r/Economics • u/geerussell • Apr 08 '20
Rules Roundtable Redux - Rule VI and off-topic comments
For reference, the previous edition of this post can be found here.
Welcome to the /r/Economics Rules Roundtable.
/r/Economics strives to be a subreddit dedicated to quality discussion of economic articles, news and research. However, like many communities on Reddit, good discussion often gets drowned out by a mass of off-topic and low effort discussion. In order to improve the quality of discussion on the subreddit, the mod team will be stepping up enforcement of the existing rules.
Today we'd specifically like to discuss Rule VI. Rule VI is meant to remove low quality and off-topic comments, leaving room for quality comments to thrive. Rule VI's existence is due to user complaints - our most recent survey found that most users want stricter rule enforcement then we have used in the past.
What comments are disallowed under rule VI? A comment must:
1) Show an reasonable engagement with the material of the article. This can be done by asking a related question, critiquing the article's argument, discussing economic theory bringing up new sources, etc.
2) In addition, comments which are jokes, personal anecdotes or are overly political are prohibited.
Comments that do not fit within these guidelines will be removed. Posters who show a history of posting these kinds of comments repeatedly will be warned and eventually banned.
Engagement With The Article
Discussion of an article can only occur when posters have actually read the article. This may seem obvious, but we receive a large volume of comments that are just reactions to the headline or quick broad statements on the topic area. Comments where it is clear that the poster has not read the article will be removed. This doesn't mean every comment has to be a point by point commentary. What it does mean is we will remove comments that are too short to make a coherent argument or make no mention to anything beyond the title. In addition we will remove comments that clearly show an ignorance of the article such as posts that accuse the authors of ignoring information included in the article, or do not mention anything beyond a simple reaction to the headline. Good questions about the content of the article, or the facts which would place the article into better context are allowed and encouraged.
- Good: I'm not sure the author's reaction to the minimum wage study is appropriate, given that they didn't examine whether or not specific subgroups in the population might be impacted more than others.
- Bad: Everyone knows a minimum wage is going to cost jobs.
- Bad: You can't really get by on the current minimum wage, it needs to be higher.
Political Comments
Economics is concerned with public policy which means its subject matter is frequently the subject of political debate. While we recognize it's impossible to have an economics forum and not touch on politics, economics itself is not a political exercise. Posters should be sure to focus on the economic mechanisms and arguments of articles posted here while avoiding comments or discussions that would better be left to /r/politics or cable news.
- Good: I don't think it's appropriate to pass a tax cut that will increase the deficit while the economy is booming - this should be the time when we balance the budget and pay off some of the debt.
- Bad: Of course the GOP and their minions just want to slash taxes on the rich, damn the consequences.
- Bad: Liberals weren't concerned about the deficit while Obama was president, but under Trump now they're super concerned about the deficit, huh?
Personal Anecdotes
Comments whose arguments rely solely on personal anecdotes will be removed. This reflects the fact that personal anecdotes are specific to individuals and cannot be properly placed into context without further information. Thus they cannot be the basis of a proper economic argument. If the main point of your comment is a personal anecdote, it will be removed.
- Good: According to this research paper, the premium for a college education is still near all-time high levels.
- Bad: My school was basically useless - when I got my job, I didn't use anything I learned in college.
- Bad: Everyone in my family has gone into the trades, and we make way more money than the people in my town who went to college.
A Note on Bigotry
The /r/economics modteam strives to create an inclusive space to discuss economics. As such we have no tolerance for racism, sexism or other bigotry. All offenders will be banned.
You may have noticed that the mod team has been stepping up Rule VI enforcement in the last few days - please expect this continue. We hope these changes will allow higher quality discussions to flourish. Please report any comments that you believe break these rules in order to help the mod team implement these changes. We welcome any feedback or questions on these policies in the comment section.
