It's so shamefully obvious about why the rule was modified. It certainly isn't to protect the
/r/conspiracy
users. But to protect the large number of shills that attempt in vain to infiltrate and control our discussions. Limit our ability to communicate openly and honestly.
I think the rule is good because harassment and accusations of being a shill/troll is a tactic that can be used by shills themselves.
I don't know what people think of me personally, and some might suspect me of being a shill, but I've been under heavy attack a while back from one user. It made me run up the walls. I think he was either an overly paranoid person or an actual shill who tried to discredit me. It showed me that it's a very effective tactic to disrupt this subreddit if it was used.
There are undoubtedly shills in this sub, but many of them don't break the rules, which makes the moderators powerless to do anything. From my understanding, you can still write a summary of their accounts to imply that they're shills and that IMO is enough to make people not take them seriously. If their account has existed a short while, highlight it. If they are apologetic about one issue in particular, mention it. Simply Calling them "shills" wont help, and I've made that mistake several times in the past to know.
But maybe you think I'm a shill, so disregard this message in that case.
I've had the exact same thing happen to me a couple of times, and I eventually came to the point you made: you don't know if they are overly paranoid person acting as an individual or a shill themselves with an agenda.
My gut feeling is that some are shills trying to make sure the comment section of a given article, where people can discuss / share and rally, is full of infighting and tail chasing. Callings names and pointing fingers is an excellent way to do that.
Now that I think about it, I have commented very little or none in
/r/conspiracy
since that happened, so if their intention is to stifle discussion they have been successful.
In the end though I think most of it is overzealous, borderline paranoid users with no ulterior motives.
I appreciate what you're saying and I have seen it. Great comment. I get what you're saying entirely. And I agree.
It's really the idea of banning language; any language. I think context is what's important. I think the moderators have done a really great job lately and for me, it's more about the rules and what's right. We all support free speech. I'd prefer my favorite sub not be in the business of banning language.
I propose we have an unspoken rule with careful moderation, which appears to be what's happening. I think escalation is the key. I like being able to suggest that when I suspect it. I think escalation will reveal our enemies.
Let's be the most civil sub without banning language. And I do thank the moderators. If you aren't getting paid, you should be. We all know plenty are.
When part of the 5 eyes strategy is to call people shills and trolls to draw attention away from the subject at hand and toward their self perpetuating flame war then what exactly is the point of allowing it to stand?
Why would you want the comments section of a post about vaccines or GMO crops to turn into hundreds of comments about who is a shill and who is a troll?
The rule is solid, calling someone a shill or a troll is a personal attack and personal attacks are not allowed here. the community improved significantly when we started enforcing the "no personal attacks" rule and the only thing missing was conspiracy theorists and people who claim to be conspiracy theorist calling everyone a shill.
Those days are over. Personal attacks are not allowed here. Intellectual discussion will live on.
I think the most important thing you said is things changed "when we started enforcing" the rule. However, my point is that the rule was very clear before. At any point, the rules could have been enforced and that wasn't happening.
And I agree. It has gotten way better here and I think the new mods all deserve some gratitude for what you're trying to do. But the idea of banning language, to me, seems somewhat dangerous and maybe even a bit childish.
Being gay, every time I hear someone say, "fag" or "that's gay," I have to determine whether or not it's go time. If I flip out on everyone using those words, either I'd be really angry at everyone around me, or people would be afraid to say anything. Civility can not be enforced by banning a word or two. Context means a lot.
I mean, this post was somewhat of an experiment to see if the words are autobanned, or if you mods get some sort of notification when words come in. I'm not 100% familiar with the reddit engine.
I sort of don't feel as proud of this being "my" sub knowing we ban words. But I appreciate your comment and the fact that ya'all are really doing a great job.
Is it possible to keep up the quality and remove it from the sidebar? Can it be an unsaid rule?
Well it wasn't on the sidebar before, but common sense would tell you that calling someone a shill or a troll is no different than calling them an asshole or a fag.
Its name calling thus its a personal attack.
We don't autoban words.
