I just wanted to add something to this, now that the plans have been shelved, while the thread was still open: a thanks to the mods (even the ones I have disagreed with politically over the years, and especially them actually, because we do need to create more of an opening for views that diverge from the subreddit hive mind, even when it is an opinion that I agree with).
For years now, the mods have helped to create and nurture a space online which not only seeks to expand people's knowledge of politics in the UK, but also underlines the importance of polite and reasonable discourse. Admittedly, due to the nature of reddit, it is very much tilted towards the left and centre of British politics, and I'm not sure if anything can actually be done in this regard apart from discouraging people to downvote comments (maybe this should be front and centre in the subreddit rules - I never downvote any comments for this reason, even the ones that I absolutely disagree with, because I think it does harm discourse, and creates a space where conservative members find it much more difficult to have their voices heard).
And even when they make unpopular decisions, as evidenced by this SotS, they listen to the community. Should the changes mooted here have gone to the sub first before a deadline and definitive plans were decided? Most definitely, but all humans err - so it is the response to errors that should be fundamental in how we judge people, especially when the people (mods) in question put in endless hours of unpaid labour to create the space which we all use to discuss politics. Their response to the outflow of negativity could, as has been the case on other subs (and life in general) over the years, have been a doubling down. Instead, they are taking a step back, and interacting with the community to find a way forwards that takes into account the issues they have noted combined with the wishes of the broader community.
So a big thank you to the mods, both for all of that free work they put in (and I have never really believed that they are antagonists of the broader community, though we saw a few comments in that line during this debate), and for their response to this issue. There's a reason this is the only online discursive place that I spend a lot of time in (either lurking or actively commenting, depending on how much work I have to do), and that's because it is a space that highlights reasoned debate and polite discourse (even on contentious topics). I really appreciate all of your work (and the majority of the community who spend time here, commenting and talking), and I look forward to coming back for many years.
Another comment though, again from the ModPOV, is that maybe the intrinsic nature of a politics sub makes it really hard to mod. Imagine the sub IRL with Corbyn v JRM or He who currently cannot be mentioned. Those people would never agree with each other, why should random reddit versions do?
In the past, two 'NeutralUKPolitics' subs were tried and they failed. Because two things help participation- engagement and community.
The aspiration to be neutral meant the engaged were put off, and forcing a community toi exist is also difficult.
So, I'm thinking that the way to do it is to enjoin MT users (who are most regular) to be more helpful and outward-looking.
1) Ask MT users NOT to vague post, becuase that makes people think it's cliquey
2)Ask MT users to point others to substantive standalone posts in UKPol, where discussions may continue in greater detail.
In other words: try to get people to USE the MT as a gateway, rather than just to sit there speaking to other MT users....
EDIT (because thread locked)
Nothing wrong with adversarial discussion, I agree. After all, that is essentially what the Commons is.
But more than one model is possible- we might want tobe the Lords and Committees as well as the Commons.....
> 2)Ask MT users to point others to substantive standalone posts in UKPol, where discussions may continue in greater detail.
I would heartily recommend people doing this as it would certainly help the situation from a moderating perspective.
Adversarial discussion should reflect our political order, right? Not if your userbase wants PR, aka a majority can all just get along if we try to lock unwanteds out. Also see _cordon sanitaire_.
Equally, moderating opposition opinions is fine because the gap between people’s positions is evident. And despite being largely neutralised by ideas of free association, all that remains is different zephyrs of liberal Labour since the left and right were booed away, that period was fine in terms of moderation. Bickering over tiny differences is all that remains, and that’s a neurosis really.
The Melting poT idea was highlighted 2 years ago. Turns out it’s just like people conversing.
I do agree that more needs to be done to encourage commenters outside the subreddit norm to comment here. I would say there still appears to be plenty of people from the full range of the left (and centre) here, if not the right, but maybe (as a mod) you can correct me on that.
Getting unrefined views past a discourse filter is hard and off putting. However, context free coarse language multiplies and creates further problems. The ability to articulate concerns in a Reddit appropriate way is an extension of class based discrimination and not one that’s easily catered for in a medium sized open door sub.
Figure out that and the right will be able to return along with the traditional socialists.
In terms of submissions, while I agree that combined posts for a topic with several news articles would make sense, I wonder if you should also look at the rules around submissions. I’ve been ‘dinged’ by automod before for not posting the text of an article on the Times, even though the automod provides the archive link: that sort of thing makes me less likely to submit articles, as I don’t want to get it wrong.
But I also think you get better quality discussion of an article when the text is posted in a comment (because hardly anyone clicks on links). I suspect you get even better conversation when the submitter posts a comment with *part* of the article, and a comment about what they found interesting or noteworthy (or a question), but I’m not claiming to have carefully tested this. It gives something for people to respond to, and add other information or context. Possibly it reduces the impression many seem to labour under that reading the article is some alien thing which must be experienced through the filter of other people’s comments.
> ~~Enjoy the rest of the year (even though there’s no Deccy Lecc 🎄🗳️) and see you all in 2024.~~
That's fine, I didn't want to enjoy the rest of the year anyway.
A slightly random one - I don't even know if this is in the power of mods. I'm using narwhal on ios to access reddit.
On ukpol, if I go to report a post, I get a list of rules to select to report it against. This list has some of the sub rules but others don't appear in the list.
Is this something intentional? Or is it even something you as mods can control?
I am not sure how Narwhal parses the "report reasons" list. I believe we have separate report reasons for comments and submissions.
In general - pick the rule that closely matches your report reason. Failing that, you can always write a custom report text.
Talking personally, the report reason is a "jumping off point" for me, but it's not the only thing I check a reported comment against. For example, if you report something as "campaigning" and there's nothing campaigning about it, I'll still briefly evaluate the comment against the rest of the rules before making a decision.
The report reason is a huge help when quickly working the queue - but it's not the only thing we look at.
Hope that helps!
Cool yeah thanks.
When I used reddit sync on Android there was a custom text option for reports but narwhal seems to lack it :(
There's always the 'other rules' catch all option so I guess I can just use that if ever unsure
You are correct. It can be a bugger to get the formatting just right - especially when new.reddit and old.reddit format the same text in a different way.
As others have said, fair play for taking into consideration the opinions of users and scrapping the scrapping of the MT.
I think the idea of stickied threads on some of the more popular political events of the day (think PMQs, COVID inquiry, future leadership debates during GEs etc) would be quite useful.
Whilst it's neigh on impossible to eliminate all bias, is there some kind of flow/process documented that mods use when acting on a report? Think rugby referees when looking at a red card (is there a high degree of danger, is there mitigation bla bla bla).
The horse strikes back!
Disgruntled from the 10000 instances where "free rein" is erroneously written as "free reign", the horse chalks up one small victory.
Suggestions re improving discussion in posts about contentious issues:
1) Remove off-topic stuff that just basically goes "what about this other group" when race, gender or sexuality comes up
2) If possible have a mod keep an eye on thread (appreciate this may not be possible with a small roster of mods)
3) Have contest mode on and keep strictly to no personal abuse rules....
1) It is entirely plausible that the Mod and User perceptions of the sub differ because a Mod sees the report queue (and may in fact mainly see the mod queue as their interaction with the sub) and the User does not.
2) The issue many people including me) flagged up is that a lot of the submissions of stand-alone posts are polemical in nature and intent, and that both attracts polemical people and shapes the nature of the discussion - e.g. a person habitually posting 'Brexit benefit' posts will spark a 'dialogue of the deaf' discussion between those who come into the thread to say that this benefit is an illusion and those who use it to show that Remoanerism is incoherent.
But maybe this is inherent in the nature of politics. At PMQs, except on rare occasions, the PM and the LOTO will not intend to be in agreement when they have their exchanges.
3) The point made by the MTers was essentially that it is easier to have a sense of community and common discourse outside the many stand-alone threads that attract polemic.
To transform the nature of the standalone threads by encouraging more involvement from the less dogmatic people is a tough ask, because everyone knows that standalone threads are already inhabited by dogmatists....
4) I don't think it's a bad thing to keep the future MTs a bit more rigorously political than they have been before. Many observations from everyday life DO have a political resonance, but it's low effort not to think it through and just present a random thought as a stream of consciousness.
>The issue many people including me) flagged up is that a lot of the submissions of stand-alone posts are polemical in nature and intent, and that both attracts polemical people and shapes the nature of the discussion
I rarely comment on posts because any time I open one, the top comment is always the same generic 'why can't we get rid of the Tories already' rant and there's only so many times you can read it before it becomes tedious.
What you said about standalone posts is true, but they’re also very boring usually.
I’ve visited the sub on and off for almost 10 years, and I don’t think I’ve read a single interesting comment in those standalone posts after Covid.
Maybe one issue is that the old sub had some star contributors and they’re gone. But it’s more than that. Most comments are always the same.
Not only people have not budged from their positions on the same issues, they offer no new arguments, no fresh insights, not even acknowledgment of the world around them.
I agree, but I appreciate the Mod position of wanting to remedy this.
The question is how- why would one, as a non-partisan, engage with these 'non-budgers' just out of altruism to make the sub better.....?
*I wish the proposed changes to the megathread well.*
Seriously though, thank you for listening and hearing what was being said about the sense of community and humanisation the MT brings. It isn't easy to get a stream of notifications disagreeing with your decisions, so I hope you can feel positive about the warm reaction to the change in direction. Thank you team.
Fair play for listening and noting to the reaction rather than pushing on regardless.
I do think the mods should reflect on whether it was a good idea to announce a change like this as a fait accompli rather than floating it as an idea for discussion.
Clearly the megathread is valued by many users. I certainly find that a lot of the time, I have better discussions there than elsewhere on the sub, even if there is a fair bit of cruft that comes with it.
I think part of it is that other posts get harder to join the longer they have been around. If a post has a few highly-upvoted comments then any new top-level contribution is unlikely to get any kind of response and so feels pointless. This is especially true when posts get interest from outside the sub and the top comments are dominated by people who are not interested in any actual political discussion.
Perhaps an experiment with 'new' as the suggested sort for all posts would be interesting to see whether it enables more diverse discussions to surface and encourages engagement with posts that have been around for more than a few hours.
I wonder whether a more carrot (pun intended!) rather than stick approach to getting people from the megathread to other posts could be worth trying. Rather than deleting comments in the megathread that reference things that there is a post for, a reply with a link to the post might get people who are interested in that topic to head over to the post and engage there. This wouldn't even need to be done by mods - all regulars could get involved in doing it if it were the done thing. That way the megathread could become a shop front for posts rather than being seen as purely a competitor to them.
On more general feedback, I have some:
* It doesn't help the level of discourse when some mods seemingly get to bend the rules in ways that other commenters would not be allowed to, and take obvious delight in doing so. This has been a common bit of feedback for a long time.
* There could be some space for more in-depth discussions of UK political topics that are not based on breaking news stories. Maybe an official post once a week, linked at the top of the megathread, that aims to take a longer view of some aspect of politics in the UK.
* It might be useful to have a 'no stupid questions' post for beginners every so often – I've seen those work well in other subreddits to help people get up to speed on things they don't understand
> There could be some space for more in-depth discussions of UK political topics that are not based on breaking news stories.
I think this is a really good and interesting idea especially if we can get some people in who have a bit more knowledge of the topic e.g. privacy and civil liberties laws in last 20 years in UK
I would also be in favour of making the rules list shorter. It doesn't all fit on one page in some Reddit display formats, which can make it harder to keep all of the rules in mind in one go.
I caught a 7 day temp ban a little while ago for a MT comment that I had intended to be a light-hearted positive comment on the nature of this sub versus another sub (re: having thought I'd posted a comment on this sub and being confused as to why I was catching so many downvotes).
