This is happening all over reddit. One of the new mods banned me from SRD for even bringing up pedos in Hollywood.
The reddit pedophiles are circling the wagons to protect their own. I'm wondering why /u/spez is allowing sexual predators so much influence over his site.
Drama aside, there are children being harmed here.
I'll copy and paste this from another thread regarding this same issue, but with Kevin Spacey:
Some other mods gave explanations in Modmail, hopefully they have no issue with me sharing here.
"Our rule is that it has to directly effect the accused's career. We left the Weisntein stuff up because he was fired and then kicked out of the Academy. As of right now nothing has happened directly. Even House of Cards being cancelled was explicitly stated as not in response to Spacey. If he gets kicked out the academy or some film project is cancelled we'll allow it."
"The difference is that Weinstein was fired immediately. We don't allow personal life gossip, but if someone is fired or die - then it's news for /r/movies. We're about the movies themselves, first and foremost"
Essentially, the rules of /r/movies are set to allow posts that directly affect movies. Allegations made towards celebrities are certainly a big deal, but they aren't allowed on the subreddit unless the film's of the celebrity is affected, say through a firing.
It's a controversial rule for sure, but many of the mods have stood by it pretty consistently over the years, at least from what I've seen. Especially since it restricts claims that haven't been properly looked into yet (in fear of attacks towards the celebrity or the accuser), but it does address these issues when they start being acted upon and dealt with in their line of profession.
Again, it's not a fun rule, and it's not because we don't take these things seriously. But the mods who implemented the rule to begin with have seen these things go badly really quickly, and for such serious claims, patience can be important. Other subreddits did a fantastic job reporting the issue, but it's not something we've actively allowed for a number of years now.
As an example as to what type of posts we do allow regarding these issues, this thread regarding Spacey was allowed. There may very well be more approved as more things occur within the system.
It's not like all Singer related news is restricted or anything. If he's kicked off of a movie as a result of the allegations, that would make the subreddit. The words of others are important regarding allegations and accusations, but if it's solely the words of others, it is something we don't allow on the subreddit until consequences are felt or action is taken through the means of the medium.
This applies to Singer, Spacey, Weinstein, anybody who has been accused of these atrocious actions over the past few years, including accusations that went nowhere, and including accusations that evolved into actions taken that were appropriate for the subreddit.
You can disagree with the rule and have a perfectly fine argument. But it's a rule we keep by, for better or for worse, and have done so for some time now.
But what separates his case from the other accusations we've treated similarly over the years? What about this rule do you think is specially tailored to him, or to any specific person who has been accused of similar things? Where is the bias being felt in how the rule is enacted?
It's easy to say we hold some sort of bias or bribed influence to these issues, and it's even said about companies like Marvel or DC. But it's mostly said by people who don't understand, or don't like, the rules we've had in place for years. Not liking those rules is fine, but that's why we should have conversations and discussions about them, what they do well, and what they do poorly. I think that's a conversation worth having, and one that could improve the subreddit and the coverage had on these topics.
Let people post what and talk about what they want to talk about.
People like you that say "we need to have a conversation" never mean actually listening. It means you want to dictate. Which is obvious by how pompous you sound.
See, that's an interesting point. An issue possibly arising from it however is where the line is drawn between celebrity news and film news. Not to discredit either, but we are not a celebrity subreddit. We are a film subreddit. Celebrity issues, no matter how serious, unless they directly affect a film or what have you, is better suited for other subreddits. This is after all just a subforum in a website full of subforums fit for any news stories you'll want to know. Celebrity news can turn into film news, and that's where we step in, but things such as sexual assault allegations might fit more comfortably over on /r/news. You use the word "dictate", but I can't dictate what you know very well. Other subreddits cover these issues as they fit in their own ruleset, so subscribing to both means you're kind of avoiding this whole "dictate" mindset you believe us of having.