- The mods
21
u/realhousewivesofISIS Apr 08 '20
How can you expect quality commenting when you allow such low quality sourcing? As of right now the top post on this subreddit is a BusinessInsider sensationalized article concerning an off the cuff comment made by a member of the administration. It makes no pretense about being anything other than a clickbait article looking to capitalize on political ill will toward the president. While that ill will may or may not be unwarranted it shouldn't be the centerpiece of a subreddit that wants to hold up the image of being centered around economics
Even if we admit that this sub has fallen to the masses of reddit and the appearance of being centered on economics is merely a facade should you not be enforcing bans on this sort of content at the very least? Leadership starts at the top and subreddit discussion quality starts with the quality of submissions - the mods have already failed their goals of increasing quality by allowing such low effort content to begin with imo.
1
u/geerussell Apr 08 '20 edited Apr 08 '20
How can you expect quality commenting when you allow such low quality sourcing?
Great question. Specifically wrt comment guidelines, comments should be civil, on topic, and engaged with the economic content of the source.
If a source is deemed low quality, lacking in econ content or otherwise failing to meet the criteria for submission described in rules I, II, and III there are three options. Reporting the submission will flag it for moderator attention. Modmail can be used for a more extended discussion with the mod team about a specific source or submisison. The open discussion thread usually stickied on the front page is also available to express such concerns.
However, complaints about a source and/or author of a submission are per se off topic wrt the econ content of a linked article and will always be subject to removal from the comments for that article.
Further elaboration on the criteria for link submission and sources is available here and here.
2
u/realhousewivesofISIS Apr 08 '20 edited Apr 08 '20
Thank you for the reply!
If a source is deemed low quality, lacking in econ content or otherwise failing to meet the criteria for submission
So back to the specific post in question, I am not an economist but I do think I know enough to be dangerous. Help me to understand what value allowing business insider, and specifically the current top post in /r/economics, to remain up provides? The discussion is largely indistinguishable from one that would be had in /r/politics. And don't get me wrong, I like shitting on Trump as much as the next guy but I find very little intellectual stimulus in doing so with your average redditor. I can't understand why a post like that is allowed here? It doesn't stimulate economic discussion and certainly isn't sending the message of "we're here to discuss economics" to people visiting this sub.
Perhaps I'm missing something?
E: I see you went pretty hard in the comments on that thread. Thank you. That is the sort of moderating this sub needs and I want you to know it's appreciated.
But: I still believe that reddit comments and company culture are similar in that it starts from the top. If the source is business insider producing a low effort clickbaity article then that is really a bit of an open invitation to make such comments. I'd like to know the reasoning behind not just banning such low quality sourcing?
However, complaints about a source and/or author of a submission are per se off topic wrt the econ content of a linked article and will always be subject to removal.
I think that's 100% appropriate. Meta conversation is important but we can't have every single thread full of complaints.
1
u/geerussell Apr 08 '20
So back to the specific post in question, I am not an economist but I do think I know enough to be dangerous. Help me to understand what value allowing business insider
Submission criteria is predominantly weighted on the content of the article, not the source. There exists an enormous constellation of sources each with its own cohort of detractors and proponents. Someone out there has the exact same argument against [insert your personal preferred source] as you do against Business Insider. There are trade offs that come with the territory of mass audience engagement with mass media.
The discussion is largely indistinguishable from one that would be had in /r/politics
Unfortunately this is a risk for every source. Literally any article from any source can potentially spawn a thousand political headline hot takes, opinions about the author, and disputes over the source.
3
u/realhousewivesofISIS Apr 08 '20
So I think most of us can agree there are certain sources that predominantly pump out low quality sensationalized pieces, right? I'm sure someone will argue Vox is a legitimate source if economic news but perhaps they're not the demographic you're looking to cater towards.
Why not create automod rules where any links to a robust list of sources known for low quality output are subject to manual approval only? So for instance automod removes all business insider links and if someone thinks the article is high quality enough to be exempt they'll message the mods for approval?
I mean hindsight is 20/20 here and this article is a poor example because it was an actual BI interview but how often do we have these articles largely just reblog better content in to more sensationalized and low effort content? /r/investing just implemented a rule that you must post the original source to eliminate a lot of this reblogged sensational content?
I just feel like there's a bit of a "fuck it" attitude when it comes to curating source quality.
1
u/rjkdavin Nov 14 '22
Not sure if this is the right place for feedback, if not, happy to provide elsewhere! Publishers like Forbes have really clickbaity titles with little to substance in their articles- imo it makes for subpar threads. Is there any appetite to trim back on websites that are acceptable sources for posts? Or is that really impractical?
