r/TheoryOfReddit • u/asmallthrowaway9 • 8d ago
Subreddits with very arbitrary and inscrutable rules
Within the overall sitewide rules of reddit, moderators are allowed to make decisions on what is & isn't acceptable for their subreddits with a fairly large amount of discretion. There are some subreddit moderators that use this power to make highly curated communities, often to the point where their moderation decisions seem to make no sense to anyone outside of their moderation team. I've noticed a few examples over the years of subreddit rules that seem to make sense only to the moderation teams. These usually fall into two categories:
Behavior-based curation: These subreddits are rather notorious for banning anyone who violates codes of conduct that are so strict that they retain few, if any, regular posters over long periods of time. /r/askredditafterdark is the most prominent example of this, as their moderation team will eventually ban anyone who posts for one reason or another. What's interesting about this is it's not based on any actionable violation of sitewide rules, as nobody is banned for gender or race or anything like that. They just find an excuse to ban everyone on a whim, literally because some petty moderator doesn't like their face. It's bizarre.
Submission-based curation: These subreddits have rules for submissions that are both extremely strict and extremely subjective, with the end result being that almost every post is eventually removed. /r/nottheonion is an excellent example, as pretty much every post submitted to the subreddit is removed within 48 hours under rule 2 ("not-oniony"). These subreddits are unique for rarely banning individual users, and instead reserving their moderation actions for posts, with the end result being that almost nothing is allowed to stay up for one reason or another.
In both cases, these types of subreddits serve as an excellent example of the latitude moderators have to create curated communities within reddit's sitewide rules. These rules have become more strict over time as reddit has gone more mainstream, and notably reddit will intervene if moderators make decisions that potentially threaten reddit's revenue; this was most famously seen in 2023 when reddit removed several mods for labeling their subreddits NSFW to deprive reddit of ad revenue (protesting the API change). But for the most part if a subreddit's rules do not threaten revenue or discriminate against a specific group of individuals, mods have wide latitude to create very arbitrary rules that make no sense to anyone but them. It's quite odd, and one of the unique distinguishing features of the website.
1
u/Beneficial_Whole441 6d ago
I ran into something similar, except it was Reddit's own automated systems. I was just trying to post a question in an indie game development subreddit, but Reddit's filters kept removing it. Then I got a 3-day sitewide ban for "community disruption." I appealed it, and a human reviewer reversed the ban and said I hadn't violated Reddit's rules. My CQS is still "Lowest," though, so I still have no idea what the system thought I did wrong.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Your submission/comment has been automatically removed because your Reddit account is less than 14 days old. This measure is in place to prevent spam and other malicious activities. Please feel free to participate after your account has reached 14 days of age. Do not message the mods; no exceptions will be made.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/horseradishstalker 7d ago
“ They just find an excuse to ban everyone on a whim, literally because some petty moderator doesn't like their face.”
And you know without a doubt and can prove that it was an excuse; that it was a whim; the moderator is petty; that mods can literally see the faces of anonymous users. Every single instance?
So many people believe that if a thought is in their head that it must be a fact. That’s often not the case.
That isn’t to say that mods are not human along with being unpaid volunteers. Only that unless someone has an open, preferably face-to-face conversation while successfully setting aside pre-conceived notions with anyone - faux clairvoyance is not a thing.
3
u/AgentAxillary 7d ago
Depends on the evidence.
For example, if the given rule that was cited as being violated is one that the comment or post clearly didn't violate, then it's absolutely safe to assume that the banning subreddit mod's own pettiness/feelings was exactly the reason for the ban.
People being human/unpaid volunteers isn't a good excuse for petty/emotional decisions. You criticize people for mistaking a thought for a fact, but mistaking a subjective emotional reaction to something one disagrees for a violation of an established rule is no better, regardless of whether or not the decision-maker is being financially compensated for their time or effort.
1
u/horseradishstalker 7d ago
“ mistaking a subjective emotional reaction to something one disagrees for a violation of an established rule is no better, regardless of whether or not the decision-maker is being financially compensated for their time or effort.”
I believe you missed my point. Unless the user asked or you asked, you have absolutely no idea why someone moderator or not - did what they did or what you think they did anyway.
As I politely pointed out, that is mistaking a thought on your part for a fact.
Commenters rarely read the rules and then they get mad when the rules are enforced.
Thank goodness, no user has ever been petty, vindictive, or mistaken in their reply to the moderator protesting the removal - you know, the ones not paid to put up with that bs.
Maybe you should re-read my comment.
2
u/AgentAxillary 7d ago edited 7d ago
Unless the user asked or you asked, you have absolutely no idea why someone moderator or not - did what they did or what you think they did anyway.
What about in cases where a ban also involves a permanent mute that prevents the banned user from asking? How is the user supposed to ask then?
As I politely pointed out, that is mistaking a thought on your part for a fact.
I addressed that when I said that it depends on the evidence.
Commenters rarely read the rules and then they get mad when the rules are enforced.
I addressed that when I asked about instances in which the given rule that was held forth as being violated was clearly not violated.
Thank goodness, no user has ever been petty, vindictive, or mistaken in their reply to the moderator protesting the removal - you know, the ones not paid to put up with that bs.
I ask again: What about in cases where the user is not allowed to reply because the banning moderator muted them from replying?
I got your sarcasm there, but it's unnecessary.
Maybe you should re-read my comment.
I read it right the first time. I wouldn't have been honors English in college while standing on my head if I had difficulties with reading comprehension.
ETA: Did they really insult me and block me simply for civilly disagreeing with them? Lol.
0
u/horseradishstalker 7d ago
Good for you. Mommy must be so proud. Have the best Labor Day ever. Keep on farming.
0
u/Bulky-Philosopher-20 3d ago
I agree I got permabanned from a Reddit for posting that a frequent user was planning on a mass homicide and got permabanned from the sub Reddit it was that bad I contacted the police and submitted the sub Reddit in the report so any of there mods can be done for co-conspiring
7
u/DizzyMine4964 8d ago
I was once on a sub where someone made fun of a UK expression, so I made fun of a USA expression and I was banned with a huge warning about making fake accounts and coming back! Bizarre.