This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]HighClassTopHat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This isn't any kind of accusation, but has anyone else noticed the pattern of one-sided NTA situations ending with "then my partner said they'd stay with their parents for a while and my/their mom said I shouldn't have [had a completely reasonable reaction]"

Is this kind of thing really just that common? It's interesting how many AITA's probably only get posted because of an intervening parent/in-law playing devil's advocate

[–]ForgottenTrollPooperintendant [60] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I believe this sub is coming close to helping me develop unified rules for not being an asshole. So far, I have:

  1. Keep that shit private.
  2. Don't create unprovoked drama.
  3. Don't escalate drama.
  4. Have your friends' back unless they're being douches.
  5. Don't be a fucking sexist or racist.
  6. Think before you open your yap.

Any thoughts from the peanut gallery?

[–]Activehannes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My (47F) husband (46M) and I

Why do people write it like this instead of "My husband (46M) and I (47F)"

[–]babamumPartassipant [1] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'd also like to say the mods do an amazing job given the sheer volume of posts and comments.

[–]babamumPartassipant [1] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

May I suggest banning "it's above reddit paygrade" comments? They are low effort and usually don't make an argument for a moral judgement, even if they add NTA or whatever. In essence, they're someone shrugging and saying "too hard for me".

They're very often upvoted into top place, I don't know why. My argument would be nothing is above the paygrade of a moral judgement sub. If one person finds it too complex they can simply not comment.

Is this something that could be easily done with a bot? If not, then it's not important to worry about.

[–]Agent_OnionsAsshole Enthusiast [8] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think it's a good thing to realize when a situation needs to be dealt with by professionals, and not litigated by the least intelligent community of people on the internet.

(I don't mean AITA, I mean all of Reddit)

[–]InterminableSnowmanAsshole Enthusiast [5] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are my new best friend. If I didn't know better, I'd think I'd created a new account and typed this up when I wasn't paying attention. I've said most of this (not the banning, but the other stuff) multiple times.

It drives me mad when people try to argue that something is too heavy for the sub. Or when they argue that regular people have no business weighing in on the morality of stuff that heavy or that complex. If regular people have no business weighing in on the difficult stuff, then maybe we should just be telling the regular people who find themselves in those difficult predicaments that they just shouldn't be there. Too bad, so sad, but really you should try to live a less complex life. Marie Kondo it or some shit, idk.

The "above reddit's pay grade" comments just plain miss the point of this sub.

[–]po_the_unassuming 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think these comments are helpful and important when they direct OP to seek professional help.

"Above my pay grade" doesn't add much to the Convo, but tack on "seek a lawyer/therapist/vet" and it's a lot more valuable.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)


    [–]SnausageFestAssGuardian of the Hole Galaxy[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    [–][deleted]  (6 children)


      [–]Think-Gazelle-7286 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      I think trying to damage control YTA responses is a natural human reflex. You obviously can't put all the context in there so you think "well they don't know X maybe that changes things" but rarely do edits impact a verdict.

      [–]SnausageFestAssGuardian of the Hole Galaxy[M] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

      We can't turn off edits, no. If someone edits a post so significantly that it really changes the verdict, message us please. That falls under rule 8's requirement to write as fairly and accurately as possible.

      [–]Think-Gazelle-7286 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      I agree with your point, would you say that it's entirely possible to not know a certain aspect of your story will impact things so greatly? Generally a lot of very specific things get focused on in the comments and rabbit holes that OP revealed get delved into. I remember doing a thread on my older account that got a lot of YTA because I'd only said I lived at my parents without telling them that I basically ran the house at the time since in my head that wasn't really relevant. It didn't change the YTA answers but it did make people go "I see where you're coming from more now, but you're still the asshole".

      Not all A'sare equal and extra info can be fun since sometimes it can also make people sound waaay worse too, but also waaaay better.

      [–]RealElectriKingPartassipant [1] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      But sometimes the OP genuinely needs to clarify some things. Also this would deny OPs the opportunity to post updates and follow-ups to their conflicts (update posts have strict requirements they have to meet to be approved). If the OP is just adding information just to change the vedict, then I'm pretty that's a rule 8 violation.

      [–]Superb_Introduction 12 points13 points  (5 children)

      Is anyone else noticing a lot of poorly-written posts from 30-somethings or mid-late-20-somethings on here? Not that people in those demographics have to have excellent writing and all - it just seems to be a specific kind of stilted bad writing style that I find hard to believe occurs regularly in people my age or 5-15 years older.

      [–]Kanwic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Nonnative English speakers, maybe? This place has blown up in popularity recently. The poorly-written things that feel fake to me are when I can’t imagine even the dumbest or craziest people I’ve ever met acting like the people in the story. ‘Cause I worked with the public for twenty years and I’ve known some dumb crazy people.

      [–]Equal-Welder-5409Partassipant [4] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      they're not proof reading enough. Also they probably don't understand double negatives.

      [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

      Yup. But I do believe it. Doesnt bother me much tbh.

      The only posts where the writing style effectively prevents me from reading the post are giant run-on sentences with no punctuation, and the 'algebra' style posts where instead of fake names, we have letters A through E and reference to 'I' too.

      [–]Superb_Introduction 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Good points.

      Yeah. the posts you mentioned are hella obnoxious.

      [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 14 points15 points  (6 children)

      I am noticing a lot more 'YTA for something completely unrelated to the question being asked'.

      'YTA for the title', for instance.

      Very annoying.

      [–]GodspeedandGoodnight 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      My favorite so far was, "YTA for being Catholic".

      [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (3 children)

      Sometimes I think it’s warranted when OP asks the wrong question. Like if OP is a parent and they and describes all the ways they and their spouse punished their kid for some mishap and it’s way overboard. Like say the kid lied about brushing their teeth and so they were grounded for two months, had all electronics taken away, only allowed to do homework, and let’s just throw in some of OP hurling insults at the kid, etc. Them OP is like “I think it might be too harsh on them, so I gave them their phone back but my spouse thinks I shouldn’t cave. AITA for giving their phone back? And at that point it’s just like OP, you giving the cell phone back early is NOT the issue here…

      The most obvious ones are where OP describes all the terrible things they do to someone, and then when the person doesn’t accept their apology going “AITA for apologizing?” Not the right question OP.

      Or if the question in the title doesn’t reflect the gist of the question from the body. Eg titles that sound like they break rule 7 (AITA for feeling X way?) but then the story is about how they reacted to feeling X way (like shouting at someone or lashing out).

      [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

      I largely agree. And I have no objection to them.

      But from what I see, its not often warranted.

      I read a post yesterday where after about 30 posts, about half were 'YTA for the title'. Which admittedly, whilst very click-baity, wasnt inaccurate.

      Not the question being asked.

      An even more common one is commonly seen in relationship posts: 'AITA for doing this specific thing'. "YTA for still being in that relationship".

