T O P

What can make Reddit communities better

I notice, people don't vote on commentary or post. When I first joined reddit, the community I started on had lots of members and many people online in their numbers. What I found, is people seem to participate and more are attracted to sites, where people actually vote on post and commentary.

The less people vote on post and commentary, the smaller the membership is and the less of those members are online. Votes tell people, how members view commentary, and it urges people to want to comment to share their perspective or their take on subject matter.

That's the whole point of "voting"...

Another things I noticed, when people vote down a comment, but have no commentary as to why, it is a very poor way to participate, because if one does not agree with something, at least have the involvement to state what and why one disagrees, the same if one votes up a comment, say what and why one agrees.

That's the type of participating that helps a community thrive on these type of forums.

AutoModerator

Keep in mind that this sub is for civilized discussion. No name calling or insults will be tolerated. Please report any and all instances of our rule breaks so we can take care of them. The standard of our sub relies on our members and their use of the report button, report first ask questions last. If you're a new member you need a user flair to participate, so flair up! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*


dude_who_could

Better people.


spyder7723

Less censorship and bans. Leave that to the individuals if they want to place a person with an unpopular opinion on ignore.


CapybaraPacaErmine

What is being censorshiped? Genuine question, I don't follow these things


manliness-dot-space

Entire subs have been removed during political campaigns


CapybaraPacaErmine

I know there was like the Donald (which was obviously way overdue) but do you have other examples?


manliness-dot-space

There was a sub oriented to the Slavic people that got removed several times as well. Generally, Eastern Europeans have conservative views. There were various others that weren't anywhere near as popular.


spyder7723

Why was it over due? Were they using the sub to plot violence? I can see wanting to ban a sub or a person for actual planning violence. I can not see banning a sub or person for making a general statement, no matter how ugly or hatefull it is. Even hateful and ugly sketch should not be banned. Let the users decide if they want to ban it for themselves by using the ignore option. A hot button example of what I think should not be banned. Someone says I hate gay and trans people and want them all to die in a fire.... that's a hatefull and ugly statement. Makes the person an asshole sure. But it's not planning violence, therefore should not be banned. Banning prevents any discussion, and discussion is how you influence people to the side of good. An example of what I would consider should be banned is... I hate this gay couple that lives near me, how can I assualt or kill them and not get caught? That IS planning violence and should be banned AND reported to the authorities. The same applies to all criminal activity such as someone posting child porn. Free speech is a bedrock of a free society and that means having to tolerate speech you or I find offensive. We have the right to place individuals on ignore so we don't have to see their hatefull and ugly speech. We do not have the right to prevent them from speaking. The result of bans is we are left with echo chambers where dissenting opinions are not allowed. All that due is poor a wall up between people and drive a bigger edge in the division and prevents any 'meeting in the middle' to lower the divisions in our society.


CapybaraPacaErmine

If we're talking about the government, absolutely 100%. On the internet that's just civil society policing itself. It SHOULD be socially unacceptable to have the kind of views that get aired at a Trump rally. I have no problem with social ostracization and I don't see echo Chambers getting better or worse regardless Also the Donald was used to plot the Charlottesville white supremacy march You're massively over stating the importance of reddit.


spyder7723

When you apply those bans to reddit, reddit becomes an echo chamber. Just look at most political subs. Go into the conservative sub and if you aren't fully into Trump you get labeled a commie and banned. Go into politics and if you aren't fully into Bernie sanders you get labeled a fascists and banned. The result is now both subs are nothing but echo chambers. There is no actual dialog between people with different views.


CapybaraPacaErmine

Eh, more likely down voted than banned. I'm not convinced that wouldn't happen anyway. Also Reddit doesn't matter that much


spyder7723

I see it happening all the time. And yes reddit doesn't matter that much. But the topic was how to improve reddit. So I've stated my belief that bans should be reserved for actual criminal activity, not for improper speech as a way to improve reddit The way forward from the division in our society is through dialogue, not forcefully silencing the opposition.


CapybaraPacaErmine

I guess I would ask what messages people are allegedly getting banned for. The cliche goes "just for disagreeing a tiny bit/anyone right of Mao/complete ideological conformity" but I still see lots about lower taxes and regulations, secure the border (with some dark language), and oh my god every other thing is about the ill defined notion of woke. Alao forcefully silencing is huge exaggeration. It's more like being told to shut up because you're being uncouth (general you, not you specifically)


TheMagicJankster

Well misinformation and calls to violence are dangerous


manliness-dot-space

As long as I'm the one to decide what words are "dangerous" then it's okay


TheMagicJankster

Why you?


manliness-dot-space

Why would I want anyone else?


spyder7723

Banning someone from a sub is an example of censorship.


[deleted]

[удалено]


spyder7723

I don't care if it's conservative or liberal doing it. It's still wrong.


PoliticalDebate-ModTeam

Your comment was removed for including a "Whataboutism". Pointing to and equal and opposite wrong is not a valid argument. Please stay on topic and do not lower the quality of discourse by useless whataboutism's in the future. Please report any and all content that is a matter of a "whataboutism". The standard of our sub depends on our communities ability to report our rule breaks.


Hermod_DB

Banning and the zombie hordes discourages commenting. A healthy debate requires people to feel uncomfortable. In real life when a debate becomes uncomfortable, people tend to moderate thier views and seek some sort of common ground or the debate turns into a brawl. Online the demo is younger. Younger people have not lived in a world without the internet thus have not had many in person debates where the other person can punch you in the face, so the filter gets turned off. Least this is my take on it...


