It has been 15 days since the post about future of politics in this community was made, and results are somewhat clear - 35 (39 - 4) in favor of no poltics vs 4 (7 - 3) in favor of poltical natured posts.
If I use politcal lingo, this would be a landslide victory of no politics faction.
“What does this mean”?
Who is “We”?
I am speakinng currently for collective group of moderators, and also the community itself (as in, we do not do that here).
We are banning schadenfreude - which roughly translates to feeling joy at someone else’s misfortune. What that means is, if there is someone who you (or a lot of people) do not like gets some disease which they could not have planned for (for example cancer), then this is not a uplifting news. If they are making losses, that is not uplifting. If they are depressed, that is not uplifting. We will not be retroactively actively removing posts, but future posts of this nature will be deleted as per understanding of moderators or community (by means of votes or reports).
We are also banning politics. That by itself is a statement political in nature. Everything is political but what we are banning is the more clearer mainstream politics. We do not really want to know if this group we do not like lost/won somewhere. But what is acceptable is, for example, some good person (good because other things they have done in life) is awarded something. This can be political in nature (example, a nobel prize), and there is no clear way to put in words what is and is not allowed. If yoou have a better method to express this, then please add in comments.
More clarification - we are not banning news which maybe political in nature, but which is toxic politics. if there is a news which is political, lets say some marginalised group got better rights, that is allowed, or even welcomed. Think simple - if you can tell some small kid the news, and they feel good, then it is uplifting. It should not require you to know what the person has done in past. If something bad happens to a bad person, then that is still bad, it does not become uplifting for a kid. this example by itself also has flaws, and I am still unable to word it well. But I hope the spirit of rule is clearer. no toxicity.
We are also banning low effort news or fake news. This could be news which is not adding anything new at all or is a copy of a copy of a copy (and bad one). Please try to fetch original sources. This is just to maintain a standard. This does not restrict you from posting a news which is targeted at a small group, or is published by a small group which may not be publishing a very fancy, furnished looking posts. Essentially - a no fluff rule.
I would love if we disallowed negative and cynical comments, too.
they are fine. they also help bring me back from going full delulu, and sometimes are funny
Alright, well, this Community is now banned.
People do have a habit of redefining “uplifting” in their own terms, such as how uplifting it is when a public figure they hate suffers.
That’s, um, stated in the post’s description.
But yup.
Delighted to hear this. I subbed for actually uplifting news and the schadenfreude political posts were becoming tiresome.
I agree, and that disagreement might’ve created a rival community just to stop this and add it as a rule if it didn’t pass as a rule here
Political: Anything pushing a political agenda or sway political opinion. Example: Making commentary about Obama winning a novel Peace prize isn’t political in itself. Saying Obama won the nobel prize because he was a president is political, the statement uses the Nobel award to sway opinion about politics.
I think it’s a simple enough definition, it is consistently drawing the line that’s difficult.
Isn’t this TECHNICALLY a schadenfreude post? If you were on the side of not having such posts you’d be reading this with a sense of schadenfreude towards those who DID want the posts.
lol so meta 🤣
rule was enacted after this was published and i said i am not going to enact retroactively. i am from the side not wanting these posts, but maybe not as strongly worded
Just joking my guy, I don’t have a horse in this race
Apart from the very last paragraph these seem like really good changes. It’s fun to see your enemies suffer from time to time, but it’s certainly not uplifting.
why is the last paragraph weird? I genuinely want to know. This rule is mostly to keep in theory. For example, somebody posts some place is very happy, but it is a fake news (for example, they recently got some tragedy) and the person was either trolling, then we should have some rule to delete this news. And most of the time, mods do not flag this, but the people commenting do. Similar is for low effort (read ai generated bullshit).
If you don’t want fake news and AI generated news just say that. “Low effort” is a strange qualifier for news to me. Stories can be real uplifting, and also “low effort.”
Is low value a better wording?
Thank you
Praise be
couldn’t this post be considered schadenfreude for the users who didn’t enjoy the schadenfreude posts?
Now this is Uplifting News.
careful, you sound like you’re enjoying this a bit too much and that could be considered schadenfreude…
Now, this is the kind of uplifting news I like to read here :)
A good community is a well-moderated community.
“Close enough” posts have killed countless subreddits. Glad to see the mods here have their shit together!
I like the sound of this.
Great rules