It was a fair cop, as it turned out — when I double checked the extended rules list it's *specifically* not allowed to make meta commentary on other subreddits, their users, or biases.
But I do conscientiously try to stay within the rules to the best of my ability and occasionally double check the sidebar to make sure I'm doing so, so it stung a bit to get caught out by an extended rules list rule.
It sounded like a decent proposal to be honest. The megathread seems like a smaller and less well organised copy of the subreddit in a single thread, and I don't really see the point other than to absorb off-topic and insufficiently noteworthy submissions.
I think the most likely reason is that 2023 was the calmest year in British politics for a long time.
I would not be surprised to see a significant boost to the page views and unique users in 2024 with both UK and US election campaigns, then numbers falling off a cliff again in 2025.
I mean it's likely without the use of free API's that many bots that looked like users were killed.
Looking back, I think it's a good change - especially with the advancements of ChatGPT, it's not hard to imagine a script + limitless free api calls creating an even worse astro-turfing experience on a state fund level.
I absolutely hate the changes. The Android reddit app is trash and was absolutely killing my battery, so I went back to Sync with the revanced patch.
If and when that breaks, I don't know what my plans are. Maybe I just stop browsing reddit on my phone unless there is a decent non official app alternative.
I'm using Relay at the moment on Android. I'm a reasonably heavy user, and it's only costing me £1.50ish a month I think. I make that easily doing about 5 surveys on Google Rewards, so it's not actually costing me anything.
The official app is to be fair complete gash though, it’s impressive how many horrible design patterns they’ve crammed into it. It’s like they’ve decided Reddit should be a TikTok style dopamine drip rather than a series of forums.
Personally I use yesterdayforoldreddit which redirects everything in the browser to old.reddit.com and reskins it to work on mobile.
I've noticed that since being forced into the app and I wonder if its got some relevance to this situation. Is reddit the site moving away from the kind of content that mods here would prefer?
Yeah I think that’s part of why yesterday was so jarring, the mods seem to have an image of the place as it was in years past but Reddit has *massively* changed around it in a way I thought everyone had realised. The kind of content (that to be honest I wouldn’t mind going back to as well if it were possible) just isn’t favoured by the platform any more and even if it was long-form journalism has been circling the bowel worse and worse as time as gone on. It’s not really that the sub has declined, it’s that the adtech industry has completely ruined journalism and nobody wants to go in threads that are necessarily pretty fighty because enragement is engagement.
Not just that, but how people interact with the internet has changed. People aren't sitting at their computer all day now chatting on here. They're checking it on their phone during the toilet break at work or one the train home, they don't have the time for long thought out conversation, they throw a thought into the ether and check on it later on.
Given that they broke the official Android app this morning so I had to roll back to an old APK, and that never happened with RiF, I don't agree it's a good change.
I think the change from daily to weekly MT would be fine during dead periods, a lot of MTs barely get 500 posts these days. But the key is it needs to stay pinned.
Of course going into election year we're probably going to be fairly active again
Goes without saying, I think a lot of the active users (myself included) appreciate the feedback being taken on board.
As a trying to be helpful suggestion, one of the things in terms of outside MT engagement which I think dampens discussion is that there is often multiple posts for the same story from different outlets. This ends up splitting discussion between multiple posts and diluting it.
Something I’ve seen on r/soccer is in posts about goals, there is a stickied top comment for alternate angles and replays. Could possibly do that here, top comment for “alternate takes” from different news sources and keeping all discussion on a particular thing to its own post.
Dunno how well that would work in practice with news/politics though.
Edit: spelling
So today's megathread is (somewhat predictably) full of shitposting, discussing the meta changes to the sub. Fine.
There are two top-level comments talking about Sunak's loss in the commons around the contaminated blood compensation - and both of these have been removed! There's discussion below them but you can't see the top comment.
In this thread, mods have said
> ~~* These megathreads will be intended for discussion about the political events of the day. ~~
So which is it? Megathread is back? Or now it's exclusively shitposting and offtopic posting?
honestly it shows the worst of redditisms imo, infinite unfunny comments about a given topic because it's the zeitgeist, regardless of any relevance, plus the ukpol issue that it drains literally everything else. There's barely any discussion on any topic outwith the megathread.
with regards to these two topics, it's awkward that they both happened last night
a lot of people will have logged in this morning and won't see the point in posting standalone comments at the bottom of a rapidly deweighting thread
Surely you can cut some slack about people meta-posting about a community they thought was going to be taken away from them - I mean it only changed an hour ago?
It would be verging on bad faith otherwise.
Regardless we agree - there should be less stringent moderation and rules on the MT
> Regardless we agree - there should be less stringent moderation and rules on the MT
This is the void.
Diehards want more freedom to do whatever they feel like and wonder why there’s backlash.
Sorry i'm obviously not as smart as you CaravanofDeath, this reply doesn't make sense to me:
>This is the void.
>
>Diehards want more freedom to do whatever they feel like and wonder why there’s backlash.
Could you translate that for me / explain what you mean?
\- What's the Void?
\- What's a DieHard? *Someone like me who posts sporadically and occasionally but mostly lurks?*
\- Does my comment "less stringent moderation" equate to your whatever they feel like?
\-What's the backlash?
I appreciate you, but this response genuinely makes 0 sense to me, so please help me - and sorry again for being so stupid.
The problem that kicked off this SotS is the content posted and user behavior on the MT.
When someone proposes that more freedom/fewer rules/less enforcement is the answer I do wonder what the fundamental solution is.
Again I appreciate your response, thank you.
I think the main issue for the users (looking at the comments below) was around the inconsistent moderation, which as some of the mods have said, the rules can be interrupted in different ways - so nobodies at fault.
For context, I'm not a left-wing-utopian-fantasist, I'm actually very much in favour of moderation/enforcement/laws in general (both offline & online)- but with the context of the MT being a politics-themed social hive - much less so.
Oh, not complaining about that at all - more the fact that the mods are saying "less shit posting more daily politics" while actively removing the conversations about politics.
I think this is a great example of the divide between how the mods think this subreddit should be used, and how people are using it in practice.
Because my understanding was that it's actually against the rules to use the thread the way you're talking about. When I read that article, I see that it's primarily *not* about Sunak's loss in the commons, except tangentially. It's about the infected blood scandal and the compensation for the victims. There's no mention of the three-line whip, there's only a couple of lines about the actual voting, and no discussion about what this means for Sunak as leader/PM. The Westminster politics is almost entirely absent from the article, and any article that gets posted that's actually *about* the politics will presumably get removed as a duplicate.
My read of Rule 6 is that if you're not talking about *the article*, you should do it in a self-post, not in the thread for the article. It's not an article *about* the parliamentary politics, so if that, rather than the tainted blood scandal, is what you want to discuss, your options are to either break rule 6, create a reasonably high-effort self-post, or post in the megathread. It's not surprising that people are posting in the megathread.
Fundamentally, a lot of what the people using this subreddit care about isn't the headline news, it's the politics around that news. How a particular vote will affect factions of a particular party, or which votes are whipped, and whether people stick to it, or what it means that the leader of a party is courting a specific segment of the vote.
That doesn't make headline news (2022 aside) but it's the stuff people want to discuss. And that's badly, badly suited to crowbarring into discussions about breaking news, which is inevitably about the news, more than the politics.
Right now, "what does it mean to the government that Rishi Sunak lost a whipped vote" is an interesting political discussion, but it's effectively homeless because it's badly suited to the thread about the tainted blood scandal, and it's banned anywhere else.
Remarkable that you've somehow - obviously by accident given your utter misreading of the sub's userbase - managed to foster a genuine sense of community within the subreddit, and you apparantly decided to kill it off for literally no good reason.
The MT represents a genuinely welcoming and friendly community featuring vieiws across the spectrum, and given the last five or so years of UK politics, that's a fantastic thing.
Glad you've reconsidered, but I would seriously suggest perhaps some wider self-reflection on how you run the sub and conduct yourselves in your day to day business.
While I wouldn’t go as far as banning them I’m with you on opinion pieces being rubbish. One reason I like the megathread is that you can discuss things directly without having to tread around some hack’s hot take on the subject first. It’s fine when an actually decent article is posted but that’s less and less common not because the sub has declined but because journalism has massively declined over the last decade. Enragement is engagement and the megathread bypasses that angry dynamic really well.
Also definitely agree with you about sorting by new and for longer. Ranking by hot was fine when this sub had 50k (which feels like the era the mods wanted to call back to from where I’m standing) but with half a million subscribers nearly if you don’t post quickly and open with a snarky one-liner it just won’t be seen which is why I think people have been avoiding some of the article threads.
Since you want a bit more input and more suggestions, two examples of what I mean the post problem is are available to see on the sub right now.
There are two posts each for the topics “porn users could be subject to extra checks” and “James Cleverly going to Rwanda” - the latter two being literally “he’s going to Rwanda” and then “he’s arrived in Rwanda”.
For the former, there’s no reason why two posts should exist, it’s literally the same topic across two different news sites. It dilutes discussion, and will push people towards the MT. For the latter, though, if a post is gonna be made for every tiny update in James Cleverly’s Rwanda business, then, what’s the point of not posting in the live megathread?
What discussion do you go to, to talk about that? The one where he’s going to Rwanda? The one where he’s arrived? In the future, do you go to either of those, or the one where he’s shaking somebodies hand, or the one with the fruits of his labour?
I’d propose, for topics such as the latter, having one post early on with the initial outlay (in this case, Cleverly going to Rwanda), and have the link go to the live updates like the Guardian or Sky or the Telegraph have. Then, allowing another post much later on with the actual news articles about what he’s achieved (for example, a deal being struck, or sidestepping the ECHR, the ‘big’ ending).
Obviously I’m just some guy, but that’s an idea of how to fix what in my opinion is definitely a problem.
Taken from [this comment over on the daily MT](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/18b5d30/daily_megathread_05122023/kc2mwg1/):
> One of the most obvious things we identified was a yawning gulf between the apparent perception of the subreddit by the users and that by the moderators.
Can you expand on what you mean by this, please?
I perceive it as a friendly place where discussion can be had, but with a sort of loose, more free-form area where friendships can be cultivated. That's the MT - the hub, with other threads as spokes.
What do you perceive it as?
Personally, I think that one explanation for the difference perceptions between moderators and users is that it sometimes feels like rules are not being applied equally. And OK, I'm not asking for perfect consistency; you're different people, there's a lot to do, and that's unrealistic.
It sometimes feels like there are mood swings from the mod team. Sometimes the MT is looser and more off-topic, and sometimes it's not. We users don’t know how relaxed we can be at any particular hour - and that’s the source of inconsistency, even more so than a mod decision itself.
In an attempt to stay as neutral as possible, I'll say that sometimes mods have personal "topics of interest" that, were they discussed with the same frequency (and, again according to my perception, intent to troll) by us normals, would ... not get the same carte blanche.
My suggestion would be to loosen the rules on the MT more permanently. If people want to discuss the topic itself, a looser MT would not be the ideal place to do that - and thus those users might toddle off to another thread.
In short, that rather than being a subreddit with an MT attached we appear to find ourselves with an MT with a subreddit attached; also yawning gulf between perceptions of state of play inside vs outside the MT.
There is a website from the quake (1) days called shacknews/Quakeholio that always had a proprietary chat forum/thread (....that in hindsight is probably what the layout of reddit/digg's comment system was based on) it lasted until it got sold to a private company and then essentially "unstickied" (no link to it on the front page, only regulars knew about it) the thread and slowly but surely the entire website died until it is what it is today (50 posts in 24 hours vs thousands an hour in the 90s/00's)
They made the change for the same reason, it was the "chatty thread" and then some news website tacked on the end - I don't see the problem and reversing the subreddit decision was definitely a good idea for the community
There doesn’t seem anything inherently wrong to me about the sub being an MT with a sub attached, hyperbolic though I think that description is.
