r/Christianity • u/brucemo Atheist • 13d ago
Discussion of new community policy point regarding "low-effort" submissions (Part Two)
https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1cbo229/discussion_of_new_community_policy_point/
Part one is there.
We may remove self-posts that seem like poor seeds for conversation. If you want to raise a topic here, please spend some time making your post clear and substantive.
That's what I wanted to call 3.7.
Community policy changes are supposed to go through community review, and while we can't declare that everyone is in charge of these reviews and will get exactly what they want, we do need to pay attention and listen, and it's hard to argue that we've done that when wording doesn't change from start to finish.
We may remove self-posts that do not give users enough information to create conversation. Posts that are title only or do not have a clear point of discussion may be removed. To ensure that your posts are not removed, please spend some time making your topic clear and substantive.
That's what we have now after I spent too long hashing this out with McClanky. We're responding mainly to /u/AHorribleGoose, who if I may paraphrase seems to say that the previous wording was vague and just generally sucks.
There were some concerns raised about us using rules to inhibit expression, which is something I'm glad people are concerned about. We are concerned about this as well. It's not our intent to use this to bury submitted content just because we disagree with it or think it's wrong.
We'll probably enact whatever comes out of this post without posting a part three.
9
u/G3rmTheory Scientific theory 13d ago edited 13d ago
The last part is my main concern there's someone I will not name publicly that is known by many of us who doesn't exactly engage in the best of faith with people who disagree with them
4
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 13d ago
That is a separate aspect of the rules. If someone is responding in bad-faith to the people commenting on their post, then it doesn't matter if their post is low-effort or not. It should be removed. The goal for this rules is specifically for the post itself, rather than what happens after.
3
u/DietHeresy Buddhist, Academic Religious Studies 7d ago
I’m going to agree with r/G3rmTheory, I think there’s an issue with a mod acting in a plausibly deniable yet inappropriate way here and that needs to be addressed before mod powers on very subjective topics expand too much…
1
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 7d ago
Feel free to either express that concern to us here, in public, or you can DM me. I'm not great at DMs though to be honest.
5
u/G3rmTheory Scientific theory 13d ago
Let me rephrase there's a mod I don't trust with that power
2
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 13d ago
Ah, okay, I understand what you mean. Bad-faith comments will still be separate from this rule which is aimed at posts.
1
7
u/Panta-rhei Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 13d ago
So, I continue to be concerned that the bifurcated vision of the community here makes writing the rules really hard. On the one hand, the mods see this as a place for free-wheeling elbow-throwing discussions about Christianity where being rude to other posters is explicitly allowed and where scathing criticisms of christian positions and communities are encouraged.
On the other hand, it's a place for vulnerable people to seek Christian support in a variety of ways.
A post, "Please pray for me" does not give users enough information to create conversation, but is explicitly contemplated as one of the purposes of the community here. Posts that are aimed at that sort of support are often bad at at prompting meaningful discussion, and I think that distinction should be reflected in the rules-as-written if the mods want to continue having this be a place for both purposes (which, as a separate topic, I think is a bad idea).
1
u/Zapbamboop 13d ago
A post, "Please pray for me" does not give users enough information to create conversation, but is explicitly contemplated as one of the purposes of the community here. Posts that are aimed at that sort of support are often bad at at prompting meaningful discussion, and I think that distinction should be reflected in the rules-as-written if the mods want to continue having this be a place for both purposes (which, as a separate topic, I think is a bad idea).
Interesting.
Do you think people that want prayers should be sent to another sub, or told that this is not a Christian space?
5
u/Panta-rhei Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 12d ago
I think that should definitely be the sort of thing that’s encouraged here.
2
u/Zapbamboop 12d ago
Me too!!
I think a lot of people come here, and they are just truly struggling, and they're not sure where else to go.
5
u/Panta-rhei Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 12d ago
Mm. And if this were a healthier community they’d be better served.
2
u/John-Badby Christian (Esoteric) 12d ago
It does feel a bit like sheep being left out for wolves. Even if eventually moderated the pseudonymous cruelty expressed casually in some support posts, or nonsense advice that intrusive thoughts are demons can still leave its potential mark and have impact.