The only reason we added Shill and troll specifically to the rule 10 is because we kept encountering this huge meta debate, "is shill and troll a personal attack?" yes, yes it is. And calling people such serves the same purpose as calling someone a retard or a fag. It starts a flame war and diverts attention away from the topic at hand.
So we won't be removing it from the sidebar. Shill and Troll will continue to be considered a personal attack. Context is very important and sometimes, be it rarely, the mods misunderstand the context. If you're banned because of such a misunderstanding then we have an appeal process that you can initiate via mod mail. I understand how it could be frustrating to be banned over a misunderstanding and forced to argue your case, but its more frustrating when someone is in the conspiracy subreddit talking about conspiracies and they get attacked for talking about conspiracies.
Honestly I would love it if humans were not greedy and deceptive and we could just have a global anarchy where everyone just miraculously gets along and nobody steals anyone else's piggy bank. Where police and military weren't ever invented because society never had a need to imagine them into existence. Where we weren't burning surplus food in the USA while people in Africa were starving to death and where groups didn't form to take advantage of strength in numbers so they can take from individuals what they didn't earn.
unfortunately, people suck. We need rules to have order, order to have peace, peace to have prosperity and prosperity to have happiness. Thus is our pursuit. Good luck everyone.
Rule 10 - Posts that attack this sub, or the users or mods thereof, will be removed. Accusing another user of being a troll or shill is considered an attack. Repeat offenders are subject to a ban.
Exactly how is one to discern whether it was a joke or an attack? There's no "/s" there. There's no "just kidding' there. There's no smiley face there.
I know the rule. I was simply giving OP and his supporters an example of what they were really asking for. If they've been reporting my comments then that's a good indication of how hypocritical they are. They want to be able to call others trolls and shills but when the shoe is on the other foot...
If someone has evidence that a person is a shill, it should be brought forward so the community and moderators can see it. Give the person a chance to defend themselves, and ban them if they can't.
You would start with their post history. I have found quite a few Pro-Israel accounts that only post pro-Israel topics and comments. Anyone who spends a significant amount of time posting misinformation and lies is a shill in my book. I would also automatically ban anyone who posts in Conspiritard, since its a downvote brigade. Lots of places like /worldnews shadowbans anyone who links to a /worldnews story.
We've had a little army of pro-Israel shills here for as long as I've been using this sub (hint: this isn't my first account here). Every time anyone posts a story critical of Israel, out they come from under their rocks with the same old JIDF talking points. I'm sorry to say, we also have at least one mod who is working for the JIDF.
44 comments
6 iamagod_ 2014-02-26
It's so shamefully obvious about why the rule was modified. It certainly isn't to protect the /r/conspiracy users. But to protect the large number of shills that attempt in vain to infiltrate and control our discussions. Limit our ability to communicate openly and honestly.
5 Hatchetman4NWO 2014-02-26
I think the rule is good because harassment and accusations of being a shill/troll is a tactic that can be used by shills themselves.
I don't know what people think of me personally, and some might suspect me of being a shill, but I've been under heavy attack a while back from one user. It made me run up the walls. I think he was either an overly paranoid person or an actual shill who tried to discredit me. It showed me that it's a very effective tactic to disrupt this subreddit if it was used.
There are undoubtedly shills in this sub, but many of them don't break the rules, which makes the moderators powerless to do anything. From my understanding, you can still write a summary of their accounts to imply that they're shills and that IMO is enough to make people not take them seriously. If their account has existed a short while, highlight it. If they are apologetic about one issue in particular, mention it. Simply Calling them "shills" wont help, and I've made that mistake several times in the past to know.
But maybe you think I'm a shill, so disregard this message in that case.
3 hedon7 2014-02-26
I've had the exact same thing happen to me a couple of times, and I eventually came to the point you made: you don't know if they are overly paranoid person acting as an individual or a shill themselves with an agenda.
My gut feeling is that some are shills trying to make sure the comment section of a given article, where people can discuss / share and rally, is full of infighting and tail chasing. Callings names and pointing fingers is an excellent way to do that.
3 Hatchetman4NWO 2014-02-26
Yep. It also scares off new users who are curious about this sub. I've heard it from several people.
