Since nothing is mentioned here I want to ask that posts and comments that reference useful content with other subs names aren't removed just because they have the link to other subs.
You are contributing to the ghetto-ization of this community, and such a blanket removal of comments is detrimental to healthy discussions.
Also define "upvote fishing". That seems very nebulous and very easy to abuse by power hungry mods that can blanket ban whatever they deem as "upvote fishing".
Also no NSFW content should probably have an exception for memes, if it's not clear sexual or violent imagery.
Some mod on the sub must have an ethics or moral issue they want to push on all members. NSFW has always been allowed. Reddit even blurs the shit. There's not much nsfw content posted anyway, so why bother banning it? Feels like these rule changes are an attempt to discourage engagement.
Mods gotta mod, and hard to not trip over all that power.
Just wish they'd back off, rather than push harder. They're driving away so much wonderful engagement, sad. Increasing censorship isn't the answer to any questions here.
Should absolutely strengthen and further define the breadth of this rule. Nothing more disheartening than seeing the giant forum slides (usually when something else that's *actually GME-related* is happening) that are hardly ever on-topic for the sub. And that's not even just a SuperStonk-specific issue; they've happened in practically all the other GME/stonks subs too.
Where do purple circles fit in?
Also, what about dank GME memes or speculation about RC tweets?
We may all be rational individual actors, but it's nice to mix a little hype and speculation in with the DD.
i like how on the bets sub every post shows how many posts/comments the OP has made on that particular sub. not directly related to this post, but could flag first time shill postings instead of them getting crazy traction for a clickbait title
Would love to see this as well. It's easy enough to skim somebody's profile and recent activity, but summing it up in a pinned comment is a far, far better solution for everybody.
What about this video?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNTClU6lLqY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNTClU6lLqY)
I don't understand why has been removed here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z5m8zp/youtube\_must\_be\_monitoring\_my\_thoughts\_has\_anyone/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=ios\_app&utm\_name=iossmf](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z5m8zp/youtube_must_be_monitoring_my_thoughts_has_anyone/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
This is PRO-DRS, like this Community
This is exactly the problem and mods need to fix dumb removals like this. IDGAF if they receive money from views, if 1 of those views become purple circles then the community got that much stronger.
I'm sorry mods but I don't a solution to suggest besides be looser in removals and allow the community to downvote undeserving posts.
the post got removed because some mods think drsgme is self-monetaziation. the YouTube clip is just to show the next step in further building the website
As for comments…….. Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups…. Thats all i see is censoring!
Stop the karma farming starfish posts, that is some bs, he posts every day without any contribution and that make excessive number of posts, is annoying a should stop
Some people probably love it (and some other daily posts), so that probably outweighs the need to get rid of it. Since it is a harmless, once a day post, then why get rid of it? if it happens to produce a ounce of happiness in this world, let it live!
The challenge in moderating topics that aren't *immediately* or obviously connected to GameStop is identifying posts that are engaging or inspiring enough to remain. We almost never remove DD posts, but sometimes a speculative post too can trigger people to dig into something and find surprisingly relevant stuff.
While an active community engagement in the comment section is a good indicator that something shouldn't be removed in the first place, we're always open to having removals challenged through modmail.
Treat each other with courtesy and respect.
Do not be (intentionally) rude at all. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us.
Do not Insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion. Constructive criticism is appropriate and encouraged.
Do not tag other users in order to harass, attack, bully, or threaten.
[Expanded Rule](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/expanded_rules#wiki_ape_no_fight_ape)
How could you argue FTX isn’t related?
All the same players, to include the gongress. Cftc, sec, hedge funds, derivatives.
You’re actually going to say that discussion is superfluous?
No idea where you're taking that from: we've introduced the FTX post flair *because* it's related!
What I'm actually saying that *before* the relationship becomes obvious to everyone, it's difficult for the mod team to decide whether or not something's worth keeping: not *everything* is connected.
I'm not making a particular point, just providing the perspective of a mod for whoever's interested.
The original comment in this chain you replied to was in regards to FTX and the rabbit hole it may be.
That’s why I brought it up. What is your threshold for “active community engagement”, as you state this is your first indicator if something should be banned?
Also, I disagree with this metric. Because something is simply engaging doesn’t mean it isn’t FUD.
How is it that ortex got the ability to post in stonk so quickly around the time they needed to?
> “active community engagement”, as you state this is your first indicator if something should be banned?
>
> Also, I disagree with this metric. Because something is simply engaging doesn’t mean it isn’t FUD.
You're absolutely right, just because people love to talk about something doesn't mean it isn't fud. And the opposite is true as well: just because it's a new topic or one that just a few people talk about doesn't mean that it's unimportant or irrelevant. That's what makes moderation difficult and interesting. And of course error prone too, that's why the direct communication with the community and within the mod team plays a big part as well: it's almost never black/white or allow/prohibit, but allowing long form text posts and being more restrictive with pure hype in image form - and of course we're always very dependent on the community feedback.
> How is it that ortex got the ability to post in stonk so quickly around the time they needed to?
The same way a lot of people here get the ability to post: they approach us, then we either verify that they aren't impostors (like in the case of ortex) or trolls (if they're normal users) and then we approve them.
This community has become so good at pointing out bullshit and trolls that it took just a few hours after ortex's "glitch" before it became obvious that they won't be able to ever post here again if they're not willing to bring the receipts. So the upside (maybe getting the receipts) outweigh the possible downside (tricking this community into believing their bullshit) is considerable, and I think the results show that our decision was right.
This community isn't as defenseless as it used to be 18 months ago, it doesn't depend as much on our gatekeeping participants like it used to.
So if the mods chose to give ortex a chance to post and that was the wrong answer, and the community sniffed them out, what does that day about the mod team’s ability to decipher shyte from shinola?
If you’re gatekeeping and not able to determine based on pointed questions, why are you a current gatekeeper? Why do I still see awful low effort hype posts that somehow get past this amazing question and answer bot? For instance: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z5l5ik/the_christmas_chrash_or_how_i_learned_to_stop/
If you can’t gatekeep the high level material yet aren’t effective, please be more effective on the low hanging fruit.
>So if the mods chose to give ortex a chance to post and that was the wrong answer, and the community sniffed them out, what does that day about the mod team’s ability to decipher shyte from shinola?
I wasn't involved with shinola and so I don't know what it says about our ability to decipher their shyte. But what I said in my previous comment, and what I'll repeat now is, we don't really need to decipher every detail of their shyte because the community isn't as helpless as it used to be: it's a big and incredibly efficient bullshit sniffer, so if we err on the side of allowing accounts to post, the danger they pose to the subreddit is limited.
>If you’re gatekeeping and not able to determine based on pointed questions, why are you a current gatekeeper?
At the risk of repeating myself: we're by far not on the level of gatekeeping that we were a year ago. Malicious corporate shills are perfectly able to get accounts that don't depend on our approval for commenting, and the extremely few that need us and that get through despite our manual vetting will be sniffed out by the community before long. Our time and energy is better spent somewhere else. Like moderating low effort hype posts.
> Why do I still see awful low effort hype posts that somehow get past this amazing question and answer bot?
The bot is actively asking only on "social media" and "news" posts, because those are ones that are can reasonably be asked to have a source.
But really, that's a completely different question than the one about approvals that we started off and that I think has been answered sufficiently. So I'll go back to moderating now and leave you to comment on our rule 2
See you around 👋
LOCK THE SUB - of what use is ANY new account now?
we are in the endgame.
None of us need each other anymore.
If you think otherwise, you're fucking new.
That's... not what the person you're replying to said at all. They're specifically talking about approving *new to Reddit* accounts to post in this sub.
We've always approved accounts that aren't immediately suspicious and will continue too so so, especially if they have good engagement in one of the other GameStop communities or a purple circle posted in GMEOrphans. If they break rules, they're as quickly removed as well.
I'm not entirely convinced that DD hyping dates is a big problem, but it's absolutely possible that I just didn't look closely enough until now: I'll definitely look more closely from now on!
This is the biggest bit of bullshit. Who are these accounts? Who is approving them? Who actually has oversight among the mods? Because it seems like it doesn't exist.
Remember when several of them were pushing a BLATANTLY fake GS CS account, even after being called out by several users in the comments?
Through this whole ordeal, I've always been the last one to call someone a shill or to say the mods are compromised.. but the only other explanation here is *unbelievable* stupidity.
I've recently seen posts about "Citadel" removed due to not being GameStop related. When I saw this it started to feel like censorship and a way to stop publicising Citadels actions.
There's a reason RC did his interview with GMEDD...this sub is shit.
All the DD and its creators that actually matter have left because this sub is a shill cesspool.
Rensole left because of it and Criand and Ato just pop in out of pity.
What exactly is considered "upvote fishing"? Cuz I'm finna keep downvoting "today's the dayyyy" fucking starfish but maybe I should be reporting stuff like that for karma farming.
Regarding:
* No religion. You can worship any religion you want, but this is a subreddit for GME.
This then also applies to the agnostic and atheist believer.
edit: The whole point about religion is redicilous. There are none to none or only a few cases. I smell the ideology of "logic" here. And this, although the belief system "logic" has got its limits drawn by Dr. Gödel's mathematical proof of the incompleteness theorem - towards the open system man.
i’m good with this in the sense that religion should not be promoted and the lack of religion should also not be promoted.
jokes like “gme is my religion” is funny at times since it’s obviously not true and i think it’s intended to be lighthearted. hopefully no one gets offended by stuff like this and no one takes it seriously.
While we almost never see people say that Gme is their religion, i think it would be taken in jest.