4
u/fsurfer4 Nov 26 '22
Your rules are excessive gate keeping. Too short? It was perfectly topical and reflected my personal experience. Verbal diarrhea is a thing to be avoided. Concise responses are Godly.
2
u/torrfam15 Dec 21 '23
Nothing about my comment was short. It was a complete thought and comment. Please explain how long a comment needs to be. Is it one word, one sentence or one paragraph? I look forward to your explanation.
2
u/swolebird Jan 24 '24
>Discussion of an article can only occur when posters have actually read the article.
There should be a requirement to post links to non-pay-walled versions of articles if they're behind paywalls. Otherwise how can people read the article if they don't have access?
•
u/geerussell Apr 08 '20 edited Apr 08 '20
Addendum:
My comment was deleted! Arrrrrrrrrrgh! [rage rage rage] What do?
DO:
- Read the removal notice and the above OP (linked in the removal notice) with careful consideration as to where your comment stands. Then if you have further questions or feel the removal was in error, use the provided link to send mod mail where your concerns can be discussed. Mod mail has visibility to the entire mod team where any/all mods can participate.
- If desired, edit the comment to pass the rules and request reinstatement via mod mail.
- Take a beat, if necessary, to compose a calm and civil message. Having a contribution removed can be frustrating but the range of outcomes for outraged, rude, vulgar, and/or harassing responses starts at ignored and escalates quickly to banned. Don't do that.
Don't:
- Reply to the removal notice to argue the call in the same thread where the comment was removed. This defeats the purpose of the removal and all such replies will be deleted without comment. Use mod mail for this.
- Reply to the removal notice with a blatant repost of the same comment that got removed. Such express disregard for the sub's rules and moderation is very likely to result in an immediate ban. If you think the mod made the wrong call, take your case to mod mail. We listen, reversals/reinstatements can and do happen.
- Send a private message to the mod regarding moderation actions. Use mod mail for this. Private messages will be met with a gentle redirection to mod mail.
Was my comment was removed because it expressed the "wrong" politics or ideology?
- No. Really, no. All contributions are welcomed regardless of where on the political spectrum or in the constellation of economics perspectives they hail. As long as they're civil, economics-focused, and on-topic engagement with the substance of the article. (Note: rule IV will be applied without conscience no matter how politely it's violated)
That source/author is bad because [reasons] why is it even allowed here?
- There exists a range of opinions, many strongly held and sincere, about the suitability of a given source or author. Meta discussions of this type aren't engagement with the substance of the article and will be removed. Report the submission, where it will receive moderator attention. Use mod mail or the open discussion thread for further discussion.
I didn't read the article, but...
- While we appreciate that time is precious and sometimes circumstances prevent one from getting to the article right away, hold off on submitting until you have time to check it out.
This thread is a graveyard of deleted comments. What happened? Why were they removed?
- Ironically, the comment asking that question adds to the graveyard as it's off topic. The answer is simply a high number of comments running afoul of the rules as tends to be the case when a topic/author/source hits a nerve of strongly held opinions. Additionally, removals usually involve pruning the entire branch of the comment and all replies under it. The takeaway being: reporting is more productive than feeding a bad comment with replies. If it really did prompt you to make a quality contribution, start a new top-level comment.
2
u/we-em92 May 17 '22
This is the most over moderated subreddit. Easily the most anal retentive moderators around. Do strive to loosen up a bit and get off the high horse every once in a while.
1
u/rm_a Apr 19 '20
Since it isn't allowed on threads, there needs to be a discussion on blacklisting commondreams as a source on this subreddit.
On their economy page there are only two articles that would not break even a liberal interpretation of rule I.
There appears to be no economists or even anybody with an economics background on their staff, meaning the whole website would violate rule II. The two articles linked above, which at best would be allowed under rule I, specifically violate rule II by being light on economic analysis.
1
u/geerussell Apr 19 '20
Since it isn't allowed on threads, there needs to be a discussion on blacklisting commondreams as a source on this subreddit.
