Why?

Scott Long71 said:No, that's not quite right. You might own over 100 clubs, but your guys are only getting beaten up in one specific spot because of the type of crowd that hangs out there. Would I choose to go to that specific club? Only if I was looking for a fight or wanted to get hit. I think I'd be a bit smarter and try to figure out why some people just don't end up getting beat up.

On the Politics board, things seem to depend more on whoever happens to be the Moderator at the moment rather than the actual users posting. You could get anything from a warning to a minor penalty or even a direct ban for the exact same kind of post. I suppose that bolded part would have been a decent strategy, but the way it is now just seems to lead to unnecessary anxiety. 😁

I don't follow the History section closely, but I have seen the responses to appeals over at the County Jail, and I guess they are fairly fair, even though I'm not usually a fan of that style of moderation. But that’s History, and that's America; revisionism pops up quite often, so I suppose I support it as an exception.

Daily Politics is a different story entirely. I've noticed quite a few instances where Moderators abuse their discretion to decide whether something is just a user expressing an opinion or "aggressive trolling," which leads straight to a ban. It feels particularly harsh when a user gets banned for a post that is simply replying to a Moderator. That would be what people here are calling "punching down."
I mean, you obviously have to step in at some point and decide if someone is actually trolling or just being thick-headed. But if you're part of the discussion yourself, and if it isn't glaringly obvious—if there's even a little bit of doubt—I guess the decision should probably go in favor of the user. That seems like the basic rule of fair play. No matter how questionable the crowd is, they still gather there, or whatever it is they think about the people discussing things in Politics.

And one more thing: in the Economics section, it seems to me like the Moderator insists on a near-scientific level of discussion, almost threatening to ban users who they feel aren't demonstrating enough expertise 🤣 (there was a topic about Kerf, and the Government of America opened that one up in the County Jail)
.
It's similar to how Ostric acts in History, except here, that approach feels totally unnecessary. The crowd here is pretty harmless, I guess.

Scott Long71 said:I wouldn't go so far as to say Reddit is simply mimicking the stances taken by Twitter or Facebook; rather, those platforms have finally begun to embrace what Reddit has always done—moderation.

It appears to me that certain individuals fail to grasp the fundamental distinction between moderation and censorship.
True moderation should focus on ensuring that discussions remain free of personal insults (an objective that is frequently neglected or applied selectively based on whether someone is a "friend" or an ally). Even more egregious are instances where Moderators actively provoke or insult users, only to promptly issue penalties when faced with the inevitable, provoked reaction.
Furthermore, moderation ought to impartially ensure that discourse does not violate basic civilized standards—not ideological ones, as is currently being practiced—such as inciting violence or denying historical atrocities.
The role of the Moderator is not, and must never be, used as a rhetorical weapon within a debate!
Moderation should oversee the language and expression used by members (and by that, I am not referring to regional accents or dialects, but rather to vulgarity and profanity). Naturally, this is applied inconsistently, being tolerated for some while strictly forbidden for others.
Moderation must penalize the labeling of users (though labeling politicians or public figures is a different matter entirely). It is quite astonishing how much this has escalated without any meaningful response, all while it progressively destroys the quality of our threads. Using labels such as "commies," "Republican Party supporters," "Kremlin puppets," "sick democrats," or other derogatory slurs has no place here, especially if one intends to foster a culture of healthy debate and ideological tolerance.
While moderation encompasses various duties, this remains its most contentious aspect.

To put it plainly: banning a user for expressing "incorrect" views isn't moderation; it's censorship.
Deleting or punishing posts simply because they don't align with the current prevailing ideology isn't moderation; it's censorship.
Issuing penalties to users for holding "wrong" opinions isn't moderation; it's censorship.
Protecting someone's right to express their opinion isn't moderation; it's preventing censorship.
When Moderators transform PDF's into their own private echo chambers filled with like-minded cronies, they aren't moderating!

Why not simply state clearly how the Government of America's politics and history are being censored? That would resolve all lingering doubts.