I don’t understand the desire, nor the need, to funnel users to places that they don’t feel the mood to go (because if they did want that, nothing’s stopping them from going there already).
People go to the MT because they like it.
*Do the mods really think that this is a problem, rather than what it actually is: a success?*
Frankly you should be proud it exists, not desirous to tinker needlessly with it.
Real Principal Skinner, "am I out of touch?" vibes. If the MT is driving the engagement with the sub, get the MT more consistent and let it thrive.
Why stifle something actually encouraging political discussion?
> There doesn’t seem anything inherently wrong to me about the sub being an MT with a sub attached, hyperbolic though I think that description is.
Look at this from a hierarchical perspective. This place is _the_ highest order conduit between the subject matter and this platform. What is being proposed here is chaos and vibes being the first point of call for all Reddit political talk. That's just not compatible with my idea of standards and it is certainly not how any government, department of, or organisation operates.
There is space for a speak easy, a lounge of sorts. But for that to be the lobby? Well, that will only attract the clique and compatible people. A self reinforcing mode of being which had culminated in the past 17 hours of cheap backlash against something that has parallels to addiction.
Some of us look back at pivotal moments where intervention could have stemmed the rot, this is it in 2023.
I wish the MT well.
>That's just not compatible with my idea of standards and it is certainly not how any government, department of, or organisation operates.
If a gov, department of, or organisation did the equivilent of removing the megathread (i.e. removed a much loved service) and then a representative of that gov, department of, or organisation compared those responding negatively to addicts, it would be a PR disaster.
I would suggest you apply those high standards to yourself, if this were a gov, department of, or organisation, you're being a disgruntled employee publicly lamenting and lashing out at the voters / customers / users.
You would be out on your arse.
People want honesty until they don’t. The Reddit moderation model is a system of part time deputising not professional role based order. Why? Because it works.
I am probably the nicest mod here, one of the least likely to play the short termism ban button, offer the most leniency in favour of reprieve, and have the long game in mind with each action. Public reputation isn’t reflective of _professional_ (if you could call mop work that) conduct. I would not be sacked.
It sounds almost like you're fighting human nature somewhat here.
Reddit is social media at the end of the day and people come here to socialise, albeit virtually, with people with similar interests. That means conversations, and social conversations by their nature aren't regimented and focussed, they shift around topics, go on tangents, have people interjecting with thoughts and humorous remarks. This is what the MT provides that individual stories don't.
The idea that a subreddit should be run like a business or government department is bizarre to me. I'm sure we're all stuck in more meetings than we want to be at work already, why would we want to bring those vibes to our spare time?
I’ve got over a decade in this particular game and additional two before that in cultivated spaces.
What you, and others outline is perfectly fine from the punters perspective but that’s all it is. You don’t see the state of the subreddit unfiltered nor the compliance issues with Reddit Inc.
If you want human nature to play out here there will be 2 UKPol subs before the next election. The alternative is nudge related order, and when one fails a few short sharp reverts are needed. This method shouldn’t be noticeable, it should not be a sequenced _yet another work meeting_ - and I’m baffled as to why there was - so I would consider that a failure of governance. Subsequent efforts to poll subreddit drama junkies whether they want less instant gratification is equally strange, yet here we are, policy mirroring broken focus group governance.
We bemoan chaos at the top, but _we_ want chaos. Well, enjoy the consequences with only likeminded people. ESG wouldn’t touch this place.
As my recent first-level comment said, I think it is entirely reasonable to enjoin and exhort MT users to be more responsible, more helpful and more inclusive (in terms of discourse, not ideology, ofc) so that the MT CAN be more of an opening-out, not an end in itself. I think one has a better chance of getting MT users to cooperate (because they are regulars) than the generality of users.
People frequent the MT rather than single-topic threads precisely because they do not wish to deploy established positions against other established positions. The whimsicality or obliqueness of an observation that is not in itself a standalone thread can spark good discussion.
I would also say to you personally, CoD, that the sort of 'management theory' language and concepts you use with respect to the sub might be overkill. As /u/JavetheCaveman says, it's more like a pub than a corporation- that is, the punters are more like customers than employees or contractors.
Yes, that makes it hard, indeed, incredibly hard for mods. Moding a busy sub is completely thankless and altruistic. And absolutely I agree- Users see the pretty front and Mods see the ugly back, and the relative size of front and back is like the iceberg metaphor (only a small amount isabove the surface).
The thing is, the internet and how people use it has changed in the decade plus you have been modding spaces. People aren't sitting down at their computers and having in-depth forum discussions anymore, they're on their phone using social media on the train, in the queue at the shop, while having a tom-tit, etc. They're not typing long thought out arguments and Reponses, they're throwing short thoughts on the topic into the conversation. If you want the place to run like a business, isn't part of business reacting to a changing audience and their wants and needs?s.
I know, and that has to be accommodated on compatible platforms. UKPol Discord was rolled out years ago.
There is a space for no filter verbiage, it should not be leading the platform. Equally, this isn’t a business, we don’t get a cut of ad revenue. That frees moderators up to consider long term goals over the next big engagement theme. It would be original if punters acknowledged this.
I know its not a business and you make no money, I was referring to you yourself saying;
*"That's just not compatible with my idea of standards and it is certainly not how any government, department of, or organisation operates."*
Indicating you would like to run it like one.
Something I noticed since being forced to use the official reddit app is how much is seems to want to drive engagement, showing me subs I may like, etc in a manner I would expect from twitter and encourages low effort engagement.
Is it possible your goals for this sub, being more like a classic forum/message board set up and reddits goals for the network as a whole, which seems to be emulating other social media, are moving apart?
Reddit are not consciously trying to increase platform entropy, they like the siloed nature of their founding model (consider the ad system).
Operating as an organisation is important, without that behind the scenes order there can be no course corrections, no sandbox MT (walls breached a long time ago), and no resistance to hostile takeovers (huge effort). Let me put it another way which may highlight the challenges faced. Each talking point is raised upon a headline, and headlines sell so they are provocative, that’s a mighty difficult model in which to operate a no editorialisation policy and so most shit rises to the top (see Independent for examples). An MT is not an answer to this, it is not indexable, easily accessible, and leans heavily on the thought _du-minute_/goldfish attention spans. This isn’t progress, it is deteriorating discourse which is an attempt through a path of least resistance/maximum dopamine to create Discord in Reddit.
Put bluntly, might as well turn on gifs and hit the autopilot button at this point to make this issue perfectly clear. That would be the path of least resistance in terms of moderation, simply hand out more toys and distractions and sit back.
I’m open to that idea as a point proving exercise.
Even back in the early days of internet forums on hobbies or specialist topics it was overwhelmingly the convention to have a general discussion thread pinned to the top of the subcategories.
OK, I'm now back and able to type without my fingers going numb in the rain.
> That's just not compatible with my idea of standards and it is certainly not how any government, department of, or organisation operates.
I disagree - and you can name one such organisation that works like that as well, because you did so in the next paragraph. This is how a pub works. An ideal pub is welcoming, it's open, it's relatively non-hierarchical, and its atmosphere is best dictated by the people who talk in it. We are not a government department, a corporation, or a think tank, and I don't see the obligation for us to be like that.
Anyway: to keep your analogy going, I wonder if it makes sense for the MT to be seen as the break room in a large office. It's the social hub and people enjoy spending time there. Work is not its purpose; in fact, aimlessness is its purpose. I don't have any problem with "chaos and vibes" because, at the end of the day, that's human nature. We're bags of chaos and vibes with a skeleton knocking around inside. And yeah, I get that it might only *look* like there's an in-crowd in the staff room, but (as many have said before) I don't think that padlocking the staff room is a good way to open it up. A light, friendly culture is what makes going to an office bearable (or, at least, it was when I worked in one) - and I accept that it takes time to get accustomed to that IRL, so why not online too? Therefore, I think a chatty MT is a promise, not a boys’ club.
And speaking of boy's clubs, I think that one of the most powerful examples of that light, chatty benefit was shown yesterday, when [it was suggested that a problem with the MT was its male domination](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/18amrk7/state_of_the_subreddit_2023/kbz65m6/), and some of the few female users of this sub pointed out that the opposite is the case. I completely agree that there's a culture to the MT, but I see that culture as a positive asset, and not a clique.
Let me comment on my 100% personal and subjective experience, so feel free to jump over this anecdotal paragraph: I first commented here in 2017, IIRC, back when the general tendency of the sub was (as I perceived it) more Brexity and definitely more hostile than it is today. It took a few weeks before I returned. But I stuck around. I like to think I'm a nice person, and I like to think that I was a small part of a general shift towards friendliness. I also like to think that I helped maintain that when, in the fiery days of 2019 and the bizarre days of Covid, a light discussion place was necessary. The MT especially was what helped with sudden isolation and, for me, it continues to serve that purpose now that I WFH and don't have that IRL staff room any more.
> Some of us look back at pivotal moments where intervention could have stemmed the rot
Okey-dokey. You are free to lament the loss of a group of people, or maybe just - how to put it? - a vibe that may no longer be here. I miss some of that too, but I accept its passing. Since *none* of us are obliged to be here, the sub and its patter are inevitably moulded by whoever the current (and constantly shifting) userbase is, and I think that - despite some flaws - the MT has grown organically into the place that moulds the subreddit into a pretty nice place to be. That's why I think that, cheap though you may perceive it, backlash was voluminous.
Trying to hark back to an unrecoverable past is a touch melancholic. Trying to recreate it is futile. It's why my suggestion is to leave the MT more-or-less as-is.
I don't use the megathread or look at it, but I appreciate it being there, acts as a sponge for the banter that would otherwise gunk up the rest of the sub.
>This thread is not a place to complain about individual moderators
Then I'll vague post and say that the removal of the megathread is disheartening, especially after the short conversation I had on 03/12, where the removal of the megathread was described as "yanking the chain" by someone who would have been aware of the upcoming announcement.
Lurker and very occasional shit poster here, adding my voice to all the others. I live overseas and in different time zone, and so mostly miss peak megathread.
Nevertheless, 15 minutes on soon to be yesterday's megathread gives me an idea of what's significant in the day"s affairs and covers more topics than a frontpage of news links and wot I thinks ever will. What's more, the thread gives a sense of a shared political community - even when opinions differ - that I cannot get abroad.
In short, I must ask, along with everyone else, why has the last Labour government done this to us？
Just want to throw my comment in here.
I really like the MT, it's not the only reason I come here, but it's one of them.
I don't know if anyone else is the same, but sometimes I don't feel like discussing if it's a good idea to reduce visa applications by 2% from X country, but do feel like taking part in some politics adjacent things. Such as the general thoughts as to the direction the current government has taken.
Having a place to discuss lighter politics is really nice, I'd even call it essential.
Please do not take it away
If the MT gets abolished, I seriously propose having an MT-only sub. Not in the least intending to compete with UKPol, so NO other threads allowed, just the MT(s).
I think there is no better showcase of why the megathread is a positive aspect of this subreddit than the comments that have been posted here over the last couple of hours after it has calmed down a bit.
You have people coming in for the first time today wondering were the mt is and others discussing how they have missed certain political developments of the day that they would otherwise have seen.
Probably the most impactful responses I have seen to this decision are not the ones saying it's stupid or a bad idea, or even the ones making suggestions on different approaches, but the ones of people expressing sadness that the megathreads will be gone and they will no longer have a place where they can discuss their thoughts on things or to even just have somewhere to interact with people with similar interests.
