I like the submission statement rule. Keeps pointless bullshit posts down. Users can call out the shitty “bot”statements that you think are being used.
The mod bans are, in my opinion, a very fishy thing. There are a lot of decisions (in terms of who get banned, etc.) made based on feelings and emotions instead of reasoning and logic. Look at the mod log. There are a shit ton of band. And people wonder why there are sometimes a ton of votes without an equal amount of comments. It’s cause there’s a fuckton of people who have been banned and the only voice they now have is the upvote or downvote arrow.
Someone with a history of defending MSM, saying false flag is not real or exaggerated, defending big government, defending the NSA and spying in general, etc...
It’s like two sentences, it takes less than five minutes. If anything, it helps to ensure bots aren’t spamming links.
A bot can post a link easily, it takes more effort (but not much) to post a submission statement. I have to give a lot of credit to /u/axolotl_peyotl and the rest of the mod team for creating the rule, I think it’s improved the sub quite a bit!
Do you really believe someone who just want to post an interesting article they found, will want to fucking think about a fucking "submission statement"? WTF? Who would fucking bother with shit like that?
Man, it takes like a minute to type 2-3 sentences explaining why you think it's an interesting piece worth discussion. What do you do if a friend asks you about a restaurant you've been to?
Playerofdota: I went to that new restaurant over the weekend.
Friend: oh nice, what did you think about it? I'm thinking about going there at some point.
Playerofdota: WTF? You think I have the time to explain to you in two sentences what my experience was like and what my thoughts were about that new restaurant? Who has time for that?!
But some of the users are so partisan/close-minded that they automatically downvote any thread they don't like the title of, or they troll the submission statement with one liners and don't actually read the content.
Totally agree - but that doesn’t mean we should take away the Submission statement. OP’s argument is that they don’t think users have time to create the statement itself. I agree a lot of partisan folks just immediately discredit, but if you have a good argument or an open mind - you can either argue back with your point or simply dont feed the trolls :)
Some people have stated they don't like the SS because it frames the discussion? I think it's odd the sub seemed to survive for years without one (and without so mamy bans) but in the past year or so, much of the dissent about moderation this sub has been silenced.
Good point - but I think the SS does frame the discussion, and I think it's a good thing. I want to be able to understand the OP's POV and why they wanted to post it here.
I thought I would hate the SS thing, but there is far less bs now. If you want to say something you have to take the time to say a few words. Big deal.
I'm most sick of people coming to whine every half hour.
Agreed on the whining - there are too many people who think that because their post or comment was downvoted, there's a weaponized conspiracy against them.
I agree there are brigades and shills afoot, but I see people on all sides crying wolf here about their post being downvoted. Then, when I ask for proof or examples, silence. :/
As someone who has been here for over 5 years, I have been opposed to Rule 13 from the start. Supporters claim it has "cleaned up" the sub. I never thought there was a problem in the first place. There has always been a dedicated user base that ensures important posts are elevated.
I understand wanting to filter out the bad information, but what good has it done recently when we have pages of posts on Mr. Hogg? What posts weren't being seen before Rule 13 that are now more visible?
idk if it's was ever a matter of posts being buried, but I think the SS have cleaned up our stream of information. Instead of having to dig through posts that either are just a meme or a title with no context, the submitter needs to explain themselves first - saving some time and auto-modding those posts without the statement.
If the important information wasn't getting buried, then why would we decrease the information available here? I understand we want quality over quantity, and we don't want too much "noise" here, but who does this rule really serve?
Do you think this rule is mostly for the majority of users who want to be able to browse the entire sub in the short amount of time they may have?
I will disagree with you on memes. Memes are a humorous and concise way to get information across. I would rescind the meme rule, personally.
It makes sense from the mods perspective if it's creating less work for them.
Idk - that's a good question. I don't think it's necessarily for users to save time when they browse, but moreso save time in the sense they don't need to ask the OP for the context if it's just a title post with no context.
And I think the rule serves the best interest of the sub so users aren't just x-posting from wherever they found material. They need to take a breath and explain the conspiracy.
Yes it certainly can make a post easier to contextualize, but how consistent are the sub statements?
I've seen them run the gamut from walls of text, to vague one liners. Personally, I keep my sub statements as short as possible and usually just ask questions with them.
I still see the "What's the conspiracy?" line. This was supposed to be one of things that sub statements made less an occurrence of.
While I agree with the theory of Rule 13 "cleaning up the sub", I'm am skeptical that it has had the intended consequences it sought. Others consistently tell me differently, but I am not having the same experience.
I think if we really wanted to clean up the sub a couple of options would be: Titles must be longer than x number of characters, no post of the same article within 48 hours, and posters are limited to 2 or 3 posts a day.
I'd be a proponent of your last suggestion most. I've seen a few users, whether they are having a bad day or just have an agenda they want to push, post similar things in a span of 12-24 hours. But how that will be enforced - idk.
It is sometimes misleading to to use the SS to save time, I have seen outstanding documents or videos posted where had I read the submission statement I may have passed.
An example is I try to avoid partisan politics, and if the submission statement reflects a strong partisan bias but the video is say Ben Swann (an example specific to me, I am sure he has his enemies) I may have missed a great post. Other people can't, or won't, express themselves clearly in two sentences.
Well what do you know, a post complaining about submission statement followed by spammed post about CNN, the same tired right wing talking points that were being spammed nonstop when the submission statement was first required.
30 comments
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-23
Can you give examples?
1 I_Am_Teach 2018-02-23
I like the submission statement rule. Keeps pointless bullshit posts down. Users can call out the shitty “bot”statements that you think are being used.
The mod bans are, in my opinion, a very fishy thing. There are a lot of decisions (in terms of who get banned, etc.) made based on feelings and emotions instead of reasoning and logic. Look at the mod log. There are a shit ton of band. And people wonder why there are sometimes a ton of votes without an equal amount of comments. It’s cause there’s a fuckton of people who have been banned and the only voice they now have is the upvote or downvote arrow.
1 Playerofdota 2018-02-23
ur average user doiesn have time to go through bullshit to make a simple post, your average shill and boty does!
Who wins?
1 I_Am_Teach 2018-02-23
That’s your opinion. I don’t agree with it.
1 Playerofdota 2018-02-23
Someone with a history of defending MSM, saying false flag is not real or exaggerated, defending big government, defending the NSA and spying in general, etc...
1 JoeyBulgaria 2018-02-23
It’s like two sentences, it takes less than five minutes. If anything, it helps to ensure bots aren’t spamming links.
A bot can post a link easily, it takes more effort (but not much) to post a submission statement. I have to give a lot of credit to /u/axolotl_peyotl and the rest of the mod team for creating the rule, I think it’s improved the sub quite a bit!
1 Anontifa 2018-02-23
It takes less than 30 seconds if you have an operative brain, really.
1 justaponyfan 2018-02-23
I like to post a submission statement. It shares the reason I'm interested in something, and lets me highlight cool aspects of it.
1 Playerofdota 2018-02-23
Do it voluntarily then, why should everyone else be subjected to this bullshit?
1 I_Am_Teach 2018-02-23
Man, it takes like a minute to type 2-3 sentences explaining why you think it's an interesting piece worth discussion. What do you do if a friend asks you about a restaurant you've been to?
Playerofdota: I went to that new restaurant over the weekend.
Friend: oh nice, what did you think about it? I'm thinking about going there at some point.
Playerofdota: WTF? You think I have the time to explain to you in two sentences what my experience was like and what my thoughts were about that new restaurant? Who has time for that?!
1 Tonisha420 2018-02-23
Idk if you are that pressed for time to be unable write a sentence or two explaining your post - maybe you should reprioritize what you’re doing.
1 redditeditard 2018-02-23
But some of the users are so partisan/close-minded that they automatically downvote any thread they don't like the title of, or they troll the submission statement with one liners and don't actually read the content.
1 Tonisha420 2018-02-23
Totally agree - but that doesn’t mean we should take away the Submission statement. OP’s argument is that they don’t think users have time to create the statement itself. I agree a lot of partisan folks just immediately discredit, but if you have a good argument or an open mind - you can either argue back with your point or simply dont feed the trolls :)
1 redditeditard 2018-02-23
Some people have stated they don't like the SS because it frames the discussion? I think it's odd the sub seemed to survive for years without one (and without so mamy bans) but in the past year or so, much of the dissent about moderation this sub has been silenced.
1 Tonisha420 2018-02-23
Good point - but I think the SS does frame the discussion, and I think it's a good thing. I want to be able to understand the OP's POV and why they wanted to post it here.
