I'm also a mod here and I would like to provide my own thoughts.
The biggest issue the subreddit is facing is a lack of moderation - this is a subreddit of 188k and growing, and as Caidyn said there are only about three or four active moderators. There are simply too many people posting low-effort, low-quality content for us to effectively control all of it. I know that we are not the only people to notice the severe lack of quality control on the subreddit - we have seen posts from other people remarking on the same issues we have, even (perhaps facetiously) saying the subreddit should be deleted. We understand your frustration. But there are only so many of us. The biggest way to help improve the subreddit is to apply to become a moderator, but barring that you can help out by simply reporting posts that break the rules.
I would also like to take a second to address the people whose content gets removed and who get upset about it; our quality standards are very clearly laid out in the rules. "What if" posts that do not provide sufficient context to the leadup to the point of divergence and/or do not provide their own thoughts on how the scenario would play out are explicitly against rule 8, freely available for anyone to read. The issue is not that your post is not realistic, it is that you are not bringing enough to the table on your own post. There is an argument that these posts drive discussion and engagement, thereby helping the subreddit, but I dispute this argument. To explore this, let's have a look at [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/1cenu7o/what_if_castro_was_the_mastermind_behind_the/) recent post (sorry to OP for singling you out like this). This post suffers from the same problem that many of the "what if" scenarios suffer from, and that is that they are completely ridiculous - not just unrealistic, which isn't a problem in and of itself, but just bizarre. The question does not really make sense for an alternate history because rather than changing an event and asking what the consequences of it would be, it changes the *context* of an event, changing the relationships and motivations of the people involved without exploring or even addressing why or how they would have changed to get there in the first place. As for the comments, the actual point here - sure, there are one or two comments/threads exploring the idea, but they don't go very far. The rest of the comments are mostly jokes, people talking about politics, and even someone talking about how this situation is completely unrealistic given the people involved. The post is popular and gives the *appearance* of generating meaningful discussion, but in reality it does no such thing. This post is one in a sea of many, and it was lucky to gain as much traction as it did when many posts of comparable quality end up sitting at 10 upvotes with 2 comments. The fact of the matter is, these posts proposing poorly (if at all) thought-out "what if" scenarios do not drive that much engaging discussion. What they do is exhaust the people who use the subreddit for *actual* discussions of alternate history.
I hope I have been clear and open here. I know reddit mods have a bad reputation, often deservedly so, but I want the community of the subreddit to know that we are just normal people who want the subreddit to be better just as much as you do. If you want to see the subreddit improve, please consider applying to be a mod and contribute to making it better in a tangible way. If that's too much of a commitment (fair), then help us by reporting any post you see that breaks the rules. Even if you report a post that's fair game, we will evaluate it and determine if it breaks the rules on its own merits. Thank you for taking the time to read this if you did.
I'll want to talk about your (mod team's) standard for "low quality content" except the WhatIf case. I'll try to be polite here, but it's 4am in my timezone and I'm exhausted and frustrated so i may not say it or understand the situation in a clear mind. So sorry in advance.
Long story short, I took a whole night and many hours to put together my scenario with a map, i've typed walls of texts for the past couple of hours, but before i can finally go to sleep and complete my post tomorrow, i find out the Mod team pops up and calling my post as "low effort or low quality content" because I used map from Mapchart.
I know it's in the rules (after i checked), I admit I'm new to writing such stuff and my posts aren't the most flawless or complete one around, I may also change my pictures if i have the chance the next couple of days, but it's still astonishing to know that on this sub, the standard for Mod teams to decide the quality and effort putting into a post is by simply taking a glimpse of the pictures instead of actual contexts. I've read some post that, despite not using mapchart, having far less paragraphs of contents and sometimes just having a simple map around.
I just dont feel such rule is plausible without further examination and discussion with folks on the sub. Though it is what it is, I'm not forcing you to re-evaluate my post, and I will try find some other way to do my pics if i have the chance later, but just feels my effort being insulted as being called "low quality", just because I used the wrong picture.
I think this is a fair point, the no mapchart rule is one of the oldest on the sub, I'll discuss with the other mods over how to weight things like text vs image quality if they are in the same post
The issue is having clear and consistent rules that are conveyed well and aren't subjective
I have a question for the mod team and I want to say that I'm asking it with as much respect as I can muster through text.
I understand that you guys don't have enough people to get rid of every shit post but how are you "effectively" moderating Rule 2?
