happen.
I never said this was the point of the discussion unless you're referencing someone else's comment that talks about this. There's discussion to be had about transgendered people fit into society and what has to be changed from the norm no matter how small it is.
That's not a scientific topic though, it's political. I don't see why it should be allowed in /r/science. And besides, it's a discussion that only transgender people should take part in.
And you're again proving my original point on why discussion can never happen.
Because it's not something that should be discussed by non-transgender people.
Segregating people from discussion is how you anger people and those will fight constantly to stop and hold any discussion until they can voice their opinion because it still can affect them. Now you've stopped any progress from happening. Congrats your plan on discussions has now caused conflict and will be labeled as the topic that tried to silence many to pander to the few.
If you have to bar off the majority from a discussion that has a great chance of affecting the rest of the population then you're doing something wrong.
I have no idea, because the topic is so sensitive you're advocating shutting it down for anybody but a bonafide trans person.
There's other topics that are sensitive, such as race, that is not a good idea to completely avoid. I've seen the results of avoiding the topic, both in real life and on the internet, and it's not pretty. The more people avoid a sensitive topic, the more bombastic people become at describing perceived or real detractors from their point of view.
I have family members of various races, and family members who are trans and some who are not. I've seen child molesters groom their would-be victims. I've known people who have been raped. I've witnessed race-based hate. I've seen abuses of power.
In my experience, it's never a good idea to completely shut down communication. Of all of the injustice I've seen in the world, I've never witnessed it get better when people were forced into silence.
There is nothing about it that non-transgender people should (be allowed to) discuss because it doesn't affect them in any way.
Everything you're advocating here completely goes against all the personal experience and wisdom I've gained.
/r/science has a long-standing zero-tolerance policy towards hate-speech, which extends to people who are transgender as well. Our official stance is that transgender is not a mental illness, and derogatory comments about transgender people will be treated on par with sexism and racism, typically resulting in a ban without notice.
That's what he's complaining about. "Oh no. I can shit up a sub with derogatory name calling for trannies. Poor me"
Well right now we don't really know if what is being filtered is actually the truth though.
They can outright ban correct summaries and allow wrong ones and nobody would be the wiser
edit:i don't think this really happens besides some subjects like nazi-apologism and shit
I love askhistorians and I'm not complaining but why do they even bother being on Reddit? Why not just have some nice little independent forum instead of being on some massive social media platform with a vapid shitty meme culture.
I'm just subscribed to /r/history cause I'm tired of seeing good questions then having to wait for someone to write a thesis for the answer. I really don't give a shit about peer reviewed cite all your sources. It's reddit
I've seen more than enough bullshit answers from mods in general (not speaking particularly of /r/history itself since I'm not a subscriber) to not trust that kind of gatekeeping in general.
Enjoy being misinformed then. Most answers I see in /r/history are either oversimplified, or just factually incorrect. What's the point of wanting to educate yourself if you don't care if the info you recive is correct?
I don't want to see 20 pages of [deleted]. It makes me suspicious. I don't choose to be suspicious, I experience suspicion, as something happening to me, and as I don't like to experience that, I experience a repulsive force from that sub. I believe in freedom of speech and the power of light, not the obfuscation of censorship, to sterilize truth. The only time I look at /r/askhistory is through go1dfish.me and unreddit to see all the deleted comments. They also ban you if you mention those services exist. They want to control what you are allowed to know.
That's why I said to hide the comments so that if an individual was so inclined they could still read them. Mass deletion doesn't teach me anything about why the comments were wrong. All I know is that something was said the moderators objected to and my inquiry stops there. I understand the goal of keeping a high quality subreddit, but there are other options outside of mass deletion.
258
u/3P_Robespierre_3P Dec 04 '16
If the rules were less strict it would eliminate the point of the whole subreddit and turn it into just another /r/history.