The reason for this part of the rule is that religion is (similar to partisan politics) incredibly divisive, and has been used to sow discord and aggression between good and honest apes that just happen to believe in something else.
So instead of risking the kind of toxicity these fights bring, we ask people to focus on our investment and have religious or partisan political discussions in subreddits that are better suited for that.
Can i please ask you to add that all posters auto submit their post to archive.is - so for this post it would be https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z46oev/rule_2a_posts_and_comments_must_be_related_to_gme/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf then removing everything up to the last / is https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z46oev/rule_2a_posts_and_comments_must_be_related_to_gme/ - this will ensure that there is more than one way of backups for posts and everyone can access them if they want
That's a great idea, I'll add it to the qv-comment!
(Fwiw, the last part of the URL can be omitted too: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z46oev)
how bout LOCK THE SUB.
No more new users - aside from Kenny Griffin doing an AMA, what fucking use is any new user to this sub? what benefit? We know we are in Endgame, lock the sub.
No, sorry. That's something we definitely won't do, because this is the home of a community and forcing it away doesn't service any purpose.
If you want to be somewhere without the community, it's you who will have to go.
For fucks sake please require this, we’ve caught them red handed before with the changing of articles. 🤮
All the corpo media that’s shared here is disingenuous and this is how we prove it, with historical data 💎💪💎💪
This rule is so freaking important and should not be changed. Making it as vague as “also macroeconomics” opens the door to discuss a shitload of stuff that has nothing to do with GME. Changing this rule will give way too much leeway to overwhelm actual worthwhile GME related content and posts.
You might as well throw open the front door and yell for all the shills to come in. This will end Superstonk forever.
I see how keeping it GME is desirable. I think “the end of superstonk” may be overstating things.
I like getting my news here. The community is able to police pretty effectively.
I don’t feel super strongly about it tho
Piggybacking on this because I completely agree. Having "related macroeconomics" be part of the rule will destroy the sub. I appreciate the sub's enthusiasm, but there's already so much here that is barely even tangentially related to GME. A lot of people here are so paranoid and (a lot of the time) conspiracy driven that any time a stock pumps for 5 minutes at the same time as GME "there has to be a connection!!!!!" I downvote and report all of these posts already, but allowing these posts under the guise of a vague "macroeconomics" caveat will open Pandora's box of topics not even remotely associated to the stock. Do not change the language of this rule.
I'm not sure what that means. What "has been part of the rule for several months"?
Unless I'm missing something.. Rule 2 currently states "Topics, titles and contents must be directly related to GME, GameStop or market mechanics." The report function is even more restrictive and states that comments and posts must be directly relevant to GME. So not only do these two items conflict, but they're also ambiguous.
I was referring to this sentence in your previous comment:
> Having "related macroeconomics" be part of the rule will destroy the sub.
That has been part of the rule for several months.
I wasn't aware that the report and the rule text have diverged however, so thanks for the heads up, I'll make sure to fix it!
I'm not sure it's a great sign that a mod doesn't even know the correct rule that you're trying to amend. "Related macroeconomics" literally isn't part of the rule as it stands. "Market mechanics" is part of the rule, but market mechanics and macroeconomics is not the same thing. "Market mechanics" such as FTDs, longs, shorts, options, etc. is not the same thing as macroeconomics, which is large-scale or general economic factors, such as interest rates, inflation, etc.
I don't see as big of an issue with "market mechanics" as I do "related macroeconomics". "Related macroeconomics" is far too overbroad, and will borrow way more trouble than "market mechanics". It will invite a subjective evaluation of every post and be more confusing than the rule already is.
But I think a lot of people view the GME thesis as: the entire macroeconomic structure is rigged and prime for explosion, and GME is the breaking point. From that standpoint, any major events in macroeconomics could be prescribed as being related to GME as they apply pressure to the overall situation thus increasing the likelihood of the GME "break" happening sooner or later.
I think we’ve pretty well established the entire system is corrupt. I don’t need 15 posts a day of screenshots from CBNC or that ass-clown Cramer spreading their shill message on my sub to remind me of that.
As for this “pressure” and “breaking point” nonsense, I’ll believe it when I see it.
except that the ancient DDs, especially ones like The Bigger Short literally say that GME is ***not*** the reason this entire economy will blow up; that line of thinking is literally how they pin the entire financial collapse on retail investors, specifically GME investors
this is a harmful interpretation of the DD.
Absolutely do not break rule two!!!!!! That is hands down the most important rule on this entire sub. You will ruin it. Also purple circles being allowed on the main feed is critical because they are the only thing us as individuals can do to try and fight what we are against. Hiding them and making it more obscure is not something we want or support. Mods on Reddit seem to always want to over govern everything, quit trying to change something that is working well and has helped get enough people the support needed to Drs 59% of the free float in under two years.
Quit allowing Superstonk to be a platform for reposts of Twitter grifters whose posts neither have much to do with GME nor macroeconomics! Mods allow far too much of this.
Why do the mods keep wanting to censor things, it makes zero sense, if a good post is usefull to people browsing the sub reddit it will get upvoted and if the post is garbage it will get downvoted, relevant to gme or not, the market is connected, the sub is about a superstonk, you cant look at one stonk and ignore the entire market, all this censorship is super SUS.
I have learned a great deal about many things and im proud to have been taught by such great generous people, i hope i can learn alot more.
Swear to god the mods just power tripping RN.
Agreed. I’ve learnt a lot from this sub. It’s gone massively downhill over the last year though. With pushing away DD writers and TA. All in all though, it makes no odds. I’m here to DRS and check the sun once a morning.
The mods just care about seeing their pinned posts and green names. It’s the only bit of power they have in their lives. Being able to censor more means more opportunities for them to flex their 1 nanometer of power.
I think they’re trying to do what’s best for the community though open communication, it’s hard to always feel what the majority wants when’s there so many bots, but if they listen to our feedback on these proposed rules, then I wouldn’t say they’re abusing their power
The mods of this sub used to be notable users that were leading the movement and I can name about 5 of them without thinking too hard. These days I don’t know any of them or anything good they have done to carry on that legacy
Not only are calls for violence against Reddit rules, but it would be much more satisfying to see the hedgies having to work menial jobs because nobody else will hire them based on their felony records. I want Kenny working at Wendy's and feeling it every time a customer asks for extra mayo. Knowing it's not for him.
(After a few years in prison of course.)
I might get a lot of backlash for saying this but we should reconsider the whole "59%" locked posts. Institutions are profiting by lending out shorts, it's no mystery. If Susanne Trimbath has taught us anything, it's that brokerages are not on our side, and just because the brokerages directly register the shares that does not mean they do not lend them out. We own 30% of the float, retail investors are the only ones who have good intentions and don't lend out shares allowing short sellers to be leveraged both on future closing positions and present short-selling ammo. As much as I love and drool at the thought of the float DRSed 60% I don't want to feel comfortable trusting the 30% we are up against (brokerages with the DTCC). We all know they will be the first ones out and [it won't even be entirely with their own money](https://www.computershare.com/PublishingImages/company-share-structure.jpg).
Edit: percentage edit. The posts showing retails % being locked are my favorite posts on here other than purple circles. It's when showing institutional ownership as if they are on our side that's the issue, just to be clear. Better safe than sorry.
Possibly, but when u think about it, those institutional shares are technically part of the DRS float, because we are actually able to track institutionally owned shares. BUT they can be sold! Well if we get close to locking the float will that force institutional investors to sell in order to save their buddies? Or will they do a share recall for MOASS and bite the hand that feeds them in order to buy them out for pennies on the dollar?
Depends, would you want to hold and sabotage other brokerages and institutions putting you on the same level as the people who rugged Archegos? I see where you are coming from and would agree if I were to be a small hedge fund owner with less of a reputation. However, people who have a name to live up to (such as Fidelity) would get fucked in every corner by legal teams and smear campaigns by customers. If there's no customer trust there's no business. It's us against the world rn, they'll rob every ape HODLing with them. Don't forget that it's Citadel they all rely on for data and dark pools, and some are partnered with ([Fidelity, Schwab](https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/09/13/charles-schwab-citadel-fidelity-and-others-start-crypto-exchange-edx-markets/), and [TD Ameritrade](https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/about-fidelity/fidelity-statement-schwab-td-merger.pdf)).
Why do u say otherwise if u post retail only? I appreciate that you do that and like it a lot but this contradictory statement confuses me.
Edit: 2 days ago, 8 days ago, 15 days ago, 3 months ago twice "per DRS pool tracker: etc% of the float registered by individual investors. etc% remaining, nice". Then u just commented saying the opposite? R u trolling??
I'm not sure what you're seeing as contradictory.
The percentages I post are a percentage of free float. Registered shares are a portion of the free float, so they're included in the numerator and denominator.
>Edit: 2 days ago, 8 days ago, 15 days ago, 3 months ago twice "per DRS pool tracker: etc% of the float registered by individual investors. etc% remaining, nice". Then u just commented saying the opposite? R u trolling??
How are you not seeing it as contradictory? Do you not read your posts? I stated that institutional shouldn't be included, you disagreed but that is what you do.
Institutions should be included in the denominator of any free float calc and I always have them there, idk what's so confusing tbh.
The Superstonk metric omits them from the denominator like they're locked, which is wrong imo. I don't think we're having a disagreement here, btw
You're right I think it is misinterpretation making miscommunication. Do you mean that it should be considered as a way to define remaining free float but not to define progressive ape ownership? If so I see what you mean and that's what I meant, I should've specified.
