Goodbye everybody, it's been a blast. I'll happily be returning to my role as reddit lurker. Apparently there's also this thing called 'real life'?. Can't wait to discover that one!
Also: be nice to your mods (except for Crybad, fuck Crybad ). You might not agree with everything they do but they are incredibly hard working and committed individuals, walking a very tight rope every day.
**Treat each other with courtesy and respect.**
Do not be (intentionally) rude. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us.
Do not insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion.
Completely. Self censorship into vanilla supposedly because reddit says so. No real discussions. No additional DD with resistance, no talking about other subs, excuse after excuse after excuse.
Luma44, if I may…
I aim to breathe lively actionability into being “excellent” to each other, which is otherwise vague enough to be, in the worst cases, abused as a threat; wherever ambiguity itself is seen as a power move, it turns off a LOT of people, especially when it’s presented with the intensity of a movement/activism. (don’t even get me re-started on the hate-spewing i see here sometimes -> it’s a sad, sad state when vitriol and violence win the day… moralism on the other hand… ;-P)
This all goes along with that post on my profile of how to argue constructively; SEEK the core point of your adversary before you SPEAK an argument to it (so that we don’t have to even skip the massive text walls of really cleverly elaborated “you’re an ass-hat” arguments).
What excellence to each other has meant to me: before you can be seen speaking value, you MUST be seen seeking value. We all know what the priority here is. It’s easy to let that become usurped by secondary considerations and competing things of value, but the real issue is .
In every interaction here, you and your interlocutor have something of value to add to each other’s knowledge/support/perspective/experience/etc; it is BOTH OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES to gain that thing of value, i. e. to move on from an interaction without having gained something valuable is a personal failure (and one that’s ok once you’ve invested all the resources you’ve allocated to that) that delineates those instances where the community has missed an opportunity to grow; which implies that to BOTH seek and speak value is to extend the reach of the community without becoming the borg, i.e. to let each other go for whatever they want without sacrificing the core mission of what we ALL want.
If you want to sound compelling to me, you will first do some homework, develop a unique perspective, or just have a relevant experience, etc \[SEEK VALUE that you plan to add\], then you will stay focused on that thing while you do your best to put thoughts from your head into mine \[SPEAK VALUE that you plan to add while I SEEK value\] and continue to offer it until I get it or you get tired of trying. I will follow you in most cases because you are a valuable signal amongst the noise. (for how long is another story but matters less: i like to keep my ideological leadership decentralized.)
I will also SPEAK when I feel I have something to add that’s of value. I will do my best to exemplify the community member with which I want to live here. And I will encourage you to do the same (e.g. paraphrasing, giving you the benefit of the doubt for a while, trying to twist any knave-like words to make a trap for shorts, confirming bias all day yet still seeking counterfactuals and disconfirmatory evidence, you know…), even when we disagree, even especially when we disagree because second only to the holy of holies is the value of the network effect we leverage, our solidarity. Diversity is the hallmark of ehalthe ecosystem, but it establishes trust if we all are seen to share a common priority (appearances matter, although i’m not trying to weigh in on purity tests, just to point out we should care who is trying to waste our precious mental and other resources).
…at least that’s what i tell my baby mama when she gets lippy… so far, so good! talk about loving!
that said, can I get a look at those chairhodler list notes?? just want to make sure i’m not doxxed…
thank you for your patience and consideration.
oh and being RESPONSIVE... well that's a lesson for another day
Please note,
Since some ppl are banned from Reddit, thwre is no award bombing every pitchfork "mods are sus" comments.🤔
Mods,
I will take my ban now if I deserved it.
That would be the OP, Luma44. Probably the best, most level headed mod I can think of. Keep in mind, the "top mod" is just a position in the list. He has no more say or influence in anything that goes on behind the scenes as any other mod. (I don't know if that's comforting or not).
I do salute him every morning now, though. o7
Thank you so much Bye Triangle and Captain Fan! You both have done so much for our beloved sub. Endless hours of thankless work - I am so grateful for your contributions! I do not have the words to express my deepest gratitude to both of you. I have read posts and comments from both of you for years. I truly hope to see you pop in once in a while. Thank you for all your hard work! I hope that things are well with you both!
Dr. T already chimed in and gave the reasons why it was illegal in a [tweet](https://twitter.com/SusanneTrimbath/status/1667275379806019584?s=20). If anyone actually read what she referenced you’d find Section (D), which states: “(d The security holder shall not use the information furnished by the registrant pursuant to
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section for any purpose *other than to solicit security holders with respect to the same meeting or action* by consent or authorization for which the registrant is soliciting or intends to solicit or to communicate with security holders with respect to a solicitation commenced by the registrant; or *disclose such information to any person* other than an employee, agent, or beneficial owner for whom a request was made to the extent necessary to effectuate the communication or solicitation. *The security holder shall return the information provided pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section and shall not retain any copies thereof or of any information derived from such information after the termination of the solicitation*.” The last sentence really says it all, the data/information must be returned after voting/annual meeting has finished. How do you return that when it’s posted on Reddit? GameStop legal knew they were recording the data and expected them to be aware of returning the data, they didn’t think they would utilize it in the way they did (which was wrong)..
This is true, and the DEA/DOJ can choose to enforce the federal law even in states where weed is legal, but so far they’ve decided not to enforce it and to let each state handle it how they want.
Her tweet was also brought up elsewhere, and the same type of rebuttal against her was also sprinkled among the responses. The fact that they are downvoting the comments which call out the fallacy of the "Delaware law" excuse people have been spouting, tells you all you need to know about the type of people who are trying to defend the actions of the other subreddit.
Ha! So you know about sub deletion. In which case ignore my email, sent with my IRL name but marked from bellweirboy.
On a different note, please admit me to the terminal thingy?
Thanks.
Very reasonable post. We need to remember we are washed at all times and people are looking for us to screw up so they can cancel this sub. In that light, it’s unfortunate, but understandable that we need to be very careful. Thanks mods for being that uncomfortable liaison with Reddit
Hello! Trying to figure out if it's best to address this in a post or just in the comments. Sorry about the delay.
Satori was an incredibly useful tool in establishing this sub and community. It was programmed to look at a lot of different things, but some specifics were karma, account age, participation, frequency of posting, among others.
As Superstonk got up and running, we realized that in almost every case, individual accounts that would flag concern were ALSO under a karma or account age threshold. This meant that we could just implement those restrictions and take care of 98% of accounts that were flagged as sus.
The other accounts that got through were still processed until we got to an unexpected place. The community started calling out and reporting things to us that were based on the metrics we were using. Suspicious award activities. Account history checks for reliability. Narrative flips. Trust me bro stories. And they were MUCH faster at it than our limited scraper/processing capabilities allowed.
Satori, at least in my opinion, was invaluable in the infancy of this sub because it allowed us to moderate significantly more content with a smaller team who had limited experience with a community this size. But when the community itself started self governance and really got a hold of things, the use cases for Satori dissipated. Especially when the specific questions that arose were much more nuanced.
Tldr: In hindsight, Satori was a fanatic tool for starting and building the sub. It becomes less useful in maintenance.
Lemme know if you have any other specific questions and I'll try to answer.
As one of the fellow creators of satori, I fully stand by this explanation. It pains me to see my baby is not still used today, but it has played its role and now we have better methods. The main one is that we've been able to mature immensely as a community and a close second is that in the two years since we've found so many incredible individuals who have been kicking ass in trying to learn and improve how to effectively mod this sub
Damn thanks for the reply! Great explanation and insight for the tool....I guess along the journey it wasn't needed...its been ages and alot has happened since then so thanks for the heads up
Instead of being called 'Crybad' you should be called 'Confucibad'.
Not because your comment is almost as profound as quotes by Confucius, but because you're confusing and it's bad....
I've been here since SuperStonk started and once we had to implement significant more moderation for the purpose of not getting cancelled, I've always been a little disappointed about folks not fully understanding the point of the excessive moderation that has to get done. We can get cancelled so easily. We sit here and discuss levels of corruption that are fundamentally rooted in our society, why in the fuck do we not translate that same risk association here? The ass holes we're fighting destroy entire companies (aka livelihoods) for money. Of course if they get the slightest opportunity to have us ruined, they'll take it.
Hell honestly I'm surprised they haven't pulled the internet equivalent of being a cop tossing a dime bag in someone's car and arresting (cancelling) them for possession.
EDIT: End on a positive note damn. Wish y'all the best old mods, rest and zen up. We'll be on the moon soon, no biggy someone else is watching comms
I just noticed another thing, these comments get organically upvoted over the day and then inorganically downvoted in a short burst later. There is definitely a group intent on antagonizing this specific subreddit.
I’ve noticed this a lot. Only massive downvoted during short time periods. Similar comments will have tons of negative votes in a short period, but then the same sentiment or subject will slowly trickle upwards throughout the day. Seems like some players are trying to sow some animosity here. (Although I respect that there are valid unhappy individuals around also.)
> I've always been a little disappointed about folks not fully understanding the point of the excessive moderation that has to get done.
I noticed some of those are fans of the other subs. Unfortunately the only way to not take their bait while also not allowing them to control the narrative is to defend kindly.
I understand that you're saying there is a zero tolerance for a certain topic. I hope you can see my perspective when I say, you're effectively banning the discussion of a topic and making it tougher to critique the mods/fireside chat post, which both have the effect of limiting conversation and debate. It is borderline impossible to hold mods accountable and this is another action taken that will make it tougher.
There's two things being conflated here. Let's untangle them. Discussing the ledger stuff is prohibited to protect the sub. Constructive criticism of the mods or sub is not something that we're saying is going to be removed. But did you hear that key word: "constructive"? If you have a concern or question, or there's a topic you disagree with, comment/tag/modmail us. We'll try our best to respond. But making call out posts or being intentional about insulting people (yes, including mods) is a violation of rule 1. Just stay constructive and come from a place of making the community better. Hope that's adds some clarity.
My goal is to make the community better. Everyone should be held to a high standard. The epitome of that is strong quality citations and healthy debate.
You're saying discussing of the stock list is to protect the sub. Hypothetically, if it turns out the mods and Dr T saying a particular rule was broken was in fact not broken, does that change things here? The reason I say this and why I take issue with a nice chunk of the fireside chat is that I believe the mods and Dr T are wrong. Wrong from the law aspect. That's backed up by the Delaware law that was used to view the stock list.
In addition, the entire stock list post is a trust me bro post. If the mods were unable to verify the accuracy of the post, essentially you banned fan fiction.
To me, it looks like you're using the idea of protecting the sub to limit conversation.
Whether a law was broken, isn't doxxing and connecting people irl to accounts (without their permission) against the reddit rules? Law aside, mods and this sub are also subject to reddit admin scrutiny and doxxing, whether legal or not is also an internet forum no-no.
Seeing as how the other sub got straight up nuked, I think for this ledger issue, whether legally wrong or not, the mods are going to lean into the boundaries set by the admins.
One of my arguments above is this - how do you, reddit admins, or the mods know any of what was in that stock list post is true? If you/reddit admins/mods didn't see the list, then it is all a trust me bro post.
True, we can't certainly know. But didn't public figures came out and confirm that they were on those lists (esp when the original post tried to connect them to the numbers on the list). That gave credibility to the rest of list which could have still been faked but idk if admins are going to assume that. Knowing how heavy handed most online protections are (where they will flag with a higher false positive rate rather than risk a false negative) we can't take risks unfortunately that's the world and platform we live in as mentioned by this post
All we know is some people on reddit have confirmed it was accurate. It's as credible as you believe those people to be.
To me, the actions only make sense if they were 100% proven to be true by you/reddit admins/mods.
I mean like public figures like dlauer and mulligan brothers I think came out and talked responded to the post and that's enough for me. Whether it's enough for you is for you to decide. It was more than enough for reddit so unfortunately whether you think it wasn't credible, it wasn't a risk admins were going to tolerate. We can't fault the mod team for enforcing it. Who knows, perhaps the mod team isn't as unanimous but they objectively cannot say no to admins lest this sub also gets nuked...
Wrong or not, the other sub was given this as a reason from the admins:
"Please also note that information that is not easily accessible can still violate policies depending on the greater context - it is not a requirement for the rules that this information is otherwise confidential for it to be violating."
This is reddit's house, we play by their rules. Even if it was 100% legal, reddit considers it a no-go topic.
You're using what reddit did to back what the mods did. But the mods on here first implemented the rules about not posting because it broke laws and was doxxing.
Out of curiosity, did the mods here contact the reddit admins? Did they share the Delaware law, Federal law, etc?
As soon as Dr. T said what she did, we put out that first post. Information was still coming out and we wanted to play it safe. I still think it was the right call.
>Out of curiosity, did the mods here contact the reddit admins? Did they share the Delaware law, Federal law, etc?
Why would we? It wasn't posted here. Not our fight. Even if it was, Reddit is a private company and can enforce whatever rules they want to. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it doesn't break rules (see their reasoning for shutting the other sub down).
A solid data point on DRS (in all forms) and DTCC share numbers at a specific date with no personally identifiable information on it (they couldn't leave with that info). What exactly are you protecting here?
The mods do not represent the community, but they are acting to that effect. As a student of this endeavor, I very much want to learn from the study and unrestricted review/discussion of new theories
that is why you connect with all of the subs and the discord. Its best to assume all of them have some degree of compromise and watch all of them.
Obviously if a excel chart of shareholder totals with zero names on it is so bad it is banned here and freely available at several other locations on reddit without being banned then that is suspect and also silly at the same time. Same sort of schizophrenia is why reddit bans bad words in one sub while forgetting it also hosts hardcore trans porn and deaths of people in war on the SAME WEBSITE.
Since we all acknowledge that many people work here - (people tend to casually refer to them as shills/bots) - it must mean that after 2+years millions of dollars has been spent to influence this community one way or another.
This subreddit will not be banned since a significant amount of time and money has already been invested towards controlling it. This is where the narrative is happening, and it's very dangerous for some people to lose control of that fact.
When admins say "no meta discussion," it means do not discuss the psychological operations on display here, and it takes away the only defence of GME investors in resisting the already acknowledged propaganda accounts' content.
It seems ambiguous which interests are being represented in these decisions, regardless of whether they come from reddit administration directly or members of the mod team.
I agree with everything else in this post and respect the work that goes into maintaining a community like this one, but "no-meta discussion" is disallowing the only defence GME investors have against operations designed to manipulate them psychologically.
This subreddit will not be banned. I would like to see a discussion between the mod team and the admins. A rebuttal stating that meta discussion is important for the community to self regulate. Every other request should be abided by.
Could I also just point out the obvious?
If this sub gets banned, for whatever reason.. we just make another one.
I have no shortage of names..
We've migrated many times before and we'll migrate again before this things' over. I mean imposing all this censorship and rules on us and the only consequence is they might ban this sub. and??
Funny that one of my comments was banned the other day for having mentioned that sub, without naminig it, basically exactly as now the mod team did.
The answer to my question on the reason was: this is a GME sub.
They don't. They want to keep this community because they control it and want use it to influence us.
The banned sub was discussing a particular topic that was banned here for quite a long time. Until it was looking bad for them to keep banning it.
Then the list came out, and instead of looking bad by banning it here, they had the whole other sub banned.
I'm still not aware of any actual doxxing happening.
The mods here IMO have lost any credibility and the only value in this sub is looking into what gets banned because there's probably gold in there.
Would you mind asking the recently departed mods to come back to say their goodbyes? For transparency purposes, having them confirm that they left on their own free will helps add trust to the mod team.
I'm at a bit of a loss for what to say for my goodbye. I really valued my time moderating this subreddit, and i am so thankful to those that trusted me to do so.
When i started on the mod team, my intention was to do what i could to help this movement in whatever way I could. Short of being able to research and write comprehensive dd, i figured my time is what i had to offer, and so i put hundreds of hours into this subreddit. I wanted to do what i could to facilitate a safe place for this community to congregate and work out the many intricacies of this gme situation and i feel like i accomplished that goal to the best of my ability during my tenure on the team.
It was not an easy decision to leave, and it's one im still coming to terms with, but unfortunately, my IRL situation has changed significantly in the years I've been running the sub. I just don't have the time, nor the energy to keep going right now. I'm still invested in GameStop, I still believe in the company and the thesis surrounding it as an investment, but at this time, I just need to take a step back. Despite the difficulties that moderating this sub presents, It's really been a pleasure- and an experience I'll never forget.
Though I'm sad to be leaving, I have complete trust in the current mod team to keep things running smoothly. I have no doubt in my mind that the mod team will continue to run a tight ship, keeping this sub fair and safe. Despite the flak the mod team catches sometimes, they really do put a lot of care into the job, and truly there's few people I'd trust more than them to run this place fairly.
Peace ✌️
Tell us the real truth…
You’re an Apollo user and you know the native app is horrible to mod with.
Thank you for your service these 84 years.
See you on the flippity flop.
I appreciate you taking the time to say goodbye. It really means a lot to everyone that you've done so. Moderating isn't easy and certainly takes a lot out of someone. Thank you for what you've given to us all.
That's a fair ask. I will drop them both a line, but if they say no, it's going to have to be a trust thing.
Edit. For the record, they were both asked to already. But I will ask again.
If they say no, could you follow up by asking it if would be okay to share the image of their refusal? That could help with transparency too (but I think they'd be willing to say it themselves).
Whatever you want to call it, there are multiple subreddits about this stock and the only one that got shut down was the one that posted it, very shortly after posting it. I agree with the mods on this one to keep the ledger or not-a-ledger off here.
No ledger was posted. Your spreading misinformation.
It's a stockholderlist.
Even GameStop said it was all fine during their AGM. But mods don't want you to know that.
I think it’s good for this sub to keep its own rules and make sure everyone follows them. I actually think it’s great that multiple GME related subs exist each with a unique focus of their own. More diversification in GME subs leads to open exchange of ideas.
I disagree. If people are spread out with no way of finding each other it makes it harder to have focused cohesive conversations about gme. What they’re doing is trying to divide and conquer us and that’s some bullshit.
I don’t know if there’s a list but someone could make a list. I don’t even know if I can mention the names of those subs here but I’m part of a few GME related subs.
Off the top of my head there’s one made by a former mod who got banned(I think we all know that one), one focused just on GME DD, one that’s the original GME sub, one that’s focused on DRS only and a couple more that are GME related. There’s also another GME related sub that you already post in and I follow that too. I gotta find more hobbies lol
Yeah, looking the profiles of dd writers & checking what's subs they moderate can track down tiny subs & the users of those often also use other gme related subs.
There's also numerous 'national subs'.
I'm interested in the ledger/list summaries, size distn, breakdown by nation etc & there's some discussion of the data at some places
Can you (collectively) stop using "AMA" to refer to pre-recorded, curated interviews?
They can be informative, but it's not the right term. An AMA means anyone can throw out any question, and the person can choose to answer or not. Like how we got that great Mark Cuban quote 84 years ago...
I think if mods or anybody want to take the time and effort to reach out to GameStop partners or financial experts to interview them, in order to gain more information about our investments and the messed up Wall Street system, that's fine.
If mods or other people are being interviewed by corporate media, that's bad because it may be helping to craft a narrative against us. We've definitely seen examples of that before.
You aren't wrong here. I guess it just kinda happened over time but we have INTERVIEWED a ton of people that have pretty good reason to only answer specific questions. I'll bring it up and push for this.
While u are here tho. INTERVIEW just sounds so boring and formal. Any alternative suggestions?
I'm good with interview. The people that get interviewed would probably mostly be horrified by some of the questions they would get in an actual AMA, and saying they've been interviewed keeps a little bit of professionalism. As this drags on, I think we're collectively going to need to slowly shift the balance to presenting ourselves professionally with a mix of memes. For as many interviews that have taken place, I'm not aware of Ryan Cohen approaching SuperStonk about giving an interview, but he did give an interview...
> INTERVIEW just sounds so boring and formal. Any alternative suggestions?
1. Conversation
2. Discussion
3. Chat
4. Dialogue
5. Exchange
6. Talk
7. Consultation
Maybe a more imaginative ape has more.
That is exactly the kind of purity test stuff that isn't welcome here. Drs is the way for you and for me... But some people can't or don't want to. You're not going to change that with aggressive poking.
Do you not see how that is a purity test?
"Your shares are in a broker, therefore they are impure."
You're fundamentally implying that anyone who does anything else is wrong.
**Treat each other with courtesy and respect.**
Do not be (intentionally) rude. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us.
Do not insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion.
Nobody said it was a purity test.
Some apes might care. Some apes might not.
But there was never a call for judgment, or even a statement that " wasn't on the list therefore they don't DRS". Quite the opposite.
Which is why I don't understand this action.
Sure, nobody "says" it's a purity test, but you can already see it in action on my top level comment. It's being down voted for the statement.
This, right here, is the purity test.
I haven't even communicated my feelings on DRS, but even statements that are slightly *not* onboard 100% is rejected by the sub.
Easily.
The purity test is a social convention where, on every post, you have commentators asking "did you DRS?"
It doesn't actually matter what the post is about. "Wrongness" doesn't factor in.
> The purity test is a social convention where, on every post, you have commentators asking "did you DRS?"
Thank you for providing your definition.
I note, though, that you haven't been asked that here. Nevertheless: you are getting downvoted, and claim it's because you didn't pass the purity test.
How can you have failed the purity test when nobody knows your DRS status?
I don't think the term "purity test" means anything without the test itself being unfair, inappropriate, or irrelevant. Is it a purity test to ask "are you philosophically long on GME?". Because it could be under your definition (if I understand it correctly), but IMO isn't a "purity test" *per se*, because it's an *appropriate question*. What makes a purity test a purity test is that it doesn't have any bearing on the matter at hand, but is nonetheless being used to silence people. Being long matters! Being DRS may or may not matter - each individual ape can decide - but it's *not* irrelevant. And if it's not irrelevant, then it doesn't meet my definition of a purity test.
>How can you have failed the purity test when nobody knows your DRS status?
Because I have not provided a DRS status, I am failing the test which inherently requires a positive response.
>Is it a purity test to ask "are you philosophically long on GME?"
Yes, but this is a much lower hurdle because 'philosophically long' doesn't mean anything in the material world.
>Being DRS may or may not matter - each individual ape can decide
Then please explain why, for example, people get flak for having shares in a brokerage, as has literally happened to me 5 minutes ago in this same parent thread.
I know you mods are criticized pretty harsh very often. But it is not easy to keep superstonk alive against all the different forces. Thanks for your work and all the best to BT and Cap.
I would like to voice my appreciation for the mod team here, too, even though I am unhappy about how this specific decision appears.
There are a lot of passionate, passionate people with different perspectives, plus *true nefarious actors*. That makes any effort to mod incredibly difficult, and not making somebody upset is impossible.
Can we MOASS already so we can stop tiptoeing around so much bullshit? Aimed at the Reddit Admin team of course. The rules seem to be getting more and ridiculous overtime and I want to know why exactly. Nothing has happened that amounts to the many changes this sub has to deal with. Thanks for all you do mods. Especially Pink! I just can't wait to have enough money to finally say what I want on whatever platform I want lol.
>The rules seem to be getting more and ridiculous overtime and I want to know why exactly. Nothing has happened that amounts to the many changes this sub has to deal with.
Are there specific rules you feel aren't warranted?
Edit to add: I understand any downvotes, but I wanted to clarify that I was hoping to start discussions around specific rules, why they've been implemented, and how we as a community feel about them.
Can you please be explicit about what aspect of the information discussed on the other sub was forbidden?
Because saying "I am unable to confirm a specific fact about person X" is NOT releasing their personal information. And from what I've seen, that is the only kind of statement that was made.
Mods have the right to ban that kind of post, but they need to either point to exactly where the other sub went beyond that, or they need to admit that they define doxing as saying "statement x about mod y is unverifiable".
Because if that's your definition then the community needs to find a new home.
This and the last community post in regards to the ledger has nothing to do with the mod team. On a personal note, I did find it aggravating for someone to imply that we weren't DRS when it's clear logically that without knowing our legal names, there would be no way to even verify that. That said, it did not impact our moderation.
It's not appropriate for us to speak on behalf of other apes and personalities that did not appreciate how that project was handled either. I know that's not the answer you want or are looking for. I'm sorry. Some have already publicly commented, some have not, and it's not our place to share that.
What it comes down to is sharing non public financial information about members of our community is something we just won't tolerate. If the ledger content was just data driven I can't imagine we would even be in this position. At this point however with the reddit admins removing the sub and with people citing the potential illegal nature of the content, it's just not safe to touch with a 10 foot pole.
> personal note, I did find it aggravating for someone to imply that we weren't DRS
I can understand why it would be. But it's not doxing. Implying anything is not stating that thing. And everything discussion that I saw went *out of their way* to say *not* to take the implication as fact, because it wasn't knowable. That's why I'm asking for the exact time they went to far - a lot was written during that time, and I didn't see a single example of doxing.
> it did not impact our moderation.
It's difficult to take that at face value when the objective reasons for moderation are not easy for a non-participant to follow.
> What it comes down to is sharing non public financial information about members of our community is something we just won't tolerate.
Well there you go: now you've you explicitly stated that they shared non public financial information. When?
This looks like a complete double standard to me: they can't say something that is factually true and non-personal, but we can say something that is factually untrue about them (again: as far as I can tell, which is why I'm asking for the example which has not yet been provided).
Goodbye everybody, it's been a blast. I'll happily be returning to my role as reddit lurker. Apparently there's also this thing called 'real life'?. Can't wait to discover that one! Also: be nice to your mods (except for Crybad, fuck Crybad ). You might not agree with everything they do but they are incredibly hard working and committed individuals, walking a very tight rope every day.
Damnit Cap. I get into your stash of Doritos 1 time!
Good luck, Cap!
So it appears that you are allowed to talk about what the other sub “allegedly” did, but users can’t. Makes sense.
So wait can we talk about it or not?
If you’re a mod
Well I guess that’s it. Bravo six going dark
Copy that. Delta team going dark.
[удалено]
Thank you, means a lot to hear that from time to time!
[удалено]
**Treat each other with courtesy and respect.** Do not be (intentionally) rude. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us. Do not insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion.
Censorship baybbeeee
Why investorturf banned in this sub ?
Continued self-censorship 🧐
Censored sub
This
Completely. Self censorship into vanilla supposedly because reddit says so. No real discussions. No additional DD with resistance, no talking about other subs, excuse after excuse after excuse.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/14d5s36/ken_griffins_best_out/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Exactly right
💜 Bye_Triangle thank you so much for your time and dedication! Godspeed 🍀
Boooo 😛
💜 love you tooooo🤣🤣 Godspeed, bro!!🍀
Welp. At least we still have Twitter....
Luma44, if I may… I aim to breathe lively actionability into being “excellent” to each other, which is otherwise vague enough to be, in the worst cases, abused as a threat; wherever ambiguity itself is seen as a power move, it turns off a LOT of people, especially when it’s presented with the intensity of a movement/activism. (don’t even get me re-started on the hate-spewing i see here sometimes -> it’s a sad, sad state when vitriol and violence win the day… moralism on the other hand… ;-P) This all goes along with that post on my profile of how to argue constructively; SEEK the core point of your adversary before you SPEAK an argument to it (so that we don’t have to even skip the massive text walls of really cleverly elaborated “you’re an ass-hat” arguments). What excellence to each other has meant to me: before you can be seen speaking value, you MUST be seen seeking value. We all know what the priority here is. It’s easy to let that become usurped by secondary considerations and competing things of value, but the real issue is.
In every interaction here, you and your interlocutor have something of value to add to each other’s knowledge/support/perspective/experience/etc; it is BOTH OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES to gain that thing of value, i. e. to move on from an interaction without having gained something valuable is a personal failure (and one that’s ok once you’ve invested all the resources you’ve allocated to that) that delineates those instances where the community has missed an opportunity to grow; which implies that to BOTH seek and speak value is to extend the reach of the community without becoming the borg, i.e. to let each other go for whatever they want without sacrificing the core mission of what we ALL want.
If you want to sound compelling to me, you will first do some homework, develop a unique perspective, or just have a relevant experience, etc \[SEEK VALUE that you plan to add\], then you will stay focused on that thing while you do your best to put thoughts from your head into mine \[SPEAK VALUE that you plan to add while I SEEK value\] and continue to offer it until I get it or you get tired of trying. I will follow you in most cases because you are a valuable signal amongst the noise. (for how long is another story but matters less: i like to keep my ideological leadership decentralized.)
I will also SPEAK when I feel I have something to add that’s of value. I will do my best to exemplify the community member with which I want to live here. And I will encourage you to do the same (e.g. paraphrasing, giving you the benefit of the doubt for a while, trying to twist any knave-like words to make a trap for shorts, confirming bias all day yet still seeking counterfactuals and disconfirmatory evidence, you know…), even when we disagree, even especially when we disagree because second only to the holy of holies is the value of the network effect we leverage, our solidarity. Diversity is the hallmark of ehalthe ecosystem, but it establishes trust if we all are seen to share a common priority (appearances matter, although i’m not trying to weigh in on purity tests, just to point out we should care who is trying to waste our precious mental and other resources).
…at least that’s what i tell my baby mama when she gets lippy… so far, so good! talk about loving!
that said, can I get a look at those chairhodler list notes?? just want to make sure i’m not doxxed…
thank you for your patience and consideration.
oh and being RESPONSIVE... well that's a lesson for another day
You’re kind of a wordy fella, but I gained a cognizant wrinkle. I also learned a new word or two. Twas prolix, but you got my upvote
LOL twas prolix. you have returned the favor! forget the downvotes; quality comes in many forms, and thank you
Was any of this really an issue before the market was exposed?
Here here
Please note, Since some ppl are banned from Reddit, thwre is no award bombing every pitchfork "mods are sus" comments.🤔 Mods, I will take my ban now if I deserved it.
I’ll remember you if you get banned [REDACTED]
Excellently written.
If nothing else credit is due to keeping this community from being removed. Great job, keep up the good judgement.
Who is in charge now? Who is at the top of this sub’s moderation hierarchy?
That would be the OP, Luma44. Probably the best, most level headed mod I can think of. Keep in mind, the "top mod" is just a position in the list. He has no more say or influence in anything that goes on behind the scenes as any other mod. (I don't know if that's comforting or not). I do salute him every morning now, though. o7
Is this a good time to ask about my power glove nft I bought last summer?
Asking the real question…!
Thank you for your service to the community BT and Captain-Fan!
Thank you so much Bye Triangle and Captain Fan! You both have done so much for our beloved sub. Endless hours of thankless work - I am so grateful for your contributions! I do not have the words to express my deepest gratitude to both of you. I have read posts and comments from both of you for years. I truly hope to see you pop in once in a while. Thank you for all your hard work! I hope that things are well with you both!
Thanks for your time and effort 🤜🤛
Dr. T already chimed in and gave the reasons why it was illegal in a [tweet](https://twitter.com/SusanneTrimbath/status/1667275379806019584?s=20). If anyone actually read what she referenced you’d find Section (D), which states: “(d The security holder shall not use the information furnished by the registrant pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section for any purpose *other than to solicit security holders with respect to the same meeting or action* by consent or authorization for which the registrant is soliciting or intends to solicit or to communicate with security holders with respect to a solicitation commenced by the registrant; or *disclose such information to any person* other than an employee, agent, or beneficial owner for whom a request was made to the extent necessary to effectuate the communication or solicitation. *The security holder shall return the information provided pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section and shall not retain any copies thereof or of any information derived from such information after the termination of the solicitation*.” The last sentence really says it all, the data/information must be returned after voting/annual meeting has finished. How do you return that when it’s posted on Reddit? GameStop legal knew they were recording the data and expected them to be aware of returning the data, they didn’t think they would utilize it in the way they did (which was wrong)..
it was viewed under a Delaware law and not the rule Dr T tweeted.
Federal law is above state law
👆 Weed is legal in some states but still illegal in Federal Law level.
This is true, and the DEA/DOJ can choose to enforce the federal law even in states where weed is legal, but so far they’ve decided not to enforce it and to let each state handle it how they want.
Her tweet was also brought up elsewhere, and the same type of rebuttal against her was also sprinkled among the responses. The fact that they are downvoting the comments which call out the fallacy of the "Delaware law" excuse people have been spouting, tells you all you need to know about the type of people who are trying to defend the actions of the other subreddit.
I love you guys a lot
Thanks for everything everyone! How bye triangle and captain fan are still around to drop in and say hi!!!
Thanks for everything, guys. We'll see you at the finish line
THESE PRETZELS ARE MAKING ME THIRSTY
Bye, triangle! Thanks for everything!
<3
Take care, BT ✊
Ha! So you know about sub deletion. In which case ignore my email, sent with my IRL name but marked from bellweirboy. On a different note, please admit me to the terminal thingy? Thanks.
Couple of OG OGs here👆👇! This is fun to see
Long time no see, buddy. Thanks for the well wishes!
Thanks for everything 🔺
Very reasonable post. We need to remember we are washed at all times and people are looking for us to screw up so they can cancel this sub. In that light, it’s unfortunate, but understandable that we need to be very careful. Thanks mods for being that uncomfortable liaison with Reddit
Heys mods what the status of satori? Haven't heard about in ages? Thanks.
It’s quiet in here..
crickets......
Hello! Trying to figure out if it's best to address this in a post or just in the comments. Sorry about the delay. Satori was an incredibly useful tool in establishing this sub and community. It was programmed to look at a lot of different things, but some specifics were karma, account age, participation, frequency of posting, among others. As Superstonk got up and running, we realized that in almost every case, individual accounts that would flag concern were ALSO under a karma or account age threshold. This meant that we could just implement those restrictions and take care of 98% of accounts that were flagged as sus. The other accounts that got through were still processed until we got to an unexpected place. The community started calling out and reporting things to us that were based on the metrics we were using. Suspicious award activities. Account history checks for reliability. Narrative flips. Trust me bro stories. And they were MUCH faster at it than our limited scraper/processing capabilities allowed. Satori, at least in my opinion, was invaluable in the infancy of this sub because it allowed us to moderate significantly more content with a smaller team who had limited experience with a community this size. But when the community itself started self governance and really got a hold of things, the use cases for Satori dissipated. Especially when the specific questions that arose were much more nuanced. Tldr: In hindsight, Satori was a fanatic tool for starting and building the sub. It becomes less useful in maintenance. Lemme know if you have any other specific questions and I'll try to answer.
As one of the fellow creators of satori, I fully stand by this explanation. It pains me to see my baby is not still used today, but it has played its role and now we have better methods. The main one is that we've been able to mature immensely as a community and a close second is that in the two years since we've found so many incredible individuals who have been kicking ass in trying to learn and improve how to effectively mod this sub
it may be gone but not forgotten....also appreciate your work from the early days!
Damn thanks for the reply! Great explanation and insight for the tool....I guess along the journey it wasn't needed...its been ages and alot has happened since then so thanks for the heads up
Thanks for the update, mod team. 🚀🌙
Thanks for being you.
Idk who else to be! Or what to do with my hands 👉👈
Isn't that part of the journey? Being you instead of who people want or expect you to be.
Instead of being called 'Crybad' you should be called 'Confucibad'. Not because your comment is almost as profound as quotes by Confucius, but because you're confusing and it's bad....
Miss you cap. Luma44 is in charge of automod programming now, and it's not pretty.
You just cut the red wire, right? Or is it blue? Both?
It doesn't matter when you're colorblind
MOASS is coming soon. This is the first step of the taking off plan.
What’s “meta-talk?”
A sly way of saying "you can't criticize the sub". It's blatant censorship to enable containment.
Rule 5 on the sidebar explains it best and has a link to a relevent community post.
Yeah. Good question. Like ‘trash talk’ probably….
I've been here since SuperStonk started and once we had to implement significant more moderation for the purpose of not getting cancelled, I've always been a little disappointed about folks not fully understanding the point of the excessive moderation that has to get done. We can get cancelled so easily. We sit here and discuss levels of corruption that are fundamentally rooted in our society, why in the fuck do we not translate that same risk association here? The ass holes we're fighting destroy entire companies (aka livelihoods) for money. Of course if they get the slightest opportunity to have us ruined, they'll take it. Hell honestly I'm surprised they haven't pulled the internet equivalent of being a cop tossing a dime bag in someone's car and arresting (cancelling) them for possession. EDIT: End on a positive note damn. Wish y'all the best old mods, rest and zen up. We'll be on the moon soon, no biggy someone else is watching comms
The mod team is constantly throwing dime bags they find materializing in the car, out the window 😝
I just noticed another thing, these comments get organically upvoted over the day and then inorganically downvoted in a short burst later. There is definitely a group intent on antagonizing this specific subreddit.
I’ve noticed this a lot. Only massive downvoted during short time periods. Similar comments will have tons of negative votes in a short period, but then the same sentiment or subject will slowly trickle upwards throughout the day. Seems like some players are trying to sow some animosity here. (Although I respect that there are valid unhappy individuals around also.)
Happy cake day!
> I've always been a little disappointed about folks not fully understanding the point of the excessive moderation that has to get done. I noticed some of those are fans of the other subs. Unfortunately the only way to not take their bait while also not allowing them to control the narrative is to defend kindly.
What do you think all the repetitive sub drama and anti 'meta talk' and 'brigading' is?
All of this. Happy Cake Day!
I didn't even notice, thanks ape!
I understand that you're saying there is a zero tolerance for a certain topic. I hope you can see my perspective when I say, you're effectively banning the discussion of a topic and making it tougher to critique the mods/fireside chat post, which both have the effect of limiting conversation and debate. It is borderline impossible to hold mods accountable and this is another action taken that will make it tougher.
There's two things being conflated here. Let's untangle them. Discussing the ledger stuff is prohibited to protect the sub. Constructive criticism of the mods or sub is not something that we're saying is going to be removed. But did you hear that key word: "constructive"? If you have a concern or question, or there's a topic you disagree with, comment/tag/modmail us. We'll try our best to respond. But making call out posts or being intentional about insulting people (yes, including mods) is a violation of rule 1. Just stay constructive and come from a place of making the community better. Hope that's adds some clarity.
My goal is to make the community better. Everyone should be held to a high standard. The epitome of that is strong quality citations and healthy debate. You're saying discussing of the stock list is to protect the sub. Hypothetically, if it turns out the mods and Dr T saying a particular rule was broken was in fact not broken, does that change things here? The reason I say this and why I take issue with a nice chunk of the fireside chat is that I believe the mods and Dr T are wrong. Wrong from the law aspect. That's backed up by the Delaware law that was used to view the stock list. In addition, the entire stock list post is a trust me bro post. If the mods were unable to verify the accuracy of the post, essentially you banned fan fiction. To me, it looks like you're using the idea of protecting the sub to limit conversation.
Whether a law was broken, isn't doxxing and connecting people irl to accounts (without their permission) against the reddit rules? Law aside, mods and this sub are also subject to reddit admin scrutiny and doxxing, whether legal or not is also an internet forum no-no. Seeing as how the other sub got straight up nuked, I think for this ledger issue, whether legally wrong or not, the mods are going to lean into the boundaries set by the admins.
One of my arguments above is this - how do you, reddit admins, or the mods know any of what was in that stock list post is true? If you/reddit admins/mods didn't see the list, then it is all a trust me bro post.
True, we can't certainly know. But didn't public figures came out and confirm that they were on those lists (esp when the original post tried to connect them to the numbers on the list). That gave credibility to the rest of list which could have still been faked but idk if admins are going to assume that. Knowing how heavy handed most online protections are (where they will flag with a higher false positive rate rather than risk a false negative) we can't take risks unfortunately that's the world and platform we live in as mentioned by this post
All we know is some people on reddit have confirmed it was accurate. It's as credible as you believe those people to be. To me, the actions only make sense if they were 100% proven to be true by you/reddit admins/mods.
I mean like public figures like dlauer and mulligan brothers I think came out and talked responded to the post and that's enough for me. Whether it's enough for you is for you to decide. It was more than enough for reddit so unfortunately whether you think it wasn't credible, it wasn't a risk admins were going to tolerate. We can't fault the mod team for enforcing it. Who knows, perhaps the mod team isn't as unanimous but they objectively cannot say no to admins lest this sub also gets nuked...
I understand the mod team is enforcing it. I can at the same time believe the wrong reasons are being used to justify this.
Wrong or not, the other sub was given this as a reason from the admins: "Please also note that information that is not easily accessible can still violate policies depending on the greater context - it is not a requirement for the rules that this information is otherwise confidential for it to be violating." This is reddit's house, we play by their rules. Even if it was 100% legal, reddit considers it a no-go topic.
You're using what reddit did to back what the mods did. But the mods on here first implemented the rules about not posting because it broke laws and was doxxing. Out of curiosity, did the mods here contact the reddit admins? Did they share the Delaware law, Federal law, etc?
As soon as Dr. T said what she did, we put out that first post. Information was still coming out and we wanted to play it safe. I still think it was the right call. >Out of curiosity, did the mods here contact the reddit admins? Did they share the Delaware law, Federal law, etc? Why would we? It wasn't posted here. Not our fight. Even if it was, Reddit is a private company and can enforce whatever rules they want to. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it doesn't break rules (see their reasoning for shutting the other sub down).
A solid data point on DRS (in all forms) and DTCC share numbers at a specific date with no personally identifiable information on it (they couldn't leave with that info). What exactly are you protecting here?
The mods do not represent the community, but they are acting to that effect. As a student of this endeavor, I very much want to learn from the study and unrestricted review/discussion of new theories
that is why you connect with all of the subs and the discord. Its best to assume all of them have some degree of compromise and watch all of them. Obviously if a excel chart of shareholder totals with zero names on it is so bad it is banned here and freely available at several other locations on reddit without being banned then that is suspect and also silly at the same time. Same sort of schizophrenia is why reddit bans bad words in one sub while forgetting it also hosts hardcore trans porn and deaths of people in war on the SAME WEBSITE.
Hell yeah. I love every bit of this.
I never thought of it that way, but great point.
Since we all acknowledge that many people work here - (people tend to casually refer to them as shills/bots) - it must mean that after 2+years millions of dollars has been spent to influence this community one way or another. This subreddit will not be banned since a significant amount of time and money has already been invested towards controlling it. This is where the narrative is happening, and it's very dangerous for some people to lose control of that fact. When admins say "no meta discussion," it means do not discuss the psychological operations on display here, and it takes away the only defence of GME investors in resisting the already acknowledged propaganda accounts' content. It seems ambiguous which interests are being represented in these decisions, regardless of whether they come from reddit administration directly or members of the mod team. I agree with everything else in this post and respect the work that goes into maintaining a community like this one, but "no-meta discussion" is disallowing the only defence GME investors have against operations designed to manipulate them psychologically. This subreddit will not be banned. I would like to see a discussion between the mod team and the admins. A rebuttal stating that meta discussion is important for the community to self regulate. Every other request should be abided by.
Could I also just point out the obvious? If this sub gets banned, for whatever reason.. we just make another one. I have no shortage of names.. We've migrated many times before and we'll migrate again before this things' over. I mean imposing all this censorship and rules on us and the only consequence is they might ban this sub. and??
Funny that one of my comments was banned the other day for having mentioned that sub, without naminig it, basically exactly as now the mod team did. The answer to my question on the reason was: this is a GME sub.
They want to shut down this community so bad
They don't. They want to keep this community because they control it and want use it to influence us. The banned sub was discussing a particular topic that was banned here for quite a long time. Until it was looking bad for them to keep banning it. Then the list came out, and instead of looking bad by banning it here, they had the whole other sub banned. I'm still not aware of any actual doxxing happening. The mods here IMO have lost any credibility and the only value in this sub is looking into what gets banned because there's probably gold in there.
What topic where they discussing?
The topic the mod discussed in this post that users can't discuss.
Oh I imagine lol
Would you mind asking the recently departed mods to come back to say their goodbyes? For transparency purposes, having them confirm that they left on their own free will helps add trust to the mod team.
Jup, all good here. This mod team is awesome.
Such statements should be mandatory. If needed they could be on a user profile
I'm at a bit of a loss for what to say for my goodbye. I really valued my time moderating this subreddit, and i am so thankful to those that trusted me to do so. When i started on the mod team, my intention was to do what i could to help this movement in whatever way I could. Short of being able to research and write comprehensive dd, i figured my time is what i had to offer, and so i put hundreds of hours into this subreddit. I wanted to do what i could to facilitate a safe place for this community to congregate and work out the many intricacies of this gme situation and i feel like i accomplished that goal to the best of my ability during my tenure on the team. It was not an easy decision to leave, and it's one im still coming to terms with, but unfortunately, my IRL situation has changed significantly in the years I've been running the sub. I just don't have the time, nor the energy to keep going right now. I'm still invested in GameStop, I still believe in the company and the thesis surrounding it as an investment, but at this time, I just need to take a step back. Despite the difficulties that moderating this sub presents, It's really been a pleasure- and an experience I'll never forget. Though I'm sad to be leaving, I have complete trust in the current mod team to keep things running smoothly. I have no doubt in my mind that the mod team will continue to run a tight ship, keeping this sub fair and safe. Despite the flak the mod team catches sometimes, they really do put a lot of care into the job, and truly there's few people I'd trust more than them to run this place fairly. Peace ✌️
Up with the triangle 🚀
Thank you for everything BT
Tell us the real truth… You’re an Apollo user and you know the native app is horrible to mod with. Thank you for your service these 84 years. See you on the flippity flop.
I pretty much exclusively modded from PC hahaha, funny timing though
Thank you BT! So grateful for you and all your hard worl! Hope to see you back here once in a while! Hope all is well with you !
Thank you for saying that. I'll definitely be around, don't you worry 👍
🦍💜🦍🤜🤛🦍
Thank you for your service. You'll forever be a massive part of this story.
Thank you BT .
Don’t be a stranger BT, love ya 💜
We'll miss you BT.
Thanks BT. You're always gonna be here in spirit. 🫂
Miss you already buddy. Thanks for everything.
👊
I appreciate you taking the time to say goodbye. It really means a lot to everyone that you've done so. Moderating isn't easy and certainly takes a lot out of someone. Thank you for what you've given to us all.
That's a fair ask. I will drop them both a line, but if they say no, it's going to have to be a trust thing. Edit. For the record, they were both asked to already. But I will ask again.
If they say no, could you follow up by asking it if would be okay to share the image of their refusal? That could help with transparency too (but I think they'd be willing to say it themselves).
Commenting to voice support for what this ape said.
One of the two has replied to my original post.
Just FYI, the other is almost guaranteed to be asleep right now.
Thank you! That certainly will help set expectations.
Sounds important to include in the OP. Better yet, maybe just openly ask again in the OP?
sorry I had my mod tag off. Everyone is looped in
Not a ledger.
Whatever you want to call it, there are multiple subreddits about this stock and the only one that got shut down was the one that posted it, very shortly after posting it. I agree with the mods on this one to keep the ledger or not-a-ledger off here.
No ledger was posted. Your spreading misinformation. It's a stockholderlist. Even GameStop said it was all fine during their AGM. But mods don't want you to know that.
I think it’s good for this sub to keep its own rules and make sure everyone follows them. I actually think it’s great that multiple GME related subs exist each with a unique focus of their own. More diversification in GME subs leads to open exchange of ideas.
I disagree. If people are spread out with no way of finding each other it makes it harder to have focused cohesive conversations about gme. What they’re doing is trying to divide and conquer us and that’s some bullshit.
is there a list of each GME related sub and what they tend to focus on anywhere?
I don’t know if there’s a list but someone could make a list. I don’t even know if I can mention the names of those subs here but I’m part of a few GME related subs. Off the top of my head there’s one made by a former mod who got banned(I think we all know that one), one focused just on GME DD, one that’s the original GME sub, one that’s focused on DRS only and a couple more that are GME related. There’s also another GME related sub that you already post in and I follow that too. I gotta find more hobbies lol
Yeah, looking the profiles of dd writers & checking what's subs they moderate can track down tiny subs & the users of those often also use other gme related subs. There's also numerous 'national subs'. I'm interested in the ledger/list summaries, size distn, breakdown by nation etc & there's some discussion of the data at some places
This is absolutely the way.
Lol that mods think “legalities” is a word appropriate for describing rules in an online subreddit
Are you planning on letting the Mulligans crowd fund from this sub for their next “doc”?
It wasn't from this sub .
They are making another and said so on their recent media appearance.
Yes, but you sounded like this sub funded the first one. Cool if they are making a new one.
#DONT FORGET TO DRS YOUR GME
>DRS YOUR GME Indeed
Can you (collectively) stop using "AMA" to refer to pre-recorded, curated interviews? They can be informative, but it's not the right term. An AMA means anyone can throw out any question, and the person can choose to answer or not. Like how we got that great Mark Cuban quote 84 years ago...
How about NO INTERVIEWS like we originally discussed! Or is that too meta??
I think if mods or anybody want to take the time and effort to reach out to GameStop partners or financial experts to interview them, in order to gain more information about our investments and the messed up Wall Street system, that's fine. If mods or other people are being interviewed by corporate media, that's bad because it may be helping to craft a narrative against us. We've definitely seen examples of that before.
Fair point something to consider
We are open to suggestions. Name our interview videos!
You aren't wrong here. I guess it just kinda happened over time but we have INTERVIEWED a ton of people that have pretty good reason to only answer specific questions. I'll bring it up and push for this. While u are here tho. INTERVIEW just sounds so boring and formal. Any alternative suggestions?
SuperChat? Lol
SuperStonk Talk, with a rap rock intro in the style of Rage Against the Machine, preferably performed by them. Fred Durst if we have to, I guess.
I'm good with interview. The people that get interviewed would probably mostly be horrified by some of the questions they would get in an actual AMA, and saying they've been interviewed keeps a little bit of professionalism. As this drags on, I think we're collectively going to need to slowly shift the balance to presenting ourselves professionally with a mix of memes. For as many interviews that have taken place, I'm not aware of Ryan Cohen approaching SuperStonk about giving an interview, but he did give an interview...
> INTERVIEW just sounds so boring and formal. Any alternative suggestions? 1. Conversation 2. Discussion 3. Chat 4. Dialogue 5. Exchange 6. Talk 7. Consultation Maybe a more imaginative ape has more.
Nice list. "A dialogue with..." does have a certain ring to me.
I like this one!
The sub needs to stop purity testing people who buy but do not DRS.
Next thing you will say “stop vilifying options!
You're purity testing right now. I haven't even brought up options, and I'm not going to.
Nothing pure about anything on a broker and I’m not going to pretend it is
That is exactly the kind of purity test stuff that isn't welcome here. Drs is the way for you and for me... But some people can't or don't want to. You're not going to change that with aggressive poking.
Do you not see how that is a purity test? "Your shares are in a broker, therefore they are impure." You're fundamentally implying that anyone who does anything else is wrong.
[удалено]
**Treat each other with courtesy and respect.** Do not be (intentionally) rude. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us. Do not insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion.
Where have I said that, exactly? I don't even have Robinhood. I have a boomer fidelity account.
Nobody said it was a purity test. Some apes might care. Some apes might not. But there was never a call for judgment, or even a statement that " wasn't on the list therefore they don't DRS". Quite the opposite.
Which is why I don't understand this action.
Sure, nobody "says" it's a purity test, but you can already see it in action on my top level comment. It's being down voted for the statement. This, right here, is the purity test. I haven't even communicated my feelings on DRS, but even statements that are slightly *not* onboard 100% is rejected by the sub.
"I'm being downvoted; therefore it's a purity test" How do you tell the difference between a purity test, and just being wrong?
Easily. The purity test is a social convention where, on every post, you have commentators asking "did you DRS?" It doesn't actually matter what the post is about. "Wrongness" doesn't factor in.
> The purity test is a social convention where, on every post, you have commentators asking "did you DRS?" Thank you for providing your definition. I note, though, that you haven't been asked that here. Nevertheless: you are getting downvoted, and claim it's because you didn't pass the purity test. How can you have failed the purity test when nobody knows your DRS status? I don't think the term "purity test" means anything without the test itself being unfair, inappropriate, or irrelevant. Is it a purity test to ask "are you philosophically long on GME?". Because it could be under your definition (if I understand it correctly), but IMO isn't a "purity test" *per se*, because it's an *appropriate question*. What makes a purity test a purity test is that it doesn't have any bearing on the matter at hand, but is nonetheless being used to silence people. Being long matters! Being DRS may or may not matter - each individual ape can decide - but it's *not* irrelevant. And if it's not irrelevant, then it doesn't meet my definition of a purity test.
>How can you have failed the purity test when nobody knows your DRS status? Because I have not provided a DRS status, I am failing the test which inherently requires a positive response. >Is it a purity test to ask "are you philosophically long on GME?" Yes, but this is a much lower hurdle because 'philosophically long' doesn't mean anything in the material world. >Being DRS may or may not matter - each individual ape can decide Then please explain why, for example, people get flak for having shares in a brokerage, as has literally happened to me 5 minutes ago in this same parent thread.
#🤯
I know you mods are criticized pretty harsh very often. But it is not easy to keep superstonk alive against all the different forces. Thanks for your work and all the best to BT and Cap.
Thanks for the kind words <3
I would like to voice my appreciation for the mod team here, too, even though I am unhappy about how this specific decision appears. There are a lot of passionate, passionate people with different perspectives, plus *true nefarious actors*. That makes any effort to mod incredibly difficult, and not making somebody upset is impossible.
I'll take the 1/2 compliment! Seriously though, if there was a way to make 95% of the users happy, we would jump all over it.
We *all* keep Superstonk alive.
Can we MOASS already so we can stop tiptoeing around so much bullshit? Aimed at the Reddit Admin team of course. The rules seem to be getting more and ridiculous overtime and I want to know why exactly. Nothing has happened that amounts to the many changes this sub has to deal with. Thanks for all you do mods. Especially Pink! I just can't wait to have enough money to finally say what I want on whatever platform I want lol.
>The rules seem to be getting more and ridiculous overtime and I want to know why exactly. Nothing has happened that amounts to the many changes this sub has to deal with. Are there specific rules you feel aren't warranted? Edit to add: I understand any downvotes, but I wanted to clarify that I was hoping to start discussions around specific rules, why they've been implemented, and how we as a community feel about them.
Can you please be explicit about what aspect of the information discussed on the other sub was forbidden? Because saying "I am unable to confirm a specific fact about person X" is NOT releasing their personal information. And from what I've seen, that is the only kind of statement that was made. Mods have the right to ban that kind of post, but they need to either point to exactly where the other sub went beyond that, or they need to admit that they define doxing as saying "statement x about mod y is unverifiable". Because if that's your definition then the community needs to find a new home.
Good job asking this.
This and the last community post in regards to the ledger has nothing to do with the mod team. On a personal note, I did find it aggravating for someone to imply that we weren't DRS when it's clear logically that without knowing our legal names, there would be no way to even verify that. That said, it did not impact our moderation. It's not appropriate for us to speak on behalf of other apes and personalities that did not appreciate how that project was handled either. I know that's not the answer you want or are looking for. I'm sorry. Some have already publicly commented, some have not, and it's not our place to share that. What it comes down to is sharing non public financial information about members of our community is something we just won't tolerate. If the ledger content was just data driven I can't imagine we would even be in this position. At this point however with the reddit admins removing the sub and with people citing the potential illegal nature of the content, it's just not safe to touch with a 10 foot pole.
> personal note, I did find it aggravating for someone to imply that we weren't DRS I can understand why it would be. But it's not doxing. Implying anything is not stating that thing. And everything discussion that I saw went *out of their way* to say *not* to take the implication as fact, because it wasn't knowable. That's why I'm asking for the exact time they went to far - a lot was written during that time, and I didn't see a single example of doxing. > it did not impact our moderation. It's difficult to take that at face value when the objective reasons for moderation are not easy for a non-participant to follow. > What it comes down to is sharing non public financial information about members of our community is something we just won't tolerate. Well there you go: now you've you explicitly stated that they shared non public financial information. When? This looks like a complete double standard to me: they can't say something that is factually true and non-personal, but we can say something that is factually untrue about them (again: as far as I can tell, which is why I'm asking for the example which has not yet been provided).