"People like you that say "we need to have a conversation" never mean actually listening"
But addressing the issue as "simple", I'd argue, isn't having much of a conversation. It might be simple to you, for sure, having a clear cut idea of what you want out of a subreddit and its coverage of news is good. But the truth is everyone wants something different from the subreddit. Some want solely film news, others want gossip, a lot of people post and upvote television news, memes, trivia, politics, anything and everything is "what they want to talk about". That's where things get complicated. Where is the line to be drawn? Should the line be ever drawn? You might say yes or no, but there isn't a "simple" answer.
I'm not dictating your disagreement over this rule, or how you speak about it in a subreddit like this. We are one subforum with a rule in place for years that we have stood by for a multitude of reasons, from a distinction between celebrity and film news, to such difficult issues being best addressed by professionals once a potential victim addresses it. Again, it's not like this rule is perfect or can't be improved, or other subreddits might work better without this type of rule. But it's a rule all the same, and disregarding it for certain stories and not others would be taking some sort of inherent bias.
You apparently think that the average redditor isn't a braindead mouth breather. Letting redditors post whatever they want is a tried and true strategy to ruin a sub.
You keep saying these rules have been in place "for years" Maybe the rules need adapt along with shifting cultural and moral attitudes. I understand not wanting to turn the sub into a tabloid wasteland of allegations and conspiracy theories, but I think it's important to have a place for discussion, even if some of it is.. I dont know how else to say this- Speculative?
I think it is a systemic problem sinister enough to warrant an ongoing discussion, thereby creating an environment where people are more comfortable to come forward and call out the creeps. And I don't just mean celebrities, but any victims of abuse. I don't think theres anything wrong with having an environment that is at the very least, sympathetic and aware of whats going on. Stuff beyond Emmy awards getting rescinded (btw Emmy awards are for TV shows not movies arent they).
So sure, people come to the sub to talk about their favorite movies, etc.. And they don't want to hear that Roman Polanski probably fondled a 9 year old. But maybe they should. And if they really, really don't want to hear that.. They can downvote the post. It's honestly reminding me of how r/news mods will lock/remove posts that are too controversial for them to handle. It's essentially turning a blind eye to shit we should be talking about if you ask me
I think it's perfectly reasonable to want a place where people should confront these sorts of issues, especially with a culture of celebrity worship that has been going around for a century if not more.
The difficulty is an inconsistency can be found in where we draw the line between "good speculation" and "bad speculation", where we remove one post and not another, because we deem one more important. I'm not saying that's wrong or anything, it's okay to consider these issues important, but drawing that line is difficult and might vary from mod to mod.
And yes, I'm not here to defend the likes of Roman Polanski for his actions. But where does the drama end when it comes to discussing films at all? A director, a lead actor, a supporting actor, anything really. Can we discuss The Usual Suspects at all without again discussing the morals of liking or supporting a movie with Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey involved? The list of films with terrible things attached to them sprawls even to the likes of Alfred Hitchcock for example. That doesn't mean we should forgive him because we like him, but discussion regarding his films might be severely altered with that so often in mind.
This is purely for /r/movies however, and these subjects should be addressed elsewhere. I don't want /r/movies to be some sort of conflict free area or anything, but when quite a lot of art has serious and problematic conflict attached to it, should a line be drawn? I'm not saying I have the answers, or the other mods have the answers, or that our rules work perfectly. But hopefully I'm explaining why we've been using this rule so long and feel it's still appropriate for our subreddit, but maybe not for others.
I'm not asking you to like this rule necessarily, I'm just hoping you understand it as to why we feel it fits for us specifically, while subreddits like /r/news would be best without it. We have different topics of discussion, and different focuses. Not "correct" focuses, but specific to our original topic of discussion.
I mean excluding maybe that last one (I'll let the other mods decide if that should be removed or not), and the second one (which I just removed), the rest of those posts are appropriate for the subreddit, even if they aren't necessarily "great".