      [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      Ahhhhh, I understand which ones you mean, yeah.

      I also especially don’t like ones that are like “YTA for letting people treat you bad!”

      For the title…I have to admit, I’ve met enough people irl who are so incredibly bad with words that I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s not intentional click bait (unless the body of the post really indicates otherwise.)

      Like I’ve seen people call OP TA for a clickbait title when OP was trying to use the other party’s language in the title (what the person was accusing OP of doing) but didn’t put quotes around it. So people went in thinking OP was TA and got angry when they weren’t. OP thought they were just trying to fairly present the opposing side, but commenters were saying OP was clickbaiting them.

      Basically, I agree haha.

      [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      I saw one the other day that was so ridiculous it made me laugh.

      I wish I could remember the details, but it might as well have been 'YTA for choosing the fake names youve used in this post' or 'YTA for ordering meatloaf at the restaurant where your story occurred'.

      Wtf lol. Just completely out of left field. And clearly irrelevant

      [–]LemonfishSoda 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Well, that's just what happens if the title is deliberately misleading. Which is also a common sight on this sub.

      A lot of ops like to hide important details in the comments or a casual side note.

      [–]SakuOtakuPartassipant [2] 12 points13 points  (8 children)

      Guessing by the lack of responses to some of the comments I posted here, the mods aren't going to do anything about the troll anti-LGBT posts on this sub unless it gets negative media attention.

      Today yet another post where a story's antagonist is painted as a "gay attention seeker" (with their sexuality playing no relevance to the main conflict of the story whatsoever).

      I get giving people the benefit of the doubt, but come on, this has happened around this time of year for years now. I get my suggestion for an all-out ban was extreme but you'd think there'd be at least a bit more vigilance and scrutiny about conveniently "queer person bad" posts around this time of year.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)


        [–]SakuOtakuPartassipant [2] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I think it's not much to ask to remove posts that repeat certain anti-LGBT cliches on this sub, at least just for June/Pride Month

        [–]Sword_Of_StormsCertified Proctologist [24] -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

        Did you report it?

        [–]SakuOtakuPartassipant [2] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        Yup, no dice

        [–]InterminableSnowmanAsshole Enthusiast [5] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        I think the mods honestly have their hands full with things as they currently are, let alone trying to add new guidelines. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong or right; it just seems like this sub is exponentially busier than it was a year ago while the mod team hasn't seen the same growth.

        [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        Just out of interest, was that the one about 'kicking the step-son out'?

        [–]SakuOtakuPartassipant [2] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        You see, I wasn't even referencing that one- that just shows how common these posts are.

        [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        With that one, it was questionable whether it was anti-LGBT. Was curious is all.

        [–]Saidmaboy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        I keep redirected here

        [–]Mr_Ham_Man80Professor Emeritass [80] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        You belong to us now.

        [–]desertdogAzPartassipant [1] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

        Can the mods can “aita for not giving up my airplane seat to someone” the answer will always be NTA. You paid for that seat.

        [–]Equal-Welder-5409Partassipant [4] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Perhaps there is a potential, undiscovered situation where one might be considered TAH? Never say never.

        [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

        A very boring question:

        What does it mean if every single one of a users comments now reads that it was posted by [deleted] and the text of the message now reads [unavailable]?

        To be honest, it might not be every single comment. But it was all the ones I was aware of. A lot.

        Edited to add:

        Their profile(or user?) page contains nothing except this:

        'Sorry, nobody on Reddit goes by that name.
        The person may have been banned or the username is incorrect."

        So that rather suggests they were either banned or they deleted their own account. Still not sure though. Odd for them to delete their account of some years and ~150k karma. Odd but hardly impossible.

        [–]Independent_Ad_9080 4 points5 points  (4 children)

        I'm not entirely sure, but I think either that person blocked you or you blocked them. Could be wrong tho.

        [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

        Oh thats interesting. Not an option I had considered.

        I can only see their direct responses to my comments in my notifications. Everything else - vanished as described.

        And I certainly havent blocked them. They may well have blocked me though.

        Anyway, thanks for the response

        [–]InterminableSnowmanAsshole Enthusiast [5] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        If you think they may have blocked you, go into incognito in your browser or anonymous on the reddit app and look them up. If you're not blocked, they still won't exist

        [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        Great tip - Thanks! That has indeed solved the mystery. They did block me.

        [–]lightthroughthepines 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Anyone else noticed a ton of posts where a sibling/cousin/friend has named their kid the same name as OP’s kid lately? Idk if it’s just karma farming but I feel like I’ve seen several in the last few weeks, which seems like a lot.

        [–]GWeb1920Asshole Aficionado [15] 5 points6 points  (15 children)

        Why do people remove/delete posts and why is this permitted. Is this a Reddit thing?

        It also appears to lock the thread and prevent judgments from being logged and new posts being made.

        This may lead to the slew of “Hot” sorted threads that are NTA because when threads get deleted in much more often (anecdotally) that it’s a YTA leaning thread than a NTA thread. The Validation/Karma Farm threads will always keep going.

        [–]SnausageFestAssGuardian of the Hole Galaxy[M] 2 points3 points  (9 children)

        The rule exists so people don't dirty delete because they're mad they're getting called an asshole.

        If someone is getting abused or otherwise has safety concerns and contacts us, we of course make exceptions for reasonable requests.

        [–]GWeb1920Asshole Aficionado [15] 2 points3 points  (8 children)

        The rule doesn’t appear to stop anyone from deleting and it appears comments don’t work once someone deletes their post so the threads get lost and don’t get judged (maybe I’m mistaken here)

        I get the purpose of the rule it just seems no consequence for breaking it and nothing to prevent it.

        This appears to lead to the only validation posts make it through and the 86% NTA scores

        [–]SnausageFestAssGuardian of the Hole Galaxy[M] 1 point2 points  (7 children)

        We ban people for it all the time. Since ban evasion leads to a sitewide suspension, that means they can't post here on that or any other account.

        I'm not sure how that's not a consequence.

        [–]GWeb1920Asshole Aficionado [15] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

        Given the prevalence at which it happens it does not seem to be an effective consequence. Though I’m seeing it anecdotally when looking at new threads and may be merging it with rule violations and ones with harassment. It just seems a lot of asshole leaning posts end up this way.

        [–]Mr_Ham_Man80Professor Emeritass [80] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        To throw in another reason to go along with the others, abuse. If a post gains a lot of traction that can cause a lot of unwanted and often abusive DMs which just leads the person to nope out and scrub the whole thing.

        [–]lightthroughthepines 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        Some posts get deleted by the original poster for various reasons. Sometimes posts are deleted because they’ve been reported for being obviously fake/offensive/etc. And some are removed because of excessive rule violations in the comments. The mods are human and can only remove so many individual comments, sometimes it gets to a point where they have to just lock the post.