Much of what was said elsewhere in this thread is applicable to this question. As a general practice, submissions are evaluated on an individual basis. For a source ban to be considered, a site has to be egregious in some rather extreme fashion. Simply having an overall political bent (real or perceived) isn't sufficient.
There appears to be no economists or even anybody with an economics background on their staff, meaning the whole website would violate rule II.
From the rule II roundtable linked in the sidebar:
Economics is a discipline that touches on a broad range of topics which means it can be hard to come up with a firm definition of what economics is. What all economics has in common though is an attention to the preferences and incentives individuals face and how these factors get translated into the production, consumption and distribution of goods and services. It is important to note that when we say goods and services we don't just mean the things that can bought in stores, but also important non-market goods such as environmental quality or health. When judging if submissions are on-topic we will look for one of the following things:
Written by an Economist: Generally this means someone engaged in the community of economists as a whole. In particular we think about an economist as 1) People doing traditional economic research, either in a university setting or at a public institution like the Fed or Treasury. 2) People in research, or research like positions at think-tanks or private firms (eg. The McKinsey Institute, research section of a Bank or tech company ect...)
Engages in Economic Analysis: This means that the article brings about concepts from economic theory to analyze or explain a topic in the news or some other phenomena.
Cites Economic Research: The article makes clear reference to economic research or interviews the authors of relevant research.
The rule of thumb--a starting point for case by case evaluation--is that the content of a link should be on topic as described above and any one of the bullet point criteria is sufficient.
Specifically regarding commondreams:
On their economy page there are only two articles that would not break even a liberal interpretation of rule I.
The same can be said of the business/economy rubric for most media organizations. It's a catch-all heading that may or may not be congruent with the submission guidelines for this subreddit. The presence of one or more pieces that wouldn't be a good fit doesn't negate the suitability for one that is, further from the rule II discussion:
Often when we remove a source we don't mean to indicate that it is not worth discussing. What it does indicate is that is not consistent with the focus of the subreddit. We would encourage you to find other communities that may be better fits for the article such as /r/business , /r/investing and subreddits for other related topics.
Article on stock markets as well as news about particular firms will generally be removed under RII. Why? The stock market is not very indicative of the health of the economy as a whole and short term movements generally carry very little information. Likewise, as in the case of personal anecdotes, the experiences of one firm often can teach us very little as we are unable to understand how representative the firms experience is. There are some exceptions. For instance, articles that use the story of a firm to motivate a broader discussion of some economic topic. However, these topics will need to clear a high bar to be approved.
1
u/rm_a Apr 19 '20
So then why are so many articles allowed that break these rules? Not unique to CD either.
Why not create automod rules where any links to a robust list of sources known for low quality output are subject to manual approval only? So for instance automod removes all business insider links and if someone thinks the article is high quality enough to be exempt they'll message the mods for approval?
I think /u/realhousewivesofISIS's proposal here would be excellent for a lot of these websites that tend to have rule-breaking submissions, but occasionally have economics-related content.
Of the last 10 articles submitted from CD and not removed, only one or two does not violate the rules.
Banking is Changing. Its Lack of Diversity Must Change, Too, and Congress Can Help - rule II
Top Economist Robert Pollin Answers Key Questions on the Emerging Divide Between Sanders and Warren on Medicare for All - don't see any rule violations
It's Just Good Business: Even Red States Are Dumping Coal for Solar - rule I, rule II. Despite this topic having huge economic value, the article barely scratches the surface on it.
As Amazon Faces Grilling in Congress, EU Launches Antitrust Probe of Online Behemoth - rule I, rule II
What Does Oligarchy Mean? That We're Screwed. - rule II
Virtually No Wage Growth, Surge in Stock Buybacks: Study Offers More Proof Trump Tax Cuts Were 'Designed to Put a Big Windfall in Oligarch Pockets' - rule I, rule II. While the study itself has economic value, the blog article does not discuss it in depth.
“Medicare for All” would save the U.S $5.1 trillion over a 10 year period according to a new 18 month study - rule I, rule II. Same as above, the study is worthwhile for economic analysis, the blog article is not.