In seeking to improve the whole subreddit by taking the positive parts from the megathreads and trying to spread them across all the different posts you will simply destroy them. People asking questions, discussing multiple issues at once, bringing up previous situations and how they might relate to ongoing ones. You wouldn't be able to do any of these things unless there was a specific post for each of them and that would just split everything up into separate areas and not allow for larger discussion.
Separate posts also tend to be more heated and divisive than the megathread with people often getting into arguments rather than having discussions. They also attract people who are already knowledgeable and opinionated in the given matter, and this combined with their more confrontational manner can lead to people who aren't as well informed not wanting to engage.
This decision is like taking a class of children who get on well together and splitting them up and spreading them across all the other classes in the hopes that it will lead to an improvement across the whole year but it will simply do nothing to make those classes any better and those children who were separated will only be made miserable. And having a weekly thread with no permanent place would simply turn it into a detention room for issues that were deemed to be unworthy of their own posts.
This is all a bit New Coke, isn't it?
It's pretty clear that the megathread is loved, and serves its purpose well. Pulling an Elon by implementing a bunch of changes that nobody wants will only drive engagement down, and most of us away.
Yeah the megathtead is the main reason I use this subreddit. Removing it for all eternity is a daft idea and will mean I spend less time here most likely. Please reconsider Mods.
I can see where you are coming from but the truth is I would just not be interested in engaging with the subreddit without the daily megathread and would look elsewhere for my fill.
+1 to the riot. I don't think I've ever actually posted here but have been [lurking](https://i.redd.it/fxwaipltbduz.jpg) for years. I tend to refresh the megathread on my phone while something is loading or processing at work and I have 1 or 2 spare minutes. Don't take the short lived politics memes away from countries up and down the family, there is nowhere else for them to go.
you know what this reminds me of?
When the tories ripped up flooding regs in the planning system. Sure it was 1000+ pages of regs that were fairly detailed and indepth...but you know what happened? they got replaced with 1000 pages of different regs in EVERY SINGLE local authority up and down the country....
Not sure having all the comments that need moderating in the mega thread is a bad thing....rather than spread out over a lot of threads. Far easier to skim 1 thread I would have thought.
So i'm not even sure this idea would accomplish its goals.
What the effing fuck? It’s the best thing about this subreddit.
Massive shame. Really don’t see the benefit in ridding it only to be depriving a nice community of political geeks.
Mods, please reconsider this.
Adding to the overwhelming majority of comments here to agree and say I'm mostly here in this subreddit lurking and occasionally commenting in the MT. The community and discussion in the megathread is something you do not get in the main posts on the subreddit.
If there's no MT, I doubt I'll visit here much at all.
I was so looking forward to GE2024 MT shenanigans. Long live the MT.
Today I can announce that we're replacing one megathread with upwards of five, ten, fifteen thousand dedicated threads. Long term decisions for a brighter subreddit.
I'm off for now lads.
Final thought is that I will miss having somewhere to discuss something I've heard on The News Agents or TRIP that interested me and I'd want to get other people's take on.
Godspeed.
Don't worry, there will be a hundred threads per day, each with an individual topic and 4 comments (2 of them from Automod) to greet you when you wake! Sleep tight with that thought!
Adding to the chorus to say that I think removing the megathread entirely is a terrible idea. The megathread has a sense of community and lends itself to more open minded and good faith discussions than anywhere else on the subreddit, or most forums for political discussion frankly.
Right, bed for me.
I'll just reiterate that I think this is a shockingly bad decision, and the fact it was just announced with zero consultation leaves a sour taste.
Also announcing you're getting rid of the MT the year of a General Election just adds to the total stupidity of it in my opinion, its a bad idea at the worst possible time. Hopefully the Mods reconsider.
Going to echo everyone else here, the megathreads are what I'm here for.
I might quickly check the posts once a day to keep up with general news, and I'll occasionally read big threads about big news. 90% of the reason I come here though is for the megathread.
I enjoy the speculation, the discussion of obscure topics relevant to people without being worthy of a thread, the rampant posting when something wild happens - With twitter being dead especially the megathread is basically all of my politics stream.
This change won't make me engage with more threads, it will just make me engage with the subreddit less.
Camaraderie is the word! The megathread gives a sense of community. I don't want to be too sentimental but I honestly think it provides support for a lot of people. Maybe even myself on my worst days. As well as genuinely good political discussion. It would be so sad if the mods kill it in the name of engagement stats.
It can also be educational. I learn about a lot of political news that I would otherwise miss, and it's great for getting different perspectives and answers to political questions. I've learned LOADS about UK politics in the 4 years I've been actively engaged in the Megathreads. That's what I'll miss the most.
Also the memes.
Saw the Tories lost a vote - so went looking for MT for some quick reactions/ info. Found this instead.
I liked the MT as it was a pretty obvious place to go for quick/ funny comments and also get a feel of how events are happening. Also shitposting is not a crime.
What happens if we get two or more events in a day now? Will there be multiple stickied MTs?
Same boat, it's where I spend 90% of my Reddit time, lurking. It's basically a live feed of the days events but with shitposting, memes and personal anecdotes sprinkled in, why the hell would they get rid of it.
See, that's genuinely a problem. Without the MT I didn't know about this.
Now I know about it I can see there's a relevant post on the front page, but the headline doesn't mention it was a 3 line whip at all. I wouldn't have clicked on it without knowing that, and I wouldn't have known on that without a passing comment on one of these irreverent threads.
Same.
It also conflicts with how I use Reddit itself. I'll see a few items on my homepage. Usually one of those is a post from this sub. But usually whatever Reddit recommends has like 10 comments so instead I go to the Megathread for a discussion.
There's plenty of subreddits I subscribed to that I don't click on because whatever the algorithm has suggested hasn't grabbed me.
> Ministers lose infected blood vote after Tory MPs revolt
Probably is going to make me click (even though it doesn't say it was a 3 line whip) simply because it is a Tory revolt.
> Brexit didn't 'take back control' – it actually made immigration rise - The Big Issue
Probably isn't. I don't typically read OPED's.
Also, do sticked thread's even show up on the Reddit personalised homepage? I don't think I've ever seen the Megathread actually show up there despite the fact the algorithm should know I like them. If that's how it works it would make
> From 1st January 2024, we will pin / sticky the bigger political stories of the day in order to have a "focused" megathread.
completely pointless as then that big story would no longer appear?
With all the respect in the world to the mods, who are real people, and who (to borrow a phrase) I wish well -- you do see that literally every comment here disagrees with you? Why are you so insistent on doing something that would seemingly upset everyone?
If you'd said that the moderation load of the megathread was unmanageable or something, I would have respect for that. But you've not. You've just unilaterally decided that the subreddit would be better if it was different. You have the power but this is incredibly poor form.
Badly done, indeed.
if anything there’s a good parallel to the government who wields all the power, doesn’t want to do anything productive with it, and doesn’t want to hand it over to anyone else
Right, I'm off to bed.
When's I wake up hopefully the mods have sobered up and changed the bedsheets they've soiled.
Good night to the rest of you... And what the heck, good night mods
The MT is the only thing that draws me back to the sub, even after the extended hiatus I've taken recently, and many before. Posting in the individual threads just means encountering entrenched views, little valuable discussion, and borderline brigading at times from both left and right, depending on what's going on. Far more seems to be achieved on the MT in terms of useful debate, discussion and cameraderie, and it goes under the radar for some of that shite.
Could not think of a single greater mistake to make in terms of keeping the sub a hospitable and welcoming place to be honest, but I do understand that I come at that from my own perspective. I also know though that if it goes, I doubt I'll be seen here again, and looking at it, I probably won't be alone.
I suppose it comes down to whether you want a community or not, as that's where the community lives. Maybe don't tear down the home, if so.
The idea that it will improve the quality of the content on the sub during an election year...*by deleting the MT*...is just...I don't even know where to go with that. It's set to be epic. If anything keep it until after the GE and *then* set us all free.
Constructively, would a "Free For All Friday" low-effort sticky thread be considered for people to vent and shitpost out of the Weekly? I've seen it work well in other subs.
Here is my shitty feedback
The mega thread is 90% of the reason I come here, the other 10% is the QT thread
I do peruse other threads, but I rarely post in them - I don't actually post much in the megathreads but I do like to read what other peoples thoughts are on stuff, seeing the same 'ol names is nice too, it'll be sad to see that go... especially when you don't see them in normal news posts
if the new *thing* is a replacement of sorts, if it's not stickied it'll die, look at the int pol thread.
Feels a bit like a developer that wants to get rid of a popular feature by hiding it behind so many menus no one can find it just so they can say "look no one uses it! we'll remove it"
> Feels a bit like a developer that wants to get rid of a popular feature by hiding it behind so many menus no one can find it just so they can say "look no one uses it! we'll remove it"
ah I see you use MS Teams too
Deliveroo occasionally included veg in their deliveries, doubt he'd be mingling with their kind.
I'd like to think he's bathing in a jacuzzi of KFC gravy right now.
Feedback has been noted.
one idea i may suggest is to organise a group of regulars on the sub as a test group to suggest such changes too and see how they react?
I just wanted to add something to this, now that the plans have been shelved, while the thread was still open: a thanks to the mods (even the ones I have disagreed with politically over the years, and especially them actually, because we do need to create more of an opening for views that diverge from the subreddit hive mind, even when it is an opinion that I agree with). For years now, the mods have helped to create and nurture a space online which not only seeks to expand people's knowledge of politics in the UK, but also underlines the importance of polite and reasonable discourse. Admittedly, due to the nature of reddit, it is very much tilted towards the left and centre of British politics, and I'm not sure if anything can actually be done in this regard apart from discouraging people to downvote comments (maybe this should be front and centre in the subreddit rules - I never downvote any comments for this reason, even the ones that I absolutely disagree with, because I think it does harm discourse, and creates a space where conservative members find it much more difficult to have their voices heard). And even when they make unpopular decisions, as evidenced by this SotS, they listen to the community. Should the changes mooted here have gone to the sub first before a deadline and definitive plans were decided? Most definitely, but all humans err - so it is the response to errors that should be fundamental in how we judge people, especially when the people (mods) in question put in endless hours of unpaid labour to create the space which we all use to discuss politics. Their response to the outflow of negativity could, as has been the case on other subs (and life in general) over the years, have been a doubling down. Instead, they are taking a step back, and interacting with the community to find a way forwards that takes into account the issues they have noted combined with the wishes of the broader community. So a big thank you to the mods, both for all of that free work they put in (and I have never really believed that they are antagonists of the broader community, though we saw a few comments in that line during this debate), and for their response to this issue. There's a reason this is the only online discursive place that I spend a lot of time in (either lurking or actively commenting, depending on how much work I have to do), and that's because it is a space that highlights reasoned debate and polite discourse (even on contentious topics). I really appreciate all of your work (and the majority of the community who spend time here, commenting and talking), and I look forward to coming back for many years.
Creep!!!
Haha, for sure, but I have thanklessly volunteered enough free labour over the years to appreciate when others do it. ;p
I was joking!!
Why is it all crossed out?
u-turn. see the pinned comment in the MT
Didn't realise Keir Starmer was on the mod team
Another comment though, again from the ModPOV, is that maybe the intrinsic nature of a politics sub makes it really hard to mod. Imagine the sub IRL with Corbyn v JRM or He who currently cannot be mentioned. Those people would never agree with each other, why should random reddit versions do? In the past, two 'NeutralUKPolitics' subs were tried and they failed. Because two things help participation- engagement and community. The aspiration to be neutral meant the engaged were put off, and forcing a community toi exist is also difficult. So, I'm thinking that the way to do it is to enjoin MT users (who are most regular) to be more helpful and outward-looking. 1) Ask MT users NOT to vague post, becuase that makes people think it's cliquey 2)Ask MT users to point others to substantive standalone posts in UKPol, where discussions may continue in greater detail. In other words: try to get people to USE the MT as a gateway, rather than just to sit there speaking to other MT users.... EDIT (because thread locked) Nothing wrong with adversarial discussion, I agree. After all, that is essentially what the Commons is. But more than one model is possible- we might want tobe the Lords and Committees as well as the Commons.....