Somebody discussing a film they like
Trivia regarding a film
A popular director talking about the state of film, in contrast to the state of another (medium), and also the influence of another popular filmmaker (Steven Spielberg). I wouldn't call that "random shit", personally
Considerations of one major film company buying another
The other two are grey-area to rule-breaking, but those other four fit completely within the rules of the subreddit.
Also people legit think that Roman Polanski can be excused because of that time his family got gassed and his wife got murdered. Never mind that he was probably balls deep in some starlet as his wife was stabbed to death - he’s totally sympathetic.
Not sympathetic, but it does give him a sympathetic angle - certainly if the trauma is what pushed him over the edge and got the predatory behavior started; not so much if he was already doing that before.
26 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-11-08
Buzzword is, itself, a buzzword now.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 dustin_slothman 2017-11-08
Just thought this was pretty juicy as Bryan Singer is notorious for having his legal team kill any articles about him. It was in the news today that USC students are trying to distance themselves from him
Roman Polanski is also getting called out by 5 more women today, including one who alleges she was molested by him when she was nine.
But you wont find anyone talking about that over on /r/movies
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2017-11-08
This is happening all over reddit. One of the new mods banned me from SRD for even bringing up pedos in Hollywood.
The reddit pedophiles are circling the wagons to protect their own. I'm wondering why /u/spez is allowing sexual predators so much influence over his site.
Drama aside, there are children being harmed here.
1 SDIHTD 2017-11-08
u/allwinter what say you? Why more weird "topic curating" accusations in your sub?
1 TheGreatZiegfeld 2017-11-08
I'll copy and paste this from another thread regarding this same issue, but with Kevin Spacey:
Some other mods gave explanations in Modmail, hopefully they have no issue with me sharing here.
"Our rule is that it has to directly effect the accused's career. We left the Weisntein stuff up because he was fired and then kicked out of the Academy. As of right now nothing has happened directly. Even House of Cards being cancelled was explicitly stated as not in response to Spacey. If he gets kicked out the academy or some film project is cancelled we'll allow it."
"The difference is that Weinstein was fired immediately. We don't allow personal life gossip, but if someone is fired or die - then it's news for /r/movies. We're about the movies themselves, first and foremost"
Essentially, the rules of /r/movies are set to allow posts that directly affect movies. Allegations made towards celebrities are certainly a big deal, but they aren't allowed on the subreddit unless the film's of the celebrity is affected, say through a firing.
It's a controversial rule for sure, but many of the mods have stood by it pretty consistently over the years, at least from what I've seen. Especially since it restricts claims that haven't been properly looked into yet (in fear of attacks towards the celebrity or the accuser), but it does address these issues when they start being acted upon and dealt with in their line of profession.
Again, it's not a fun rule, and it's not because we don't take these things seriously. But the mods who implemented the rule to begin with have seen these things go badly really quickly, and for such serious claims, patience can be important. Other subreddits did a fantastic job reporting the issue, but it's not something we've actively allowed for a number of years now.
As an example as to what type of posts we do allow regarding these issues, this thread regarding Spacey was allowed. There may very well be more approved as more things occur within the system.
I hope this helps.
1 SDIHTD 2017-11-08
Yeah, same weaksauce type excuse from last time your sub imploded.
1 MasterLawlz 2017-11-08
Did Bryan Singer invite you to one of his famous pool parties to buy your silence
1 TheGreatZiegfeld 2017-11-08
It's not like all Singer related news is restricted or anything. If he's kicked off of a movie as a result of the allegations, that would make the subreddit. The words of others are important regarding allegations and accusations, but if it's solely the words of others, it is something we don't allow on the subreddit until consequences are felt or action is taken through the means of the medium.
This applies to Singer, Spacey, Weinstein, anybody who has been accused of these atrocious actions over the past few years, including accusations that went nowhere, and including accusations that evolved into actions taken that were appropriate for the subreddit.
You can disagree with the rule and have a perfectly fine argument. But it's a rule we keep by, for better or for worse, and have done so for some time now.
1 SDIHTD 2017-11-08
So yes, you do bounce on his lap at pool parties.
