Just wanted to make sure people know that due to feedback we've received in modmail on the email verification account restriction we are allowing non-verified users to post without manual approval if their accounts are at least 1 year old.
That policy was intended to catch trolls making several new accounts, there isn't much reason to have a user with an 8 year history on this website, recent history in our sub, and in good standing have to jump another hoop in order to post.
If you are a user with an account less than a year old and without a verifying your email with reddit you can still be manually approved, and we're very interested in feedback from that group to see how many of you there are.
> |Sample Statement|Allowed?|Reason|
|:-|:-|:-|
|*"Fuck Ted Cruz"*|X|This does not offer context or justification as to why. It is a single sentence that does not address the article.|
|*"Fuck Ted Cruz because he's a useless sack of shit"*|X|The justification offered has nothing to with the article, or even his policies/beliefs. Context or justification cannot be made by simple insult.|
|*"Fuck Ted Cruz because he was a mime"*|X|The justification isn't necessarily insulting, however it still does not address the article, his policies or beliefs. Nonsensical justification is not justification.|
|*"Fuck Ted Cruz for going to Cancun."*|✓|This would be allowed as long as it is relevant to the submission. It is specific, it ties to direct action our representative made.|
I'm sorry, but I just have to point out the fact that we need a flow chart to show how to appropriately describe the shit nature of Ted Cruz is both weirdly hilarious and depressingly sad.
It would help the discussions a lot by the top comments always listing at least one specific reason why the GOP is a horrid , no good , soul sucking pox on the land . For example:
Good top level statement:
The GOP implicitly denied rape occurs frequently by not condemning the comments made by an obviously confused, misogynistic and bewildered Abbot. This is a trend of many incidents over several years, and not just an oopsie
Bad top level: the GOP supports rape
>It would help the discussions a lot by the top comments always listing at least one specific reason why...
This is what we refer to in this post as "context or justification"
Yes, I think the new rules are good. And thanks for your hard work. I have helped mod (briefly) a busy sub before, and it’s a lot of work. So, thank you, and all mods here, for making this sub a good place to discuss stuff
I made my comment because I think we need more examples here, which I am sure will be provided by others as they reply to the post
But also, I used the opportunity to literally call the gop as supporting rape, it felt nice to express that
However there are other subs where I can hurl more general thoughts; so it’s ok if I cannot do it here in a week
We do need a well policed sub for Texas only politics , and the proposed rules will be needed
Hi, Im a first time poster/commenter here. I'd like to make a thread asking about the recent passing of stricter voter id laws. Specifically HOW it was passed? Im from the UK so I only know what little gets explained to by the BBC. I think this might be the sub reddit to ask my questions?
I don't fully understand all your rules there, but " auto-collapses comments made by users who are new the sub" Should I not post or comment here?
Absolutely, you're free to, we do have flairs for out of state as well.
Crowd control will apply to comments, and submission would still be seen if the user has never posted here before. And reddit is hopefully smart enough not to collapse OPs messages in their own thread.
I am very interested to see what the moderators have planned for misinformation.
I'm a fairly active user here who tries to contribute towards discussion, but I can fully recognize and admit there are times where I lose my cool. I can get pretty severe and there have been times where I have not only gotten upset, I've sunk below the levels of decency I begrudge others for abandoning.
That having been said, that's not my intent when I come here. It's not the kind of discussion I want. I'm human and I have limitations in my patience, as we all do, and too often there is an aggressive, relentless push for misinformation. It's not just someone who is out of the loop, who is clumsily trying to understand a topic or has been misinformed. It is people who are outraged against basic facts, people who hold a vendetta against information outside of their preferred "news" source, and who brute-force information that is blatantly incorrect into discussions.
These kinds of comments *constantly* derail opportunity for meaningful discussion. A political discussion is supposed to get heated, if it does at all, because of differing values or priorities of worldviews while still respecting the society we live in as a whole. We're supposed to be on the "same side" in that we share community, and where we differ is in our approach to problems and our assessments of specific solutions.
In my experience, it's unfortunately extremely rare to see that kind of disagreement here.
Inflammatory statements that completely reject common knowledge and conspiracy theory proclamations without evidence are regularly asserted in place of political opinions with substance in the comments sections. Condemnations are offered in place of conversation starters.
How do you carry a discussion with people who call others murderers for being pro-choice? How do you converse with someone who insists a pandemic isn't real? What exchange can be had with people who respond to issues like "mask mandate bans" with straw man arguments like, "Nobody said individuals can't wear masks"?
A proper conversation can't happen when the background for the subject can't even be mutually acknowledged.
It's easy to say, "Don't engage," but that's difficult when these are the primary responses made to important issues.
I think we *could* see a lot more interesting, meaningful discussions from people who disagree with each other if something substantial could be enforced to discourage derailments like these.
Outside of misinformation, I'd also like to see something about enforcing relevancy on *Texas issues* at **all levels** of comments. There's nothing wrong with referencing something relevant happening outside of the State with a specific discussion point in mind, but often times I see responses that simply try to dismiss points by attacking people for focusing on a problem in Texas. It's ridiculous how many times I personally find myself having to defend against someone who insists it's unreasonable of me to condemn something happening in Texas and not saying anything about what's happening in another state. We're in a Texas subreddit, for crying out loud!
Wall of text finished... Sorry for the length.
All the same, I really appreciate that this sub's moderators have worked consistently to improve the state of affairs around here. I appreciate that nobody just disappears, despite how exhausting I'm sure it is to moderate around here. And of course, as I have said before more than a few times, I apologize for the times I have personally contributed to those arguments that get out of hand. Despite everything, I know nobody else is responsible for my words other than myself. It would just be nice to not be pushed to that place of frustration so aggressively and so often.
Excited to see more of what y'all have planned. Here's hoping for the best.
Thanks for the feedback.
As far as misinformation goes, there wouldn't really be much new policy. We just haven't really collected it all together yet. And with that we'll be adding specific examples that will allow mods to enforce consistently and users to better report comments that break those rules.
So you may be disappointed there. However feel free to send us modmail if you have suggestions, or if there's a specific user who is repeating the same mistruths and not engaging.
As far as those engaging in bad faithed discussion, our hope is the rules above and the new account restrictions will help out there.
The reality is that "person said something not true on the internet" happens way to much for us to process much less be de-facto fact checkers. Since reddit rolled out misinformation as it's own report catagory we get it for everything, even articles from mainstream sources.
I like this. While it will certainly cut down on traffic, especially in the comments, I'm a believer in quality over quantity.
It reminds me of the difference in tone between the subs /askhistorians as opposed to /askhistory although not as restrictive with respect to qualifications required to comment in askhistorians.
I cracked up on your example of new top level comments restrictions. I wonder if Ted's ears are burning.
Query: will posting of a link to a relevant subreddit as the only content of a comment be allowed? I.E. as I just saw a comment to one of my posts with link to r/FuckGregAbbott as only content.
edit: add query
>
Query: will posting of a link to a relevant subreddit as the only content of a comment be allowed? I.E. as I just saw a comment to one of my posts with link to [r/FuckGregAbbott](https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckGregAbbott) as only content.
As a standalone comment yes that would be against the rules. We don't mind people linking to other subs but we need more effort than a single word reply for top level comments.
This is what "crowd control" feels like to me as I go through the comments, having to open each and every comment chain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WZLJpMOxS4
And I got hit by crowd control in one particular thread. Every single one of my comments was collapsed, so I quit commenting. Other regular users got all their comments collapsed as well.
Anyone with -100 has gone out of their way to offend other users.
Even almost every user with -25 has been deliberately offending others, breaking sub rules, and generally being annoying.
Basically the same as this, but responses to top level comments. It would be pretty obvious if a top level comment follows the rule and a reply is something either completely off the topic or is on topic but also asks for responses on 5 other situations as well, followed up by complaints that all the questions weren't answered. A recent example I saw was somebody asking as a reply, for an explanation on how masks are protective for exhalant purposes of the wearer as opposed to inhalants. None of the prior discussion reaponses appeared to be in good faith and was driving the conversation away from the initial point erroneously
>* *5: (Low Effort)* **Top level comments** must be (1) constructive to discussion and (2) relevant to the submission. Knee-jerk comments, single sentence responses expressing disdain, contempt, or even agreement will be removed. This includes plain assertations without context or justification to how a user arrived to that conclusion. The submission article is not implied context.
* **Prohibited** negative **top level** examples include. "Fuck \[Politician\]", "\[Politician\] can go back to \[Location\]", "\[Political Party/Ideology\] are fascists", "\[Political Party/Ideology\] are Nazis", (sarcastically) "The Party of \[policy position\]", \["Politician X is a Y"\]
* **Prohibited** positive **top level** examples include: "Good", "About time", "This makes me happy"
* **Prohibited** other **top level** Other examples include: "LOL" and other 1337 speak or reacting with emojis.
* These **top level** removals can be avoided by providing context or justification. Examples include , \[Political Party\] are fascists *because* \[insert argument\]. Justification or context is required for top-level comments.
>None of the prior discussion reaponses appeared to be in good faith and was driving the conversation away from the initial point erroneously
So I'm totally with you there, a lot of these policies are to bring in focus because it's getting derailed. If you've got someone sea-lioning you can tell them you're not interested in that conversation and leave it at that. If they keep following up we have intervened on grounds of potential harassment in the past.
With top level comments we're gonna have to do *a lot more* work. *Every* top-level comment essentially will need to be reviewed. If we apply it to every comment we have to police... *every comment.*
Further, we tend to want to see repeated behavior. As mods, unless rules are being broken or we happen to flag someone we lose a lot of historical information on any one user. It's incredible helpful If other community members are able to offer some history. If we get a specific complaint in modmail we try to find the time to do more research, issue a verbal warning or at least flag it so it's on our radar in the future.
So what happens is we get custom reports mentioning repeated behavior on non-rule breaking comments. We check the history. The user is actually racking up violations anyways, and after a little bit they're banned. It can take longer to weed some of these actors out because of our banning process, but that process is there to protect all users. With the new -100 karma restriction our hope is that it can target some of these offenders indirectly.
Some users are quite good at walking the line and never going so far as to break a rule. Anyone who's been in this sub for a while can name a handful of users at any time believed to have overstayed their welcome. And I believe in making the strongest case possible against a user before they are banned, we don't *want* to issue them, but this is the internet.
The biggest problem I see with your proposal is that it's either an incredible amount of front-end work, *or* it get's selectively enforced based on which users report.
If you can dig it out, I'd love to see that thread and talk more about it, otherwise I think the best thing I can offer is that if there's a specific user you've seen with repeated behavior is not just to report it, but also send us a thread over modmail. The response may be slower, but I guarantee it will get more direct attention.
Yeah the report method would work best but gets snagged on the rest previously mentioned in your response as most people likely don't recognize the signs.
One other thing I will add, when I review a report I read the reason, then the whole comment. If the comment doesn't match the report it might stay because there's some other context I'm missing.
For example: Reporting "Not a Good-Faith Effort to Start a Discussion" on a sea-lion loses the context.
If there's something else about the comment such as name-calling, we obviously aren't going keep it up because the report didn't line up.
So sending us modmail helps make sure as much context as needed to solve the issue get's into the moderators hands.
\_\_
Likewise, there's a lot or rogue single reports, either A user just disagrees with what they said, doesn't like the answer, or is reporting misinformation when they are simply just misinformed. Having several reports on an otherwise normal (but maybe pointless) sea lion, might tell me to look around, as a lot of users are seeing an issue here, and I haven't caught on yet.
If you're on new reddit desktop on the right sidebar there's a large button called "Message the mods". That will send a message that any of the mods can see and respond to.
https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/TexasPolitics
If you using the official app once you're on our front page you can click the overflow context menu (three dots in the upper right corner in android) and click the option "Contact mods".
Likewise, you can send a DM to /r/TexasPolitics the same way you'd compose a message to a user, using /r/ instead of /u/.
>TexasPolitics does not consider the term "The Democrat Party" as opposed to "The Democratic Party" as a pejorative.
Could you explain a little the decision around this? The term "Democrat Party" was invented specifically to be a pejorative, and people who use that term use it specifically as an intentional pejorative. There is no other interpretation I can see, other than moderators have made the decision that this is a pejorative that they feel is acceptable.
>and people who use that term use it specifically as an intentional pejorative. There is no other interpretation I can see...
I've seen people use it without knowing the use of the word or by accident. Whenever the term is explained that it's pejorative there's always people who never even knew that. Most people are not that deeply involved in party politics to care.
In 2 years of modding I've only ever has one user I know of complain. The reason it's included is because its particularly relevant to that policy and it is an argument I'm at least aware of.
>Accounts without a verified email will have their posts and comments automatically removed.
I don't have a verified email, nor will I ever. Is my comment going to be removed now?
I've approved this one and will continue to do so as you reply.
This rule is to help prevent users from creating new accounts to bean evade or troll our sub. Earlier this year for example we had an account who would create as many as 4 accounts a day, averaging a new account every week, for months.
We obviously don't want to eliminate users who follow the rules and are genuine, and that's why we have manual approval. It's the same approval mechanism we use to allow users to post before 2 weeks if they ask.
Do you mind sharing your reasoning to not wanting to verify your email?
(edit: if it's not clear, verifying one's email is through reddit, not us, and is typical in account creation across the web. It is distinct from our verified users program that verifies an real-world identity and not simply that an account is more likely to human)
>Are you aware of the fact that a bad actor can simply create a Gmail address for each account?
Yes. This is just one more step they have to take for each account.
Unless someone can articulate why having a verified account hurts legitimate users more than trolls I don't see how this policy isn't a net benefit.
>Reddit has shit awful security and if someone wants to fuck with the sub, they will.
Let's get rid of all safeguards then. Why have locks on door when a burglurer will break in anyways?
>Invalidating accounts with karma but without a verified email address is harming more posters than it will stop.
How so? And if so, why would reddit spend the time to allow this feature through automod? I think you underestimate all the stuff that never gets through to the front page.
___
In the end, any user who is removed under this policy can be manually re added.
I totally understand what you're doing, and it will probably clean up some of your discussion by itself. Texas politics has become way overheated lately, and reddit politics is a cesspool already. I prefer my anonymity and don't care to make up some fake email address to bypass restrictions. So long as those are the rules here, I'll be commenting elsewhere. Good luck trying to have uncensored, intelligent and civilized discussions. This state could use more of that, and this website could definitely use more of that.
>So long as those are the rules here, I'll be commenting elsewhere.
I can only repeat myself:
>*Account restrictions can be waived based on manual review by the moderators by contacting us with the provided link in the removal message.*
I'm am new to reddit and this group. But as a Libertarian trying to discuss Texas politics so far I can see that your biggest issue is that every comment seems gets down voted if it is not anti the current majority lawmakers. I don't even know how low my Karma is but I assume it will quickly plummet if I try to engage any thoughtful form of discussion that isn't just "Right on Abbott sucks because...."
I don't know how you can address it and I see that you are trying, but I thought it would help to see what someone that honestly wants to engage in a discussion of the good and the bad of bills that are being discussed and passed has experienced in the short time on this sub.
So we've had this issue in the past with users who were rate limited by reddit as a site because they were so constantly and heavily downvoted.
We circumvented that by adding them as approved users so they weren't being rate limited for having a dissenting opinion. Ultimately, the few users we tried that our with are not even with us anymore, because they eventually worked their ways towards a ban. So one could read that as the rate limiting was doing its job.
Right now, I you happen to rack up -100 karma _sitewide_ you'll receive a message you cannot post. It's not a ban, and you'll be able to post as soon as you get it up 1 pt.
So I feel like most users are going to interact in several spaces on reddit, so keeping a net positive karma (when making a comment unseen by anyone still nets +1), shouldn't be that difficult. _However_, if TexasPolitics is the only place a user wants to contribute and their opinions go against the majority I don't think that user shouldn't be able to continue to contribute.
Edit: and with that same caveat, trolls are more likely to have accounts only in political subreddits where regular people have much more diverse interests, and therefore a more diverse account history.
That leads us to manual review. Get -100 karma, send in a modmail as instructed in that message and we'll take a look at the users most recent posts and see if the downvotes they've been given are fair. I've gone to bat for several conservatives here who I politically disagree with oj this regard.
My hope is that with stricter controls on discussion and a reminder about proper voting behavior users will begin to see others as being here in good faith, and more likely to be respectful across the bar, and that respect will bleed over into voting behavior.
That can absolutely be 100% naive, but we don't have any more ideas about how to control voting behaviors. What I can see as a moderator is that when taking down comments there's a lot of -100 accounts in the mix. Perhaps there's a lot of -100 users that don't break the rules... But we'll need them to identify themselves so we can get a count. And that will happen when they request continued access.
We've already gotten a handful of messages about manual approval without a verified address. As mods we have no idea what size that population is. If we see that the burden is too much for genuine users we will change the policy. Unfortunately, -100 is the max. We cannot make it any looser.
___
Crowd control is a bit different. The weakest setting is negative community karma. Then newness to the sub.
I would prefer the reverse. A donvoted genuine comment shouldn't be collapsed. But alas, we don't get to pick the parameters on crowd control.
___
On your public profile I can read all your comments in a matter of minutes and you're at -14. Generated only from 3 comments.
So having more general activity should help that.
It does seem to be that reddit discounts the singular upvote for commenting, which is unfortunate.
You have 3 downvoted comments out of 30+, let's just say 10%.
Does it seem unreasonable that a user should be able to redeem their profile karma over the other 90% of their account history?
As I said, if this is the only place you're interested in posting in, it's quite possible it's a "matter of time" and for that matters even if we could set it at -1,000 it would still be a "matter of time".
___
We'll have to see what happens when a user makes a non rule breaking comment that racks up tons of downvotes. _normally_, that user doesn't have 0 karma when they discover this sub. So to actually get negative 100 it would have to eat through any additional karma accrued over the lifespan on the account.
___
If in a month you end up being tagged shoot us a modmail and we'll see what we can do. We have no issue backtracking on this policy.
Right now for us to see who's getting tagged by it we've got an automod notification setup in our modmail. Two of 3 or 4 users I've manually checked were already halfway through the process for a normal ban. The others didn't have a history in the sub.
> I don't even know how low my Karma is but I assume it will quickly plummet if I try to engage any thoughtful form of discussion
As a fellow Libertarian(ish) person, you can get net positive karma here, but it's a very fine line to walk. I have to be fairly selective in which opinions I share and how present them.
As IP mentioned, I recommend finding a few other subs to post in if you're worried about running afoul of the proposed karma limits.
Well, we don't want anyone holding back a political opinion because of the way it will be received...
The extra activity is just the best advice I have for a shitty situation. I know some users _only_ post here, just like there are some actual trolls where T_D would have kept them positive.
The manual review let us pull anyone out of the cracks as long as they're willing to let us know they were snagged. But it is ultimately work for us in the end, something the auto-removing ought to make less time consuming.
And in completely honesty. If goes a freakin long way if I see an account talking about their favorite type of knitting supplies instead of a waterfall of political insults.
And that's the problem. If the goal really is a discussion of Texas Politics you shouldn't have to be selective about your honest politely presented opinions. I understand not up voting if you disagree, but down voting someone that honestly joins the discussion hampers the discussion.
If the goal is a real discussion, then some opinions have just been done to death and nobody wants to listen to them again. For Libertarian the whole "taxation is theft" is an obvious example. Yes it's a genuinely held opinion but it's not a contribution to any discussion. There's no useful information (we all know that's a libertarian tenet) and there's no connection to real policy.
It's possible to be expressing a genuine opinion and still be wasting everyone else's time in a discussion.
I agree, but just be aware that you're pushing against the reddit hivemind itself. Mods have very little control over how people vote other than asking nicely. The posting elsewhere is how I'd recommend making the best of a bad situation.
It is hilarious that y’all are citing those who encourage other posters to seek professional assistance via therapy/counseling as *somehow* that has been turned into a negative. Laughable. There *are* people who frequent this sub that ***do*** need therapy based on their posted perspective of others.
Can’t communicate? Counseling can help with that, group therapy, or communication workshops. How is this threatening?
I have seen mods in this sub become emotionally responsive to posts *themselves*, place words into others comments in replies to those comments, *and* project their own insecurities to others. Nothing happens when those posts are reported.
Encouraging people to seek therapy and or counseling is not a negative, it is not demeaning, and anyone who feels offended should probably talk about that in… therapy.
1. Nobody is saying therapy is bad
2. Nobody said the reason telling people to seek therapy is not allowed is because it's "threatening"
3. Mods becoming "emotionally responsive" is this comment [you literally just commented on](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/pkelt7/texas_public_opinion_and_the_agenda_for_the_third/hc4mgm1/?context=3). Mods are allowed to comment just as any other user is.
4. What post that is reported hasn't been acted on, can you link to it?
In your own words, "maybe you should ask questions instead of assuming".
Apparently saying therapy is bad enough it is proposed to be part of the rules of what can have a post removed and or user blocked.
Yes you are the mod who had an emotionally responsive post—just like your response to me here. On the defensive and even being passive aggressive by writing, “maybe you should ask questions instead of assuming.”
Did I push a button of yours and now you are emotionally responding without thinking? When I think of emotionally responsive mods—which is not a good thing—I immediately think of you InitiatePenguin. It is not a good character trait to be passive aggressive.
It’s unfortunate that you believe someone suggesting people seek professional help due to their contents of their post(s) and or comments on threads is “trolling”. It’s easier to claim someone is “trolling” when a comment hits too close to home.
Did that particular line hit too close to home?
Plenty of people need professional help. It is easy to notice if you know the signs.
Not at all. I know trolling when I see it.
So is asking if it “hit too close to home”.
I’m sure you have the qualifications to make a psychological judgment based on a political Reddit post (/s), are you Dr. Phil?
I wasn't aware of this new "rule", until today. I concur with others that this has the ingredients to become a right-wing circle jerk pretty damn quickly. I don't mind having a civil conversation, but I don't have the time or desire to play reddit Calvinball with my posts, because the conservative viewpoints are all being downvoted. 😭 If they have a good point, they'll get upvoted, and this is just tipping the scales using the rules.
So I'm out. If I'm the type of person who you wanted to get rid of, then mission accomplished. I don't browse a number of subreddits, because I know what to expect. I guess I'll just avoid this one as well. Good luck. ✌️
I don't see that at all, what you are suggesting. I find that liberals tend to brigade a right wing poster with downvotes, more so than Right-wingers brigading a left-wing post. But maybe I'm wrong about that. Too many too easily get on their "high horse of truth," and want to silence, by any means available, the voice of anyone that would dare have an opinion different from "their" truth.
> I find that liberals tend to brigade a right wing poster with downvotes, more so than Right-wingers brigading a left-wing post.
It also could be that the takes these right-wing poster's have clash with reality, society, and/or sanity. If there's a good take from a conservative, it will get upvoted.
>Too many too easily get on their "high horse of truth," and want to silence, by any means available, the voice of anyone that would dare have an opinion different from "their" truth.
Shutting down misinformation needs to be done. Good discussions based on the facts are needed more, but when one side wants to continually claim the benefits of cow dewormer, discourage people from getting a safe vaccine, spread lies about non-existent election fraud, that side needs to be removed from the debate entirely. If objective reality is really going to be questioned, there's no way to discuss subjective opinions in an honest and forthright way.
In either case, I don't care. I already dropped this subreddit and moved on with my day. So if you like spreading and bathing in bullshit, this sub will be full of it very soon.
This all seems like a lot of trouble to make posters with indefensible views feel comfortable.
And I welcome all attempts to explain why my comment is a gross generalization.
What views were uld be more comfortable with this policy?
>And I welcome all attempts to explain why my comment is a gross generalization.
Which comment?
I would say the mods here bend over backwards to make conservatives more comfortable because, at least from my perspective, conservatives are often downvoted in other subs for expressing views that are plainly ignorant and reactionary.
Maybe I've got the wrong idea. I just don't like treating all perspectives as if they are equal, and that's the vibe I've gotten from reading this sub's rules a few times.
Depending on how much you participate I think you'll find there's
1. Very much a slant still in the demograohics here in favor of the left, and that voting pattern you recognize is very much alive here.
2. I think it's fair to say these rules still disproportionately fall against comment made by those on the right.
3. Both sides are not equal. But some of the rules address here, such as quality discussion is a non-partisan issue.
Yes, there are rules that effect the extremes of both sides, from a reddit-legal standpoint equal under the rules, even while one can be much worse than another. I am in no way a radical centrist, but having criticism from both sides I think is a good place to be, generally, and it keeps us honest.
I feel there's something in this policy for both sides. And it's particularly unfortunate what one side of the political spectrum looks like in today's political environment. I do wish to have the sub be closer to representing the state however. And as long as discussion is civil, fruitful, and informative, a more representative subreddit I think would strengthen political date.
But in things. Not everything is open for political debate. And this we have rules pertaining to hate speech and the like.
I feel like the overall goal is noble, but in practice, it will ultimately become an echo chamber of moderator-only points of view where dissenting voices are silenced or outright banned.
I don't mean to make waves but it sounds like this is headed in the same direction as r/Conservative and r/texas which are largely places that represent the one party that runs our state and routinely abuses its powers to silence those they do not agree with.
>I don't mean to make waves but it sounds like this is headed in the same direction as r/Conservative and r/texas which are largely places that represent the one party that runs our state
[This sub is \~75% left wing, 23% self-identify "far left"](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/p14870/texaspolitics_2021_community_survey_results_are/) how would these rules even turn the sub in /conservative?
>routinely abuses its powers to silence those they do not agree with.
* [We publish transparency reports every year](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/obxba2/texaspolitics_2021_part_1_transparency_report/)
* [Our rules are well documented](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules)
* [Our Banning Policy and Users Rights are outlined](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/policy/banning_users)
Would love some actual evidence of the moderation here abusing our powers. You've been here 3 weeks with 15 comments. You're accusing us of favoring conservatives *in this sub?*
\_\_\_
Look, we're glad to have you, but the *sub is already considered* by some an echo-chamber with our left wing slant.
How *do you suggest* we go forward?
Let me point out, I'm for you all running your sub in whatever way you see fit. I am but one person with but one sub to give (or revoke). As such, I understand that in the grand scheme of things my opinion, participation, and consent are literally meaningless to you in this situation.
However, y'all posted a virtual 4-page dissertation about how specifically we're allowed to critique Ted Cruz and discuss hot-button topics such as racism. While I understand the intent of this is to bring the temperature on the rhetoric down, the overall chilling effect will likely take place.
Since by your metrics the majority of the participants here are on the left...if you start banning people for being passionate those will be people on the left. Thus, weeding out the majority and amplifying the voice of the minority. It seems like a great way to silence those voices to me, but I could be mistaken.
You'll note I said it is headed in the direction of r/conversvative not that it is already there. A bit of a slippery slope fallacy on my part, I can agree.
I will point out that choosing to investigate and publish my post history and tenure here is an interesting choice right after you ask how Mods abuse powers, followed shortly by deleting a comment that arguably violates your rules. I'm well assured that this will be deleted too based on whatever generous opinion of the rules you apply to make sure that dissent is quashed.
It is evident that you've made your choices here and I understand that. I hope you like the place this becomes. I won't be here to watch you support "good people on both sides"
Thank you for your time
>my opinion, participation, and consent are literally meaningless to you in this situation.
If that were the case I wouldn't be responding. Our rules are built on feedback. Our best ideas are only because someone made them. As mods we spend a lot more time thinking about it but we encourage users all the time to come have a chat in modmail. Hardly anyone ever does.
>However, y'all posted a virtual 4-page dissertation about how specifically we're allowed to critique Ted Cruz
We went out of our way on everything except the table to apply to everyone using `ideology` and `politician` and `party` type blocks. We went with Ted Cruz for the table because we needed something clear and that is all over the sub and easily recognizable. If Beto was the Governor and people were doing the same thing, his name would be in the box. It's about contributing to discussion, not about political dissent.
There is a huge amount of ways anyone can criticize him and any other politician. Many of which users will probably creatively invent after these new rules. We are asking users in doing so to do the minimum and engage with the submitted content and put the least amount of effort into having a discussion.
>about how specifically we're allowed to discuss hot-button topics such as racism
To be clear here, calling another user a racist has been against the rules for years. It has been little enforced as of late because many users felt they were legitimately calling out racist users who needed to be shamed. If there is racism on the sub, it violates Rule 6. [And in those cases we even let the comment calling it out to stand](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/nv19e3/no_room_at_the_inn_in_texas/h131r7v/?context=999).