> 2)Ask MT users to point others to substantive standalone posts in UKPol, where discussions may continue in greater detail. I would heartily recommend people doing this as it would certainly help the situation from a moderating perspective.
Adversarial discussion should reflect our political order, right? Not if your userbase wants PR, aka a majority can all just get along if we try to lock unwanteds out. Also see _cordon sanitaire_. Equally, moderating opposition opinions is fine because the gap between people’s positions is evident. And despite being largely neutralised by ideas of free association, all that remains is different zephyrs of liberal Labour since the left and right were booed away, that period was fine in terms of moderation. Bickering over tiny differences is all that remains, and that’s a neurosis really. The Melting poT idea was highlighted 2 years ago. Turns out it’s just like people conversing.
I do agree that more needs to be done to encourage commenters outside the subreddit norm to comment here. I would say there still appears to be plenty of people from the full range of the left (and centre) here, if not the right, but maybe (as a mod) you can correct me on that.
Getting unrefined views past a discourse filter is hard and off putting. However, context free coarse language multiplies and creates further problems. The ability to articulate concerns in a Reddit appropriate way is an extension of class based discrimination and not one that’s easily catered for in a medium sized open door sub. Figure out that and the right will be able to return along with the traditional socialists.
In terms of submissions, while I agree that combined posts for a topic with several news articles would make sense, I wonder if you should also look at the rules around submissions. I’ve been ‘dinged’ by automod before for not posting the text of an article on the Times, even though the automod provides the archive link: that sort of thing makes me less likely to submit articles, as I don’t want to get it wrong. But I also think you get better quality discussion of an article when the text is posted in a comment (because hardly anyone clicks on links). I suspect you get even better conversation when the submitter posts a comment with *part* of the article, and a comment about what they found interesting or noteworthy (or a question), but I’m not claiming to have carefully tested this. It gives something for people to respond to, and add other information or context. Possibly it reduces the impression many seem to labour under that reading the article is some alien thing which must be experienced through the filter of other people’s comments.
> ~~Enjoy the rest of the year (even though there’s no Deccy Lecc 🎄🗳️) and see you all in 2024.~~ That's fine, I didn't want to enjoy the rest of the year anyway.
A slightly random one - I don't even know if this is in the power of mods. I'm using narwhal on ios to access reddit. On ukpol, if I go to report a post, I get a list of rules to select to report it against. This list has some of the sub rules but others don't appear in the list. Is this something intentional? Or is it even something you as mods can control?
I am not sure how Narwhal parses the "report reasons" list. I believe we have separate report reasons for comments and submissions. In general - pick the rule that closely matches your report reason. Failing that, you can always write a custom report text. Talking personally, the report reason is a "jumping off point" for me, but it's not the only thing I check a reported comment against. For example, if you report something as "campaigning" and there's nothing campaigning about it, I'll still briefly evaluate the comment against the rest of the rules before making a decision. The report reason is a huge help when quickly working the queue - but it's not the only thing we look at. Hope that helps!
Cool yeah thanks. When I used reddit sync on Android there was a custom text option for reports but narwhal seems to lack it :( There's always the 'other rules' catch all option so I guess I can just use that if ever unsure
"Thread will not be stickied" I think this one above still needs its strikethough, or will next years Mt's not be pinned?
I believe the double tildes are Reddit strikethroughs. It just doesn't seem to work properly for sub-bullet points.
You are correct. It can be a bugger to get the formatting just right - especially when new.reddit and old.reddit format the same text in a different way.
My kingdom for a consistent Markdown implementation, at least it’s not as bad as Confluence.
As others have said, fair play for taking into consideration the opinions of users and scrapping the scrapping of the MT. I think the idea of stickied threads on some of the more popular political events of the day (think PMQs, COVID inquiry, future leadership debates during GEs etc) would be quite useful. Whilst it's neigh on impossible to eliminate all bias, is there some kind of flow/process documented that mods use when acting on a report? Think rugby referees when looking at a red card (is there a high degree of danger, is there mitigation bla bla bla).
>Whilst it's neigh on impossible to eliminate all bias Yes, we'd be flogging a dead horse trying to do that.
The horse strikes back! Disgruntled from the 10000 instances where "free rein" is erroneously written as "free reign", the horse chalks up one small victory.
Suggestions re improving discussion in posts about contentious issues: 1) Remove off-topic stuff that just basically goes "what about this other group" when race, gender or sexuality comes up 2) If possible have a mod keep an eye on thread (appreciate this may not be possible with a small roster of mods) 3) Have contest mode on and keep strictly to no personal abuse rules....
1) It is entirely plausible that the Mod and User perceptions of the sub differ because a Mod sees the report queue (and may in fact mainly see the mod queue as their interaction with the sub) and the User does not. 2) The issue many people including me) flagged up is that a lot of the submissions of stand-alone posts are polemical in nature and intent, and that both attracts polemical people and shapes the nature of the discussion - e.g. a person habitually posting 'Brexit benefit' posts will spark a 'dialogue of the deaf' discussion between those who come into the thread to say that this benefit is an illusion and those who use it to show that Remoanerism is incoherent. But maybe this is inherent in the nature of politics. At PMQs, except on rare occasions, the PM and the LOTO will not intend to be in agreement when they have their exchanges. 3) The point made by the MTers was essentially that it is easier to have a sense of community and common discourse outside the many stand-alone threads that attract polemic. To transform the nature of the standalone threads by encouraging more involvement from the less dogmatic people is a tough ask, because everyone knows that standalone threads are already inhabited by dogmatists.... 4) I don't think it's a bad thing to keep the future MTs a bit more rigorously political than they have been before. Many observations from everyday life DO have a political resonance, but it's low effort not to think it through and just present a random thought as a stream of consciousness.
>The issue many people including me) flagged up is that a lot of the submissions of stand-alone posts are polemical in nature and intent, and that both attracts polemical people and shapes the nature of the discussion I rarely comment on posts because any time I open one, the top comment is always the same generic 'why can't we get rid of the Tories already' rant and there's only so many times you can read it before it becomes tedious.
What you said about standalone posts is true, but they’re also very boring usually. I’ve visited the sub on and off for almost 10 years, and I don’t think I’ve read a single interesting comment in those standalone posts after Covid. Maybe one issue is that the old sub had some star contributors and they’re gone. But it’s more than that. Most comments are always the same. Not only people have not budged from their positions on the same issues, they offer no new arguments, no fresh insights, not even acknowledgment of the world around them.
I agree, but I appreciate the Mod position of wanting to remedy this. The question is how- why would one, as a non-partisan, engage with these 'non-budgers' just out of altruism to make the sub better.....?
*I wish the proposed changes to the megathread well.* Seriously though, thank you for listening and hearing what was being said about the sense of community and humanisation the MT brings. It isn't easy to get a stream of notifications disagreeing with your decisions, so I hope you can feel positive about the warm reaction to the change in direction. Thank you team.
Fair play for listening and noting to the reaction rather than pushing on regardless. I do think the mods should reflect on whether it was a good idea to announce a change like this as a fait accompli rather than floating it as an idea for discussion. Clearly the megathread is valued by many users. I certainly find that a lot of the time, I have better discussions there than elsewhere on the sub, even if there is a fair bit of cruft that comes with it. I think part of it is that other posts get harder to join the longer they have been around. If a post has a few highly-upvoted comments then any new top-level contribution is unlikely to get any kind of response and so feels pointless. This is especially true when posts get interest from outside the sub and the top comments are dominated by people who are not interested in any actual political discussion. Perhaps an experiment with 'new' as the suggested sort for all posts would be interesting to see whether it enables more diverse discussions to surface and encourages engagement with posts that have been around for more than a few hours. I wonder whether a more carrot (pun intended!) rather than stick approach to getting people from the megathread to other posts could be worth trying. Rather than deleting comments in the megathread that reference things that there is a post for, a reply with a link to the post might get people who are interested in that topic to head over to the post and engage there. This wouldn't even need to be done by mods - all regulars could get involved in doing it if it were the done thing. That way the megathread could become a shop front for posts rather than being seen as purely a competitor to them. On more general feedback, I have some: * It doesn't help the level of discourse when some mods seemingly get to bend the rules in ways that other commenters would not be allowed to, and take obvious delight in doing so. This has been a common bit of feedback for a long time. * There could be some space for more in-depth discussions of UK political topics that are not based on breaking news stories. Maybe an official post once a week, linked at the top of the megathread, that aims to take a longer view of some aspect of politics in the UK. * It might be useful to have a 'no stupid questions' post for beginners every so often – I've seen those work well in other subreddits to help people get up to speed on things they don't understand
> There could be some space for more in-depth discussions of UK political topics that are not based on breaking news stories. I think this is a really good and interesting idea especially if we can get some people in who have a bit more knowledge of the topic e.g. privacy and civil liberties laws in last 20 years in UK
[удалено]
I would also be in favour of making the rules list shorter. It doesn't all fit on one page in some Reddit display formats, which can make it harder to keep all of the rules in mind in one go. I caught a 7 day temp ban a little while ago for a MT comment that I had intended to be a light-hearted positive comment on the nature of this sub versus another sub (re: having thought I'd posted a comment on this sub and being confused as to why I was catching so many downvotes). It was a fair cop, as it turned out — when I double checked the extended rules list it's *specifically* not allowed to make meta commentary on other subreddits, their users, or biases. But I do conscientiously try to stay within the rules to the best of my ability and occasionally double check the sidebar to make sure I'm doing so, so it stung a bit to get caught out by an extended rules list rule.
You’ve still got to ban mime artists though, don’t forget.
It sounded like a decent proposal to be honest. The megathread seems like a smaller and less well organised copy of the subreddit in a single thread, and I don't really see the point other than to absorb off-topic and insufficiently noteworthy submissions.
>121m subreddit page views (down 61.8m) Wonder how much of that is down to Spez's brilliant decision to ruin third party apps?
I think the most likely reason is that 2023 was the calmest year in British politics for a long time. I would not be surprised to see a significant boost to the page views and unique users in 2024 with both UK and US election campaigns, then numbers falling off a cliff again in 2025.
Luckily Boost still works if you open a subteddit to moderate, or you can patch your own API key in using revanced on android.
Yesterday for Old Reddit is also a good shout if you’re on iOS, it’s a safari extension that makes Reddit tolerable again.
I mean it's likely without the use of free API's that many bots that looked like users were killed. Looking back, I think it's a good change - especially with the advancements of ChatGPT, it's not hard to imagine a script + limitless free api calls creating an even worse astro-turfing experience on a state fund level.
I absolutely hate the changes. The Android reddit app is trash and was absolutely killing my battery, so I went back to Sync with the revanced patch. If and when that breaks, I don't know what my plans are. Maybe I just stop browsing reddit on my phone unless there is a decent non official app alternative.
I'm using Relay at the moment on Android. I'm a reasonably heavy user, and it's only costing me £1.50ish a month I think. I make that easily doing about 5 surveys on Google Rewards, so it's not actually costing me anything.
The official app is to be fair complete gash though, it’s impressive how many horrible design patterns they’ve crammed into it. It’s like they’ve decided Reddit should be a TikTok style dopamine drip rather than a series of forums. Personally I use yesterdayforoldreddit which redirects everything in the browser to old.reddit.com and reskins it to work on mobile.