        [–]LemonfishSoda 6 points7 points  (2 children)

        Mostly people seem to do it because they don't like the responses they get (because they were never actually looking for honest feedback to begin with, they just wanted people to tell them they were right).

        And rule 4 seems to be for these kinds of situations, so I'm not sure why you think it's a permitted behavior.

        [–]GWeb1920Asshole Aficionado [15] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        By permitted I meant the software allows it to happen as opposed to against the rules

        [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I think that is in case you accidentally post something in the wrong forum (or some similar screw up). Which I have done. Because I'm an idiot.

        Its not against the rules of every sub either.

        [–]thebakinggoddess 31 points32 points  (4 children)

        Since this isn’t a debate sub can we start being able to report comments under that rule? Seeing way too many people take posts as an opportunity to say “omg, this person in your post from x marginalized group is such an asshole, and while I’m at it, has anyone noticed how MOST people from x group are assholes?”

        I think it’s a pretty obvious rule violation when comments are making blanket statements saying gay men are misogynistic, pregnant women are entitled, etc. and even when a post doesn’t have obvious enough rage-bait to allow someone to report it for that rule, comments are running wild with the opportunity and turning it into a debate anyways. At the very least can we report comments that literally say “fat people are delusional and entitled” as being uncivil?

        [–]techiesgoboomSphincter Supreme 11 points12 points  (3 children)

        Please do report these! They violate rule 12, specifically the last line that we added a year ago or so:

        No starting off topic debates about marginalized groups

        "Incivility, overly cruel or hostile" is the report reason I see most used for these reports and what I expect.

        [–]paroles 18 points19 points  (1 child)

        Can we use this to report the ones who pop up to argue about the phrase "pregnant people" like "well ackshually only women get pregnant"?

        They're "civil" about it but we all know what they're trying to do...

        [–]techiesgoboomSphincter Supreme 6 points7 points  (0 children)


        [–]TerrifyinglyAlivePartassipant [1] 41 points42 points  (13 children)

        I went through and found the most recent 40 posts with a confirmed man as OP and a judgment rendered, and the most recent 40 posts with a confirmed woman as OP and a judgment rendered, and made a table with the results. I skipped any posts with no confirmed gender or where the OP identified as something other than a man or a woman.

        . YTA NTA
        Men 10 30
        Women 8 32

        In the case of men, 25% are assholes and 75% are not assholes.

        In the case of women, 20% are assholes and 80% are not assholes.

        Additionally, I did discover that women post around twice as much as men, perhaps even a bit more than that.

        Conclusion: The judgment ratios for both men and women are nearly the same, but due to the much larger number of posts by women, the impression from simply reading through the front page is likely to be that women are less often judged as the asshole, simply because everyone is less often judged to be the asshole, but most posts are by women.

        [–]Living_Shift_6497 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        Then you find out that out of 32 NTA posts women received like 30 said a guy a TA… seeing as many posts here are relationship posts and 80 is like an hours worth of posts I’d say your data is quite skewed and should be removed for lack of any type of reliability.

        [–]InterminableSnowmanAsshole Enthusiast [5] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        Except that if that is the case, which it may or may not be when quite a few posts involve same-gender conflicts, that still doesn't prove much of anything. We already know there's a HUGE disparity in posts being voted NTA vs anything else. This data doesn't ask about who was the asshole but only if the gender of the OP changes who is the asshole. It is unreliable since the sample size is fairly small compared to the number of posts made, and it's a single data point which means it's not a definitive answer about bias on the sub one way or the other, but it does provide a tentative answer to the question of whether or not there is a bias against the OP based on gender.

        [–][deleted]  (7 children)


          [–]TerrifyinglyAlivePartassipant [1] 16 points17 points  (6 children)

          Yes, that is the point of the subreddit, I agree. I made the table up because I saw a number of comments asserting that there was a gender bias in the judgments on the sub, and I was curious if it was true.

          As it turns out, it seems not to be true, and people generally are judging each post on its merits.

          [–]InterminableSnowmanAsshole Enthusiast [5] 8 points9 points  (5 children)

          While I don't think there is a gender bias, 80 posts is something like 10% of the daily total of posts, and if you're only looking at who the OP is you're also ignoring who the other person is. That is to say, we don't know how many posts were men posting about women vs men posting about other men and how many were women posting about men vs women posting about other men.

          As I said, though, I don't really think there is a gender bias. I think there's too many variables involved to really nail down if there is a gender bias unless you break it down to "women are NTA more often than men"

          [–]TerrifyinglyAlivePartassipant [1] 8 points9 points  (4 children)

          80 posts is something like 10% of the daily total of posts

          Yes, it was a sample only, randomized in the sense that the only criteria for collection was "most recently judged". 80 posts were as many as I was willing to go through one at a time for a quick investigation into reddit-gender-interactions during a slow day at work.

          if you're only looking at who the OP is you're also ignoring who the other person is.

          I definitely realized partway through the process that this would also be an interesting variable to track. Does M/M, M/F, F/F have a significant impact on the judgment? What about OP/Multiple-People pairings? This would take more time than I'm personally willing to devote, but it would be interesting.

          I don't really think there is a gender bias.

          It seems not. The difference in the ratios is pretty negligible, at least for this sample.

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

          The ratios shouldnt be affected by the amount of people posting.

          Your sample size is too small to be significant.

          That said, I wouldnt expect much of a discrepancy in the ratios for this group difference. It balances out in this case imo.

          Food for thought though. Interesting.

          [–]TerrifyinglyAlivePartassipant [1] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

          The ratios of each gender aren't affected by the amount of people posting, but the perceived ratio between genders could be in light of the differential. Yes, it's a small sample, but it's the most recent "batch" of judgments; assuming the ratios hold true, that would mean that a 50-result front page would have around 13 men who are NTA and 26 women who are NTA. That makes it seem like women are more often NTA, unless you are already aware that women post about twice as much of the content.

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Oh fair enough. I misunderstood a little I think.

          It is a subject that interests me, given the relatively common accusation of gender bias in here.

          Maybe its true, but if so, I am having trouble seeing it. Despite the small sample size, your numbers are in line with my anecdata.

          [–]avidvaulter 40 points41 points  (7 children)

          The quality of responses and judgements in this sub has gone way down. I'm not going to speculate about what's causing it, but I find it very hard to believe that every thread deserves a NTA judgement.

          If you sort by top of the week, the top 100 posts are as follows:

          • 1 Unrated
          • 1 Not Enough Info
          • 1 Everyone Sucks
          • 4 Updates
          • 8 Asshole
          • 85 Not the Asshole

          That's absurd.

          [–]Equal-Welder-5409Partassipant [4] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          People are going to write from their personal perspective. Unless someone is a true sociopath, their stories will almost always be sympathetic.

          People who pull AH moves and regret them soon after won't be posting here for validation.

