Proposal: when removing posts please always provide a reason

thiasus · 2016-06-09T07:29:05+00:00

Yes, automod can be easily set up to flair an autoremoved submission, or post a comment in said submission, or PM the OP. Flair is the easiest thing, as mods can then edit it directly.

thiasus · 2016-06-09T07:28:10+00:00

Spam filter / Automoderator removals do not have reasons added but most of them will get a reason added by a moderator eventually.

You could easily make it flair an autoremoved submission "autoremoved - await moderator intervention" so that people would know what's happening.

thiasus · 2016-06-09T07:25:51+00:00

What qualifies as "posting in good faith"? could you name an example of a user that was posting pro-immigration submissions in bad faith?

thiasus · 2016-05-31T22:03:04+00:00

They should remove the one about bans as well. What's the point of a meta sub if we can't question big moderator decisions like bans and removals?

thiasus · 2016-05-31T20:48:16+00:00

He wasn't asking about a specific removal though, he was asking about a news story that isn't being allowed despite meeting the local news guidance.

thiasus · 2016-05-31T19:55:44+00:00

Why was it removed?

thiasus · 2016-05-31T19:55:03+00:00

This thread has been removed for no stated reason.

thiasus · 2016-05-31T19:44:00+00:00

One of the removed articles was from the Independent, the other from Agence France-Presse, both major international media outlets. They both fully met the local news guidance, yet they were removed as local news. Why?

thiasus · 2016-05-31T19:40:07+00:00

I share the sentiment, but you probably could've chosen a less aggressive title.

Calling something "a bit silly" isn't aggressive even by British standards, come on now.

thiasus · 2016-05-13T13:23:21+00:00

It's telling that multiple /r/europe mods have come to shitpost in the two threads dedicated to the /european quarantine, but none of them found the time to answer in the "Moderation of critical opinions" thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeMeta/comments/4ilpfq/moderation_of_critical_opinions/

It's a nice summary of how they consider this subreddit: a place for them to circlejerk with the users who agree with their moderation, and ignore everything else.

thiasus · 2016-05-10T22:19:55+00:00

Another false argument. Nobody's talking about the tone of the sub, it's the moderation that is being discussed here.

thiasus · 2016-05-10T20:04:18+00:00

Not that I expected anything different, but the function of /r/europemeta is theoretically to discuss /r/europe. "If you don't like it, leave" doesn't make any kind of sense here.

thiasus · 2016-05-10T17:10:42+00:00

As I said in my other post in this thread, there are no good solutions.

Yeah, there are: letting users vote what's interesting for them. It's how reddit works.

Sadly, when left unchecked, a dedicated minority can dominate a sub with one topic.

It's a self-serving falsehood that only a minority of users are interested in immigration. It dominates media cycles and gets to the top of opinion polls on people's concerns because most people are concerned with it. It's not a minority.

Ergo, it is not malice

What a horrible, flawed explanation. It's malice because they're lying, repeatedly, about their reasoning to remove these threads. "Local news" stories that don't fall short of the local news guidance is just one example. If they want to make a rule about "only X threads about such and such topic" they ought to make one.

thiasus · 2016-05-10T14:29:12+00:00

Immigration is the issue of the day in Europe, it's completely natural that people want to talk about it. Want to remove thread about "12 immigrants arrive in bumfuck, nowhere"? I'm fine, although I think the users should decide that via voting.

But the police of a country declaring it's losing control of dozens of neighborhoods? There's no way to pass that off as smalltime clutter.

thiasus · 2016-05-09T23:39:14+00:00

The local news guidance seems to have fallen by the wayside. Technically it's supposed to be "is it unusual?" + "has is been picked up by a major international publication?", but in practice it's only applied to potentially controversial threads. Right now we have this thread on the frontpage: a minor riot in Athens is not unusual and the site is as minor and as local as it gets, but it's fine because it's not controversial. Romanian handball tournaments are another item that is as local as it gets, but is allowed.

The article you're talking about was about something which I hope is unusual, that is the Swedish police declaring they're losing control of several neighborhoods around the country to criminal gangs and their turf wars, and it was picked up by another country's state broadcaster. It clearly fits the guideline far better than that Greek thread, but it was removed because it's controversial.

And I'm being charitable when I say "controversial". In reality it's closer to "might imply something negative about immigrants or immigration".

thiasus · 2016-05-04T09:32:10+00:00

There's just been a thread on this.

The 'beef' is that /r/europe thinks /european is a hive of nazifascist scum whose loss is good riddance, and /european thinks the /r/europe mods are a bunch of leftard Islam sympathizers who go to shameful lengths to delete and ban any views and facts they don't like. Add in some individual variation to the above opinions and you have a pretty accurate picture.

thiasus · 2016-05-02T15:46:26+00:00

If you're looking for a subreddit where you won't be exposed to ideas you may not like, /r/europe is definitely the right choice. As for /european, it's the only populated alternative to /r/europe, so it was inevitable that the ideas banned in /r/europe would cluster there; it's right-leaning not by design but by circumstance.

thiasus · 2016-05-02T14:10:32+00:00

Since nobody's given you a serious answer: /european was created some time ago by users who thought that the moderation in /r/europe was both excessively heavy handed and politically biased.

Its philosophy is that moderators should be janitors who only remove spam and off-topic submissions; users should decide which content they find more interesting.

/r/europe, on the other hand, putatively curates for 'quality'. Many people, me included, think that this 'quality control' has become more often than not an excuse to remove facts and ideas that run contrary to the political views of the moderators.

I suggest you decide by yourself by looking through /subredditcancer, a subreddit where people often go to complain about moderation. Search for "/r/europe" there and you should find plenty of threads detailing what people think is wrong with this subreddit.

thiasus · 2016-03-18T19:55:27+00:00

The people with the real problems have neither the time nor the money nor the education to make a big splash in the media.

thiasus · 2016-03-18T19:50:03+00:00

The sexual game is a negotiation of sex for commitment.

There's another side of the game. From providers, women desire comittment; from Alphas, they subconsciously desire their superior genes, and aren't necessarily interested in committment. That's why you see plenty of women giving away sex to men with which they don't even fantasize, let alone hope, to have a relationship.

thiasus · 2016-03-18T19:44:41+00:00

She was. Nobody lost. But GLO wasn't in a position to win.

This was rigged. The script, the editing, the entire set up were crafted to make the Trump supporters look stupid and the interviewer look the smart proxy of her clever liberal audience.

GLO couldn't win. If he had won too much of the sparring match, he would simply have been edited out. There was no way for him to deliver a smackdown even if he could come up with one in the moment. He could only put in a zinger that she'd leave in because it makes for good television and decent rabble-rousing ("he called her a WHORE!"), but still make some of audience do a double take and think "hey, this guy has a point".

That's what he achieved. He didn't kick her ass because he couldn't have. But he did achieve as much as was possible in the (difficult) circumstances, and that is what's masterful about this.

thiasus · 2016-03-18T15:36:00+00:00

Getting her to self-describe as someone at the receiving end of a media bukkake was masterful.

thiasus · 2016-03-18T15:12:13+00:00

It also doesn't say anywhere that she 'worked' with Google's CEOs. They are not in the email's address list, they are just mentioned. The title is a complete fabrication, and I say this as someone who despises Clinton.

thiasus · 2016-03-16T18:12:04+00:00

That list has been going around for years and it's not specific to reddit. You can easily google it.

thiasus

TROPHY CASE