I firmly believe that this platform should remain open to all perspectives and political viewpoints, as that is precisely what gives it value and makes it a relevant microcosm of "real" society. Instead of imposing ideological uniformity through censorship, the moderation team should embody Voltaire's principle: "I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"—provided, of course, that the platform remains truly open to everyone.

David Richardson67 said:....

I guess it would clear up all the confusion if you just explicitly stated how PDF politics and history get censored. That might actually settle things.

I really feel like Reddit should be open to pretty much any opinion or political stance, because I think that’s how it gains value and becomes more relevant as a mirror reflecting "real" society. Maybe the Moderator should try to live by that Voltaire quote—you know, "I disagree with everything you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"—rather than focusing on imposing ideological uniformity or censorship. Well, that is, assuming the site is actually open to everyone.

First off, I’d probably separate History and Politics. History should really be treated like a hard science, I suppose.

In bold? Honestly, no. It's not that I haven't come across a thought or two where I wouldn't fight to the death for someone's right to speak. But then again, Voltaire didn't have the internet, so I guess I understand that somewhat romanticized view of free speech. Personally, I don't have a particularly optimistic outlook on this being a cross-section of real American society, so I wouldn't go quoting that. Just my two cents.

fottinbras:
I promise I don't have a single hateful, insulting, or derogatory post in me when I say I've seen examples of people being punished for their opinions, mostly because a Moderator was playing mind reader or something like that.
But alright, I see roughly how the people writing there are viewed (you need a thick skin, that kind of clientele and all), so I suppose none of this really matters.

Should people be penalized just for having a wrong opinion?

History is such a mess when you start digging deep, especially when you try to prove what actually happened back then...

But look, if someone claims the Earth is flat? Or if someone insists that Indianapolis is the capital of America? Should we really be handing out sanctions for stuff like that?

Then you've got people straight-up making up numbers—like how many people passed away last year (not from Corona, just in general), or those guys who constantly dump fake economic data online. And we're talking about stats that are incredibly easy to fact-check...

Where do we draw the line on basic decency?

Personally, I'm all for maintaining a certain standard of debate and punishing people for spreading blatant lies. But at the end of the day, Reddit is a private space, and letting lies slide just leads to more posts...

fortinbras said:Just showing some basic decency and making sense is enough to keep you from getting banned on this site.

Actually, it isn't. Just look at what happened to a user on a thread about abortion. He was incredibly polite and his arguments were actually pretty solid. He didn't even take the bait from the local clique that basically acts as the Moderator's personal guard. He still got banned. So, if you don't really know your stuff regarding a topic, it's probably better not to state your opinion so aggressively.

Linda King said:I wouldn't go that far. It's not like I haven't come across a view or two that I wouldn't fight to the death over.

You're missing the point. Nobody said anyone would die fighting for an opinion they disagree with; we're talking about fighting to the death for the right to express that opinion. Even if it was just a slip of the tongue, I need to make this correction here to keep the discussion going.

Anonymous said:..
I think there might be a slight misunderstanding of what was actually written. I guess nobody ever claimed they would fight to the death just to defend a specific viewpoint they hold. Rather, the point was about fighting to the death for the right to express that view. Even if it was a bit of a slip of the tongue on my part, I felt it was important to clarify this here so the discussion stays on track.

I hear you, though I suppose I wasn't being very precise before (I sort of assumed people knew what I meant, so I kept it brief).

Maybe it's better put this way: in all my time following American Politics, I've seen instances where someone wouldn't necessarily die for their opinion, but they certainly would fight to the death against anyone trying to silence them. To put it simply, if I were a Moderator, I think I’d be a pretty terrible one.

Hopefully, that clears things up. 👍

Look, anything related to abortion is almost definitely going to be flagged as an opinion.

But then you've got people claiming "The Earth is flat," or saying "Fewer people died in this country than last year" when the data shows way more deaths, or shouting "The Republican Party is a criminal organization" (is there a conviction? Sure is) or even "Every single person in the Republican Party is a thief" (which, let's be real, probably isn't true for everyone).

So, where do we actually draw the line between a personal opinion and straight-up lies or insults? And honestly, which of those should the Moderator actually be stepping in to police?