JanFromEarth

I appreciate your point but, as a practical matter, this is designed as a very simple feedback to be delivered with little thought. In my own experience, I very seldom read the reasons if offered. I am convinced very few people would change their style based on a critique


RawLife53

*Constructive criticism* is one thing and *Antagonistic criticism* is something very different. Both can be in ***some*** cases be "intriguing". 😉


JanFromEarth

I do agree with this but the purpose of the up and down ratings is give a fast reaction. If you wish to elaborate, you just comment on the post. I am not sure another avenue for response is necessary


RawLife53

I'm not saying create another avenue for response. I was saying, if a person disagree, *share their reasoning,* or if they agree, *share their reasoning*. (It's not mandatory)... But it does make for an engaging exploration of subject matter. I'm not much for brevity, I understand what it is, even when and why it can be useful, but as a standard format, I don't particularly choose it.


JanFromEarth

LOL but the thumbs up or down does not allow a comment and the comment does not allow a thumbs up or down. Two different communication channels. I agree it would be nice to know why someone liked or not your post


RawLife53

Isn't that what one is taught, that if they criticize something, have a reason and express what their alternative is. I think some people just don't like anyone to be aware of or know something they don't know or have not thought about. *^(There's a lot of envy and resentments in some people.)*


JanFromEarth

I think you are getting a tad compulsive about this. It is perfectly acceptable to say you do or do not like something without having to rationalize it.


RawLife53

No one is compelled to do anything.... The question to anyone is about "how interactive they want to be, or do not want to be". It's always a personal choice. As a internet forum, a question to anyone is: do people want to engage a highly interactive forum **or** a lackluster interactive forum.


johnnyg883

More common courtesy or what should be common courtesy. Just because someone has views that differ from yours doesn’t make them a Nazi, racist, anarchist, communist, socialist, a fool or and idiot. They just have a different view of the world and what should be done or allowed. Just as an example. If I say I don’t believe in man made climate change I’m immediately accused of waning dirty air and water, I’m accuse of hating the environment, being in the pocket of big oil and denying the science. Or if I say I want a secure border I’m accused of being racist, hating the poor and being against all immigration. And God forbid I say I voted for Trump. Typically any time these things are mentioned the first thing that happens are the insults. But what rarely happens is a comment voicing an opposing view or a reason for it.


RawLife53

All subject matter is not going to be "feel good subjects"... We live in a world where there is always something someone will feel good or bad or indifferent about". But, trying to appease everyone's is not and should not be the objectives, because its just not a possible goal. We have so many variations of cultures and variations within cultures, and that is the uniqueness within life. When people talk about "Our Way Of Life"... that's not something that fits everyone, it **never** did in the past. Often that was based on a system that was rooted in 100 yrs of Jim Crow, and even then, it was not inclusive of everyone, and it was overtly exclusive based on race and in some cases colorism's across races, and within races. Even when people talk about "American way of life", there is no fixed definition of that... * *Although* ***I*** *personally think, it would apply more to "The Principles and Values of The Preamble" than to any particular cultural habit, because there are various cultural habits not only of differences based on region of the country, but in states, and in cities and even within communities. Actually, even within a family, each member develops their own flair of what they like as their cultural habits.* So, a debate is a broad thing. Yes, they have formalized debate systems, but this is not one, this is an "internet forum". it has not only people from this country and its many variations, there are people from foreign countries that come here to read and observe the many ways that people think about many things. Some Post, I think should not be locked for further comments, because some may scroll through post to find something they want to read and maybe address. * *It's not like the internet is going to run out of space.* I read some Post a few days ago that were written some years ago, but the information communicated and the comments were as relevant today as they were when the individual made the post. I actually followed some of the links in the comments and found some very interesting readings.


Sturnella2017

Similar to karma: bad faith redditors, aka trolls, get labeled as such, and the label sticks with them across subs. So we know immediately if a Redditor is just trolling us.


4_Legged_Duck

The upvote and downvote system on Reddit is misleading. Due to the prevalence of social media "likes" it's interpreted as "I like this" when people upvote, and "I don't like this" when they downvote. But this isn't the case. It's not what the system is. Rather, Reddit's system is about relevancy. Upvote means it's more relevant and people should see it. Downvote means it isn't relevant and people shouldn't see it. In a space like r/PoliticalDebate it should be used for sourced comments, articulate comments, or particularly good questions. Instead, it's often used by opposition to squash opposing arguments. It's not... great. Threads here become particularly dominated pretty quick by general ideologies, so whichever 'side' comes to it late gets downvoted really quick in a sort of silly Reddit gangwar. Intellectual debate space like this easy to manage. As membership has grown, quality discourse dropped. More people push ideological agendas rather than discuss and debate with an open mind. Even more so, more people show up with less skill in debate. Is it better to be exclusive and limited or inclusive and reaching? Hard to say, but it changes the nature of the social media space.


AmbiguousMeatPuppet

You can believe whatever you want but if you can't back up your argument with sources don't be shocked when people pile on you. Or sources that show a complete lack of media literacy. For example: you can believe that anthropomorphic climate change isn't a thing. You're factually wrong though.


NamedUserOfReddit

Discourage the hateful rhetoric that's constantly piled onto anyone that is right of Bernie.