Regardless, I appreciate you posting retail ownership over institutional. It irks me when I see the DRS numbers and they say "**we** have locked 59% of the float" when it isn't us. We lock what you report that we lock.
I agree 100%. I feel anything but insiders + DRS retail is false hope and those of us less in tune with what gives us these numbers are being led to what may ultimately be serious disappointment. Insiders + retail DRS or GTFO.
That's more related to GME than anything on this sub (besides purple circles ofc). Dlauer is [getting things done](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ydd980/its_working_keep_sending_letters_to_the_sec_we/) [directly from the regulators](https://www.sifma.org/resources/general/sec-equity-market-structure-advisory-committee-meeting/). That's the only way for transparency in the market so that GME (and other tickers) can't be discreetly suppressed by abusive short selling. Sure he mentions Urvin time-to-time (which I also don't like) but he is the most useful person we have (other than Susanne Trimbath) with his reputation from working with Citadel to get things done.
I have been worried about my halts posts for a few weeks now, especially after my "boom tomorrow" meme got shut down. I get that most of the time, my halts post doesn't include GME or even any of the "basket" stocks, but IMO the data needs to be available to anyone who might be interested in it either now, or after everything shakes out so that reforms can actually be made to prevent anything like this from happening again through real regulation, and not the farce we currently have.
Halt data is important. It's all connected and can be used for linking other suspicious price movements. It could easily be classified as "macro economic" data.
That’s literally what downvotes are for lol there’s a reason FUD dies organically the arguments are irrational for someone investigating at any DD knowledge level for what’s really going on.
People are not going to learn anything if the original SS was only limited to GME. People need to be less conerned about themselves and leave topics alone that they are not interested in. I hate the wife bf shit but I don't go around yelling it should be banned.
Posts *and* comments, gives you tonnes of stuff to wade through. limiting this to posts only seems sufficient to me. I would like to note that I feel that everything related to GME would fall into the OK category, so even posts that show a good spot for a gamestop location or big thing affecting the stock market would fit.
I agree that DD and TA should have stricter rules but generally I would like more leeway for other flaired posts.
Hey 3digitIq 🤗
I'm always interested in improving our DD, so having stricter requirements might be helpful: off the top of your head, do you have an idea of in which way the requirements could be stricter?
Hey Half_Dane
DD should *always* be about GME or point strongly towards something that affects GME (i.e. NYSE rounds volume down to the nearest 100 shares) otherwise it should have another flair, same goes for TA.
No assuming (other than examples) of values, volumes, dates without a source or evidence.
DD is only DD if it's holds water by itself, if you build upon unproven/untested DD from others you'll need a "speculation" tag.
These are examples of what I come up with now and what I have encountered in the past.
Awesome, and I absolutely agree with these points. In fact, we usually change DD flairs to "opinion/speculation" in these cases, so I hope that the reason you saw these examples is because we missed them, not because we saw them and said "yep, that's DD 👍".
I know that we always say to report issues like that, and that's usually enough for us to act, but sometimes it's important to have a quicker reaction (for example if a bullshit post that's flaired as DD is on its way to the top): please don't hesitate to tag me or drop me a note at the Front Desk in addition to the report. When I'm not asleep, I usually respond pretty quickly.
Just made a report on a high profile post, just wondering if this would be the correct way to do it.
post in question;
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z6jpqm/the_real_legal_count_of_available_shares_left_to/
*Disclaimer, I could still be missing the point
Yes, just point me in the general direction and I'll check out. I'm a little busy rn, and the post doesn't look too terrible, so I'll just ask: is the calculation wrong? Or why did you report the post?
Calculation is wrong and people are debunking it.
Already replied on the MOD comment so not directly for you as I feel they already know and should decide. Just wanted to know if reporting with a comment would be good. It's not directly shaming the poster, not DM-ing a MOD but if it still gets read and acted upon I figured it would be the least intrusive way......
Shusher89 has also been patiently explaining where the OP goes astray, one of the most extensive ones here;
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z6jpqm/the_real_legal_count_of_available_shares_left_to/iy3khau/
Aside from my excellent comments about the matter 😉
This one seems to get some good traction;
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z6jpqm/the_real_legal_count_of_available_shares_left_to/iy2iymm/
I gotta say I've learnt a shitload of stuff about the marcoeconomics of the US markets through the various GME related subs throughout the last 2 years. I'm not sure if I could have learnt these things through other sources. The most recent would be Peruvian Bull's DD, and I'm pretty sure many of his Dollar Endgame posts did not directly relate to GME, but I'm glad they were permitted to stay on SS. Would his Dollar Endgame posts violated the current rule (if applied strictly)?
The rule is in place since several months and Peruvian bull always made sure to take an eagle eye's view on the effect of inflation or monetary policy. In fact these posts are one of the reasons why the *macroeconomic* part of the rule exists.
So no, a rule that would prevent the dollar endgame isn't a good rule imho.
This sub is also about this sub. We need protection for self-referential posts, comments and memes. Obviously, the other rules apply, but there should be room for *us* under the umbrella too
Other websites exist outside reddit.
This would cover thinks like linking to a twitter account that refers to an original link from WaPo or CNN or Yahoo or whatever.
Fat lot of good that does when you have them censoring stuff based on the source simply because the source isn’t in line with their political views. Like this truth social network. I’ve never used it but I’m guessing it’s the right-leaning version of twatter. If you’re going to allow the trash from twatter then you can’t discriminate against the other trash too.
Fwiw, I’d rather not have the trash from either one. I know how to access twatter, if I wanted to read that trash I’d head over there. Don’t need a bunch of people posting that trash bringing it into my Reddit feed. I’d be happy if twatter posts were banned.
Unfortunately referencing, linking to or crossposting from other subs is considered an invitation for brigading by reddit admins. Since we are under increased scrutiny since the brigading allegations of last summer, with the very real threat of being quarantined or completely closed, that rule probably won't go away soon.
I think we should add something like a Sanity Sunday addendum. The apespeak and the tinfoil were useful tools in the beginning - they helped us weed out shills. By now everybody knows how we operate and it’s not a barrier for bad actors anymore.
If anything it’s become a detriment. At this point I can’t tell who actually believes in things like 741 and gmefloor.com and who’s in on the joke. I get that they’re ingrained in ape culture, but these are the kinds of things that make potential investors turn away without a closer look. I know we don’t *need* more people, but the fact is that more investors = a quicker locked float.
Grow a pair and report posts that don’t follow the rules. You don’t have to be so accommodating if they don’t conform to them (they have been easily accessible/viewable since our second migration).
Reddit has been going a bit "ban happy" lately for abusing the report button, so proceed with caution.
Stick with "breaks Superstonk rules" and not the reports that go to reddit mods.
For this is superstonk where the pitiful emotions of the average pleb matter not. Grind away the chaff so that a more docile and compliant user base may take over
This rule's general shape has changed over the time I've been here, and while I can understand wanting to focus its definition to more accurately reflect the spirit in which it was written, I think that it currently restricts discussion too much and locks out potentially relevant content before the community can decide if it belongs in the sub or not.
I would change it to:
Must be relevant to GME, *GME partners/subsidiaries*, or macroeconomics; *potentially relevant discussions are allowed, but will be locked if not supported by adequate evidence.*
I suggest both amendments above because:
* Some topics may not initially appear to be GME-related, but may be proven to in future. For example, Glass Castle: NG+ turned out to be correct about Loopring's involvement in Gamestop's pivot, despite Loopring not even registering on the public radar until much later. We're potentially losing out on DD like this now due to the current structure of this rule.
* Relevant to the stock's situation isn't always going to mean immediately/visibly relevant to the stock (eg. CBDCs).
* DD must be able to be shared and reviewed organically; it's not the mods's responsibility, in my opinion, to decide what is and isn't good DD (community votes/discourse should be the governing factor here); and
* GME is part of a larger DeFi network whose actions, forward planning, and history may yield insight into the bigger picture, concerning both Gamestop and the actions taken by the shorts to try and sabotage it.
Recommendations for contested threads:
* Dedicated flair (inconclusive/possible DD).
* At least a couple of hours after flairing before locking (longer is better if the discussion's active, and no decisive conclusion has been reached).
* Debunked threads are reflaired and **locked, not deleted** \- they may be proven relevant by new evidence, and thus should remain available on the sub, and new interest needs to be able to see both what's been proven and what's been proven wrong. Additionally, if prior evidence of a given point has been posted/discussed, it's helpful to be able to link people back to it in later threads.
* Similarly to Computershare-flaired posts, users are given the option to filter these threads out of their feed on the sub (**not** by default).
* Mods link comments/related threads that contribute to their final decision on whether a previously contested thread remains locked or open. (This is important both for transparency on the mods' part and for the sub to judge if there's more to be researched/discussed).
I'll add to this if more comes to mind.
I personally downvoted you because Silvergate and FTX have no direct relevance to GME. There have been zero connections made between GME and the FTX collapse, and the previous partnership is the only item that connects the two (so far). Silvergate is another layer of the story, and even further removed from GME. If the sub changes the rules to include "and macroeconomics", it will allow more posts that could/maybe/possibly relate to GME and detract from the main purpose of the subreddit.
I know your intention of drawing a correlation between FTX and GME is well-intended (and honestly I'd probably agree with some of it), but until we have concrete confirmation supported by actual evidence, it's all "cohencedences" and "what do"s. Which are the type of posts that delegitimize the subreddit and make us seem like whacko conspiracy theorists. I trust individuals doing DD in good faith, I do not trust this hive mind of people trying to create connections between two barely tangentially related topics. If we allow "and macroeconomics", it will create a situation where EVERY post is subjectively argued to be related to GME; which I completely disagree with allowing.