2 hedon7 2014-02-26
Now that I think about it, I have commented very little or none in /r/conspiracy since that happened, so if their intention is to stifle discussion they have been successful.
In the end though I think most of it is overzealous, borderline paranoid users with no ulterior motives.
2 Hatchetman4NWO 2014-02-26
Maybe, but either way it can be extremely disruptive. Especially when active, non-shill users are being targeted.
1 facereplacer2 2014-02-26
I appreciate what you're saying and I have seen it. Great comment. I get what you're saying entirely. And I agree.
It's really the idea of banning language; any language. I think context is what's important. I think the moderators have done a really great job lately and for me, it's more about the rules and what's right. We all support free speech. I'd prefer my favorite sub not be in the business of banning language.
I propose we have an unspoken rule with careful moderation, which appears to be what's happening. I think escalation is the key. I like being able to suggest that when I suspect it. I think escalation will reveal our enemies.
Let's be the most civil sub without banning language. And I do thank the moderators. If you aren't getting paid, you should be. We all know plenty are.
5 4to3 2014-02-26
I agree with your main point. Users of this sub should be free to call a shill a shill, and a troll a troll. There are lots of them here.
3 Flytape 2014-02-26
When part of the 5 eyes strategy is to call people shills and trolls to draw attention away from the subject at hand and toward their self perpetuating flame war then what exactly is the point of allowing it to stand?
Why would you want the comments section of a post about vaccines or GMO crops to turn into hundreds of comments about who is a shill and who is a troll?
The rule is solid, calling someone a shill or a troll is a personal attack and personal attacks are not allowed here. the community improved significantly when we started enforcing the "no personal attacks" rule and the only thing missing was conspiracy theorists and people who claim to be conspiracy theorist calling everyone a shill.
Those days are over. Personal attacks are not allowed here. Intellectual discussion will live on.
1 facereplacer2 2014-02-26
I think the most important thing you said is things changed "when we started enforcing" the rule. However, my point is that the rule was very clear before. At any point, the rules could have been enforced and that wasn't happening.
And I agree. It has gotten way better here and I think the new mods all deserve some gratitude for what you're trying to do. But the idea of banning language, to me, seems somewhat dangerous and maybe even a bit childish.
Being gay, every time I hear someone say, "fag" or "that's gay," I have to determine whether or not it's go time. If I flip out on everyone using those words, either I'd be really angry at everyone around me, or people would be afraid to say anything. Civility can not be enforced by banning a word or two. Context means a lot.
I mean, this post was somewhat of an experiment to see if the words are autobanned, or if you mods get some sort of notification when words come in. I'm not 100% familiar with the reddit engine.
I sort of don't feel as proud of this being "my" sub knowing we ban words. But I appreciate your comment and the fact that ya'all are really doing a great job.
Is it possible to keep up the quality and remove it from the sidebar? Can it be an unsaid rule?
3 Flytape 2014-02-26
Well it wasn't on the sidebar before, but common sense would tell you that calling someone a shill or a troll is no different than calling them an asshole or a fag.
Its name calling thus its a personal attack.
We don't autoban words.
The only reason we added Shill and troll specifically to the rule 10 is because we kept encountering this huge meta debate, "is shill and troll a personal attack?" yes, yes it is. And calling people such serves the same purpose as calling someone a retard or a fag. It starts a flame war and diverts attention away from the topic at hand.
So we won't be removing it from the sidebar. Shill and Troll will continue to be considered a personal attack. Context is very important and sometimes, be it rarely, the mods misunderstand the context. If you're banned because of such a misunderstanding then we have an appeal process that you can initiate via mod mail. I understand how it could be frustrating to be banned over a misunderstanding and forced to argue your case, but its more frustrating when someone is in the conspiracy subreddit talking about conspiracies and they get attacked for talking about conspiracies.