Roger Castillo9 said:I mean, if you ask me, anything involving abortion is almost certainly going to be a heated topic. It’s just one of those things that gets people talking, I guess.

I guess you could say the pro-life crowd has every right to him. It really just falls under the umbrella of free speech, which isn't even up for debate, I suppose.

It seems like people are throwing around all sorts of claims lately, isn't it? I mean, you hear things like "The country is flat" or "Fewer people died in this country than last year"—even though, if you look at the actual numbers, way more people actually passed away. Then there’s the constant shouting that the Republican Party is nothing more than a criminal organization. Well, I guess we have to ask ourselves: has there been an official conviction for that? Technically, yes, there has. And then you have those sweeping statements claiming that every single person in the Republican Party is a thief. I don't know, maybe not everyone is, but it certainly feels like that's how the conversation goes sometimes.

Well, honestly, everything seems to be fine. I suppose even places like Flat Earth (and Suplji, if you can believe that) have their own dedicated threads here on Reddit. Of course, you wouldn't exactly take those kinds of arguments to the Police; you’d just head over to the Alternative section instead. I guess everything just has its own little corner.
I think there might be a slight misunderstanding regarding the death toll numbers being circulated, so I’ll go ahead and correct that with the accurate information. I guess it's easy to get turned around with all the conflicting reports out there, but we should probably stick to the verified facts to stay on the right track. Maybe it helps to look at the official data to clear things up.
I suppose there’s a bit of a debate going on regarding freedom of speech lately, especially since some people seem to have walked away with the impression that everyone in the Republican Party is just a thief. If they feel that way, I guess they should feel free to say it. At the end of the day, the Republican Party isn't an ethnic group, a religious sect, or some protected minority that needs shielding from those kinds of broad generalizations. Though, I suppose critics might argue they function more like a special interest group, if you want to look at it that way.

Where exactly do we draw the line between having a strong opinion and just spreading blatant lies or being straight-up offensive? It’s one of those tricky questions, isn't it? I guess it really comes down to what actually deserves moderation. Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere, but honestly, it feels like a bit of a gray area most of the time.

Honestly, none of what was mentioned above really warrants a ban. That said, if someone keeps insisting on using an incorrect death toll even after the accurate data has been provided—well, they’re probably just trolling at that point. In my opinion, that should be grounds for a ban (after a warning), especially if they're just being disruptive to the flow of the discussion.

Anyway, the whole Flat Earth debate is officially dead and buried...

Back when everyone was freaking out over Corona, there was this one guy on Reddit who’d just drop some totally nonsensical "fact" that was so absurd nobody even bothered responding. Then, every few posts, he’d pop up asking, “Wait, why is nobody commenting on this?” And once someone actually called him out, he’d just pivot to a whole new batch of made-up nonsense until he basically nuked the entire discussion. It was such a shame because, for such a heated topic, the conversation had actually been pretty objective and high-quality before he ruined it.

Then you’ve got this lady in the economics section who is so heavily loaded with ideology that she’ll throw out completely wrong data just to back up her own views. She always dresses it up with that "I heard it on the subway" vibe, and it just drags down what would otherwise be a really solid discussion.

But hey, I guess both of them are helping boost the post count, so if that's all that matters...

Roger Castillo9 said:Anyway, the whole flat earth discussion is officially over...

The Hollow Earth is wide open, though—you should really try expanding your horizons. 😁

Back during the Corona era, there was this one user who would just drop some completely nonsensical statistic that nobody even found worth responding to, and then every few posts he’d ask, “Wait, why isn't anyone commenting on this?” Then, once someone actually debunked him, he’d just roll out a whole new set of fabricated data until he basically killed the entire discussion. It was such a shame because, for such a heated topic, the conversation had actually been quite objective and high-quality before that.

I guess that kind of behavior deserves a ban (though I can't quite recall the specific guy). Personally, I don't think anyone ruins a thread quite like Woobie did in those Corona PDF's. But they won't remove him, I suppose; maybe he's on some kind of assignment or something. He just keeps grinding through threads without stopping. I guess there's no point in complaining, since the Corona stuff will eventually die down too.

