a guest Sep 11th, 2011 776 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. Initial: yes - 134 no - 230 undef - 339
  2. Total: 134 + 230 = 364
  3. No 230/364 = 63.2%
  4. Yes 134/364 = 36.8%
  7. YES
  8. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  9. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  11. user: ashwinmudigonda time: Sat Sep 10 21:19:50 2011  permalink: c2ixad0
  12. YES
  14. user: h0ncho time: Sat Sep 10 20:47:29 2011  permalink: c2ix2xu
  15. [YES]
  17. user: Grammar_Nazi_Hunter time: Sat Sep 10 20:29:26 2011  permalink: c2iwyov
  18. YES
  20. user: sngldad13 time: Sat Sep 10 18:36:16 2011  permalink: c2iw82u
  21. [YES]
  23. user: rageingnonsense time: Sat Sep 10 16:53:25 2011  permalink: c2ivj1l
  24. [YES]</p><p>I want the facts, not every knucklehead's opinion. We get enough of that shoved down our throats these days. Let people formulate their own opinions. Many self posts are just as bad as when Glenn Beck says some nonsense and touts it as news.</p><p>Self posts here turn this subreddit into a liberal version of "the blaze". It's downright damned embarrassing. This subreddit is FINALLY becoming more moderate and fact driven. I simply hate partisan BS.</p><p>Besides, the majority of self posts are better suited to be comments to already existing articles. Self posts are a cheap ass way to get free karma: "Durr Hannity still hasn't been water boarded for charity after 2390423489 years but I still mention it because most of you hate him and want to see it. Gimme upvotes".
  26. user: yuck_phou time: Sat Sep 10 15:59:13 2011  permalink: c2iv5wj
  27. [YES] fuck cheney_healthcare and the paultards.</p><p>EDIT: May I also point out that I find it amusing that an issue created and pushed by rabid paul-supporters is settled with an <em>online poll</em>.
  29. user: kodemage time: Sat Sep 10 15:58:30 2011  permalink: c2iv5r4
  30. [yes]
  32. user: NomNomDePlume time: Sat Sep 10 15:41:40 2011  permalink: c2iv1wg
  33. [Yes]</p><p>The quality of self posts and the responses dramatically improved when taken off the front page.
  35. user: Dude10101 time: Sat Sep 10 15:31:45 2011  permalink: c2iuzsd
  36. [YES]
  38. user: thefamilyjules42 time: Sat Sep 10 08:12:19 2011  permalink: c2iuvq0
  39. <strong>[YES]</strong>
  41. user: avnerd time: Sat Sep 10 14:45:33 2011  permalink: c2iuqii
  42. [Yes]
  44. user: df1 time: Sat Sep 10 14:30:32 2011  permalink: c2iunxd
  45. [YES] Start a r/"political graffiti" for the narcissists that love to self post.
  47. user: ScaliaDissenting time: Sat Sep 10 14:21:57 2011  permalink: c2iumna
  48. [Yes]
  50. user: Cantras time: Sat Sep 10 13:39:23 2011  permalink: c2iug77
  51. [YES], I prefer the self posts being over in discussions.
  53. user: xtom time: Sat Sep 10 13:24:20 2011  permalink: c2iue6k
  54. [Yes]</p><p>/r/PoliticalDiscussion is fine for self posts. In /r/politics they just become a jizzy mess of a circle jerk appealing to the lowest common denominator of reddit user.</p><p>"LOL Rick Perry is a Douche" (and similar) are not what I want on my frontpage.
  56. user: distopiandreamboy time: Sat Sep 10 13:03:38 2011  permalink: c2iublv
  57. YES
  59. user: wza time: Sat Sep 10 12:50:08 2011  permalink: c2iua1v
  60. YES -- Not because I agree with the decision, but I think mods should set and enforce the rules for their subreddits and if users don't want to follow them they can join/start their own very easily.  Fuck what the majority thinks, the idiots are clearly taking over rapidly--look at all the stupid pictures with text voted to the top in /r/ every day now.  To preserve any semblance of quality, we need clearly defined rules and strict enforcement.
  62. user: RedMushtoom time: Sat Sep 10 12:27:42 2011  permalink: c2iu7l0
  63. [YES]</p><p>The split into /r/politics and /r/PoliticalDiscussion has been a good thing. It's created a new community for people wanting to discuss politics and cleaned up this subreddit for link aggregation.
  65. user: project23 time: Sat Sep 10 04:37:28 2011  permalink: c2iu2sk
  66. YES
  68. user: MrLeap time: Sat Sep 10 04:26:30 2011  permalink: c2iu1te
  69. [YES]
  71. user: ryeinn time: Sat Sep 10 04:22:49 2011  permalink: c2iu1i4
  72. [YES], I enjoy the move to keep discussion either in comments or in a separate subreddit.
  74. user: icko11 time: Sat Sep 10 09:37:58 2011  permalink: c2its7f
  75. [YES]
  77. user: greedylawyer time: Sat Sep 10 09:18:38 2011  permalink: c2itqa5
  78. [Yes]</p><p>I know that this will put me on <a href=";restrict_sr=on"  rel='nofollow'>cheney_healthcare's stalker radar</a>, but I think that /r/politics has improved significantly.
  80. user: en-aye-ese-tee-why time: Sat Sep 10 02:16:03 2011  permalink: c2itq0j
  81. [Yes]
  83. user: PhnomPencil time: Sat Sep 10 02:11:32 2011  permalink: c2itpjn
  84. [YES]
  86. user: barbeltone time: Sat Sep 10 08:39:48 2011  permalink: c2itm1r
  87. [YES]</p><p>I prefer a separate subreddit.
  89. user: flexflair time: Sat Sep 10 00:24:13 2011  permalink: c2itcac
  90. Yes. Just yes.
  92. user: GregoryAllen time: Sat Sep 10 00:15:15 2011  permalink: c2itaza
  93. Yes, keep the self-post ban in place, I like r/Politics without them
  95. user: downvotethis2 time: Sat Sep 10 00:11:13 2011  permalink: c2itaec
  96. [yes]
  98. user: BatmansUtilityBelt time: Sat Sep 10 00:06:20 2011  permalink: c2it9p2
  99. [yes]
  101. user: fLOPS time: Fri Sep 9 23:48:40 2011  permalink: c2it73g
  102. [YES]
  104. user: Xrc23 time: Fri Sep 9 23:40:21 2011  permalink: c2it5t8
  105. [YES]Yes, keep the self-post ban in place, I like r/Politics without them
  107. user: QueenOphelia time: Sat Sep 10 06:12:23 2011  permalink: c2it14r
  108. YES keep it in place but there should be closely related subreddit purely for politically oriented self posts (if there isn't one already to many subreddits to keep track of anymore)</p><p>though Markedwords has a GREAT point, I kind of like r/politics for up to date news and such and I fear it might get over populated with self posts rather than actual articles. granted I could be wrong and I should have more faith in my fellow redditors, but i do know we are a very opinionated bunch at times as there
  110. user: patmarjohn time: Fri Sep 9 23:02:25 2011  permalink: c2isza7
  111. [YES]
  113. user: modestokun time: Sat Sep 10 06:01:17 2011  permalink: c2isz2e
  114. <strong>[YES]</strong> All submissions come with a comment section where people can chat to their hearts content. The forum should be a part of what reddit is, but it shouldn't be everything that reddit is. I want this to be a place where i come to read news, not  editorial pages written by redditors in a single line headline.
  116. user: harlows_monkeys time: Sat Sep 10 06:00:08 2011  permalink: c2isyuo
  117. [YES] There are certain sites, on both the right and the left, that publish poorly researched, misleading articles. Under the current system, we can see the site listed right after the title and know that it's not worth reading.</p><p>With self-posts, many of these will be submitted that way and we will have to actually open the thread, find the link, and mouse over it to see where it comes from.</p><p>Note also that if someone really really wants to initiate a discussion based on some original thought of their own instead of based on some article somewhere, they can trivially post somewhere else such as on Posterous or Tumblr or Google+ or any of the other numerous free places that one can self-publish on the web with little or no set-up, and then submit a link to that.
  119. user: fhsd4264 time: Fri Sep 9 22:59:56 2011  permalink: c2isytd
  120. [Yes]
  122. user: aaronbruh time: Fri Sep 9 22:50:36 2011  permalink: c2isx2k
  123. [YES]
  125. user: the_pessimist time: Fri Sep 9 22:39:46 2011  permalink: c2isv2k
  126. [YES]
  128. user: principle time: Fri Sep 9 22:33:12 2011  permalink: c2istv0
  129. <strong>[YES]</strong>
  131. user: ablescane time: Sat Sep 10 05:31:05 2011  permalink: c2istfe
  132. [YES]There is a tendency for these self-posts to give more weight to sensationalist, reactionary opinion rather than objective facts. I would prefer /r/politics to be a discussion based in fact rather than a flood of self posts claiming that "Candidate X wants to force women to have abortions with coat hangers in back alleys."
  134. user: bsmiles27 time: Fri Sep 9 22:24:59 2011  permalink: c2iss8x
  135. [YES]I like tacos.
  137. user: somnabot time: Fri Sep 9 22:16:20 2011  permalink: c2isqkb
  138. YES = "Yes, keep the self-post ban in place, I like r/Politics without them"
  140. user: Timdegreat time: Fri Sep 9 22:13:16 2011  permalink: c2ispxu
  141. [YES]
  143. user: YertleTheTurtle time: Fri Sep 9 21:50:08 2011  permalink: c2isl7w
  144. [Yes]
  146. user: ModernDayMacGyver time: Fri Sep 9 21:47:12 2011  permalink: c2isklh
  147. [YES]
  149. user: DublinBen time: Fri Sep 9 21:26:35 2011  permalink: c2isfzi
  150. [YES]
  152. user: ohgr4213 time: Sat Sep 10 04:22:12 2011  permalink: c2isf0e
  153. Yes: However, there needs to be some feedback loop like so that the community can hear out complaints and ideas, about r/Politics' future, like weekly mod created selfposts focused on different aspects of how r/Politics thinks of itself. Otherwise the mods of politics are enthroned with no feedback by the users over their decisions, inevitably resulting in post overflow into other subreddits..  Allow there to be a formal public avenue to openly discuss issues or bring up things that could be the topics of future self.politics posts.
  155. user: madam1 time: Sat Sep 10 04:19:01 2011  permalink: c2iseau
  156. [YES]...the politics subreddit has seemed more lucid since the ban went into place.
  158. user: CuilRunnings time: Fri Sep 9 21:07:25 2011  permalink: c2isbom
  159. [YES], its a good start but you can do more as well.
  161. user: Fribrip time: Sat Sep 10 04:01:36 2011  permalink: c2isacw
  162. Yes, keep the self-post ban in place, I like r/Politics without them
  164. user: NightInWhiteSatin2 time: Sat Sep 10 03:50:57 2011  permalink: c2is80n
  165. <strong>[YES]</strong></p><p>Edit: Added boldi-face since some people seem to think that makes the vote more legitimate, and I'm down as fuck with that.
  167. user: winnen time: Fri Sep 9 20:49:09 2011  permalink: c2is7nf
  168. [YES]That is all.
  170. user: CorpusDei time: Sat Sep 10 03:40:19 2011  permalink: c2is5mn
  171. [YES]
  173. user: turtlemama87 time: Sat Sep 10 03:32:05 2011  permalink: c2is3so
  174. [YES]</p><p>I only saw about a week of the old r/politics, but this one is more of a news aggregator with commentary. And I'd rather the commentary stayed in the comments section or Political Discussion. New r/politics is an improvement.
  176. user: mrliver time: Fri Sep 9 20:18:20 2011  permalink: c2is0r0
  177. [YES]
  179. user: dave723 time: Fri Sep 9 20:10:47 2011  permalink: c2irz0k
  180. [YES]
  182. user: rblong2us time: Fri Sep 9 19:40:00 2011  permalink: c2irrvf
  183. [YES]
  185. user: lunkwill time: Fri Sep 9 19:38:28 2011  permalink: c2irri3
  186. [YES]
  188. user: robolib time: Sat Sep 10 02:35:27 2011  permalink: c2irqt4
  189. [YES].  We can have the same discussions within the comments on specific issues that are related to linked information.
  191. user: bfhurricane time: Fri Sep 9 19:33:36 2011  permalink: c2irqdo
  192. [YES]
  194. user: snitch1968 time: Fri Sep 9 19:21:22 2011  permalink: c2irnjd
  195. [YES]</p><p>Switch it up. Do a whole month with nothing <em>but</em> self posts. It worked for /r/fitness.
  197. user: calicorn time: Fri Sep 9 19:19:49 2011  permalink: c2irn7j
  198. [YES]
  200. user: wemptronics time: Fri Sep 9 19:18:13 2011  permalink: c2irmuu
  201. [YES]
  203. user: 5amename time: Sat Sep 10 02:12:59 2011  permalink: c2irlq4
  204. [YES]</p><p>The ban (while counter to the upvote/downvote system of governance) is thoroughly enjoyed by me.</p><p>I would rather read information about factual events than a daily slew of appeals to emotion.
  206. user: keyuubi time: Fri Sep 9 19:02:22 2011  permalink: c2irjd9
  207. YES
  209. user: protagonic time: Fri Sep 9 18:56:56 2011  permalink: c2iri4a
  210. [YES]
  212. user: Corbenik time: Fri Sep 9 18:52:25 2011  permalink: c2irh3c
  213. [YES]
  215. user: outwrangle time: Fri Sep 9 18:51:01 2011  permalink: c2irgs8
  216. [YES]
  218. user: IcarusDrake time: Fri Sep 9 18:45:29 2011  permalink: c2irfke
  219. [YES]
  221. user: Rahms time: Fri Sep 9 18:44:38 2011  permalink: c2irfdm
  222. [YES]
  224. user: ZorbaTHut time: Fri Sep 9 18:44:01 2011  permalink: c2irf8r
  225. [YES]
  227. user: Lugash time: Fri Sep 9 18:41:24 2011  permalink: c2iremh
  228. [YES] Keep the self-post ban
  230. user: Higherpockets time: Fri Sep 9 18:40:06 2011  permalink: c2irebs
  231. [Yes]
  233. user: lolmunkies time: Fri Sep 9 18:22:06 2011  permalink: c2ira2i
  234. <strong>[Yes]</strong>
  236. user: sloppy time: Fri Sep 9 18:12:20 2011  permalink: c2ir7sv
  237. Yes
  239. user: wldmn13 time: Fri Sep 9 18:09:11 2011  permalink: c2ir730
  240. [YES]
  242. user: louis_xiv42 time: Sat Sep 10 01:08:40 2011  permalink: c2ir6yn
  243. [YES] Keep the self posts in r/circlejerk. Anything of importance can link to an image graphic with words and details ect.
  245. user: tret2 time: Fri Sep 9 18:06:28 2011  permalink: c2ir6et
  246. [YES]
  248. user: crazyex time: Fri Sep 9 18:05:02 2011  permalink: c2ir63a
  249. [YES]</p><p>Anything that helps tone down the circlejerk is a welcome addition
  251. user: thenumber28 time: Fri Sep 9 18:04:20 2011  permalink: c2ir5wv
  252. [YES]</p><p>forgot there was even a ban in place, that's how much I cared about self-posts.
  254. user: Rumple_Manskin time: Fri Sep 9 18:04:03 2011  permalink: c2ir5u9
  255. Yes, I'd rather see actual articles than random people's opinions.
  257. user: itsrattlesnake time: Sat Sep 10 00:57:39 2011  permalink: c2ir4dj
  258. [YES]</p><p>r/politics now has more content that I care about and, omg, an occasional article from the right pops up once in a while.  r/politicaldiscussion will grow.  Currently, that subreddit is quite a bit like r/moderatepolitics and I love it.</p><p>Also, the self posts weren't 'great discussion'.  It was a bunch of people drooling all over how much they agree with each other's 'x' liberal opinion or philosophy.
  260. user: MrGravityPants time: Fri Sep 9 17:54:35 2011  permalink: c2ir3ob
  261. yes
  263. user: LuckyBdx4 time: Fri Sep 9 17:50:10 2011  permalink: c2ir2mf
  264. <strong>[YES]</strong>
  266. user: junni time: Fri Sep 9 17:45:14 2011  permalink: c2ir1ik
  267. Yes.
  269. user: TheRealNinjaMike time: Fri Sep 9 17:42:17 2011  permalink: c2ir0vy
  270. yes. thank you.
  272. user: Samuel_Gompers time: Sat Sep 10 00:20:27 2011  permalink: c2iqvp6
  273. <strong>[Yes]</strong></p><p>I think that the community created in r/PoliticalDiscussion has been a lot of fun. Discussion is actually tolerable as opposed to some of the self posts in r/Politics. If you really like self posts, please consider r/PoliticalDiscussion.
  275. user: SomeKindOfDeveloper time: Fri Sep 9 17:20:13 2011  permalink: c2iqvn2
  276. [YES] Keep it
  278. user: borisia time: Sat Sep 10 00:19:17 2011  permalink: c2iqveh
  279. [YES]</p><p>I want links to articles and outside sources, if I want someone's stupid shit I'd go to /r/metacirclejerk or /r/politicaldiscussion.
  281. user: dylansucks time: Fri Sep 9 17:17:03 2011  permalink: c2iquvd
  282. [YES]
  284. user: SolInvictus time: Sat Sep 10 00:16:58 2011  permalink: c2iquus
  285. <strong>[YES]</strong> The ban should continue. I prefer to read articles written by those with educated opinions rather than thinly veiled "DAE" posts about someone's favorite politician.
  287. user: Goofchea time: Fri Sep 9 17:15:45 2011  permalink: c2iquja
  288. <strong>[YES]</strong>
  290. user: Rufuz42 time: Fri Sep 9 23:56:26 2011  permalink: c2iqpxz
  291. Yes. I'd also like to be able to report users for misleading titles and extreme hyperbole, but I doubt that will happen. I'm a liberal and it's gotten to the point to where I click on the comments before the article 100% of the time to make sure I'm not about to read something completely unrelated or even different than the title suggests.
  293. user: crashorbit time: Fri Sep 9 16:52:33 2011  permalink: c2iqp06
  294. [yes]  Nuff said
  296. user: gc4life time: Fri Sep 9 23:47:53 2011  permalink: c2iqnvu
  297. [YES]</p><p>While the circlejerk is still strong, removing self posts reduced that quality of /r/politics to a noticeable degree. I, personally, don't care about the karma aspect of the issue; the plethora of personal view rants masquerading as discussion are much more bothersome to me. Keep the ban.
  299. user: MattVortex time: Fri Sep 9 16:42:21 2011  permalink: c2iqmkr
  300. <strong>[YES]</strong>
  302. user: Corlando time: Fri Sep 9 16:37:33 2011  permalink: c2iqlf5
  303. YES
  305. user: greenascanbe time: Fri Sep 9 16:37:28 2011  permalink: c2iqle9
  306. Yes thank you
  308. user: bigplansisay time: Fri Sep 9 23:27:12 2011  permalink: c2iqiv6
  309. [YES] far too many /self posts contain trite and overstated points of view. Yes, the system is broken, no you're not the first to notice.
  311. user: ynohoo time: Fri Sep 9 16:26:04 2011  permalink: c2iqik5
  312. [YES] Perversely, because I like finding juicy /r/PoliticalDiscussion/ all together in one place!
  314. user: garyp714 time: Fri Sep 9 23:25:01 2011  permalink: c2iqiak
  315. <strong>[YES]</strong></p><p>At first I was pissed that they were removed but since have grown to like the separation very much.</p><p>I also really like the tenor of r/politicaldiscussion and wish you guys would sign up for it.
  317. user: chiguy time: Fri Sep 9 16:19:53 2011  permalink: c2iqh0x
  318. yes, uphold it.
  320. user: birkirsig time: Fri Sep 9 16:13:16 2011  permalink: c2iqfd0
  321. YES
  323. user: M_Decanterwauler time: Fri Sep 9 16:10:45 2011  permalink: c2iqepx
  324. [YES]</p><p>Because fuck Ron Paul and his blithering acolytes.
  326. user: jec68 time: Fri Sep 9 23:10:38 2011  permalink: c2iqeor
  327. [YES] The sort of self posts that make the front page are truly a laugh.  "Self: aren't Republicans idiots?"</p><p>Give me a break.
  329. user: AskMeLater time: Fri Sep 9 15:59:00 2011  permalink: c2iqbqd
  330. [YES]
  332. user: those_draculas time: Fri Sep 9 15:55:05 2011  permalink: c2iqaqp
  333. [YES]
  335. user: Asmodaeus time: Fri Sep 9 15:54:38 2011  permalink: c2iqamy
  336. YES
  338. user: c0pypastry time: Fri Sep 9 22:54:06 2011  permalink: c2iqahn
  339. [YES]</p><p>I didn't actually realize there was a selfpost ban, but I definitely noticed the pronounced drop in jerkcircles. If the selfpost ban is responsible for this jerkcircle reduction, then keep it.
  341. user: brosea time: Fri Sep 9 15:54:03 2011  permalink: c2iqah8
  342. yes
  344. user: carlosspicywe1ner time: Fri Sep 9 15:53:46 2011  permalink: c2iqaeb
  345. [YES]
  347. user: schoofer time: Fri Sep 9 15:52:44 2011  permalink: c2iqa46
  348. [YES]</p><p>It's been much nicer without as much hyperbole.
  350. user: SeriousBlack time: Fri Sep 9 15:47:49 2011  permalink: c2iq8uq
  351. Yes!!
  353. user: ewest time: Fri Sep 9 15:42:41 2011  permalink: c2iq7gs
  354. [YES PLEASE] This measure has cut the amount of Ron Paul c-jerking in half.
  356. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 16:56:04 2011  permalink: c2iqpv1
  357. Yes I also support censoring the opinion of those I disagree with /s
  359. user: flytrap7 time: Fri Sep 9 15:37:33 2011  permalink: c2iq63w
  360. [YES]
  362. user: ThePenguinist time: Fri Sep 9 15:19:41 2011  permalink: c2iq1bn
  363. [YES]
  365. user: phdre time: Fri Sep 9 15:19:30 2011  permalink: c2iq19s
  366. [YES]
  368. user: WarPhalange time: Fri Sep 9 22:17:29 2011  permalink: c2iq0qx
  369. [YES]</p><p>It's very nice to not have the front page of /r/politics cluttered with quotes from historical figures with no discussion following it. I'm happy with the way things are.
  371. user: TheCid time: Fri Sep 9 22:12:33 2011  permalink: c2ipze3
  372. [YES]</p><p>There were too many dumb posts. In theory I'd like to keep them around, but in practice it's easy enough to go to dkos or wherever if you <em>actually are</em> writing a substantive post and link to it, not just "upvote if you like RON PAUL" garbage.
  374. user: Briguy24 time: Fri Sep 9 15:07:24 2011  permalink: c2ipy0t
  375. [YES] Please continue with the ban.
  377. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Fri Sep 9 15:06:53 2011  permalink: c2ipxvc
  378. YES, definitely
  380. user: miles32 time: Fri Sep 9 15:06:46 2011  permalink: c2ipxu9
  381. [YES] what happens if I put a (no) after that?
  383. user: dfaraci time: Fri Sep 9 15:05:15 2011  permalink: c2ipxg1
  384. YES
  386. user: SidtheMagicLobster time: Fri Sep 9 22:03:37 2011  permalink: c2ipx07
  387. [YES] The posts are more pointless noise than anything else, and the discussions in them aren't generally all that productive or insightful.