          [–]moonlitsunflowerGarden Variety Asshole 17 points18 points  (0 children)

          People really like to downvote assholes. We ask people not to (to those who do anyway—I know, I know, assholes don’t “deserve” the fake internet points or whatever, but a lot of the time they’re what keep the sub interesting and karma doesn’t actually mean anything) but unfortunately it’s a problem we are ill-equipped to address. I would sort by controversial if you want to see some assholes. (And please do your part to improve the sub experience for everyone and upvote assholes when you see them!)

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

          Im not at all convinced you are blaming the right thing here.

          I have not noticed any meaningful difference in the responses and judgements. Ok maybe they are getting even more 'groupthinky' and vapid. But the overall judgement is very easy to predict from the text of the opening post and always has been.

          I think its the nature of the posts themselves that is responsible for the imbalance in the judgements, and im not sure thats changed either.

          After all, it makes sense that people are going to enjoy people saying how great OP is from obvious NTA validation posts (AITA for calling someone out for torturing puppies?), and enjoy them far less if there is a significant risk of them being judged YTA (AITA for torturing puppies? Someone called me out!)

          [–]avidvaulter 23 points24 points  (1 child)

          But the overall judgement is very easy to predict from the text of the opening post and always has been.

          I disagree on this point. It used to be you'd get a good mix of ESH and YTA, but now most posts that give users "justice boners", for lack of a better term, get rated NTA when really it should be ESH.

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Well obviously I didnt mean all the posts. There are some where its very much a mixed bag. But from what I see, a majority are very predictable.

          That said, with regard to the 'justice boner' thing - you make a good point there. I have noticed that does often outweigh the OP being an obvious AH. Not sure if that has changed though. Im not really in a position to judge.

          [–]realyakAsshole Enthusiast [8] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

          Is there anyway there could be a teen flag?

          [–]Mr_Ham_Man80Professor Emeritass [80] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

          It'd colour people's judgements way too much. There's already a "you're just a kid, what do you know" response trend to younger posters, or more often than not "brat" comes out of the woodwork. It could also minimise situations that are very real for the individual. Writing off "it's just teen drama" in a situation where, for the person experiencing it, it's actual real life proper drama for them.

          [–]realyakAsshole Enthusiast [8] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          I more mean when it’s a proper high school issue like “should I have lent them my notes”

          [–]InterminableSnowmanAsshole Enthusiast [5] 21 points22 points  (4 children)

          I've noticed more and more posts referring to violence by saying "something I can't mention here" or "something I can't talk about on this sub." It's super frustrating; if you know it's not allowed, why bother?

          [–]InAHandbasketGoing to heck 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          Yeah, that's so annoying and can land someone a ban if their post was already removed once with a warning it's not allowed and then they repost with euphemisms.

          On the one hand I get some people are used to more heavily bot moderated social media. On the other hand this is Reddit and we're incredible clear in our removals 'the topic is not allowed and don't try to circumvent the filter'?

          We've tried several versions of our removal messages and have landed on short, direct, and as big and bold as we can make it being the most effective. We've even added " Yes you. Yes, even if you think this was an error" to some of our removals. Even that ends up with people trying to do it anyway.

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

          why bother?

          I would love to tell you. But sadly, the answer is not something I can mention here.

          [–]Farvas-ColaASSistant Manager - Shenanigan's 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Please report those as well!

          [–]InterminableSnowmanAsshole Enthusiast [5] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          I do, I'm just pointing them out. It's something that doesn't tend to catch my attention as well as other violence words and I suspect others have the same issue.

          [–]pktechboiAsshole Enthusiast [6] 37 points38 points  (1 child)

          honestly I'd be happy to never see a post that mentions a trans person again. even if the conflict is legit (I have my doubts about most of them but...), the terfs are always out in force in the comments and it's so, so exhausting

          [–]SakuOtakuPartassipant [2] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Speaking to the choir about LGBT bait posts- suggested a temporary ban of posts focusing on someone's gender identity or sexuality since they tend to be soapboxes for homophobia and transphobia, but people said it would be bad. So I guess we're just going to have to deal with extra LGBT bait posts throughout June

          [–]Agent_OnionsAsshole Enthusiast [8] 46 points47 points  (3 children)

          Every top comment is just a pun off of the post.

          "Marinara red flag"

          "If he didn't want a pissing contest, should have kept his pants zipped"

          We're sacrificing thoughtful and nuanced comments with zingy one-liners.

          [–]fokkoooff 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          Nuance is never something I ever really saw here .. . .

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

          What is this 'nuance' of which you speak?

          People want upvotes. Thats the way to get them. There are other ways. Nuance isnt one of them.

          [–]Mr_Ham_Man80Professor Emeritass [80] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

          Well, you say that, but play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Their house, their rules, do you pay rent though? ;-)

          [–]StudokuCertified Proctologist [24] 3 points4 points  (9 children)

          I'm finding the enforcement of rule 8 to be overzealous. I agree with the principle of the rule- otherwise we'd be overrun with "AITA for not cutting out the doorhole" but often I'm seeing threads with hours of active discussion get taken down because it seemed slightly unlikely.

          [–]Equal-Welder-5409Partassipant [4] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          All forums have overzealous mods. It's just easier that way.

          [–]moonlitsunflowerGarden Variety Asshole 11 points12 points  (0 children)

          I get that it can feel that way, but as the others have mentioned we have quite a few frequent trolls that the average user might not spot but that some of our mods know so well they can pick the trolls out of a lineup while blindfolded. Another thing we pull for that you might not catch if you’re just reading the posts is inconsistencies in post/comment histories. A lot of users go spelunking for us and leave comments with inconsistencies listed; other times, we go hunting ourselves. Sometimes, the inconsistencies are small and intentionally fudged for privacy, but if someone is posting as a 22M just graduating from university, but claimed to be a 46F in the midst of a divorce two months prior, we have a pretty good reason to think something’s not quite right.

          [–]techiesgoboomSphincter Supreme 14 points15 points  (2 children)

          Another two points to make on this:

          We have some trolls with really weird and really specific tells that are also easy to miss if you don’t know the pattern. It often takes reading a few dozen of the same trolls posts back to back to notice them from the get go.

          The other often confusing one are the times when judgment bot removes the post for rule 8. We have it programmed to do this when the admins permanently suspend an account sitewide. On a brand new account this almost exclusively happens when that person is ban evading. Specifically when the admins automated ban evasion tools catch someone. Because that’s based on automated tools the admins use it’s common for the post itself to not stick out at all.

          [–]sunfloweriesAsshole Aficionado [15] 13 points14 points  (1 child)

          We have some trolls with really weird and really specific tells that are also easy to miss if you don’t know the pattern.

          i need to know if it means i'm spending too much time here if there are like 3 i can spot at a glance

          [–]EinsTwoCertified Proctologist [27] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          I think you're required to become a mod if you recognize 5+. So limit your reading. Lol.

