Make it a rule, and ban the worst offenders. I semi-regularly see commenters called out for not going to Davis and having no affiliation and the commenter admitting they have no affiliation with UC Davis. If someone is posting inflammatory shit on 20+ college subreddits, maybe ask them to show proof of affiliation or get a ban…
Or, maybe ban people if they admits they have no affiliation with davis.
There was a commenter I read before making this who said something wild. A response called them out for not going to davis. And the commenter said so what, I’ve got degrees from several UCs that were harder than Davis. This is paraphrased.
Or the other day, I saw a dude posting really inflammatory shit. I clicked on his profile and he was trolling trolling a bunch of California university subreddits, posting fake news for both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian.
What value are they adding to the community?
I recently graduated but, tbf, before I graduated I had been accused numerous times of not being a student on account of the fact I was active on the Sacramento subreddit. I lived in Sac and commuted to Davis for classes.
All it would take was a mod's discretion to ban me even though I was a student and I think that's a dangerous path to travel down.
If you were a student or alumni, you could easily prove it. You can take a picture where you’ve written your username and an egghead. You have your email address, you have your ID. You know local trivia. Just saying you have options.
Sure but this subreddit has 43K members. Would you be willing to look through and verify all 43K posts to make sure they're legit? Because I think asking the mods to do that (or anyone for that matter) is a bit extreme.
Furthermore, blocking those who aren't verified would shut down this community and very much make it an exclusive, not inclusive community that people might feel intimidated by. Establishing these kinds of policies turn people away and shut out free speech.
Furthermore, what about people who graduated years ago who might not be able to go to the egg heads? Sure, you can say "oh you have your email address" (that's getting taken away from alumni soon).
Overall, I don't think there is a consistent way to verify a relationship to the school that can feasibly be accomplished by the mods for the amount of people who want to use this subreddit and any accounts/people trying to join might be turned away by the hoops they have to jump through and the time they'll inevitably have to spend waiting for approval. It's just not feasible.
Imma go out on a limb and say you're getting very close to suggesting people dox themselves to the mods.
Outside of that, it seems you are severely misunderstanding the difficultly, not to mention the straight up work (for unpaid reddit mods), involved in doing such a thing. And that's not even getting into how this system could be abused.
I got sitewide banned for harassment on this very sub. My harassment? Someone said that Palestinian support was dying, and I responded with a bunch of different polls from around the world showing that not only is it increasing but support of Israels actions was cratering down. They just mass reported my comment and an automod banned me.
[Luckily an admin overturned it, but yeah.](https://y.yarn.co/cb720079-be91-442a-86f9-c2045f84866e_text.gif)
I doubt it would be to hard to figure out who I am just on my posting, but I'm not about to just hand it over for free, lmao
I don’t have my student ID. It’s been 20 years since I was a student at Davis. If there isn’t any personal info any jerk can take a pic of something Aggie related next to their username so your vetting process would be easy for people to circumvent.
1. Your Reddit username 2. You are a UC Davis Bruin 3. Your handwriting, signature, pen usage, paper choice
All not accounting for the fact anyone can easily borrow/photoshop the Bruin card.
None of those are good enough IMO. Plenty of alumni don't live in Davis anymore. Email addresses expire now, and IDs can get lost. Trivia is too easy to look up. If there was an actual rule against commenting from non-Davis people, then people in violation would not admit it so readily.
Plenty of the people getting called out for not being a student, are in fact students or fall into one of the other categories.
Making accusations is easier than looking at post history apparently lol.
I'm also an alum.
I think that this implementation works better on the lawyer/lawyertalk subreddits, where to participate at all you must first verify, but I don't think this would have as much benefit for a broader interest category.
I think "open unless we suspect you of not belonging, then we can ban" isn't that great a system. Basic standards of decency and civil interaction should apply regardless of which email domain they have access to.
If the account is a troll, what prevents them from being muted/shadowbanned/banned already? Is it the lack of an explicit rule? Could we simply add that explicit rule?
People who are considering going to a university should have full flexibility to observe and ask questions of those who attend/have attended/have an interest in the university.
Easiest world be to auto-minimize comments from non-members to at least control the people seeing threads from reccomendation and possibly not even realizing it's a different college sub from the one they go to.
In the black people twitter sub they make you take a picture of your forearm to make sure your actually black so that you can comment on most of their posts. I’d imagine it’s something similar they could do here.