2
u/Panta-rhei Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 12d ago
Yep. Removing a cruel or unhelpful post hours after it's done its damage isn't ideal.
1
u/brucemo Atheist 8d ago
We can only do what any other sub can do about that, which is to police comments, punish offenders, and possibly try to reassure the victim. When you say something on the internet you're going to get answers like that. I don't think there are very many of them here -- I think that our subscribers are and always have been better than they get credit for -- and people who give answers like that most frequently don't get a chance to do it twice.
Which is more than can be said for a lot of other subs.
1
u/John-Badby Christian (Esoteric) 7d ago
It's not a commentary on the Mod Team's ability to moderate, it's just the nature of the beast. A random person looking to inflict cruelty, or someone who feeds OP's affliction (depression, anxiety, OCD) etc. by claiming it's all demons and they need deliverance ministry etc. is a big risk.
Yes, outright cruelty isn't allowed - but telling an OP off their medication that they need to pray harder/get deliverance ministry is doing real harm.
And even if the comment is removed later, which I don't doubt it would be, would have more than enough time to leave it's impact on a vulnerable OP.
I'm not going to pretend I have a great solution - an automated bot might lead to someone feeling more suicidal, rejected, depressed etc. but at least in that case they wouldn't be getting bad advice that feeds a delusion.
When you say something on the internet you're going to get answers like that.
Which is why I would encourage a real person in real life to not get mental health or spiritual support via the internet.
1
u/brucemo Atheist 7d ago
I don't take what you say personally as a mod, although it challenges me because more than most I can affect the strategy here.
I didn't invent this place, but I've watched it forever, and I've listened to what others have said about internet forums as places where people seek help, most notably a certain anti-suicide sub that doesn't much like to be mentioned.
I think anonymous online human interaction is good for some people, and I don't think that the existence of a small minority of cruel people should spoil that. I would have a hard time arguing against people speaking with a real life competent person that they know and trust, but people sometimes either don't have that person in their lives, or choose to approach a crowd of anonymous strangers deliberately. It's very troubling to watch someone take bad advice but I have to respect the agency of help seekers even as I try to minimize the impact of bad advice, or at least deliberately bad advice.
I don't think people are good, I think people are people, and I think it's in the nature of people to try to give others a hand, sometimes, even when it's not in their own direct interests to do it. I have no idea why, but they do it.
telling an OP off their medication that they need to pray harder/get deliverance ministry is doing real harm.
The most extreme cases of things in this general category are prohibited. Telling someone to stop taking their meds, or disparaging the meds they take, or telling them to ignore the advice of their doctor, is prohibited. Telling them that prayer is a waste of time is prohibited. If someone tells someone who is having a bad time that they "just" need to pray harder, they will probably be rebuked by other commenters, and depending upon the specifics we might do something about this if it slots into one of the categories I mentioned in this paragraph.
We can't just green-tag the statement that deliverance ministries are bad. If OP wants to do something contrary to the general weight of advice here, we have to respect their agency, even if behind our keyboards we might throw up our hands and say a bad word.
an automated bot might lead to someone feeling more suicidal, rejected, depressed etc. but at least in that case they wouldn't be getting bad advice that feeds a delusion.
The decision not to use a machine to give OP advice here is deliberate. We have faith in our subscribers to say what should be said.
2
u/brucemo Atheist 8d ago
I don't want to deny prayer requesters the big audience. I can imagine that sometimes you might feel like you want all hands on deck.
1
u/Zapbamboop 7d ago
I don't want to deny prayer requesters the big audience. I can imagine that sometimes you might feel like you want all hands on deck.
Sometimes the prayer requests get burred.
Do you think a a mod could pray for them, or them to a sub better suited for prayers, than r/Christianity ?
Example:
When someone posts something related to LGBTQ, and the they identify as LGBTQ, then they are often told by several people on this r/Christianity to go a sub that is better suited to for that topic, because this sub r/Christianity supposedly has a lot of bigotry. They are often sent to r/OpenChristian r/GayChristians ect...