  389. user: BigMountainStorm time: Fri Sep 9 14:58:57 2011  permalink: c2ipvsc
  390. [YES]
  392. user: ThereWillBeSwearing time: Fri Sep 9 14:57:12 2011  permalink: c2ipvai
  393. [YES]
  395. user: dzneill time: Fri Sep 9 14:56:13 2011  permalink: c2ipv0h
  396. YES
  398. user: dstarman time: Fri Sep 9 14:53:07 2011  permalink: c2ipu5d
  399. [YES]
  401. user: habaker91 time: Fri Sep 9 21:51:40 2011  permalink: c2iptqz
  402. [YES] this place is too big and too retardly partisan for there to be self posts. If you want to rant take it to <a href="" >r/PoliticalDiscussion</a>
  404. user: davidreiss666 time: Fri Sep 9 21:51:34 2011  permalink: c2iptpz
  405. YES:   I don't really like them.   They are normally just somebody venting about something.... and while I get that people like to vent, I don't like having to hear it.</p><p>So, I think they should stay gone.
  407. user: acct_rdt time: Fri Sep 9 14:48:42 2011  permalink: c2ipsvd
  408. [YES]
  410. user: gorilla_the_ape time: Fri Sep 9 21:42:29 2011  permalink: c2ipr1y
  411. [YES]</p><p>The self posts rarely added anything and usually ended up being a total waste of time. There are oodles of alternative subreddits which could be used instead, eg and often /r/conspiracy
  412. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  415. NO
  416. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  417. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  419. user: PasswordIsntHAMSTER time: Sun Sep 11 01:16:01 2011  permalink: c2iyre0
  420. [NO]
  422. user: chainersedict time: Sun Sep 11 00:42:27 2011  permalink: c2iyk1c
  423. [NO]
  425. user: Karunamon time: Sat Sep 10 21:18:32 2011  permalink: c2ixa2e
  426. [NO]</p><p>And your numbering system is broken as hell. Crappy self posts will be downvoted, good ones will not.
  428. user: sinnerG time: Sat Sep 10 21:17:53 2011  permalink: c2ix9x4
  429. [NO] No, I do NOT like the self-post ban in r/Politics, please remove it.</p><p>Also, I think it seems the default is that without a super-majority voting NO, then the ban stays in place. I think that is bogus, and a form of censorship of the community by the mods.
  431. user: SubGothius time: Sat Sep 10 20:54:47 2011  permalink: c2ix4mu
  432. [NO] but maintain /r/PoliticalDiscussion in tandem with self posts in /r/Politics anyway, as it's nice to have a lower-volume sub with more focused, poliwonky discussion.
  434. user: saute time: Sat Sep 10 20:23:01 2011  permalink: c2iwx5b
  435. [NO]
  437. user: JewishIGuess time: Sat Sep 10 20:00:23 2011  permalink: c2iwrqr
  438. [NO]
  440. user: rainbowjarhead time: Sat Sep 10 19:55:50 2011  permalink: c2iwqog
  441. [No]
  443. user: McJovis time: Sat Sep 10 19:39:01 2011  permalink: c2iwmtt
  444. [NO]
  446. user: Cythrosi time: Sat Sep 10 19:15:06 2011  permalink: c2iwhb1
  447. NO</p><p>If people dislike them, there is a hide button.
  449. user: rawveggies time: Sat Sep 10 18:47:42 2011  permalink: c2iwask
  450. [NO] I think it made /r/politics seem like a less snarky version of fark, there are lots of sites that just link to the popular media stories of the day, no need for another one.
  452. user: zaelore time: Sat Sep 10 18:32:15 2011  permalink: c2iw763
  453. [NO]
  455. user: 6079SmithW time: Sat Sep 10 18:19:17 2011  permalink: c2iw456
  456. [NO]
  458. user: goodbetterbestbested time: Sat Sep 10 18:12:42 2011  permalink: c2iw2kw
  459. [NO]</p><p>edit: added brackets
  461. user: orangecrushucf time: Sat Sep 10 17:57:29 2011  permalink: c2ivyy3
  462. [NO]</p><p>I feel that determining what sort of posts are "worthwhile" is the job of the community/upvotes, not moderators.
  464. user: lsmnr time: Sat Sep 10 10:42:41 2011  permalink: c2ivvb4
  465. [NO] although it really doesn't matter that much for various reasons.
  467. user: dnm time: Sat Sep 10 10:35:43 2011  permalink: c2ivtkf
  468. [NO]
  470. user: RoboticParadox time: Sat Sep 10 17:18:51 2011  permalink: c2ivpao
  471. [NO]
  473. user: aloeveraone time: Sat Sep 10 10:15:45 2011  permalink: c2ivoj8
  474. [NO]
  476. user: tsdguy time: Sat Sep 10 17:14:27 2011  permalink: c2ivo7m
  477. [NO]</p><p>Can we also vote on the chance the mods will change this regardless of the voting?
  479. user: Majere time: Sat Sep 10 17:05:59 2011  permalink: c2ivm76
  480. [NO]</p><p>Edit: After reading some of the arguments in favor of keeping them, I think there's a good argument for keeping them and I'm throwing my support behind allowing Self-Posts, let the users decide through the vote.
  482. user: jmk4422 time: Sat Sep 10 16:52:07 2011  permalink: c2iviox
  483. <strong>[NO]</strong></p><p>A vocal minority of /r/politics got upset with the popularity of self posts and the mods decided to cave to them and remove such posts altogether. Censorship at its most disgusting if you ask me.</p><p><strong>This is reddit. If you don't like something you can downvote it. If things you don't like remain popular anyway, too bad.</strong></p><p>Kudos to the mods for letting the community have a voice in the future of this ass-backwards policy, by the way. Having skimmed through this thread, I think self posts will be back very soon. As they should be.
  485. user: EnkiVsEnlil time: Sat Sep 10 16:42:14 2011  permalink: c2ivg8o
  486. [NO]</p><p>Politics is a <em>living discussion</em> period.</p><p>To ban opinion based posts by .self yet accept opinion based posts with a link shows how stupid the moderators are.</p><ul><li><p> Opinion from blog (Accepted)</p></li><li><p> Opinion from me  (not accepted)</p></li></ul><p>what the fuck is the difference? The message is what is important, discussion not someones idea of a filter.</p><p><strong>Moderators should have (D), (R) or (I) near their names</strong></p><p>Edit: grammar/emphasis
  488. user: Griffinheart time: Sat Sep 10 09:27:40 2011  permalink: c2ivcs7
  489. [NO]
  491. user: ArmchairExpurt time: Sat Sep 10 16:22:47 2011  permalink: c2ivbjn
  492. [NO]</p><p>As much as I hate circlejerks, I'm able to ignore things I don't care for and move on.
  494. user: SteelDragons time: Sat Sep 10 16:03:46 2011  permalink: c2iv6zu
  495. [NO]  How are we meant to have a discussion when no one can give their opinions outside of a comment box?  Also if people don't like the front page content, downvote it!
  497. user: DharmaPolice time: Sat Sep 10 15:53:48 2011  permalink: c2iv4pq
  498. [NO] thank you.
  500. user: thatusernameisal time: Sat Sep 10 08:41:27 2011  permalink: c2iv1ul
  501. NO
  503. user: AlexWhite time: Sat Sep 10 15:33:40 2011  permalink: c2iv06k
  504. [No]</p><p>I don't need mods to tell me what good content is.
  506. user: mowmow time: Sat Sep 10 15:22:08 2011  permalink: c2iuxre
  507. [NO]
  509. user: papertrowel time: Sat Sep 10 15:21:59 2011  permalink: c2iuxqd
  510. [NO]
  512. user: rightc0ast time: Sat Sep 10 15:10:42 2011  permalink: c2iuve8
  513. [NO]</p><p>Stop restricting our posting ability. Let votes matter here, not the whims of our mods. For that matter, they should remove the selectively enforced, politically driven, "editorializing" rules as well.
  515. user: midhorn time: Sat Sep 10 15:10:23 2011  permalink: c2iuvbz
  516. No. For obvious reasons.
  518. user: Jamblin time: Sat Sep 10 15:01:39 2011  permalink: c2iutmv
  519. [NO]
  521. user: arcelios time: Sat Sep 10 14:34:11 2011  permalink: c2iuogs
  522. [NO]
  524. user: omegapopcorn time: Sat Sep 10 13:46:48 2011  permalink: c2iuh8r
  525. [No]The politics thread's content should not be limited to legitimate news sources.  This is an unnecessary constraint that makes it more difficult for the average user to express insightful political viewpoints.
  527. user: WillPunForKarma time: Sat Sep 10 13:44:25 2011  permalink: c2iugwq
  528. [NO]... Couldn't tell the difference, so probably not working. Would prefer more attention to the same article being posted 10 times in the same day...
  530. user: boogabooga08 time: Sat Sep 10 06:42:30 2011  permalink: c2iugmn
  531. no
  533. user: HypoLuxa time: Sat Sep 10 13:34:38 2011  permalink: c2iufj8
  534. {NO} You idiots actually banned self-posts? Reddit works on what the readers want (by ya know, upvotes and downvotes), mods keep the fuck out of it. Stupidest thing I have ever heard.
  536. user: Ragnrok time: Sat Sep 10 13:24:27 2011  permalink: c2iue76
  537. [NO]</p><p>Fuck that shit.
  539. user: fuzzytoe time: Sat Sep 10 13:02:33 2011  permalink: c2iubhv
  540. [No] Although I think the sub is definitely more clean cut than previously, I think the ban of self-posts is too restrictive. I think the focus should be more on eliminating re-posts, particularly when the link is different but the article is the same (especially bad with AP stuff).
  542. user: icehole time: Sat Sep 10 12:59:20 2011  permalink: c2iub4g
  543. No
  545. user: alhanna92 time: Sat Sep 10 12:34:29 2011  permalink: c2iu8c7
  546. [NO]</p><p>Also, downvoting certain opinions because you are against them is against Rettiquette. Please refrain from doing so!
  548. user: MicroBoehner time: Sat Sep 10 05:25:15 2011  permalink: c2iu7cc
  549. NO because im gay
  551. user: heelspider time: Sat Sep 10 05:24:59 2011  permalink: c2iu7bd
  552. [No]
  554. user: walterbeep time: Sat Sep 10 12:06:08 2011  permalink: c2iu5j4
  555. [NO]
  557. user: joedirt123 time: Sat Sep 10 04:49:03 2011  permalink: c2iu3u5
  558. [NO]
  560. user: pssvr time: Sat Sep 10 10:49:11 2011  permalink: c2itynj
  561. <strong>[NO]</strong></p><p>The support self-post ban is essentially rooted in the idea that /r/politics can be objective and divorced from our personal opinions. This is beyond ludicrous. Politics <strong>is</strong> normative. It <strong>is</strong> opinionated. If we admit the opinionated nature of politics, we can address it. But attempts to sweep it under the rug generally come from the most biased people of all.
  563. user: johnlabmonkey time: Sat Sep 10 10:43:42 2011  permalink: c2ity6d
  564. [NO]
  566. user: moezaly time: Sat Sep 10 03:33:47 2011  permalink: c2itxcw
  567. [NO] Nice to see a cat fight once in a while
  569. user: Bain time: Sat Sep 10 03:26:44 2011  permalink: c2itwqu
  570. [No]
  572. user: novasatori time: Sat Sep 10 10:20:31 2011  permalink: c2itw73
  573. [NO]
  575. user: StreetMailbox time: Sat Sep 10 02:52:55 2011  permalink: c2ittmt
  576. <strong>[NO]</strong>
  578. user: hansn time: Sat Sep 10 09:42:03 2011  permalink: c2itsm0
  579. No, please allow self posts.</p><p>Some of the most recognized content on reddit, such as the rally for sanity, originated with r/politics self posts. Many self posts were getting far more upvotes than r/PoliticalDiscussions has subscribers, suggesting that moving discussions there was a failed experiment.</p><p>Side note, it would have been better to phrase the question so that an affirmative does not indicate a negative.
  581. user: slapchopsuey time: Sat Sep 10 18:39:02 2011  permalink: c2iw8sc
  582. No, Abstain means they see this matter before them, and consciously decide to not take a position on changing the status quo (the self-post ban).</p><p>For whatever it's worth (and it's clearly not worth anything to you, but we hope others value the volunteer effort the mods put into making /politics a worthwhile experience for subscribers), we're not locked into black and white thinking like you are. Abstains are not a NO, and yet they're not a YES. They're an "other", a "I can't be arsed to give a Y/N" or "I'm leaving it to the mods to decide". You're unfortunately not capable of seeing any more than two sides, but we are, and the three options in the vote are all factoring into it in their own way.</p><p>This is like describing a complex world of a spectrum of color and a spectrum of gray to people that can only see in simply the blackest of black and the whitest of white. Whatever happened, whether the color and gradient receptors just were never there to begin with, or whether they're atrophied from a series of life experiences that encouraged their neglect, those who see the spectrum of color and the spectrum of grays between black and white are fundamentally different from those who see purely in black and white. The decisions people make when seeing the spectrum will seem contradictory, confusing, inexplicable, even hypocritical to those who just cannot see anything other than a binary choice of black and white, good and bad, yes and no.</p><p>We're just going to disagree on this.
  584. user: baney time: Sat Sep 10 08:39:39 2011  permalink: c2itm16
  585. [NO]
  587. user: pseudonym42 time: Sat Sep 10 08:37:53 2011  permalink: c2itlua
  588. [NO]
  590. user: LenMahl time: Sat Sep 10 01:32:52 2011  permalink: c2itl9f
  591. [NO] Repeal the ban. Let the users self-moderate.
  593. user: TheRunningMan2 time: Sat Sep 10 08:06:55 2011  permalink: c2iti3v
  594. NO: I'd have to agree that some of the self posts were beneficial and spurred discussion.  A sub with just one or the other is not working in my view. Keep the emphasis on fact based article and posts.  But people need to vent and this is the best way to share it.  Bring the self posts back.
  596. user: redditmodscansuckit time: Sat Sep 10 08:03:17 2011  permalink: c2ithmr
  597. [NO]
  599. user: carac time: Sat Sep 10 07:59:30 2011  permalink: c2ith4x
  600. [NO] - voting should take care of this
  602. user: blackkettle time: Sat Sep 10 07:53:46 2011  permalink: c2itgdo
  603. [NO]
  605. user: VsAcesoVer time: Sat Sep 10 07:25:57 2011  permalink: c2itcjb
  606. [NO] because sometimes a self post is the only way to say what you're trying to say.  It's a public forum, it should remain as such
  608. user: vannucker time: Sat Sep 10 07:22:29 2011  permalink: c2itc1e
  609. [NO] If the self posts suck they will be voted down. That is the point of the up and down vote system. Keep self posts. What is this, Communist China?
  611. user: Chiburger time: Fri Sep 9 23:57:52 2011  permalink: c2it8hv
  612. [NO]
  614. user: averybadfriend time: Sat Sep 10 06:55:28 2011  permalink: c2it856
  615. [NO]While it does clear up rants and clutter, a political forum more than any other place should have a means for people to share their thoughts, wisdom and experiences however uninteresting some might find them.
  617. user: bulletproofcourier time: Fri Sep 9 23:45:53 2011  permalink: c2it6ny
  618. [NO]
  620. user: Ralod time: Fri Sep 9 23:44:09 2011  permalink: c2it6e7
  621. <strong>[NO]</strong></p><p>Can we ban Ron Paul supporters instead? kidding:)
  623. user: PrBlahBlahtson time: Fri Sep 9 23:38:14 2011  permalink: c2it5i4
  624. [NO]</p><p>The self-posts at least dilute the sensationalist, misleading titles that get upvoted.
  626. user: fivexthethird time: Fri Sep 9 23:37:30 2011  permalink: c2it5e4
  627. <strong>[NO]</strong>
  629. user: Vanakkam time: Sat Sep 10 06:33:37 2011  permalink: c2it4qi
  630. [NO]
  632. user: palsh7 time: Sat Sep 10 06:32:12 2011  permalink: c2it4hx
  633. [No]</p><p>While a great many worthless posts succeeded under the banner of self-posts, the banning of self-posts is tantamount to the banning of information and freedom of said information. Too much worthy user-generated content has been banned since the self-post ban.
  635. user: justsomestardust time: Fri Sep 9 23:22:24 2011  permalink: c2it2u6
  636. No
  638. user: bigbabyb time: Sat Sep 10 05:58:45 2011  permalink: c2isylc
  639. [NO]</p><p>Politics are meant to be discussed. That's why we live in democracies. And if you don't live in a democracy, all the more reason to discuss issues. Reddit is a good community. Allow for political discussion on all levels with all conflicting opinions.
  641. user: zestycloud time: Fri Sep 9 22:56:13 2011  permalink: c2isy4n
  642. [NO]
  644. user: johnskiddles time: Fri Sep 9 22:49:14 2011  permalink: c2iswu8
  645. [NO]
  647. user: PDXracer time: Fri Sep 9 22:44:36 2011  permalink: c2isvz6
  648. [No]
  650. user: Gadden time: Fri Sep 9 22:42:59 2011  permalink: c2isvol
  651. [NO]
  653. user: Tuxmask55 time: Fri Sep 9 22:39:34 2011  permalink: c2isv1c
  654. NO
  656. user: savngtheworld time: Sat Sep 10 05:39:24 2011  permalink: c2isv06
  657. [NO] Self post are valuable, tho they can in and of themselves be circlejerkish, adding r/politicaldiscussions as an additional subreddit with only a SMAAAAAAALLLLL fraction of the r/politics subscribers does not fix this problem, and it is not actually a complete circle jerk, proving that self posts aren't the MAIN problem.</p><p>Yes, self posts with sensationalist titles are a problem, but perhaps you could add a "ban" this BS next to the "report" link under submissions to let users decide what is and isn't worthy of r/politics.</p><p>Simply banning all self posts isn't the way to fix the problem.  Allow them, but add the Ban link in addition to downvoting to clean the place up a bit.  I will say tho that I do admire and appreciate the effort on the part of the mods to make the environment better for all users, just tone the extremism down a bit boys and girls.
  659. user: political time: Fri Sep 9 22:25:54 2011  permalink: c2issfl
  660. [NO] Only ban spam.
  662. user: LaheyDrinks time: Fri Sep 9 22:19:20 2011  permalink: c2isr51
  663. [NO]
  665. user: anutensil time: Sat Sep 10 05:09:42 2011  permalink: c2isp96
  666. [NO]
  668. user: dieyoung time: Sat Sep 10 05:05:55 2011  permalink: c2isogs
  669. [NO] Now you narrow political discussion to only what articles are written about something. You are stifling the spread of ideas, I don't know why you guys did it in the first place.
  671. user: Oryx time: Fri Sep 9 22:05:42 2011  permalink: c2isofc
  672. NO</p><p>"No, I do NOT like the self-post ban in r/Politics, please remove it."
  674. user: dinnercoat time: Fri Sep 9 22:02:27 2011  permalink: c2isnsu
  675. [NO]
  677. user: ZgokE time: Fri Sep 9 21:56:41 2011  permalink: c2ismln
  678. No
  680. user: nowellmaybe time: Fri Sep 9 21:50:42 2011  permalink: c2islcr
  681. [No]
  683. user: TheDredger time: Fri Sep 9 21:50:04 2011  permalink: c2isl7b
  684. [NO]
  686. user: tsukiko time: Fri Sep 9 21:46:07 2011  permalink: c2iskd2
  687. [NO]
  689. user: ThatFuh_Qr time: Sat Sep 10 04:45:21 2011  permalink: c2isk7w
  690. [NO] r/politics has been kinda slow as of late... re-allowing self posts will generate more content for discussion.
  692. user: Necessity time: Fri Sep 9 21:43:53 2011  permalink: c2isjvm
  693. [NO]
  695. user: danielgraystone time: Fri Sep 9 21:42:03 2011  permalink: c2isjgn
  696. [NO]
  698. user: aeriwyn time: Fri Sep 9 21:41:07 2011  permalink: c2isj8v
  699. [no]
  701. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 04:39:56 2011  permalink: c2isiyr
  702. <strong>[NO]</strong></p><blockquote><p>we want the opinion of a solid majority to make any changes</p></blockquote><p>What is the default? If not enough people vote, is the default to bring back self posts or not?</p><p>The default should be to bring the self post back--since that change was made without <em>any</em> voting.
  704. user: Philosopher_King time: Fri Sep 9 21:38:11 2011  permalink: c2isike
  705. No
  707. user: BatChainPuller time: Fri Sep 9 21:37:29 2011  permalink: c2isier
  708. [NO]
  710. user: jaxcs time: Sat Sep 10 04:36:51 2011  permalink: c2isia4
  711. [NO] Don't like Ron Paul, admit self posts can be crazy rude but hate censorship. Voting determines value. Would like ability to ban users like in digg.
  713. user: mellowgreen time: Fri Sep 9 21:33:36 2011  permalink: c2ishjm
  714. [NO]</p><p>I liked the self posts.  If you don't like it, don't read it.
  716. user: BattleTard time: Fri Sep 9 21:31:24 2011  permalink: c2ish28
  717. [NO]
  719. user: scy1192 time: Fri Sep 9 21:24:54 2011  permalink: c2isfm3
  720. [NO]</p><p>I don't really have much to add.
  722. user: rastabrah time: Fri Sep 9 21:19:25 2011  permalink: c2isedm
  723. NO.
  725. user: gmbel time: Fri Sep 9 21:12:59 2011  permalink: c2iscyv
  726. [NO]
  728. user: invisiblecarrot time: Fri Sep 9 21:12:03 2011  permalink: c2iscrl
  729. [NO]
  731. user: johngault time: Fri Sep 9 21:07:45 2011  permalink: c2isbre
  732. [NO]
  734. user: huntwhales time: Fri Sep 9 21:07:17 2011  permalink: c2isbnq
  735. [NO]
  737. user: jvjava time: Fri Sep 9 21:02:25 2011  permalink: c2isajq
  738. NO
  740. user: Oo0o8o0oO time: Fri Sep 9 21:02:05 2011  permalink: c2isahg
  741. [No.]</p><p>Reasons and stuff.
  743. user: Troybatroy time: Fri Sep 9 21:00:45 2011  permalink: c2isa62
  744. [No].
  746. user: ThePhaedrus time: Fri Sep 9 20:56:40 2011  permalink: c2is9af
  747. <strong>[NO]</strong>
  749. user: fishrobe time: Sat Sep 10 03:56:06 2011  permalink: c2is964
  750. [NO]</p><p>While some self-posts are inane, there is much valued discussion in many of them.  let the community decide what's a circlejerk with the upvote/downvote.  while some stupid crap will get through, i miss a lot of the ideas that came from self posts, and i have not once gone to r/political discussion, which still only has a little more than 2000 readers.</p><p>TL;DR: there's a lot of lively, intelligent discussion that has left r/politics since the ban.
  752. user: owlmanatt time: Fri Sep 9 20:55:57 2011  permalink: c2is94w
  753. [NO]
  755. user: redblender time: Fri Sep 9 20:55:50 2011  permalink: c2is93w
  756. [NO]
  758. user: bedlinen time: Fri Sep 9 20:48:45 2011  permalink: c2is7jo
  759. [NO]
  761. user: rokstar66 time: Fri Sep 9 20:43:59 2011  permalink: c2is6gm
  762. [NO]
  764. user: DontCountToday time: Fri Sep 9 20:23:38 2011  permalink: c2is1wu
  765. [NO]
  767. user: Exterminator_Jeff time: Fri Sep 9 20:23:07 2011  permalink: c2is1sl
  768. [NO]
  770. user: roland333 time: Fri Sep 9 20:21:04 2011  permalink: c2is1d5
  771. [NO]
  773. user: baptizedbycobalt time: Fri Sep 9 20:14:41 2011  permalink: c2irzxd
  774. [NO] There is a way to filter out low-quality posts. It's a little blue arrow.