Honestly I would love it if humans were not greedy and deceptive and we could just have a global anarchy where everyone just miraculously gets along and nobody steals anyone else's piggy bank. Where police and military weren't ever invented because society never had a need to imagine them into existence. Where we weren't burning surplus food in the USA while people in Africa were starving to death and where groups didn't form to take advantage of strength in numbers so they can take from individuals what they didn't earn.
unfortunately, people suck. We need rules to have order, order to have peace, peace to have prosperity and prosperity to have happiness. Thus is our pursuit. Good luck everyone.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-26
[deleted]
1 SovereignMan 2014-02-26
Rule 10 - Posts that attack this sub, or the users or mods thereof, will be removed. Accusing another user of being a troll or shill is considered an attack. Repeat offenders are subject to a ban.
Removed.
1 facereplacer2 2014-02-26
Oh come on! That was a joke!
1 SovereignMan 2014-02-26
Exactly how is one to discern whether it was a joke or an attack? There's no "/s" there. There's no "just kidding' there. There's no smiley face there.
1 facereplacer2 2014-02-26
There's a little "context" button. Try that.
1 SovereignMan 2014-02-26
I already read the parent comment. The "context" button doesn't tell me you were "joking".
1 [deleted] 2014-02-26
[deleted]
1 Flytape 2014-02-26
Rule 10,
this is your warning, familiarize yourself with our rules -----> on the sidebar.
There will not be another warning.
2 ExtHD 2014-02-26
I know the rule. I was simply giving OP and his supporters an example of what they were really asking for. If they've been reporting my comments then that's a good indication of how hypocritical they are. They want to be able to call others trolls and shills but when the shoe is on the other foot...
I guarantee I won't be breaking rules again.
1 Flytape 2014-02-26
okay sorry, I enforce the rules without getting too deep into the personal spats.
2 ExtHD 2014-02-26
No problem. I was fully expecting to get a warning and have those comments deleted. It was worth it.
1 StoneTheKrow 2014-02-26
Should have been banned. You said it 5+ times.
1 ExtHD 2014-02-26
It still would have been worth it. It didn't do much good though. I see the same few people in a bunch of other threads bashing the rules and mods.
1 StoneTheKrow 2014-02-26
People should be allowed to voice their opinions. All you were doing was calling people trolls and shills.
1 Flytape 2014-02-26
We warn people first, and give them a chance to read the rules.
1 ExtHD 2014-02-26
Have I made the point yet?
-2 [deleted] 2014-02-26
If someone has evidence that a person is a shill, it should be brought forward so the community and moderators can see it. Give the person a chance to defend themselves, and ban them if they can't.
5 [deleted] 2014-02-26
[deleted]
1 yeahfuckthis 2014-02-26
Sadly, you are not mistaken.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-26
[deleted]
1 StoneTheKrow 2014-02-26
Just curious but why are you doing that?
1 ExtHD 2014-02-26
I'm giving OP and his supporters exactly what they are asking for.
1 StoneTheKrow 2014-02-26
Umm. Ok.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-26
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2014-02-26
[deleted]
4 facereplacer2 2014-02-26
How could one prove that?
2 [deleted] 2014-02-26
You would start with their post history. I have found quite a few Pro-Israel accounts that only post pro-Israel topics and comments. Anyone who spends a significant amount of time posting misinformation and lies is a shill in my book. I would also automatically ban anyone who posts in Conspiritard, since its a downvote brigade. Lots of places like /worldnews shadowbans anyone who links to a /worldnews story.
1 4to3 2014-02-26
We've had a little army of pro-Israel shills here for as long as I've been using this sub (hint: this isn't my first account here). Every time anyone posts a story critical of Israel, out they come from under their rocks with the same old JIDF talking points. I'm sorry to say, we also have at least one mod who is working for the JIDF.
1 mr_dong 2014-02-26
Rule 10 has already been updated.
1 ridestraight 2014-02-26
We know! And SovereignMan was taken to task for it in his Sticky post. Rule #2 is akin to Big Brother and makes me cringe!
r/conspiracy has been effectively muzzled by these changes and the rest are nonsense, disruptive comments!
I'm an older poster here. I've followed the rules. I'm quick to admit any error and hope the mods will do so as well.
Edit: a word
1 StoneTheKrow 2014-02-26
Just curious but why are you doing that?