Noticed maybe every 2nd article i post seem's 2 get nuked by the automod on the sub

*and no the articles are not on the banned list for the conflict in the middle east,mainly to do with nuclear energy,or negative gearing policies the most recent.

No issues on sydney/australia/australian when i post an article

So clearly it's just Auspol sub,anything new been changed with the automod

I've never looked at this before, nor has anyone posted about it, however it's interesting to benchmark what the sub consumes. The sub is largely a news aggregation community, however what news is consumed. To give an idea I've collated all the article sources posted in the last 7 days to see where the bias of the sub sits.

All Source listing's are here and groupings into bias type;

https://imgur.com/a/6mQ9m7u

The results;

• 0.81% - Left Bias Source
• 65% - Left-Centre Source
• 5% - Centre Source
• 8% - Right-Centre Bias Source
• 5% - Right Bias Source
• 15% - Not Rated/Not News/Other

Ratings are sourced from https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Now, typical qualifiers on this data apply (i.e. short period, I may have mis-counted one or two either side etc.), however;

• If the sub largely consumes or seeks left leaning sources, how does that define how users participate in the sub (interaction styles, reporting velocity, tolerance of opinions, group/mob dynamics)?
• How does that impact moderation when persistent pressure from majority biased participant base through reporting, messaging and feedback weighs on moderator decision making?
• If the subs posts are overwhelmingly left leaning, does this attract more of the same resulting in more of a confirmation bias echo?
• How does the sub ensure a healthy mix of political opinions? Does it want to? If so, how does it achieve source bias balance?

There are many more questions from data like this, so discussion, go on...

Hi all - I try to ensure any articles I share from behind paywalls are added as a comment into the thread for people to read, but it seems like the character limit is fairly short and constantly rejects the comment.

Any chance we could look to get the max. character limit increased?

would I be allowedto make a thread to discuss the visit of King Charles to Canberra and Sydney next week?

A rare visit by our head of state fits the bill of Australian politics, imo

I accept the arguments for the automod, it makes sense to me. Further, from experience the mods are pretty responsive and comments get out of quarantine quickly.

I just don't want to read a misspelling or substitution for a keyword for the millionth time.

Please enforce the rules or modify the rules. The current state is infuriating.

In answer to a question in another thread (now locked), it was my decision to leave the subs, and in no way reflects on the Australian Politics subs themselves. I am talking directly to admins about finding a new home for the AMAs.

Bennelong gone as a mod here? Drama in another sub with overlapping mods.

What will be the impact on this sub with Bennelong gone who organised all the AMAs and seemingly a little bit of conflict behind the scenes?

I know it wont help with the things they post where it just links to dailymail articles, but there webiste is legit cooker territory.

https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/campaigns

Like this kind of shit

"Dr Jim Chalmers is in charge of the economy. That means he is responsible when your interest rates go up. He is responsible when you can’t afford rent. He is responsible when Woolies and Coles jack up their prices. He is responsible when the doctor charges you $80 to see your kids when Medicare is supposed to be free. Dr Jim Chalmers has the power to do something. And you have the power to make him."

What an insane statement to make, and i don't really like Jim Chalmers lol.

"There’s a renewables secret Labor, the Greens and the Teals are hiding from you. They would have you believe renewables are all about climate change, all about doing something good for the environment. But the truth is very different."

Actively trying to get people to take action against renewables to "save the environment"

Or this shit

"The Anthony Albanese Labor/Greens/Teal alliance is pushing so-called “fuel efficiency standards”, which really mean you pay more for your next ute or big family car. All while they get cheaper Teslas. It’s a ute tax by another name. But it will also hit the big family cars, 4WDs and SUVs Aussies rely on every day. You have a job where you need to drive long distances? Tough luck. Need enough power to haul big loads? Too bad. Need a bigger car to get your kids safely to school and sport? Think again. Sign the petition now and tell the inner city elites to back off."

The teals are in the fucking house of reps dipshits, Labor doesnt have an alliance with anyone in the House of reps because they have a clear majority.
Labor are short of a majority in the senate with doesn't have any teals. Its just lies after lies.

If we have almost universal bans on something like X, then i really feel like this one needs to be banned too. I honestly dont even expect the more... opinionated people with a right-wing philosophy are likely to post this because its not just right-wing, its cooker shit
But if we get a post thats got "www.advanceaustralia.org.au" in the name, can we have the automod remove it? Its only going to get worse as they start the campaign in earnest.

I recently had a heated exchange with another user, which led to them blocking me. While I recognise that I could have been more civil in that interaction, the situation has raised a broader issue I feel.

This user frequently posts content that, in my opinion, is clearly pushing a specific agenda. They actively debate anyone who disagrees with their stance, which is fair in a public forum. However, now that I've been blocked, I can no longer see or respond to what they post. This essentially excludes me from engaging in the discussions that /r/AustralianPolitics is meant to be about, especially on this very specific topic as it is always posted by this one user.

I believe open discussion is extremely important. But, if someone is pushing an agenda they can effectively block out the people who are refuting their points and effectively silence them (as a non mod) whilst they continue to post propaganda. I'm curious about others' thoughts on this.

I wondered how this one was going to play out (particularly after the sub participant responses to Albanese "cooker" post a few weeks ago) but it was a good one, well moderated and everyone played nicely.

Lots of good questions (and good ones seeded by the mods), and unlike the last AMA, the Senator provided a good number of explanatory responses across a few issues.

Thanks, mods, more of it. Hopefully, you can crack the majors and get a few of them in the AMAs more often in the future.

As per title, i spent the last 10 minutes looking and cant seem to find it. Might just be blind or something.

I am glad the last poll went out but I would like to ask if we can sticky the poll until it runs out, 7days at max.

His account shows as suspended. I only post this as he is a long time contributor and I may be wrong but he doesn't seem the type to me to get suspended.

The "Israel/Palestine admonishment" thread hasn't been pinned for some time. And there's a slot available.

Can we reinstate the weekly thread? (Not the daily thread. That was terrible)

Or will the default R13 message be revised?

I mean, this one was at least better than the Malcolm Roberts AMA by a mile, but it's very brigaded.

I got at least one reply which boiled down to "why aren't you asking the question everybody else is?"

While others were basically "Adam Bandt bad" just longer and more drawn out, with nothing to really ask the man.

And i mean, idk. Short staffed mod team and all, but i do think if we want to keep these pollies coming back here, maybe there needs to be a one strike rule?

Or maybe a way to limit how many times someone can reply?

I'm also saying this in regards to people besides Adam, namely Malcolm. Since the Malcolm Roberts AMAs are a mess.

Idk, but i do think something needs to be done to keep these people coming back and actually wanting to engage with us.

Maybe add the https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/ site on the AMA's

It's hard to participate in the sub knowing Leland is the new mod, when i go to type things. I'm blinded by his good looks and charm.

But i'm also conflicted, because i wanna throw things at him too ya know?

And it's been hard since, i mean. I don't wanna cheat on Ender, we had a rocky relationship after i cheated on him for Ardeet back in the day.

God, who woulda thought Auspol could be so dramatic and romantic at the same time.

Polls. No not the european ones, but the useful data collecting ones. Can we please get more polls approved.

I demand TRIAL BY COMBAT.

So we recently got a certain MP to participate in the sub rofl, and look. God help him he has no clue what he's doing here.

Now, i know there shouldn't be favoritism, but my boy doesn't know the craic.

Now, i know the mods shouldn't baby sit a grown man (god i'm pure pissing myself typing this rofl) but maybe a little, ya know? Ease?

Recently we've had a lot of messages and modmails about why your comment was removed. In a lot of instances, this has related to our recent filter (not removal system) of words relating to the Israel/Palestine conflict. This has been done to allow the discussion to happen on the sub, but removed the comments that are rule breaking (off topic, uncivil, etc) which historically has been the majority of comments made on the matter.

Just to clarify some things -
- Your post has not been "removed", it is being manually approved for suitability. Yes, there will be a delay, but generally the delays have been brief and we'll try to keep them so.

​

- If you feel you're clever and will dodgy around this filter using P-alestine, P, I, etc. that we've been seeing, your comment will be removed and you'll be hit with a ban (the length of this will vary dependent on previous sub history).

​

Thank you for your continued non-rule breaking engagement :)

​

Kinda wondered what words are banned, like. I'm guessing in a comment 'Israel' is a banned word?

I been editing a comment i threw up, and my only guess is it's Israel?

A bit extreme isn't it?

I think polls in Britain close 7am Friday AEST. I know it's not "AusPol" but then neither was Liz, and I'm sure a lot of people want to chat about it and it could have some impacts over here, even with AUKUS. Pretty interesting one too with Farage etc.