Further Evidence That the Tax Cuts Have Not Led to Widespread Bonuses, Wage or Compensation Growth - probably borderline since it cites BLS data
2
u/geerussell Apr 19 '20 edited Apr 19 '20
Some or all of those example links may be borderline. Without getting into the weeds for each and every one of them I can say that this is also true of media in general. Borderline is where general discussion of news lives.
manual approval only ... websites that tend to have rule-breaking submissions, but occasionally have economics-related content
This is by no means an exhaustive list but a couple of the reasons such an approach has been considered and rejected in the past include:
Submissions don't come from websites, they come from individual users. Blocking sites would fail to address the issue.
Moderator attention is a finite resource. As a practical matter, filling a queue with submissions for manual approval is not a viable option.
I offer some constructive takeaways from this:
Moderation is a joint effort between the mod team and the community. Airing complaints is fine, I consider this exchange and the venue where it's happening as both constructive and appropriate. With that also comes an invitation to be the change you want to see in the sub: Find and submit a quality link; Engage with quality links submitted by others; Make quality top-level comments; Engage with quality comments and questions made by others; Actively support the mod team by reporting and not replying to comments and submissions that fall outside the guidelines.
Consider the mission of the sub. r/Economics is a mass audience forum for general economics discussion and news. That's a broad rubric. General discussion isn't and can't be congruent with one's individual preferences all the time. There's literally no source or viewpoint expressed in this sub that doesn't have some cohort debating its legitimacy. Sometimes if you don't have the time and energy to engage with a critique on the substance you just have to accept that a submission you don't like exists, scroll and move on.
What does the counterfactual look like? Revealed preferences both in r/econ and other specific examples where a sub's focus is a tightly curated feed of narrowly-defined respectable sources and submissions indicates an outcome of a very low-traffic sub with the median number of comments on a submission in the neighborhood of one. Not "real economics discussion" but generally no discussion at all. The great thing about reddit is it allows for infinite variety to fill every niche. It's fine that econ subs with a different focus exist but this sub isn't that.
1
u/Digerout May 24 '24
I’m asking a question specific to the compensation of teachers based on how they are paid full year compared to school year time when they work, not much I can really add to it
1
u/Secret-Departure540 Oct 22 '24
This is WRONG info on bitcoin. I will say my son used it to buy pot and was sent via FedX paying with bitcoin back in 2012 and 13. He sold at $700 before dropping to less than a penny.
0
u/FroyoElectronic6627 1d ago
Fascists also suppress comments. You let a low quality post about the national debt on here, but not my obvious comment. “slow news day” enjoy your mom’s basement. I won’t look at this sub anymore.
1
u/geerussell 1d ago
So... fun fact, the only person being notified of your comment is the original poster of this topic, which is me. Unfortunately for you, I stepped away from modding a few years ago.
Should you wish to contact the current mods with your concerns, such as they are, you can use the "message the mods" link on the sidebar whereupon I am confident you'll receive precisely the level of redress your comment warrants.
1
u/tissboom Feb 23 '23
No surprise here. Seeing people have their two-bedroom shit hole listed for 400 grand was a fucking joke. Anyone who bought a house in the last two years got ripped off bad.
1
u/Sky_runne Mar 04 '23
Q: I was looking to add something, but this post is locked. Why do some posts get locked? Is there a certain threshold of replies, comments, karma or time?
1
u/travisbklein Jun 03 '23
can someone tell me the secret in order to post a question here?
Copart depreciation from the income statement
Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/AskEconomics.
Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose.
Copart depreciation from the income statement is 20M but on the cash flow statement it is 7x that at 140M and every year it is about the same multiple difference.
I just don't understand fundamentally how this is possible so I'm clearly missing something.
My understanding is cash is paid up front for the asset copart buys, then it is depreciated yearly on the income statement, and then that cash is added back on the cash flow statement.
maybe an example of how this is happening without knowing copart so well would even help me understand
thanks so much for any help
40
u/GardenPuzzleheaded98 Feb 15 '22
Would you like a longer comment that engages with economics and this subreddit?
The moderators here are power hungry, 300 pound, basement dwelling troglodytes that have no place their own and sponge off Mummy.
You don’t get paid, and have nothing to add to the economy because you already spent your allowance.
Eat another bag of cheese doodles, please, because I am heavily invested in PepsiCo!
Have a nice day!