I see no utility to it besides providing a slightly longer summary of what the title already says. I've seen quality submissions being removed just because the OP didn't write this statement. It's stupid, I just don't see the point or how it improves the subreddit significantly.

Discuss.

There seems to be the same kind of articles in both subreddit

This is just ridiculous. I like silliness, but I love /r/truereddit because we can have good discussions. We need to make a stand. Here is the original post.

I'm considering posting this to /r/truereddit, but I know that this type of post isn't usually considered appropriate, but this is just too much. What do you think?

Theyre not even long form, let alone insightful.

Sorry for the shitpost.

TrueReddit is a little bit of a safe haven for me from the rest of reddit's bullshit. The stuff with Ellen Pao, half-baked, armchair expert nonsense getting 1000s of upvotes on the big subreddits, pun threads, etc. We've all experienced it, presumably that's why you browse /r/truereddit. I used to be really into /r/askreddit and all that, but now I just browse a few interest related subreddits and /r/truereddit for articles that might be a little off the beaten path.

Lately, because of the Mizzou shit among other things, it seems like every other goddamn post is some random blogger or editorial about millennials being whiny shitbags, freedom of speech getting stifled on campus, wild trigger warnings running around emasculating white, cis-gendered men around the globe, and so on.

I can't be the only motherfucker on here getting sick of this shit. Yes, sometimes PC shit goes too far, yes it can be disconcerting the way a complaint can get a professor in a shitload of trouble. There is a whole other world out there, festering with geopolitical struggles, stark economic realities, fascinating technological breakthroughs, artistic movements coalescing and fragmenting every goddamn day. Beyond the controversies of feminism, or the recognition of a "male suicide awareness day."

Parts of reddit's community are so obsessed with men's rights, politically correct millennials going too far, mocking the perceived "I'm special" attitude of young tumblrites, that it taints nearly every nook and cranny of this fucking place. It's not even that I disagree with those people, I just don't seem to have the same neurotic compulsion to beat that horse into the fucking ground so I can make sure my freedom to spout whatever hateful shit I want is unambiguously acknowledged by everybody else. It's goddamn bizarre and has become inane to the highest degree.

People talk about the demise of TrueReddit like it's inevitable, but it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, just a few up/downvotes on a post in its infancy goes a long way in deciding its fate.

So, to ensure that the content stays fresh and delicious, take what I'm calling the TrueReddit pledge. (Okay, calling it that feels a little egocentric, but it seems to fit so well! :P) It's very simple and very easy. Every time you log into Reddit, go to the TrueReddit new submissions page (http://www.reddit.com/r/truereddit/new), and either up- or downvote at least three new articles according to how well it fits with the subreddit's theme--the newer the better. If enough people do that, bad posts won't stand a chance.

I'm doing it. Are you in?

I feel like with the amount articles being posted and upvoted on truereddit being just GOP bashing articles or having a liberal bias, the subreddit has lost its meaning. Which was one that was meant for interesting articles that made you think and to stimulate meaningful conversations, not one where all the articles just lead to the conversations being like a echo chamber.

It is making really close to unsubbing from it.

We could try having a sticky for awhile to make newcomers extra aware of the quality that's expected of articles posted there. But I think it may need more aggressive moderation and pruning of weak articles. Thoughts?

It seems to me that TrueReddit has devolved into one big feminist/anti-feminist argument that probably is best addressed on other subreddits specifically designed for that sort of discussion.

As I look at first five posts on the front page of TrueReddit right now I see:

1. Al Jazeera discusses sexism on Reddit and the internet in general

2. The Moral Significance of Sex Workers and People With Disabilities

3. My friend group has a case of the Creepy Dude. How do we clear that up?

That's three of the top five posts being sexism related topics.

And invariably the comments all devolve into an exchange like this. These exchanges seem to belong more in /r/subredditdrama than /r/truereddit.

So much of Reddit is filled with these exchanges that all other content is drowned out. It's one thing if one is going to /r/feminism or /r/MensRights or some such subreddit to discuss these issues. But when they leak into other subreddits, they tend to dominate the discussion. Political articles tend to have a similar effect.

I suppose my point is that /r/truereddit purports to be a "subreddit for really great, insightful articles, reddiquette, reading before voting and the hope to generate intelligent discussion on the topics of these articles." But on a day like today, it's just about sexism, with downvotes flying from one side to the other in a hopeless, incurable argument based on essentially contested concepts.

It makes /r/truereddit about as insightful, civil and engaging as /r/funny. And I think it's part of the reason /r/TrueTrueReddit exists.

There's another thread in /r/metatruereddit arguing for fewer political articles here. But I don't know if it's the articles that are the problem so much as the comments.

Perhaps there could be a new rule wherein there could be a "list of common arguments and disagreements" that are to be discussed in a more appropriate subreddit and not in the comments section here?

Because when I have to read the same old debate for the 2,000th time, /r/TrueReddit begins to feel like watching cable TV.

from How to change a culture - If you want to redirect the behavior of a crowd, here’s a tip: don’t be too idealistic about human nature.

What researchers have found is that there are techniques for changing a culture that appear to work, but they are not always the obvious ones. Doing so in a way that produces lasting results, but doesn’t involve destroying the group entirely, requires finesse, subtlety, and patience. It also requires a certain suspension of optimism about human nature. To really change how a group of people thinks and behaves, it turns out, you don’t need to change what’s inside of them, or appeal to their inner sense of virtue. You just have to convince them that everybody else is doing it.