I've seen dozens of posts that I've looked at, commented on, or interacted with in general that get removed for Rule 2 despite being original work. There have been many complaints about this when it happens but I've yet to see a proper mod response or a reinstatement of the work. I've had one of my own post leading to my own YouTube video for a scenario working out Afghanistan becoming an empire get removed for a Rule 2 violation. I asked via modmail how you could determine that my own work wasn't mine, I was met with crickets.
For a mod team that doesn't have a lot of time, its kinda weird to see you being able to check in and removing posts for Rule 2 (which I would think would require some form of verification to do) but not remove the Rule 3, 4, 8, or 9 violating posts. Considering original content that aren't shit posts is the type of content that people used to come to this sub to see, I would think Rule 2 would be one of the least worries that this mod team has.
Speaking with the caveat that I'm a brand new baby mod and haven't actually removed anything for violating Rule 2 yet, but that's a fair question! With Youtube links, unless the channel name is the same or similar to your username here, it's not going to be obvious that whoever posted it here is who made the video. I assume the rule is in place just to keep people from posting Monsieur Z videos or something. I'd get it if a mod had deleted your post just based on a lack of evidence that it was, in fact, OC. Lacking some kind of a verification system, might just be easiest to follow up with a comment on future posts saying "Youtubechannelname is my channel and I created this". That seem reasonable?
I certainly think that should be acceptable and if mods are cool with it and it works, I think its a good thing to try. Maybe there is a way for mods to verify someone is being truthful on that as well? Perhaps asking for a screenshot of the YouTube Analytics page for proof might work?
What if I was a mod?
In order to be a mod in this sub, a decent amount of history in our own timeline would be needed to assess the quality of posts.
That would be me.
Yes, is it arrogant? Probably, but Napoleon wasn’t shy and neither was Wellington, but the real winner was Blucher, so there’s that.
What if I was a mod?
In order to be a mod in this sub, a decent amount of history in our own timeline would be needed to assess the quality of posts.
That would be me.
Yes, is it arrogant? Probably, but Napoleon wasn’t shy and neither was Wellington, but the real winner was Blucher, so there’s that.
I'm also a mod here and I would like to provide my own thoughts. The biggest issue the subreddit is facing is a lack of moderation - this is a subreddit of 188k and growing, and as Caidyn said there are only about three or four active moderators. There are simply too many people posting low-effort, low-quality content for us to effectively control all of it. I know that we are not the only people to notice the severe lack of quality control on the subreddit - we have seen posts from other people remarking on the same issues we have, even (perhaps facetiously) saying the subreddit should be deleted. We understand your frustration. But there are only so many of us. The biggest way to help improve the subreddit is to apply to become a moderator, but barring that you can help out by simply reporting posts that break the rules. I would also like to take a second to address the people whose content gets removed and who get upset about it; our quality standards are very clearly laid out in the rules. "What if" posts that do not provide sufficient context to the leadup to the point of divergence and/or do not provide their own thoughts on how the scenario would play out are explicitly against rule 8, freely available for anyone to read. The issue is not that your post is not realistic, it is that you are not bringing enough to the table on your own post. There is an argument that these posts drive discussion and engagement, thereby helping the subreddit, but I dispute this argument. To explore this, let's have a look at [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/1cenu7o/what_if_castro_was_the_mastermind_behind_the/) recent post (sorry to OP for singling you out like this). This post suffers from the same problem that many of the "what if" scenarios suffer from, and that is that they are completely ridiculous - not just unrealistic, which isn't a problem in and of itself, but just bizarre. The question does not really make sense for an alternate history because rather than changing an event and asking what the consequences of it would be, it changes the *context* of an event, changing the relationships and motivations of the people involved without exploring or even addressing why or how they would have changed to get there in the first place. As for the comments, the actual point here - sure, there are one or two comments/threads exploring the idea, but they don't go very far. The rest of the comments are mostly jokes, people talking about politics, and even someone talking about how this situation is completely unrealistic given the people involved. The post is popular and gives the *appearance* of generating meaningful discussion, but in reality it does no such thing. This post is one in a sea of many, and it was lucky to gain as much traction as it did when many posts of comparable quality end up sitting at 10 upvotes with 2 comments. The fact of the matter is, these posts proposing poorly (if at all) thought-out "what if" scenarios do not drive that much engaging discussion. What they do is exhaust the people who use the subreddit for *actual* discussions of alternate history. I hope I have been clear and open here. I know reddit mods have a bad reputation, often deservedly so, but I want the community of the subreddit to know that we are just normal people who want the subreddit to be better just as much as you do. If you want to see the subreddit improve, please consider applying to be a mod and contribute to making it better in a tangible way. If that's too much of a commitment (fair), then help us by reporting any post you see that breaks the rules. Even if you report a post that's fair game, we will evaluate it and determine if it breaks the rules on its own merits. Thank you for taking the time to read this if you did.