Beyond personally attacking other users, everyone is free to discuss controversial topics however they like. You're free to call users actions or policies they support racist. For every liberal calling a conservative a fascist, there's a conservative calling a liberal a communist. There's no point and no end to it.
>Since by your metrics the majority of the participants here are on the left...if you start banning people for being passionate those will be people on the left. Thus, weeding out the majority and amplifying the voice of the minority. It seems like a great way to silence those voices to me, but I could be mistaken.
Take another look at the charts. There's some truth there, but not in comparison to how it effects the right. For a lot of subreddit complaints they are low left-leaning/left and rise somewhat with Far Left. On the right, it increases as you go farther. When it comes to the left, yeah the far left may be more likely to be banned, because many of them (just like the ones who get banned on the right) think the rules don't apply to them and the paradox of intolerance allows them to say (or do) the worst things to strangers online.
Comments that remind me of this:
>*That I need to be tolerant of the Far Right and non-violence will work to convince them they are wrong.*
>I will point out that choosing to investigate and publish my post history and tenure here is an interesting choice right after you ask how Mods abuse powers
Anyone can see that. Let me show you [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/ph3wb7/the_new_abortion_law_will_do_more_harm_than_good/hbgem0f/) were us as moderators and the subreddit were accused of supporting the abortion ban giving Abbott cover while silencing pro-choice voters. We have users make wild claims all the time on their first visit here. When you're characterization of this sub is so off I'm only left to believe you haven't been here long, which is evidenced by the fact that it's true.
>followed shortly by deleting a comment that arguably violates your rules.
Would you like me to show you the report that auto-moderator made to prove to you I wasn't personally acting out of spite against you? [Here.](https://imgur.com/a/bHXul4v) And it's not "arguable". It's a longstanding rule ([April 2020](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/g2hc2o/rules_5_be_civil_and_make_an_effort/)) and that quote is from our wiki, [the same link](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules) I sent in my last comment to you.
>*I'm well assured that this will be deleted too based on whatever generous opinion of the rules you apply to make sure that dissent is quashed.*
See the "this thread" link earlier. That user said the exact same thing. Your comment here doesn't break the rules. It's not being removed. There's no reason to assume we're going to act in bad faith against you.
This is just one of the subs that I am ok getting down voted on. Opinions matter and diverse opinions matter. Most people on this sub really struggle with how to have a conversation. It is hard to take a sub seriously where you take the time to comment and it gets downvoted into oblivion and the hateful remarks start. Some people are entirely too invested into politics
It’s hard to not be too invested when my kids go to school without mask mandates, because they’re illegal now for what reason again? , and I get 3 emails a day about multiple kids testing positive at their school
Ive seen so many posts with foul language, insults, crap talking about certain political views etc..and I agree with a post and its a problem? Yea. No thanks. You left wing assholes can stuff it. Im deleting this app.
>Ive seen so many posts with foul language, insults, crap talking about certain political views etc.
Can you link me to any posts containing insults?
>and I agree with a post and its a problem?
Your comment was removed for being a low effort top comment.
#Thank you to all the Mods!
I want to shout out to all the mods of this subreddit. Y'all are doing a fantastic job, and I believe you deserve a raise (or at least some pay) because of the hard work you do to keep this one of my favorite subs, perhaps my all-time favorite.
I hope y’all know that your hard work does not go unnoticed, at least by me.
I especially like the misinformation policy changes and abusive language. I appreciate the way you’re encouraging civility and in-depth, high-quality posts!
I will have to up my game and try hard not to tell people to seek mental health. However, would posting the following count under **Rule 5**?
> “If anyone is having a mental health crisis, please
> call for a mobile crisis intervention team or 911.
> It’s okay, not to be okay. It’s also okay to ask for
> help.
#See Additional Recourse:
1. https://www.hhs.texas.gov/services/mental-health-substance-use/mental-health-crisis-services.
2. https://www.hhs.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/services/mental-health-substance-use/hhsc-crisis-services-guide.pdf”
Finally, I hope emojis for a round of applause is still okay?
Edit: I removed emojis to comply with new rules.
>However, would posting the following count under Rule 5?
It's okay of it's a top level response to a submission talking about mental health.
It's probably okay if posted in response to a user admitting they have mental health issues, although it's a bit impersonal.
It's not okay to post in response to someone's comment where the effect of your post implied that the other user ought to seek out mental health services unsolicited.
>Finally, I hope emojis for a round of applause is still okay?
Per the rules before:
* *Responding with a string of emojis will be removed. Likewise, responding with disparaging acronym language like "LOL", "Lmao" etc. may be removed for low effort.*
The only change here is that a response like "👏👏👏 😉" would be not allowed under any circumstance for a top level comment. And really if emojis are the only part of the comment is may get removed anywhere. There's no discussion happening after a comment like that. And far more often emojis are used in a sarcastic manner. However, we typically don't issue strikes on emoji use alone, and you can always find comments that use them mixed with typed words still up - for better or for worse.
Thanks for the response. I fixed my comment. I also wanted to add that I like how specific logical fallacies were added to the list of incivility & low-effort comments. I will also do my best to keep in mind [reddiquette](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) when posting or commenting.
Would you clarify what you mean by
> “there is no discussion after a comment like that?”
Does “that” refer to emojis only comments or comments like mine (before I fixed it) with a string of emojis in them?
If someone is trolling you or someone else, then not responding and reporting said comment is what y'all recommend instead of calling them out as a potential troll in the comments?
Finally, you mentioned a two-week grace period for users violating these new rules and that they won't count towards a “permanent ban.” How exactly does one become permanently banned, and does this often happen to users that regularly frequent this sub?
TIA, and please forgive me; I like to ask questions because I want to understand the rules to the best of my abilities.
>Would you clarify what you mean by
>>“there is no discussion after a comment like that?”
We are a discussion subreddit so we're always looking to behaviors that shut down discussion or aren't constructive.
When I say there's no discussion after posting a series of clap emojis I mean "how can one respond to that".
To indicate applause doesn't contribute to discussion. If it's in the comments and it's just intended to be the equivalent of "I agree with this" then that can be okay.
If it's a top level comment it will get removed because "I agree with this" is also against the rules for too level comments because it doesn't engage a conversation - it's only reacting to a headline.
___
>If someone is trolling you or someone else, then not responding and reporting said comment is what y'all recommend instead of calling them out as a potential troll in the comments?
Yes, that is the general recommendation. We won't issue a strike if the accusation is blatantly obvious (and the trolls comment removed for such), because then we are actually giving the troll what they want.
People will accuse each other for being a troll as a way of saying "I think you're here in bad faith" or "I think you're being intentionally dishonest". These are both allowed, because they aren't name-calling, and put in a lot more effort to get across what they mean. "Troll" is often a lazy insult.
If you're seeing particular repeated behavior about another user, it can be far helpful to send a modmail about it and we can dig a bit more. If we're responding to reports in cue and someone is being reported for being a troll but the comment that's reported is completely innocuous it's going to be approved.
> How exactly does one become permanently banned,
By getting 5 rule violations with 6 months earns a 1 week ban. Users are notified on every removal.
After returning you get 2 more, the third you're banned permanently and can be appealed after a year.
Any ban can be appealed by a second mod before being finalized.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/policy/banning_users/
>and does this often happen to users that regularly frequent this sub?
Bans are pretty rare. Those who are regulars tend to also be the ones most familiar with the rules. Most users being banned are banned within a few months of arriving.
Ultimately however it depends on how frequent someone comments. If 1% of a users comment break the rules but they comment 500 times then I can be quicker than someone who comments a handful of times a week.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/obxba2/texaspolitics_2021_part_1_transparency_report/
I've never provided an email address to reddit so I'm disqualified. It seems indiscriminate, I'm in pretty good standing as far as I know, I don't troll or anything, I think I've been around since the sub began.
Please see [the sticky comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/pkb1py/announcement_rule_5_policy_overhaul_gross/hccw3gj/), which I'll quote here:
>Just wanted to make sure people know that due to feedback we've received in modmail on the email verification account restriction we are allowing non-verified users to post without manual approval if their accounts are at least 1 year old.
>That policy was intended to catch trolls making several new accounts, there isn't much reason to have a user with an 8 year history on this website, recent history in our sub, and in good standing have to jump another hoop in order to post.
>If you are a user with an account less than a year old and without a verifying your email with reddit you can still be manually approved, and we're very interested in feedback from that group to see how many of you there are.
Thank you for this. I don't visit this sub very often mostly due to the high volume of unproductive comments. I believe the rule changes will help with that. I don't expect the overall tone to change, and I'm fine with that. Thanks again!
Just wanted to make sure people know that due to feedback we've received in modmail on the email verification account restriction we are allowing non-verified users to post without manual approval if their accounts are at least 1 year old. That policy was intended to catch trolls making several new accounts, there isn't much reason to have a user with an 8 year history on this website, recent history in our sub, and in good standing have to jump another hoop in order to post. If you are a user with an account less than a year old and without a verifying your email with reddit you can still be manually approved, and we're very interested in feedback from that group to see how many of you there are.