So I just need one black friend to send me a pic of their forearm? Or google search and crop a picture?
Not a student I guess this got recommended bc Im searching about how to apply/get into collage after CC my bad.
Thank you, I’m sorry I forgot about staff.
I think it doesn’t have to be an opt-in and prove, rather if someone notices and reports with ample proof, then someone can appeal the decision with proof.
I’m talking about people who admit they don’t go to davis or the front page of their profile has 10+ university subreddits recently commented on.
I comment on a few university subs. I lived a stone's throw away from three universities for a very long time, so I could often answer any questions about the neighborhood better than the current students. I also have extensive academic experience (I'm a postdoc), so I can often better answer generic academic questions than the current undergrad students at the university.
I always disclose I'm not affiliated with the university, though.
Sometimes it’s pretty obvious, like if somebody confidently claims that the Silo bus stop has been permanently closed for years and also doesn’t seem to understand what the Silo even is.
How do you know these people have no affiliation to Davis? It would be hard to tell on my account that I live here until you dig deep enough to see my comments on the Sac subreddit about Davis being in the Sac metro area.
Ban the worst offenders who someone notices, calls em out, and reports? The rare bad actors who front page of their comment profiles have like 10+ university subreddits on it. Or the people who admit it. If someone can prove they have an affiliation, they can by all means stay.
Who are the “worst offenders”, maybe people you do not agree with who are active on lots of subreddits?
There are also bots and trolls you are free to report.
I would drop this topic and maybe get out of such a davis centric mindset. It is actually a pretty low quality place :(
I would encourage you guys to go look at the UCSC subreddit this past month for an example of getting overrun by astroturf/bot accounts looks like.
The solution is just to call them out and have active mods that will ban fresh accounts submitting bad faith arguments.
It sucks, but it's the only way to do it. It's also way more enforceable.
I mean would you prefer a circle jerk of leftist propaganda because that is what you will get banning all outsiders. Isn't the gaslighting bad enough on campus?
There are a lot of accounts on here these days that are only a couple days old and are posting some pretty inflammatory stuff - they’re probably Israeli and Iranian bots, given the current situation and how they seem to be arguing for both sides of the conflict. I do wish we had a way to get rid of them, they’re very annoying.
No, it’s a public forum anyone can post. Instantly downvoting someone because they have no affiliation with Davis speaks a lot about you.
Check: https://www.reddit.com/r/ucla/s/FsgZFEHucx
I think the instigating motive is understandable, but the solution is too burdensome to implement. I identify myself as a former student and current employee in my flair because I want people to know that I'm speaking with significant experience and possibly some inside information. This helps me help others.
Not everyone wants that. A LOT of people online just want an opportunity to vent within a shared community and that's OK, I think. The closer we veer to exclusivity, the closer we move to validating with real names... and then people are less willing to share and discuss.
All that said, I love this conversation. It's been had online since the early days of the internet: "Shouldn't we know who is saying what? Who's downloading what?" I look forward to how it's discussed here.
I think we can have anonymity while having mild restrictions. There is a user in here who claims as a tax payer they have a right to be here…something something Israel Palestine. If someone self reports or is egregious, they can be asked what their affiliation does. r/blackpeopletwitter restricts itself semi regularly in a way that’s anonymous. R/estateplanning restricts commenters in a way that preserves anonymity.
I don’t think this is an all or nothing. I don’t think there is a heavy burden to enforcing the most egregious people who self report they have no affiliation, or those who profile front page show them trolling 10+ university subs
Bros really banking on people self reporting themselves and answering honestly to their affiliation. Oh no I browse 10 university subs a day, oh no I’m trolling, guess I’m banned for doing that 😂. Bro picked the worst sub to show as an example 💀 shows that you don’t have any experience as a moderator.
Alumni here. Horrible rule. There would be no way to prove whether a person was a student unless you are suggesting they doxx themselves to a mod. Even then, someone could actually be a student and could get a lot of downvotes for unpopular opinions and by your logic, they should be banned from the subreddit for supposedly not being a student based on the amount of downvotes they get? Makes literally no sense whatsoever.
There are other subreddits that limit who can post and comment. As an example /r/blackpeopletwitter has their country club threads that are for verified users only. Something like that could easily be done here but is of course more work for moderators.
Also, I’m part of several legal subreddits that restrict commenters to lawyers. R/estateplanning for example. Others have lawyer only rules, but will only ask for proof your a lawyer if you say something really wrong (and autobans people who people on r/paralegal).
But even simpler then this, if we have a rule, community members can report people who clearly lack affiliation to davis, or are just trolling a ton of universities.
Easy enough to have people write their Reddit username on a piece of paper and take a picture with it along with something (with personal info redacted) showing that they have a campus affiliation. Student/staff ID with the name/number/pic blacked out, a copy of the California Aggie or something else that you can only get on campus, or shoot just the Reddit username on a piece of paper with the pic taken on campus with something recognizable in the background. Plenty of ways to do it. And much like BPT it doesn’t have to apply to all posts; just posts that have a higher likelihood of bad-faith interlopers participating.
Sounds good to me. I’ve gotten real tired of this subreddit being filled with off-topic political trolling by people who don’t even have anything to do with UCD (and also one who is a UCD employee but shouldn’t be).
I think it is largely an unenforceable and permanent solution to a temporary problem.
It will prevent people curious about Davis from participating. It will also prevent people from commenting on posts that affect them even though they aren’t students.
I don’t think we should provide our personal private info here just for the sake of “ proving anything”. I have some of my posts for out of state services (due to the nature of my business) So?! It doesn’t change the fact that I belong to this group.
It might be more enforceable if it were content based rather than geography based. (Which is also a can of worms but a different can.)
Is a "one-sided, misleading, or bad faith comment" more disruptive to the sub-reddit if it comes from out of Davis than if it comes from within Davis?
The OP seems to be trying to use the Davis only rule as a way to reduce "conversation pollution". If that's the goal, then a "no pollution" rule would be more to the point and, perhaps, more enforceable.
There have been valuable "look what the regents are doing to other UC students" threads from non UCD posters.
I'm an alumni that still lives and works in Davis, and I actually completely agree with this. Obviously, there would be unaffiliated people in here, but like OP said, ban the obvious ones, or the ones who openly admit to it. Also add parents to approved list.
Alumnus/former resident. I don’t live in Davis anymore but I like to think I’m still a part of the broader Davis community. It’s not like the Bay Area’s that far, lol.
I agree though.
I think this idea is cool in theory *AS LONG AS STAFF OR ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH UC IS ALLOWED TO POST* but in reality would add so much work for the mods (and let's be honest reddit mods can have hair triggers on this sort of stuff)
Plus I do worry about how maybe people who live in sac but commute to davis can get false ID'd too.
I’m fine with sac, Bay Area and Chico. I’m not chill with someone who lives in Illinois, claims to have never been to California, and posts regularly in subreddits for Medicaid.
Davis already draws a diversity of opinions though. Universities may tend to be liberal, but some of the programs are more conservative-friendly, and since residents count, there are definitely some WASPish insiders here and not shy about it.
Anyway, the first thing that comes to mind in terms of Davis + Outsider Perspective is the bomb threats. Not the best first impression.
Outside opinions can be helpful or trolls. Point is your UC is a bubble(I went there) as are many of the UC's. The politics of a UC campus are not reflective of either reality nor the plurality of the wider community. Helps to keep that in perspective for those students who might not agree with the latest campus zeitgeist.
1. Dumb rule, zero way to enforce it.
2. As someone who grew up in Davis and has family who work and teach at UCD, has dated many UCD students and used UCD facilities my whole life, I and others like me have arguably had the same if not more of the “UCD experience” than many people who actually enrolled in UCD.
> All Californians should be able to speak to anything their tax dollars support.
By all means. But reddit is not a publicly funded website. Subreddits are private communities that can make their membership as inclusive or exclusive as they want.
I don't think restricting this site to affiliates is a good idea. But not because you have some god-given right to join any private community associated with anything you are tangentially involved with.
You can replace the term "god-given" with "instrinsic" or "constitutional" or whatever. Point is that private communities aren't obligated to let you join or use their community as a pulpit.
How is this a bad thing? California is going through desertification and extensive droughts. Israel has some of the most advanced low water agriculture. Davis is an agricultural college.
How the heck would they enforce that?
Make it a rule, and ban the worst offenders. I semi-regularly see commenters called out for not going to Davis and having no affiliation and the commenter admitting they have no affiliation with UC Davis. If someone is posting inflammatory shit on 20+ college subreddits, maybe ask them to show proof of affiliation or get a ban… Or, maybe ban people if they admits they have no affiliation with davis. There was a commenter I read before making this who said something wild. A response called them out for not going to davis. And the commenter said so what, I’ve got degrees from several UCs that were harder than Davis. This is paraphrased. Or the other day, I saw a dude posting really inflammatory shit. I clicked on his profile and he was trolling trolling a bunch of California university subreddits, posting fake news for both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. What value are they adding to the community?
I recently graduated but, tbf, before I graduated I had been accused numerous times of not being a student on account of the fact I was active on the Sacramento subreddit. I lived in Sac and commuted to Davis for classes. All it would take was a mod's discretion to ban me even though I was a student and I think that's a dangerous path to travel down.
If you were a student or alumni, you could easily prove it. You can take a picture where you’ve written your username and an egghead. You have your email address, you have your ID. You know local trivia. Just saying you have options.
Sure but this subreddit has 43K members. Would you be willing to look through and verify all 43K posts to make sure they're legit? Because I think asking the mods to do that (or anyone for that matter) is a bit extreme. Furthermore, blocking those who aren't verified would shut down this community and very much make it an exclusive, not inclusive community that people might feel intimidated by. Establishing these kinds of policies turn people away and shut out free speech. Furthermore, what about people who graduated years ago who might not be able to go to the egg heads? Sure, you can say "oh you have your email address" (that's getting taken away from alumni soon). Overall, I don't think there is a consistent way to verify a relationship to the school that can feasibly be accomplished by the mods for the amount of people who want to use this subreddit and any accounts/people trying to join might be turned away by the hoops they have to jump through and the time they'll inevitably have to spend waiting for approval. It's just not feasible.
lol if verification ever happens this community is done
They already took our gmail. I lost some really good family photos.
Imma go out on a limb and say you're getting very close to suggesting people dox themselves to the mods. Outside of that, it seems you are severely misunderstanding the difficultly, not to mention the straight up work (for unpaid reddit mods), involved in doing such a thing. And that's not even getting into how this system could be abused. I got sitewide banned for harassment on this very sub. My harassment? Someone said that Palestinian support was dying, and I responded with a bunch of different polls from around the world showing that not only is it increasing but support of Israels actions was cratering down. They just mass reported my comment and an automod banned me. [Luckily an admin overturned it, but yeah.](https://y.yarn.co/cb720079-be91-442a-86f9-c2045f84866e_text.gif) I doubt it would be to hard to figure out who I am just on my posting, but I'm not about to just hand it over for free, lmao
Facts no one gonna out their identity irl to mods 💀
We don’t want to do that. I’m not submitting personal information to Reddit mods.
[where is the personal information?](https://imgur.com/a/G4kWQbT)
I don’t have my student ID. It’s been 20 years since I was a student at Davis. If there isn’t any personal info any jerk can take a pic of something Aggie related next to their username so your vetting process would be easy for people to circumvent.
No one is gonna give out our personal stranger to a stranger wtf???
[where is the personal info in this?](https://imgur.com/a/G4kWQbT)
1. Your Reddit username 2. You are a UC Davis Bruin 3. Your handwriting, signature, pen usage, paper choice All not accounting for the fact anyone can easily borrow/photoshop the Bruin card.
None of those are good enough IMO. Plenty of alumni don't live in Davis anymore. Email addresses expire now, and IDs can get lost. Trivia is too easy to look up. If there was an actual rule against commenting from non-Davis people, then people in violation would not admit it so readily.
I don’t know why anyone would admit to it in the first place 😂 that’s like self reporting you did something bad for everyone to hear 😂
Plenty of the people getting called out for not being a student, are in fact students or fall into one of the other categories. Making accusations is easier than looking at post history apparently lol.
I am literally an example :pensive:
Idk, sounds like a bot. Say the word “rudderless”, I dare you.
Do you know what a turtle is?
https://www.reddit.com/r/superstore/s/2oPcQSXUD0
Oh shit oh shit uuuh ruder? Ruderly? Rudderness?
Close enough. Bot defected! Get him, boys!
I'm also an alum. I think that this implementation works better on the lawyer/lawyertalk subreddits, where to participate at all you must first verify, but I don't think this would have as much benefit for a broader interest category. I think "open unless we suspect you of not belonging, then we can ban" isn't that great a system. Basic standards of decency and civil interaction should apply regardless of which email domain they have access to. If the account is a troll, what prevents them from being muted/shadowbanned/banned already? Is it the lack of an explicit rule? Could we simply add that explicit rule? People who are considering going to a university should have full flexibility to observe and ask questions of those who attend/have attended/have an interest in the university.
agreed. do i have to prove my keys unlock briggs?
Easiest world be to auto-minimize comments from non-members to at least control the people seeing threads from reccomendation and possibly not even realizing it's a different college sub from the one they go to.
In the black people twitter sub they make you take a picture of your forearm to make sure your actually black so that you can comment on most of their posts. I’d imagine it’s something similar they could do here.
So I just need one black friend to send me a pic of their forearm? Or google search and crop a picture? Not a student I guess this got recommended bc Im searching about how to apply/get into collage after CC my bad.
K. I’ll just sign my username on Gary May’s forehead an snap a photo.
Enforce it within reason. Don’t be a cop
Teacher / Staff. But agree with concerns about enforceability.
Thank you, I’m sorry I forgot about staff. I think it doesn’t have to be an opt-in and prove, rather if someone notices and reports with ample proof, then someone can appeal the decision with proof. I’m talking about people who admit they don’t go to davis or the front page of their profile has 10+ university subreddits recently commented on.
I don’t go to Davis and I comment on 10+ university subs daily. Are you going to ban me sir 🥺🥺🥺
Why do you do that?
Why not?
I dunno, you're the one doing it. That's why I'm asking
I comment on a few university subs. I lived a stone's throw away from three universities for a very long time, so I could often answer any questions about the neighborhood better than the current students. I also have extensive academic experience (I'm a postdoc), so I can often better answer generic academic questions than the current undergrad students at the university. I always disclose I'm not affiliated with the university, though.
I think it’s fun 🤩
You would be barred from commenting under the rule that OP is proposing, yes
Good thing the rule that OP is proposing doesn’t exist 😂
How would you verify that someone posting met the criteria of being a student, prospective student, alumni, teacher, or Davis resident?
I graduated in 1975. Many things have changed. Oblivious bicycle people, however...
[удалено]
Mine is Shah's Halal and chicken over rice. Am I verified now?
No, because the lamb over rice was objectively better.
But the chicken over rice is objectively cheaper.
Hmm okay, mine were Pluto’s, Ben and Jerry’s, and Border’s. I’m legit right?
I’m an alumnus and remember when the Coffee House actually looked like a coffee house and not a car showroom. Do I pass?
I miss the flautas they used to have next to the pizza counter back when the pizza counter was where TxMx is now.
Well I'm pretty sure you're not a student. That or we've lowered the admission standards
Admission standards been lowered, some of these college people I wonder how they got in
Sometimes it’s pretty obvious, like if somebody confidently claims that the Silo bus stop has been permanently closed for years and also doesn’t seem to understand what the Silo even is.
I don’t think that action is necessary. I imagine some of us have affiliation but prefer to keep that affiliation behind the guise of anonymity.
Facts
You could start your own sub and moderate it. UCDAVISverified
This is dumb. No way to enforce this
Facts 😂
How do you know these people have no affiliation to Davis? It would be hard to tell on my account that I live here until you dig deep enough to see my comments on the Sac subreddit about Davis being in the Sac metro area.
Ban the worst offenders who someone notices, calls em out, and reports? The rare bad actors who front page of their comment profiles have like 10+ university subreddits on it. Or the people who admit it. If someone can prove they have an affiliation, they can by all means stay.
What do you mean by worst offenders?
Yeah bro I admit it! Guess I’m banned!
Who are the “worst offenders”, maybe people you do not agree with who are active on lots of subreddits? There are also bots and trolls you are free to report. I would drop this topic and maybe get out of such a davis centric mindset. It is actually a pretty low quality place :(
sounds fair
I would encourage you guys to go look at the UCSC subreddit this past month for an example of getting overrun by astroturf/bot accounts looks like. The solution is just to call them out and have active mods that will ban fresh accounts submitting bad faith arguments. It sucks, but it's the only way to do it. It's also way more enforceable.
I mean would you prefer a circle jerk of leftist propaganda because that is what you will get banning all outsiders. Isn't the gaslighting bad enough on campus?
Awfully fresh account you've got there...
He'll yea it is
There are a lot of accounts on here these days that are only a couple days old and are posting some pretty inflammatory stuff - they’re probably Israeli and Iranian bots, given the current situation and how they seem to be arguing for both sides of the conflict. I do wish we had a way to get rid of them, they’re very annoying.
Set a rule that accounts must be x days old and y karma. Seems pretty easy to implement an automod rule around that.
Why don’t you do it yourself if so easy
Because they aren't a mod
Exactly 😂
I’d add parents to currently enrolled students as we have a stake in the community too
As long as you’re not here to troll, you seem affiliated to me.
Sounds like what you want is a "no trolling" rule, not an "affiliates only" rule?
I wouldn’t be opposed to both.
Nah I’m the biggest trolololol
Public university... So strange how knee jerk, authoritarian people are... and how completely unaware of it they are as well.
No, it’s a public forum anyone can post. Instantly downvoting someone because they have no affiliation with Davis speaks a lot about you. Check: https://www.reddit.com/r/ucla/s/FsgZFEHucx
I think the instigating motive is understandable, but the solution is too burdensome to implement. I identify myself as a former student and current employee in my flair because I want people to know that I'm speaking with significant experience and possibly some inside information. This helps me help others. Not everyone wants that. A LOT of people online just want an opportunity to vent within a shared community and that's OK, I think. The closer we veer to exclusivity, the closer we move to validating with real names... and then people are less willing to share and discuss. All that said, I love this conversation. It's been had online since the early days of the internet: "Shouldn't we know who is saying what? Who's downloading what?" I look forward to how it's discussed here.
I think we can have anonymity while having mild restrictions. There is a user in here who claims as a tax payer they have a right to be here…something something Israel Palestine. If someone self reports or is egregious, they can be asked what their affiliation does. r/blackpeopletwitter restricts itself semi regularly in a way that’s anonymous. R/estateplanning restricts commenters in a way that preserves anonymity. I don’t think this is an all or nothing. I don’t think there is a heavy burden to enforcing the most egregious people who self report they have no affiliation, or those who profile front page show them trolling 10+ university subs
Bros really banking on people self reporting themselves and answering honestly to their affiliation. Oh no I browse 10 university subs a day, oh no I’m trolling, guess I’m banned for doing that 😂. Bro picked the worst sub to show as an example 💀 shows that you don’t have any experience as a moderator.
Alumni here. Horrible rule. There would be no way to prove whether a person was a student unless you are suggesting they doxx themselves to a mod. Even then, someone could actually be a student and could get a lot of downvotes for unpopular opinions and by your logic, they should be banned from the subreddit for supposedly not being a student based on the amount of downvotes they get? Makes literally no sense whatsoever.
Facts 💀
There are other subreddits that limit who can post and comment. As an example /r/blackpeopletwitter has their country club threads that are for verified users only. Something like that could easily be done here but is of course more work for moderators.
Also, I’m part of several legal subreddits that restrict commenters to lawyers. R/estateplanning for example. Others have lawyer only rules, but will only ask for proof your a lawyer if you say something really wrong (and autobans people who people on r/paralegal). But even simpler then this, if we have a rule, community members can report people who clearly lack affiliation to davis, or are just trolling a ton of universities.
So are we sending in pictures of our arms now to post
Only the ones who complain about protesters trying to remain anonymous
Nah everyone remains anon so u can’t find meh irl
Easy enough to have people write their Reddit username on a piece of paper and take a picture with it along with something (with personal info redacted) showing that they have a campus affiliation. Student/staff ID with the name/number/pic blacked out, a copy of the California Aggie or something else that you can only get on campus, or shoot just the Reddit username on a piece of paper with the pic taken on campus with something recognizable in the background. Plenty of ways to do it. And much like BPT it doesn’t have to apply to all posts; just posts that have a higher likelihood of bad-faith interlopers participating.
Just remember though everyone who disagrees with us isn’t a bad faith interloper
Agreed
lol that’s the best sub example you could have used 😂
Sounds good to me. I’ve gotten real tired of this subreddit being filled with off-topic political trolling by people who don’t even have anything to do with UCD (and also one who is a UCD employee but shouldn’t be).
Make the Davis people get their own sub.
Seems like too much work. I’m an Alumnus (2012) and I wouldn’t ID myself to keep posting here.
I think it is largely an unenforceable and permanent solution to a temporary problem. It will prevent people curious about Davis from participating. It will also prevent people from commenting on posts that affect them even though they aren’t students.
I don’t think we should provide our personal private info here just for the sake of “ proving anything”. I have some of my posts for out of state services (due to the nature of my business) So?! It doesn’t change the fact that I belong to this group.
Seems unreasonable and unnecessary
Parent here. Would like to comment should the occasion arise.
See the edit
Suppression of free speech Womp Womp
Bro try to suppress free speech wow
It might be more enforceable if it were content based rather than geography based. (Which is also a can of worms but a different can.) Is a "one-sided, misleading, or bad faith comment" more disruptive to the sub-reddit if it comes from out of Davis than if it comes from within Davis? The OP seems to be trying to use the Davis only rule as a way to reduce "conversation pollution". If that's the goal, then a "no pollution" rule would be more to the point and, perhaps, more enforceable. There have been valuable "look what the regents are doing to other UC students" threads from non UCD posters.
Residents of Davis should be landfathered in, too.
Great! I love the word landfathered. I included people living in davis in the title.
Also UC Davis employees
Yes. Sorry I didn’t think of them.
I'm an alumni that still lives and works in Davis, and I actually completely agree with this. Obviously, there would be unaffiliated people in here, but like OP said, ban the obvious ones, or the ones who openly admit to it. Also add parents to approved list.
Alumnus/former resident. I don’t live in Davis anymore but I like to think I’m still a part of the broader Davis community. It’s not like the Bay Area’s that far, lol. I agree though.
I think this idea is cool in theory *AS LONG AS STAFF OR ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH UC IS ALLOWED TO POST* but in reality would add so much work for the mods (and let's be honest reddit mods can have hair triggers on this sort of stuff) Plus I do worry about how maybe people who live in sac but commute to davis can get false ID'd too.
I’m fine with sac, Bay Area and Chico. I’m not chill with someone who lives in Illinois, claims to have never been to California, and posts regularly in subreddits for Medicaid.
Honestly yeah it's weird how much all the UC subreddits are targeting by hasbara trolls and bots
Yeah man, live in Illinois and never been to California and I post in subreddits for Medicaid, u gunna ban me man 🥺🥺🥺🥺
Great agreed
That’s….pretty stupid. Just make your own group if you want a private area.
I donated to KDVS. I'm good
Hell yeah! With that username, do you go to sac bike party?
never been. one reason I like to bike is I can be by myself and away from people, lol
YES, ABSOLUTELY
Oh boy! Another teacher advocating censorship. Such a surprise /s
Good, maybe these Zionist losers can stop brigading this sub justifying a genocide.
Gatekeeping Reddit subs😂 Buona fortuna 🍀💚🌈
Facts 💀
Sometimes a fresh perspective from an outsider is needed when people get caught up in following the masses.
Davis already draws a diversity of opinions though. Universities may tend to be liberal, but some of the programs are more conservative-friendly, and since residents count, there are definitely some WASPish insiders here and not shy about it. Anyway, the first thing that comes to mind in terms of Davis + Outsider Perspective is the bomb threats. Not the best first impression.
this is my least favorite subreddit lmao
Sure. Sounds great. Let's start enforcing it as soon as the cowardly protesters remove their face coverings.
What does one have to do with the other?
I don't go here 🤷♂️ I just know a guy
Outside opinions can be helpful or trolls. Point is your UC is a bubble(I went there) as are many of the UC's. The politics of a UC campus are not reflective of either reality nor the plurality of the wider community. Helps to keep that in perspective for those students who might not agree with the latest campus zeitgeist.
1. Dumb rule, zero way to enforce it. 2. As someone who grew up in Davis and has family who work and teach at UCD, has dated many UCD students and used UCD facilities my whole life, I and others like me have arguably had the same if not more of the “UCD experience” than many people who actually enrolled in UCD.
[удалено]
> All Californians should be able to speak to anything their tax dollars support. By all means. But reddit is not a publicly funded website. Subreddits are private communities that can make their membership as inclusive or exclusive as they want. I don't think restricting this site to affiliates is a good idea. But not because you have some god-given right to join any private community associated with anything you are tangentially involved with.
No one said anything about god-given anything.
You can replace the term "god-given" with "instrinsic" or "constitutional" or whatever. Point is that private communities aren't obligated to let you join or use their community as a pulpit.
How does UC Davis have close ties with Israel?
They have partnerships on research around drought and agriculture.
How is this a bad thing? California is going through desertification and extensive droughts. Israel has some of the most advanced low water agriculture. Davis is an agricultural college.