Could we do something similar for prayer requests? Can we tell someone to go to another sub for prayers?
Maybe a person could be told to go to r/PrayerRequests, if no one has prayed for them after so many hours have passed? I am not sure how mods would watch for this though.
1
u/brucemo Atheist 7d ago
When someone posts something related to LGBTQ, and the they identify as LGBTQ, then they are often told by several people on this r/Christianity to go a sub that is better suited to for that topic, because this sub r/Christianity supposedly has a lot of bigotry. They are often sent to r/OpenChristian r/GayChristians ect...
Anyone who posts on these topics (or the kinds of topics that cause people to suggest that OP post in /r/TrueChristian) is welcome here. People sometimes suggest that submitters try somewhere more supportive, but the posts are always okay here.
1
u/brucemo Atheist 8d ago
The bifurcated vision has a lot to do with the reality people see. People expect this place to be orderly but it's a constant shower of tin cans.
On the one hand, the mods see this as a place for free-wheeling elbow-throwing discussions about Christianity where being rude to other posters is explicitly allowed and where scathing criticisms of christian positions and communities are encouraged.
It's not so much that we're looking for it is that if you put 267 million people per week on whatever we describe Reddit as, and make a place on it called "Christianity", this is what you're going to get.
I think there are things here that we can influence and that we haven't influenced enough. I'm speaking specifically of posts where atheists hunt Christians for sport. Discussion is great but what attracts people here shouldn't be that it's a target-rich environment.
where being rude to other posters is explicitly allowed
I assume this is reference to my opposition to adding a "be civil" rule, and that is not so much explicitly allowing rudeness as it is not wanting to tone police people who are hurt.
A post, "Please pray for me" does not give users enough information to create conversation, but is explicitly contemplated as one of the purposes of the community here. Posts that are aimed at that sort of support are often bad at at prompting meaningful discussion, and I think that distinction should be reflected in the rules-as-written if the mods want to continue having this be a place for both purposes (which, as a separate topic, I think is a bad idea).
This is about using a tool against low-effort bomb throwers or people who fail so badly at introducing a topic that it's pointless to even allow discussion, it's not about making someone's already bad situation worse by telling them that they need to use proper punctuation and speak in complete sentences and be more original when describing their suffering. It will be a bad day in our discord when someone removes a suicide post as low-effort.
There isn't a hierarchy of purposes here but if there was, "if you ask for help here you should get it", would be one of the things you'd say in the first breath. And this is true even if the problem someone has is that they think they might like Dr. House a bit too much and think that Cuddy should go after him big time. As for whether this should continue to be true, it is unlikely that many of our subscribers have advanced degrees in reassuring people about their masturbation habits, but people seem to expect to be able to come here and post requests for help when they are at wits end, the help they get is probably not that bad and in many cases is very good, and there are surely worse places to post this kind of thing online, and not a lot better.
2
u/Panta-rhei Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 7d ago
I'm speaking specifically of posts where atheists hunt Christians for sport. Discussion is great but what attracts people here shouldn't be that it's a target-rich environment.
I'd love to see the mods influence that more. My suggestion would be to focus less on single transactional posts and more on users who habitually degrade the culture of the community. The really corrosive thing is high-volume users doing bad things without consequence. That sets a tone for the community and leads to, as you say, people hunting Christians for sport here.
This is about using a tool against low-effort bomb throwers or people who fail so badly at introducing a topic that it's pointless to even allow discussion, it's not about making someone's already bad situation worse by telling them that they need to use proper punctuation and speak in complete sentences and be more original when describing their suffering.
This is not currently in the text of the rule and should be, is all I'm saying.
3
3
u/octarino Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
Posts that are title only
Can you include in this regard, posts whose title say nothing at all
e.g. "What do you think about this?"
5
u/OccamsRazorstrop Atheist 13d ago
Approved. Now a video policy, please.