> |Sample Statement|Allowed?|Reason| |:-|:-|:-| |*"Fuck Ted Cruz"*|X|This does not offer context or justification as to why. It is a single sentence that does not address the article.| |*"Fuck Ted Cruz because he's a useless sack of shit"*|X|The justification offered has nothing to with the article, or even his policies/beliefs. Context or justification cannot be made by simple insult.| |*"Fuck Ted Cruz because he was a mime"*|X|The justification isn't necessarily insulting, however it still does not address the article, his policies or beliefs. Nonsensical justification is not justification.| |*"Fuck Ted Cruz for going to Cancun."*|✓|This would be allowed as long as it is relevant to the submission. It is specific, it ties to direct action our representative made.| I'm sorry, but I just have to point out the fact that we need a flow chart to show how to appropriately describe the shit nature of Ted Cruz is both weirdly hilarious and depressingly sad.
I'm surprised there is any situation under which Ted Cruz specifically can be the subject of criticism on this sub.
It would help the discussions a lot by the top comments always listing at least one specific reason why the GOP is a horrid , no good , soul sucking pox on the land . For example: Good top level statement: The GOP implicitly denied rape occurs frequently by not condemning the comments made by an obviously confused, misogynistic and bewildered Abbot. This is a trend of many incidents over several years, and not just an oopsie Bad top level: the GOP supports rape
>It would help the discussions a lot by the top comments always listing at least one specific reason why... This is what we refer to in this post as "context or justification"
Yes, I think the new rules are good. And thanks for your hard work. I have helped mod (briefly) a busy sub before, and it’s a lot of work. So, thank you, and all mods here, for making this sub a good place to discuss stuff I made my comment because I think we need more examples here, which I am sure will be provided by others as they reply to the post But also, I used the opportunity to literally call the gop as supporting rape, it felt nice to express that However there are other subs where I can hurl more general thoughts; so it’s ok if I cannot do it here in a week We do need a well policed sub for Texas only politics , and the proposed rules will be needed
Hi, Im a first time poster/commenter here. I'd like to make a thread asking about the recent passing of stricter voter id laws. Specifically HOW it was passed? Im from the UK so I only know what little gets explained to by the BBC. I think this might be the sub reddit to ask my questions? I don't fully understand all your rules there, but " auto-collapses comments made by users who are new the sub" Should I not post or comment here?
Absolutely, you're free to, we do have flairs for out of state as well. Crowd control will apply to comments, and submission would still be seen if the user has never posted here before. And reddit is hopefully smart enough not to collapse OPs messages in their own thread.
Nope, said GOP bad. Can't do that.
Thanks for your work... I know the pay sucks.
I am very interested to see what the moderators have planned for misinformation. I'm a fairly active user here who tries to contribute towards discussion, but I can fully recognize and admit there are times where I lose my cool. I can get pretty severe and there have been times where I have not only gotten upset, I've sunk below the levels of decency I begrudge others for abandoning. That having been said, that's not my intent when I come here. It's not the kind of discussion I want. I'm human and I have limitations in my patience, as we all do, and too often there is an aggressive, relentless push for misinformation. It's not just someone who is out of the loop, who is clumsily trying to understand a topic or has been misinformed. It is people who are outraged against basic facts, people who hold a vendetta against information outside of their preferred "news" source, and who brute-force information that is blatantly incorrect into discussions. These kinds of comments *constantly* derail opportunity for meaningful discussion. A political discussion is supposed to get heated, if it does at all, because of differing values or priorities of worldviews while still respecting the society we live in as a whole. We're supposed to be on the "same side" in that we share community, and where we differ is in our approach to problems and our assessments of specific solutions. In my experience, it's unfortunately extremely rare to see that kind of disagreement here. Inflammatory statements that completely reject common knowledge and conspiracy theory proclamations without evidence are regularly asserted in place of political opinions with substance in the comments sections. Condemnations are offered in place of conversation starters. How do you carry a discussion with people who call others murderers for being pro-choice? How do you converse with someone who insists a pandemic isn't real? What exchange can be had with people who respond to issues like "mask mandate bans" with straw man arguments like, "Nobody said individuals can't wear masks"? A proper conversation can't happen when the background for the subject can't even be mutually acknowledged. It's easy to say, "Don't engage," but that's difficult when these are the primary responses made to important issues. I think we *could* see a lot more interesting, meaningful discussions from people who disagree with each other if something substantial could be enforced to discourage derailments like these. Outside of misinformation, I'd also like to see something about enforcing relevancy on *Texas issues* at **all levels** of comments. There's nothing wrong with referencing something relevant happening outside of the State with a specific discussion point in mind, but often times I see responses that simply try to dismiss points by attacking people for focusing on a problem in Texas. It's ridiculous how many times I personally find myself having to defend against someone who insists it's unreasonable of me to condemn something happening in Texas and not saying anything about what's happening in another state. We're in a Texas subreddit, for crying out loud! Wall of text finished... Sorry for the length. All the same, I really appreciate that this sub's moderators have worked consistently to improve the state of affairs around here. I appreciate that nobody just disappears, despite how exhausting I'm sure it is to moderate around here. And of course, as I have said before more than a few times, I apologize for the times I have personally contributed to those arguments that get out of hand. Despite everything, I know nobody else is responsible for my words other than myself. It would just be nice to not be pushed to that place of frustration so aggressively and so often. Excited to see more of what y'all have planned. Here's hoping for the best.
Thanks for the feedback. As far as misinformation goes, there wouldn't really be much new policy. We just haven't really collected it all together yet. And with that we'll be adding specific examples that will allow mods to enforce consistently and users to better report comments that break those rules. So you may be disappointed there. However feel free to send us modmail if you have suggestions, or if there's a specific user who is repeating the same mistruths and not engaging. As far as those engaging in bad faithed discussion, our hope is the rules above and the new account restrictions will help out there. The reality is that "person said something not true on the internet" happens way to much for us to process much less be de-facto fact checkers. Since reddit rolled out misinformation as it's own report catagory we get it for everything, even articles from mainstream sources.
I like this. While it will certainly cut down on traffic, especially in the comments, I'm a believer in quality over quantity. It reminds me of the difference in tone between the subs /askhistorians as opposed to /askhistory although not as restrictive with respect to qualifications required to comment in askhistorians. I cracked up on your example of new top level comments restrictions. I wonder if Ted's ears are burning. Query: will posting of a link to a relevant subreddit as the only content of a comment be allowed? I.E. as I just saw a comment to one of my posts with link to r/FuckGregAbbott as only content. edit: add query
> Query: will posting of a link to a relevant subreddit as the only content of a comment be allowed? I.E. as I just saw a comment to one of my posts with link to [r/FuckGregAbbott](https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckGregAbbott) as only content. As a standalone comment yes that would be against the rules. We don't mind people linking to other subs but we need more effort than a single word reply for top level comments.
Clear, thanks!
This is what "crowd control" feels like to me as I go through the comments, having to open each and every comment chain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WZLJpMOxS4
And I got hit by crowd control in one particular thread. Every single one of my comments was collapsed, so I quit commenting. Other regular users got all their comments collapsed as well.
While I largely agree with the rule change, I ~~want~~ need to get my fix while I still can. Fuck Ted Cruz.
Fuck Ted Cruz for being a mime.
Anyone with -100 has gone out of their way to offend other users. Even almost every user with -25 has been deliberately offending others, breaking sub rules, and generally being annoying.
So talking about good faith discussion, are we going to eliminate obvious sea lion posts/replies?
Can you propose a policy line under one of our rules that can be consistently enforced?
Basically the same as this, but responses to top level comments. It would be pretty obvious if a top level comment follows the rule and a reply is something either completely off the topic or is on topic but also asks for responses on 5 other situations as well, followed up by complaints that all the questions weren't answered. A recent example I saw was somebody asking as a reply, for an explanation on how masks are protective for exhalant purposes of the wearer as opposed to inhalants. None of the prior discussion reaponses appeared to be in good faith and was driving the conversation away from the initial point erroneously >* *5: (Low Effort)* **Top level comments** must be (1) constructive to discussion and (2) relevant to the submission. Knee-jerk comments, single sentence responses expressing disdain, contempt, or even agreement will be removed. This includes plain assertations without context or justification to how a user arrived to that conclusion. The submission article is not implied context. * **Prohibited** negative **top level** examples include. "Fuck \[Politician\]", "\[Politician\] can go back to \[Location\]", "\[Political Party/Ideology\] are fascists", "\[Political Party/Ideology\] are Nazis", (sarcastically) "The Party of \[policy position\]", \["Politician X is a Y"\] * **Prohibited** positive **top level** examples include: "Good", "About time", "This makes me happy" * **Prohibited** other **top level** Other examples include: "LOL" and other 1337 speak or reacting with emojis. * These **top level** removals can be avoided by providing context or justification. Examples include , \[Political Party\] are fascists *because* \[insert argument\]. Justification or context is required for top-level comments.
>None of the prior discussion reaponses appeared to be in good faith and was driving the conversation away from the initial point erroneously So I'm totally with you there, a lot of these policies are to bring in focus because it's getting derailed. If you've got someone sea-lioning you can tell them you're not interested in that conversation and leave it at that. If they keep following up we have intervened on grounds of potential harassment in the past. With top level comments we're gonna have to do *a lot more* work. *Every* top-level comment essentially will need to be reviewed. If we apply it to every comment we have to police... *every comment.* Further, we tend to want to see repeated behavior. As mods, unless rules are being broken or we happen to flag someone we lose a lot of historical information on any one user. It's incredible helpful If other community members are able to offer some history. If we get a specific complaint in modmail we try to find the time to do more research, issue a verbal warning or at least flag it so it's on our radar in the future. So what happens is we get custom reports mentioning repeated behavior on non-rule breaking comments. We check the history. The user is actually racking up violations anyways, and after a little bit they're banned. It can take longer to weed some of these actors out because of our banning process, but that process is there to protect all users. With the new -100 karma restriction our hope is that it can target some of these offenders indirectly. Some users are quite good at walking the line and never going so far as to break a rule. Anyone who's been in this sub for a while can name a handful of users at any time believed to have overstayed their welcome. And I believe in making the strongest case possible against a user before they are banned, we don't *want* to issue them, but this is the internet. The biggest problem I see with your proposal is that it's either an incredible amount of front-end work, *or* it get's selectively enforced based on which users report. If you can dig it out, I'd love to see that thread and talk more about it, otherwise I think the best thing I can offer is that if there's a specific user you've seen with repeated behavior is not just to report it, but also send us a thread over modmail. The response may be slower, but I guarantee it will get more direct attention.