  776. user: drippysoap time: Fri Sep 9 20:03:34 2011  permalink: c2irxc9
  779. user: movingon11 time: Sat Sep 10 03:01:03 2011  permalink: c2irwqz
  780. [NO]</p><p>There's no difference between a blatantly partisan website link and a blatantly partisan self post.  You're not accomplishing anything by banning them, and /r/politics was not any worse before the ban.  It will probably not be any worse if it's lifted.
  782. user: Lighting time: Fri Sep 9 19:47:32 2011  permalink: c2irtlu
  783. [NO]
  785. user: PendingSente time: Fri Sep 9 19:42:53 2011  permalink: c2irsiz
  786. [NO]
  788. user: insaneinthemethane time: Sat Sep 10 02:41:40 2011  permalink: c2irs81
  789. [no]  The self posts tended to be some of the best content.  Their absence has left the world a darker place.  Besides, what's to stop someone from submitting their own blog post, effectively creating a self post.
  791. user: meldroc time: Sat Sep 10 02:41:08 2011  permalink: c2irs3b
  792. [NO] - the self posts sometimes were genuinely good, and banning them feels like stifling of legitimate discussion.
  794. user: DreddScotland time: Sat Sep 10 02:40:14 2011  permalink: c2irrx8
  795. [No] The mods should not be allowed to dictate the editorial slant.  The self posts provided a good counterweight to it.  You can see the results now with the left leaning stuff that is allowed to stay while other pov's have their submissions banned.
  797. user: Numerator747 time: Sat Sep 10 02:36:07 2011  permalink: c2irqyc
  798. <strong>[NO] /r/politics <em>is</em> political discussion.  </strong></p><p>Why does a topic have be posted <em>somewhere else</em> to make it worthy of discussing <em>here</em>.</p><p>Let the voting decide if it is worth discussing in /r/politics</p><p>The implication is that redditors are not as capable of starting a discussion as people <em>not</em> on reddit.
  800. user: thoseleftstanding time: Fri Sep 9 19:32:27 2011  permalink: c2irq3w
  801. [NO]
  803. user: ShroomyD time: Fri Sep 9 19:32:01 2011  permalink: c2irq00
  804. [NO]It sux.
  806. user: Geaux time: Sat Sep 10 02:30:42 2011  permalink: c2irppk
  807. [NO] Obviously it didn't work. You still have the same sensationalist headlines disguised as links and Politicaldiscussions didn't flesh out.
  809. user: WhiskeyT time: Fri Sep 9 19:22:23 2011  permalink: c2irnra
  810. [NO] I'm a big boy and am capable of skipping self posts on my own if need be.
  812. user: njm1314 time: Fri Sep 9 19:03:44 2011  permalink: c2irjnw
  813. [No]
  815. user: Karpify time: Fri Sep 9 18:57:45 2011  permalink: c2iriah
  816. [NO]
  818. user: yanko1975 time: Sat Sep 10 01:57:34 2011  permalink: c2iri8y
  819. <strong>[NO]</strong> The only thing removing self posts from r/politics was to silence redditors' ability to add their own stories to the discussion of politics.
  821. user: DaemonXI time: Fri Sep 9 18:55:58 2011  permalink: c2irhux
  822. [NO]
  824. user: bennybenners time: Sat Sep 10 01:49:29 2011  permalink: c2irgfc
  825. [NO]  Self Posts were often the most illuminating and inspired much discussion.</p><p>Heavy handed moderation is killing reddit.
  827. user: Shawoop time: Fri Sep 9 18:48:30 2011  permalink: c2irg7v
  828. no
  830. user: sihlkee time: Sat Sep 10 01:39:59 2011  permalink: c2ireae
  831. [NO]</p><p>The anti-democratic, power-tripping Mubarod-Team can go fuck themselves. Also something less offensive.
  833. user: bscoder time: Fri Sep 9 18:33:25 2011  permalink: c2ircqz
  834. [NO]Banning important system functions is not what we should do.
  836. user: realityvist time: Fri Sep 9 18:31:26 2011  permalink: c2irc9r
  837. [NO]
  839. user: Dan_K time: Fri Sep 9 18:31:19 2011  permalink: c2irc88
  840. [NO]</p><p>I miss the self posts
  842. user: britch time: Sat Sep 10 01:30:44 2011  permalink: c2irc3m
  843. [NO]</p><p>Others have described my reasons better than I can so I'll leave it at that.</p><p>Thank you for allowing us to vote on this, by the way.
  845. user: eschewobfuscation time: Fri Sep 9 18:27:52 2011  permalink: c2irbfk
  846. [NO]
  848. user: gorbachev time: Fri Sep 9 18:26:26 2011  permalink: c2irb34
  849. [NO]
  851. user: TypeZero time: Fri Sep 9 18:24:46 2011  permalink: c2iraom
  852. <strong>[No]</strong>
  854. user: readyready time: Sat Sep 10 01:22:14 2011  permalink: c2ira3m
  855. [NO]</p><p>For reasons already stated, not the least of which being that all the ban does is facilitate a narrow editorial slant.
  857. user: zarp86 time: Fri Sep 9 18:18:18 2011  permalink: c2ir95h
  858. [NO]
  860. user: noncompliantcitizen time: Fri Sep 9 18:17:39 2011  permalink: c2ir900
  861. [NO] self posts are fine leave them and let the upvote/downvote arrows decide
  863. user: clamb time: Sat Sep 10 01:16:08 2011  permalink: c2ir8ny
  864. [NO]</p><p>I think this ban for a month and this vote is a good idea so people can see what it is like without it. I will say though that 30 days may not have been long enough for new sf posts only subreddits to mature with more subscribers (and if you are looking for a good self post only sub checkout politicaldiscussion)
  866. user: Vortilex time: Sat Sep 10 01:00:33 2011  permalink: c2ir51h
  867. [NO]</p><p>I think that we lose a lot by prohibiting self-posts. Self-posts allow for one to provide a thought that could spark an interesting debate. They also allow for people to spread their ideas and find like-thinkers.
  869. user: moediggity time: Fri Sep 9 17:58:17 2011  permalink: c2ir4i6
  870. noI feed on the tears
  872. user: Schmevin1234 time: Fri Sep 9 17:57:47 2011  permalink: c2ir4en
  873. [No].  I like watching everyone argue, it's great.
  875. user: MrDanger time: Sat Sep 10 00:56:31 2011  permalink: c2ir43z
  876. [NO]</p><p>I don't have time or the inclination for a long explanation right now. Maybe later.</p><p>EDIT: You're not supposed to respond to individual votes. It won't change the outcome.
  878. user: TheBipolarTurtle time: Fri Sep 9 17:56:28 2011  permalink: c2ir43m
  879. NO, the self-posts were more fun to read.
  881. user: wolfsktaag time: Sat Sep 10 00:55:47 2011  permalink: c2ir3y2
  882. [NO] as much as i generally hate the content of the self.posts, i think the community can handle it best by using those little up/down arrows
  884. user: tita75 time: Fri Sep 9 17:55:28 2011  permalink: c2ir3v4
  885. [NO]
  887. user: ProbablyNotASpy time: Sat Sep 10 00:53:19 2011  permalink: c2ir3cx
  888. [NO]</p><p>All that's happened is people post six outlet's versions of the same story all day.</p><p>Politics is about people discussing what is happening and what should be happening in the world. Let's discuss.
  890. user: Rabbito_17 time: Fri Sep 9 17:53:00 2011  permalink: c2ir3a0
  891. [NO]
  893. user: idostuffwiththings time: Fri Sep 9 17:48:34 2011  permalink: c2ir290
  894. [NO]
  896. user: rocketreligion time: Fri Sep 9 17:43:43 2011  permalink: c2ir16v
  897. [NO]
  899. user: muddypaws time: Fri Sep 9 17:32:31 2011  permalink: c2iqykf
  900. <strong>[NO]</strong> to censorship of any kind
  902. user: JimmyGroove time: Sat Sep 10 00:31:59 2011  permalink: c2iqygg
  903. [NO] Allowing links to op-ed pieces and political cartoons already makes it so someone can post aggressive, potentially rude content, so why is it so bad for someone to express their views in their own words?</p><p>Plus, I am not generally fond of limiting speech unless there is a very, very good reason, and "I don't like some of the messages" isn't a good one.
  905. user: wytbyt time: Fri Sep 9 17:31:33 2011  permalink: c2iqyct
  906. <strong>[NO]</strong>
  908. user: Rakajj time: Sat Sep 10 00:28:39 2011  permalink: c2iqxnm
  909. [NO]  It doesn't do anything useful, it was a terrible idea in the beginning and it didn't change a thing.</p><p>Keep Political Discussion for those that prefer that community, and allow self posts in politics for those of us that don't want to discuss with the same 30 people all the time.
  911. user: 2plus1 time: Fri Sep 9 17:27:03 2011  permalink: c2iqx9n
  912. [No]
  914. user: dhusk time: Sat Sep 10 00:23:59 2011  permalink: c2iqwk9
  915. [NO]</p><p>Our system of government--and reddit--is ideally all about democracy, so why don't we let the users and their VOTES decide what's worth being on the front page instead of dictating it from on high?
  917. user: vomitspit time: Fri Sep 9 17:20:58 2011  permalink: c2iqvtd
  918. No, I do NOT like the self-post ban in r/Politics, please remove it.
  920. user: lulfas time: Fri Sep 9 17:18:39 2011  permalink: c2iqv9e
  921. [NO]
  923. user: nasap time: Sat Sep 10 00:12:51 2011  permalink: c2iqtv4
  924. <strong>[NO]</strong> r/politics will never be a place for reasonable discussion. You can see the great proliferation (>80%) of blogs instead of primary sources. Well thought out and supported dissenting opinions will be downvoted. Misleading information is the chosen flavor. You can't stop the circlejerkers. Accept it and hopefully less people will subscribe everyday so people can find a better place.
  926. user: fingers time: Fri Sep 9 17:10:40 2011  permalink: c2iqtbt
  927. [NO]. I like discussion in /r/politics
  929. user: renfrowk time: Sat Sep 10 00:06:12 2011  permalink: c2iqs9l
  930. <strong>[NO]</strong> No, I do NOT like the self-post ban in r/Politics, please remove it. Use community votes to regulate good/bad content (unless blatant abuse).
  932. user: Aceshigh0 time: Fri Sep 9 17:03:54 2011  permalink: c2iqrq0
  933. [NO]
  935. user: kmmx time: Fri Sep 9 17:02:03 2011  permalink: c2iqrab
  936. No.
  938. user: ifiwasabokonist time: Fri Sep 9 23:59:31 2011  permalink: c2iqqoy
  939. [NO] Posts are just as biased as before, with the side effect of people not being able to start a discussion on a topic without finding some blog or reporter that has written on the topic.  the /r/politicaldiscussion subreddit has a severe lack of users, stifling discussion
  941. user: protocol141112 time: Fri Sep 9 23:57:32 2011  permalink: c2iqq7t
  942. [NO]Self-posts were/are useful for combating editorial narratives and trends that the majority is obliged to ignore. They allow for greater dissent and accountability.
  944. user: fubaru time: Fri Sep 9 23:56:44 2011  permalink: c2iqq0v
  945. [NO]</p><p>Terrible idea. Some self-posts may have had worthless titles but encouraged some awesome posts. Some self posts have actually caused small movements to happen in US politics. If everyone dislikes a self post they can always downvote it! Don't take away our option.</p><p>BTW I don't think people should be upvoting or downvoting people in this discussion. Definitely not downvoting. This is a poll.
  947. user: dicksfish time: Fri Sep 9 16:56:27 2011  permalink: c2iqpy0
  948. [NO] Self posts are political speech. Ideas and thoughts are what is at the heart of politics.
  950. user: brianwc time: Fri Sep 9 16:51:50 2011  permalink: c2iqou4
  951. [NO]
  953. user: blazemore time: Fri Sep 9 16:50:37 2011  permalink: c2iqojc
  954. [NO]
  956. user: iwasascalper time: Fri Sep 9 23:46:24 2011  permalink: c2iqnj5
  957. <strong>[NO]</strong> Why are moderators of popular subreddits suddenly trying to change everything? Leave it alone, Reddit works just fine.
  959. user: doesntunderstandmeme time: Fri Sep 9 16:45:19 2011  permalink: c2iqn9c
  960. <strong>[NO]</strong></p><p>I'll be in my bunk.
  962. user: DillonJMcGuire time: Fri Sep 9 16:44:49 2011  permalink: c2iqn5n
  963. [NO]
  965. user: pervertedthrowaway time: Fri Sep 9 16:44:48 2011  permalink: c2iqn5h
  966. <strong>[No]</strong> thanks, man.
  968. user: argoff time: Fri Sep 9 23:42:40 2011  permalink: c2iqmnu
  969. <strong>[NO]</strong> No, I do NOT like the self-post ban in r/Politics, please remove it.</p><p>You guys are probably going to rig this vote like you do everything else, but what the heck.
  971. user: YouKnowMeAs time: Fri Sep 9 16:42:19 2011  permalink: c2iqmkh
  972. [NO]
  974. user: Isellmacs time: Fri Sep 9 23:41:39 2011  permalink: c2iqmew
  975. [NO]</p><p>I like the option of self.posts. There have been a number of interesting discussions I've wanted to initiate since the ban, but didn't because they were prohibited.</p><p>Sometimes r/politics subscribers want to ask a political question, but other sub-reddits DO NOT WANT it in their sub-reddit, so the only real option is a relevant article post 'editorialized' to include the question.</p><p>Also, just because some random fool-blogger posts something, it becomes a legit? But if a well known redditor posts an articulate and informative, it's not legit?
  977. user: mistersoul time: Fri Sep 9 16:39:23 2011  permalink: c2iqluz
  978. no (Just because, dammit!)
  980. user: JohnnyGibson time: Fri Sep 9 23:38:09 2011  permalink: c2iqlke
  981. [NO]</p><p>However, change is obviously needed. How about 3 different colors/styles of text for headings? That way self posts, editorials, and news articles can easily be differentiated.
  983. user: Willravel time: Fri Sep 9 23:33:49 2011  permalink: c2iqkif
  984. <strong>[NO]</strong> If we didn't want self-posts, we'd downvote them. If we like them, we upvote them. Leave the decision to us to choose for ourselves.
  986. user: ZorbaTHut time: Sat Sep 10 02:35:32 2011  permalink: c2irqtq
  987. No, the entire website is built around mob voting on quality and absolute dictatorial control over rules. If it were built around mob rule, moderators wouldn't exist.</p><p>The leaders of /r/politics don't <em>have</em> to let us vote. They could just decide.
  989. user: LevLev time: Fri Sep 9 16:29:45 2011  permalink: c2iqjie
  990. [NO] A larger group is better for more interesting and diverse discussions.
  992. user: LAWSKEE time: Fri Sep 9 16:27:18 2011  permalink: c2iqiwb
  993. [NO]
  995. user: Queen_of_Swords time: Fri Sep 9 16:27:07 2011  permalink: c2iqiu5
  996. [NO]
  998. user: pnewman98 time: Fri Sep 9 16:26:42 2011  permalink: c2iqiq2
  999. [NO]
  1001. user: themattmo time: Fri Sep 9 16:21:10 2011  permalink: c2iqhcx
  1002. [NO]
  1004. user: omegaman1984 time: Fri Sep 9 23:20:36 2011  permalink: c2iqh7z
  1005. [No]</p><p>Though perhaps self posts could be relegated to weekends or something, that way the front page isn't clogged up when actual (political) news tends to happen.
  1007. user: SoISmokeWeed time: Fri Sep 9 16:17:25 2011  permalink: c2iqgfa
  1008. <strong>[NO]</strong>  No, I do NOT like the self-post ban in r/Politics, please remove it.
  1010. user: wantmysalaryBRO time: Fri Sep 9 16:17:04 2011  permalink: c2iqgc0
  1011. <strong>[NO]</strong>  No, I do NOT like the self-post ban in r/Politics, please remove it.
  1013. user: johnnybags time: Fri Sep 9 16:16:49 2011  permalink: c2iqg9q
  1014. <strong>[NO]</strong>  No, I do NOT like the self-post ban in r/Politics, please remove it.
  1016. user: thesmos time: Fri Sep 9 23:10:11 2011  permalink: c2iqekq
  1017. [NO] Let bad submissions be downvoted and good ones be upvoted.
  1019. user: argyleFrost time: Fri Sep 9 23:10:10 2011  permalink: c2iqekk
  1020. [NO]</p><p>Mods should remove spam only and not attempt any quality control.</p><p>/r/politics has not improved since the ban was instituted.  Post guidelines and let people of all political stripes know they are welcome here if you want to change the tone of discussion and submissions.
  1022. user: woundedgod time: Fri Sep 9 16:09:10 2011  permalink: c2iqebd
  1023. [NO]
  1025. user: gloomdoom time: Fri Sep 9 23:09:09 2011  permalink: c2iqebb
  1026. <strong>NO</strong></p><p>Because anyone who wants to share their personal ideas will do so through constant comments anyway. The real reason why this didn't work and never will is that everyone has a blog.</p><p>How is it any different to create a self-post in r/politics from just writing it all out on your blog and submitting it as a 'legitimate' link?</p><p>It's not. And that's where the idea fall apart entirely. If you want to keep people from sharing their personal opinions, that basically boils down to censorship. Like any community, if a circlejerk exists, it's because they are the majority.</p><p>Look at the circlejerk that was nationwide after 9/11. Are you going to suggest that if the majority of people feel one way, then it's inherently flawed? That's not the way government or democracy works so it's ironic that a subreddit that's dedicated to both attempt to change that.</p><p>But honestly, blog submissions negated the entire effort of killing the self-posts. If people want to share their opinions in an open forum (for that's what reddit is, is it not?) then they will. You can make it convenient or you can make it more difficult but it will still get done.</p><p>So what's the point of the ban? If we're not interested in anyone's opinions, then what the hell are we even doing on reddit?</p><p>*edit: Doesn't it speak volumes that for the vast majority of people who vote, 'yes' that's all they can manage to come up with? Compare the arguments for both. With most 'no' votes I'm seeing several paragraphs of why they feel that way. With the 'yes' votes, that's basically what we're seeing for the most part. No argument, no debate, no anything.</p><p>It's pretty easy to see what's going on here just by drawing an educated conclusion.*
  1028. user: thepotatoman23 time: Sat Sep 10 20:16:52 2011  permalink: c2iwvna
  1029. [NO]</p><p>For the same reason as you.  The only problem i had with self posts were the ones spouting off statistics and facts without sources, but i think that can be solved in a different way then just throwing the whole thing out.
  1031. user: hyperbad time: Fri Sep 9 16:08:26 2011  permalink: c2iqe4j
  1032. [NO]
  1034. user: redditdigger time: Fri Sep 9 16:06:34 2011  permalink: c2iqdo8
  1035. [NO]
  1037. user: MorningLtMtn time: Fri Sep 9 16:05:37 2011  permalink: c2iqdff
  1038. [NO]
  1040. user: kelustu time: Fri Sep 9 16:03:02 2011  permalink: c2iqcrj
  1041. [NO] we already have a goddamn news section.
  1043. user: thehollowman84 time: Fri Sep 9 16:00:12 2011  permalink: c2iqc1z
  1044. [NO]
  1046. user: CheesewithWhine time: Fri Sep 9 15:57:02 2011  permalink: c2iqb87
  1047. [NO]
  1049. user: Gross_Chemistry time: Fri Sep 9 15:55:12 2011  permalink: c2iqaro
  1050. [NO] If you think all self-post are inflammatory troll bait just avoid them.
  1052. user: cheney_healthcare time: Fri Sep 9 22:54:34 2011  permalink: c2iqam9
  1053. [NO]</p><p>Self posts brought us the Colbert/Stewart Rally, it brought the start of the US Pirate Party, and they have brought us original content by redditors explaining issues or responding to a very hot topic and educating the masses.</p><p>Sure it's somewhat a circlejerk but all popular opinion is, the only difference now is that people link to circlejerk posts in blogs and the regular thing continues.</p><p>All you are doing by stopping self posts is giving thinkprogress, alternet, and other scummy opinion/distortion sites a monopoly on ideas. Self posts allow average redditors to create and share ideas easily. Every reddtitor is a moderator with their upvote/downvote so most of the crappy posts get filtered anyway.</p><p>Sure there might be a 'who likes weed smoking atheist president' post every now and then but they are usually filled with 1000's of comments where people discuss issues like "why it's not possible in the religious dynamic" or "why the two party system sucks" or even "this is a circlejerk, look at these previous posts... wtf reddit?" where people can then reply.</p><p>Allowing people to create original content to be seen by millions very easily where 1000's of people to contribute their ideas is something which should be cherished. It isn't perfect, but nothing ever is.</p><p>Restore Sanity, and posts which allow us to create 'Restore Sanity'!
  1055. user: brucemo time: Fri Sep 9 22:53:36 2011  permalink: c2iqacs
  1056. [NO]</p><blockquote><p>Depending on how many people vote, we want the opinion of a solid majority to make any changes. /politics has just over 700,000 subscribers, and 01% of that is 7,000. If less than 7,000 people vote (not 7000 comments, but 7000 user accounts more than 30 days old), we're defining a solid majority as 60%. If more than 7,000 people vote, we're defining a solid majority as 55%. We hope more than 7,000 people will vote.</p></blockquote><p>Bullshit.  There's no sensible reason for denying a majority vote, no matter how many people vote.
  1058. user: MSkog time: Fri Sep 9 22:50:13 2011  permalink: c2iq9gl
  1059. [NO] -- selfposts generate great discussion. /r/PoliticalDiscussion, <em>even if</em> a fundamentally good idea, has too few participants.
  1061. user: republitard time: Fri Sep 9 22:49:27 2011  permalink: c2iq9a3
  1062. [NO]
  1064. user: harsesus time: Sat Sep 10 03:25:03 2011  permalink: c2is29h
  1065. [NO]
  1067. user: wrc-wolf time: Fri Sep 9 22:45:14 2011  permalink: c2iq85b
  1068. <strong>[NO]</strong>, removing the self-posts adds nothing to r/politics, removes a viable tool of spreading information and generating discussion, and above all is nothing more than blatant censorship.</p><p><em>EDIT</em>: As of 312 comments and 4 hours after this election thread was posted by PoliticsMod the totals are 70 <em>YES</em> (44.3%) vs 88 <em>NO</em> (55.7%). There are then several comments that are in reply to the above votes, or are abstentions, or etc. Under the current mod guidelines for this election because less than 7,000 people have voted this majority vote will be ignored.</p><p><em>EDIT #2</em>: Also I have to question the timing of this this election. Voting from 5:30 pm Friday night until 5:30 pm Saturday evening seems deliberately designed to exclude the many redditors who actually venture out at night and don't automatically jump on reddit first thing Saturday morning.</p><p><em>EDIT #3</em>: As of 466 comments and 8 hours after the election thread being posted by PoliticsMod the totals are 95 <em>YES</em> (39.3%) vs 147 <em>NO</em> (60.7%). Once again, many of the comments ITT are replies to posters 'vote' comments, or are abstentions, or other misc. commentary. Under the current mod guidelines for this election because less than 7,000 people have voted this majority vote will <em>not</em> be ignored. I hasten to point out that 7,000 <em>primary</em> comments is a much, much, higher number than even top rated posts in <em>r/all</em> receive, let alone r/politics.</p><p><em>EDIT #4</em>: As of 595 comments and 17 hours after the election thread being posted by PoliticsMod the totals are 128 <em>YES</em> (39.9%) vs 193 <em>NO</em> (60.1%). Once again, many of the comments ITT are either replies, abstentions, or misc commentary. At 321 votes this represents 4.6% of the number of voters required to hit the 7000-mark set by the mods; meaning roughly 21x the number of voters who have already cast their ballot would need to vote in the remaining seven hours to lower the mod requirements for a 'solid majority' from 60% to 55%.</p><p><em>EDIT #5</em>: As of 678 comments and 23 hours after the election thread being posted, with slightly more than a half hour left to vote, the totals are 137 <em>YES</em> (38.3%) vs 221 <em>NO</em> (61.7%). I think its close enough to call at this point; <strong>NO wins</strong>.</p><p><em>EDIT #6</em>: 0530 PM EST; Voting officially closed, <strong>NO Wins</strong>.
  1070. user: markedwords time: Fri Sep 9 22:42:46 2011  permalink: c2iq7hd
  1071. [NO]</p><p>My vote tally at Saturday 2:19pm Arizona time shows 220 NO, 137 Yes. That's 61.62% against the ban. We win.</p><p>The biggest circlejerk around is the group of people latching on to this lame narrative that nobody enjoyed the content in politics self-posts. There were thousands of comments every day on these posts. Some of the submissions became semi-famous. Every topic subreddit is a circlejerk in its own way, that cannot be helped. R/gaming is perfect example: people there like certain types of games. That's just how reddit works. <strong>If you don't enjoy a system that allows self-posts, the site you are looking for is</strong></p><p>Examples:</p><p><a href="" >I've had a vision and I can't shake it: Colbert needs to hold a satirical rally in DC.</a></p><p>1368 comments</p><p><a href="" >America, we need a third party that can galvanize our generation. One that doesn't reek of pansy. I propose a U.S. Pirate Party.</a></p><p>2489 comments</p><p><a href="" >One CAT scan and a 2 hour ER visit = $10,254. If you don't support health care reform, fuck you.</a></p><p>3110 comments</p><p><a href="" >Earlier today, Al Franken toured the U.S. Capitol building. He could have scheduled a V.I.P. tour like other Senators. Instead, he stood in line for a public tour just like the rest of us. Vote up if you think we need more folks like Al in Congress.</a></p><p>633 comments</p><p><a href="" >Saw the video Wikileaks posted; here's a measured interpretation from someone who's been over there</a></p><p>2464 comments</p><p><a href="" >"Obamacare" worked today. Help me spread the word.</a></p><p>2505 comments</p><p><a href="" >6 out of 10 propositions on my Arizona Ballot are outright lies, cleverly written to deceive voters.</a></p><p>944 comments, this one is my old post</p><p><strong>Each of these posts contains more legitimate discussion and participants than any post that has EVER occurred in r/politicaldiscussion.</strong></p><p>I feel like politics cannot be separated into niche subreddits without alienating the people who contribute the most unique and interesting content. Nobody wants to join r/politicaldiscussion even though self-posts were a well-used feature of r/politics. How did these old self-posts on r/politics get so much attention if nobody was interested? Sadly, now that self-posts only occur at r/politicaldiscussion, it seems that most users arent't posting their insights at all. Where was the fascinating original content reddit produced for the debt cieling? There wasn't any -- we just posted 100 different huffo and mashable links that week. Obviously we could never again start the Rally to Restore Fear, give insight from our personal experience with legislation, or present large write-ups about new developments now that self-posts are gone...</p><p>I also still don't understand why the normal rules of Reddit weren't followed. If people wanted a new subreddit with only links, THEY should have moved. Why would you destroy a subreddit that some people obviously enjoyed?</p><p>TL;DR We should reinstate self-posts on r/politics because the narrative that everyone hated these posts is stupid and the r/politicaldiscussion subreddit is an empty failure. Also we are not, we are a community that creates valued original content instead of linking to mashable.
  1073. user: onesideofthestory time: Sat Sep 10 04:08:33 2011  permalink: c2isbyc
  1074. <strong>[NO]</strong></p><p>current count, 129 no, 86 yes</p><p>please vote NO.  reject any /r/politics censorship.  self posts are a valuable and needed way to encourage constructive debate in /r/politics.
  1076. user: IAmAnAnonymousCoward time: Fri Sep 9 22:40:06 2011  permalink: c2iq6t6
  1077. <strong>[NO]</strong> Remove the ban.</p><p>Low quality (self) posts should be downvoted, but let's not forget <a href="" >some spectacular self posts from the past</a>.
  1079. user: HeroicGomez time: Fri Sep 9 22:33:18 2011  permalink: c2iq50t
  1080. [NO]</p><p>If anything, you need to make everything self-posts, so that sensationalist karmawhores lose karmic incentive to post ad nauseum. You eliminated the wanky personal posts, which I liked, but in turn have created an environment with incentive for sensationalists (which BTW you've made an insufficient effort to moderate) to post even more link garbage. I'd rather take the chance that people post off topic personal rants than give the meppers of the world a forum to pad their bloated karma counts and bomb the sub with dozens of sensationalist garbage links every day.
  1082. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 15:58:10 2011  permalink: c2iqbio
  1083. No karma in /politics would be an interesting experiment
  1085. user: dev222 time: Fri Sep 9 15:32:31 2011  permalink: c2iq4t1
  1086. [NO]</p><p>People should be allowed to editorialize and come up with new ideas in r/politics.
  1088. user: backpackwayne time: Fri Sep 9 22:23:27 2011  permalink: c2iq2cq
  1089. [NO] [Partial to No but I understand the position of the Yes]</p><p>I like the discussion but it does get out of hand at times and becomes a rock throwing-fest.</p><p>And since we have another place to go for discussion I will be happy either way.</p><p>The Ron Paul posting (spamming) sure has got out of hand but whatta gonna do?
  1091. user: agent_of_entropy time: Fri Sep 9 22:18:10 2011  permalink: c2iq0xb
  1092. <strong>[NO]</strong>  No, I do NOT like the self-post ban in r/Politics, please remove it.
  1094. user: redditsuxass time: Fri Sep 9 15:03:10 2011  permalink: c2ipww4
  1095. [NO]
  1097. user: ringopendragon time: Fri Sep 9 14:43:36 2011  permalink: c2iprdv
  1098. [NO]
  1100. user: I_RAPE_PEOPLE time: Fri Sep 9 15:50:41 2011  permalink: c2iq9lb
  1101. Normally I like to do the same, stay away from /r/poltics and just focus on /r/canada and the odd /r/worldnews post. You might see a post that actually gains some momentum, but usually it's just crap lacking any substance. It's essentially: "Praise Ron Paul". Are there any actually subreddits with just interesting articles of world events, or am I going to have to stick to reading the Newspaper?</p><p>You moderate <em>the</em> circlejerk, where you're off-topic if you're not jerking around. It's the only haven of thought provoking discussion.
  1103. user: PzzDuh time: Fri Sep 9 14:40:40 2011  permalink: c2ipqiz
  1104. [NO]
  1106. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 21:38:04 2011  permalink: c2ippr7
  1107. [NO]</p><p>Self posts should be allowed in r/politics if op-eds links are.</p><p>But if self posts are to be restricted to r/politicaldiscussion, I move that <em>all</em> op-ed articles also be restricted to r/politicaldiscussion</p><p>I would actually prefer r/politics if this were the case as in all op ed, self or not gets moved to politicaldiscussion.</p><p>But if alternet, dailykos, cato, thinkprogress and motherjones are to stay, self posts should also be allowed.</p><p>Edited for new bracket format.
  1108. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1112. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1113. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1115. user: downvotethis2 time: Sun Sep 11 03:28:29 2011  permalink: c2izkdi
  1116. The up/down voting on votes is cracking me up. Personally, I like being able to find political news without wading through a bunch of self posted rants written by people who can't seem to think a thought through to any kind of conclusion besides FUCK THIS.</p><p>There's plenty of opinionating space in the comments and doing it that way keeps things more or less on topic.  For those who want to vaguely rage against the machine someone can go start r/soapbox.
  1118. user: hansn time: Sun Sep 11 01:21:55 2011  permalink: c2iysnw
  1119. Alas, you're past the deadline.
  1121. user: maxwellhill time: Sun Sep 11 00:51:08 2011  permalink: c2iylw4
  1122. Time: 8:54PM EST approx</p><p>Thank you for your participation.</p><p>Voting was closed at 5.30PM EST.</p><p>The votes are being counted and the result will likely be announced tomorrow.
  1124. user: hansn time: Sat Sep 10 18:22:49 2011  permalink: c2iysu1
  1125. I think you might be past the deadline, unfortunately.
  1127. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 21:55:12 2011  permalink: c2ixilf
  1128. It's now 6PM EST Any comments after this one are invalid votes
  1130. user: sloppy time: Sat Sep 10 21:27:28 2011  permalink: c2ixc5u
  1131. I have already voted so no mention of a vote this time. This post is for comment which was not included with the vote.</p><p>By now most that do politics should have already discovered that posting opinions about politics is like arguing about religion. Nothing ever gets solved, no one gets converted from their beliefs, and it's a circle jerk that gets more people aroused than it gets accomplishments done.</p><p>If someone wants to do self posts, then it should go off into a sub-reddit where they can bring it up all they want without interfering with the majority there to get the news and not the opinions.</p><p>Self opinions can be good with good info, regardless of if they change the readers' mind or not. But it has no place with the news side, where it diverts the reader from what they are after. Chances are good you will make more enemies on the self posts than it is worth.</p><p>Self opinions are good for those that love to argue for arguments sake.
  1133. user: Rabbito_17 time: Sun Sep 11 02:21:41 2011  permalink: c2iz5o2
  1134. Politics is opinion, what dont you get?
  1136. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 21:29:18 2011  permalink: c2ixcl7
  1137. How is this post effectively any different?</p><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a></p><p>There will still be circle jerks here so long as any opinion is allowed in the titles.</p><p>Why not move all op-ed, regardless of source to r/politicaldiscussion ?
  1139. user: sloppy time: Sat Sep 10 21:31:38 2011  permalink: c2ixd4t
  1140. I could not agree more. It provides the answer for those that have already formed opinions from those seeking to be informed before.</p><p>Sounds like a good solution to me.
  1142. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 17:48:48 2011  permalink: c2ivwtq
  1143. The vote certainly seems engineered to favor the ban.</p><p>Given the rules according to slapchopsuey, they are effectively counting ABSTAIN as a Yes.</p><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a></p><p>Also it's nigh impossible that we would have been able to get 7000 vote comments in here in 24 hours.</p><p>For reference <a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a>Reddit's reported total peak comment load as of a month ago was 280 comments per minute.</p><p>in order to exceed 7000 votes in 24 hours we'd have to average 5 vote comments per minute.</p><p>Or that is to say roughly 2% of reddit's comment traffic (assuming sustained peak traffic levels) would have to be devoted to voting on politics self-posts over the next 24 hours to reach this metric.</p><p>Given we're on an off peak time, that there are other sub-reddits, and that this post has received little attention this seems quite unlikely.</p><p>Realistically I'd wager we'd have to attract closer to 30% of reddit's current overall comment volume into this single thread to approach that number.</p><p>So the NO's have to reach a super-majority over the YES's AND the ABSTAIN's to make a change.</p><p>Where was this solid majority needed to make this change in the first place?
  1145. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 18:20:19 2011  permalink: c2iw4e0
  1146. So the NO's have to reach a super-majority over the YES's AND the ABSTAIN's to make a change.</p></blockquote><p>This is really backwards. It is the "YES" side that carries the burden of proof. The original change to ban self posts were done without popular vote.</p><p>It's like the government banning freedom of speech for a month, and then afterwards they say "We'll bring it back if a supermajority of the people vote for it."</p><p>WTF.
  1148. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 17:55:43 2011  permalink: c2ivyj4
  1149. This would be optimal.</p><p>But it's not fair if we allow other knucklehead opinions just because they originate on alternet, dailypaul, dailykos, thinkprogress etc...</p><p>Why not move <em>ALL</em> opinion/op-ed to r/politicaldiscussion regardless of source, and keep r/politics for factual political news.
  1151. user: rageingnonsense time: Sat Sep 10 19:59:09 2011  permalink: c2iwrgb
  1152. I agree.</p><p>I don't care if I agree with an opinion or not; our modern culture is absolutely inundated with op-eds, with hardly any news. People should be forming their own opinions.
  1154. user: lsmnr time: Sat Sep 10 10:47:32 2011  permalink: c2ivwil
  1155. I want the facts, not every knucklehead's opinion.</p></blockquote><p>Have you heard of
  1157. user: rageingnonsense time: Sat Sep 10 17:00:55 2011  permalink: c2ivkzk
  1158. /r/PoliticalDiscussion: The place for discussing politics. 300+ subscribers is more than enough people to discuss politics with. Now if it is karma you seek...
  1160. user: womanonymous time: Sat Sep 10 10:22:50 2011  permalink: c2itwe4
  1161. [<strong>YES</strong>]</p><p>Self posts were not useful for discussion. Most comments that went against whatever the OP's "idea" was, would get downvoted to hell, even if links to the contrary of the idea were presented. Self-posts became a circlejerk, and the comments I see here about the good self-posts, while true, are few compared to the amount of self-posts actually showing up. r/politics has been a healthier place with the ban. Maybe an r/circlejerkpolitics? (just kidding about r/circlejerkpolitics...or am I?)
  1163. user: Rotten194 time: Sat Sep 10 09:34:42 2011  permalink: c2itrw4
  1164. <strong>[ABSTAIN]</strong></p><p>Current (rough) votes:</p><p><strong>[YES]:</strong> 90 (36%)</p><p><strong>[NO]:</strong> 158 (64%)</p><p>Total: 248 (0.4% of 7000)
  1166. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 17:38:49 2011  permalink: c2ivucc
  1167. Given the rules according to slapchopsuey, they are effectively counting ABSTAIN as a Yes.  Please delete your posts if you do not want to affect the voting by abstaining.</p><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a>
  1169. user: PiratesOfDarkWater time: Sat Sep 10 02:36:29 2011  permalink: c2its2b
  1170. what about the abstains?
  1172. user: slapchopsuey time: Sat Sep 10 16:47:04 2011  permalink: c2ivhgi
  1173. The Abstains (whether by saying so directly or by not taking any position on the matter in any of their comments to this submission) <em>are</em> being counted in the totals. Same principle as a 'none of the above' vote.
  1175. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 18:23:44 2011  permalink: c2iw56s
  1176. Can you clarify this? Are you saying:</p><ul><li><p>Abstains are counted yes; or</p></li><li><p>Abstains are not counted as yes or no, but their number will be added to the pool of voters to determine whether a majority has been reached.</p></li></ul><p>I think you mean the latter, but just want to be sure.
  1178. user: slapchopsuey time: Sat Sep 10 19:11:21 2011  permalink: c2iwgdv
  1179. There's a third option you're missing there (though that might be what you mean with the second option there, if I'm understanding correctly). Abstains are neither a yes nor a no, a conscious decision to abstain from either; whether they voice something in between, or voice their perceived non-importance of this whole matter, they're making clear that they're users who are not in the yes camp, and not in the no camp.</p><p>If either the yes or no can reach the set benchmark for 'solid majority' entirely on their own, then the policy for self-posts will be very simple going forward, black or white. <em>However</em>, if either the yes or no requires the Abstains to reach the benchmark for 'solid majority', then expect something on that spectrum between black and white, in terms of what can be expected going forward.
  1181. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 19:39:03 2011  permalink: c2iwmu8
  1182. Let's simplify this a bit. Let's assume we're never going to reach the solid majority benchmark--with or without the "ABSTAIN" vote. This is clearly the case. We're never going to make 7,000 comments.</p><p>So please clarify. In order for the "NO" vote to win, does it have to reach 60% of</p><ul><li><p>YES, NO, and ABSTAIN votes; or</p></li><li><p>YES and NO votes.</p></li></ul><p>BTW, what is the default if neither side reach a solid majority? It should be to bring back the self post right?
  1184. user: slapchopsuey time: Sat Sep 10 20:19:57 2011  permalink: c2iwwcl
  1185. The 'solid majority' benchmark with 7,000 comments (representing the volume of 01% of /politics subscribers) is 55%, and if a volume of comments representing less than 01% are voting, it's 60%.  So even if only 300 users vote, if 60% of them vote Y or N, then it's a solid majority.</p><p>If neither side reaches the solid majority, BUT if one of them tips over the top with the aid of the abstains, then the final decision will lean in the direction of the near-solid majority. Picture something like a coalition government with a major partner and a minor partner. The major gets most of its way, but the minor gets a few things also.</p><p>We're still hours behind on the vote counting, but looking at the numbers and the trend so far, unless the voting has swung wildly in the past few hours or swings wildly in the next 40 minutes, there will likely be a solid majority <em>with</em> the help of abstains, and possibly a solid majority without the abstains. Still too early to say though.
  1187. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 20:39:37 2011  permalink: c2ix14t
  1188. Your still avoiding the question:</p><p>Self posts will only be restored if 60% of the total (NO+YES+ABSTAIN) votes are NO (Assuming less than 7k votes). Is this True or False?
  1190. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 20:29:29 2011  permalink: c2iwypj
  1191. BUT if one of them tips over the top with the aid of the abstains, then the final decision will lean in the direction of the near-solid majority.</p></blockquote><p>Hmmm... ok. This has been very confusing but I think I'm finally getting it.</p><p>Assuming we're under 7,000 comments:</p><ul><li><p>If the vote is 51% YES vs. 49% NO, but the ABSTAIN votes can add 9% to the YES count, then the ABSTAIN votes will be counted as YES. Then we keep the ban.</p></li><li><p>OTOH, if the vote is 51% NO vs. 49% YES, but the ABSTAIN votes can add 9% to the NO count, then the ABSTAIN votes will be counted as NO. Then ban is lifted.</p></li></ul><p>Is this right? This is a non-standard setup. You should've mentioned this in the opening comments.</p><p>I still don't understand why the burden of proof is on the NO vote. If no supermajority is reached, the default should be to change back to the way things were.
  1193. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 20:40:26 2011  permalink: c2ix1ba
  1194. If this is the case this isn't that bad and I've been misunderstanding slapchopsuey.</p><p>I hope this is the case.
  1196. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 20:45:30 2011  permalink: c2ix2i9
  1197. They're making this whole thing unnecessarily complicated. Worse yet, they don't explain this in the original post. We had to find out through a series of Q&amp;A hidden in the depths of the comments.
  1199. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 17:32:39 2011  permalink: c2ivssy
  1200. So what your saying is that an abstains effectively counts as a yes.</p><p>There is no difference given the rules and the fact that you are counting Abstains.</p><p>The default is to keep it, any vote that is not a NO is a YES.  It makes no sense to count abstains towards the percentages, as your essentially turning their vote into a YES by diluting the NO vote same as a YES would.</p><p>Unless you are only using Abstains for reaching the impossible 7000k vote threshold and not to affect the percentages.  If abstain is calculated into the percentages it becomes 100% equivalent to a YES vote.
  1202. user: brucemo time: Sat Sep 10 22:47:42 2011  permalink: c2ixujy
  1203. If you hold an election, and the result is 6 yes, 3 no, 4 abstain, "yes" won.</p><p>If you hold an election, and the result is 3 yes, 6 no, 4 abstain, "no" won.</p><p>How can you possibly interpret this otherwise?
  1205. user: slapchopsuey time: Sat Sep 10 23:06:27 2011  permalink: c2ixyte
  1206. That's exactly how it goes. There's a lot of misinformation in the comments that spread around (from people who assume the worst of intentions and motives on our part), and in our error, we extensively covered the procedure of voting (to ensure a fair vote for /politics frequent users), but didn't go into much detail on the various scenarios of outcomes and how those would go. The three options (Y/N/A) were an attempt to ensure something better than a 'simple majority - winner take all' outcome, with up to 49%  left with nothing.</p><p>As I said in another comment, if the vote turns out to be one with the threshold of 60% being reached by something like 57% "no" and 3% "abstain", think of it like a coalition government with a major partner and a minor partner. The major will get most of what they want, but the minor will get something also.</p><p>While we're not yet done counting the votes, from what is counted so far, I think the "no" people will be satisfied with the outcome, and hopefully we'll handle this in a way that isn't salt in the wounds of the "yes" people. The outcome will be posted tomorrow, likely in the late AM in EST.
  1208. user: go1dfish time: Sun Sep 11 01:42:29 2011  permalink: c2iyx4j
  1209. I was no more attempting to spread misinformation than you were.</p><p>I asked you multiple times to clarify this in simple terms by answering the following easy yes or no question:</p><blockquote><p>Self posts will only be restored if 60% of the total (NO+YES+ABSTAIN) votes are NO (Assuming less than 7k votes). Is this True or False?</p></blockquote><p>And received no response, the rules were not very clear and we had a misunderstanding.</p><p>I have never accused the moderators of r/politics of bad intentions, only the inconsistent application of subjective policies.
  1211. user: brucemo time: Sun Sep 11 00:02:13 2011  permalink: c2iyb5j
  1212. You received a down-vote very quickly, but that was not me.</p><p>If you guys had said, "We are running this show; fuck off", I would have been unhappy.  I would have been unhappy because if reddit continues growing, it could have an effect on politics in the US.  The idea that politics can be discussed at the grass roots in an enormous forum is very appealing to me.  I love the internet, particularly the way that it connects people.  I see it as an enormous village square, where a good idea can gain traction and have influence.</p><p>But I do not own the forum, and the way reddit is set up now, the mods do, and there is nothing democratic about this.  That's not perfect, but fine, it's the way it is.  I'm not going to complain about that today, and probably won't ever.</p><p>But you guys said this instead:</p><blockquote><p>After a limited time, the moderators and users will assess the impact that this policy has had and determine whether it has been beneficial for the subreddit.</p></blockquote><p>Since that policy was enacted over a month ago, perhaps it is logical that users would have begun to start asking for their chance to contribute to the assessment process.  So fine, the users militated to be allowed their say.</p><p>Once again, you guys could have blown us off by having another discussion thread and then decided to do whatever you wanted to do, but you did not choose to do that; you held an election.</p><p>Unless you develop a creative way of counting, or unless there was voter fraud that has not been uncovered up to now, the "no" votes have actually won this election even though it was stacked against them.  It was stacked two ways:</p><ol><li><p>Having to get 60% was pretty unreasonable.</p></li><li><p>The election announcement was an opinion piece.</p></li></ol><p>Despite these handicaps, the "no" faction seems to have obtained the needed 60% super-majority.  Now there is concern that the vote will have been stacked another way:</p><p>You have not actually promised to do anything based upon the vote.  The vote was a solicitation of "input", and now you are talking about the need to leave the losing side with "something".</p><p>This is worrying given that of the four moderators who voted, three voted "yes", one voted "no", and one moderator who voted "yes" has made the following <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>comments, including:</a>:</p><blockquote><p>You call it democracy, I call it mob rule. Democracy has someone to steer the ship.</p></blockquote><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'>Hansn's response to that</a> is good enough that I have nothing to add.</p><p>I have nothing against any of you moderators.  I appreciate the work you do, and I have some insight from having done this kind of job in the past as to what kind of shit you undoubtedly take.</p><p>But the "input" here is pretty resounding, and if there was any reason to ask for it I think you need to listen to it, rather than trying to devise excuses not to.
  1214. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 19:02:02 2011  permalink: c2iwe5v
  1215. For whatever it's worth (and it's clearly not worth anything to you, but we hope others value the volunteer effort the mods put into making /politics a worthwhile experience for subscribers</p></blockquote><p>Ha ha I like how you paint everyone who doesn't support your policies as assholes. I in fact do appreciate the work of many mods. I've purchased Reddit golds for 3 mods in other subreddits.</p><p>It's not that we don't appreciates mods--we just don't appreciate the way you've handling this situation.
  1217. user: slapchopsuey time: Sat Sep 10 20:02:40 2011  permalink: c2iwsa3
  1218. Again with that black and white binary thinking... there's a whole spectrum between 'those who support our policies' and 'the assholes'.</p><p>You and your friend go1dfish don't appreciate the way we handle any situation, and over the course of the past few weeks, you've both made that abundantly clear :)</p><p>And for whatever it's worth, we knew you and a few other full-time critics wouldn't appreciate our putting the self-post policy to a vote, that you'd find some detail you didn't like. But we knew this is in the best interest of the /politics community, and so we're doing it, and we hope the outcome is satisfactory to the solid majority, whatever it may be. But we know it will never be satisfactory to you and a few vocal others. And that's ok, that's life.</p><p>I don't suppose we should be looking forward to some Reddit gold from you anytime soon. :)
  1220. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 20:11:46 2011  permalink: c2iwuee
  1221. we knew you and a few other full-time critics wouldn't appreciate our putting the self-post policy to a vote</p></blockquote><p>Nice spin bro. I've been constantly <a href="" >pushing for a vote or poll of some kind</a>. Did you forget about this thread I started, <a href="" >calling for us to be more like r/starcraft and decide things by polls</a>?</p><p>I know my opinion is easy to ignore, because mods BANNED THAT THREAD and then <a href="" >LIED ABOUT BANNING IT</a>.</p><p>Needless to say I'm thrilled that you're finally taking our advice and putting this to a vote, if not for the fact that you're rigging it to go your way (see below).</p><p>BTW, don't pretend this was your plan all along--because if it were, you would've told me LONG ago and forestall all the criticism I laid at your door.</p><blockquote><p>that you'd find some detail you didn't like</p></blockquote><p>Like requiring the "NO" vote to win a supermajority to bring back self posts, even though the original ban was a mod decision and not a user one?</p><p>You are so dishonest I frankly wouldn't trust you to count 2 pennies.
  1223. user: slapchopsuey time: Sun Sep 11 00:14:00 2011  permalink: c2iydrs
  1224. Not spin at all, man. There are many proponents of using polls to determine the will of the users; countless people on reddit have advocated for it for years, including you and me. The fact that a poll did not happen a month ago when this policy was put into place (when I was not here), and now a poll <em>is</em> happening on whether to rescind the policy (when I am here), speaks for itself.</p><p>My point was that you and the few other full-time critics wouldn't appreciate it, that you would use this exercise of democracy as just another opportunity to show your total lack of appreciation, pushing conspiracy theories and generally tearing us down. Judging by the sum of your comments, you responded predictably, unfortunately.</p><p>Further, don't assume others react to criticism as you do. With any kind of torment, some would confess all with the slightest of pressure, while others maintain their dignity while being drawn and quartered; most people are somewhere in between. What kind of mods would we be if we spilled the beans on delicate plans for an upcoming vote to one user that uses every opportunity to work against us? Besides, we've long since accepted that your criticism will never end, even when we do things you yourself have asked for. Your comments here are a monument to that. :)</p><p>My two cents :)
  1226. user: r2002 time: Sun Sep 11 00:43:46 2011  permalink: c2iykbz
  1227. What kind of mods would we be if we spilled the beans on delicate plans for an upcoming vote to one user that uses every opportunity to work against us?</p></blockquote><p>Good ones?</p><p>What are you--Bond villains? What delicate plans are you talking about? Why does it have to be "secret"?</p><blockquote><p>The fact that a poll did not happen a month ago when this policy was put into place (when I was not here), and now a poll is happening on whether to rescind the policy (when I am here), speaks for itself.</p></blockquote><p>The fact that the mods never talked about a poll, despite getting constant questions from various people about how this "experiment" was going to be evaluated, shows that it wasn't something you had planned all along.</p><p>People asked you in the <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>original announcement thread</a> what the metrics would be and you never answered them.</p><p>You could've <a href=""  rel='nofollow'><strong>shut me the fuck up right here</strong></a> by saying: "Oh hey we're running a poll later, relax."</p><p>But you didn't, did you. You wrote some weird rambling non-answer accusing me of asking too many questions.</p><p>Now, if you're saying that you were restricted by the other mods from speaking, then just come out and say it. If you were fighting for this poll while others fought you, then <strong>I applaud you</strong> for standing up for us. But if you're not allowed to talk about it due to some kind of secret mod pact--then that's messed up and you shouldn't have to put up with that.</p><blockquote><p>With any kind of torment, some would confess all with the slightest of pressure, while others maintain their dignity while being drawn and quartered; most people are somewhere in between.</p></blockquote><p>Do you consider some basic level of communication and transparency a sort of <em>torture</em>?</p><p>edited to add: If you're saying that you're the reason why we're having this poll--implying that the other mods didn't want it--then I applaud your actions. But those other mods who oppose you suck.
  1229. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 18:44:34 2011  permalink: c2iwa2c
  1230. Purely on the math, it is provably true that an abstain counts exactly as a yes given the rules layed out.</p><p>I see people abstain and I realize that they don't feel they have a strong enough opinion to affect the decision making process.</p><p>You see people abstain and think that should have the same effect as a YES.</p><p>Abstain is a level of gray, and I can see that.</p><p>It's the rules of the vote that are eliminating the gray area.</p><p>Abstain affects the vote in the precise same way as a Yes for the purposes of deciding the ban.  It may be counted separately, but it is applied the same.
  1232. user: slapchopsuey time: Sat Sep 10 19:34:34 2011  permalink: c2iwltm
  1233. Abstain is a level of gray, and I can see that.</p></blockquote><p>Unfortunately, I don't think you can. There is no eliminating the gray area. These are /politics subscribers who voiced their opinion with one of the three given options (Y/N/A). <em>They will be counted, not discarded for not fitting into a binary choice.</em></p><blockquote><p>You see people abstain and think that should have the same effect as a YES.</p></blockquote><p>No, that is not what I (or we on the mod staff) think, as I just said. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth :)</p><p>The world is not black and white, we don't see it in black and white. If the YESs or the NOs can reach the benchmark for 'solid majority' entirely on their own, the outcome will be in simple black and white.  If the YESs or the NOs cannot reach the benchmark for 'solid majority' on their own, <em>but</em>, if one of them can reach the benchmark for 'solid majority' when supplemented with Abstains... then expect an outcome somewhere on that spectrum between black and white.
  1235. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 19:41:29 2011  permalink: c2iwne1
  1236. It's a matter of math, not opinion.</p><p>The only action up for vote is to end the ban on self posts.</p><p>This will only happen if 60% of the total votes are NO (Assuming less than 7k votes).  <strong>Is this True or False?</strong></p><p>If that statement is True, then in terms of actions, any vote other than NO has the same effect on the outcome.</p><p>So is that statement True, or am I misunderstanding the rules?</p><p>Edit to add: It's perfectly reasonable to count the abstains towards the unreasonably high 7000 vote barrier you set.  But not to the percentage of preference if the vote is decided this way.
  1238. user: ron_jameson time: Sat Sep 10 02:29:55 2011  permalink: c2itrg1
  1239. <a href=""  rel='nofollow'><strong>[ABSTAIN]</strong></a>
  1241. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 17:39:17 2011  permalink: c2ivugp
  1242. Given the rules according to slapchopsuey, they are effectively counting ABSTAIN as a Yes.  Please delete your posts if you do not want to affect the voting by abstaining.</p><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a>
  1244. user: bpbarrick time: Sat Sep 10 02:25:32 2011  permalink: c2itqzy
  1245. <a href="" ><strong>[NO]</strong></a>
  1247. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sat Sep 10 14:50:29 2011  permalink: c2iuret
  1248. Stalker? hah!</p><p>I call it as I see it.</p><p>On the other hand, it looks like you have gone and replied to a few people I am chatting too here. What would you describe that behavior as?
  1250. user: Rabbito_17 time: Sat Sep 10 16:41:32 2011  permalink: c2ivg3e
  1251. Go get em, these mofo's should move to china if they like cesored internet so much.
  1253. user: readyready time: Sat Sep 10 13:33:17 2011  permalink: c2iufd6
  1254. Sure it has, if you're a democrat wishing to live in an echo chamber.  Also, I did not know Cheney was calling these shills fact, thank you for introducing me to r/ is the place where you people are exposed for your 'shillage'.
  1256. user: yuck_phou time: Sat Sep 10 16:10:37 2011  permalink: c2iv8nf
  1257. it is the place where you people are exposed for your 'shillage'</p></blockquote><p>If by that you mean that it's cheney_healthcare's subreddit where he hands out <a href="" >lists of posters</a> who've disagreed with him to get help downvoting them, then yeah.
  1259. user: readyready time: Sat Sep 10 16:18:14 2011  permalink: c2ivagp
  1260. Whatever gets you through the day.
  1262. user: PasswordIsntHAMSTER time: Sun Sep 11 01:19:50 2011  permalink: c2iys7n
  1263. Hey guys! A libertarian!
  1265. user: downvotethis2 time: Sat Sep 10 21:19:00 2011  permalink: c2ixa5w
  1266. up/down voting on votes?  That surely serves some kind of purpose. LOL.
  1268. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 07:00:08 2011  permalink: c2it8tz
  1269. You joke, but I think Free Republic actually does ban Ron Paul supporters from posting.</p><p>Or at least they did during the 2008 primaries.
  1271. user: Ralod time: Sat Sep 10 07:05:02 2011  permalink: c2it9i9
  1272. Well I would never want to stop anyone from speaking, but I do find the hardcore Paul supporters to be a tad.... insufferable:)
  1274. user: SolInvictus time: Sat Sep 10 07:54:36 2011  permalink: c2itght
  1275. Perhaps we should send them off to camps of a sort, to be... concentrated into a more tolerable form. It would be a solution, of sorts. Dare I say, a final solution.
  1277. user: Ralod time: Sat Sep 10 08:20:57 2011  permalink: c2itju8
  1278. Good idea.... hey wait a second!</p><p>A practical example of <a href="'s_law"  rel='nofollow'>godwin's law</a>, I guess everyone is bound to get called a nazi once.
  1280. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 23:37:49 2011  permalink: c2it5fl
  1281. Too young to vote unfortunately.
  1283. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sat Sep 10 07:05:46 2011  permalink: c2it9lp
  1284. though Markedwords has a GREAT point, I kind of like r/politics for up to date news and such and I fear it might get over populated with self posts rather than actual articles.</p></blockquote><p>Your account is only 1 month old, and by saying you 'fear' that it might happen, were you around when self posts were allowed?</p><p>There might have bene 5-10 out of 25 self posts on the front page at a time, it certainly wasn't overbearing.
  1286. user: QueenOphelia time: Sat Sep 10 16:30:38 2011  permalink: c2ivdfp
  1287. account may only be a month old- lurked for about a year before that so yea I remember, still stand by my statement
  1289. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sun Sep 11 01:38:46 2011  permalink: c2iywb6
  1290. Fair enough :)
  1292. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 06:06:00 2011  permalink: c2iszz5
  1293. What about editorial pages that are 100% opinion and can be summed up in a single line headline?</p><p>Does this sort of post belong on r/politics if self posts are banned?: <a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a>
  1295. user: modestokun time: Sat Sep 10 06:12:11 2011  permalink: c2it13h
  1296. I dont care. An editorial written by a thoughtful, educated intellectual is not the same as one written by by some armchair warrior on reddit. Encouraging outside submissions is keeping this place more vibrant than if it were spammed up with self posts id have to sort through before finding something substantive. Outside links are important. Sometimes once i read a link i'll start surfing through the other links listed on a page like at slate. That won't happen if the editorials are self posts.
  1298. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 06:14:58 2011  permalink: c2it1lc
  1299. Got it.</p><p>There are no thoughtful educated intellectuals here.</p><p>We're all armchair warriors.</p><p>I'd rather all opinion gets moved from r/politics and keep it down to news.</p><p>Also FYI the link I posted was one of the highest scoring this week, and was originally sourced from an "armchair warrior" of Facebook, but that's somehow acceptable.
  1301. user: cheney_healthcare time: Fri Sep 9 22:55:40 2011  permalink: c2isy0s
  1302. redditor 3 months, 5th post, 1st post to r/politics
  1304. user: cheney_healthcare time: Fri Sep 9 22:15:28 2011  permalink: c2isqdp
  1305. redditor for 7 months, 5 posts total, 1st in r/politics
  1307. user: Timdegreat time: Sat Sep 10 16:13:01 2011  permalink: c2iv98f
  1308. And your point is?
  1310. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 07:01:41 2011  permalink: c2it92k
  1311. So what made you change your vote?
  1313. user: anutensil time: Sat Sep 10 07:20:09 2011  permalink: c2itbpg
  1314. Doesn't everyone have a right to change their minds?  I could have abstained from voting altogether.  I could have deleted my vote &amp; left it at that.  I could have not voted as myself and used an alias as, I understand, quite a few users are doing.  I went for transparency, perhaps foolishly.</p><p>Truth is, I voted against banning self posts back when it was first brought up over a month ago.  When the experiment started, I did find it easier to moderate without the self posts and thought the look and feel of the /r/politics was much more orderly.  (I speak for no other moderator, this is my own personal experience and opinion.)</p><p> After casting my vote, I started questioning if I was going with what may be best for the subreddit as a whole and decided to stick to my original vote, from over a month ago.  It seemed the proper thing to do.</p><p>To tell you the truth, go1dfish, I didn't expect anyone to notice my vote, one way or the other, period.</p><p>I must commend you on your boundless energy when it comes to pointing out 'editorializing' in the headlines. ;)
  1316. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 07:24:48 2011  permalink: c2itcdk
  1317. Wasn't trying to be accusatory, I happen to support your new position.  You certainly have a right to change your mind.</p><p>Thanks for the insight and commendations.  Would you say I've been fair to the posts I've reported regardless of my own opinion?  I'm not trying to focus on any particular bias or position, just point out just how much subjectivity is present, and how this can lead to bias over time.</p><p>On that note, this is a great (and current) example of a clear bias in editorial that is allowed to stand because it confirms reddit's (and my own) worldview: <a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a></p><p>No action on that editorial yet.</p><p>EDIT to add: Thanks again for moderating the sub-reddit, I realize it's a thankless job and that you have accusations of bias/conspiracy flying from all sides.</p><p>That's not what I'm trying to do btw, I don't think there is an intentional bias from any member of the r/politics moderation team.
  1319. user: anutensil time: Sat Sep 10 07:38:34 2011  permalink: c2ite8g
  1320. I think you've done a remarkable job of pointing out how deciding what is editorializing can be subjective.  And it is, by it's very nature.  But several things are suppose to be taken into consideration when deciding if a headline is editorialized.</p><p>Does it accurately reflect the article?  Is it free of personal opinion?  Often enough, titles I'm sure must be original &amp; the submitter's opinion, turn out to be the exact headline of the item.  There are other things to consider, but those are the main two, as far as I'm concerned, that is.</p><p>Original headlines are fine, as long as they reflect the gist of the article.
  1322. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 07:44:37 2011  permalink: c2itf4j
  1323. Thanks, and yes certainly it's subjective by it's nature, but what policies are chosen to guide moderation can strongly shape how much subjectivity is allowed into moderation.</p><p>The editorial vs article policy is a very good attempt at limiting subjectivity.</p><p>I suspect this is where the additional ease in moderation came from banning self posts.  It's harder to ban any self post on purely objective measures because there is no point of comparison.</p><p>I argue this post: <a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a></p><p>Fails both tests that you mention, at least mildly; and there's where the subjectivity and potential for bias comes in.</p><p>What I bet happens is if a post counter to the hive mind sees any success, it is more likely to receive complaints and reports from those who disagree with it's message; and thus even minor deviations from the rules are more likely to be actively banned, or not allowed to leave the automatic filters without modification.</p><p>While those posts like the above that reinforce the hivemind are allowed to pass due to a relative lack of complaints.
  1325. user: cheney_healthcare time: Fri Sep 9 22:24:27 2011  permalink: c2iss5h
  1326. changed for vote from before?</p><p>Good choice :)
  1328. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sat Sep 10 05:09:01 2011  permalink: c2isp4b
  1329. redditor for 1 month, 5 posts total, this is the 1st r/politics post</p><p>:/
  1331. user: those_draculas time: Sat Sep 10 07:16:36 2011  permalink: c2itb6i
  1332. wait you took the time to look at his post history...why?
  1334. user: greedylawyer time: Sat Sep 10 02:12:24 2011  permalink: c2itpn7
  1335. He is a stalker.</p><p><a href=";restrict_sr=on" >;restrict_sr=on</a>
  1337. user: those_draculas time: Sat Sep 10 10:30:57 2011  permalink: c2itx3z
  1338. Wowee, I've stumbled across that subreddit before but I didn't realize it contained such a concentrated effort to cyber-bully anyone who is hardline against cheney_healthcare's beliefs.</p><p>Are such subreddits even allowed by reddiquette???
  1340. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sat Sep 10 14:54:12 2011  permalink: c2ius4n
  1341. If you can point out where I have bullied someone simply because of their beliefs I will happily apologize.</p><p>The link given there is where I have called out a few trolls/liars/etc. Before you judge me based on calling out people, perhaps you should take a look at the comment histories of those who I am highlighting.
  1343. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sat Sep 10 07:20:47 2011  permalink: c2itbsu
  1344. 5 posts is hardly a 'history'.</p><p>Also, I'd say a sizable percentage of the yes votes are accounts with &lt; 50 posts and with less than 10 posts in r/politics.</p><p>The median karma score of those voting yes is much lower than those voting no.</p><p>I've got all types of statistics :)
  1346. user: those_draculas time: Sat Sep 10 07:25:15 2011  permalink: c2itcfo
  1347. I don't really care about the statistics, I voted yes because I would like a political news and opinion reddit with the self-post filtered out. I just want to know why you harbor suspicions like that in the first place. Browsing through these comments(I'm waiting for my red-eye flight to land, dammit!) you don't seem to be targeting anyone that voted the same way as you, like your intention is to discredit those who don't agree with your opinion, like this matters.</p><p> I don't know you in real life, you may be a decent human, but it's sad to see such behavior on a website that specializes in comics made up of funny internet pictures.
  1349. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sat Sep 10 07:38:37 2011  permalink: c2ite8p
  1350. I voted yes because I would like a political news and opinion reddit with the self-post filtered out.</p></blockquote><p>You would censor speech to make your browsing a little better? You can filter posts with the reddit enhancement suite, you know?</p><blockquote><p>like your intention is to discredit those who don't agree with your opinion, like this matters.</p></blockquote><p>I am pointing out fact, if you can find an instance where I have distorted or lied about fact, I'll happily take it back.</p><blockquote><p>I don't know you in real life, you may be a decent human, but it's sad to see such behavior on a website that specializes in comics made up of funny internet pictures.</p></blockquote><p>'such behavior'? Care to spell out what the behavior is in plain words?
  1352. user: those_draculas time: Sat Sep 10 07:51:19 2011  permalink: c2itg1s
  1353. It's not censoring speech when there was a subreddit made for  generic political self-post and self-post fly in ideological specific sub-reddits... by your logic people should be able post pet pics to r/science, its not unreasonable by any measure to ask for some order in an online forum... especially one with a terms of use agreement required for registration.</p><p>You state a facts like fox news states facts. You've chosen to skew facts contrary to your viewpoint to best serve your self-interest by obviously targeting the post with "YES" because you voted "NO" while ignoring the possibly that no votes can be skewed too.</p><p>The behavior is meticulously picking apart post that disagree with you, like some paranoid loon looking for "gotcha moments" to make your opinion seem more valid. I'm all for some light trolling but taking such effort to call out anonymous internet users that disagrees with you or causes you some perceived injustice is just...odd...</p><p>edit:clarifications are fun when you're bored.
  1355. user: IlluminatiLizardMod time: Fri Sep 9 22:25:51 2011  permalink: c2issf6
  1356. This is relevant how?
  1358. user: cheney_healthcare time: Fri Sep 9 22:34:32 2011  permalink: c2isu3d
  1359. hah... 45 minute account trying to troll</p><p>better luck next time :)
  1361. user: Rabbito_17 time: Fri Sep 9 22:09:36 2011  permalink: c2isp8c
  1362. I know WTF
  1364. user: khalvorsen87 time: Fri Sep 9 21:22:53 2011  permalink: c2isf5t
  1365. Whats a self post and why do they suck?</p><p>Not member for 30 days, can't vote
  1367. user: wrc-wolf time: Sat Sep 10 05:55:00 2011  permalink: c2isxw9
  1368. Previously in r/politics, and to this day throughout almost all of the rest of reddit, you were allow to post 'self-posts' were, instead of linking to an article, video, image, or other media found online, you posted your own thoughts, commentary, ideas, etc.</p><p>Roughly one month ago the mods of r/politics decided to remove self-posts as part of an initiative to, for lack of a better phrase, 'clean up' r/politics as it had acquired a certain reputation, for better or worse. This has, of course, struck a cord among most subscribers to r/politics - who are of course political.
  1370. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sat Sep 10 04:03:51 2011  permalink: c2isavo
  1371. Some notes:</p><ul><li><p>Reddit is busiest during the week, so it's strange to have the vote 5:30PM friday -> saturday</p></li><li><p>The text of the thread is written inferring that self posts are more circlejerky than blogspam/thinkprogress/etc and that the subreddit is now better for it. Kind of a push-poll tactic.</p></li><li><p>Three of the most active mods are against it so far in the thread.</p></li><li><p>A measure of success was never given for the 'experiment' of removing self posts.</p></li><li><p>The far majority of people in the initial 'we are taking away self posts' were against it.</p></li></ul><p>Time for a prediction:</p><p>Restore self posts will win with 58-62%, there won't be more than 2000 votes. If there isn't the 7000 votes, 58% will be disregarded :/
  1373. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 06:27:00 2011  permalink: c2it3nw
  1374. For reference <a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a></p><p>Reddit's reported total peak comment load as of a month ago was 280 comments per minute.</p><p>in order to exceed 7000 votes in 24 hours we'd have to average 5 vote comments per minute.</p><p>Or that is to say roughly 2% of reddit's comment traffic (assuming sustained peak traffic levels) would have to be devoted to this post over the next 24 hours to reach this metric.</p><p>Given we're on an off peak time, that there are other sub-reddits, and that this post has received little attention this seems near impossible.  Realistically I'd wager we'd have to attract closer to 30% of reddit's current overall comment volume into this single thread to approach that number.
  1376. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 06:43:15 2011  permalink: c2it698
  1377. Redditor for one month.
  1379. user: jmk4422 time: Sat Sep 10 16:57:41 2011  permalink: c2ivk65
  1380. ...and trophy case? <em>dust</em></p><p>I mean seriously? Not even verified e-mail? I call shenanigans.
  1382. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 06:43:46 2011  permalink: c2it6c7
  1383. Redditor for one month.
  1385. user: redblender time: Sat Sep 10 16:58:57 2011  permalink: c2ivki0
  1386. Reddit <em>account</em> of one month.</p></blockquote><p>FTFY
  1388. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 03:48:15 2011  permalink: c2is7gc
  1389. We want the opinion of a solid majority to make any changes.</p></blockquote><p>So where was this solid majority backing the ban in the first place?
  1391. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 03:52:18 2011  permalink: c2is8bz
  1392. Would you support moving links that are steeped in commentary rather than fact to Political Discussion then?</p><p>I think this would also be a solid improvement for the same reasons as moving self posts.
  1394. user: turtlemama87 time: Sat Sep 10 04:00:15 2011  permalink: c2isa2e
  1395. When you say 'steeped in commentary' you mean like over 500 comments or links that are editorialized? Or do you mean links that are op-eds?
  1397. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 21:01:38 2011  permalink: c2isada
  1398. Links that are op-eds
  1400. user: turtlemama87 time: Sat Sep 10 04:26:17 2011  permalink: c2isfx7
  1401. I think it would be unfair to say that all op-eds don't have anything factual to them, many from certain writers are frequently backed-up by polls or science. And to discriminate against all because some aren't necessarily backed-up by facts wouldn't be right. But I have faith in most people who frequent reddit to realize that something is an opinion piece, and many printed (not a dumb ass blogger) op-eds should not be kept from debate. Plus more people front-paged r/politics than r/politicaldiscussion, so more voting. Lots of them are worked out (read:downvoted, or tossed by the mods) before they can make it to the 'what's hot' page anyway. Also, more often than not, they are written by someone who has more experience writing in a journalistic manner (that is to say, not simply talking out their ass and spouting inflammatory opinions, like some of those who have posted in r/politicaldiscussion).</p><p>So, I'd keep them without having more facts on the matter.</p><p>Also it should be noted that I was considering the op-eds from Paul Krugman specifically, not many others just because I tend to find myself at his links.
  1403. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 04:48:54 2011  permalink: c2iskyv
  1404. I agree.  But I'd at least like to see less <strong>headlines</strong> that contain only opinion with no facts whatsoever.</p><p>Headline should include a statement of fact, even if it's just: Politician X says "...."
  1406. user: turtlemama87 time: Sat Sep 10 07:01:09 2011  permalink: c2it8zh
  1407. Yeah, lots of headlines can be misleading or only stating facts the reader wanted to emphasize that are taken out of context or down-played in the article itself. It's quite annoying when I click a link expecting to read one news story and what the subby chose to include in the the headlines is only briefly mentioned. At the very least, they could use the title of the article and <strong>then</strong> state what they wanted from the article.
  1409. user: MSkog time: Fri Sep 9 19:57:58 2011  permalink: c2irw0w
  1410. <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>A better solution to selfposts in /r/politics</a>.
  1412. user: Troybatroy time: Fri Sep 9 21:46:27 2011  permalink: c2iskfl
  1413. Exactly.  I can't self post here, but if I start a shitty blog and post that here, it's okay.  Not sensible.
  1415. user: cheney_healthcare time: Fri Sep 9 20:27:37 2011  permalink: c2is2sv
  1416. redditor for 2 months, only ~20 comments total, first comment to r/politics
  1418. user: Corbenik time: Fri Sep 9 20:33:20 2011  permalink: c2is431
  1419. It's long enough to vote. And I somehow doubt that everybody who reads r/politics comments on it.
  1421. user: lulzcakes time: Sat Sep 10 01:18:47 2011  permalink: c2ir99n
  1422. First of all, <strong><em>[NO]</em></strong></p><p>Secondly, how about I propose a solution to r/politics in general, instead of resorting to removing posts at all.</p><p>How about having something akin to r/IAMA. When someone submits an article, based on how biased the article/title or whatever may be, give the post a colored circle. If it checks out, it's a green circle. If the commentors decide the <strong>title</strong> is editorialized, give the post a red circle. If the <strong>article</strong> is biased or false, give it a yellow circle. In this case, the red is only given out if the title is blatantly misleading as to queue the people reading them that they're false, instead of just upvoting them if they fit the political views of reddit. If it's yellow, that means the title isn't lying, but the article may be. In this case, there can still be viable political discussion in the comments section, but it would, again, queue the reader that the article isn't completely true.</p><p>This way, <em>nothing</em> gets removed from r/politics, meaning no form of free speech is stifled. Instead, the commentors can decide for themselves whether or not something is misleading and then have a system in place to inform everyone else reading r/politics who might not read the article or comments section.
  1424. user: 2parties1cup time: Fri Sep 9 20:29:42 2011  permalink: c2is3an
  1425. You could call it /TWIT that's what I think. Put that in front of all self posts. And [NO]
  1427. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 03:33:15 2011  permalink: c2is42l
  1428. Those are considered stealth self posts and also subject to deletion under the current policies of r/politics
  1430. user: palsh7 time: Sat Sep 10 18:10:11 2011  permalink: c2iw1zy
  1431. Not sure why you're being downvoted. What you said is true. I've had links to websites and images blocked, and was told that they were too self-posty.
  1433. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 02:30:17 2011  permalink: c2irpmb
  1434. So you want to ban them even though you admittedly can't tell or don't care about the difference whether they are there or not?
  1436. user: thenumber28 time: Sat Sep 10 14:25:08 2011  permalink: c2iun6u
  1437. uh, no. I found the presence of self-posts very obvious and obnoxious when they were around. and their presence was always somewhat of an eyesore. I'm glad they're gone and hope they stay gone.
  1439. user: wrc-wolf time: Sat Sep 10 01:48:48 2011  permalink: c2irga3
  1440. Because blog posts from dailypaul, alternet, etc. aren't random people's opinions, <em>amiright</em>?
  1442. user: NightInWhiteSatin2 time: Fri Sep 9 20:52:57 2011  permalink: c2is8hr
  1443. I rarely saw arguing, mostly just circle jerking. If you like watching that ... well ...
  1445. user: MSkog time: Sat Sep 10 00:51:44 2011  permalink: c2ir2z1
  1446. As of 253 comments: 52 [YES], 65 [NO]. That's 55.5% no. 55%, a majority, but not enough to allow selfposts unless 6,883 more people vote.
  1448. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 17:37:48 2011  permalink: c2iqzuf
  1449. You need to put your vote in brackets like: [NO] to count.
  1451. user: 2plus1 time: Fri Sep 9 17:46:54 2011  permalink: c2ir1vm
  1452. Thanks. Fixed.
  1454. user: MSkog time: Sat Sep 10 00:29:29 2011  permalink: c2iqxue
  1455. Put the [NO] like that, in brackets, at the beginning to ensure that your vote is counted. Otherwise the script might not pick it up.
  1457. user: slapchopsuey time: Sat Sep 10 00:39:12 2011  permalink: c2ir071
  1458. There's no script, we're doing this manually, to ensure everyone (including those who color slightly outside the lines) is counted. But putting it in brackets and caps does help speed things along :)
  1460. user: MSkog time: Fri Sep 9 17:41:06 2011  permalink: c2ir0mm
  1461. I appreciate the work that's going to take. Thanks for doing this.
  1463. user: Dustin_00 time: Fri Sep 9 17:05:30 2011  permalink: c2iqs3n
  1464. [WEEKENDS] are when self-posts are allowed.</p><p>(would this be a pain to manage?)
  1466. user: MSkog time: Sat Sep 10 00:28:13 2011  permalink: c2iqxjr
  1467. Put it in brackets, like [NO]. They'll probably count votes with a script and your vote won't be counted.
  1469. user: kmmx time: Fri Sep 9 18:03:54 2011  permalink: c2ir5sz
  1470. That contradicts the examples given in the post.
  1472. user: slapchopsuey time: Sat Sep 10 00:51:39 2011  permalink: c2ir2y8
  1473. You're welcome to use the report button to report anything that not only goes against redditquette, but also anything that goes against the rules of the subreddit (editorializing of titles, etc).</p><p>For better or worse, squeaky wheels get attention, so if there's a submission that is particularly bad with the editorializing, feel free to message the mods. Your counterparts on the other side are doing it, in spades, so it wouldn't hurt :)
  1475. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 00:29:34 2011  permalink: c2iqxv9
  1476. You can, message the moderators, include a link and why the title is an editorial beyond the content of the article.</p><p>Unless the editorial is minor, and agreeable to the hivemind; the mods will generally remove it.
  1478. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 00:19:14 2011  permalink: c2iqve2
  1479. I doubt an automated vote counter would pick up this post correctly.</p><p>To avoid being disenfranchised by a voting machine you may want to rephrase that as [NO]
  1481. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 17:19:31 2011  permalink: c2iqvgt
  1482. My understanding is that you need to put this in brackets for it to count like: [NO]
  1484. user: garyp714 time: Fri Sep 9 23:38:28 2011  permalink: c2iqln0
  1485. The entire thread is being crossposted:</p><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a></p><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a></p><p>Yawn...
  1487. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sat Sep 10 03:53:48 2011  permalink: c2is8o8
  1488. It was posted in these subreddits before you even made your comment:</p><p>r/Liberal</p><p>r/TheoryOfReddit</p><p>r/Progressive</p><p>r/ModReview</p><p>r/democrats</p><p>I like how you choose to single out the subreddits you disagree with.
  1490. user: garyp714 time: Sat Sep 10 04:00:35 2011  permalink: c2isa4x
  1491. I like how you choose to single out the subreddits you disagree with</p></blockquote><p>Who says I disagree with them?  You projecting on me again cheney?</p><p>Those subreddits get called out for their constant use of downvote brigades.</p><p>Cheney:</p><blockquote><p>Baloney, show me an instance where these subreddits call on their members to downvote.  Blah blah blah!</p></blockquote><p>Nah, it's friday night and you can do a search of either of those subreddits and find several dozen calls to action for their members to game r/politics posts.</p><p>And it's fucking childish.  And it does more harm for their lofty intentions than it does good.</p><p><em>A lot of the time, Ron Paul's supporters do more harm to the honorable Dr. Paul' campaign than they do good.</em></p><p>:)
  1493. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sat Sep 10 04:06:24 2011  permalink: c2isbg8
  1494. Projecting? hah</p><p>You are the one that comes up with tinfoil theories. All you have ever been able to show is a cross post as evidence.</p><blockquote><p>Those subreddits get called out for their constant use of downvote brigades.</p></blockquote><p>Kind of like /r/EnoughPaulSpam huh?</p><p>That is a downvote brigade dedicated to misinformation and trolling, and you seem to be quite the regular poster there :)
  1496. user: garyp714 time: Sat Sep 10 04:17:33 2011  permalink: c2isdyd
  1497. I honestly think you guys are starting to realize what overkill you've pushed this online thread flooding, call to action, internet poll gaming bullshit towards and have backed off a little bit.</p><p>Or maybe you guys were just on vacation the last few weeks.  Either way the gaming has seemed to ease up a bit.</p><p>Probably just an aberration.  Doubtful you guys are smart enough to realize the damage you're doing to your own candidate...
  1499. user: cheney_healthcare time: Fri Sep 9 22:05:10 2011  permalink: c2isob9
  1500. More bullshit with no evidence.
  1502. user: Rakajj time: Sat Sep 10 00:33:24 2011  permalink: c2iqyru
  1503. You say that like the Libertarians are the only ones who dislike this idea.  I'm an unabashed ultra-liberal damn nigh' socialist and I think it was a stupid as fuck idea that the mods came up with.
  1505. user: garyp714 time: Sat Sep 10 00:40:35 2011  permalink: c2ir0ie
  1506. I'm tired of crossposting downvote parties that erupt from these subreddits.  They do it constantly and I like to call attention to it.</p><p>That's it.
  1508. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 23:57:38 2011  permalink: c2iqq8l
  1509. You don't think there is a significant overlap in the subscriber base of these subreddits, or that those subscribers would not be interested in expressing their opinion?
  1511. user: M_Decanterwauler time: Fri Sep 9 17:02:34 2011  permalink: c2iqrf2
  1512. Looks like you're trying to game the vote to me.
  1514. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sat Sep 10 00:09:49 2011  permalink: c2iqt44
  1515. Those posts have been downvoted so they won't even make the front pages of each subreddit.</p><p>Feel free to crosspost to r/progressive or r/democrat
  1517. user: garyp714 time: Sat Sep 10 00:08:15 2011  permalink: c2iqsr5
  1518. They (Ron Paul supporters) do it constantly.  No internet polls or thread is safe from their crossposts.</p><p> is barely anything more than a call to action website.
  1520. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 00:07:55 2011  permalink: c2iqso4
  1521. By attempting to increase turnout?</p><p>You do realize this is the same sort of "Voter Fraud" argument that Republicans like to trott out against voter registration drives.
  1523. user: modestokun time: Sat Sep 10 06:04:40 2011  permalink: c2iszpr
  1524. I'd rather have a block self posts in my user options for particular subreddits.
  1526. user: Salacious- time: Fri Sep 9 16:34:07 2011  permalink: c2iqkl4
  1527. Definitely [YES]
  1529. user: SolInvictus time: Sat Sep 10 00:21:38 2011  permalink: c2iqvz1
  1530. Some of you would also vote for image signatures if we gave you the option. Argumentum ad populum.
  1532. user: ytknows time: Sat Sep 10 17:16:16 2011  permalink: c2ivon8
  1533. If the vast majority of the users on /r/politics wanted image signatures, then the /r/politics moderators should give them image signatures, and the minority who don't want them should move on to another subreddit or website.</p><p>I understand why majority rule doesn't work in politics—there is too much potential for the will of many to severely oppress smaller groups. But that doesn't hold true for what is basically an internet forum. If the majority want to add a specific feature or make any other change, they are free to do so, without fear of causing <em>real</em> harm to others. There is a vast difference between an oppressive law being voted into place by a majority, and a majority of internet website users voting to make changes to the website. In the former case, it's really difficult to pick up and move to another country; but in the latter case, it's relatively easy to close a browser tab and go to another website.</p><p>Also, if the mods know better what the users want/need, then why are users voting on the self post policy? If they can be trust to vote up or down on that, then why can't they be trusted to vote up or down on every submission and comment made?</p><p>What it boils down to is that /r/politics is now run by a group of people who think they know <em>better</em> than the /r/politics users what is good for them.</p><p><strong>Edit</strong> and I get downvoted for that. Fuck /r/politics, I'm done here.
  1535. user: fubaru time: Sat Sep 10 07:39:00 2011  permalink: c2iteai
  1536. Oh yay another mod expressing contempt for the "civvies." and the people who populate this subreddit. What a petty mentality.
  1538. user: Willravel time: Fri Sep 9 17:26:06 2011  permalink: c2iqx15
  1539. <del>Argumentum ad populum.</del></p></blockquote><p>Democracy.
  1541. user: SolInvictus time: Sat Sep 10 00:28:11 2011  permalink: c2iqxjg
  1542. You call it democracy, I call it mob rule. Democracy has someone to steer the ship.</p><p>Read some Plato or Hobbes.
  1544. user: hansn time: Sat Sep 10 20:15:22 2011  permalink: c2iwv9w
  1545. Yours is a most distressing position, but historically consistent with those who are already "steering the ship."  Every aristocrat makes the case those they mean to make decisions for are too emotional or too irrational to make decisions for themselves, and that the "men of best character" and "philosopher-kings" must make unpopular decisions for them.</p><p>Time and time again we see the failure of this mode of thinking. I can give dozens or hundreds of examples of states that devolved into petty corruption and aristocratic self-gratification after putting power in the hands of a few.  I can't think of any significant examples of a major state failing because it became too democratic.</p><p>SolInvictus, I appreciate your service to the community as a moderator.  It is a too-often thankless task. But the lack of faith you seem to have in the rest of us disgusts me.
  1547. user: britch time: Sat Sep 10 01:53:25 2011  permalink: c2irhai
  1548. This entire website is built around "mob rule" (though I wouldn't choose that terminology). It comes with the territory. You can't say "Reddit, of these 100 posts, which are best?" and allow users to vote on them, and then cry "argumentum ad populum!" when they do just that and the ones chosen by the majority - the <em>mob</em> - rise to the top. That's how the system is designed in the first place.</p><p>Also, there <em>is</em> someone steering the ship: the admins, and to a lesser extent, the mods. Perhaps the populace of Reddit would, indeed, vote for image signatures if given the option; but the powers-that-be have decided not to give the populace that option in the first place. They're not grabbing a hold of the steering wheel and forcing it left or right, but they're also not giving anyone the option of going way off-course.
  1550. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 03:00:08 2011  permalink: c2irwio
  1551. I'll let you in on a fun secret I found out a few days back.</p><p>There is a group of long term power redditors who view reddit as a "Republic" and want to reform it away from what is perceived as a general decline in quality following the influx of Digg users (something I can get behind in general)</p><p>I was invited to join this discussion by one of the movements early founders, but kicked out due to opposition from (unknown) r/politics mods who also inhabit this 'Republic'.  I'm told this opposition stems from my criticisms of r/politics moderation policies including the self post ban.  I was also accused of gathering material for a witch hunt, and being the wrong kind of redditor. (all behind my back in the mod talk of a hidden sub-reddit mind you)</p><p>Been wanting to get this off my chest for a while, this seems as relevant a place to drop it as any.</p><p>Normally I wouldn't be an ass and spill this kind of secret, but they were planning small leaks about coming change/revolution anyway, so I doubt they will mind me dropping a few hints about their plans now that I'm no longer involved.
  1553. user: IlluminatiLizardMod time: Sat Sep 10 05:08:56 2011  permalink: c2isp3u
  1554. Alex, why the fuck should anyone believe this when you do absolutely nothing to substantiate your claims?  On the other hand, I'm a mole inside your guys' little Paultard reddit astroturfing club and got the call to arms to mass vote no using our sockpuppets in this thread.
  1556. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sat Sep 10 06:00:22 2011  permalink: c2isywb
  1557. On the other hand, I'm a mole inside your guys' little Paultard reddit astroturfing club and got the call to arms to mass vote no using our sockpuppets in this thread.</p></blockquote><p>Evidence?
  1559. user: britch time: Fri Sep 9 20:07:57 2011  permalink: c2irycw
  1560. That sounds like the lamest conspiracy ever. Is the Lochness Monster even involved <em>at all</em>??
  1562. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 03:09:12 2011  permalink: c2iryn5
  1563. Not that I saw, but yeah.  Starting a bunch of reddits with a common prefix is a pretty lame conspiracy.
  1565. user: britch time: Sat Sep 10 02:42:16 2011  permalink: c2irsdi
  1566. Right, which is why I mentioned that I wouldn't describe it as "mob rule". I didn't expand on that because I didn't want to pettifog or give him the opportunity to pettifog by letting this devolve into an argument of definitions of "mob rule" or "democracy" in the context of a website where one can simply hit "Hide" if they really don't like a post.
  1568. user: dietotaku time: Sat Sep 10 03:41:58 2011  permalink: c2is5zn
  1569. which is exactly what i do to quite a lot of r/politics posts. there was a post somewhere recently about feeling a lack of empathy/outrage towards a majority of current events... because of this, if i see an r/politics post that i can't be bothered to care about, i simply hide it. there are still <em>some</em> r/politics posts i'm interested in reading, like this one, but the hide feature is a very convenient way to get posts i don't like or don't care about off my frontpage without pitching a tantrum about the fact that everyone else upvoted it. i really wish more redditors would take this approach instead of trying to force the community to adhere to their own personal standards of quality.
  1571. user: crashorbit time: Fri Sep 9 16:53:43 2011  permalink: c2iqpat
  1572. is it technically possible to redirect self post content to that page?
  1574. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 16:51:56 2011  permalink: c2iqouz
  1575. In keeping with that ideal, would you support moving op-ed links to politicaldiscussion as well?
  1577. user: ynohoo time: Fri Sep 9 17:26:26 2011  permalink: c2iqx3p
  1578. Everything is op-ed, from Pliny the Younger through to the BBC.
  1580. user: DillonJMcGuire time: Fri Sep 9 16:45:12 2011  permalink: c2iqn8q
  1581. They should keep both subreddits with self posts
  1583. user: ringopendragon time: Fri Sep 9 16:25:28 2011  permalink: c2iqiex
  1584. Who the hell is downvoting the post?!? I mean vote YES, vote NO, don't vote at all, but downvoting?
  1586. user: garyp714 time: Fri Sep 9 23:51:47 2011  permalink: c2iqotj
  1587. The thread has already been crossposted to r/ronpaul, r/libertarian, r/politicaldiscussion and any number of other subreddits thus, a partisan bent has seemed to developed over the issue.
  1589. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 16:59:44 2011  permalink: c2iqqra
  1590. Which way are the "sides" voting, can you tell?</p><p>Edit: to remove typo
  1592. user: garyp714 time: Sat Sep 10 00:06:41 2011  permalink: c2iqsdw
  1593. ^Why is your comment written as a 'quote'?</p><blockquote><p>I have no idea why Ron Paul supporters and Libertarians seem to want the self posts back.  The whole thing makes very little sense to me.
  1595. user: Rakajj time: Sat Sep 10 00:35:26 2011  permalink: c2iqz9q
  1596. It isn't RP supporters and Libertarians, it is people who feel that it was done for the wrong reasons and to the wrong effect.  I think RP is damn near senile and that Libertarians are ass backwards in their approach to governing and I think the ban was a terrible idea.
  1598. user: garyp714 time: Fri Sep 9 17:41:41 2011  permalink: c2ir0r4
  1599. Makes sense.  Thanks for the alternative viewpoint.
  1601. user: paulfromatlanta time: Sat Sep 10 00:09:10 2011  permalink: c2iqsyy
  1602. Why is your comment written as a 'quote'?</p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Human error.  Fixed now. Thanks for the catch.
  1604. user: Gnome_Sane time: Fri Sep 9 23:23:49 2011  permalink: c2iqi03
  1605. Seriously, I'm in the new section trying to upvote two articles about Solyndra and neither mark the upvote. Why is that? I upvote other things and it works. What Modmin decided Solyndra is an unacceptable r/politics topic?</p><p>THIS is the reason for your circle jerk. Not self posts.
  1607. user: ifiwasabokonist time: Fri Sep 9 17:10:10 2011  permalink: c2iqt7d
  1608. That is an absolutly terrible idea
  1610. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 17:44:42 2011  permalink: c2ir1e7
  1611. Why?
  1613. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 16:26:54 2011  permalink: c2iqirv
  1614. This is an interesting proposal that deserves more attention.
  1616. user: markedwords time: Fri Sep 9 23:12:47 2011  permalink: c2iqf8o
  1617. <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>Here is my old post. I planned an update for this election cycle, but it would only be seen by 25 people here in r/politicaldiscussion. So nevermind.</a>
  1619. user: markedwords time: Fri Sep 9 23:11:46 2011  permalink: c2iqez5
  1620. <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>R/politicaldiscussion will probably never reach 1% of the size of r/politics. What metric are we using to decide whether this was a failure?</a>
  1622. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sat Sep 10 03:28:56 2011  permalink: c2is343
  1623. 5 total comments, redditor for 1 month, first in r/politics
  1625. user: M_Decanterwauler time: Sat Sep 10 04:33:26 2011  permalink: c2ishi6
  1626. So? I meet the stated criteria for having my vote counted; stop trying to suppress votes.
  1628. user: greedylawyer time: Sat Sep 10 09:08:58 2011  permalink: c2itp97
  1629. You need to excuse him, he likes to stalk users.</p><p><a href=";restrict_sr=on"  rel='nofollow'>;restrict_sr=on</a>
  1631. user: M_Decanterwauler time: Sat Sep 10 14:28:08 2011  permalink: c2iungw
  1632. Wow.  That is seriously pathetic and ironic in that this sort of backdoor harassment of speech is the sort of thing a Paul zealot would claim to be against and so often claim is used against them.
  1634. user: cheney_healthcare time: Fri Sep 9 22:07:50 2011  permalink: c2isov2
  1635. Suppress? LOL
  1637. user: markedwords time: Fri Sep 9 23:10:42 2011  permalink: c2iqepf
  1638. <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>Are you all happy that our political discussions are now relegated to 25 politics geeks instead of a diverse group?</a>
  1640. user: Gnome_Sane time: Fri Sep 9 23:06:24 2011  permalink: c2iqdmf
  1641. As a much hated conservative I have to ask; how many conservative Modmins do you guys have on your site.</p><p>If the answer is 0, then that is probably a larger part of the problem, gnome sane?</p><p>How frequently do conservatives get the boot from r/politics for comments that are similar to the ones liberal/progressives make... but just run from the opposite perspective?</p><p>I don't even know what a self post is, but I can tell you 99% of the threads in your tab are as left leaning in both title and content as possible. If you want it to be less of a "circle jerk", fast track some conservative posts... But not mine cause they suck, gnome sane?
  1643. user: calicorn time: Sat Sep 10 02:17:12 2011  permalink: c2irmmu
  1644. fast track some conservative posts</p></blockquote><p>So basically what you're saying is you want affirmative action for conservative posts. I thought you people were against this sort of stuff?
  1646. user: Gnome_Sane time: Sun Sep 11 03:58:24 2011  permalink: c2izqzr
  1647. Not at all. I'm saying if you honestly don't want the place to be a circle jerk you should have some conservative representation. I was in the new file the other day, and I my upvotes for 2 different Solendra articles wouldn't register. They registered everywhere else I upvoted... just not those two. Did someone prevent them from even receiving upvotes? Do the conservatives tend to get banned WAY more often for far less shit than the liberal/progressives do? If the answer to these questions are yes... that is more likely the reason for the circle jerk complaints, gnome sane?</p><p>The whole upvote downvote thing... also makes it a circle jerk a bit too...
  1649. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 02:39:36 2011  permalink: c2irrru
  1650. I believe what he means is he would like to be excluded from the 5 minute posting cooldown reserved for users with significant negative sub-reddit karma.</p><p>ProbablyHittingOnYou refuses to acknowledge that such whitelist functionality even exists.
  1652. user: Gnome_Sane time: Sun Sep 11 04:02:08 2011  permalink: c2izrt5
  1653. That too. I was on 10 minute till I reasoned with a modmin and he apparently fought for me to be freed. I think there is fairness possible here... but It should be painfully obvious that the overwhelming majority of r/politics threads are very far to the liberal/progressive view.</p><p>I also think I understand a self post now, but I don't see it as big of a problem as the upvotes and downvotes and the possible modmin assists in banning conservative viewpints.
  1655. user: go1dfish time: Sun Sep 11 04:04:06 2011  permalink: c2izs82
  1656. You may be interested in a new sub-reddit I've started to help foster accountability in the moderation of political sub-reddits.</p><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a></p><p>Please share any posts you believe have been unfairly hindered or unfairly allowed to violate rules by moderators.
  1658. user: Gnome_Sane time: Sun Sep 11 04:12:19 2011  permalink: c2izu19
  1659. No thanks. I'm not suggesting to snitch on anyone, not my style, gnome sane? I'm just trying to put some honest 2 cents in.</p><p>If you or the other modmins really want to make "efforts to reduce the 'circlejerk' atmosphere here" like this thread says, then you should have one liberal and one conservative modmin (and probably one self professed independent) in shared control. Or police the modmins abilities to ban or restrict yourselves. You must know who is the fastest ban in the west, gnome sane? Take away that power or split it in half between two people or something. The place needs some checks and balances, gnome sane?
  1661. user: go1dfish time: Sun Sep 11 04:14:12 2011  permalink: c2izufu
  1662. I an not a "modmin", just a concerned user.</p><p>The idea of the PoliticalModeration sub-reddit is to be an independent outlet to discuss the moderation policies and actions in political sub-reddits.
  1664. user: Gnome_Sane time: Sun Sep 11 04:17:29 2011  permalink: c2izv4p
  1665. Ok. I'll make a recommendation over there. Thanks for the help,.
  1667. user: cheney_healthcare time: Fri Sep 9 16:15:50 2011  permalink: c2iqg0u
  1668. 1st post in r/politics ever.
  1670. user: Cameleopard time: Fri Sep 9 22:55:16 2011  permalink: c2iqas6
  1671. ÝES</p><p>I mostly just lurk this subreddit, but it's nice not having "DAE ELSE THINK MICHELE BACHMANN IS A CUNT?!?!?! BROFIST" all the time.  Why yes, yes I do think that, but a sense of brotherhood from each individual holder of this opinion is not what I seek from reading r/politics.
  1673. user: yuck_phou time: Sat Sep 10 16:04:37 2011  permalink: c2iv77m
  1674. You know, Cheney, all I hear is you saying that there's not enough mainstream Ron Paul articles for you to post.
  1676. user: cheney_healthcare time: Sun Sep 11 01:41:33 2011  permalink: c2iywwi
  1677. yuck_phou: you aren't even a good harassment troll.</p><p>If you could link to where I made that claim, I'd be grateful for your efforts :)
  1679. user: heelspider time: Sat Sep 10 12:24:19 2011  permalink: c2iu78u
  1680. The Colbert/Stewart Rally is what swayed me on this discussion.  That may have been the most epic thing to have ever started on reddit.  Clearly self-posts have done more net good than harm.
  1682. user: 2parties1cup time: Fri Sep 9 20:22:57 2011  permalink: c2is1r4
  1683. Fuck yea man
  1685. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 00:38:21 2011  permalink: c2iqzz7
  1686. You need to put your answer in brackets to be counted like [NO] (don't want to be miscounted myself, but you get the idea)
  1688. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 18:28:38 2011  permalink: c2iw6cw
  1689. I don't see why the "NO" vote has to achieve some sort of super majority.</p><p>The original ban on self posts was done without vote. The ban was undemocratic. The burden of proof is on the "YES" vote--that's the side that needs to achieve a super majority to keep the ban.
  1691. user: brucemo time: Sat Sep 10 19:15:55 2011  permalink: c2iwhic
  1692. It's just people who run things wanting to make sure they keep running things the way they want to run them.  Same kind of shit happens often when public opinion forces a ruler to hold an election.</p><p>If "my side" loses via a majority vote, fine.</p><p>But if its 54%-46% or something, and these guys claim that 54% isn't enough, I'm going to be angry.
  1694. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 19:45:59 2011  permalink: c2iwoeh
  1695. It is a pretty interesting to see this on r/politics. Clearly the mods have done their homework.
  1697. user: jmk4422 time: Sat Sep 10 17:01:43 2011  permalink: c2ivl6f
  1698. Sigh. I think you're right-- it seems like the mods are setting up a scenario in which they can keep the ban on self posts in place regardless of what occurs in this thread.</p><p>I mean, seriously: when was the last time you saw a thread with 7k comments? For the quoted criteria to be met, this thread would probably have to have over 14k comments.</p><p>This thread, I think, is the illusion of choice. The mods don't want self posts and there will not be self posts.
  1700. user: cheney_healthcare time: Fri Sep 9 23:15:21 2011  permalink: c2iqfwp
  1701. 4th post, redditor for 16 days
  1703. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 00:23:12 2011  permalink: c2iqwd9
  1704. Why is cheney being downvoted here?</p><p>He's pointing out that this vote does not count according to the specified rules, but this is somehow irrelevant to the discussion?
  1706. user: Samuel_Gompers time: Fri Sep 9 17:18:17 2011  permalink: c2iqv62
  1707. Then his vote won't be counted... <em>like it says in the guidelines</em>.
  1709. user: hansn time: Sat Sep 10 21:47:48 2011  permalink: c2ixgvv
  1710. Any way you can post a list of people who voted each way?  I trust the mods to not delete votes, but keeping with the motto "Trust but Verify" we should make sure that votes were not missed.  Deleted content is visible to the poster but not necessarily anyone else.  If someone thinks they voted and their name is not on your list, it seems likely the post was deleted or was otherwise missed.
  1712. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 22:04:24 2011  permalink: c2ixkqd
  1713. In the interest of verification, I have a backup of this thread at 5:30PM EST sorted by new with 686 comments, the last comment being this one:</p><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a>
  1715. user: republitard time: Sat Sep 10 19:46:57 2011  permalink: c2iwomx
  1716. The ABSTAINs affect the percentage. YES + NO &lt; 100%
  1718. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 21:45:42 2011  permalink: c2ixgd0
  1719. There aren't very many, I didn't count abstains either (seems unfair to count them as essentially a yes), but my quick count agrees with wolf:</p><p>221 NO vs 135 YES</p><p>I only looked at top level posts, and was just a brief scan.</p><p>But it looks like self posts coming back is the clear winner
  1721. user: brucemo time: Sat Sep 10 23:04:40 2011  permalink: c2ixydj
  1722. I got 134:221, without expanding "load more comments", or checking for duplicates or accounts that are too young.  There are a couple of abstentions, and I know that there are a couple in "load more comments".  I counted things like "yes" as a properly formatted yes vote, same as you appear to have done.</p><p>So I conclude that if you aren't perfectly accurate, you are still likely very close.
  1724. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 20:58:00 2011  permalink: c2ix5c9
  1725. Another interesting thing to note from these examples...</p><p>None of these posts comes anywhere close to 7000 comments.
  1727. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 18:42:07 2011  permalink: c2iw9hr
  1728. The mods have really done their best to rig this vote in their favor:</p><ul><li><p>If less than 7,000 qualified people vote via commenting, a 60% super majority is required to bring back self posts.</p></li><li><p>If one comments without voting, this non-voting comment may <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>still counted in the number of overall votes</a>. (Note how they never clearly explained this in the main post.)</p></li></ul><p>Here are the facts:</p><ul><li><p>We've <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>never achieved 7,000 comment thread</a> before. The top politics submission of all time had 1900 comments.</p></li><li><p>The self post ban was made without community vote. Therefore <strong>the YES side should be the one that must achieve a super majority</strong>, not the NO side. If vote is inconclusive, we must bring back the self posts.</p></li></ul><p>Imagine if the government took away your freedom of speech for a month, and at the end of the month tell you that you can have it back if the super majority of the people vote for its return. Oh and by the way, we're doing this vote on a Saturday. Would you accept that?</p><p>Edited: Trying to update the section about non-voting comments based on <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>updates from the mods hidden in the comments</a>. My god the mods are making this so confusing.
  1730. user: markedwords time: Sat Sep 10 22:58:45 2011  permalink: c2ixwzq
  1731. lol. completely agree.
  1733. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 18:49:50 2011  permalink: c2iwbbp
  1734. We'd have to sustain over 2% of Reddits <strong>PEAK</strong> comment load for 24 hours straight in this single thread to decide this on anything other than a super-majority.</p><p>Given that we're in an off-peak time, and that this thread has seen little attention, thats pretty much impossible.</p><p>Additionally, the plan is to count Abstain into the overall percentages, so in order to remove the ban, the NO's must win by a super majority over both the Yes's and the Abstains which are both effectively a vote for the new rules that were as you mention, enacted with no input whatsoever from the community.</p><p>Abstain is effectively a Yes vote, as they are being used to calculate percentages.
  1736. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 19:00:23 2011  permalink: c2iwdr1
  1737. I can give the mods the benefit of the doubt with regards to weekend voting. Maybe that's the only time they have to count votes. I can understand that.</p><p>However, this whole 7,000 comment threshold <em>is</em> ridiculous. If they cared so much about having the most representative community opinion, why did they make this change in the first place without voting on it?
  1739. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 19:07:30 2011  permalink: c2iwffq
  1740. Yeah, no complaint as to timing, just the fact that it's an off peak time compared to such a ridiculously high comment count threshold.</p><p>And yeah exactly, where was the solid majority when this change was implemented in the first place?
  1742. user: Placketwrangler time: Sat Sep 10 06:53:43 2011  permalink: c2it7vw
  1743. So we have a moderator, OP, and the "top post" that are self aggrandizing douchebags droning on for paragraph after paragraph ( I guess we should be thankful that it wasn't just a complete wall of fuckwittery) complaining about self posts.</p><p>That's ironic.</p><p>Are the wankers going to allow the tossers back in?</p><p>Who the fuck knows, they spend so much time self aggrandizing that the common folk just get bored and fucking fall asleep.</p><p>For fucks sake, are you fucking retarded?
  1745. user: markedwords time: Sat Sep 10 08:56:32 2011  permalink: c2itnym
  1746. What does this post even mean?</p><p>"<em>Great, now people are talking, saying words, using sentences, and there are other people involved. They are even demarcating paragraphs. The fact that these people are having such a discussion in a thread specifically meant for such a discussion is ironic.</em>"</p><p>Then you vomited hipster bullshit to the finish line. You develop your thoughts like a cabdriver, ignoring extrapolation and backing out to broad gripes. We are discussing the self-post ban. There is nothing forcing you to be on Reddit, and there is an excellent no-self-post equivalent known as which is always open to new users. I think you're "self-aggrandizing" by making it seem as though we wasted an important person's time. You're so fucking stupid you participated in a discussion you want no part of.
  1748. user: somnabot time: Sat Sep 10 05:20:36 2011  permalink: c2isrdn
  1749. Every topic subreddit is a circlejerk in its own way, that cannot be helped.</p></blockquote><p>Have you visited <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>/r/spacedicks</a>?
  1751. user: habaker91 time: Fri Sep 9 23:17:15 2011  permalink: c2iqgdr
  1752. One CAT scan and a 2 hour ER visit = $10,254. If you don't support health care reform, fuck you.</p></blockquote><p>This is exactly a reason to continue to keep selfposts off the subreddit. It was an anecdotal story used to circlejerk a political opinion.</p><p>On a side note, the high costs are a cause of AMA power used to increase doctor salaries and restrict the work nurses can do, regulations that encourage more wasteful employment based insurance, and regulations on insurance companies that restrict interstate competition while forcing poor and young people to pay for insurance they don't necessarily need (Alzheimer's insurance for a poor 22 year old? Wow, I don't think i'm buying insurance at all). Ironically it shows the need to avoid <em>more</em> stinking liberal health care reform.
  1754. user: bartink time: Fri Sep 9 19:44:33 2011  permalink: c2irswc
  1755. If only there was somewhere other than this thread that you could have this discussion.
  1757. user: Tashre time: Sat Sep 10 02:32:41 2011  permalink: c2irq5v
  1758. This is exactly a reason to continue to keep selfposts off the subreddit. It was an anecdotal story used to circlejerk a political opinion.</p></blockquote><p>The circlejerking occurs no less in link posts.</p><p>In link posts, the source behind the link often gets treated like absolute authority, which is arguably worse than an anecdote as anecdotes are naturally treated as subjective while news stories are natural treated as objective (with leans to the left or right). All too often link sources get treated with undue authority that isn't given or expected from self posts.</p><p>Self posts are greater sources of opinion, whereas link post are more narrow focused, with discussion often being about the article itself or it's sources, rather than the issue at hand.</p><p>A public forum on democracy should be no less democratic than it's focus. Obviously moderation should be required to keep the starting posts in the realm of politics, but if you think a particular topic is or isn't worth discussing then use your voice/vote!</p><p>As well, a myriad of links will inevitably proliferate throughout worthwhile self posts as people work to back up their opinions. The only real difference between self posts and link posts, a difference that I view as an advantage, is that self posts give greater control over where one is able to start a topic.
  1760. user: markedwords time: Fri Sep 9 16:28:50 2011  permalink: c2iqja9
  1761. Uhhh.... if you see "reform" as a partisan word, that is your issue.
  1763. user: habaker91 time: Fri Sep 9 23:54:29 2011  permalink: c2iqphg
  1764. It was posted on March 14th, about 10 days before the PPACA passed. What the hell did you think it was referring to?
  1766. user: markedwords time: Sat Sep 10 00:34:42 2011  permalink: c2iqz3b
  1767. I think he was referring to the bloc of retards that believes all reform is a "liberal" idea. Seems really likely, now that I think about it
  1769. user: habaker91 time: Sat Sep 10 00:46:55 2011  permalink: c2ir1vs
  1770. Seriously? 10 days before a big healthcare bill is passed using "cost cutting" and "affordability" rhetoric, you think the fuck you statement is directed at those people?
  1772. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Fri Sep 9 23:07:48 2011  permalink: c2iqdyv
  1773. Some of your examples are in clear violation of reddiquette, and you're touting them as content we should be encouraging? Something like "If you don't support the same thing as I do, then fuck you!" is <em>good</em>? How is that encouraging a discussion, instead of a circlejerk of one side congratulating themselves on reaching the same opinion?</p><p>Self posts like that only succeeded and got the level of participation that they did because they were in one of the largest subreddits, and because they pandered sufficiently.
  1775. user: Rabbito_17 time: Fri Sep 9 22:02:06 2011  permalink: c2isnq2
  1776. Your face is a clear violation of reddiquette.
  1778. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 03:50:41 2011  permalink: c2is7yj
  1779. We want the opinion of a solid majority to make any changes.</p></blockquote><p>Where was this solid majority backing the ban in the first place?</p><p>As I recall the vast majority of comments on the post announcing this new policy were negative.
  1781. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 23:24:20 2011  permalink: c2iqi4j
  1782. <a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a></p><p>How is this post effectively any different?
  1784. user: knight666 time: Sat Sep 10 06:11:44 2011  permalink: c2it10v
  1785. How about I make up my own mind buddy.
  1787. user: onesideofthestory time: Sat Sep 10 14:46:53 2011  permalink: c2iuqri
  1788. i said "please."
  1790. user: Rabbito_17 time: Fri Sep 9 22:06:31 2011  permalink: c2isolc
  1791. No its not the no's are losing bad.
  1793. user: lunkwill time: Sat Sep 10 02:32:23 2011  permalink: c2irq33
  1794. The post you linked is another example of poor-quality content on r/politics.  I'm not sure why the existence of poor-quality non-self-post content would imply that self-post content is desirable.
  1796. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 02:34:29 2011  permalink: c2irqld
  1797. I'm not, I'm trying to demonstrate that there is little difference in quality gained by banning self posts.</p><p>It encourages sensationalist poor-quality drivel just like the above.  And has the added bonus of reinforcing the poor-quality poster with karma where a self-post would not.</p><p>Edit to add: What I'd like to see is consistency.</p><p>Self posts and op-ed links are more similar than they are different.  If it makes sense to segregate self posts to r/politicaldiscussion it makes just as much sense to do so with purely opinion based links.
  1799. user: markedwords time: Fri Sep 9 23:19:42 2011  permalink: c2iqgz7
  1800. <em>&lt;ignores mountain of evidence, picks out technical detail></em>
  1802. user: chiguy time: Fri Sep 9 23:31:32 2011  permalink: c2iqjzq
  1803. What you pointed to is certainly evidence (in that you state facts) but not in that it prove what you claim it proves.</p><p>Yahoo news articles regularly have 5000+ comments. it doesn't prove that the discussions are better than r/politics or r/politicaldiscussion
  1805. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Fri Sep 9 16:35:52 2011  permalink: c2iql0g
  1806. Agreed. Number of comments != quality of comments.
  1808. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Fri Sep 9 23:29:31 2011  permalink: c2iqjgn
  1809. You consider "violating Reddiquette" to be a technical detail? That is supposed to guide what is and isn't good content.
  1811. user: Rabbito_17 time: Fri Sep 9 22:03:43 2011  permalink: c2iso19
  1812. what is and isn't good content.</p></blockquote><p>Is decided by the redditors
  1814. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 04:34:46 2011  permalink: c2ishsw
  1815. Any witty comment for the "mountain of evidence" you are ignoring?</p><p>Since single examples are enough to invalidate an argument....</p><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a></p><p>How is this link effectively different from a self post?
  1817. user: dev222 time: Sat Sep 10 00:02:37 2011  permalink: c2iqrfk
  1818. <em>Reddiquette said it, I believe it, that settles it.</em>
  1820. user: nasap time: Fri Sep 9 17:14:39 2011  permalink: c2iqu9x
  1821. Now we just need to link to a blog that says the same thing so everyone will believe it.
  1823. user: dev222 time: Sat Sep 10 08:44:05 2011  permalink: c2itmj8
  1824. We, the prophets of Reddiquette, are being persecuted by the heretics, my friend. Keep your faith strong!</p><p><em>"Whoever of you does not renounce all that karma he has cannot be my disciple."</em>
  1826. user: ewest time: Fri Sep 9 16:57:34 2011  permalink: c2iqq81
  1827. Censoring the opinions? What are you talking about?
  1829. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 00:11:16 2011  permalink: c2iqtha
  1830. Your post says the measure has cut the amount of Ron Paul discussion which you characterize as c-jerking in half.</p><p>So your saying (presumably) that you support the measure because it has censored the opinion of those you disagree with.</p><p>At least your honest about it.
  1832. user: Higherpockets time: Sat Sep 10 01:33:12 2011  permalink: c2ircoz
  1833. It's not censorship, it just makes it a little more difficult to post self-indulgent thoughtless rants, like the RP c-jerking described above.  If a little imposition eliminates half the moronic comments, that's a good thing.
  1835. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 01:41:56 2011  permalink: c2ireqy
  1836. Banning speech is not censorship, ok.</p><p>ewest supports this policy because it bans the speech of those he disagrees with on r/politics</p><p>Doesn't matter if you find it to be self-indulgent or thoughtless, my statement is still true.</p><p>So while you may think censoring disagreeing opinions is a "good thing" I respectfully disagree and await your downvotes for stating my differing opinion.
  1838. user: Higherpockets time: Sat Sep 10 01:55:01 2011  permalink: c2irhmu
  1839. It doesn't stop someone from expressing an opinion, but it does force ne to actually read &amp; consider before posting.  This is not a bad thing.  If that's too difficult for you, so be it.</p><p>"and await your downvotes for stating my differing opinion" - perhaps you should provide people the benefit of the doubt.  You don't know me - I may actually understand Reddiquette.
  1841. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 01:58:33 2011  permalink: c2irigy
  1842. Sorry I meant you in the general sense (<em>you</em> would only have a single downvote to give anyway), downvoting disagreeable opinions runs rampant here.</p><p>We could do with more posters following the Reddiqutte.</p><p>Personally I'd rather keep opinion out of r/politics post titles all together, move op-eds to politicaldiscussion as well, and keep r/politics strictly for factual news.</p><p>It seems unfair to simply ban self posts, we just end up with circle-jerky blogs instead.
  1844. user: Higherpockets time: Sat Sep 10 02:04:28 2011  permalink: c2irjtk
  1845. In general, r/politics has been much better the past 30 days.  I disagree on op-eds.  I appreciate reading them &amp; often times learn something in the process (it would be nice - though probably unfeasible - to limit them to reputable sources).
  1847. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 02:31:45 2011  permalink: c2irpxz
  1848. I agree r/politics has been better the past 30 days.</p><p>To use the same argument as has been argued of self posts in r/politicaldiscussion....</p><p>Nobody would stop you from going to r/politicaldiscussion to get your op-ed fix.
  1850. user: backpackwayne time: Fri Sep 9 22:53:35 2011  permalink: c2iqacp
  1851. Although I am partial to "NO," if it cuts down on the Ron Paul circle-jerking I may have to re-consider.
  1853. user: 2parties1cup time: Sat Sep 10 03:32:30 2011  permalink: c2is3wb
  1854. I think /ronpaul has helped
  1856. user: backpackwayne time: Sat Sep 10 23:51:09 2011  permalink: c2iy8q7
  1857. I wish.
  1859. user: Isellmacs time: Fri Sep 9 23:47:03 2011  permalink: c2iqnp0
  1860. I'm with you on the no karma train. It's good for sorting the quality of comments, but the whole keeping score part seems over-emphasized.
  1862. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Fri Sep 9 16:30:49 2011  permalink: c2iqjt0
  1863. If we could do that, I'd definitely be in favor of it.
  1865. user: nasap time: Sat Sep 10 00:17:10 2011  permalink: c2iquwe
  1866. Wouldn't really change anything. People are more interested in pushing their agenda (even at the cost of rationality) than gaining karma, but I guess it's worth a shot.
  1868. user: Tashre time: Sat Sep 10 02:33:30 2011  permalink: c2irqd2
  1869.  People are more interested in pushing their agenda (even at the cost of rationality)</p></blockquote><p>So r/politics is just like real politics!
  1871. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 00:25:33 2011  permalink: c2iqwx0
  1872. I get the impression this is more of the case as well.</p><p>I'd like to see this experiment to see just how much of the sensationalism in this sub truly is karma-whoring and not just attention seeking.
  1874. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 23:37:54 2011  permalink: c2iqlia
  1875. You can.</p><p>Make the settings exactly the same as r/politicaldiscussion</p><p>Policies stay the same, the only difference is that the link goes in self text.
  1877. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 16:29:20 2011  permalink: c2iqjez
  1878. I'd like to see this, just to see what would happen.
  1880. user: habaker91 time: Fri Sep 9 15:26:16 2011  permalink: c2iq34j
  1881. Lol @ people up-voting comments that literally say "yes" or "no" with absolutely nothing else attached.
  1883. user: backpackwayne time: Fri Sep 9 15:54:48 2011  permalink: c2iqanz
  1884. Shit..., what else is there to do? I'm bored.
  1886. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 16:01:57 2011  permalink: c2iqchz
  1887. So is that a yes, no, or abstain?
  1889. user: backpackwayne time: Fri Sep 9 16:03:58 2011  permalink: c2iqd0v
  1890. Well I'd have to say "NO." - But I will be happy either way.
  1892. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 23:07:28 2011  permalink: c2iqdwb
  1893. For your opinion to count you should put [NO] as the beginning of your top level post.</p><p>I expect they are going to attempt to automate the counting.
  1895. user: backpackwayne time: Fri Sep 9 16:26:14 2011  permalink: c2iqilp
  1896. I think they get it.
  1898. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 16:28:04 2011  permalink: c2iqj30
  1899. Yeah a human can, but a script parsing comments would not.
  1901. user: backpackwayne time: Fri Sep 9 16:32:21 2011  permalink: c2iqk6l
  1902. You happy? :)</p><p>P.S. I didn't downvote you.
  1904. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 00:16:14 2011  permalink: c2iquo4
  1905. No worries, I'm used to downvotes here.</p><p>Just wanted to make sure you didn't get disenfranchised by a voting machine ;)
  1907. user: backpackwayne time: Fri Sep 9 17:21:50 2011  permalink: c2iqw0v
  1908. Wouldn't want that to happen. :)</p><p>Have an upvote for the hell of it.
  1910. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 23:11:19 2011  permalink: c2iqeu9
  1911. Your post adds little to the discussion but it got voted to the top anyway.</p><p>So allow me to interject some reasoning to support this position.</p><p>Self posts should be allowed in r/politics if op-eds links are.</p><p>But if self posts are to be restricted to r/politicaldiscussion, all op-ed articles also be restricted to r/politicaldiscussion</p><p>If alternet, dailykos, cato, thinkprogress and motherjones are to stay, self posts should also be allowed.</p><p>How is it fair to give additional weight to an opinion purely because it originated outside of reddit.</p><p>How is this high scoring link effectively any different from a self post, other than gathering karma?</p><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a>
  1913. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 22:57:26 2011  permalink: c2iqbbq
  1914. Exactly.  That's why I abstained - in principle, original content is a good.  But if its terribly low quality then it just clutters.-
  1916. user: markedwords time: Fri Sep 9 16:06:04 2011  permalink: c2iqdjh
  1917. Dude! You've gotta check out!
  1919. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 23:21:17 2011  permalink: c2iqhdm
  1920. Just curious - did somebody just downvote a bunch of your posts?  As soon as i replied to you, somebody voted down at least 12 of m7y responses in /politics
  1922. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 23:08:06 2011  permalink: c2iqe1i
  1923. check out!</p></blockquote></blockquote><p>That's the other end of the risk - that the mods of /politics become more and more like the super-users who dominated Digg and eventually pushed the admins to make a fatal error and kill Digg
  1925. user: Cameleopard time: Fri Sep 9 23:23:42 2011  permalink: c2iqhyq
  1926. Except this is but one of many subreddits hosted on a site where a replacement subreddit could be fostered and grown if the mods fucked up too much.
  1928. user: Rakajj time: Fri Sep 9 17:31:14 2011  permalink: c2iqyac
  1929. I'd like to hear a rational reason for why considering you're a mod that defended it.
  1931. user: LunHui time: Fri Sep 9 18:59:02 2011  permalink: c2irile
  1932. suck a dick you nigger faggot jew</p><p>fuck you thats why</p><p>nigger
  1934. user: Rakajj time: Fri Sep 9 19:39:15 2011  permalink: c2irrok
  1935. &lt;3
  1937. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 00:38:54 2011  permalink: c2ir03l
  1938. You need to put your answer in brackets to be counted like [NO] (don't want to be miscounted myself, but you get the idea)
  1940. user: slapchopsuey time: Sat Sep 10 00:58:48 2011  permalink: c2ir4mm
  1941. If you're going to be helpful, telling 'yes' people to put it in brackets like [NO] looks like you're trying to trick people into voting the way you prefer. (Case in point, you tell the 'no' people to put it in brackets like [NO], and you've voted [NO], yet you tell the 'yes' people to put it like [NO])
  1943. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 01:00:23 2011  permalink: c2ir4zj
  1944. I only do this because if the posts are indeed tallied automatically it seemed rather likely that saying the opposite of [NO] would trip up the tallying of my vote.</p><p>No malice intended.
  1946. user: slapchopsuey time: Fri Sep 9 19:26:32 2011  permalink: c2iropm
  1947. You're a clever one, aren't you? :)
  1949. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 19:27:49 2011  permalink: c2irp10
  1950. Maybe, but more importantly I'm a programmer so yeah I know how these things work at least =)
  1952. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 00:39:00 2011  permalink: c2ir04v
  1953. You need to put your answer in brackets to be counted like [NO] (don't want to be miscounted myself, but you get the idea)
  1955. user: drippysoap time: Sat Sep 10 03:10:03 2011  permalink: c2iryur
  1956. It's unfortunate that you feel that way and I wish that the bias of the self posts could be less distasteful for you, however r/political discussion only has 2,000 subscribers,  r/politics on the other hand has over 700,000.  That is a huge difference.  The discussion just isn't nearly as diverse and interesting in r/political discussion.  Self posts need to be allowed back into r/politics at least for a period of time while political discussion can gather momentum and grow.
  1958. user: habaker91 time: Sat Sep 10 03:20:20 2011  permalink: c2is17a
  1959. Unfortunately, letting self posts back into political discussion would probably reduce the number of people interested. Also a nice subbreddit, and you sound worthy of it: r/moderatepolitics
  1961. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 23:13:59 2011  permalink: c2iqfk7
  1962. Or alternately, find a alternet, dailykos, thinkprogress, cato, lew rockwell, dailypaul, or other blog site that shares your opinion and post that to r/politics instead.</p><p>Then enjoy the additional benefits of a massive karma injection.</p><p>If it wasn't clear, this is a sarcastic take on the cumulative effect of r/politics' current moderation policies.
  1964. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 04:49:32 2011  permalink: c2isl3p
  1965. 30-40% of all <a href="" >Alternet articles</a> submitted to Reddit are done by r/politics mods <a href="" >(especially anutensil and davidreiss666... here's a screenshot from tonight)</a>.
  1967. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 04:52:23 2011  permalink: c2islpc
  1968. While true (and these articles are all quite sensational) they are at least based on some objective fact that is included in the headline.</p><p>And there is nothing wrong submitting anything to reddit.  The issue is r/politics
  1970. user: ZgokE time: Fri Sep 9 22:05:07 2011  permalink: c2isoax
  1971. Seems more like a conspiracy so that they could drive traffic to those websites.
  1973. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 04:59:14 2011  permalink: c2isn5l
  1974. Yeah there's nothing wrong with the submission themselves. But for David to look down up on self posts because of their editorialized content, but to go ahead and constantly bombard reddit with extremely editorialized content seems a bit intellectually dishonest.
  1976. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Fri Sep 9 22:25:48 2011  permalink: c2iq2zz
  1977. I, for one, found "Does anyone else want an atheist, pot-smoking president?" to be very enlightening.
  1979. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 23:15:45 2011  permalink: c2iqg05
  1980. How does this post differ from a self post?</p><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a></p><p>The answer: it gathers karma.
  1982. user: cheney_healthcare time: Fri Sep 9 22:36:24 2011  permalink: c2iq5t6
  1983. <a href="" >I've had a vision and I can't shake it: Colbert needs to hold a satirical rally in DC.</a></p><p>1368 comments</p><hr /><p>The Colbert Rally FFS!
  1985. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 04:55:35 2011  permalink: c2isme5
  1986. They are normally just somebody venting about something</p></blockquote><p>So are a lot of those Alternet articles you keep submitting. As a progressive, I read a lot of those articles and say "fuck yeah preach on brother!"</p><p>But objectively speaking, I can say those are some of the slantiest articles ever.</p><p>It is kind of dishonest to say you hate venting, because you just vent your progressive frustrations in a more sophisticated manner--instead of submitting editorialized self posts, you submit the most extreme editorialized blogs that fit your world view.</p><p>BTW: <strong>30-40% of all <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>Alternet articles</a> submitted to Reddit are done by r/politics mods</strong> <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>(especially anutensil and you... here's a screenshot from tonight)</a>.
  1988. user: backpackwayne time: Fri Sep 9 22:56:33 2011  permalink: c2iqb3v
  1989. I like how someone comes up with an epiphany every now and then but those are few and far between.
  1991. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 21:58:51 2011  permalink: c2ipvr3
  1992. I agree, can we ban the posts on Mother Jones, ThinkProgress, DailyKos, Prison Planet, Cato, Lew Rockwell, etc.... that are the same exact thing?</p><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a></p><p>Why is this guy's facebook comment worthy of the r/politics frontpage but not the opinion of redditors?</p><p>I support the banning of all op-ed titles on r/politics, be they self posts or not.</p><p>But it's unfair to only exclude one class and not the other.  The existing policy encourages sensationalist blog spam with minimal basis in fact.
  1994. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 22:19:49 2011  permalink: c2iq1cu
  1995. can we ban the posts on Mother Jones, ThinkProgress, DailyKos, Prison Planet, Cato, Lew Rockwell, etc.... that are the same exact thing?</p></blockquote></blockquote><p>those are all so highly biased they are rarely "news" and effectively self-posts.
  1997. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 16:00:57 2011  permalink: c2iqc9e
  1998. That was my point.</p><p>Thanks for reiterating it =)
  2000. user: cheney_healthcare time: Fri Sep 9 22:40:12 2011  permalink: c2iq6tw
  2001. So why give those sites a monopoly on crappy opinion?</p><p>Considering the Colbert Rally in DC was started by a reddit self post, than surely some good comes of it.
  2003. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 15:40:58 2011  permalink: c2iq709
  2004. Excellent point.
  2006. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 14:50:16 2011  permalink: c2iptc0
  2007. [deleted]</p><p>Good for the mods for allowing the vote
  2009. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 17:41:29 2011  permalink: c2ivv0s
  2010. Given the rules according to slapchopsuey, they are effectively counting ABSTAIN as a Yes.  Please delete your posts if you do not want to affect the voting by abstaining.</p><p><a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a>
  2012. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 17:18:36 2011  permalink: c2iqv8t
  2013. My understanding is that you need to put this in brackets for it to count like: [NO]
  2015. user: ringopendragon time: Fri Sep 9 17:25:50 2011  permalink: c2iqwz2
  2016. Noted. Thanks.
  2018. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Fri Sep 9 22:09:23 2011  permalink: c2ipyj0
  2019. There's no reason that people can't post in <a href="" >/r/politicaldiscussion</a>, too.
  2021. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 22:21:09 2011  permalink: c2iq1qe
  2022. that's not really a good solution for a core subReddit with more than half a million members - telling them to go somewhere else
  2024. user: GodOfAtheism time: Fri Sep 9 23:31:11 2011  permalink: c2iqjwf
  2025. I can understand where you're coming from with that opinion. I would counterpoint that by asking you- Do you think anywhere near those all the members are active?</p><p>Consider this: The highest upvoted post in /r/politics history was 2 years ago (and was a self post, for those interested.) and had around 8,000 upvotes going for it. For a subreddit with more than 700,000 members, that's a pretty paltry sum I would think! I'm inclined to say that there is a sizeable contingent of /r/politics members that are either completely inactive on the subreddit, whether they are lunch/breaktime/casual subscribers who have an account and just lurk, or people who don't care about /r/politics but haven't bothered to -frontpage it, or just people who regged an account and never came back. So while the sub count is more than half a million, the actual regular user count is probably far lower. I'm not going to ask for traffic stats from the mods, but I'm 100% sure they'd corroborate that argument.</p><p>Now, I can also understand that hey, the best moderation is the moderation you don't see, and that we already have a system in place to put the content the users want on the front page, that it's to the left, and that it's orange and blue. Deimorz, mod of /r/gaming made a <a href="" >fantastic post</a> about this kind of thing a few months ago. I'm generally inclined to agree with him. If self posts are what people want, by all means, let them have self posts! If that's no longer fitting your vision of what reddit should be, then the fantastic function of making your own subreddit should be utilized to its fullest to make the subreddit you want. Usually this tends to favor meme's and other flotsam, and shunt the serious discussion into a /r/TrueX, like with /r/truegaming, /r/politics seems to have taken the opposite slant, which, in light of the type of discussion that was stated to have been removed (i.e. propogandizing.), I can also empathize with.
  2027. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 00:01:04 2011  permalink: c2iqr2d
  2028. The fact that many members are completely inactive might help to encourage the entrenchment of this sub-reddit further.</p><p>As a default reddit, every new account gets r/politics by default</p><p>If a portion of the determination of default sub-reddits is based on total number of subscribers, all of those inactive accounts subscribed to r/politics keep it that much more solidly in place as a default sub-reddit.
  2030. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 23:41:02 2011  permalink: c2iqm9s
  2031. you make a variety of good points.</p><p>One I would quibble with:</p><blockquote><blockquote><p>If that's no longer fitting your vision of what reddit should be, then the fantastic function of making your own subreddit should be utilized to its fullest to make the subreddit you want.</p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Even given your point about the number of actives being much smaller than the total members...</p><p>The core Reddits - with simple names about major categories - /pics  /news  /politics etc. play a significant role in shaping the Reddit experience so telling people migrate out of /politics is a bigger deal than other subReddits.
  2033. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Fri Sep 9 23:46:56 2011  permalink: c2iqno3
  2034. Not at all. IAmA, for example, started in AskReddit and was told to migrate out to its own subreddit. It's now one of the default 10. Same with /r/Doesanybodyelse (although not a top 10, it still has a large number of subscribers)
  2036. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 00:05:40 2011  permalink: c2iqs53
  2037. That's a decent example.</p><p>Can you name an example where the a sub-reddit competing in the same space as another default reddit has accomplished the same?</p><p>IAmA was able to grow into that position because the posts were kept mutually exclusive from r/AskReddit</p><p>It's possible that this will happen with r/PoliticalDiscussion as well since it is likewise set up to be somewhat mutually exclusive from r/politics.</p><p>But it is much less likely that any sub-reddit with US political news as a core component will be able to see similar success unless the moderation here gets horrifyingly appallingly bad (which it isn't).
  2039. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Sat Sep 10 00:07:55 2011  permalink: c2iqso3
  2040. Can you name an example where the a sub-reddit competing in the same space as another default reddit has accomplished the same?</p></blockquote><p>Of course. /r/Trees has superceded /r/Marijuana.
  2042. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 17:08:46 2011  permalink: c2iqsva
  2043. Cool, thanks for the example, any more background on the how or why?
  2045. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Sat Sep 10 00:10:19 2011  permalink: c2iqt8s
  2046. People found out that the head mod of /r/Marijuana was a racist, weren't happy about it, and he kept banning people. So they started another subreddit and it took off.
  2048. user: GodOfAtheism time: Fri Sep 9 15:16:07 2011  permalink: c2iq0cr
  2049. Except for it being seen by about 1/350 of the amount of people as /r/politics, of course.
  2051. user: rageingnonsense time: Sat Sep 10 16:56:32 2011  permalink: c2ivjuz
  2052. Exactly. Self-posts are nothing; NOTHING, but karma whoring.
  2054. user: gorilla_the_ape time: Sat Sep 10 03:11:23 2011  permalink: c2irz66
  2055. /r/politics is a default subscribe. I'm sure that there is a number of people who have created accounts, and then abandoned them. They will be counted in the number of people subscribed to /r/politics</p><p>What you want is the number of active readers in each subreddit.
  2057. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 03:35:15 2011  permalink: c2is4ir
  2058. This also prevents /r/politics from ever losing it's status as a default sub-reddit, as these abandoned accounts are unlikely to unsubscribe.
  2060. user: RestoreFear time: Fri Sep 9 22:19:54 2011  permalink: c2iq1e1
  2061. If people really wanted to see self posts they would go there. I think the small amount of subscribers there is saying something. Also, politics is a default subreddit so that obviously affects the popularity.
  2063. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Fri Sep 9 22:17:49 2011  permalink: c2iq0u1
  2064. Maybe there just aren't a lot of people who want to see the type of self posts that come from /r/politics
  2066. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 16:20:08 2011  permalink: c2iqh34
  2067. Then why did so many subscribe before you banned them?
  2069. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Fri Sep 9 23:28:20 2011  permalink: c2iqj5p
  2070. /r/politics has been a default for about as long as Reddit has had subreddits, because it was one of the first ones created. People were subscribed when they signed up. And this was waay before "self posts"
  2072. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 23:33:59 2011  permalink: c2iqkk3
  2073. Exactly.</p><p>So the subscriber base of r/politics compared to any other sub-reddit is a completely pointless metric.</p><p>Go find a different sub-reddit is not a valid response to any criticism of r/politics while it maintains this favored position as a default sub-reddit.</p><p>What's your opinion of media monopolization?</p><p>I want to be clear that I'm not accusing anyone of harboring any specific bias.  Just that given the scope of the reach of r/politics it is important to have enforceable rules that encourage consistent/fair moderation.
  2075. user: GodOfAtheism time: Fri Sep 9 15:18:56 2011  permalink: c2iq14h
  2076. Could very well be, I'm just playing a little devil's advocate.
  2078. user: I_RAPE_PEOPLE time: Fri Sep 9 22:32:45 2011  permalink: c2iq4vc
  2079. It's my first time hearing about /r/politicaldiscussion, how has the content been so far?
  2081. user: GodOfAtheism time: Fri Sep 9 22:43:55 2011  permalink: c2iq7sp
  2082. Not gonna lie- I stay the hell away from the political subreddits generally, at least partially due to some things mentioned in the OP (i.e. the 'circlejerk' atmosphere.), and partially because I like to chillax on reddit, which precludes things like angry mudslinging, which I feel is pretty common in the political subreddits. I unfrontpaged /r/politics a good while back though, so maybe things are a little more reigned in now, I don't know. With that said, I haven't been to /r/politicaldiscussion except to confirm subscriber size, but if it's like most other /r/TrueX subreddits, it's probably pretty respectul and on point, but slow.</p><p>And yes, I recognize the irony in not wanting to go to something I consider a circlejerk considering I actually mod one.
  2084. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Fri Sep 9 15:39:46 2011  permalink: c2iq6pf
  2085. The main complaint seems to be the lack of subscribers.
  2087. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 21:44:12 2011  permalink: c2iprjd
  2088. Again, I would prefer this policy, I agree that the quality of the sub-reddit has improved because of it.</p><p>But I think it's unfair to ban self posts, and allow op-eds.</p><p>Why should we give some random person more weight and visibility on reddit simply because they aren't a redditor?</p><p>One of the highest scroring links here yesterday was 100% opinion originally sourced from a facebook comment.</p><p>Edit: this one <a href=""  rel='nofollow'></a>
  2090. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Fri Sep 9 21:58:54 2011  permalink: c2ipvrr
  2091. A policy of moving op-eds to another subreddit would require a lot of banning, because mods don't have the ability to move something to another subreddit (oh, how I wish we did...)</p><p>Self-posts, on the other hand, are an option that we can simply turn on and off. Also, what qualifies as an op-ed is a bit unclear. Any blog post? Does it have to be labeled as an op-ed? What about something like Alternet, which presents itself as news but is clearly opinionated?
  2093. user: r2002 time: Sat Sep 10 04:51:30 2011  permalink: c2isliu
  2094. I doubt Alternet posts will ever be banned here, given that 30-40% of all <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>Alternet articles</a> submitted to Reddit are done by r/politics mods <a href=""  rel='nofollow'>(especially anutensil and davidreiss666... here's a screenshot from tonight)</a>.
  2096. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 22:01:50 2011  permalink: c2ipwju
  2097. Policy: Your headline should be a neutral statement of fact</p><p>Much less room for bias.</p><p>Content of the articles isn't so much the issue here, it's the titles.  Who here really thinks posts on r/politics rises due to something other than their title?
  2099. user: ProbablyHittingOnYou time: Fri Sep 9 22:08:40 2011  permalink: c2ipybz
  2100. Who here really thinks posts on r/politics rises due to something other than their title?</p></blockquote><p>Hence our policy of banning editorializing and misrepresenting the article.
  2102. user: go1dfish time: Fri Sep 9 19:04:51 2011  permalink: c2irjx1
  2103. What about this policy that might be easier to enforce:</p><p>Rule: Headlines that contain no facts may be removed.
  2105. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 22:08:16 2011  permalink: c2ipy8e
  2106. That's a much more difficult problem to solve - that takes a lot of time and judgment ffrom the mods.  The members could help by contributing less clutter so the mods have time to examine each submission.
  2108. user: habaker91 time: Fri Sep 9 21:56:59 2011  permalink: c2ipv8o
  2109. I think linking to a blog tends to make people require a higher quality of content. The kind of self posts that get places tend to be one of those posts where a brainless loony goes off on a tangent and people upvote because they generally agree. Blog posts generally need to have some level of actual content, because otherwise people look at it <em>as a blog post</em> and say, wow, this guy is kind of a shitty writer.
  2111. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 15:18:20 2011  permalink: c2iq0zd
  2112. It certainly get us people who have put a bit of extra effort for their self-post.
  2114. user: habaker91 time: Fri Sep 9 22:23:01 2011  permalink: c2iq28m
  2115. If your self post isn't worth a five minute, one time cost of registration, maybe it isn't worth clogging up the recent submissions page.
  2117. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 22:26:16 2011  permalink: c2iq34e
  2118. It would be a shame if the five minutes makes that much difference but I have the feeling you are right.  That said, the policy removes original content from Reddit - that's a larger question - should /politics have original content  - and is that content being too liberal and too libertarian a good reason to remove all self-posts?
  2120. user: habaker91 time: Fri Sep 9 22:29:30 2011  permalink: c2iq40c
  2121. is that content being too liberal and too libertarian a good reason to remove all self-posts?</p></blockquote><p>It's not that they're too ideologically slanted -- it's just that they tend to be poorly written appeals for up-votes. How many factless Christians/republicans can I bash today? It just encourages extreme partisan hatred (republicans hate the poor), and while I'd be fine with that, it is usually not supported by any evidence.
  2123. user: paulfromatlanta time: Fri Sep 9 22:34:47 2011  permalink: c2iq5f8
  2124. I certainly see merit in your argument.</p><p>In practice, however, the moderation in /politics seems to have become more harsh and partisan rather than "better" now that time dealing with self posts has been eliminated.
  2126. user: habaker91 time: Fri Sep 9 15:41:17 2011  permalink: c2iq734
  2127. True, but at least it's <em>somewhat</em> presented in a readable format.
  2129. user: go1dfish time: Sat Sep 10 00:39:16 2011  permalink: c2ir07e
  2130. You need to put your answer in brackets to be counted like [NO] (don't want to be miscounted myself, but you get the idea)
  2131. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAW Paste Data
Pastebin PRO BLACK FRIDAY Special!
Get 60% OFF on Pastebin PRO accounts!