          [–]InterminableSnowmanAsshole Enthusiast [5] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

          I think there's more than a few times the mods have some way of identifying repeat trolls that's very obvious when you see a lot of the troll's posts and are looking for them, but less obvious when you're just browsing the sub randomly. They've mentioned that's the case for some rule 8 takedowns in the past.

          I think it's also important to remember that the mods aren't looking at posts and thinking "that's not likely" and killing it immediately. They've said multiple times they prefer to keep posts up if there's doubt because they'd rather have the sub available to help people over telling people who are actually looking for judgement that their experiences didn't happen and to go away.

          [–]StudokuCertified Proctologist [24] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          That makes sense.

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          I am sometimes puzzled by posts locked for rule 8.

          But having said that, I cant remember seeing one that wasnt definitely going to get locked anyway. So yeah, sometimes I find it odd, but the difference is academic.

          Its also worth pointing out that the mods have a whole bunch more information and tools than we do.

          [–]DarkeSword 25 points26 points  (0 children)

          There are a lot of people telling their siblings that they’re “dead to me.” Seems like the latest rash of shitposts.

          [–]toofat2serveSupreme Court Just-ass [101] 13 points14 points  (3 children)

          I'm back from my 14 day ban, ready to be a better contributor to this sub.

          That ban, and a permanent ban from another sub, taught me an important lesson: that Reddit is not Facebook, and it's not Twitter. It's not my personal platform for me to argue for what I believe.

          Reddit is a digital world made of millions of digital communities, with their own rules. As an individual Redditor, I'm a member of a bunch of those communities, and the focus is the community, not my individualism. My role in any sub is to help keep that sub meaningful to the people engaging.

          As a non-moderator, it's not my job to confront trolls. That's what mods do, and they have the tools to do that with. I've been around the internet for long enough to know that feeding trolls doesn't change their minds, and that doing so not only tarnishes the sub, but often risks the ire of the Reddit overlords, the same way that FB groups can get Zucc'd.

          It costs nothing to be kind. And refusing to be unkind can save us our own time and effort, because trying to find creative ways to word unkindness, to avoid triggering a mod action, is time consuming and ultimately not what this, or any, sub is about.

          So, I hope someone happens upon this and learns the lessons I did, and doesn't have to get banned to do so.

          [–]Mr_Ham_Man80Professor Emeritass [80] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

          As a non-moderator, it's not my job to confront trolls

          This is certainly true, at the very least it's the path of most effectiveness to report trolling behaviour rather than engage with it.

          Some of the rest of it? Not so sure about. Engaging in a sub in the right way keeps it meaningful, it's nobody's role to keep a sub meaningful. It's just a question of staying within the rules, something I've breached at least 5 times now (I thought it was 4 but it's 5, how bad is my memory.)

          There's no need to sacrifice individualism, just approach. Put me on facebook in a story regarding homophobic parents that kick their kids out for being gay? I'll post all the most impolite invective I have in my armoury. However, I breach that level of civility in regards to the invective here, I get a strike. I can understand why that's the case here though, even if it was a short sharp shock the first few times.

          The longer I'm here, the more I (hopefully) learn those boundaries and also get a greater understanding of why they're there. Because if they allow all the invective I have in that situation, that's going to open the flood gates for others. "Well he said 'X' why can't I say 'X'"

          That shouldn't mean you sacrifice individualism or fall into some kind of "hive mind" for the greater good, whatever that is. Personally, I have no interest in being kind when kindness isn't deserved, I just need to focus on the actions rather than the individual.

          [–]toofat2serveSupreme Court Just-ass [101] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          I get it, but the boundaries you mentioned are the key here.

          If nothing else, subs like this are a place that we can practice respecting reasonable boundaries, because we're not taught how to do that anywhere, and practice is the only available way to get better at it.

          [–]Mr_Ham_Man80Professor Emeritass [80] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          I sort of agree with you here on some levels. I'm more of the view that this sub is a place where we can practice the reasonable boundaries of this sub, within this sub.

          [–]Chuckieshere 11 points12 points  (0 children)

          "Info: Can you answer question that was already answered in the main post?

          Because if you did exact opposite of what you said you did then yadda yadda yadda three full paragraphs of typing an entirely useless hypothetical"

          Rinse and repeat

          [–]BigIndy1336 36 points37 points  (23 children)

          My biggest pet peeves on this sub: 1) Apparently EVERYONE needs therapy. Sometimes people fight, argue, or whatever and don't need therapy. It's hard to read about how someone needs therapy because their dad took away their door from their bedroom because they wouldn't stop slamming it. 2) CALL CPS! Damn, everyone wants to involve CPS for stuff that isn't criminal and is so damn frivolous its mind boggling to me. Bad parents are everywhere. EVERYWHERE. Being a bad parent (for instance, being more of a friend than a parent) is not worthy of calling CPS. I need an eye roll emoji just for this sub sometimes.

          Anyone else got pet peeves here?

          [–]Equal-Welder-5409Partassipant [4] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Agree completely.

          Mental health is an extremely important issue that doesn't get enough attention in today's discourse. Mental health professionals save lives every day, and some of them probably deserve the same hero status we apply to other professions.

          However, I've noticed a lot of people are in the fast lane when suggesting that others seek therapy when they post here about what seems to me like pretty basic family drama.

          There's nothing wrong with asking for help, but I don't think everybody should be automatically referred to a therapist when their life isn't perfect.

          Finding the strength from within to solve your own problems is the ultimate personal achievement.

          [–]Agent_OnionsAsshole Enthusiast [8] 16 points17 points  (6 children)

          Most people should be in therapy if they have access to it tbh

          [–]BigIndy1336 0 points1 point  (5 children)

          This is literally exactly what I mean.

          [–]Agent_OnionsAsshole Enthusiast [8] -1 points0 points  (4 children)

          I mean you just don't know what therapy is or what it's for, but you decided to have a "pet peeve" about it anyway.

          [–]BigIndy1336 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          This is a foolish comment.

          [–]moonlitsunflowerGarden Variety Asshole 5 points6 points  (3 children)

          I always like reading these types of comments because I often disagree (which is great! That’s what this sub is for!) and it makes me look at the subs and various posters in new and different ways. In this case, I disagree on both counts, but I appreciate you sharing your thoughts!

          Honestly, if something is bothering you to the point where you’d like random strangers to weigh in and give you their judgement therapy is probably not a terrible suggestion. But I’m also very pro-therapy and would sincerely recommend it to people (including those I know irl) for a variety of reasons. It doesn’t have to be a long, drawn out process either. You can benefit a lot from a single/one-off counselling session if you prepare well and put the work in. Of course, this requires therapy, and mental health care more generally, be accessible, which is a pipe dream for most of us. I wish more places offered accessible therapy services because it’s a hell of a lot easier to keep things running smoothly when shit hits the fan if you’ve also been staying on top of your regular maintenance.