It's the same deal with that female user in the economics section. She's so heavily driven by ideology that she constantly throws in incorrect data just to back up her own views, usually seasoning it with "well, that's what people are saying on the subway," which just drags down an otherwise great discussion.

But I suppose both of them help boost the post count, so if that's what matters most...

I'm not entirely sure who you're referring to; the most active woman over there seems alright to me. I guess things probably need to be loosened up a bit regardless. Since we're a nation that struggles so much with economic literacy, maybe it would actually be better if the PDF's were more accessible to the general public.

Roger Castillo9 said:Anyway, the whole flat earth debate is officially over...

Back during the Corona era, there was this one guy on the forum who’d drop some totally nonsensical stat—stuff so irrelevant nobody even bothered to reply—and then, every few posts later, he'd ask, "Why is nobody commenting on this?" Once people actually debunked him, he'd just pivot to a whole new set of fake data until he basically killed the discussion. It was such a shame because, for such a heated topic, the conversation had actually been pretty objective and high-quality...

Then you've got this woman in the economics section who's so heavily driven by ideology that she constantly throws out wrong info just to back up her views—usually seasoning it with that "I heard it on the subway" line—which just drags down what would otherwise be a great thread.

But hey, both of them are boosting the post count, so I guess that's what matters most...

"I heard it on the subway"...
A few years ago in the Women's Corner, someone actually had people show up at their front door because of some totally harmless gossip (some public figure was hunting for the forum's IP address).
Since then, saying "people are talking about it on the subway/ferry" has become a sort of code used to avoid naming a specific source. If you check the Women's Corner, you'll see plenty of those claims—it's a phrase a lot of the women there use.
Even journalists never reveal their sources. You'd think people would realize that...
When I was a Moderator for Tourism for nine years, I dealt with intense threats from various travel agencies because of posts where users criticized them (which turned out to be true—those agencies really were scammers, and they eventually ended up in the news too).
I was "advised" to just delete those posts and hand over the users' identities, but I refused to budge. In the end, it turned out those posts were completely justified.

Sandra Brown18 said:A few years back over in Women's Corner, someone had people showing up at their front door just because of some totally harmless gossip (some public figure was hunting for the forum's IP address).

Explain that. Which "people" showed up? And who handed out the IP? It sounds like an admin is just handing out private info to "certain people" who then go knocking on doors.

Reddit only hands over IP data when they have a court order or a warrant from the police. It’s clearly stated in the Rules:

Maria Barnes said:Reddit is legally required to provide information used to identify authors only upon receipt of a court order or a police warrant (and nothing else).

Just ask over at the Women's Corner.

Sandra Brown18 said:Go ask in Women's Corner.

No, you should be asking questions before you post garbage like this.

People are calling me out for not naming my sources over at the Economic Forum. Look, I have every right to protect my sources...
That’s just standard journalistic practice.

Duplicate...

No moderator in the history of this Reddit community has ever actually acted like one...

You explicitly stated that some "outcast public figure requested an IP address from the forum," which is a heavy accusation—basically straight-up libel...

Saying "from the forum" implies the platform itself, as a legal entity, handed over private data just because some random person asked for it; it doesn't mean some moderator might have leaked an IP once upon a time...

If a cop lets you slide on a speeding ticket, are you going to go around claiming the Department of Homeland Security gave you permission to speed? Not even close, because mods aren't employees of the site...

I used the term Forum in a broad sense, not as some official legal entity. A Forum is really just a mix of owners, admins, super-mods, mods, and the users themselves—plus, you could always hack a Forum to snag an IP...

It covers a massive group of people.

Sandra Brown18 said:People keep calling me out for not naming my sources over at Business Insider. Look, I have every right to protect my sources.
That’s just standard journalism.

I’ve never even set foot in the business news beat, but based on your track record, I’d be demanding sources from you even if you were just claiming you ate a gourmet donut at a state fair.

And here we go again. You're on a forum talking about this specific forum (specifically the women's corner) and when people ask for clarification, you claim you were talking about some hypothetical other sites. It's weird that anyone is even asking you for sources in the first place. Honestly, give me a break.

Obviously, I wouldn't just take anything at face value without checking first.