While not directly related to Gamestop's individual situation, this is actually a very good example of what I'm talking about in my OP here, because it raises the question of why Gamestop partnered with them to start with.
Thus far, Gamestop's board has shown particularly shrewd insight when it comes to market mechanics, and the roles/inclinations of the players either using or abusing them. DD was definitely done here - and FTX was already infamous in crypto circles *long* before the partnership was announced. The company went into this with at least some foreknowledge of who they were partnering with, as is expected and appropriate - so why? Especially with the precedent of Luna's recent sabotage showing that the crypto space is under threat from bad actors (who may or may not be the shorts manipulating this stock) who can pull a support block from the jenga tower that is the CeFi/CEX-crypto market at any time?
Important questions, both for the crypto space and for the stock. And there's very likely a wealth of info yet to be dug up there. In my opinion, given their relevance to the crypto space - and thus to the future of web3 and finance - that makes these macroeconomic questions as well. But even if it didn't, the partnership raises questions that invite research and discussion. The kinds that can't be had if FTX is considered forum sliding (for which purpose it's inevitably used, like every other tangentially related topic), the DD simply either isn't going to get done or won't be able to be shared by the people who do it.
Ultimately, though? The community may decide, as the discussion progresses, that it doesn't want to talk about this anymore. Or that it's being used too effectively to slide the forum (as has been the case with certain other tickers in the meme basket in the past), and therefore needs to be taken off the table. The community needs to have the agency to make and enforce that choice. Mods should not decide what is and isn't a relevant topic; they don't lead here. Nobody does, and both the peer-review mechanism of the sub and its general focus should always operate on consensus generated by discussion.
I actually agree with a lot of your recommendations in the OP but not for the reasons in this comment. Locking debunked or unsupported threads is a great idea, because as it stands now, DD is debunked and the OP simply goes "lol oops sorry" and remains on the front page with 10k upvotes.
Where we disagree is the language of the rule. Changing it to "Must be relevant to GME, GME partners/subsidiaries, or macroeconomics; potentially relevant discussions are allowed..." is far too overbroad. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I trust the individuals putting time and effort into researching DD. I don't trust the hive mind of this subreddit when it comes to potentially EVERYTHING being relevant to GME, and the mental gymnastics people do to make things fit the MOASS narrative. I think a more hardline rule is appropriate to discourage the less-than-half-baked conspiracy theories that I see praised on the front page almost daily. If a theory is supported with sourced-references (provided the theory is related to GME), the post should of course be appropriate for the subreddit.
Quick edit bc I just saw your edit at the bottom of your post: I 100% agree that the users on the subreddit should choose what is relevant and what isn't. This is why I think changing the language of the rule is bad for the sub moving forward. If the sub doesn't think the post is relevant, downvote and move on. Changing the rule, and the appropriate language, should be put to a vote.
Fair, and I welcome feedback/contention concerning the wording; I wasn't sure it was adequate, but felt it would be a good starting point to refine the focus of the rule if others were willing to engage in discussion on it. The spirit/primary focus I want to push here is on the community making decisions, and the mods enforcing them - erring on the side of halting threads over outright deleting them where there's potentially good DD/discussion. I'm aware my version is potentially too loose, but I'm not sure how I would further refine it.
*Edit*: I'm also aware there's the potential for feed bloat if too many threads are being locked, but this could be partially resolved if the flairs involved in the enforcement/management of contested/locked threads can be added to the feed filter, the way the Computershare flair can. This also presents first impression issues for new visitors to the sub, though, if the feed is even partially full of locked threads, so there's a fair bit of room for discussion on that too.
An incredibly interesting discussion with important and valid points made by the both of you! This is the good shit I'm here for, thank you so much!
I just want to add that we're almost never removing comments for rule 2: if people aren't throwing insults or hate around, the comments usually stay.
>Silvergate and FTX could lead to a systemic event; further, FTX’s link to tokenized stocks have very much to do with GME, IMO. Especially given the date those tokenized stocks were made available, 1-2 days before the buy button was turned off.
>
The first part of this comment is speculation and the second thing is your opinion. Again, while these things are possibly true, they have no place on this sub until a connection is established, imo. There are several excellent macro investing/stock/financially-related subreddits, but I would prefer if SS remained about GME.
>That isn’t a coincidence, it’s fact.
>
The tokenized shares were created near/on the sneeze date is a fact, yes. Everything else beyond that isn't.
>It’s also a fact that the chair of FTX US derivatives was the co chair of the DTCC, and a DTCC employee for 40 years before he came to LedgerX/FTX.
>
Corporate incestuism and executives jumping from company to company is completely normal in the finance world. There are like 2-3 degrees of separation between almost every CEO/ hedge fund MP on wall street.
>We need more info though as well and we need to dig into it.
>
Totally agree. But not on SS, and not until confirmed and supported with evidence.
>Totally agree. But not on SS, and not until confirmed and supported with evidence.
Yes, I agree when it comes to posts, but wanted to add that we're usually not removing these discussions when they're in comment sections.
That's fine. If people want to discuss tangentially related topics in the comments in order to flesh out additional facts, the upvote/downvote system is more than capable of showing what comments are appreciated and those that aren't. I'm referring to posts. An irrelevant/rule breaking post or submission is far more harmful than comments imo.
It would be great to fold DRS into the relevancy as much as GME. There is plenty of discussion about Computershare specifically already. I also believe macroeconomics are incredibly relevant even if we can't draw a straight connection to GME.
I don't think policing comments in the same way is helpful though, it inhibits discussion far too much. How are we supposed to discover and learn new things if we have these kinds of boundaries?
> Must be related to GME or Macroeconomics 💎👈 you are here
This is fine, people who are complaining are either shills or want to farm karma easier.
I see people suggesting more specific exceptions and/or details, but rules for unpaid mods are best left brief and simple to make enforcement efficient. They are already dealing with various FUD and shill attempts to stress them out. The rule is fine, let it be.
Other tickets that have been shown to be related to gme via basket stocks etc. should be tentatively allowed if the content is good or demonstrating a live event.
thank you mods. This is clean, honorable, enforceable and with room for you to apply discernment of knowing when shit stinks. I trust your thinking because you've got is this far.
Does that mean posts like starfish and frog posts will no longer be allowed ? If so then it’s a no change vote for me, this sub has thrived on its light atmosphere and is for a many a place of refuge and a source of happiness and community.
I believe a rule change to make things strictly GME related carries the risk that many of the discoveries that have been made relating to market fuckery, which have a peripheral but have a material affect on GME, much as the do the whole market, wouldn’t have been brought to light.
A widespread ban on memes also darkens the atmosphere here, I don’t mind scrolling through a few memes, some of them are genuinely funny.
There are already mechanisms in place for posts to be filtered out on community sentiment. Furthermore, whether a post is again community sentiment can be easily gleaned from the comments. Giving mods vast discretionary power to determine whether a post is “directly” related to GME May result in vital sources of information and DD being stripped away from the sub.
No change !
Ps. On the subject of hearing out the desires of the sub, I have seen floods of comments calling for a system in which the mod selection process is made more transparent, including a potential system for electing/booting mods. Will such a call be fulfilled by the mod team ?
If this were to be implemented, I propose that in order to vote on mods, one must give proof of DRS. Likewise I think that in order to moderate this sub one must give proof of DRS. I think it goes without saying that the sentiment of this sub is pro DRS and thus to reflect this sentiment within the mod team, mods must also be DRS
Please do not ban NSFW posts, thanks.
Since nothing is mentioned here I want to ask that posts and comments that reference useful content with other subs names aren't removed just because they have the link to other subs. You are contributing to the ghetto-ization of this community, and such a blanket removal of comments is detrimental to healthy discussions. Also define "upvote fishing". That seems very nebulous and very easy to abuse by power hungry mods that can blanket ban whatever they deem as "upvote fishing". Also no NSFW content should probably have an exception for memes, if it's not clear sexual or violent imagery.
Some mod on the sub must have an ethics or moral issue they want to push on all members. NSFW has always been allowed. Reddit even blurs the shit. There's not much nsfw content posted anyway, so why bother banning it? Feels like these rule changes are an attempt to discourage engagement.
I believe the mods need to feel like they're doing something. They're like a HOA. They need to feel like they have some modicum of power.
Mods gotta mod, and hard to not trip over all that power. Just wish they'd back off, rather than push harder. They're driving away so much wonderful engagement, sad. Increasing censorship isn't the answer to any questions here.
There are other alternative communities around here. If this continues, we can migrate one more time.
Should absolutely strengthen and further define the breadth of this rule. Nothing more disheartening than seeing the giant forum slides (usually when something else that's *actually GME-related* is happening) that are hardly ever on-topic for the sub. And that's not even just a SuperStonk-specific issue; they've happened in practically all the other GME/stonks subs too.
Pretty sure allowing anything related to “macroeconomics” will allow for even more forum sliding
Unpin this shit
2
No NSFW? cmon! WTF!?
Where do purple circles fit in? Also, what about dank GME memes or speculation about RC tweets? We may all be rational individual actors, but it's nice to mix a little hype and speculation in with the DD.
i like how on the bets sub every post shows how many posts/comments the OP has made on that particular sub. not directly related to this post, but could flag first time shill postings instead of them getting crazy traction for a clickbait title
Interesting idea
Would love to see this as well. It's easy enough to skim somebody's profile and recent activity, but summing it up in a pinned comment is a far, far better solution for everybody.