1 TheGreatZiegfeld 2017-11-08
But what separates his case from the other accusations we've treated similarly over the years? What about this rule do you think is specially tailored to him, or to any specific person who has been accused of similar things? Where is the bias being felt in how the rule is enacted?
It's easy to say we hold some sort of bias or bribed influence to these issues, and it's even said about companies like Marvel or DC. But it's mostly said by people who don't understand, or don't like, the rules we've had in place for years. Not liking those rules is fine, but that's why we should have conversations and discussions about them, what they do well, and what they do poorly. I think that's a conversation worth having, and one that could improve the subreddit and the coverage had on these topics.
1 SDIHTD 2017-11-08
It's really simple... Pay attention...
Let people post what and talk about what they want to talk about.
People like you that say "we need to have a conversation" never mean actually listening. It means you want to dictate. Which is obvious by how pompous you sound.
1 TheGreatZiegfeld 2017-11-08
See, that's an interesting point. An issue possibly arising from it however is where the line is drawn between celebrity news and film news. Not to discredit either, but we are not a celebrity subreddit. We are a film subreddit. Celebrity issues, no matter how serious, unless they directly affect a film or what have you, is better suited for other subreddits. This is after all just a subforum in a website full of subforums fit for any news stories you'll want to know. Celebrity news can turn into film news, and that's where we step in, but things such as sexual assault allegations might fit more comfortably over on /r/news. You use the word "dictate", but I can't dictate what you know very well. Other subreddits cover these issues as they fit in their own ruleset, so subscribing to both means you're kind of avoiding this whole "dictate" mindset you believe us of having.
"People like you that say "we need to have a conversation" never mean actually listening"
But addressing the issue as "simple", I'd argue, isn't having much of a conversation. It might be simple to you, for sure, having a clear cut idea of what you want out of a subreddit and its coverage of news is good. But the truth is everyone wants something different from the subreddit. Some want solely film news, others want gossip, a lot of people post and upvote television news, memes, trivia, politics, anything and everything is "what they want to talk about". That's where things get complicated. Where is the line to be drawn? Should the line be ever drawn? You might say yes or no, but there isn't a "simple" answer.
I'm not dictating your disagreement over this rule, or how you speak about it in a subreddit like this. We are one subforum with a rule in place for years that we have stood by for a multitude of reasons, from a distinction between celebrity and film news, to such difficult issues being best addressed by professionals once a potential victim addresses it. Again, it's not like this rule is perfect or can't be improved, or other subreddits might work better without this type of rule. But it's a rule all the same, and disregarding it for certain stories and not others would be taking some sort of inherent bias.
1 SDIHTD 2017-11-08
Tldr
1 Assy-McGee 2017-11-08
tl;dr but you sound like a pedo-enabling cuckophile
1 TUMS_FESTIVAL 2017-11-08
You apparently think that the average redditor isn't a braindead mouth breather. Letting redditors post whatever they want is a tried and true strategy to ruin a sub.
1 dustin_slothman 2017-11-08
You keep saying these rules have been in place "for years" Maybe the rules need adapt along with shifting cultural and moral attitudes. I understand not wanting to turn the sub into a tabloid wasteland of allegations and conspiracy theories, but I think it's important to have a place for discussion, even if some of it is.. I dont know how else to say this- Speculative?
I think it is a systemic problem sinister enough to warrant an ongoing discussion, thereby creating an environment where people are more comfortable to come forward and call out the creeps. And I don't just mean celebrities, but any victims of abuse. I don't think theres anything wrong with having an environment that is at the very least, sympathetic and aware of whats going on. Stuff beyond Emmy awards getting rescinded (btw Emmy awards are for TV shows not movies arent they).