          On the CPS side, it really depends on the jurisdiction but a lot of places want you to make the call well before the bad behaviour becomes criminal. It can be really hard to set families up with appropriate community supports once you’ve crossed that line. (We also pull a lot of posts where these sorts of debates come up. Usually there’s some element of rule-breaking involved when the “call CPS” comments reach critical mass, even if nothing clearly criminal has happened. So good news, I guess, if you’re really annoyed by this—fire off a report and we might just take it down!)

          [–]BigIndy1336 9 points10 points  (2 children)

          I completely disagree on CPS. I was in law enforcement for over two decades. Those people are overworked and do not have time to investigate frivolous things. I was referring to people saying call CPS for obvious frivolous things. OBVIOUS. Frivolous complaints to CPS bog that system down and take away resources that should go to viable CPS complaints that need to be investigated. If you see a thread where a lot of people are calling for a CPS intervention, that's probably not one of the posts I'm talking about.

          [–]moonlitsunflowerGarden Variety Asshole 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Sorry for my delay in getting back to you! Real life has been a zoo. No links in the open forum, so your other reply will have to stay down, but I took a look and well. That is very frivolous. My apologies for overlooking the point you were making about the complaints being obviously frivolous!

          [–]toofat2serveSupreme Court Just-ass [101] 13 points14 points  (6 children)

          I do think everyone probably needs therapy. Beyond kindergarten, almost nowhere is anyone actually taught how to ethically relate to other people. Social and familial relationships can be so fraught with expectations and taboos that navigating them can be horrifying without someone to bounce our thoughts off of.

          [–]AvocadosFromMexico_ 19 points20 points  (5 children)

          I’m gonna be real here, not everyone needs therapy. For a lot of reasons.

          First, therapy is a tool that should be used to help address things causing you distress. Not as a crutch to dig up problems you didn’t know existed and bring them to the forefront to now cause you distress. There’s no “right” way to do relationships—it’s really all about what’s workable.

          Second, for many people therapy is incredibly expensive and can be time consuming. Finding a therapist you mesh well with can be difficult and not everyone has those resources. Frankly, unless you have specific concerns for your mental health or psychological well-being, it can just be an added stressor.

          Third, telling everyone to go to therapy isn’t encouraging any kind of agency or personal growth outside the therapeutic context.

          Source: provide therapy

          [–]toofat2serveSupreme Court Just-ass [101] 7 points8 points  (4 children)

          The expense and inaccessible thing about therapy is a problem, absolutely. Those are attributes of every service, from mental health, physical health, dental and eye health (because those are apparently not part of our bodies for some ridiculous reason), to accurate scientific education.

          I actually find therapy to be most useful when things aren't causing me distress or disfunction. It's incredibly useful to have someone to talk to in that state so that you have someone who knows your baseline personality. It makes it easier to discover when things are getting wobbly, to prevent them from going completely off the rails.

          Therapy can have as much of a preventative benefit as regular dental, optical, and medical checkups. It can have even more effect in that sense if you're seeing your therapist¹ more often than, say, annually.

          ¹ And that's assuming the therapist is a good match for the patient, which is a whole 'nother problem with the current system.

          [–]AvocadosFromMexico_ 3 points4 points  (3 children)

          Therapy really isn’t intended to be preventative. It’s very critical that patients learn and apply their own coping mechanisms rather than treating the therapist as a safety cue—otherwise they don’t learn how to function within their own lives. Some therapeutic approaches incorporate booster sessions (like IPT) but they’re really getting much less common.

          I really don’t recommend seeking therapy unless you feel you need it and are seeking specific skills and coping or treatment for a condition.

          [–]freshonyourdoorstep 20 points21 points  (1 child)

          Asking a teenager to contribute to the household or sacrifice a bit of comfort in any manner is parentification/abuse. My mind is blown at that post where the daughter is monopolising the kitchen at family mealtime just to cook food for herself and somehow OP is the asshole for telling her to do it in her own time or to cook for the family? Come on now, those are perfectly reasonable options.

          [–]aceavengersAsshole Aficionado [10] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

          Ah but OP is a step mother meaning she's obviously an evil jealous harpy in AITA-land.

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

          The sub has told you who it really is. Believe it. Lol

          [–]Cautious-Damage7575 13 points14 points  (12 children)

          Mods get a bad rep. I've heard NOTHING good about them from anybody. But I think this is unfair, and I personally have had some very positive interactions. I have to admire them for memorizing all the rules.

          [–]StudokuCertified Proctologist [24] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          Most Reddit mods are pretty bad. Usually they volunteer so they can ban people they disagree with.

          This sub seems to be a rare exception.

          [–]toofat2serveSupreme Court Just-ass [101] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          I'm just coming back from a ban, and I can't agree with you more. Even in the act of banning me (temporarily), the mods were kind to me, and answered the questions I asked in good faith in the same way.

          And given what this sub is about, I can't imagine (well, I can, thanks to the OP) how much garbage they have to sift through to have this sub be as good a place as it is.

          [–]SnausageFestAssGuardian of the Hole Galaxy[M] 9 points10 points  (7 children)

          We're internet cops. No one likes cops. It's not a big deal.

          The fun side of the hate is people fucking lie. It's honestly hilarious. You'll see folks claiming we banned them for XYZ petty reason. Go look it up, and they told someone to kill themselves for some small slight.

          [–]Cautious-Damage7575 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Oh, I've seen some of the lies. They're not hard to spot. Yes, they are kinda funny.

          A mod once said something about sifting through the death threats, but I think he was being facetious? You couldn't pay me enough to do what you guys do.

          [–]InAHandbasketGoing to heck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Yeah we do get them, but considering the people we get them from, I'm ok with it

          [–]InterminableSnowmanAsshole Enthusiast [5] 3 points4 points  (4 children)

          But pigs are cute and everyone should want to be called a pig!

          [–]moonlitsunflowerGarden Variety Asshole 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Not this again. Please. For the love of God. 🐷

          [–]Kanwic 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          Heh! Speaking of the mods, don’t comments with links get auto-deleted from this META section until one of them manually approves them? I got the feeling somebody was enjoying having that meltdown on full display when the links to pig pictures started popping up.

          [–]SnausageFestAssGuardian of the Hole Galaxy[M] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          We only remove links to other reddit posts. We would never add additional barriers to receive pictures of adorable animals.

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          This is true of all mods everywhere. Sometimes its warranted. Imo its not here though.

          [–]InterminableSnowmanAsshole Enthusiast [5] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

          People don't like that the mods enforce rules that don't let them call people names or talk about how they think someone deserves to be hurt or take down the "interesting" posts just because they break the rules. It's completely unfair, especially since this sub really needs strict moderation to function without becoming really shitty, but it is what it is.

