**Updates to our subreddit rules**

We are making the following changes to our rules to make the sub a more welcoming place for all who spend their time here.

1) **No Op-Ed, pure opinion pieces or inflammatory articles** – Articles which are either the subjective opinion of the author, or are presented in such a manner as is likely to incite others or inflame tensions, are no longer permitted. Features and analysis presented from a neutral position will still be allowed. *This is an expansion of our recently added rule banning op-ed and opinion pieces.*

2) **Rate-limiting of users** – Users will be limited to 1 submission per hour, up to a maximum of 5 per day, in order to prevent flooding of the sub. Additionally, action will be taken against users who are seen to be overly dominating comment sections in order to discourage open discussion. *This again is an extension of our new rule and we will actively monitor how this is working in practice.*

3) **No single-focus accounts** – Accounts that operate with a single-issue focus, persistently push an agenda which derails normal conversation or in a manner which is deemed detrimental to the subreddit (e.g. making it a cesspit of hate), will no longer be allowed to participate. In the interests of fairness, accounts suspected of being in breach of this rule will be subject to group discussion amongst the moderation team prior to action being taken; this is to account for the difficulties in establishing a definitive point at which this rule might be considered breached. *Note that words “deemed detrimental to the subreddit” are key here – if a user has a single interest but causes no problems then feel free to downvote and move on rather than report them.*

4) **Participation standards in trans topics** – A pinned comment will be applied to the top of any submissions covering trans issues, this will outline the very minimum of standards we expect from users participating therein. *This includes highlighting that misgendering and deadnaming are not acceptable. We will review the contents of this over time but note we will be basing this on [Reddit’s content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy).*

5) **Public replies when removing for hate** – Comments removed by a moderator for unacceptable language that breaches Rule 1 of [Reddit’s content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) will now receive a public reply to explain why they were removed, as unintentional offence can occasionally occur as a result of comments made in good faith. *This will not apply to comments removed by automod.*

6) **Changes to the moderated flairs** – We regularly use [moderated flairs](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs/) to try to minimise the amount of rule breaking content that reaches the sub. These work but are quite a blunt measure and we will be making some tweaks to try to make them better targeted. *We will regularly review this and make adjustments as needed. Please be patient whilst we make the necessary adjustments.*

31 comments

  1. Sounds good, on point 1 I think some people just have total glee when they see immigrant / refugee commits crime. They’re posted here in seconds and draw out the same hate and arguments every time. It’s never big news affecting the whole of the uk people just wanna spew their hate publicly disguised as an argument justified by an inflammatory news story

  2. >Articles which are either the subjective opinion of the author, or are presented in such a manner as is likely to incite others or inflame tensions, are no longer permitted.

    I’m interested in what your definition of inflaming tensions is here. If the article is current, newsworthy but likely to inflame tensions between the current 2 major parties of the UK Government, is that also now banned?

    How about landlords, no more articles from the Guardian or Independent which make this subreddit froth at the mouth because they are so one-sided, when something comes out about the housing market?

    Those articles do absolutely nothing but inflame tensions, but it sounds like now they are considered against the rules?

  3. >This includes highlighting that misgendering […] are not acceptable.

    Feel like this one’s gonna be so hard to police. Good luck telling the difference between a genuine accident and bigotry

  5. I like these a lot! I think it will make it harder to turn the sub into culture war ground zero. Good job.

  6. These seem like good changes. Really appreciate the work that’s gone into improving things here, and the willingness to listen to feedback.

  7. I look forward to (1) being applied across the board and not at all inconsistently to remove opinions the Mods don’t like while keeping those they do.

    How are you defining the article being: (i) ‘neutral’; and (ii) ‘likely to incite others or inflame tensions’?

    I assume this is a de-facto ban on Owen Jones and George Monbiot?

  8. I don’t agree with many of the changes. They seem to have been put in place to limit discussion as opposed to letting it flourish.

    Going by this, many people will be banned or censored based on accidents.

    I’ll still obviously view posts on the sub, but does anyone know of any other UK subs that aren’t so in favour of censorship?

  12. Please could you clarify what is meant by both “misgendering” and “deadnaming”?

    Deadnaming originally meant insisting on referring to someone using a name that they no longer go by, but it has since morphed to also include merely mentioning the fact that they used to have another name, which is very different.

    And there are certain contexts where someone’s sex is extremely relevant, regardless of their stated gender identity, and being unable to mention it makes clear communication impossible. Would referring to “Isla Bryson” as male be classed as misgendering, for example?

    I very rarely create new posts here, but when I am moved to comment these days it does seem to be on gender stuff most of the time, does that make mine a “single-focus account”?

    Also, banning op-ed pieces seems like a bizarre choice for a discussion forum.

  13. > This includes highlighting that misgendering and deadnaming are not acceptable.

    Kind of funny that the [very first submission](/r/unitedkingdom/comments/11e2xa4/isla_bryson_transgender_rapist_jailed_for_eight/) under the new rules does both of these things (and arguably it’s entirely justified and reasonable)

  15. > 3) No single-focus accounts

    I’m worried that this will be used to shut down discussion of minority beliefs, in particular veganism and animal rights.

    How will the line be drawn between a “single-focus account” vs someone with a keen interest in a topic?

    Veganism is frequently discussed in articles where it’s relevant. For example, in a thread such as [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/ybepqy/shocking_farm_footage_shows_piglets_with_tails/) from a few months ago, it seems particularly relevant, and I think the subreddit is better because of the discussion.

    How will the moderation team determine which topics are detrimental to the subreddit, and which are the ones that they just personally don’t agree with?

  16. Reddit could stop the fairly recent absurdity regarding ‘blocking users’. If you do not wish to see someone’s posts, fair enough, but the banning of Blockees from commenting on Blockers posts denies *others* the opportunity to comment on Blockees views too. It’s daft.

    We’ve enough rules on this sub and apart from the above, it seems to work fairly well.

  18. Rate-limiting of users has really killed the good variety and the amount of posts this sub got. This was one of my most viewed subs, now I barely even look.

  20. That line about opinion / analysis pieces is way too vague. You’re gonna have to give examples of what’s “neutral” and allowed.

  21. Does this mean no more articles from *The Spectator*, which I would regard as “pure opinion” and 85% of which were pumped by a single account which posted little else.

  22. >We are making the following changes to our rules to make the sub a more welcoming place for all who spend their time here.

    Well no, that’s just a lie. You want to appease certain sections and dissuade others from commenting.

  23. Silly question where I’m 90% sure the answer will be no. Me and my partner would love to walk a dog on a one time basis only as an activity to do while she is visiting here in my town in the East Midlands.

    Are there any places that allow this, such as the RSPCA or local dog shelters? I see there are options for voluntary dog walking for the RSPCA but you have to fill in an application and attend an induction course. We almost just want to pop into a shelter or wherever, say hello, provide whatever details are necessary and walk out with a dog for an hour!

    I highly anticipate that this request is stupid and not possible. But on the off chance there are such places that would allow this, please advise further. We’d happily pay for the pleasure.

  24. I think Rule 4, **”Participation standards in trans topics”**, is a fair middle ground. And while i do fear to be swept up by rule 2 & 3 – as i’m trans & posting mostly in LGBTQI+ related threads to give a different ‘opinion’, and these threads still being ‘Restricted++’ *(since most trans people on reddit use burner-accounts because of the hatred & vitriol thrown at us on a regular basis, and therefore cannot participate in these discussions because of account age)*, i think my approach is – hopefully – respectful enough to not fall foul of rule 2 & 3.

    I do fear, however, that trans-related topics will still find their fair share of misrepresented & misconstrued statistics & studies just to discredit us & our experience. But i guess that’s something to worry about when it arises.

  26. There’s been at least two or three inflammatory articles coming from non-neutral positions being posted on here (imo) since this thread was posted, and yet they’re still up to this minute.

  27. Ok, I’m confused. Have these new rules not come into effect yet or something?

    A bunch of comments have been manually removed from this very thread, with no explanation of why.

  28. Can I ask you to consider a change to the rate-limiting rule? Other comments have pointed out it has greatly reduced the number and variety of articles posted here.

    Could it be made 1 article every half hour or every 20 minutes? The limit on 5 posts per day can remain.

  29. If i’m to understand this correctly, you have effectively banned Gender Critical viewpoints from being expressed here at all.

  30. Question, is this subreddit like just for posting news or something? I’m just genuinely wondering. I don’t see anything and have never been aware of anything about this being the case, but how come any time I ever come here it’s just the daily sigh of shockingly bleak news stories and people making a one liner to the effect of ‘tut tut’

    Is there a reason I never see any self posts here? The problem is I like to see actual discussion about life in this country and maybe more feelings based stuff which isn’t just throwaway comments on x news story, can’t go to r/casualUK because no serious chat is allowed, while r/askUK is just *OP is a fuckhead—UK edition*

  31. So where is the place to talk about anything that isn’t white-picket fence sheltered reality now because the mods clearly don’t want us having any dissent or speaking out of line do they

Leave a Reply