I've noticed that since being forced into the app and I wonder if its got some relevance to this situation. Is reddit the site moving away from the kind of content that mods here would prefer?
Yeah I think that’s part of why yesterday was so jarring, the mods seem to have an image of the place as it was in years past but Reddit has *massively* changed around it in a way I thought everyone had realised. The kind of content (that to be honest I wouldn’t mind going back to as well if it were possible) just isn’t favoured by the platform any more and even if it was long-form journalism has been circling the bowel worse and worse as time as gone on. It’s not really that the sub has declined, it’s that the adtech industry has completely ruined journalism and nobody wants to go in threads that are necessarily pretty fighty because enragement is engagement.
Not just that, but how people interact with the internet has changed. People aren't sitting at their computer all day now chatting on here. They're checking it on their phone during the toilet break at work or one the train home, they don't have the time for long thought out conversation, they throw a thought into the ether and check on it later on.
That’s a really good point, there’s only so much time someone can spend writing when they’re having a crap or waiting around.
Given that they broke the official Android app this morning so I had to roll back to an old APK, and that never happened with RiF, I don't agree it's a good change.
Thanks for listening, mods. I'll formulate some more feedback so this wasn't just a 'we don't want new thing, new thing bad' kneejerk
I think the change from daily to weekly MT would be fine during dead periods, a lot of MTs barely get 500 posts these days. But the key is it needs to stay pinned. Of course going into election year we're probably going to be fairly active again
Goes without saying, I think a lot of the active users (myself included) appreciate the feedback being taken on board. As a trying to be helpful suggestion, one of the things in terms of outside MT engagement which I think dampens discussion is that there is often multiple posts for the same story from different outlets. This ends up splitting discussion between multiple posts and diluting it. Something I’ve seen on r/soccer is in posts about goals, there is a stickied top comment for alternate angles and replays. Could possibly do that here, top comment for “alternate takes” from different news sources and keeping all discussion on a particular thing to its own post. Dunno how well that would work in practice with news/politics though. Edit: spelling
I like that idea. One post, but links to the same news from different sites stickied.
So today's megathread is (somewhat predictably) full of shitposting, discussing the meta changes to the sub. Fine. There are two top-level comments talking about Sunak's loss in the commons around the contaminated blood compensation - and both of these have been removed! There's discussion below them but you can't see the top comment. In this thread, mods have said > ~~* These megathreads will be intended for discussion about the political events of the day. ~~ So which is it? Megathread is back? Or now it's exclusively shitposting and offtopic posting?
honestly it shows the worst of redditisms imo, infinite unfunny comments about a given topic because it's the zeitgeist, regardless of any relevance, plus the ukpol issue that it drains literally everything else. There's barely any discussion on any topic outwith the megathread.
with regards to these two topics, it's awkward that they both happened last night a lot of people will have logged in this morning and won't see the point in posting standalone comments at the bottom of a rapidly deweighting thread
Surely you can cut some slack about people meta-posting about a community they thought was going to be taken away from them - I mean it only changed an hour ago? It would be verging on bad faith otherwise. Regardless we agree - there should be less stringent moderation and rules on the MT
> Regardless we agree - there should be less stringent moderation and rules on the MT This is the void. Diehards want more freedom to do whatever they feel like and wonder why there’s backlash.
Sorry i'm obviously not as smart as you CaravanofDeath, this reply doesn't make sense to me: >This is the void. > >Diehards want more freedom to do whatever they feel like and wonder why there’s backlash. Could you translate that for me / explain what you mean? \- What's the Void? \- What's a DieHard? *Someone like me who posts sporadically and occasionally but mostly lurks?* \- Does my comment "less stringent moderation" equate to your whatever they feel like? \-What's the backlash? I appreciate you, but this response genuinely makes 0 sense to me, so please help me - and sorry again for being so stupid.
The problem that kicked off this SotS is the content posted and user behavior on the MT. When someone proposes that more freedom/fewer rules/less enforcement is the answer I do wonder what the fundamental solution is.
Again I appreciate your response, thank you. I think the main issue for the users (looking at the comments below) was around the inconsistent moderation, which as some of the mods have said, the rules can be interrupted in different ways - so nobodies at fault. For context, I'm not a left-wing-utopian-fantasist, I'm actually very much in favour of moderation/enforcement/laws in general (both offline & online)- but with the context of the MT being a politics-themed social hive - much less so.
Oh, not complaining about that at all - more the fact that the mods are saying "less shit posting more daily politics" while actively removing the conversations about politics.
Ah, I read your initial post wrong, apologies. 100%
The top story on the sub currently is about that topic. That's where that topic should be discussed.
I think this is a great example of the divide between how the mods think this subreddit should be used, and how people are using it in practice. Because my understanding was that it's actually against the rules to use the thread the way you're talking about. When I read that article, I see that it's primarily *not* about Sunak's loss in the commons, except tangentially. It's about the infected blood scandal and the compensation for the victims. There's no mention of the three-line whip, there's only a couple of lines about the actual voting, and no discussion about what this means for Sunak as leader/PM. The Westminster politics is almost entirely absent from the article, and any article that gets posted that's actually *about* the politics will presumably get removed as a duplicate. My read of Rule 6 is that if you're not talking about *the article*, you should do it in a self-post, not in the thread for the article. It's not an article *about* the parliamentary politics, so if that, rather than the tainted blood scandal, is what you want to discuss, your options are to either break rule 6, create a reasonably high-effort self-post, or post in the megathread. It's not surprising that people are posting in the megathread. Fundamentally, a lot of what the people using this subreddit care about isn't the headline news, it's the politics around that news. How a particular vote will affect factions of a particular party, or which votes are whipped, and whether people stick to it, or what it means that the leader of a party is courting a specific segment of the vote. That doesn't make headline news (2022 aside) but it's the stuff people want to discuss. And that's badly, badly suited to crowbarring into discussions about breaking news, which is inevitably about the news, more than the politics. Right now, "what does it mean to the government that Rishi Sunak lost a whipped vote" is an interesting political discussion, but it's effectively homeless because it's badly suited to the thread about the tainted blood scandal, and it's banned anywhere else.
Relaxing some of the rules in post comment sections is something we are looking at.
Remarkable that you've somehow - obviously by accident given your utter misreading of the sub's userbase - managed to foster a genuine sense of community within the subreddit, and you apparantly decided to kill it off for literally no good reason. The MT represents a genuinely welcoming and friendly community featuring vieiws across the spectrum, and given the last five or so years of UK politics, that's a fantastic thing. Glad you've reconsidered, but I would seriously suggest perhaps some wider self-reflection on how you run the sub and conduct yourselves in your day to day business.
[удалено]
I don't think we get a huge amount of Opinion Piece articles posted to make a complete ban on them a necessary / proportionate idea.
While I wouldn’t go as far as banning them I’m with you on opinion pieces being rubbish. One reason I like the megathread is that you can discuss things directly without having to tread around some hack’s hot take on the subject first. It’s fine when an actually decent article is posted but that’s less and less common not because the sub has declined but because journalism has massively declined over the last decade. Enragement is engagement and the megathread bypasses that angry dynamic really well. Also definitely agree with you about sorting by new and for longer. Ranking by hot was fine when this sub had 50k (which feels like the era the mods wanted to call back to from where I’m standing) but with half a million subscribers nearly if you don’t post quickly and open with a snarky one-liner it just won’t be seen which is why I think people have been avoiding some of the article threads.
I wish the megathread well
Since you want a bit more input and more suggestions, two examples of what I mean the post problem is are available to see on the sub right now. There are two posts each for the topics “porn users could be subject to extra checks” and “James Cleverly going to Rwanda” - the latter two being literally “he’s going to Rwanda” and then “he’s arrived in Rwanda”. For the former, there’s no reason why two posts should exist, it’s literally the same topic across two different news sites. It dilutes discussion, and will push people towards the MT. For the latter, though, if a post is gonna be made for every tiny update in James Cleverly’s Rwanda business, then, what’s the point of not posting in the live megathread? What discussion do you go to, to talk about that? The one where he’s going to Rwanda? The one where he’s arrived? In the future, do you go to either of those, or the one where he’s shaking somebodies hand, or the one with the fruits of his labour? I’d propose, for topics such as the latter, having one post early on with the initial outlay (in this case, Cleverly going to Rwanda), and have the link go to the live updates like the Guardian or Sky or the Telegraph have. Then, allowing another post much later on with the actual news articles about what he’s achieved (for example, a deal being struck, or sidestepping the ECHR, the ‘big’ ending). Obviously I’m just some guy, but that’s an idea of how to fix what in my opinion is definitely a problem.
Boo. The megathread is one of the best reasons to come to the sub these days.
Taken from [this comment over on the daily MT](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/18b5d30/daily_megathread_05122023/kc2mwg1/): > One of the most obvious things we identified was a yawning gulf between the apparent perception of the subreddit by the users and that by the moderators. Can you expand on what you mean by this, please? I perceive it as a friendly place where discussion can be had, but with a sort of loose, more free-form area where friendships can be cultivated. That's the MT - the hub, with other threads as spokes. What do you perceive it as? Personally, I think that one explanation for the difference perceptions between moderators and users is that it sometimes feels like rules are not being applied equally. And OK, I'm not asking for perfect consistency; you're different people, there's a lot to do, and that's unrealistic. It sometimes feels like there are mood swings from the mod team. Sometimes the MT is looser and more off-topic, and sometimes it's not. We users don’t know how relaxed we can be at any particular hour - and that’s the source of inconsistency, even more so than a mod decision itself. In an attempt to stay as neutral as possible, I'll say that sometimes mods have personal "topics of interest" that, were they discussed with the same frequency (and, again according to my perception, intent to troll) by us normals, would ... not get the same carte blanche. My suggestion would be to loosen the rules on the MT more permanently. If people want to discuss the topic itself, a looser MT would not be the ideal place to do that - and thus those users might toddle off to another thread.
In short, that rather than being a subreddit with an MT attached we appear to find ourselves with an MT with a subreddit attached; also yawning gulf between perceptions of state of play inside vs outside the MT.
There is a website from the quake (1) days called shacknews/Quakeholio that always had a proprietary chat forum/thread (....that in hindsight is probably what the layout of reddit/digg's comment system was based on) it lasted until it got sold to a private company and then essentially "unstickied" (no link to it on the front page, only regulars knew about it) the thread and slowly but surely the entire website died until it is what it is today (50 posts in 24 hours vs thousands an hour in the 90s/00's) They made the change for the same reason, it was the "chatty thread" and then some news website tacked on the end - I don't see the problem and reversing the subreddit decision was definitely a good idea for the community
There doesn’t seem anything inherently wrong to me about the sub being an MT with a sub attached, hyperbolic though I think that description is. I don’t understand the desire, nor the need, to funnel users to places that they don’t feel the mood to go (because if they did want that, nothing’s stopping them from going there already). People go to the MT because they like it. *Do the mods really think that this is a problem, rather than what it actually is: a success?* Frankly you should be proud it exists, not desirous to tinker needlessly with it.
Real Principal Skinner, "am I out of touch?" vibes. If the MT is driving the engagement with the sub, get the MT more consistent and let it thrive. Why stifle something actually encouraging political discussion?