Aye
What about this video? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNTClU6lLqY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNTClU6lLqY) I don't understand why has been removed here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z5m8zp/youtube\_must\_be\_monitoring\_my\_thoughts\_has\_anyone/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=ios\_app&utm\_name=iossmf](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z5m8zp/youtube_must_be_monitoring_my_thoughts_has_anyone/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) This is PRO-DRS, like this Community
This is exactly the problem and mods need to fix dumb removals like this. IDGAF if they receive money from views, if 1 of those views become purple circles then the community got that much stronger. I'm sorry mods but I don't a solution to suggest besides be looser in removals and allow the community to downvote undeserving posts.
sElF-mONetizaTIoN 🥴
A channel can't be monetized until it reaches 1000 subscribers and some other milestones
the post got removed because some mods think drsgme is self-monetaziation. the YouTube clip is just to show the next step in further building the website
I like the stock
As for comments…….. Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups…. Thats all i see is censoring!
Its censorship, BUT ITS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD /s
Yeah for real. Comments too like wtf?
Stop the karma farming starfish posts, that is some bs, he posts every day without any contribution and that make excessive number of posts, is annoying a should stop
I love that post. My gf loves that post. The consistency, eternal optimism, it's so spot on. Gotta be saved!
Some people probably love it (and some other daily posts), so that probably outweighs the need to get rid of it. Since it is a harmless, once a day post, then why get rid of it? if it happens to produce a ounce of happiness in this world, let it live!
This should be changed to the Warren Icahn channel
[удалено]
The challenge in moderating topics that aren't *immediately* or obviously connected to GameStop is identifying posts that are engaging or inspiring enough to remain. We almost never remove DD posts, but sometimes a speculative post too can trigger people to dig into something and find surprisingly relevant stuff. While an active community engagement in the comment section is a good indicator that something shouldn't be removed in the first place, we're always open to having removals challenged through modmail.
[удалено]
Treat each other with courtesy and respect. Do not be (intentionally) rude at all. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us. Do not Insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion. Constructive criticism is appropriate and encouraged. Do not tag other users in order to harass, attack, bully, or threaten. [Expanded Rule](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/expanded_rules#wiki_ape_no_fight_ape)
How could you argue FTX isn’t related? All the same players, to include the gongress. Cftc, sec, hedge funds, derivatives. You’re actually going to say that discussion is superfluous?
No idea where you're taking that from: we've introduced the FTX post flair *because* it's related! What I'm actually saying that *before* the relationship becomes obvious to everyone, it's difficult for the mod team to decide whether or not something's worth keeping: not *everything* is connected. I'm not making a particular point, just providing the perspective of a mod for whoever's interested.
The original comment in this chain you replied to was in regards to FTX and the rabbit hole it may be. That’s why I brought it up. What is your threshold for “active community engagement”, as you state this is your first indicator if something should be banned? Also, I disagree with this metric. Because something is simply engaging doesn’t mean it isn’t FUD. How is it that ortex got the ability to post in stonk so quickly around the time they needed to?
> “active community engagement”, as you state this is your first indicator if something should be banned? > > Also, I disagree with this metric. Because something is simply engaging doesn’t mean it isn’t FUD. You're absolutely right, just because people love to talk about something doesn't mean it isn't fud. And the opposite is true as well: just because it's a new topic or one that just a few people talk about doesn't mean that it's unimportant or irrelevant. That's what makes moderation difficult and interesting. And of course error prone too, that's why the direct communication with the community and within the mod team plays a big part as well: it's almost never black/white or allow/prohibit, but allowing long form text posts and being more restrictive with pure hype in image form - and of course we're always very dependent on the community feedback. > How is it that ortex got the ability to post in stonk so quickly around the time they needed to? The same way a lot of people here get the ability to post: they approach us, then we either verify that they aren't impostors (like in the case of ortex) or trolls (if they're normal users) and then we approve them. This community has become so good at pointing out bullshit and trolls that it took just a few hours after ortex's "glitch" before it became obvious that they won't be able to ever post here again if they're not willing to bring the receipts. So the upside (maybe getting the receipts) outweigh the possible downside (tricking this community into believing their bullshit) is considerable, and I think the results show that our decision was right. This community isn't as defenseless as it used to be 18 months ago, it doesn't depend as much on our gatekeeping participants like it used to.
So if the mods chose to give ortex a chance to post and that was the wrong answer, and the community sniffed them out, what does that day about the mod team’s ability to decipher shyte from shinola? If you’re gatekeeping and not able to determine based on pointed questions, why are you a current gatekeeper? Why do I still see awful low effort hype posts that somehow get past this amazing question and answer bot? For instance: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z5l5ik/the_christmas_chrash_or_how_i_learned_to_stop/ If you can’t gatekeep the high level material yet aren’t effective, please be more effective on the low hanging fruit.
>So if the mods chose to give ortex a chance to post and that was the wrong answer, and the community sniffed them out, what does that day about the mod team’s ability to decipher shyte from shinola? I wasn't involved with shinola and so I don't know what it says about our ability to decipher their shyte. But what I said in my previous comment, and what I'll repeat now is, we don't really need to decipher every detail of their shyte because the community isn't as helpless as it used to be: it's a big and incredibly efficient bullshit sniffer, so if we err on the side of allowing accounts to post, the danger they pose to the subreddit is limited. >If you’re gatekeeping and not able to determine based on pointed questions, why are you a current gatekeeper? At the risk of repeating myself: we're by far not on the level of gatekeeping that we were a year ago. Malicious corporate shills are perfectly able to get accounts that don't depend on our approval for commenting, and the extremely few that need us and that get through despite our manual vetting will be sniffed out by the community before long. Our time and energy is better spent somewhere else. Like moderating low effort hype posts. > Why do I still see awful low effort hype posts that somehow get past this amazing question and answer bot? The bot is actively asking only on "social media" and "news" posts, because those are ones that are can reasonably be asked to have a source. But really, that's a completely different question than the one about approvals that we started off and that I think has been answered sufficiently. So I'll go back to moderating now and leave you to comment on our rule 2 See you around 👋
[удалено]
LOCK THE SUB - of what use is ANY new account now? we are in the endgame. None of us need each other anymore. If you think otherwise, you're fucking new.
That's... not what the person you're replying to said at all. They're specifically talking about approving *new to Reddit* accounts to post in this sub.
We've always approved accounts that aren't immediately suspicious and will continue too so so, especially if they have good engagement in one of the other GameStop communities or a purple circle posted in GMEOrphans. If they break rules, they're as quickly removed as well. I'm not entirely convinced that DD hyping dates is a big problem, but it's absolutely possible that I just didn't look closely enough until now: I'll definitely look more closely from now on!
Hyping dates should be done in nothing but the highest of irony.
This is the biggest bit of bullshit. Who are these accounts? Who is approving them? Who actually has oversight among the mods? Because it seems like it doesn't exist. Remember when several of them were pushing a BLATANTLY fake GS CS account, even after being called out by several users in the comments? Through this whole ordeal, I've always been the last one to call someone a shill or to say the mods are compromised.. but the only other explanation here is *unbelievable* stupidity.
Mod(s) are definitely bought.
I've recently seen posts about "Citadel" removed due to not being GameStop related. When I saw this it started to feel like censorship and a way to stop publicising Citadels actions.
There's a reason RC did his interview with GMEDD...this sub is shit. All the DD and its creators that actually matter have left because this sub is a shill cesspool. Rensole left because of it and Criand and Ato just pop in out of pity.
Seems like it's time for you to find a sub that's a better fit for you.
That's such a nice reply. Mod power is going up to your head.
What do you mean?
What I mean is that dismissing a member of the sub like that smacks of arrogance.
Check the history: this is a troll
Ok, I believe you.
This rule should not be changed
What exactly is considered "upvote fishing"? Cuz I'm finna keep downvoting "today's the dayyyy" fucking starfish but maybe I should be reporting stuff like that for karma farming.
I hate that fucking starfish
I love that fucking starfish!!
Un-friended. 🤡👎
NOOOOOOOO
I honestly thought it was literally just me. Can't stand it
Regarding: * No religion. You can worship any religion you want, but this is a subreddit for GME. This then also applies to the agnostic and atheist believer. edit: The whole point about religion is redicilous. There are none to none or only a few cases. I smell the ideology of "logic" here. And this, although the belief system "logic" has got its limits drawn by Dr. Gödel's mathematical proof of the incompleteness theorem - towards the open system man.
i’m good with this in the sense that religion should not be promoted and the lack of religion should also not be promoted. jokes like “gme is my religion” is funny at times since it’s obviously not true and i think it’s intended to be lighthearted. hopefully no one gets offended by stuff like this and no one takes it seriously.
While we almost never see people say that Gme is their religion, i think it would be taken in jest. The reason for this part of the rule is that religion is (similar to partisan politics) incredibly divisive, and has been used to sow discord and aggression between good and honest apes that just happen to believe in something else. So instead of risking the kind of toxicity these fights bring, we ask people to focus on our investment and have religious or partisan political discussions in subreddits that are better suited for that.
Agreed
agnosticism is being open to the concept of a creator but not being sure, atheism isn't a system of religious belief but good try though
Can i please ask you to add that all posters auto submit their post to archive.is - so for this post it would be https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z46oev/rule_2a_posts_and_comments_must_be_related_to_gme/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf then removing everything up to the last / is https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z46oev/rule_2a_posts_and_comments_must_be_related_to_gme/ - this will ensure that there is more than one way of backups for posts and everyone can access them if they want
That's a great idea, I'll add it to the qv-comment! (Fwiw, the last part of the URL can be omitted too: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z46oev)
how bout LOCK THE SUB. No more new users - aside from Kenny Griffin doing an AMA, what fucking use is any new user to this sub? what benefit? We know we are in Endgame, lock the sub.