Also who the fuck leaves polls open until 10pm?

Since im already here, ill ask about this too.

I was a little irritated that i spent a good chunk of sunday morning grabbing some polling data from AEC and pollbludger, and some info from ABS and a secondary source who used the ATO, and then writing an analysis on the voting trends and a potential reason for it, only for the automod to immediately remove it.

Ok fair enough i said, ill send a post to the mod team to see what i did wrong and if it will get approved.

4 days later, still no reponse.

I did get a response 2 days ago to a modmail query i asked 2 weeks ago, where i was asking whether id be allowed to write up a piece on public education in australia if i provided data and sources on things like budgets, staffing levels, educational outcomes, and ironically was told it could fit on Soapbox Sunday. The response from me asking about the already removed one is still pending.

Wasnt the whole recruitment drive for new mods (and soapbox sunday) done so we could try and generate more engagement and discussion?

If im spending hours to put together a bunch of sources and writing an analysis of it (whether people agree with it or not is fine) only to have the automod remove it and then have the article ignored despite the automod response saying not to repost it and it will have a response soon, and my modmail about the article ignored, then its not exactly encouraging me to bother with that level of detail in the future is it?

So what should i expect going forwad, i guess is my question. I dont want to spend hours writing again just to have the post ive attempted to match to the quality requirements removed and queries on it ignored.

Yea im pretty disappointed to see this post removed. I could have just screen shotted the letter i guess, but i hate not being able to see a source when im reading something.

Not a fan at all of a blanket "social media" ban, and even more disappointed that this wasnt an automod ban, but rather, after seeing a bunch of discussion around the implications of the letter, whether it will be a positive or a negative political move, whether she will be able to stick to her guns, a moderator still decided ti remove it.

Political figures announce relevant things via social media platforms all the time.

The rule being

R7: No satirical material, memes, comics, or social media posts.

What if, touch wood, we somehow get a Donald Trump elected. If you just blanket banned social media posts you would have missed half his announcements.

The fact that theres no discresion from the moderators on this rule (or if there is, and they decided this wasnt politically relevant) concerns me.

I cant even understand why someone would have reported it. I thought the discussion was as civil as id seen around here, and i thought it has some good points.

I dunno, there was all this stuff about wanting the sub to be more active, and more people discussing things. If a discussion around the Vic Premiers response to Duttons announcement isnt considered politcally relevant due to the website she posted the letter on, then i think there needs to be a re-evaluation of the rule preventing that.
Why would this have been any more relevant if newscorp had picked it up, written a few pithy comments, shown the same photo and created an article?

It's hard to avoid using banned words, when the list of banned words is not known.

Rule 1:

Passionate views are understandable however, discussion of individuals or groups must not be abusive, vitriolic, victim blame or use derogatory nicknames.

Avoid accusing people of unproven criminal conduct or of racism, sexism or any other 'ism' without clear evidence.

Participants that incite violence or promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

Moderators may use discretion in enforcing rules to ensure debate is consistent with the purpose of the subreddit.

While calling someone some of the things in the title is fairly tame, the way calling someone 'mate' around here is a clear derogatory nickname; an attempt to demean and belittle the other user to make a point.

This is also inconsistent with the AutoModerator call to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible.

What do you think about the proposition that calling a user such diminutives (putting examples like "mate", "buddy", "champ" explicitly into Rule 1) should constitute a breach of the subreddit rules and be enforced as such?

Sorry, I thought this was Australian politics. I wonder what the senate just voted then. who knows, maybe the mod team knows.

Drink spiking is a horrible crime but it’s a lot rarer than claimed.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19527282/

That’s one report where only 10% of them claimed were ‘plausible.’ And they didn’t identify a single case of a sedative likely placed in a drink whilst in a club or bar.

Now I’m not saying her drink wasn’t spiked, but there are studies from all over the World proving it’s very often bullshit.

That’s my comment on a thread about a QLD Labor MP allegedly assaulted after having her drink (allegedly) spiked. The stats have reported drink spiking as being often around 10% true, and 90% bullshit. I want opinions not on the truth of the studies I linked, but only about if this is ‘off-topic.’ If the consensus is against me I’ll wear it.

Do events need to be in Australia to be permitted to be posted ?

The rest of the mod team has frequently and emphatically told us about Ender's importance to the moderation of the sub. Ender may find modding troublesome with a suspended account.

So... What now? Aside from spamming CFMEU memes, of course.