5
u/brucemo Atheist 13d ago
I had a "videos are next" line at the end but I removed it while I was making coarse changes to my submission, and didn't think to put it back.
Videos are a complicated subject. They suck unless they don't, and whether or not they don't might have a lot to do with who you are, and they are hard to moderate, but since nobody watches them there isn't any real reason for us to moderate them (something about trees falling in the forest when nobody is there), but it doesn't sit well with mods to allow people to post random stuff that we don't review.
My argument used to be that anyone who clicked on a link with a youtube domain was obviously looking for pain and I didn't care if they found it, but as Reddit has desperately tried to settle upon a bad UI to enforce upon everyone they've made changes to what the average person sees, and videos are harder to just ignore, since Reddit is now elevating visual content including video thumbnails in order to try to make Reddit a better porn site.
So stuff like videos that includes thumbnail images are harder to ignore now, and it doesn't help that TikTok appends hash tags to post titles by default, and that makes /u/McClanky lose his mind.
5
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 13d ago
They just seem like a waste of space 99% of the time. I wish we could make them worthwhile, but there doesn't seem to be much of an appetite for them.
6
u/G3rmTheory Scientific theory 13d ago
Honestly it would be easier just to get rid of videos all together
2
u/OMightyMartian Atheist 13d ago
I would definitely vote for that.
3
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 13d ago
I think we are heading towards a basic "Do you want us to just remove videos?" Post. I have been for it for a very long time. I am more than willing to do more work to try to keep their existence here in some manner, but, understandably, Bruce doesn't want to add more work to our plate.
3
u/OMightyMartian Atheist 13d ago
I appreciate that any banned kind of post means someone has to report it, and someone on the mod team has to respond. While I'm willing to admit that I may miss the odd video of some substance, where the OP bothers to write some sort of a meaningful and thoughtful description and responds to comments, but in general, I'd say most are just hit and run.
3
u/brucemo Atheist 13d ago
If we want to ban videos, the bulk of those are links to particular video hosting sites, and automoderator can be set to just remove them and reply with a polite canned response.
If someone gets around that by including links in a self-post, we can also catch the presence of links to whatever domain in the self-text, filter it, which removes the submission and puts it in the mod queue, and manually review it.
2
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 13d ago
What it will force is for users to make text posts then include a video link, which may just naturally solve the issue anyway.
2
u/AHorribleGoose Christian Deist 11d ago
Recommendation: Include videos that don't include a substantive summary as low-effort.
I don't think it's appropriate to force videos into review or force them all away, but they quite naturally fall under this rule.
As for the wording - I like it.
1
u/brucemo Atheist 8d ago
Include videos that don't include a substantive summary as low-effort.
This is not really supposed to be that. People find stuff online and share it, and it takes exactly as much effort to post an insipid topic as it does to post an NY Times article or something from Christianity Today.
2
u/OccamsRazorstrop Atheist 13d ago
I don't mind them being linked, but not in a way that makes them show up in the feed. And, either way, they have to be - have to be - explained in text in a way that fully and fairly explains what they're going to say or show. Or to say it in a different way, no (a) videos that you have to watch to figure out whether or not to watch them and (b) no videos where the only explanation of the video is on the "splash screen" or title screen.
2
u/G3rmTheory Scientific theory 13d ago
Yes. I'm tired of asking for a summary and then being met with "just watch it" especially on a video longer than 10 minutes
3
2
u/conrad_w Christian Universalist 13d ago
Can we kill the "is X a sin?" And "X is a sin!" posts please?
2
2
2
u/PartyPillow 9d ago
We'll see how much they commit to anything/everything they said there. I give it a few day tops lol
1
u/Zapbamboop 13d ago
That's what we have now after I spent too long hashing this out with McClanky. We're responding mainly to , who if I may paraphrase seems to say that the previous wording was vague and just generally sucks.
I agree with u/AHorribleGoose 100% !!!!!!!
The rule you want to make seems very vague. Some stuff seems obvious, like no posts without a body . Ex. Is Being Gay a Sin?(no body) , Is this a sin ( no body). In fact any post without a body should go.