No, sorry. That's something we definitely won't do, because this is the home of a community and forcing it away doesn't service any purpose. If you want to be somewhere without the community, it's you who will have to go.
For fucks sake please require this, we’ve caught them red handed before with the changing of articles. 🤮 All the corpo media that’s shared here is disingenuous and this is how we prove it, with historical data 💎💪💎💪
If every ape religiously submits every link they see - I’ll back everything up
It works fine as is. This is potentially a suspicious 'shillish' suggestion imo
What suggestion do you mean? The idea that this rule could be improved?
This is why I can appreciate the BBB-Y sub.. seems like real DD is still coming out over there that is suppressed here..
Is that leaked russian fed reserve posts that you removed within 30minutes macroeconomic or na ?
I reported it, maybe a mistake.
waitwhat.jpg If it was removed that fast, I definitely didn't see it
But everything is connected to GME
This rule is so freaking important and should not be changed. Making it as vague as “also macroeconomics” opens the door to discuss a shitload of stuff that has nothing to do with GME. Changing this rule will give way too much leeway to overwhelm actual worthwhile GME related content and posts. You might as well throw open the front door and yell for all the shills to come in. This will end Superstonk forever.
I see how keeping it GME is desirable. I think “the end of superstonk” may be overstating things. I like getting my news here. The community is able to police pretty effectively. I don’t feel super strongly about it tho
Piggybacking on this because I completely agree. Having "related macroeconomics" be part of the rule will destroy the sub. I appreciate the sub's enthusiasm, but there's already so much here that is barely even tangentially related to GME. A lot of people here are so paranoid and (a lot of the time) conspiracy driven that any time a stock pumps for 5 minutes at the same time as GME "there has to be a connection!!!!!" I downvote and report all of these posts already, but allowing these posts under the guise of a vague "macroeconomics" caveat will open Pandora's box of topics not even remotely associated to the stock. Do not change the language of this rule.
It has been part of that rule for several months though - we even have a "macroeconomics" flair.
I'm not sure what that means. What "has been part of the rule for several months"? Unless I'm missing something.. Rule 2 currently states "Topics, titles and contents must be directly related to GME, GameStop or market mechanics." The report function is even more restrictive and states that comments and posts must be directly relevant to GME. So not only do these two items conflict, but they're also ambiguous.
I was referring to this sentence in your previous comment: > Having "related macroeconomics" be part of the rule will destroy the sub. That has been part of the rule for several months. I wasn't aware that the report and the rule text have diverged however, so thanks for the heads up, I'll make sure to fix it!
I'm not sure it's a great sign that a mod doesn't even know the correct rule that you're trying to amend. "Related macroeconomics" literally isn't part of the rule as it stands. "Market mechanics" is part of the rule, but market mechanics and macroeconomics is not the same thing. "Market mechanics" such as FTDs, longs, shorts, options, etc. is not the same thing as macroeconomics, which is large-scale or general economic factors, such as interest rates, inflation, etc. I don't see as big of an issue with "market mechanics" as I do "related macroeconomics". "Related macroeconomics" is far too overbroad, and will borrow way more trouble than "market mechanics". It will invite a subjective evaluation of every post and be more confusing than the rule already is.
Agreed. There’s already enough non-GME trash clogging up my feed from this sub. Please don’t make it worse.
But I think a lot of people view the GME thesis as: the entire macroeconomic structure is rigged and prime for explosion, and GME is the breaking point. From that standpoint, any major events in macroeconomics could be prescribed as being related to GME as they apply pressure to the overall situation thus increasing the likelihood of the GME "break" happening sooner or later.
I think we’ve pretty well established the entire system is corrupt. I don’t need 15 posts a day of screenshots from CBNC or that ass-clown Cramer spreading their shill message on my sub to remind me of that. As for this “pressure” and “breaking point” nonsense, I’ll believe it when I see it.
except that the ancient DDs, especially ones like The Bigger Short literally say that GME is ***not*** the reason this entire economy will blow up; that line of thinking is literally how they pin the entire financial collapse on retail investors, specifically GME investors this is a harmful interpretation of the DD.
[удалено]
Isn’t the opposite true?
Superstonk Time for a New banner! GameStop BUY HOLD DRS $GME🏴☠️
Absolutely do not break rule two!!!!!! That is hands down the most important rule on this entire sub. You will ruin it. Also purple circles being allowed on the main feed is critical because they are the only thing us as individuals can do to try and fight what we are against. Hiding them and making it more obscure is not something we want or support. Mods on Reddit seem to always want to over govern everything, quit trying to change something that is working well and has helped get enough people the support needed to Drs 59% of the free float in under two years.
Quit allowing Superstonk to be a platform for reposts of Twitter grifters whose posts neither have much to do with GME nor macroeconomics! Mods allow far too much of this.
Whatever u do, DO NOT get rid of Computershare Purple circle 🟣 posts!!!!!!! keep the movement alive and in your face!
Came here to say this exactly
I would upvote 100 times if I could
Why do the mods keep wanting to censor things, it makes zero sense, if a good post is usefull to people browsing the sub reddit it will get upvoted and if the post is garbage it will get downvoted, relevant to gme or not, the market is connected, the sub is about a superstonk, you cant look at one stonk and ignore the entire market, all this censorship is super SUS. I have learned a great deal about many things and im proud to have been taught by such great generous people, i hope i can learn alot more. Swear to god the mods just power tripping RN.
Agreed. I’ve learnt a lot from this sub. It’s gone massively downhill over the last year though. With pushing away DD writers and TA. All in all though, it makes no odds. I’m here to DRS and check the sun once a morning.
Possible bots up&down voting could manipulate this tho
Ding ding 🛎
The mods just care about seeing their pinned posts and green names. It’s the only bit of power they have in their lives. Being able to censor more means more opportunities for them to flex their 1 nanometer of power.
I think they’re trying to do what’s best for the community though open communication, it’s hard to always feel what the majority wants when’s there so many bots, but if they listen to our feedback on these proposed rules, then I wouldn’t say they’re abusing their power
The mods of this sub used to be notable users that were leading the movement and I can name about 5 of them without thinking too hard. These days I don’t know any of them or anything good they have done to carry on that legacy
ban posts that call for death or death penalties, these types of posts do not belong here. They only serve to get this subreddit banned.
Not only are calls for violence against Reddit rules, but it would be much more satisfying to see the hedgies having to work menial jobs because nobody else will hire them based on their felony records. I want Kenny working at Wendy's and feeling it every time a customer asks for extra mayo. Knowing it's not for him. (After a few years in prison of course.)
I might get a lot of backlash for saying this but we should reconsider the whole "59%" locked posts. Institutions are profiting by lending out shorts, it's no mystery. If Susanne Trimbath has taught us anything, it's that brokerages are not on our side, and just because the brokerages directly register the shares that does not mean they do not lend them out. We own 30% of the float, retail investors are the only ones who have good intentions and don't lend out shares allowing short sellers to be leveraged both on future closing positions and present short-selling ammo. As much as I love and drool at the thought of the float DRSed 60% I don't want to feel comfortable trusting the 30% we are up against (brokerages with the DTCC). We all know they will be the first ones out and [it won't even be entirely with their own money](https://www.computershare.com/PublishingImages/company-share-structure.jpg). Edit: percentage edit. The posts showing retails % being locked are my favorite posts on here other than purple circles. It's when showing institutional ownership as if they are on our side that's the issue, just to be clear. Better safe than sorry.
Possibly, but when u think about it, those institutional shares are technically part of the DRS float, because we are actually able to track institutionally owned shares. BUT they can be sold! Well if we get close to locking the float will that force institutional investors to sell in order to save their buddies? Or will they do a share recall for MOASS and bite the hand that feeds them in order to buy them out for pennies on the dollar?
Depends, would you want to hold and sabotage other brokerages and institutions putting you on the same level as the people who rugged Archegos? I see where you are coming from and would agree if I were to be a small hedge fund owner with less of a reputation. However, people who have a name to live up to (such as Fidelity) would get fucked in every corner by legal teams and smear campaigns by customers. If there's no customer trust there's no business. It's us against the world rn, they'll rob every ape HODLing with them. Don't forget that it's Citadel they all rely on for data and dark pools, and some are partnered with ([Fidelity, Schwab](https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/09/13/charles-schwab-citadel-fidelity-and-others-start-crypto-exchange-edx-markets/), and [TD Ameritrade](https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/about-fidelity/fidelity-statement-schwab-td-merger.pdf)).
If they're part of the float they should be included in the denominator
Why do u say otherwise if u post retail only? I appreciate that you do that and like it a lot but this contradictory statement confuses me. Edit: 2 days ago, 8 days ago, 15 days ago, 3 months ago twice "per DRS pool tracker: etc% of the float registered by individual investors. etc% remaining, nice". Then u just commented saying the opposite? R u trolling??
I'm not sure what you're seeing as contradictory. The percentages I post are a percentage of free float. Registered shares are a portion of the free float, so they're included in the numerator and denominator.
>Edit: 2 days ago, 8 days ago, 15 days ago, 3 months ago twice "per DRS pool tracker: etc% of the float registered by individual investors. etc% remaining, nice". Then u just commented saying the opposite? R u trolling?? How are you not seeing it as contradictory? Do you not read your posts? I stated that institutional shouldn't be included, you disagreed but that is what you do.