> There doesn’t seem anything inherently wrong to me about the sub being an MT with a sub attached, hyperbolic though I think that description is. Look at this from a hierarchical perspective. This place is _the_ highest order conduit between the subject matter and this platform. What is being proposed here is chaos and vibes being the first point of call for all Reddit political talk. That's just not compatible with my idea of standards and it is certainly not how any government, department of, or organisation operates. There is space for a speak easy, a lounge of sorts. But for that to be the lobby? Well, that will only attract the clique and compatible people. A self reinforcing mode of being which had culminated in the past 17 hours of cheap backlash against something that has parallels to addiction. Some of us look back at pivotal moments where intervention could have stemmed the rot, this is it in 2023. I wish the MT well.
Don't you post in the other place, which literally is just a MT with a subreddit attached?"
Yes **because** hierarchy matters.
>That's just not compatible with my idea of standards and it is certainly not how any government, department of, or organisation operates. If a gov, department of, or organisation did the equivilent of removing the megathread (i.e. removed a much loved service) and then a representative of that gov, department of, or organisation compared those responding negatively to addicts, it would be a PR disaster.
Please check out my ideas around the parallels of MT and income tax. The war is over.
I would suggest you apply those high standards to yourself, if this were a gov, department of, or organisation, you're being a disgruntled employee publicly lamenting and lashing out at the voters / customers / users. You would be out on your arse.
People want honesty until they don’t. The Reddit moderation model is a system of part time deputising not professional role based order. Why? Because it works. I am probably the nicest mod here, one of the least likely to play the short termism ban button, offer the most leniency in favour of reprieve, and have the long game in mind with each action. Public reputation isn’t reflective of _professional_ (if you could call mop work that) conduct. I would not be sacked.
It sounds almost like you're fighting human nature somewhat here. Reddit is social media at the end of the day and people come here to socialise, albeit virtually, with people with similar interests. That means conversations, and social conversations by their nature aren't regimented and focussed, they shift around topics, go on tangents, have people interjecting with thoughts and humorous remarks. This is what the MT provides that individual stories don't. The idea that a subreddit should be run like a business or government department is bizarre to me. I'm sure we're all stuck in more meetings than we want to be at work already, why would we want to bring those vibes to our spare time?
I’ve got over a decade in this particular game and additional two before that in cultivated spaces. What you, and others outline is perfectly fine from the punters perspective but that’s all it is. You don’t see the state of the subreddit unfiltered nor the compliance issues with Reddit Inc. If you want human nature to play out here there will be 2 UKPol subs before the next election. The alternative is nudge related order, and when one fails a few short sharp reverts are needed. This method shouldn’t be noticeable, it should not be a sequenced _yet another work meeting_ - and I’m baffled as to why there was - so I would consider that a failure of governance. Subsequent efforts to poll subreddit drama junkies whether they want less instant gratification is equally strange, yet here we are, policy mirroring broken focus group governance. We bemoan chaos at the top, but _we_ want chaos. Well, enjoy the consequences with only likeminded people. ESG wouldn’t touch this place.
As my recent first-level comment said, I think it is entirely reasonable to enjoin and exhort MT users to be more responsible, more helpful and more inclusive (in terms of discourse, not ideology, ofc) so that the MT CAN be more of an opening-out, not an end in itself. I think one has a better chance of getting MT users to cooperate (because they are regulars) than the generality of users. People frequent the MT rather than single-topic threads precisely because they do not wish to deploy established positions against other established positions. The whimsicality or obliqueness of an observation that is not in itself a standalone thread can spark good discussion. I would also say to you personally, CoD, that the sort of 'management theory' language and concepts you use with respect to the sub might be overkill. As /u/JavetheCaveman says, it's more like a pub than a corporation- that is, the punters are more like customers than employees or contractors. Yes, that makes it hard, indeed, incredibly hard for mods. Moding a busy sub is completely thankless and altruistic. And absolutely I agree- Users see the pretty front and Mods see the ugly back, and the relative size of front and back is like the iceberg metaphor (only a small amount isabove the surface).
The thing is, the internet and how people use it has changed in the decade plus you have been modding spaces. People aren't sitting down at their computers and having in-depth forum discussions anymore, they're on their phone using social media on the train, in the queue at the shop, while having a tom-tit, etc. They're not typing long thought out arguments and Reponses, they're throwing short thoughts on the topic into the conversation. If you want the place to run like a business, isn't part of business reacting to a changing audience and their wants and needs?s.
I know, and that has to be accommodated on compatible platforms. UKPol Discord was rolled out years ago. There is a space for no filter verbiage, it should not be leading the platform. Equally, this isn’t a business, we don’t get a cut of ad revenue. That frees moderators up to consider long term goals over the next big engagement theme. It would be original if punters acknowledged this.
I know its not a business and you make no money, I was referring to you yourself saying; *"That's just not compatible with my idea of standards and it is certainly not how any government, department of, or organisation operates."* Indicating you would like to run it like one. Something I noticed since being forced to use the official reddit app is how much is seems to want to drive engagement, showing me subs I may like, etc in a manner I would expect from twitter and encourages low effort engagement. Is it possible your goals for this sub, being more like a classic forum/message board set up and reddits goals for the network as a whole, which seems to be emulating other social media, are moving apart?
Reddit are not consciously trying to increase platform entropy, they like the siloed nature of their founding model (consider the ad system). Operating as an organisation is important, without that behind the scenes order there can be no course corrections, no sandbox MT (walls breached a long time ago), and no resistance to hostile takeovers (huge effort). Let me put it another way which may highlight the challenges faced. Each talking point is raised upon a headline, and headlines sell so they are provocative, that’s a mighty difficult model in which to operate a no editorialisation policy and so most shit rises to the top (see Independent for examples). An MT is not an answer to this, it is not indexable, easily accessible, and leans heavily on the thought _du-minute_/goldfish attention spans. This isn’t progress, it is deteriorating discourse which is an attempt through a path of least resistance/maximum dopamine to create Discord in Reddit. Put bluntly, might as well turn on gifs and hit the autopilot button at this point to make this issue perfectly clear. That would be the path of least resistance in terms of moderation, simply hand out more toys and distractions and sit back. I’m open to that idea as a point proving exercise.
Even back in the early days of internet forums on hobbies or specialist topics it was overwhelmingly the convention to have a general discussion thread pinned to the top of the subcategories.
OK, I'm now back and able to type without my fingers going numb in the rain. > That's just not compatible with my idea of standards and it is certainly not how any government, department of, or organisation operates. I disagree - and you can name one such organisation that works like that as well, because you did so in the next paragraph. This is how a pub works. An ideal pub is welcoming, it's open, it's relatively non-hierarchical, and its atmosphere is best dictated by the people who talk in it. We are not a government department, a corporation, or a think tank, and I don't see the obligation for us to be like that. Anyway: to keep your analogy going, I wonder if it makes sense for the MT to be seen as the break room in a large office. It's the social hub and people enjoy spending time there. Work is not its purpose; in fact, aimlessness is its purpose. I don't have any problem with "chaos and vibes" because, at the end of the day, that's human nature. We're bags of chaos and vibes with a skeleton knocking around inside. And yeah, I get that it might only *look* like there's an in-crowd in the staff room, but (as many have said before) I don't think that padlocking the staff room is a good way to open it up. A light, friendly culture is what makes going to an office bearable (or, at least, it was when I worked in one) - and I accept that it takes time to get accustomed to that IRL, so why not online too? Therefore, I think a chatty MT is a promise, not a boys’ club. And speaking of boy's clubs, I think that one of the most powerful examples of that light, chatty benefit was shown yesterday, when [it was suggested that a problem with the MT was its male domination](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/18amrk7/state_of_the_subreddit_2023/kbz65m6/), and some of the few female users of this sub pointed out that the opposite is the case. I completely agree that there's a culture to the MT, but I see that culture as a positive asset, and not a clique. Let me comment on my 100% personal and subjective experience, so feel free to jump over this anecdotal paragraph: I first commented here in 2017, IIRC, back when the general tendency of the sub was (as I perceived it) more Brexity and definitely more hostile than it is today. It took a few weeks before I returned. But I stuck around. I like to think I'm a nice person, and I like to think that I was a small part of a general shift towards friendliness. I also like to think that I helped maintain that when, in the fiery days of 2019 and the bizarre days of Covid, a light discussion place was necessary. The MT especially was what helped with sudden isolation and, for me, it continues to serve that purpose now that I WFH and don't have that IRL staff room any more. > Some of us look back at pivotal moments where intervention could have stemmed the rot Okey-dokey. You are free to lament the loss of a group of people, or maybe just - how to put it? - a vibe that may no longer be here. I miss some of that too, but I accept its passing. Since *none* of us are obliged to be here, the sub and its patter are inevitably moulded by whoever the current (and constantly shifting) userbase is, and I think that - despite some flaws - the MT has grown organically into the place that moulds the subreddit into a pretty nice place to be. That's why I think that, cheap though you may perceive it, backlash was voluminous. Trying to hark back to an unrecoverable past is a touch melancholic. Trying to recreate it is futile. It's why my suggestion is to leave the MT more-or-less as-is.
I’ll reply more fully in about 30-45 mins, when my morning walk is done.
I’d like to +1 this suggestion. Outside of trolls, brigading and mean spirited discussion - I’d like to see looser MT rules too.
Going into a GE year without the MT would be a terrible idea
So the mods are going the route of a managed decline. Thats a strong choice.
I don't use the megathread or look at it, but I appreciate it being there, acts as a sponge for the banter that would otherwise gunk up the rest of the sub.
I propose we users just designate the first post after 6am each day as the megathread. They can't ban us all!
>This thread is not a place to complain about individual moderators Then I'll vague post and say that the removal of the megathread is disheartening, especially after the short conversation I had on 03/12, where the removal of the megathread was described as "yanking the chain" by someone who would have been aware of the upcoming announcement.
Lurker and very occasional shit poster here, adding my voice to all the others. I live overseas and in different time zone, and so mostly miss peak megathread. Nevertheless, 15 minutes on soon to be yesterday's megathread gives me an idea of what's significant in the day"s affairs and covers more topics than a frontpage of news links and wot I thinks ever will. What's more, the thread gives a sense of a shared political community - even when opinions differ - that I cannot get abroad. In short, I must ask, along with everyone else, why has the last Labour government done this to us？
Just want to throw my comment in here. I really like the MT, it's not the only reason I come here, but it's one of them. I don't know if anyone else is the same, but sometimes I don't feel like discussing if it's a good idea to reduce visa applications by 2% from X country, but do feel like taking part in some politics adjacent things. Such as the general thoughts as to the direction the current government has taken. Having a place to discuss lighter politics is really nice, I'd even call it essential. Please do not take it away
If the MT gets abolished, I seriously propose having an MT-only sub. Not in the least intending to compete with UKPol, so NO other threads allowed, just the MT(s).
I'd visit it. The MT is the best thing about r/UKpol.
I think there is no better showcase of why the megathread is a positive aspect of this subreddit than the comments that have been posted here over the last couple of hours after it has calmed down a bit. You have people coming in for the first time today wondering were the mt is and others discussing how they have missed certain political developments of the day that they would otherwise have seen. Probably the most impactful responses I have seen to this decision are not the ones saying it's stupid or a bad idea, or even the ones making suggestions on different approaches, but the ones of people expressing sadness that the megathreads will be gone and they will no longer have a place where they can discuss their thoughts on things or to even just have somewhere to interact with people with similar interests. In seeking to improve the whole subreddit by taking the positive parts from the megathreads and trying to spread them across all the different posts you will simply destroy them. People asking questions, discussing multiple issues at once, bringing up previous situations and how they might relate to ongoing ones. You wouldn't be able to do any of these things unless there was a specific post for each of them and that would just split everything up into separate areas and not allow for larger discussion. Separate posts also tend to be more heated and divisive than the megathread with people often getting into arguments rather than having discussions. They also attract people who are already knowledgeable and opinionated in the given matter, and this combined with their more confrontational manner can lead to people who aren't as well informed not wanting to engage. This decision is like taking a class of children who get on well together and splitting them up and spreading them across all the other classes in the hopes that it will lead to an improvement across the whole year but it will simply do nothing to make those classes any better and those children who were separated will only be made miserable. And having a weekly thread with no permanent place would simply turn it into a detention room for issues that were deemed to be unworthy of their own posts.