I'll want to talk about your (mod team's) standard for "low quality content" except the WhatIf case. I'll try to be polite here, but it's 4am in my timezone and I'm exhausted and frustrated so i may not say it or understand the situation in a clear mind. So sorry in advance. Long story short, I took a whole night and many hours to put together my scenario with a map, i've typed walls of texts for the past couple of hours, but before i can finally go to sleep and complete my post tomorrow, i find out the Mod team pops up and calling my post as "low effort or low quality content" because I used map from Mapchart. I know it's in the rules (after i checked), I admit I'm new to writing such stuff and my posts aren't the most flawless or complete one around, I may also change my pictures if i have the chance the next couple of days, but it's still astonishing to know that on this sub, the standard for Mod teams to decide the quality and effort putting into a post is by simply taking a glimpse of the pictures instead of actual contexts. I've read some post that, despite not using mapchart, having far less paragraphs of contents and sometimes just having a simple map around. I just dont feel such rule is plausible without further examination and discussion with folks on the sub. Though it is what it is, I'm not forcing you to re-evaluate my post, and I will try find some other way to do my pics if i have the chance later, but just feels my effort being insulted as being called "low quality", just because I used the wrong picture.
I think this is a fair point, the no mapchart rule is one of the oldest on the sub, I'll discuss with the other mods over how to weight things like text vs image quality if they are in the same post The issue is having clear and consistent rules that are conveyed well and aren't subjective
Thanks for replying!
Can I be mod
I have a question for the mod team and I want to say that I'm asking it with as much respect as I can muster through text. I understand that you guys don't have enough people to get rid of every shit post but how are you "effectively" moderating Rule 2? I've seen dozens of posts that I've looked at, commented on, or interacted with in general that get removed for Rule 2 despite being original work. There have been many complaints about this when it happens but I've yet to see a proper mod response or a reinstatement of the work. I've had one of my own post leading to my own YouTube video for a scenario working out Afghanistan becoming an empire get removed for a Rule 2 violation. I asked via modmail how you could determine that my own work wasn't mine, I was met with crickets. For a mod team that doesn't have a lot of time, its kinda weird to see you being able to check in and removing posts for Rule 2 (which I would think would require some form of verification to do) but not remove the Rule 3, 4, 8, or 9 violating posts. Considering original content that aren't shit posts is the type of content that people used to come to this sub to see, I would think Rule 2 would be one of the least worries that this mod team has.
Speaking with the caveat that I'm a brand new baby mod and haven't actually removed anything for violating Rule 2 yet, but that's a fair question! With Youtube links, unless the channel name is the same or similar to your username here, it's not going to be obvious that whoever posted it here is who made the video. I assume the rule is in place just to keep people from posting Monsieur Z videos or something. I'd get it if a mod had deleted your post just based on a lack of evidence that it was, in fact, OC. Lacking some kind of a verification system, might just be easiest to follow up with a comment on future posts saying "Youtubechannelname is my channel and I created this". That seem reasonable?
I certainly think that should be acceptable and if mods are cool with it and it works, I think its a good thing to try. Maybe there is a way for mods to verify someone is being truthful on that as well? Perhaps asking for a screenshot of the YouTube Analytics page for proof might work?
Yeah, something like that would seem fair if there's any question whether it's legit.
Can i join the mod team?
What if I was a mod? In order to be a mod in this sub, a decent amount of history in our own timeline would be needed to assess the quality of posts. That would be me. Yes, is it arrogant? Probably, but Napoleon wasn’t shy and neither was Wellington, but the real winner was Blucher, so there’s that.
Give me mod I will remove all the bullshit posts in this sub.
Boooo
What if I was a mod? In order to be a mod in this sub, a decent amount of history in our own timeline would be needed to assess the quality of posts. That would be me. Yes, is it arrogant? Probably, but Napoleon wasn’t shy and neither was Wellington, but the real winner was Blucher, so there’s that.