1 Anontifa 2018-02-23
Providing two sentences that explain why you posted it or what you think its relevance is = bullshit.
Okay.
1 justaponyfan 2018-02-23
This. The submissions are good, the mod bans are suspicious.
1 redditeditard 2018-02-23
This
1 russianbot01 2018-02-23
Submission statement takes 2 minutes, and if you aren't willing to stand behind your post with a statement then F off IMO.
1 YoshiTakimatsui 2018-02-23
Mods criticism of my absolute shit sub statement makes me post less when I'm on my phone. Let me be a lazy piece of shit please
1 tinylilzikababyhead 2018-02-23
I thought I would hate the SS thing, but there is far less bs now. If you want to say something you have to take the time to say a few words. Big deal.
I'm most sick of people coming to whine every half hour.
1 Tonisha420 2018-02-23
Agreed on the whining - there are too many people who think that because their post or comment was downvoted, there's a weaponized conspiracy against them.
I agree there are brigades and shills afoot, but I see people on all sides crying wolf here about their post being downvoted. Then, when I ask for proof or examples, silence. :/
1 The_In-Betweener 2018-02-23
As someone who has been here for over 5 years, I have been opposed to Rule 13 from the start. Supporters claim it has "cleaned up" the sub. I never thought there was a problem in the first place. There has always been a dedicated user base that ensures important posts are elevated.
I understand wanting to filter out the bad information, but what good has it done recently when we have pages of posts on Mr. Hogg? What posts weren't being seen before Rule 13 that are now more visible?
1 Tonisha420 2018-02-23
idk if it's was ever a matter of posts being buried, but I think the SS have cleaned up our stream of information. Instead of having to dig through posts that either are just a meme or a title with no context, the submitter needs to explain themselves first - saving some time and auto-modding those posts without the statement.
1 The_In-Betweener 2018-02-23
If the important information wasn't getting buried, then why would we decrease the information available here? I understand we want quality over quantity, and we don't want too much "noise" here, but who does this rule really serve?
Do you think this rule is mostly for the majority of users who want to be able to browse the entire sub in the short amount of time they may have?
I will disagree with you on memes. Memes are a humorous and concise way to get information across. I would rescind the meme rule, personally.
It makes sense from the mods perspective if it's creating less work for them.
1 Tonisha420 2018-02-23
Idk - that's a good question. I don't think it's necessarily for users to save time when they browse, but moreso save time in the sense they don't need to ask the OP for the context if it's just a title post with no context.
And I think the rule serves the best interest of the sub so users aren't just x-posting from wherever they found material. They need to take a breath and explain the conspiracy.
1 The_In-Betweener 2018-02-23
Yes it certainly can make a post easier to contextualize, but how consistent are the sub statements?
I've seen them run the gamut from walls of text, to vague one liners. Personally, I keep my sub statements as short as possible and usually just ask questions with them.
I still see the "What's the conspiracy?" line. This was supposed to be one of things that sub statements made less an occurrence of.
While I agree with the theory of Rule 13 "cleaning up the sub", I'm am skeptical that it has had the intended consequences it sought. Others consistently tell me differently, but I am not having the same experience.
I think if we really wanted to clean up the sub a couple of options would be: Titles must be longer than x number of characters, no post of the same article within 48 hours, and posters are limited to 2 or 3 posts a day.
1 Tonisha420 2018-02-23
I'd be a proponent of your last suggestion most. I've seen a few users, whether they are having a bad day or just have an agenda they want to push, post similar things in a span of 12-24 hours. But how that will be enforced - idk.
1 rkowna 2018-02-23
It is sometimes misleading to to use the SS to save time, I have seen outstanding documents or videos posted where had I read the submission statement I may have passed.
An example is I try to avoid partisan politics, and if the submission statement reflects a strong partisan bias but the video is say Ben Swann (an example specific to me, I am sure he has his enemies) I may have missed a great post. Other people can't, or won't, express themselves clearly in two sentences.
1 afooltobesure 2018-02-23
Well what do you know, a post complaining about submission statement followed by spammed post about CNN, the same tired right wing talking points that were being spammed nonstop when the submission statement was first required.
It’s obvious why you don’t like the submission statement:
https://www.reddit.com/u/Playerofdota/?st=JE0BM4Q3&sh=0ca65440
Looks like you still managed to spam your post just fine though.