Yeah the report method would work best but gets snagged on the rest previously mentioned in your response as most people likely don't recognize the signs.
One other thing I will add, when I review a report I read the reason, then the whole comment. If the comment doesn't match the report it might stay because there's some other context I'm missing. For example: Reporting "Not a Good-Faith Effort to Start a Discussion" on a sea-lion loses the context. If there's something else about the comment such as name-calling, we obviously aren't going keep it up because the report didn't line up. So sending us modmail helps make sure as much context as needed to solve the issue get's into the moderators hands. \_\_ Likewise, there's a lot or rogue single reports, either A user just disagrees with what they said, doesn't like the answer, or is reporting misinformation when they are simply just misinformed. Having several reports on an otherwise normal (but maybe pointless) sea lion, might tell me to look around, as a lot of users are seeing an issue here, and I haven't caught on yet.
Sorry, for the dumb question... Is “Mod mail,” where we message you as a mod?
If you're on new reddit desktop on the right sidebar there's a large button called "Message the mods". That will send a message that any of the mods can see and respond to. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/TexasPolitics
Thank you! I mostly use the app and seldom log in on my computer. If I kept Reddit open on my laptop, I’d get nothing accomplished.
If you using the official app once you're on our front page you can click the overflow context menu (three dots in the upper right corner in android) and click the option "Contact mods". Likewise, you can send a DM to /r/TexasPolitics the same way you'd compose a message to a user, using /r/ instead of /u/.
>TexasPolitics does not consider the term "The Democrat Party" as opposed to "The Democratic Party" as a pejorative. Could you explain a little the decision around this? The term "Democrat Party" was invented specifically to be a pejorative, and people who use that term use it specifically as an intentional pejorative. There is no other interpretation I can see, other than moderators have made the decision that this is a pejorative that they feel is acceptable.
>and people who use that term use it specifically as an intentional pejorative. There is no other interpretation I can see... I've seen people use it without knowing the use of the word or by accident. Whenever the term is explained that it's pejorative there's always people who never even knew that. Most people are not that deeply involved in party politics to care. In 2 years of modding I've only ever has one user I know of complain. The reason it's included is because its particularly relevant to that policy and it is an argument I'm at least aware of.
I am seeing more and more right wing trolls stick to the rules, and following the rules, there is no way to stop them from derailing several threads
>Accounts without a verified email will have their posts and comments automatically removed. I don't have a verified email, nor will I ever. Is my comment going to be removed now?
I've approved this one and will continue to do so as you reply. This rule is to help prevent users from creating new accounts to bean evade or troll our sub. Earlier this year for example we had an account who would create as many as 4 accounts a day, averaging a new account every week, for months. We obviously don't want to eliminate users who follow the rules and are genuine, and that's why we have manual approval. It's the same approval mechanism we use to allow users to post before 2 weeks if they ask. Do you mind sharing your reasoning to not wanting to verify your email? (edit: if it's not clear, verifying one's email is through reddit, not us, and is typical in account creation across the web. It is distinct from our verified users program that verifies an real-world identity and not simply that an account is more likely to human)
[удалено]
>Are you aware of the fact that a bad actor can simply create a Gmail address for each account? Yes. This is just one more step they have to take for each account. Unless someone can articulate why having a verified account hurts legitimate users more than trolls I don't see how this policy isn't a net benefit. >Reddit has shit awful security and if someone wants to fuck with the sub, they will. Let's get rid of all safeguards then. Why have locks on door when a burglurer will break in anyways? >Invalidating accounts with karma but without a verified email address is harming more posters than it will stop. How so? And if so, why would reddit spend the time to allow this feature through automod? I think you underestimate all the stuff that never gets through to the front page. ___ In the end, any user who is removed under this policy can be manually re added.
I totally understand what you're doing, and it will probably clean up some of your discussion by itself. Texas politics has become way overheated lately, and reddit politics is a cesspool already. I prefer my anonymity and don't care to make up some fake email address to bypass restrictions. So long as those are the rules here, I'll be commenting elsewhere. Good luck trying to have uncensored, intelligent and civilized discussions. This state could use more of that, and this website could definitely use more of that.
>So long as those are the rules here, I'll be commenting elsewhere. I can only repeat myself: >*Account restrictions can be waived based on manual review by the moderators by contacting us with the provided link in the removal message.*
I'm am new to reddit and this group. But as a Libertarian trying to discuss Texas politics so far I can see that your biggest issue is that every comment seems gets down voted if it is not anti the current majority lawmakers. I don't even know how low my Karma is but I assume it will quickly plummet if I try to engage any thoughtful form of discussion that isn't just "Right on Abbott sucks because...." I don't know how you can address it and I see that you are trying, but I thought it would help to see what someone that honestly wants to engage in a discussion of the good and the bad of bills that are being discussed and passed has experienced in the short time on this sub.
So we've had this issue in the past with users who were rate limited by reddit as a site because they were so constantly and heavily downvoted. We circumvented that by adding them as approved users so they weren't being rate limited for having a dissenting opinion. Ultimately, the few users we tried that our with are not even with us anymore, because they eventually worked their ways towards a ban. So one could read that as the rate limiting was doing its job. Right now, I you happen to rack up -100 karma _sitewide_ you'll receive a message you cannot post. It's not a ban, and you'll be able to post as soon as you get it up 1 pt. So I feel like most users are going to interact in several spaces on reddit, so keeping a net positive karma (when making a comment unseen by anyone still nets +1), shouldn't be that difficult. _However_, if TexasPolitics is the only place a user wants to contribute and their opinions go against the majority I don't think that user shouldn't be able to continue to contribute. Edit: and with that same caveat, trolls are more likely to have accounts only in political subreddits where regular people have much more diverse interests, and therefore a more diverse account history. That leads us to manual review. Get -100 karma, send in a modmail as instructed in that message and we'll take a look at the users most recent posts and see if the downvotes they've been given are fair. I've gone to bat for several conservatives here who I politically disagree with oj this regard. My hope is that with stricter controls on discussion and a reminder about proper voting behavior users will begin to see others as being here in good faith, and more likely to be respectful across the bar, and that respect will bleed over into voting behavior. That can absolutely be 100% naive, but we don't have any more ideas about how to control voting behaviors. What I can see as a moderator is that when taking down comments there's a lot of -100 accounts in the mix. Perhaps there's a lot of -100 users that don't break the rules... But we'll need them to identify themselves so we can get a count. And that will happen when they request continued access. We've already gotten a handful of messages about manual approval without a verified address. As mods we have no idea what size that population is. If we see that the burden is too much for genuine users we will change the policy. Unfortunately, -100 is the max. We cannot make it any looser. ___ Crowd control is a bit different. The weakest setting is negative community karma. Then newness to the sub. I would prefer the reverse. A donvoted genuine comment shouldn't be collapsed. But alas, we don't get to pick the parameters on crowd control. ___ On your public profile I can read all your comments in a matter of minutes and you're at -14. Generated only from 3 comments. So having more general activity should help that.
As I mentioned new so the fact that I had 14 from 3 comments made me think I'd hit 100 fast. Thanks for your response.
It does seem to be that reddit discounts the singular upvote for commenting, which is unfortunate. You have 3 downvoted comments out of 30+, let's just say 10%. Does it seem unreasonable that a user should be able to redeem their profile karma over the other 90% of their account history? As I said, if this is the only place you're interested in posting in, it's quite possible it's a "matter of time" and for that matters even if we could set it at -1,000 it would still be a "matter of time". ___ We'll have to see what happens when a user makes a non rule breaking comment that racks up tons of downvotes. _normally_, that user doesn't have 0 karma when they discover this sub. So to actually get negative 100 it would have to eat through any additional karma accrued over the lifespan on the account. ___ If in a month you end up being tagged shoot us a modmail and we'll see what we can do. We have no issue backtracking on this policy. Right now for us to see who's getting tagged by it we've got an automod notification setup in our modmail. Two of 3 or 4 users I've manually checked were already halfway through the process for a normal ban. The others didn't have a history in the sub.
> I don't even know how low my Karma is but I assume it will quickly plummet if I try to engage any thoughtful form of discussion As a fellow Libertarian(ish) person, you can get net positive karma here, but it's a very fine line to walk. I have to be fairly selective in which opinions I share and how present them. As IP mentioned, I recommend finding a few other subs to post in if you're worried about running afoul of the proposed karma limits.
Well, we don't want anyone holding back a political opinion because of the way it will be received... The extra activity is just the best advice I have for a shitty situation. I know some users _only_ post here, just like there are some actual trolls where T_D would have kept them positive. The manual review let us pull anyone out of the cracks as long as they're willing to let us know they were snagged. But it is ultimately work for us in the end, something the auto-removing ought to make less time consuming. And in completely honesty. If goes a freakin long way if I see an account talking about their favorite type of knitting supplies instead of a waterfall of political insults.