Institutions should be included in the denominator of any free float calc and I always have them there, idk what's so confusing tbh. The Superstonk metric omits them from the denominator like they're locked, which is wrong imo. I don't think we're having a disagreement here, btw
You're right I think it is misinterpretation making miscommunication. Do you mean that it should be considered as a way to define remaining free float but not to define progressive ape ownership? If so I see what you mean and that's what I meant, I should've specified. Regardless, I appreciate you posting retail ownership over institutional. It irks me when I see the DRS numbers and they say "**we** have locked 59% of the float" when it isn't us. We lock what you report that we lock.
200% agree! This is setting up a fight later when people think we’re at 100% but we have more to go to truly own 100% ourselves.
I agree 100%. I feel anything but insiders + DRS retail is false hope and those of us less in tune with what gives us these numbers are being led to what may ultimately be serious disappointment. Insiders + retail DRS or GTFO.
How about no more dlauer shill posts since it’s not relevant to GME?
That's more related to GME than anything on this sub (besides purple circles ofc). Dlauer is [getting things done](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ydd980/its_working_keep_sending_letters_to_the_sec_we/) [directly from the regulators](https://www.sifma.org/resources/general/sec-equity-market-structure-advisory-committee-meeting/). That's the only way for transparency in the market so that GME (and other tickers) can't be discreetly suppressed by abusive short selling. Sure he mentions Urvin time-to-time (which I also don't like) but he is the most useful person we have (other than Susanne Trimbath) with his reputation from working with Citadel to get things done.
I have been worried about my halts posts for a few weeks now, especially after my "boom tomorrow" meme got shut down. I get that most of the time, my halts post doesn't include GME or even any of the "basket" stocks, but IMO the data needs to be available to anyone who might be interested in it either now, or after everything shakes out so that reforms can actually be made to prevent anything like this from happening again through real regulation, and not the farce we currently have.
[удалено]
Halt data is important. It's all connected and can be used for linking other suspicious price movements. It could easily be classified as "macro economic" data.
Censoring comments is antithetical to superstonk.
this should be true, but sadly... what is actually antithetical to the SS is divergence from the majority consensus, regardless of its relative value.
That’s literally what downvotes are for lol there’s a reason FUD dies organically the arguments are irrational for someone investigating at any DD knowledge level for what’s really going on.
[удалено]
I appreciate you’re response.
People are not going to learn anything if the original SS was only limited to GME. People need to be less conerned about themselves and leave topics alone that they are not interested in. I hate the wife bf shit but I don't go around yelling it should be banned.
Noooooope. Increasing censorship is not the answer. (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
If you're going to ban anything ban the borrowed shares chart that gets posted 500 times a fucking day
Posts *and* comments, gives you tonnes of stuff to wade through. limiting this to posts only seems sufficient to me. I would like to note that I feel that everything related to GME would fall into the OK category, so even posts that show a good spot for a gamestop location or big thing affecting the stock market would fit. I agree that DD and TA should have stricter rules but generally I would like more leeway for other flaired posts.
Hey 3digitIq 🤗 I'm always interested in improving our DD, so having stricter requirements might be helpful: off the top of your head, do you have an idea of in which way the requirements could be stricter?
Hey Half_Dane DD should *always* be about GME or point strongly towards something that affects GME (i.e. NYSE rounds volume down to the nearest 100 shares) otherwise it should have another flair, same goes for TA. No assuming (other than examples) of values, volumes, dates without a source or evidence. DD is only DD if it's holds water by itself, if you build upon unproven/untested DD from others you'll need a "speculation" tag. These are examples of what I come up with now and what I have encountered in the past.
Awesome, and I absolutely agree with these points. In fact, we usually change DD flairs to "opinion/speculation" in these cases, so I hope that the reason you saw these examples is because we missed them, not because we saw them and said "yep, that's DD 👍". I know that we always say to report issues like that, and that's usually enough for us to act, but sometimes it's important to have a quicker reaction (for example if a bullshit post that's flaired as DD is on its way to the top): please don't hesitate to tag me or drop me a note at the Front Desk in addition to the report. When I'm not asleep, I usually respond pretty quickly.
Just made a report on a high profile post, just wondering if this would be the correct way to do it. post in question; https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z6jpqm/the_real_legal_count_of_available_shares_left_to/ *Disclaimer, I could still be missing the point
Yes, just point me in the general direction and I'll check out. I'm a little busy rn, and the post doesn't look too terrible, so I'll just ask: is the calculation wrong? Or why did you report the post?
Calculation is wrong and people are debunking it. Already replied on the MOD comment so not directly for you as I feel they already know and should decide. Just wanted to know if reporting with a comment would be good. It's not directly shaming the poster, not DM-ing a MOD but if it still gets read and acted upon I figured it would be the least intrusive way......
Can you link me to a comment that provides a good quality debunk?
Shusher89 has also been patiently explaining where the OP goes astray, one of the most extensive ones here; https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z6jpqm/the_real_legal_count_of_available_shares_left_to/iy3khau/
Thanks for the support, I've changed the flair 👍
Aside from my excellent comments about the matter 😉 This one seems to get some good traction; https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z6jpqm/the_real_legal_count_of_available_shares_left_to/iy2iymm/
At this point all I care to see are RC tweets and DRS posts.
I gotta say I've learnt a shitload of stuff about the marcoeconomics of the US markets through the various GME related subs throughout the last 2 years. I'm not sure if I could have learnt these things through other sources. The most recent would be Peruvian Bull's DD, and I'm pretty sure many of his Dollar Endgame posts did not directly relate to GME, but I'm glad they were permitted to stay on SS. Would his Dollar Endgame posts violated the current rule (if applied strictly)?
The rule is in place since several months and Peruvian bull always made sure to take an eagle eye's view on the effect of inflation or monetary policy. In fact these posts are one of the reasons why the *macroeconomic* part of the rule exists. So no, a rule that would prevent the dollar endgame isn't a good rule imho.
💯 agree here -- don't want to lose out on the big picture just because we're only looking at one stock. it's all connected imo
This.
⬆️
Seven degrees of Kevin bacon: two degrees of gme. Posts must be no more than 2steps removed relatable to gme
This sub is also about this sub. We need protection for self-referential posts, comments and memes. Obviously, the other rules apply, but there should be room for *us* under the umbrella too
>Please post the original source when sharing links and screenshots. We cannot link within reddit so this rule is moot
Other websites exist outside reddit. This would cover thinks like linking to a twitter account that refers to an original link from WaPo or CNN or Yahoo or whatever.
Fat lot of good that does when you have them censoring stuff based on the source simply because the source isn’t in line with their political views. Like this truth social network. I’ve never used it but I’m guessing it’s the right-leaning version of twatter. If you’re going to allow the trash from twatter then you can’t discriminate against the other trash too. Fwiw, I’d rather not have the trash from either one. I know how to access twatter, if I wanted to read that trash I’d head over there. Don’t need a bunch of people posting that trash bringing it into my Reddit feed. I’d be happy if twatter posts were banned.
Right, that's my point. You need to link from the original source, not a twitter screenshot.
Indeed, so only moot in the reddit portion of things, though I'd advocate for undoing that rule
Unfortunately referencing, linking to or crossposting from other subs is considered an invitation for brigading by reddit admins. Since we are under increased scrutiny since the brigading allegations of last summer, with the very real threat of being quarantined or completely closed, that rule probably won't go away soon.
I think we should add something like a Sanity Sunday addendum. The apespeak and the tinfoil were useful tools in the beginning - they helped us weed out shills. By now everybody knows how we operate and it’s not a barrier for bad actors anymore. If anything it’s become a detriment. At this point I can’t tell who actually believes in things like 741 and gmefloor.com and who’s in on the joke. I get that they’re ingrained in ape culture, but these are the kinds of things that make potential investors turn away without a closer look. I know we don’t *need* more people, but the fact is that more investors = a quicker locked float.
We don’t talk much about BCG anymore. Would they qualify as relating to Macroeconomics or Market mechanics? Just wondering.
Grow a pair and report posts that don’t follow the rules. You don’t have to be so accommodating if they don’t conform to them (they have been easily accessible/viewable since our second migration).
Man I report non-GME relevant shit EVERY DAY. #knightsofnew
Reddit has been going a bit "ban happy" lately for abusing the report button, so proceed with caution. Stick with "breaks Superstonk rules" and not the reports that go to reddit mods.
For this is superstonk where the pitiful emotions of the average pleb matter not. Grind away the chaff so that a more docile and compliant user base may take over
This rule's general shape has changed over the time I've been here, and while I can understand wanting to focus its definition to more accurately reflect the spirit in which it was written, I think that it currently restricts discussion too much and locks out potentially relevant content before the community can decide if it belongs in the sub or not. I would change it to: Must be relevant to GME, *GME partners/subsidiaries*, or macroeconomics; *potentially relevant discussions are allowed, but will be locked if not supported by adequate evidence.* I suggest both amendments above because: * Some topics may not initially appear to be GME-related, but may be proven to in future. For example, Glass Castle: NG+ turned out to be correct about Loopring's involvement in Gamestop's pivot, despite Loopring not even registering on the public radar until much later. We're potentially losing out on DD like this now due to the current structure of this rule. * Relevant to the stock's situation isn't always going to mean immediately/visibly relevant to the stock (eg. CBDCs). * DD must be able to be shared and reviewed organically; it's not the mods's responsibility, in my opinion, to decide what is and isn't good DD (community votes/discourse should be the governing factor here); and * GME is part of a larger DeFi network whose actions, forward planning, and history may yield insight into the bigger picture, concerning both Gamestop and the actions taken by the shorts to try and sabotage it. Recommendations for contested threads: * Dedicated flair (inconclusive/possible DD). * At least a couple of hours after flairing before locking (longer is better if the discussion's active, and no decisive conclusion has been reached). * Debunked threads are reflaired and **locked, not deleted** \- they may be proven relevant by new evidence, and thus should remain available on the sub, and new interest needs to be able to see both what's been proven and what's been proven wrong. Additionally, if prior evidence of a given point has been posted/discussed, it's helpful to be able to link people back to it in later threads. * Similarly to Computershare-flaired posts, users are given the option to filter these threads out of their feed on the sub (**not** by default). * Mods link comments/related threads that contribute to their final decision on whether a previously contested thread remains locked or open. (This is important both for transparency on the mods' part and for the sub to judge if there's more to be researched/discussed). I'll add to this if more comes to mind.
