"Moderators vs Editors"

Didn't seem partisan to me, unless he meant that r/politics was partisan...

You disagree that telling people to go back to /r/politics isn't a partisan insult on this sub? Identifying someone (rightly or wrongly) as a /r/politics poster doesn't have any connection to a specific political party? Really?

I don't understand what the problem with your post was. How was it partisan? Even if it was, that shouldn't really call for it being deleted. This seems a bad decision.

With the SS system we should all be on high alert for censorship. There is a real danger of it because its another rule that can be abused.

Also, it shouldn't matter if the SS is partisan. This is your post and posters are sometimes partisan. Its also extremely hard to define what partisan means. It shouldn't be an obstacle to somebody posting.

One thing I will say is that the SS was kind of vague. It didn't make much sense to me what you were implying. But still don't think it should be removed. Maybe you can resubmit it?

I agree, it was a shit submission statement.

It didn’t explain the purpose of posting to the sub, it was two bullet points explaining nothing. here it is

Honestly, I didn’t even look at the articles posted, as your post was about the submission statement. Maybe just explain yourself better in the SS and all will be well.

Now, I’m going to go read the post.

You wrote two bullet points and you can disagree all you want but you didn’t point out what about the article “hearkens of pizzagate” or why we should care

You couldn't even be bothered to capitalize your sentences...

The SS is meant to give a little context to what the link is about and why it is conspiracy related. I agree with the mod u/aleister on this one. "harkens of pizzagate" is not enough when the title only says he might be a homo. And I hate the r/politics mind in a box people too, but that sentence doesn't fulfill the SS.

They have admitted to bending the rules on submission statements already depending on the post, I was behind it at first but it's obviously being selectively enforced.

This is where I'm landing. Do the Mods need to clarify Rule 13...yes.

Submission statements are judged on a case by case basis. The submitter and the subject of the post are obviously taken into account by the mods before they take action. That giant post a day or two ago about Trumps lawyer and Hannity, for example, was removed two or three times by mods. They said it was because of the submission statement "not fitting all of the required criteria." I believe it was actually a case of them wanting to derail big threads that were generating a lot of discussion and traffic because they didn't like that it made Trump look bad.

Thanks for that. This is concerning and should be for everyone here.

After many years at this I see nothing wrong with your post. I never saw it so had no chance to comment.

I'll state this for the record: If the Mods are going to insist every OP lay out the whole enchilada, that every OP must tell each reader what to think, believe or be directed towards then we should scrap the Subs Motto.

This is a forum for free thinking and discussing issues which have captured the public’s imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goals are a fairer, more transparent world and a better future for everyone.

really? i show you as a guy with a lot of upvotes from me and that tells me you probably put some thought into what you post.

what does that SS tell you about "Graham’s homosexuality"?

who the hell is Graham for that matter? i know, but I'm just noting the lack of detail that very easily could be included.

hell, i've seen them reapprove posts after they fix their SS's or even write the SS's for posts. That doesn't sound like censorship to me.

I do understand that it is vague but again often times it is better to let some do their own digging and ask questions. It prompts actual users in here to read, watch or explore the topic being presented and then with reflection, formulate a conclusion or dialogue.

Good point

We can always improve our faulty communication skills but we're a diverse group of people!

dude - would "Go back to T_D" as a SS seem a little partisan to you?

And yeah, you talk about someone being a 'homo' and then don't even bother to mention it in your SS; that's some pretty basic stuff.

What's so hard about listening/reading the link you posted and saying something useful about it?

Believe it or not, it's not unreasonable for the mods to try and keep things less political and more conspiracy focused

If you treating this place as a battleground to come taunt people from /r/politics, then I suspect you and I have different definitions on a number of things.

Having read your replies its pretty obvious you arent looking for people to be honest, you just want them to agree with you that you were treated unfairly.

This

The mods on reddit have become editors of late. Is there somewhere to discuss conspiracy theories which is less beholden to the mods bias?

It already has gone the way of digg, only instead of the site itself filtering and curating the content, the power users and mods do that.

In terms of whether people will ever leave reddit for something better, it seems unlikely. Reddit has been around for a while now and there are plenty of people who’ve grown up using it, just like Facebook.

Maybe it will die a slow death as something else starts taking new users instead, but it seems unlikely for there to ever be a mass exodus as happened with digg. Each community is compartmentalized and there are plenty of subs who wouldn’t even care if reddit started censoring whatever topic, and reddit would remain the best place to discuss that interest.

Your SS was not informative at all and was inflammatory.

Disagree with the removal. And I agree Linsdey Graham is gay as fuck. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

i had two sentences

No you didn't. You had two short bullet points, as a submission statement. I'm 50/50 about SS's, but, I agree with the removal of it not being "enough", however I disagree with the "partisan" part. Just my two cents.

I'd support it for being removed for being vague and incomplete (read: extremely lazy) but I didn't notice anything inherently partisan about the submission statement either. Still, the post was a steaming pile of poop.

I mean, your statement was about pizzagate. And your post was about Lindsey Graham, not pizzagate. You didnt explain your post at all. I dont really see any wrong doing on the mods part.

The funny thing is, I’m not a big fan of the submission statement at all. I saw the original post and just ignored because of the lack of effort the OP put into it and the clear political hackery.

With that said, by removing the post it has now drawn more attention than it ever deserved. Thats the main reason why I disagree with the removal and the rule that allows mods to subjectively pick and choose.

IMO it’s better to ignore these types of shit posts.

Lindsay Graham is gay. Fucking democrat scum.

is it a problem or a conspiracy if he is gay? or is the problem just that he is a dem? I really don't understand the problem.

One thing I will say is that the SS was kind of vague. It didn't make much sense to me what you were implying. But still don't think it should be removed. Maybe you can resubmit it?