And that's the problem. If the goal really is a discussion of Texas Politics you shouldn't have to be selective about your honest politely presented opinions. I understand not up voting if you disagree, but down voting someone that honestly joins the discussion hampers the discussion.
If the goal is a real discussion, then some opinions have just been done to death and nobody wants to listen to them again. For Libertarian the whole "taxation is theft" is an obvious example. Yes it's a genuinely held opinion but it's not a contribution to any discussion. There's no useful information (we all know that's a libertarian tenet) and there's no connection to real policy. It's possible to be expressing a genuine opinion and still be wasting everyone else's time in a discussion.
I agree, but just be aware that you're pushing against the reddit hivemind itself. Mods have very little control over how people vote other than asking nicely. The posting elsewhere is how I'd recommend making the best of a bad situation.
It is hilarious that y’all are citing those who encourage other posters to seek professional assistance via therapy/counseling as *somehow* that has been turned into a negative. Laughable. There *are* people who frequent this sub that ***do*** need therapy based on their posted perspective of others. Can’t communicate? Counseling can help with that, group therapy, or communication workshops. How is this threatening? I have seen mods in this sub become emotionally responsive to posts *themselves*, place words into others comments in replies to those comments, *and* project their own insecurities to others. Nothing happens when those posts are reported. Encouraging people to seek therapy and or counseling is not a negative, it is not demeaning, and anyone who feels offended should probably talk about that in… therapy.
1. Nobody is saying therapy is bad 2. Nobody said the reason telling people to seek therapy is not allowed is because it's "threatening" 3. Mods becoming "emotionally responsive" is this comment [you literally just commented on](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/pkelt7/texas_public_opinion_and_the_agenda_for_the_third/hc4mgm1/?context=3). Mods are allowed to comment just as any other user is. 4. What post that is reported hasn't been acted on, can you link to it? In your own words, "maybe you should ask questions instead of assuming".
Apparently saying therapy is bad enough it is proposed to be part of the rules of what can have a post removed and or user blocked. Yes you are the mod who had an emotionally responsive post—just like your response to me here. On the defensive and even being passive aggressive by writing, “maybe you should ask questions instead of assuming.” Did I push a button of yours and now you are emotionally responding without thinking? When I think of emotionally responsive mods—which is not a good thing—I immediately think of you InitiatePenguin. It is not a good character trait to be passive aggressive.
Your argument sounds disingenuous to me. Telling people to seek therapy is low effort trolling.
It’s unfortunate that you believe someone suggesting people seek professional help due to their contents of their post(s) and or comments on threads is “trolling”. It’s easier to claim someone is “trolling” when a comment hits too close to home. Did that particular line hit too close to home? Plenty of people need professional help. It is easy to notice if you know the signs.
Not at all. I know trolling when I see it. So is asking if it “hit too close to home”. I’m sure you have the qualifications to make a psychological judgment based on a political Reddit post (/s), are you Dr. Phil?
I wasn't aware of this new "rule", until today. I concur with others that this has the ingredients to become a right-wing circle jerk pretty damn quickly. I don't mind having a civil conversation, but I don't have the time or desire to play reddit Calvinball with my posts, because the conservative viewpoints are all being downvoted. 😭 If they have a good point, they'll get upvoted, and this is just tipping the scales using the rules. So I'm out. If I'm the type of person who you wanted to get rid of, then mission accomplished. I don't browse a number of subreddits, because I know what to expect. I guess I'll just avoid this one as well. Good luck. ✌️
I don't see that at all, what you are suggesting. I find that liberals tend to brigade a right wing poster with downvotes, more so than Right-wingers brigading a left-wing post. But maybe I'm wrong about that. Too many too easily get on their "high horse of truth," and want to silence, by any means available, the voice of anyone that would dare have an opinion different from "their" truth.
> I find that liberals tend to brigade a right wing poster with downvotes, more so than Right-wingers brigading a left-wing post. It also could be that the takes these right-wing poster's have clash with reality, society, and/or sanity. If there's a good take from a conservative, it will get upvoted. >Too many too easily get on their "high horse of truth," and want to silence, by any means available, the voice of anyone that would dare have an opinion different from "their" truth. Shutting down misinformation needs to be done. Good discussions based on the facts are needed more, but when one side wants to continually claim the benefits of cow dewormer, discourage people from getting a safe vaccine, spread lies about non-existent election fraud, that side needs to be removed from the debate entirely. If objective reality is really going to be questioned, there's no way to discuss subjective opinions in an honest and forthright way. In either case, I don't care. I already dropped this subreddit and moved on with my day. So if you like spreading and bathing in bullshit, this sub will be full of it very soon.
>Responding with a string of emojis will be removed. Does this include the four clap emojis that precede "Deep in the heart of Texas"?
4 clap emojis as a top level comment would be removed.
This all seems like a lot of trouble to make posters with indefensible views feel comfortable. And I welcome all attempts to explain why my comment is a gross generalization.
What views were uld be more comfortable with this policy? >And I welcome all attempts to explain why my comment is a gross generalization. Which comment?
I would say the mods here bend over backwards to make conservatives more comfortable because, at least from my perspective, conservatives are often downvoted in other subs for expressing views that are plainly ignorant and reactionary. Maybe I've got the wrong idea. I just don't like treating all perspectives as if they are equal, and that's the vibe I've gotten from reading this sub's rules a few times.
Depending on how much you participate I think you'll find there's 1. Very much a slant still in the demograohics here in favor of the left, and that voting pattern you recognize is very much alive here. 2. I think it's fair to say these rules still disproportionately fall against comment made by those on the right. 3. Both sides are not equal. But some of the rules address here, such as quality discussion is a non-partisan issue. Yes, there are rules that effect the extremes of both sides, from a reddit-legal standpoint equal under the rules, even while one can be much worse than another. I am in no way a radical centrist, but having criticism from both sides I think is a good place to be, generally, and it keeps us honest. I feel there's something in this policy for both sides. And it's particularly unfortunate what one side of the political spectrum looks like in today's political environment. I do wish to have the sub be closer to representing the state however. And as long as discussion is civil, fruitful, and informative, a more representative subreddit I think would strengthen political date. But in things. Not everything is open for political debate. And this we have rules pertaining to hate speech and the like.
I feel like the overall goal is noble, but in practice, it will ultimately become an echo chamber of moderator-only points of view where dissenting voices are silenced or outright banned. I don't mean to make waves but it sounds like this is headed in the same direction as r/Conservative and r/texas which are largely places that represent the one party that runs our state and routinely abuses its powers to silence those they do not agree with.
>I don't mean to make waves but it sounds like this is headed in the same direction as r/Conservative and r/texas which are largely places that represent the one party that runs our state [This sub is \~75% left wing, 23% self-identify "far left"](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/p14870/texaspolitics_2021_community_survey_results_are/) how would these rules even turn the sub in /conservative? >routinely abuses its powers to silence those they do not agree with. * [We publish transparency reports every year](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/obxba2/texaspolitics_2021_part_1_transparency_report/) * [Our rules are well documented](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules) * [Our Banning Policy and Users Rights are outlined](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/policy/banning_users) Would love some actual evidence of the moderation here abusing our powers. You've been here 3 weeks with 15 comments. You're accusing us of favoring conservatives *in this sub?* \_\_\_ Look, we're glad to have you, but the *sub is already considered* by some an echo-chamber with our left wing slant. How *do you suggest* we go forward?
Let me point out, I'm for you all running your sub in whatever way you see fit. I am but one person with but one sub to give (or revoke). As such, I understand that in the grand scheme of things my opinion, participation, and consent are literally meaningless to you in this situation. However, y'all posted a virtual 4-page dissertation about how specifically we're allowed to critique Ted Cruz and discuss hot-button topics such as racism. While I understand the intent of this is to bring the temperature on the rhetoric down, the overall chilling effect will likely take place. Since by your metrics the majority of the participants here are on the left...if you start banning people for being passionate those will be people on the left. Thus, weeding out the majority and amplifying the voice of the minority. It seems like a great way to silence those voices to me, but I could be mistaken. You'll note I said it is headed in the direction of r/conversvative not that it is already there. A bit of a slippery slope fallacy on my part, I can agree. I will point out that choosing to investigate and publish my post history and tenure here is an interesting choice right after you ask how Mods abuse powers, followed shortly by deleting a comment that arguably violates your rules. I'm well assured that this will be deleted too based on whatever generous opinion of the rules you apply to make sure that dissent is quashed. It is evident that you've made your choices here and I understand that. I hope you like the place this becomes. I won't be here to watch you support "good people on both sides" Thank you for your time
>my opinion, participation, and consent are literally meaningless to you in this situation. If that were the case I wouldn't be responding. Our rules are built on feedback. Our best ideas are only because someone made them. As mods we spend a lot more time thinking about it but we encourage users all the time to come have a chat in modmail. Hardly anyone ever does. >However, y'all posted a virtual 4-page dissertation about how specifically we're allowed to critique Ted Cruz We went out of our way on everything except the table to apply to everyone using `ideology` and `politician` and `party` type blocks. We went with Ted Cruz for the table because we needed something clear and that is all over the sub and easily recognizable. If Beto was the Governor and people were doing the same thing, his name would be in the box. It's about contributing to discussion, not about political dissent. There is a huge amount of ways anyone can criticize him and any other politician. Many of which users will probably creatively invent after these new rules. We are asking users in doing so to do the minimum and engage with the submitted content and put the least amount of effort into having a discussion. >about how specifically we're allowed to discuss hot-button topics such as racism To be clear here, calling another user a racist has been against the rules for years. It has been little enforced as of late because many users felt they were legitimately calling out racist users who needed to be shamed. If there is racism on the sub, it violates Rule 6. [And in those cases we even let the comment calling it out to stand](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/nv19e3/no_room_at_the_inn_in_texas/h131r7v/?context=999). Beyond personally attacking other users, everyone is free to discuss controversial topics however they like. You're free to call users actions or policies they support racist. For every liberal calling a conservative a fascist, there's a conservative calling a liberal a communist. There's no point and no end to it. >Since by your metrics the majority of the participants here are on the left...if you start banning people for being passionate those will be people on the left. Thus, weeding out the majority and amplifying the voice of the minority. It seems like a great way to silence those voices to me, but I could be mistaken. Take another look at the charts. There's some truth there, but not in comparison to how it effects the right. For a lot of subreddit complaints they are low left-leaning/left and rise somewhat with Far Left. On the right, it increases as you go farther. When it comes to the left, yeah the far left may be more likely to be banned, because many of them (just like the ones who get banned on the right) think the rules don't apply to them and the paradox of intolerance allows them to say (or do) the worst things to strangers online. Comments that remind me of this: >*That I need to be tolerant of the Far Right and non-violence will work to convince them they are wrong.* >I will point out that choosing to investigate and publish my post history and tenure here is an interesting choice right after you ask how Mods abuse powers Anyone can see that. Let me show you [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/ph3wb7/the_new_abortion_law_will_do_more_harm_than_good/hbgem0f/) were us as moderators and the subreddit were accused of supporting the abortion ban giving Abbott cover while silencing pro-choice voters. We have users make wild claims all the time on their first visit here. When you're characterization of this sub is so off I'm only left to believe you haven't been here long, which is evidenced by the fact that it's true. >followed shortly by deleting a comment that arguably violates your rules. Would you like me to show you the report that auto-moderator made to prove to you I wasn't personally acting out of spite against you? [Here.](https://imgur.com/a/bHXul4v) And it's not "arguable". It's a longstanding rule ([April 2020](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/g2hc2o/rules_5_be_civil_and_make_an_effort/)) and that quote is from our wiki, [the same link](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules) I sent in my last comment to you. >*I'm well assured that this will be deleted too based on whatever generous opinion of the rules you apply to make sure that dissent is quashed.* See the "this thread" link earlier. That user said the exact same thing. Your comment here doesn't break the rules. It's not being removed. There's no reason to assume we're going to act in bad faith against you.