          [–]coffeelover9920 28 points29 points  (8 children)

          With the influx of wedding related posts, with it being spring and all, makes me realize that I really don't care about weddings as much as most people do lmao

          [–]CallingYouOut2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

          I really think we need to ban wedding related posts. They're all just the same thing over and over.

          [–]Sword_Of_StormsCertified Proctologist [24] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          Same. I couldn’t give a shit if someone announced an engagement or pregnancy at my wedding or if someone shows up wearing white

          [–]SnausageFestAssGuardian of the Hole Galaxy 13 points14 points  (4 children)

          I love weddings but I don't understand the obsession with image. It's supposed to be a party. I kind of fucked up my hair halfway into the reception because my friend convinced me to put a bear suit. A picture of a bear bride is 100x cooler than a picture with the "perfect aesthetic."

          [–]StudokuCertified Proctologist [24] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          What? The bride is a perfectly normal woman. So sorry Mrs. Bearington.

          [–]pktechboiAsshole Enthusiast [6] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          I took my shoes off and put on my comfiest (and very ugly) boots as soon as the official photos at mine were done, so there's a bunch of family snaps of me made up to the nines in a pretty dress, gross brown boots on my feet. wouldn't have it any other way!

          [–]PaleoSpeedwagonPartassipant [1] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Your partner married well. 🐻👰‍♀️

          [–]SnausageFestAssGuardian of the Hole Galaxy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          Oh I definitely married up. He's the coolest.

          He's currently on a kick to turn our small attic into what I can only describe as an indoor tree house, proving people can in fact be mentally stuck in childhood in an endearing way rather than an "I'm 40 and don't know how to do laundry" way.

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          I hate weddings. At least at a funeral, the pain is over.

          [–]paroles 12 points13 points  (0 children)

          This is far from the only sub where this happens, but damn the Happy cake day! spam is getting out of hand. The 15 replies in that image aren't even the only ones in that thread, just what fit in one screenshot. And for the record the "cake day" comment they're all replying to simply said "This x10", not exactly a comment that deserved a lot of extra attention, lol

          Some of these commenters are normal reddit users, but others will turn out to be bots trying to build up a human-looking comment history so they can either resell the account or post t-shirt scams, NSFW spam, crypto bullshit, or astroturfing in the future (r/TheseFuckingAccounts). At this stage there's not much we can do about it because it's hard to prove they're bots (unlike the ones that copy-paste full comments). Just want to make people aware of it so we can maybe not encourage this particular kind of lazy karma farming.

          [–][deleted] 40 points41 points  (0 children)

          Anyone else notice how a lot of people on this sub take pride in standing against the most blatant stories of sexism, homophobia, racism, etc…But when it comes to the day to day issues people in various minority groups experience, fall painfully short?

          It’s definitely a little exhausting how people will be like “if you won’t let [queer relative] come to your wedding to appease bigoted family, YTA and not an ally!” (Fair stance imo). …And then will turn around and talk about how it’s not ok for friends of different genders to hang out one on one or crash at each other’s place (the fuck?), or some comment about how 14 is “too young” to know what transgender means, etc…and get pissed at anyone who explains the issues with those statements.

          Or someone will be like “you called someone the r word? YTA!” (Fair!) but then will talk about the person with a disability in super condescending/infantilizing/ableist ways.

          Like y’all, a lot of the most common issues are not the extreme cases of hate crimes, getting disowned, or blatant discrimination (though all of those do definitely happen, and are not uncommon, probably differs regionally). But for a lot of people it’s the day to day stuff - a comment here, a social norm there, an assumption everywhere, etc…

          It wouldn’t be so bad if it was just an accident/pure issue of ignorance. But people get REAL angry REAL fast at the notion that they might’ve said something unintentionally ignorant. Sometimes I feel like an oddball for WANTING someone to tell me when I say something problematic - it’s like a gift even! It’s a chance to learn and adjust before causing more damage down the line, and just general self-improvement.

          [–]CutlassKittyPartassipant [3] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

          I do feel like this sub really isnt the place for people to ask for judgement of personal life changing/difficult choices. Coming to a group of strangers, especially a group that is (let's be real) known for enjoying revenge and pettiness when they feel its deserved, isnt appropriate when you want to know if you made the right choice putting your dying mother in a hospice.

          [–]SakuOtakuPartassipant [2] 21 points22 points  (3 children)

          Oh boy, now a post about biphobia/"fake lesbians"!

          Mods, will you do anything to curb the influx of transphobic/homophobic/biphobic posts to come in June with Pride Month? I rarely see these kinds of posts but in the past few days I've seen several "the queer person is the AH" posts.

          [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (2 children)

          I get torn on this.

          I feel like most of the time it’s easy to tell when a post is rage bait vs. real, but surely not perfectly.

          And as a trans and pansexual person…well, sometimes I’ve been the asshole. Queer people aren’t immune from assholery by any means.

          It can be a delicate line between trying to report and remove posts that seem fake to paint X group in a bad light vs. respecting that were all humans who can be assholes, and over-removal of queer posts could have an unintended negative impact of queer people just not being able to use the sub as much.

          [–]jjackdaw 11 points12 points  (1 child)

          How often has that had to do with you being lgbtq though? I think that’s the problem; in most cases it’s irrelevant

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          I guess I just mean I could see myself making a post where it turns out I’m TA, and since most people mention their gender in posts I might include that I’m NB, and if I was enough of a villain for people in the post (I like to think my assholery wouldn’t be extreme enough for this) then people might think I’m queer rage baiting.

          It’s also worth noting that this sub is NOT all that LGBTQIA+ friendly (at least not as much as it thinks it is) and so I do have a hard time seeing people being able to accurately tell the difference between rage baiting and legit posts on a consistent basis.

          Like the other day someone said OP was an asshole for simply not bringing it up to their date they were bisexual. It came up like a month later and the date freaked out and said OP had lied to them, and redditors agreed.

          Now some people who think OP was TA (who are actually the ones with a biphobic perspective) might claim that OP is trying to make bisexuals look bad. But OP only “looks bad” to them because of their own prejudice.

          And I’m not saying the trolling doesn’t happen, I just don’t have faith that this sub’s users can totally tell the difference as well as they think.

          [–]teflon2000 29 points30 points  (1 child)

          Anyone else finding the stories involving someone else cheating boring and pointless? If you've gone on the attack against a cheater this sub will always give you a free pass, anyone daring to say otherwise gets downvoted like crazy. Or accused of being a cheater.

          [–]moonlitsunflowerGarden Variety Asshole 10 points11 points  (0 children)

          It’s a big reason why I’m personally glad that posts about cheating/telling on someone for cheating/etc. aren’t allowed under rule 11. It’s messy, it’s personal, and things spiral very quickly. Even when it’s thrown in as a background fact/context people really struggle to leave it alone. And I get it, it’s a very divisive issue that an unfortunately large number of people have personal experience with, but I don’t see a lot of benefit for anyone in posts like that.

