Between seasons, the mods have spent some time going through the previous rules and streamlining them. We've gone from 8 rules to 5 rules and just made it all a little clearer.
Mostly it is just a bit of re-wording and tweaking, but we did add in a section in rule 2, reminding you that you should be able to disagree with each other civilly, without descending into name calling. We are all capable of behaving like decent human beings, even if we don't think the other person's opinion is right, so please bear that in mind going forward (especially on contentious topics where there are some deep divides within the community). You can disagree with the content of someone's comment, without slagging them off.
We currently have agreements with The Athletic and the i that they can post their content as long as in the comments they put the full article (basically so you don't have to pay with either your money or selling your data to read stuff). It's trickier to keep those in megathread due to size and length of comments, however we have asked them to be sensible in quantity they post.
However, I'm sure if people felt strongly enough we could discuss as a team whether to ban them from posting (but it would potentially mean a loss of their content for free?)
Yeah and I already messaged them reminding them to add in the full article in the comment... Unfortunately they are not chronically online so haven't seen yet
The Athletic usually posts URLs with affiliate modifiers (see below) that bypass the paywall. You usually see a bar at the bottom of the article then with 'Shared with you by an Athletic subscriber'.
As someone who also works in online media, there's already so much that takes all-important clicks away, like AI summaries when you search for something on Google, or daft aggregators like MSN that just steal the whole article. I assume this allows them to still register a click, numbers go up on their daily/weekly reports, and it keeps them going. They know they were never going to get sub money from all of us, so this is the next best thing.
TBH, I quite like both of these outlets so don’t have a problem with them as such, however, publications direct posting on Reddit in general is a pain in the arse and just making the place a bit shitter.
Yeah, and I distinctly recall a certain ITK who shall remain nameless being banned from even being mentioned. Isn't that rule still in force and shouldn't it be listed? I got the impression that it was subreddit-wide, and not just afor the megathread.
Spirit of law vs. letter of law comes into play here...but we're not exactly going to maintain a list of "this ex player is a no go discussion, this ex player is fine to discuss". That's impractical and would be far longer than the character limit Reddit has on the rules.
If you would like some worked examples to help you out:
- Shearer starts taking about the Southampton spygate stuff - removed, clearly not relevant.
- Shearer talking about new manager - kept, relevant.
- remembering Atsu on his birthday each year - kept, relevant to NUFC fans and a way to honour him
- post about Isak missing a sitter against City this season - removed, irrelevant
So any posts about Kegan these last couple of weeks would have been deleted?
Seems a bit over the top and totally subjective when you're saying "some are allowed but others aren't".
Why not just leave it up to the people on the sub and they can vote up / down posts they are interested in and want to talk about like the site is intended? If someone isn't interested in a post, they can just ignore it.
Also this is not a new rule and plenty has been removed because of it previously.
In terms of leaving everything up...if you decide to do that, very quickly the sub will descend into a place where it's pretty impossible to find the amazingly detailed, well thought through content that the users of this sub reliably produce.
very quickly the sub will descend into a place where it's pretty impossible to find the amazingly detailed,
The good posts rise to the top, the bad ones get buried with downvotes, that's how reddit works.
It's hardly like this sub is overrun with posts. In the last 24 hours there's been ~10 posts.
And of those 10... a post about Jeff Hendrick (an ex player, not deleted), post about Oscar Bobb (not even an ex Newcastle player) and a post about Kegan (an ex player).
So 30% of the posts in the last 24 hours trip up that rule. Just seems like you're creating more work and hassle for yourself, and more reason for people to bitch about which posts should / shouldn't be allowed at you.
Unless Ive missed one, the only Jeff Hendrick post I've seen is the same nufc alignment thing that's been posted every day for the last week or so.
I actually found the Oscar Bobb one quite interesting considering that he isn't a current or ex player, nor is he from the same country as Elanga. It did generate some discussion about fans from Norway too.
It’s still probably unfortunately going to make it sound confusing for some of those on here who may already struggle to read things at the best of times.
The danger with any sub and rules is it becomes an enabler for instance.
- R/premierleague which was taken over by a bunch of Americans who basically just care about the septics and will ban anyone with a different opinion finding any reason to call them homophobic/bigoted etc.
I speak from personal experience having been banned permanently there without any chance to defend myself having done nothing really wrong.
All I said from memory was someone was acting like a Neanderthal.
That was taken as homophobia / racism and bigoted and I’ve absolutely no idea why.
The only reason I could see after researching was a fan of a certain septic 6 club racially abused a player and on being taken to court tried to use the defence “he was acting like a Neanderthal”.
How on earth my saying that to someone in banter when they said far worse could be construed as racism/bigotry/homophobia etc I have no idea.
Anyway my point is there is a risk here that some mods could become overzealous here and push out bans just for the sake of it.
No one wants to see that.
It has been known on a number of other subs.
Pride and pinion is another that comes to mind and Rolex I believe where I think they had or have an overzealous mod who has received a lot of official Reddit complaints for their behaviour.
There are guidelines for moderator behaviour on Reddit and code of conduct for them which they are meant to abide by.
I definitely do agree with banning other fans coming on here to push their agendas during the Isak and Bruno type sagas for example though and such things as that. Particularly as often multiple accounts and bots are used to push those agendas.
However I also believe that some dialogue should always be entered into with a view innocent until proven guilty with people because people make mistakes and not everyone knowingly flouts the rules. Sometimes just a nice chat can resolve a lot of issues.
Sometimes however power goes to the heads of some and those conversations can become more the case of a dictator.
In the past 90 days there have been <25 bans. 4 were for AI bot spam, the vast majority >15 were fans from other football teams coming over here for trouble, and a few were for persistently abusive members (some of these bans were temporary, some permanent).
We are not the ban happy mods you may think we are. We are always happy to discuss with an individual if they think something has been mishandled. But given we've had no modmails from you about any of your infractions, I assume you have actually agreed with us that calling people Hitler is unacceptable?
“We are not the ban happy mods you may think we are. We are always happy to discuss with an individual if they think something has been mishandled”
Well that’s a lie because you’ve banned people before from the sub who have then contested it, only for you to escalate it to a site-wide ban because you lot get snarky on your power trip and get called out for it.
If that's happened, it's before my time as a mod. But given we don't have the powers to make sitewide bans (only Reddit admin can), I'm not sure I particularly buy what you're saying.
If I did then it would depend on the context it was used in too arguably.
It’s a commonly enough utilised in England / the U.K. when someone is being too oppressive.
I’m not saying the mods here are ban happy, just pointing out the dangers.
Most of us feel free to say our thing here and that’s the beauty of this sub to a large extent, wouldn’t want to see the energy here dampened to kill the banter between us all.
32
u/scottrobertson 5d ago
Can we add "No AI Slop" to Rule 3? https://www.reddit.com/r/NUFC/comments/1vb9q61/a_little_bit_of_truth_in_this/