site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  21d ago (text post)   Edited 20d ago   4633 thread views

Quality Contributions Report for October 2024

This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).

As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.

These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.

Quality Contributions to the Main Motte

Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris

@RenOS:

@georgioz:

@Rov_Scam:

Contributions for the week of September 30, 2024

Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris

@Rov_Scam:

@100ProofTollBooth:

@P-Necromancer:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@ThisIsSin:

@gattsuru:

Contributions for the week of October 7, 2024

@marinuso:

@Dean:

@naraburns:

@Amadan:

@GaBeRockKing:

Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris

[null]

Contributions for the week of October 14, 2024

@CrispyFriedBarnacles:

@Amadan:

Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris

@OliveTapenade:

@Folamh3:

@Dean:

@WhiningCoil:

Contributions for the week of October 21, 2024

@FiveHourMarathon:

@Amadan:

@faceh:

@Dean:

Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris

@TheFooder:

@Amadan

@fauji:

@Throwaway05:

@Dean:

Contributions for the week of October 28, 2024

@hooser:

@Rov_Scam:

@cjet79:

@naraburns:

@Walterodim:

@FCfromSSC:

Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris

@Primaprimaprima:

@4bpp:

@wemptronics:

Gattsuru Specifically Wrote This Because It Wasn't About the Presidential Election or National Politics, But Could See It Being Read Through That Lens

@gattsuru:

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are the AAQC's not reviewed? I assumed mods looked at the reports and used discretion to make a cut. Which I guess means the janitor duty thing goes all the way and the AAQCs are only reviewed by the handful of people as temp jannies. But @naraburns is still (thankfully) editing these lists so I imagine they are glancing?

AAQC inflation makes sense in a period of decreased activity, decreased quality, or both. If jannies we want to encourage Good Posts to keep coming the gold star is all we have besides uptokes. Which can include bread-and-butter top level posts without big surprises, such as mine there, if the place is lacking them. But to compare my submission to a contribution like Dean's series of comments-- these are in a different weight class with regards to quality, insight, and effort.

and arguably wasn't even at its conception

Yes. Eternal struggle doomed to failure. It's fine.

But to compare my submission to a contribution like Dean's series of comments-- these are in a different weight class with regards to quality, insight, and effort.

In defense of everyone else, I was on bed rest for about half of those, which explains both the availability of time.

I also highly appreciate the inputs that everyone makes that make it into the AAQC list. Don't underestimate yourself and what might strike a chord.

Are the AAQC's not reviewed? I assumed mods looked at the reports and used discretion to make a cut.

Yes, something like 200-300 comments are nominated each month. Most of them are plausibly "quality." I read all of them, but the curation process is primarily driver by user sentiment--nominations are the number one thing, nobody gets an AAQC without at least one other user nominating them (and the mods rarely nominate anyone).

After user sentiment has been accounted for, the selection involves a lot of throwing stuff out before opting stuff in; I toss out obviously rule-breaking posts, or stuff that was clearly nominated as a joke. Eventually I get down to a reasonable number of posts to read them over again and think about what each one does. I try to get through the queue weekly but realistically I end up doing most of the work at the end of each month.

I have always regarded the AAQC process as a very important "carrot" for the community, and one of the best things to come out of the old SSC subreddit. I don't do nearly as much content moderation or community participation as I used to, for what are probably pretty predictable life-related reasons. But it's important to me that the AAQCs get done, which I suppose is why I have now been curating them for almost four years. (For contrast: when I took over, counting the AAQC reports from the SSC subreddit, the AAQC report had existed for about 3.5 years.)

But I would not be able to curate them at all if Zorba hadn't created a bespoke queuing system for the process. I think people underestimate just how much our little community depends on the technical prowess of a few key, committed individuals. The work I do, could be done by just about anyone; what makes me useful is that I am willing to actually and consistently do it. The work Zorba does, I wouldn't even know how to begin doing.

what makes me useful is that I am willing to actually and consistently do it

And, sincerely, thank you for doing so. It sounds like a lot of work, and it provides a lot of value.

I have always regarded the AAQC process as a very important "carrot" for the community, and one of the best things to come out of the old SSC subreddit.

For the sake of positive reinforcement- I appreciate them, I welcome the chance to read them, and I hope they continue for some time to come, by you or otherwise.

Thank you and the team for maintaining the system that lets this happen.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats