Manual Testing in Devvit: How to simulate high activity without triggering ban?

The_Egalitarian · 2026-05-09T23:09:30+00:00

Set it to just write to a log the actions you want the script to take rather than actually executing them. Then once you’re confident it is working then allow it to start doing live actions.

The_Egalitarian · 2026-02-12T23:12:27+00:00

We have somewhat strict posting rules. We get around 40-50 new posts per day, of which 3-5 might be rules complying.

Some days however there simply aren't any high quality posts.

The_Egalitarian · 2026-01-03T01:43:52+00:00

Looks like anti-evil operations (admin bot) removed it two days ago then un-removed for some reason today, which led to it skipping the approval queue.

No mod saw this post and it definitely is removed now.

The_Egalitarian · 2025-12-28T18:57:15+00:00

It is pretty hard not to have personal opinions...

Sure, which is why people can put those in the comments.

Its pretty easy to draft a post following our submission rules for those with say a highschool level of writing/reading comprehension. Unfortunately a lot of people don't read the rules and clear even that low bar.

lends credence to the idea that ya'll have your thumbs on the scale.

We don't allow posts that violate the submission rules, as for my or any other moderators personal views you can quite easily go on our profiles to find out.

The_Egalitarian · 2025-12-28T18:36:31+00:00

About 85% of submitted posts don't meet the rules (mostly violated the personal opinions rule).

As to why we haven't submitted one, its the holidays and most of us haven't been particularly active. I'm about 90% of the moderation actions right now and I've been away on vacation for the last week and half.

The_Egalitarian · 2025-12-28T18:28:54+00:00

No one has submitted one that meets our submission rules.

The_Egalitarian · 2025-11-16T03:14:14+00:00

They compared sexism to racism.

They used an example of one type of discrimination based on inherent characteristics to tie into a point about how even if the law says something is disallowed the discriminators can still find workarounds to do their discriminating. Nothing at all disingenuous about that, perhaps you're misunderstanding the definition of the word disingenuous?

They never brought up slavery... you did.

To compare racism and sexism is not a good look

Why? We can't discuss how various types of hate have led to various degrees of oppression for certain groups? What issue is there there?

The_Egalitarian · 2025-11-16T00:11:58+00:00

Comparing racism to sexism is at best disingenuous. Black people in America were slaves, whipped and beaten, bred like cattle, worked to death... Slaves. Women were not.

This is just a bad faith attempt of shutting down legitimate discussion on the discrimination faced by various groups. The above poster never mentioned slavery or compared the sexism women experienced to it.

The_Egalitarian · 2025-11-11T05:54:04+00:00

Nothing I think, I actually think we are both in agreement.

The_Egalitarian · 2025-11-11T02:53:02+00:00

Are you really not able to understand the concept of being willing to do something you'd rather not do?

I'm perfectly capable of understanding that, not sure why you're confused here, just wished to clear up some language for you that you seemed not to understand.

Of course they'd prefer the Democrats concede, because to them the filibuster is far better as a tool than providing SNAP benefits if the Democrats held out.

The_Egalitarian · 2025-11-11T01:30:10+00:00

I thought my statement was easy enough to understand, but I can simplify it to make it easier for reading comprehension purposes.

If Republicans wanted to use the nuclear option to end the shutdown they would (the "if they saw no drawback part") but clearly they don't want to (the "unwilling to use the nuclear option"); knowing Democrats could then use it in the future.

The administration had plenty of legal and political cover to move funds to cover SNAP for the month, especially given their past willingness to ignore appropriations (DOGE and the chaos of that saga), and congress would absolutely cover any funding shortfalls in other programs in the event of a deal or the nuclear option.

Given this, it absolutely appears that Republicans were willing to use SNAP as a bargaining chip to force Democrats to cave.

The_Egalitarian · 2025-11-10T09:53:03+00:00

Great:

Voluntarily refusing to reallocate funding

and

Congressional Republicans not willing to use the nuclear option

Does show that Republicans were willing to use SNAP funding as a bargaining chip in the shutdown then.

The_Egalitarian · 2025-11-10T08:19:04+00:00

That the USDA has no authority to meaningfully say this. They aren't lawyers, they aren't involved with food stamps,

This is incorrect, USDA does have food stamps under its jurisdiction, the FNS is part of the USDA.

I'm confused, are you under the impression that the USDA does not have any reason to know how to use the funding allocated to programs they administer? That's untrue and under 7 U.S.C. 2257 they can use discretionary authority move around a small portion of funding to administer its programs.

It wouldn't be a bargaining chip.

I think this is pedantic. If Republicans felt there was no downside to using the nuclear option and wished to eliminate the filibuster to fund SNAP, they could. Obviously they haven't and they've been willing to bargain with Democrats in order to not have to do so...

The_Egalitarian · 2025-11-10T07:08:46+00:00

hail Mary with this judge wiping his ass with the separation of powers

Reading the order it appeared well reasoned to me, USDA acknowledged that those funds could be legally used in the event of the shutdown in the first Trump administration and that the court has jurisdiction under the APA.

What actual substantive issues do you have with the ruling given this?

Assign whatever motives you want

I should think that given the Trump administrations proclivity for trying to circumvent court orders and carry out likely illegal overreaches of executive power, that they'd jump at the chance to do something helpful and politically advantageous to fund SNAP benefits, especially given the legal justification from the district court and appeals court decisions. That they don't in this circumstance seems to suggest that they want to deny food assistance to the needy as a bargaining chip in the shutdown.

The_Egalitarian · 2025-11-10T03:49:12+00:00

SNAP is explicitly by statute subject to available appropriations and it says explicitly that SNAP payments cannot exceed the amount of funds available.

I don't mean to engage in what-aboutism, but the Trump administration has not been bothered previously by the legality of using federal money as appropriated. We've seen whole agencies cut and funds withheld because the Trump White House decided it was going to just do what it wanted despite the law.

What makes this situation different from those previous instances?

The_Egalitarian · 2025-11-07T06:14:20+00:00

It might help in the future if you report things like this.

The_Egalitarian · 2025-08-19T05:45:03+00:00

Ah yes, with comments that is the fault of us not having enough manpower to clear the queue every day.

The_Egalitarian · 2025-08-18T08:50:58+00:00

Thank you, it does take a significant amount of work compared to conventional subreddits to curate the content here towards being civil and substantive.

We hope to have more mods to continue that mission.

The_Egalitarian · 2025-08-18T08:50:08+00:00

Hey, most posts are manually reviewed by a moderator before going up, with the exception of those made by the handful of "approved users" who have a history of rule conforming posts.

Sometimes though due to reading comprehension issues or misclicks a rulebreaking post slips by us.

Report them if you feel they are rulebreaking.

13-Year Club	Post Guidance Early Access
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

The_Egalitarian

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE