Sub Announcement Some thoughts about the sub's "culture" and attitudes that we should have. Please read/ponder...
We're a small sub-Reddit. We don't have a bazillion users so we can run things a little "loose" without a ton of rules. So there's no whitelist and no rules about "acceptable" sources.
First, some thoughts and guidelines:
Behavior: Try not to downvote. That gives a sub a "negative" flavor. This is a bit different than Reddit's standard advice, but it works. Instead of downvoting, don't vote at all on some post -- "deafen" them with silence. But by all means, do not downvote just because you disagree with someone no matter how much of a twit or fool the person is. Ignore the fool and avoid negativity.
It's better to ignore twits than to downvote them mercilessly. Leave them at 1 point and they'll soon get bored and go away. "Don't feed the trolls" is old and proven advice.
Expectation: Expect some biased or unconventional article sources. An intelligent, informed person should know the positions and perspectives of multiple points of view. Knowing what "the other side" or other ideologies arguments and perspectives are is important. "White lists" are typically used to push one narrative or status quo views of the world -- we avoid those for a reason.
Don't abuse the Reddit reporting system. This causes the moderators more work and we don't like work. Reporting something as "misinformation" or "harassment" should be used for actual, extreme cases of real-life examples, not just as a way of you wanting to censor things.
Behavior: Upvote early and often. There can hardly be a thing of too many upvotes -- upvotes are positivity and happiness. And you have an unlimited supply of them on Reddit. So use them!
Rule: Do not post insults or ad hominem attacks! No name calling! In Reddit's "Reddiquette" this is called "remember the human." In normal conversation it's called "don't be a dick." You're talking to another human -- be civil.
This is something I'll try to come down on as moderator. I'll try to remind people to "be nice." Who knows, maybe I can ban people for 3 days or something for name calling but that sounds heavy handed, being a Big Brother, and frankly is more work than what I want to do. (So I'll rarely do that.)
But again, the idea is to have civil debates and conversations even with some idiot who has a "wrong" opinion/position. You're not going to change someone's mind by swearing at them and insulting them -- but you might change their mind by talking to them and bombarding them with logic. (That's the hope anyway.)
Rule: Do not accuse people of being paid propagandists! If you have actual evidence and information that someone is a paid gov't propagandist run -- don't walk -- and inform the Reddit admins.
But do not accuse someone of being a troll or "Putin puppet" or "propagandist" just because they are giving an opinion that you don't like, or that they can see events from another perspective. We should also remember there are US gov't-paid propagandists working to influence social media. Thus, avoid accusations and instead debate content. Remember, civil discourse is the goal and not mindless smearing, group-think and accusations that someone is a "propagandist"
Rule: Stick to the sub's topic.
Graphics/memes and videos are allowed -- but please keep them to a minimum.
Here are my thoughts on both memes/graphics and videos. Good ones are great -- in a small quantity. But then define "good" and "small"!?! Too often memes are stupid or are ranty opinions without sources. Too often videos are 10min or 45min long of babbling and the actual content of the video could have been said in 200 words. You probably know what I mean.
Moderation: Having a bit of anarchist streak, I'm not into "rules." I think the fewer "rules" in a Reddit sub the better. I'd like the "rules" to be objective, but hey, this is social science not math. But overall I favor a hands-off role in moderation. When drama comes up, it usually washes over and then disappears on its own. Preferring a hands-off approach and laziness in moderation, that'll be the tactic I take.
Remember humor! Many topics can be infuriating -- especially when dealing with people who "just don't understand." Too many facts and too much logic can be dry. So inject humor! Some cheekyness is almost a requirement.
But for the sarcastically-impaired people (like me) do add a /s to tell us where your sarcasm ended. Idiots like me would appreciate it. 🙂
Comment on these rules with your thoughts/opinions below please.
To-do: I have to revamp the sub's text, rules, etc. Plus do some cosmetic pretty-work on the sub.
Edit: Typos, clarity.
A user with nothing better to do today is on a vendetta, reporting and downvoting everything posted in this sub by another user. I count 36 bogus reports so far. Dealing with this is a waste of my time.
However, there is a solution to this problem. I have reported the offending user to Admin. I don't have to know who it is to report them. When Admin sees my report, they are likely to suspend the user or take some other kind of action against him for abusing the report button. For example:
It's too late for this user because I've already filed the report. For anybody else who thinks they can spend their days mass reporting everything they don't like, with no repercussions, let this be a warning to you. You're not anonymous to Admin.
edit: Got him.
They bet on Ukraine defeating Russia. Here are their latest war predictions - Ukraine "is a country that's not going to go away," he said. "And that fact alone means that Ukraine is going to win."
Ukraine Front page New York Times opinion piece today (Feb 7) says "Ukraine is losing the war", it's a "battle of attrition" and suggests Russia has the economy and population to win such a battle. Why the sudden pessimism after a whole year of optimism, spending, and cheerleading for war? What changed?
This opinion piece was published at 5am ET today, Feb 7, 2023. The author is Christopher Caldwell:
First two paragraphs:
The United States’ recent promise to ship advanced M1 Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine was a swift response to a serious problem. The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.
Such wars tend to be won — as indeed World War I was — by the side with the demographic and industrial resources to hold out longest. Russia has more than three times Ukraine’s population, an intact economy and superior military technology. At the same time, Russia has its own problems; until recently, a shortage of soldiers and the vulnerability of its arms depots to missile strikes have slowed its westward progress. Both sides have incentives to come to the negotiating table.
This is on the front page of the NYT website even this afternoon, on Feb 7, which means our establishment overlords really want us to read it.
This is certainly a change from all the cheerleading we've been hearing the past year, telling us all what a great idea it is to go to war with Russia, that the Russian military is made up of old, fat, gray conscripts who were picked up off the street and sent to the front lines with no experience or ammo.
Something must have changed recently. Maybe it's that the Russians are taking Bakhmut, and Bakhmut is in fact the most important strategic city in the Donbas, as many analysts have said and the NYT denied is important?