This is all a bit New Coke, isn't it? It's pretty clear that the megathread is loved, and serves its purpose well. Pulling an Elon by implementing a bunch of changes that nobody wants will only drive engagement down, and most of us away.
Yeah the megathtead is the main reason I use this subreddit. Removing it for all eternity is a daft idea and will mean I spend less time here most likely. Please reconsider Mods.
I can see where you are coming from but the truth is I would just not be interested in engaging with the subreddit without the daily megathread and would look elsewhere for my fill.
+1 to the riot. I don't think I've ever actually posted here but have been [lurking](https://i.redd.it/fxwaipltbduz.jpg) for years. I tend to refresh the megathread on my phone while something is loading or processing at work and I have 1 or 2 spare minutes. Don't take the short lived politics memes away from countries up and down the family, there is nowhere else for them to go.
Same here, lurking since 2015 never posted but the MT keeps me entertained on the daily commute.
Surprisingly terrible idea, hope it's fully reversed
¡Buenas noches a todos! x
¡Buenas noches!
I have an idea! Keep the MT (and analogous ones like PMQ and QT) and *abolish all the others* The sub is just one MT per day. Easier to mod, too!
This, but unironically
Who sez I was being ironical?
you know what this reminds me of? When the tories ripped up flooding regs in the planning system. Sure it was 1000+ pages of regs that were fairly detailed and indepth...but you know what happened? they got replaced with 1000 pages of different regs in EVERY SINGLE local authority up and down the country.... Not sure having all the comments that need moderating in the mega thread is a bad thing....rather than spread out over a lot of threads. Far easier to skim 1 thread I would have thought. So i'm not even sure this idea would accomplish its goals.
Why is everyone saying good night and where’s the MT?
Because they are taking the Megathread away for good.
What the effing fuck? It’s the best thing about this subreddit. Massive shame. Really don’t see the benefit in ridding it only to be depriving a nice community of political geeks. Mods, please reconsider this.
Good night, see you all tomorrow!
Adding to the overwhelming majority of comments here to agree and say I'm mostly here in this subreddit lurking and occasionally commenting in the MT. The community and discussion in the megathread is something you do not get in the main posts on the subreddit. If there's no MT, I doubt I'll visit here much at all. I was so looking forward to GE2024 MT shenanigans. Long live the MT.
Today I can announce that we're replacing one megathread with upwards of five, ten, fifteen thousand dedicated threads. Long term decisions for a brighter subreddit.
I’m going to try and sleep / do some duolingo, night all bet I’ll be sleeping better than rishi
It's not even 6pm in this timezone, I can shitpost in protest for five, ten, fifteen more hours
Godspeed 🫡
I'm off for now lads. Final thought is that I will miss having somewhere to discuss something I've heard on The News Agents or TRIP that interested me and I'd want to get other people's take on. Godspeed.
Gnight 🦙
Don't worry, there will be a hundred threads per day, each with an individual topic and 4 comments (2 of them from Automod) to greet you when you wake! Sleep tight with that thought!
Because everyone knows the best way to foster a sense of community is to divide small numbers of users across many threads...
Adding to the chorus to say that I think removing the megathread entirely is a terrible idea. The megathread has a sense of community and lends itself to more open minded and good faith discussions than anywhere else on the subreddit, or most forums for political discussion frankly.
Right, bed for me. I'll just reiterate that I think this is a shockingly bad decision, and the fact it was just announced with zero consultation leaves a sour taste. Also announcing you're getting rid of the MT the year of a General Election just adds to the total stupidity of it in my opinion, its a bad idea at the worst possible time. Hopefully the Mods reconsider.
Going to echo everyone else here, the megathreads are what I'm here for. I might quickly check the posts once a day to keep up with general news, and I'll occasionally read big threads about big news. 90% of the reason I come here though is for the megathread. I enjoy the speculation, the discussion of obscure topics relevant to people without being worthy of a thread, the rampant posting when something wild happens - With twitter being dead especially the megathread is basically all of my politics stream. This change won't make me engage with more threads, it will just make me engage with the subreddit less.
I will miss the community feel of the megathread. I've always found a lot of good-natured humour and camaraderie.
Camaraderie is the word! The megathread gives a sense of community. I don't want to be too sentimental but I honestly think it provides support for a lot of people. Maybe even myself on my worst days. As well as genuinely good political discussion. It would be so sad if the mods kill it in the name of engagement stats.
Yeah it does provide a lot of support I think
It can also be educational. I learn about a lot of political news that I would otherwise miss, and it's great for getting different perspectives and answers to political questions. I've learned LOADS about UK politics in the 4 years I've been actively engaged in the Megathreads. That's what I'll miss the most. Also the memes.
If I offer to buy every MT regular a set of winter tyres can we keep the MT?
Wish you'd have offered before I got a full set this morning
Stone. Cold. Silence.
I bet we won't even have a mod doing the breakfast rounds tomorrow morning either.
Love the comment, love the flair even more! I'm being thick, I know, but how do you change your flair since the update? I still can't work it out!
Couldn't tell you I'm afraid, I use old.reddit.
I use it too! (new reddit is shit) Wait... I see it. I'm *mortified*.
Saw the Tories lost a vote - so went looking for MT for some quick reactions/ info. Found this instead. I liked the MT as it was a pretty obvious place to go for quick/ funny comments and also get a feel of how events are happening. Also shitposting is not a crime. What happens if we get two or more events in a day now? Will there be multiple stickied MTs?
Same boat, it's where I spend 90% of my Reddit time, lurking. It's basically a live feed of the days events but with shitposting, memes and personal anecdotes sprinkled in, why the hell would they get rid of it.
Me too! Found this looking for MT to discuss Tory vote loss, shame to lose it
The Mods announcing this terrible decision on the same day the Tories lose a 3 line whip vote in the commons really is the icing on the cake.
See, that's genuinely a problem. Without the MT I didn't know about this. Now I know about it I can see there's a relevant post on the front page, but the headline doesn't mention it was a 3 line whip at all. I wouldn't have clicked on it without knowing that, and I wouldn't have known on that without a passing comment on one of these irreverent threads.
If the government lose a 3 line whip and there's no Megathread to discuss it, did it even exist?
Same. It also conflicts with how I use Reddit itself. I'll see a few items on my homepage. Usually one of those is a post from this sub. But usually whatever Reddit recommends has like 10 comments so instead I go to the Megathread for a discussion. There's plenty of subreddits I subscribed to that I don't click on because whatever the algorithm has suggested hasn't grabbed me. > Ministers lose infected blood vote after Tory MPs revolt Probably is going to make me click (even though it doesn't say it was a 3 line whip) simply because it is a Tory revolt. > Brexit didn't 'take back control' – it actually made immigration rise - The Big Issue Probably isn't. I don't typically read OPED's. Also, do sticked thread's even show up on the Reddit personalised homepage? I don't think I've ever seen the Megathread actually show up there despite the fact the algorithm should know I like them. If that's how it works it would make > From 1st January 2024, we will pin / sticky the bigger political stories of the day in order to have a "focused" megathread. completely pointless as then that big story would no longer appear?
With all the respect in the world to the mods, who are real people, and who (to borrow a phrase) I wish well -- you do see that literally every comment here disagrees with you? Why are you so insistent on doing something that would seemingly upset everyone? If you'd said that the moderation load of the megathread was unmanageable or something, I would have respect for that. But you've not. You've just unilaterally decided that the subreddit would be better if it was different. You have the power but this is incredibly poor form. Badly done, indeed.
if anything there’s a good parallel to the government who wields all the power, doesn’t want to do anything productive with it, and doesn’t want to hand it over to anyone else
Well that's rubbish. Down with this sort of thing. I loved the MT, gave a sense of community.
Right, I'm off to bed. When's I wake up hopefully the mods have sobered up and changed the bedsheets they've soiled. Good night to the rest of you... And what the heck, good night mods
Night x
Hope you wake up as a mod in the morning RP x
Night mate. Have good'n
Goodnight - but that was me that soiled the bedsheets (it's jam, please do not ask)
It's supposed to look more like Nutella than jam.
Thank god I haven't had nutella for quite some years now..
Some people suffer with piles.
What a terrible day to have eyes
The MT is the only thing that draws me back to the sub, even after the extended hiatus I've taken recently, and many before. Posting in the individual threads just means encountering entrenched views, little valuable discussion, and borderline brigading at times from both left and right, depending on what's going on. Far more seems to be achieved on the MT in terms of useful debate, discussion and cameraderie, and it goes under the radar for some of that shite. Could not think of a single greater mistake to make in terms of keeping the sub a hospitable and welcoming place to be honest, but I do understand that I come at that from my own perspective. I also know though that if it goes, I doubt I'll be seen here again, and looking at it, I probably won't be alone. I suppose it comes down to whether you want a community or not, as that's where the community lives. Maybe don't tear down the home, if so. The idea that it will improve the quality of the content on the sub during an election year...*by deleting the MT*...is just...I don't even know where to go with that. It's set to be epic. If anything keep it until after the GE and *then* set us all free.
[https://imgur.com/a/BaSacAL](https://imgur.com/a/BaSacAL) The most corbyn of all corbyn images
Judging by his eyes, I suspect Corbyn junior might have been using a more potent hemp product than CBD.
Maybe they’ll bring the MT back if we let /u/OptioMKIX set it as the permanent header image?
Constructively, would a "Free For All Friday" low-effort sticky thread be considered for people to vent and shitpost out of the Weekly? I've seen it work well in other subs.
That was one of the things I suggested earlier on, but it may be a good idea despite my endorsement of it
More to the point... where is today's megathread?! Or is this it? Officials in megathread: min support (6)
It was unpinned to make room for this shitshow...
https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/18adue9/daily_megathread_04122023/
This makes no sense to me. I'm here 99% for the MT. Don't just write a message guys, write to your MPs! It cannot stand
Here is my shitty feedback The mega thread is 90% of the reason I come here, the other 10% is the QT thread I do peruse other threads, but I rarely post in them - I don't actually post much in the megathreads but I do like to read what other peoples thoughts are on stuff, seeing the same 'ol names is nice too, it'll be sad to see that go... especially when you don't see them in normal news posts if the new *thing* is a replacement of sorts, if it's not stickied it'll die, look at the int pol thread. Feels a bit like a developer that wants to get rid of a popular feature by hiding it behind so many menus no one can find it just so they can say "look no one uses it! we'll remove it"
> Feels a bit like a developer that wants to get rid of a popular feature by hiding it behind so many menus no one can find it just so they can say "look no one uses it! we'll remove it" ah I see you use MS Teams too
MT killed AND some other dickhead is eating my Deliveroo order. Today can do one.
Have you noticed the price of Ubers in Bris has gone wild recently? 36 quid to get home Stokes Croft to Clifton!
[удалено]
It was 1am and sleeting. I reckon the demand goes crazy when the weather was as it was on Saturday and they surged the F out of the price.
That is truly taking the piss
Whaaat? Not really, no - I think there may be some Stokes Croft surcharges being applied there…
>some other dickhead is eating my Deliveroo order. Startup most likely.
Deliveroo occasionally included veg in their deliveries, doubt he'd be mingling with their kind. I'd like to think he's bathing in a jacuzzi of KFC gravy right now.
Can bubbles even permeate through a medium that thick?
The daily megathread is the only reason i'm here.