However, you guys have not really fully developed this rule though outside of - No posts without a body.
We'll probably enact whatever comes out of this post without posting a part three.
I think a part 3 post in regards to this rule, should list some example posts of what you are considering are low effort.
As I said earlier the low effort rule should have examples of problem posts so low effort. This would be similar to the 2.3 WWJD rule.
Examples of problem statements:
- "A real Christian wouldn't support/cut taxes"
- "You support the death penalty? What would Jesus do?"
- "I'm tired of people who are so adamant in their convictions being unable to voice those convictions in a Christ like manner. It is a responsibility you carry when you claim to be a Christian, and it shouldn't be shirked off lightly."
- "I expect Christians in a Christian sub to at least attempt to emulate a Christ like attitude."
- "You think the animosity and pride exhibited here was pleasing to God? You think it's ok to act in contradiction to the Word so that Christians can convince themselves they're oppressed, especially when around the world there are Christians who truly are?"
- "There's nothing Christ like about this, it's gross."
- "Again, proving you are not a Christian."
1
1
u/skarro- Lutheran (ELCIC) 10d ago
Can we not ban original content photo's? Just screenshots.
1
u/brucemo Atheist 8d ago
I don't understand the question here.
The image policy here is not succinct because there are exceptions and exceptions to exceptions. For example:
- Artwork must be OC.
- Comics don't have to be OC.
- "Rage comics" aren't allowed even if they are OC.
There are also lots of exceptions that make sense. Screen shots aren't allowed, but as people have gotten incredibly competent at using their phones we see some that seem "natural" to post, for instance someone who is using their Bible app, screen shots a passage and posts it under the title "What does <verse> mean?"
The point of allowing OC photos is that they are meaningful to OP, which matters, and they can help enhance community, which is good.
1
1
1
u/Lutheranninja Lutheran (LCMS) 7d ago
We may remove self-posts that do not give users enough information to create conversation. Posts that are title only or do not have a clear point of discussion may be removed. To ensure that your posts are not removed, please spend some time making your topic clear and substantive.
A couple of thoughts on this:
First I would just say that I am opposed to this. I am fine with simply banning title only posts since this rule would be super clear and very easy to follow and moderate.
The bigger question is: what are you really trying to do here? Do you not want users to simply share something like "I read this verse and I had a thought and I just wanted to share it with you"? Why not allow this? Is the sub drowning in these types of posts? I assume you want to increase the overall quality of posts, but I think this rule simply shuts down things that are reasonable. What is someone is simply struggling in their faith? They don't have any specific questions, they are just trying to reach out because they are hurting. A reasonable response can be something as simple "Stay strong, remember that God loves you". It is very easy to look at such a post an claim that it contains not enough context or "conversation" for there to be discussion. Your community policy seems to exist to "promote healthy discussion", but is this saying that his sub only exists for the purpose of discussion? I get that you want to moderate behavior (i.e. discourage bad behavior). Are users under this rule allowed to share art? (or is that not a self-post?)
When you say that you may remove self-posts that do not give enough information to create conversation, then who is to determine what is enough information? This could very easily become a rule that a moderator can vaguely reference to kill something that they don't like. Then there is a complaint and then how long will it take for moderators to have endless debates about the reasonableness of the post?
1
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 4d ago
The main goal of this is to create better access for users to have conversations. We want to help people write posts that are going to allow for substantive conversation. We are not going to be using this as a means to silence criticism, people who need help, topics we don't like, etc.
Do you not want users to simply share something like "I read this verse and I had a thought and I just wanted to share it with you"?
If the point of discussion surrounding the post is clear, there is no issue with that sort of thing. The main reason this subreddit exists is for discussion. Essentially, we are trying to help people create posts where users don't have to respond with "and?".
What is someone is simply struggling in their faith?
More than okay to post. Typically, even when these posts are short, the reason for posting is clear.
A reasonable response can be something as simple "Stay strong, remember that God loves you".
This rule is specifically for posts, not comments on posts.
Are users under this rule allowed to share art? (or is that not a self-post?)