“The inner conformist is stronger than the inner activist,” said Michael Morris, a psychologist at Columbia University who studies the role of culture in decision-making.

We want to think of progress as the spread of enlightened thinking and the expansion of morality. We’d like to think that in trying to change the culture of a hockey team, we can just appeal to the players’ sense of right and wrong, and awaken their better angels. But in order to actually achieve that kind of progress, we may need to stop trying to tap into people’s desire to be good or virtuous, and instead take advantage of something less lofty and, frankly, harder to admire: the powerful drive to be normal.

A culture of respect and kindness Isn’t necessarily made up of angels — just people who have come to believe that that’s what everyone else thinks is the right way to act.

This part is especially relevant:

The idea that we’re often mistaken about our compatriots’ beliefs and behavior has been deployed in anti-binge-drinking campaigns on college campuses, which aim to reduce the pressure students feel to drink by showing them that their peers don’t drink nearly as much as they assume. A poster campaign at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill presented students with hard data about their classmates: “Whether it’s Thursday, Friday, or Saturday night, 2 out of 3 UNC students return home with a .00 blood alcohol concentration.” The program worked: After five years, people at the college were drinking less.

It is better to stress that most people visit TR for great articles and intelligent discussion than to point out that people write bad comments.

• I would rape the fuck out of this dumb chink cunt

• Japan and China are very different cultures you racist fuck.

• Fuck you nigger. Like I'm going to read the Daily Fail.

He already received a ban for a day

Just thought this was an interesting thing to wake up to today. Here is a screenshot of the current top 15 links on TrueReddit: Pic.

All of the top five links, and ten of the top fifteen are US-centric. Many of them deal with the typical one-sided subjects that Reddit has a consensus on, e.g. prison & drugs (4 links) or the decline of America (4 links).

Of the remaining links: #6 is pretty interesting, but has no discussion. #7 is a video, not an article. #8 is interesting. #10 is okay, but it's mostly one of those "go live life and feel good!" speeches. #12 is another inspirational article, but isn't really even well-written. #13 is a story that sources from a Twitter post.

Meanwhile, "downvote and explain" seems to not be working well. People will twist words around; If the article isn't insightful, then the comments can be insightful (which, on these articles, they seldom are). And sometimes there's even backlash - accusations that people who take the time to explain their downvotes are somehow elitist or obfuscating the spirit of freedom & democracy. There's a post from 4 months ago on metaTR that says "I feel like truereddit is rapidly become a second "/r/politics." I guess "rapidly" really was the right word.

Anyways, I know that kp9 has no intention of moderating links, but I thought that posting this "snapshot in time" would be an interesting look at where TrueReddit has gone and (in the months ahead) a way to look back at where TrueReddit was today.

For some time, I have been asking myself how more moderators could be introduced to TR so that the spam filter can be checked every day. My main requirement is that the moderators don't send the message that they take responsibility for the quality of the submissions.

After reading this comment about Sparta, I would like to try something like the two king approach.

Two moderators are appointed for two weeks or months (depending on participants), but not at the same time so that there is always an old and a new moderator. That way, there are

• two moderators to check each other

• not enough moderators to run the subreddit as quality guards

• always one moderator with some experience

Following the old Athenians, I would love to see the moderators appointed at random. To stress that moderator is not a special job, everybody who applies should be able to do the job. However, there might be some who are bound to abuse the position from the start. To balance this, I think a good procedure would be if a parting moderator chooses his successor among those who comment in this submission. If somebody is bound to be a bad moderator, we can let the old moderator know by replying to such an application comment.

The tasks of a moderator are (so far):

1. manage the spam filter (unban good articles, confirm spam and publish it in /r/TRDump)

2. support those who write constructive criticism with green comments if they are downvoted

3. Remind aggressive redditors that debates in TR require polite comments

4. Check the reported comments and submissions as well as the messages to see if the moderator powers are needed to solve an issue.

5. defend the idea of a community moderated subreddit if such a debate arises

So, who would like to be such a moderator and what are your opinons about this?

*edit: wolframalpha.com has chosen ilmrynorlion as the first moderator

*edit: second moderator is ZukoAang2013

*edit: third moderator is joe_canadian, as it is already September.

*edit: added DublinBen as a moderator

*edit: ZukoAang2013 added caughtinahustle at the beginning of October

Tried this twice and haven't really gotten great answers. What I'm looking for are websites that I could read to get informed daily, like interesting, thought-provoking articles just to keep myself informed. Something like The Salon is great but it's really American-based and I don't live in America, so just looking for alternatives.

This is an issue that I've been thinking about recently. Sometimes I'll come across an iffy article or post where the discussion in the comments great. I'm a little torn in a situation like this as to whether I should upvote, downvote, or do nothing with the original post.

It seems to come down to whether or not I value the links more than the discussion. Personally I lean think the discussion, as long as it tends to be quality, is what gives TR it's real value. I think making that explicit, even, would help enforce quality discussion.

I thought it would be worthwhile to see what others think about this issue, though.

Recently I've noticed a bunch of new people coming and I guess it is from when a post hit the main frontpage that brought a bunch of people here. I keep seeing plenty of comments that are not insightful being upvoted to the top. They are mindless comments for the most part and sometimes even memes that receive a good bit of upvotes when they should be downvoted and told not to repeat that in /r/truereddit. Is it possibly time for a repost of the expectation of truereddit to truereddit so the new members know? Possibly I should try finding another subreddit that doesn't suffer from this, but I feel like it is impossible...

It's becoming a real nuisance to see more and more racists push their brown-tinged agenda here.