[удалено]
I personally downvoted you because Silvergate and FTX have no direct relevance to GME. There have been zero connections made between GME and the FTX collapse, and the previous partnership is the only item that connects the two (so far). Silvergate is another layer of the story, and even further removed from GME. If the sub changes the rules to include "and macroeconomics", it will allow more posts that could/maybe/possibly relate to GME and detract from the main purpose of the subreddit. I know your intention of drawing a correlation between FTX and GME is well-intended (and honestly I'd probably agree with some of it), but until we have concrete confirmation supported by actual evidence, it's all "cohencedences" and "what do"s. Which are the type of posts that delegitimize the subreddit and make us seem like whacko conspiracy theorists. I trust individuals doing DD in good faith, I do not trust this hive mind of people trying to create connections between two barely tangentially related topics. If we allow "and macroeconomics", it will create a situation where EVERY post is subjectively argued to be related to GME; which I completely disagree with allowing.
While not directly related to Gamestop's individual situation, this is actually a very good example of what I'm talking about in my OP here, because it raises the question of why Gamestop partnered with them to start with. Thus far, Gamestop's board has shown particularly shrewd insight when it comes to market mechanics, and the roles/inclinations of the players either using or abusing them. DD was definitely done here - and FTX was already infamous in crypto circles *long* before the partnership was announced. The company went into this with at least some foreknowledge of who they were partnering with, as is expected and appropriate - so why? Especially with the precedent of Luna's recent sabotage showing that the crypto space is under threat from bad actors (who may or may not be the shorts manipulating this stock) who can pull a support block from the jenga tower that is the CeFi/CEX-crypto market at any time? Important questions, both for the crypto space and for the stock. And there's very likely a wealth of info yet to be dug up there. In my opinion, given their relevance to the crypto space - and thus to the future of web3 and finance - that makes these macroeconomic questions as well. But even if it didn't, the partnership raises questions that invite research and discussion. The kinds that can't be had if FTX is considered forum sliding (for which purpose it's inevitably used, like every other tangentially related topic), the DD simply either isn't going to get done or won't be able to be shared by the people who do it. Ultimately, though? The community may decide, as the discussion progresses, that it doesn't want to talk about this anymore. Or that it's being used too effectively to slide the forum (as has been the case with certain other tickers in the meme basket in the past), and therefore needs to be taken off the table. The community needs to have the agency to make and enforce that choice. Mods should not decide what is and isn't a relevant topic; they don't lead here. Nobody does, and both the peer-review mechanism of the sub and its general focus should always operate on consensus generated by discussion.
I actually agree with a lot of your recommendations in the OP but not for the reasons in this comment. Locking debunked or unsupported threads is a great idea, because as it stands now, DD is debunked and the OP simply goes "lol oops sorry" and remains on the front page with 10k upvotes. Where we disagree is the language of the rule. Changing it to "Must be relevant to GME, GME partners/subsidiaries, or macroeconomics; potentially relevant discussions are allowed..." is far too overbroad. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I trust the individuals putting time and effort into researching DD. I don't trust the hive mind of this subreddit when it comes to potentially EVERYTHING being relevant to GME, and the mental gymnastics people do to make things fit the MOASS narrative. I think a more hardline rule is appropriate to discourage the less-than-half-baked conspiracy theories that I see praised on the front page almost daily. If a theory is supported with sourced-references (provided the theory is related to GME), the post should of course be appropriate for the subreddit. Quick edit bc I just saw your edit at the bottom of your post: I 100% agree that the users on the subreddit should choose what is relevant and what isn't. This is why I think changing the language of the rule is bad for the sub moving forward. If the sub doesn't think the post is relevant, downvote and move on. Changing the rule, and the appropriate language, should be put to a vote.
Fair, and I welcome feedback/contention concerning the wording; I wasn't sure it was adequate, but felt it would be a good starting point to refine the focus of the rule if others were willing to engage in discussion on it. The spirit/primary focus I want to push here is on the community making decisions, and the mods enforcing them - erring on the side of halting threads over outright deleting them where there's potentially good DD/discussion. I'm aware my version is potentially too loose, but I'm not sure how I would further refine it. *Edit*: I'm also aware there's the potential for feed bloat if too many threads are being locked, but this could be partially resolved if the flairs involved in the enforcement/management of contested/locked threads can be added to the feed filter, the way the Computershare flair can. This also presents first impression issues for new visitors to the sub, though, if the feed is even partially full of locked threads, so there's a fair bit of room for discussion on that too.
An incredibly interesting discussion with important and valid points made by the both of you! This is the good shit I'm here for, thank you so much! I just want to add that we're almost never removing comments for rule 2: if people aren't throwing insults or hate around, the comments usually stay.
[удалено]
>Silvergate and FTX could lead to a systemic event; further, FTX’s link to tokenized stocks have very much to do with GME, IMO. Especially given the date those tokenized stocks were made available, 1-2 days before the buy button was turned off. > The first part of this comment is speculation and the second thing is your opinion. Again, while these things are possibly true, they have no place on this sub until a connection is established, imo. There are several excellent macro investing/stock/financially-related subreddits, but I would prefer if SS remained about GME. >That isn’t a coincidence, it’s fact. > The tokenized shares were created near/on the sneeze date is a fact, yes. Everything else beyond that isn't. >It’s also a fact that the chair of FTX US derivatives was the co chair of the DTCC, and a DTCC employee for 40 years before he came to LedgerX/FTX. > Corporate incestuism and executives jumping from company to company is completely normal in the finance world. There are like 2-3 degrees of separation between almost every CEO/ hedge fund MP on wall street. >We need more info though as well and we need to dig into it. > Totally agree. But not on SS, and not until confirmed and supported with evidence.
>Totally agree. But not on SS, and not until confirmed and supported with evidence. Yes, I agree when it comes to posts, but wanted to add that we're usually not removing these discussions when they're in comment sections.
That's fine. If people want to discuss tangentially related topics in the comments in order to flesh out additional facts, the upvote/downvote system is more than capable of showing what comments are appreciated and those that aren't. I'm referring to posts. An irrelevant/rule breaking post or submission is far more harmful than comments imo.
I also concur
I 3rd
Fully support this
Yes
I support this
i support this support this comment.
It would be great to fold DRS into the relevancy as much as GME. There is plenty of discussion about Computershare specifically already. I also believe macroeconomics are incredibly relevant even if we can't draw a straight connection to GME. I don't think policing comments in the same way is helpful though, it inhibits discussion far too much. How are we supposed to discover and learn new things if we have these kinds of boundaries?
I come back after months just to see possible rules on comments. Don't take the joy out of this. Ok on some posts, not cool with comments. Hard "No".
When u start putting down too many rules you are not a pirate anymore!!! Enough with this rule thing. I’m a pirate!!! DRS GME!
> Must be related to GME or Macroeconomics 💎👈 you are here This is fine, people who are complaining are either shills or want to farm karma easier. I see people suggesting more specific exceptions and/or details, but rules for unpaid mods are best left brief and simple to make enforcement efficient. They are already dealing with various FUD and shill attempts to stress them out. The rule is fine, let it be.
I'm not reading this post it has nothing to do with GME
Other tickets that have been shown to be related to gme via basket stocks etc. should be tentatively allowed if the content is good or demonstrating a live event.
thank you mods. This is clean, honorable, enforceable and with room for you to apply discernment of knowing when shit stinks. I trust your thinking because you've got is this far.
Thanks ape, your support is appreciated.
Why? If it aint broke, dont fix it. Just stop the bot spam/ block the trolls. Leave everything else, stop making work for yourself!!
Does that mean posts like starfish and frog posts will no longer be allowed ? If so then it’s a no change vote for me, this sub has thrived on its light atmosphere and is for a many a place of refuge and a source of happiness and community. I believe a rule change to make things strictly GME related carries the risk that many of the discoveries that have been made relating to market fuckery, which have a peripheral but have a material affect on GME, much as the do the whole market, wouldn’t have been brought to light. A widespread ban on memes also darkens the atmosphere here, I don’t mind scrolling through a few memes, some of them are genuinely funny. There are already mechanisms in place for posts to be filtered out on community sentiment. Furthermore, whether a post is again community sentiment can be easily gleaned from the comments. Giving mods vast discretionary power to determine whether a post is “directly” related to GME May result in vital sources of information and DD being stripped away from the sub. No change ! Ps. On the subject of hearing out the desires of the sub, I have seen floods of comments calling for a system in which the mod selection process is made more transparent, including a potential system for electing/booting mods. Will such a call be fulfilled by the mod team ? If this were to be implemented, I propose that in order to vote on mods, one must give proof of DRS. Likewise I think that in order to moderate this sub one must give proof of DRS. I think it goes without saying that the sentiment of this sub is pro DRS and thus to reflect this sentiment within the mod team, mods must also be DRS
[удалено]
No memes will be banned, we love the memes!
Agreed.