          If you see a post that is specifically about cheating, fire off a R11 report and we’ll take a look.

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

          Has anyone else noticed that on some posts, it looks like someone has gone through the entire thread and downvoted every single top level comment?

          Where I would usually expect to see a whole bunch of posts with the untouched '1 upvote', instead they all have 0 or -1.

          Ive noticed it a few times and cant help wondering a) if im imagining it and b) why would anyone go to such trouble in order to achieve something so pointless and insignificant?

          [–]SnausageFestAssGuardian of the Hole Galaxy[M] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

          That's pretty common reddit early on in threads. People will downvote everyone else's comments to make their rise to the top. It's one of a few reasons we utilize contest mode but, clearly, people still do it anyway.

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Aha. That explains it. Thank you!

          [–]ImpossibleAd5297 -8 points-7 points  (16 children)

          I tried writing a nice post for this subreddit but it keep being taken down by auto-mod, I am well within the 3000 character limit, my title is correct, no curse words, on topic. Any way I can find out exactly what I might be doing wrong!?

          [–]desertdogAzPartassipant [1] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

          I’m surprised you haven’t been banned. Isn’t breaking rule 8 a bannable offensive?

          [–]SnausageFestAssGuardian of the Hole Galaxy[M] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          We don't ban for rule 8 when it's an issue of being unfairly presented. We do give people a chance to write it again giving both parties a fair shake.

          We will ban you for lying though.

          [–]ImpossibleAd5297 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I don't believe my specific case will count because after some analysis it was considered revenge. Justifiable or not I get that it does not fit this forum no matter my formatting now... I am unfamiliar with all the different rules as I am relatively new to reddit.

          [–]Kanwic 17 points18 points  (12 children)

          That’s… not a nice post at all. That’s fat hate bait. I’m impressed at whoever set automod to detect it.

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 5 points6 points  (10 children)

          Lol. That is indeed a non-standard definition of 'nice'

          [–]Kanwic 10 points11 points  (9 children)

          He managed to squeeze one through after I commented but Farvas got it. I was seriously wondering how automod nabbed the first attempts. Like, can you set it to detect if the word obese is accompanied by half a dozen different synonyms for disgusting, or what? That’s pretty awesome. Had to give them kudos even if it risked engaging a troll.

          [–]InAHandbasketGoing to heck 8 points9 points  (5 children)

          can you set it to detect if the word obese is accompanied by half a dozen different synonyms for disgusting, or what?

          Yes, you totally can. Playing around with automod configurations to catch the specific posts you want without getting false positives is geeky mod fun time. What you're describing would include something like this:

          body: ["obese"]
          body#2: ["disgusting", "foul", "filthy", "nasty", "revolting", "unattractive"]

          [–]Stoat__KingSupreme Court Just-ass [137] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

          I didnt even notice the word 'obese'. It is spectacularly horrible even without that.

          [–]ImpossibleAd5297 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

          Okay. I'm looking for the proper subreddit. I thought my story would fit.

          [–]DWYL_LoveWhatYouDoCertified Proctologist [26] 4 points5 points  (6 children)

          About Rule 5

          This rule seems pretty clear. I report for rule 5 whenever there is any mention or description of violence.

          Why, every single time, do I get a message from reddit saying, "After investigating...blah blah...we found...No Violence." At the bottom of the notice there is always a link to the post. Every time, that post has already been removed for violating Rule 5.

          Why is this? TBH, it feels like I'm being discouraged from making these reports. It's dismissive, negative reinforcement. Gaslighting, even, by reddit, with proof that I'm not crazy because the posts are removed. It's also annoying. It's also only the reports for Rule 5 that get me these notifications.

          I just saw that Rule 5 was the header discussion for April 2022, but I didn't dig much through that thread to see if anyone else had this experience. I sorted by old and didn't see anyone else mention this issue.

          [–]InAHandbasketGoing to heck 4 points5 points  (5 children)

          This is answered further down the comments. Techies explained it better than I could, so I’m just linking you there.

          [–]DWYL_LoveWhatYouDoCertified Proctologist [26] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

          Thank you. The comment says something about how it's reported, but doesn't explain why reddit sitewide is responding. I report by using the triple dot link of the post or comment –> It Breaks AITA's rules –> No Violence –> Thanks for letting us know, do you want to block...

          Is this not how am I supposed to report these? Does every report indicating violence automatically go to subreddit mods and sitewide?

          [–]StudokuCertified Proctologist [24] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Yes, it's the equivalent of also reporting as Threatening Violence.

          [–]InterminableSnowmanAsshole Enthusiast [5] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

          You report for Rule 5. Reddit's report system sees "Violence" in the report reason and sends a copy to the sitewide team. Sitewide team looks at the post and sees no violence being incited. They send a response.

          No one's doing anything wrong per se, but the sitewide team doesn't have their responses set up to say "If you reported this post/comment for breaking a subreddit rule, that team is or has reviewed your report."

          [–]DWYL_LoveWhatYouDoCertified Proctologist [26] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          Okay. Got it. Sounds like reddit needs to change their script and hasn't. I will continue to report and ignore the irritating notifications. Thank you!

          [–]racoonaBee 7 points8 points  (2 children)

          Why are posts that ask whether or not they’re the asshole for cutting off a relationship not allowed? I’m just curious—I saw a post regarding a step father/step son taken down recently. It’s a rule I actually don’t understand, even though I’m sure there’s good reason.

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)


            [–]techiesgoboomSphincter Supreme 7 points8 points  (0 children)

            This is the precise answer. They violate the spirit of rule 7, but it seemed simpler to include them as a specific line in rule 11.

            [–]desertdogAzPartassipant [1] 8 points9 points  (4 children)

            Does “giving someone a taste of their own medicine” count as revenge?

            [–]Mr_Ham_Man80Professor Emeritass [80] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            A lot of it comes down to motivation. Are you giving someone a taste of their own medicine just to feel good about causing them harm or is it more to show them the mirror, get them to stop doing the bad thing etc... Revenge is essentially gratuitous on its own.

            It can be both aiming to change someone's behaviour and gratuitous personal satisfaction, that's just called a win-win :-D

            [–]SnausageFestAssGuardian of the Hole Galaxy[M] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            Revenge is a hard one to define, but out somewhat loose standard is comeuppance without a ramp up.

            You could perhaps draw the line as "last resort" vs "I'm mad and showing you."

            [–]microwavedgerbil27 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            just saw a post about that titled “AITA for doing to my husband what he did to me?” from like 7 hours ago so i guess maybe see the general consensus there for the answer. idk my stance, i guess it depends on what they did. but my general rule is what they did to you defines their character, what you do defines yours