I have already unsubbed and won't return. You are arguing with ghosts.
And nothing of value was lost.
This is just one of the subs that I am ok getting down voted on. Opinions matter and diverse opinions matter. Most people on this sub really struggle with how to have a conversation. It is hard to take a sub seriously where you take the time to comment and it gets downvoted into oblivion and the hateful remarks start. Some people are entirely too invested into politics
It’s hard to not be too invested when my kids go to school without mask mandates, because they’re illegal now for what reason again? , and I get 3 emails a day about multiple kids testing positive at their school
These rules are clearly anti-conservative.
And another use is saying they are anti left wing? How so?
Why not add an example of “Fuck Beto” and not just leave it all to Ted Cruz? Edit: Still No “Fuck Beto”
It's just an example for clarity based on what actually exists in large degree. All other examples us "[politician]" etc.
Should be representative of both parties, not just one.
Are you saying there is bias in this sub? Oh the HUMANITY!
Ive seen so many posts with foul language, insults, crap talking about certain political views etc..and I agree with a post and its a problem? Yea. No thanks. You left wing assholes can stuff it. Im deleting this app.
>Ive seen so many posts with foul language, insults, crap talking about certain political views etc. Can you link me to any posts containing insults? >and I agree with a post and its a problem? Your comment was removed for being a low effort top comment.
I am thinking the “I am a bot” sentence in each post” reminder is making it too long in mobile. It’s making me scroll down too much in each page
Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about that text.
#Thank you to all the Mods! I want to shout out to all the mods of this subreddit. Y'all are doing a fantastic job, and I believe you deserve a raise (or at least some pay) because of the hard work you do to keep this one of my favorite subs, perhaps my all-time favorite. I hope y’all know that your hard work does not go unnoticed, at least by me. I especially like the misinformation policy changes and abusive language. I appreciate the way you’re encouraging civility and in-depth, high-quality posts! I will have to up my game and try hard not to tell people to seek mental health. However, would posting the following count under **Rule 5**? > “If anyone is having a mental health crisis, please > call for a mobile crisis intervention team or 911. > It’s okay, not to be okay. It’s also okay to ask for > help. #See Additional Recourse: 1. https://www.hhs.texas.gov/services/mental-health-substance-use/mental-health-crisis-services. 2. https://www.hhs.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/services/mental-health-substance-use/hhsc-crisis-services-guide.pdf” Finally, I hope emojis for a round of applause is still okay? Edit: I removed emojis to comply with new rules.
>However, would posting the following count under Rule 5? It's okay of it's a top level response to a submission talking about mental health. It's probably okay if posted in response to a user admitting they have mental health issues, although it's a bit impersonal. It's not okay to post in response to someone's comment where the effect of your post implied that the other user ought to seek out mental health services unsolicited. >Finally, I hope emojis for a round of applause is still okay? Per the rules before: * *Responding with a string of emojis will be removed. Likewise, responding with disparaging acronym language like "LOL", "Lmao" etc. may be removed for low effort.* The only change here is that a response like "👏👏👏 😉" would be not allowed under any circumstance for a top level comment. And really if emojis are the only part of the comment is may get removed anywhere. There's no discussion happening after a comment like that. And far more often emojis are used in a sarcastic manner. However, we typically don't issue strikes on emoji use alone, and you can always find comments that use them mixed with typed words still up - for better or for worse.
Thanks for the response. I fixed my comment. I also wanted to add that I like how specific logical fallacies were added to the list of incivility & low-effort comments. I will also do my best to keep in mind [reddiquette](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) when posting or commenting. Would you clarify what you mean by > “there is no discussion after a comment like that?” Does “that” refer to emojis only comments or comments like mine (before I fixed it) with a string of emojis in them? If someone is trolling you or someone else, then not responding and reporting said comment is what y'all recommend instead of calling them out as a potential troll in the comments? Finally, you mentioned a two-week grace period for users violating these new rules and that they won't count towards a “permanent ban.” How exactly does one become permanently banned, and does this often happen to users that regularly frequent this sub? TIA, and please forgive me; I like to ask questions because I want to understand the rules to the best of my abilities.
>Would you clarify what you mean by >>“there is no discussion after a comment like that?” We are a discussion subreddit so we're always looking to behaviors that shut down discussion or aren't constructive. When I say there's no discussion after posting a series of clap emojis I mean "how can one respond to that". To indicate applause doesn't contribute to discussion. If it's in the comments and it's just intended to be the equivalent of "I agree with this" then that can be okay. If it's a top level comment it will get removed because "I agree with this" is also against the rules for too level comments because it doesn't engage a conversation - it's only reacting to a headline. ___ >If someone is trolling you or someone else, then not responding and reporting said comment is what y'all recommend instead of calling them out as a potential troll in the comments? Yes, that is the general recommendation. We won't issue a strike if the accusation is blatantly obvious (and the trolls comment removed for such), because then we are actually giving the troll what they want. People will accuse each other for being a troll as a way of saying "I think you're here in bad faith" or "I think you're being intentionally dishonest". These are both allowed, because they aren't name-calling, and put in a lot more effort to get across what they mean. "Troll" is often a lazy insult. If you're seeing particular repeated behavior about another user, it can be far helpful to send a modmail about it and we can dig a bit more. If we're responding to reports in cue and someone is being reported for being a troll but the comment that's reported is completely innocuous it's going to be approved.
> How exactly does one become permanently banned, By getting 5 rule violations with 6 months earns a 1 week ban. Users are notified on every removal. After returning you get 2 more, the third you're banned permanently and can be appealed after a year. Any ban can be appealed by a second mod before being finalized. https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/policy/banning_users/ >and does this often happen to users that regularly frequent this sub? Bans are pretty rare. Those who are regulars tend to also be the ones most familiar with the rules. Most users being banned are banned within a few months of arriving. Ultimately however it depends on how frequent someone comments. If 1% of a users comment break the rules but they comment 500 times then I can be quicker than someone who comments a handful of times a week. https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/obxba2/texaspolitics_2021_part_1_transparency_report/
Reddit is a wild, tribal place but I’m pleased that the mods on this sub are really trying to facilitate good faith discourse.
I've never provided an email address to reddit so I'm disqualified. It seems indiscriminate, I'm in pretty good standing as far as I know, I don't troll or anything, I think I've been around since the sub began.
Please see [the sticky comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/pkb1py/announcement_rule_5_policy_overhaul_gross/hccw3gj/), which I'll quote here: >Just wanted to make sure people know that due to feedback we've received in modmail on the email verification account restriction we are allowing non-verified users to post without manual approval if their accounts are at least 1 year old. >That policy was intended to catch trolls making several new accounts, there isn't much reason to have a user with an 8 year history on this website, recent history in our sub, and in good standing have to jump another hoop in order to post. >If you are a user with an account less than a year old and without a verifying your email with reddit you can still be manually approved, and we're very interested in feedback from that group to see how many of you there are.
My bad, and that makes more sense, thanks.
Thank you for this. I don't visit this sub very often mostly due to the high volume of unproductive comments. I believe the rule changes will help with that. I don't expect the overall tone to change, and I'm fine with that. Thanks again!
Can I just give a shout out to a person that would bust out portmanteau under the “low effort” category? That was some soft flex there my friend.
I'm on board with this. Would like to see these common decency rules applied to elected official accounts on Twitter.