So sure, people come to the sub to talk about their favorite movies, etc.. And they don't want to hear that Roman Polanski probably fondled a 9 year old. But maybe they should. And if they really, really don't want to hear that.. They can downvote the post. It's honestly reminding me of how r/news mods will lock/remove posts that are too controversial for them to handle. It's essentially turning a blind eye to shit we should be talking about if you ask me
1 TheGreatZiegfeld 2017-11-08
I think it's perfectly reasonable to want a place where people should confront these sorts of issues, especially with a culture of celebrity worship that has been going around for a century if not more.
The difficulty is an inconsistency can be found in where we draw the line between "good speculation" and "bad speculation", where we remove one post and not another, because we deem one more important. I'm not saying that's wrong or anything, it's okay to consider these issues important, but drawing that line is difficult and might vary from mod to mod.
And yes, I'm not here to defend the likes of Roman Polanski for his actions. But where does the drama end when it comes to discussing films at all? A director, a lead actor, a supporting actor, anything really. Can we discuss The Usual Suspects at all without again discussing the morals of liking or supporting a movie with Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey involved? The list of films with terrible things attached to them sprawls even to the likes of Alfred Hitchcock for example. That doesn't mean we should forgive him because we like him, but discussion regarding his films might be severely altered with that so often in mind.
This is purely for /r/movies however, and these subjects should be addressed elsewhere. I don't want /r/movies to be some sort of conflict free area or anything, but when quite a lot of art has serious and problematic conflict attached to it, should a line be drawn? I'm not saying I have the answers, or the other mods have the answers, or that our rules work perfectly. But hopefully I'm explaining why we've been using this rule so long and feel it's still appropriate for our subreddit, but maybe not for others.
I'm not asking you to like this rule necessarily, I'm just hoping you understand it as to why we feel it fits for us specifically, while subreddits like /r/news would be best without it. We have different topics of discussion, and different focuses. Not "correct" focuses, but specific to our original topic of discussion.
1 MasterLawlz 2017-11-08
I’m sorry fam I was just making a joke lol
1 TheGreatZiegfeld 2017-11-08
Oh okay, I thought you were serious for a bit there.
1 LemonScore 2017-11-08
Currently on the front page of /r/movies:
Some guy saying he likes Spirited Away
A submission advertising "Runpee" ("an app that tells you when's a good to to use the bathroom during a movie")
"On this day in 1992, the final scene of "Rudy" was filmed during halftime of the Notre Dame vs. Boston College game."
Christopher Nolan talking about random shit (thank god he isn't talking about pedos, aye mods?)
Disney was maybe gonna buy Fox, but then they didn't
A youtube meme video of Owen Wilson's voice over clips from Drive
1 TheGreatZiegfeld 2017-11-08
I mean excluding maybe that last one (I'll let the other mods decide if that should be removed or not), and the second one (which I just removed), the rest of those posts are appropriate for the subreddit, even if they aren't necessarily "great".
Somebody discussing a film they like
Trivia regarding a film
A popular director talking about the state of film, in contrast to the state of another (medium), and also the influence of another popular filmmaker (Steven Spielberg). I wouldn't call that "random shit", personally
Considerations of one major film company buying another
The other two are grey-area to rule-breaking, but those other four fit completely within the rules of the subreddit.
1 -Drama_Llama- 2017-11-08
U haff been visited by the Drama Llamma
1 a_jill_sandwich 2017-11-08
Bryan Singer is one of the biggest nonces going.
Also people legit think that Roman Polanski can be excused because of that time his family got gassed and his wife got murdered. Never mind that he was probably balls deep in some starlet as his wife was stabbed to death - he’s totally sympathetic.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-11-08
Not sympathetic, but it does give him a sympathetic angle - certainly if the trauma is what pushed him over the edge and got the predatory behavior started; not so much if he was already doing that before.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-08
I just don't get why a non-serious sub about movies doesnt want to be turned into /r/moviepolitics.
It must be an (((AGENDA)))
1 Teresa_May 2017-11-08
Many people are saying that Harvey Weinstein himself took over as top moderator now that he doesn't have a producer job getting in the way.
1 girafa 2017-11-08
Hey darlin, you wanna be a star?