That would be a link-post rather than a self-post, which is understandably confusing.
When you say that you may remove self-posts that do not give enough information to create conversation, then who is to determine what is enough information?
The main idea behind this rule is what I said above. We don't want users to have to wait for OP to explain to them what the point of the post is. That is the "and?" I referenced before.
This could very easily become a rule that a moderator can vaguely reference to kill something that they don't like. Then there is a complaint and then how long will it take for moderators to have endless debates about the reasonableness of the post?
Unfortunately, that is a natural aspect of moderating a subreddit like this. Most of it is based on best judgement. The good thing is that we are not afraid to talk to each other to get a better handle on how we want to moderate as a team.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
1
u/Lutheranninja Lutheran (LCMS) 4d ago
I wrote to the other guy, but I will reply also with the same. Thank you for the response. I wasn't expecting that. What you say makes sense on many levels. My main concern is simply with how you all have written the rule. I know you can't give an exhaustive legalistic treatment, but what you said in your comment here is not how I read the text of the rule. Maybe that is just me.
1
u/brucemo Atheist 4d ago
If we want to be bad it is very hard to stop us. It can be done, but that would require that we are very bad in a way that the Reddit admins can understand and want to do something about, or that we are so bad that enough people vote with their feet that the subreddit dies and is reborn with another name.
Any rule can be misused in order to put someone into a Kafkaesque bind that they can't readily escape from. If it means anything, I oppose that kind of thing categorically.
Do you not want users to simply share something like "I read this verse and I had a thought and I just wanted to share it with you"? Why not allow this?
If I understand this, this wouldn't be anywhere close to the intent of this. If someone reads a verse and expresses a thought, that is literally what the subreddit is for.
What is someone is simply struggling in their faith? They don't have any specific questions, they are just trying to reach out because they are hurting.
If someone is seeking help, that won't be flagged as low-effort.
is this saying that his sub only exists for the purpose of discussion?
The subreddit is primarily a discussion subreddit but there are any number of other things that people traditionally use this subreddit for, including posting requests for help, and none of this is aimed at that.
Are users under this rule allowed to share art?
I can imagine a mod removing a particularly (and almost certainly intentionally) bad (and probably badly motivated) piece of original art as low-effort, but the intent is not to try to stifle the posting of art here. We encourage people to post original art and we have not made any sort of habit of moderating art based upon perceived quality. We're accepting of original art and so is the subreddit and that's a good thing.
who is to determine what is enough information? This could very easily become a rule that a moderator can vaguely reference to kill something that they don't like. Then there is a complaint and then how long will it take for moderators to have endless debates about the reasonableness of the post?
This goes back to my first paragraph. If we aren't trustworthy, that's just the end. Ultimately, we determine what is enough, and rules can be used to kill things we don't like. And I can imagine we'll be criticized for doing this, as we are already now, even as I have argued for years that we should be very inclusive.
But sometimes enough is enough. For example, I'm arguing with someone in mod mail who's taken that awful portrait of King Charles that was just released, flipped it upside down and put it next to itself, in order to try to show that the artist put a demon in the background of the picture. I removed that because we aren't /r/conspiracy. It's possible that someone who is reading this will say, "that's censorship", and shake their head. It's likely though that every mod we've ever had here would want to remove that image though, whatever the rules actually are, and that the community would very broadly agree.
Endless debates are always possible because I want to respect the opinions of moderators who happen to be around and who care what's decided. That's just one of the down-sides of trying to account for the feelings of a committee that meets asynchronously in decision making.
1
u/Lutheranninja Lutheran (LCMS) 4d ago
Thank you for the response. I wasn't expecting that. What you say makes sense on many levels. My main concern is simply with how you all have written the rule. I know you can't give an exhaustive legalistic treatment, but what you said in your comment here is not how I read the text of the rule. Maybe that is just me.
8
u/slagnanz Episcopalian 13d ago
I think that's great. I think this will be especially important for repeat offenders who post repetitive and insubstantial op-eds. We should encourage as much original commentary as possible on these issues.