It has been 15 days since the post about future of politics in this community was made, and results are somewhat clear - 35 (39 - 4) in favor of no poltics vs 4 (7 - 3) in favor of poltical natured posts.
If I use politcal lingo, this would be a landslide victory of no politics faction.
“What does this mean”?
Who is “We”?
I am speakinng currently for collective group of moderators, and also the community itself (as in, we do not do that here).
We are banning schadenfreude - which roughly translates to feeling joy at someone else’s misfortune. What that means is, if there is someone who you (or a lot of people) do not like gets some disease which they could not have planned for (for example cancer), then this is not a uplifting news. If they are making losses, that is not uplifting. If they are depressed, that is not uplifting. We will not be retroactively actively removing posts, but future posts of this nature will be deleted as per understanding of moderators or community (by means of votes or reports).
We are also banning politics. That by itself is a statement political in nature. Everything is political but what we are banning is the more clearer mainstream politics. We do not really want to know if this group we do not like lost/won somewhere. But what is acceptable is, for example, some good person (good because other things they have done in life) is awarded something. This can be political in nature (example, a nobel prize), and there is no clear way to put in words what is and is not allowed. If yoou have a better method to express this, then please add in comments.
More clarification - we are not banning news which maybe political in nature, but which is toxic politics. if there is a news which is political, lets say some marginalised group got better rights, that is allowed, or even welcomed. Think simple - if you can tell some small kid the news, and they feel good, then it is uplifting. It should not require you to know what the person has done in past. If something bad happens to a bad person, then that is still bad, it does not become uplifting for a kid. this example by itself also has flaws, and I am still unable to word it well. But I hope the spirit of rule is clearer. no toxicity.
We are also banning low effort news or fake news. This could be news which is not adding anything new at all or is a copy of a copy of a copy (and bad one). Please try to fetch original sources. This is just to maintain a standard. This does not restrict you from posting a news which is targeted at a small group, or is published by a small group which may not be publishing a very fancy, furnished looking posts. Essentially - a no fluff rule.
I missed the voting but I’m happy at the result. These are good rules for this community.
Delighted to hear this. I subbed for actually uplifting news and the schadenfreude political posts were becoming tiresome.
It’s hard to believe people find schandenfraude to be uplifting.
I don’t often agree with mods banning shit. But this I can get by.
thank you. If you check in past (maybe go 2 weeks or more back) you will see what regular hunk was posted
hard to believe people find schandenfraude to be uplifting
I watch YouTube for the endless stream of accidental amateur slapstick; you’d call it dashcam or parkour.
This is, I think, schadenfreude. And I find people ignoring safety signs and common sense swiftly awarded with a teachable moment to be spit-takingly funny at times.
I’m sorry. But this rule applies to me and I own that fault, and it’s sensible to exclude that here since it’s so well-covered elsewhere in a sub where I can be with my own cruel kind.
schandenfraude
Your phone and browser and app and ; well, everything, really, should help with this.
Only God can help me and he may not even exist.
Question about this decision, would for example a news article about a commonly marginalised group getting rights considered political?
An example would be for example last year’s news about Thailand becoming the first southeast Asian country to legalise gay marriage. Or the news from 2023 about how transgender people in the US were since then allowed at that time to select a non-binary mark on their passports.
Some people could consider those political posts to not be included under the new rules, but they are very much good news and I would like to know.
they are accepted. as i said, everything is political, and we can not ban everything. if a marginalised group gets better rights, that is absolutely a uplifting news. we want to ban stupid news, like so and so leader lost/imposed so anad so orders.
That is excellent news! Thank you for the clarification 😄
Would you even call it…. uplifting?
^(I’ll see myself out.)^
A good community is a well-moderated community.
“Close enough” posts have killed countless subreddits. Glad to see the mods here have their shit together!
Can I crosspost this to !upliftingnews@lemmy.world ;) ;)
I will allow it
Praise be
Now this is Uplifting News.
careful, you sound like you’re enjoying this a bit too much and that could be considered schadenfreude…
but i love Schadenfreude. its one of the few joys left in this world
(please be sattire, please be sattire)
Great rules
Excellent! Glad to see them go.
For the wording of the new ban – you are not banning politics, you are banning party politics. For example, stories about better distribution of food is political but acceptable. Stories about Labour winning an election is party politics and unacceptable (even though the assumed readers of Lemmy would find it to be positive).
I think I’ve understood correctly and I hope that helps. That’s the wording we use where I volunteer and it works well for us.
well this depends on definition of party. if my group wants to ban cars in certain regions of city, and we somehow win, then this was some party winning. I am still not sure what is the best wording for this.
Since “everything is politics” it seems impossible to ever word a rule is a way that an obnoxious wannabe rules lawyer won’t argue, but the plain intent of the rule seems clear enough. Enforcement will normalize the tone, and if a post is removed and the poster reacts will outsized outrage, in my observation, it was probably because they were emotionally invested in the politics of the post.
that is why i left it. i hope spirit of law is clear enough
Since “everything is politics”
You can choose to interpret everything you see through a political filter, doesn’t make it universal.
I don’t support using it as a basis to shove politics into everything, I was just following that this is a common trope of people who do, which leans on semantics while ignoring the spirit of people not wanting everything to be a political debate.
For such people, there’s no way to word a rule ironclad enough, and you simply have to make judgement calls at some point.
Now, this is the kind of uplifting news I like to read here :)
couldn’t this post be considered schadenfreude for the users who didn’t enjoy the schadenfreude posts?
I like the sound of this.
Isn’t this TECHNICALLY a schadenfreude post? If you were on the side of not having such posts you’d be reading this with a sense of schadenfreude towards those who DID want the posts.
lol so meta 🤣
rule was enacted after this was published and i said i am not going to enact retroactively. i am from the side not wanting these posts, but maybe not as strongly worded
Just joking my guy, I don’t have a horse in this race
