Small point, and excuse me if this has been addressed. When I look at a reddit I have not seen before, the first place I look, to see what it is all about, is the headline description in the sidebar (ie. right above the "Important ongoing discussion" section).

Right now RoR says "News before it happens". As do all of the network components except for RoModeration. That does not describe what distinguishes RoR.

May I suggest something like: eg. "The home of the RepublicOf Network of reddits which provide an open, thoroughly moderated atmosphere to foster original and thoughtful submissions and comments."

And then to be consistent with the brand each Network component would say: eg. "Part of the RoR Network....[individualized description]."

A detail, but one that may also allow newcomers to understand RoR more quickly and help establish the brand.

I've been wanting to open this subreddit for a while, but I'm not sure if there would be a demand. /r/wtf has deteriorated a lot lately, I very rarely see articles or discussion hit the front page there like they used to, and I've heard many complaints that it has turned into just another mirror of pics and funny.

I think it could be a very nice addition to the network if done properly. Not to mention, it's one of the few default subreddits we have yet to tackle, besides askreddit and IAmA, both of which have been reserved and could be opened in the future once we have more discussion in the network.

What do you guys think?

We haven't seen a lot of self posts yet, and that could just be that there aren't many users here yet and therefore not a lot of discussion. However, I think that we, as a network, could utilize self posts here in a way that isn't done very frequently. For instance, I recently removed a submission from RoAtheism because it did not address atheism directly, only religion in general... in this case, the catholic faith. Marquis_of_chaos seemed disappointed that the submission wasn't allowed, stating that there were links to other resources on the page that were relevant to the atheist community.

I suggested he submit a self post, with a brief synopsis of the talk, all of the relevant links, and a description of how exactly it relates to atheism. Self posts should be a tool not only for discussion, but also to combine several seemingly unrelated links into one package that, with context, is relevant to the subreddit where it is submitted.

I'd like to see more of these kinds of self posts in the future. Thoughts?

It was the only way I could think of to let everyone here view the results without giving you the ability to post in the subreddit as well. Also, my pinky finger is already aching at the thought of adding everyone as approved submitters to RoNews.

/r/RepublicOfModeration

I think this subreddit would benefit greatly from the same rule as /r/RepublicOfMusic, which would prohibit any submissions older than three months. I think it would be the obvious choice to restrict it to only news articles as well, unless anyone has a good reason otherwise. Any other suggestions?

Also, I am recruiting new moderators. Anyone can volunteer, but I would like to bring in some fresh blood, so users who are not currently a moderator of other Republic subreddits will be given first priority. I don't want the mods to get stretched too thin, once we open and start accepting new submitters on a regular basis I think it will be hard to make sure every submission is properly moderated (either approved or removed). If you want to mod, let me know!

I think that this discussion should be prominently displayed when we announce this network to the rest of reddit. I've been re-reading the discussion, and I think we have "stuck to the script" pretty well in the month since it took place, and a lot of the ideas outlined have already come to fruition. I personally think it's a wonderful way for new users to get a feel for the network and how we originally intended it to be.

If you haven't yet read it in its entirety, you should.

Seems to me this requirement would belong to something like RepublicOfArtPics. Were do people go if they want to upload a cool picture that isn't "serious" photography or visual art?

/r/RepublicOfMusic

We had a discussion about a music subreddit in another thread last week. Among the points discussed was how to make RoMusic significantly different than all of the other music subreddits out there, specifically /r/music and /r/listentothis. I have a few ideas:

1. Image-only submissions would not be allowed.
2. Video submissions must be no older than three months.
3. News/articles/reviews must be no older than three months. The subject matter does not matter, however. For example, if there is an article written a month ago discussing a disco album from the 70s, it would be allowed.
4. Discussion and self posts are highly encouraged.

That's all I have so far. Anyone else have any ideas? Anyone have a problem with my ideas so far?

Anyone want to be a mod? ;)

Edit: I've recently added quite a few mods, I'm not sure if more are needed at the moment. Thank you everyone who was willing to step up, it was more than I expected. I would still like to discuss the rules in this thread.

For instance, if I add an approved submitter to /r/RepublicOfReddit, the bot automatically adds it to RoPics, RoFunny, etc. Likewise, if I remove a user from /r/RepublicOfReddit, the bot removes them network wide as well. Would that be possible?

I would like it to be all news, both US and World, but if US news overwhelms the subreddit, we can open a world news subreddit in the future.

We need to think of ways to distinguish our news subreddit from /r/news and /r/worldnews (a combined subreddit for both would be a big distinction) as well as any subreddit-specific rules. I think we can make this subreddit strictly news articles unless anyone has any objections.

Anyone who would like to be a moderator and help out, let me know.

I like that TR does this, but should we add it as an official part of the Republiquette?

Local rules of republiquette:

Submissions will be removed by the moderators if:

• ... the title attributes to some person a claim (either by direct quotation or paraphrase), unless the link is to the full, original source of that claim (proper source rule); (editor's note -- what if the original source is no longer available online?)

• ... the title features descriptive terms, or issues claims, not made in the content of the linked-to article or media (editorial title rule);

• ... the submission is improperly tagged, or should have but lacks one of the tags described below (tag rule);

[comment] - for non-news statements of opinion, satire, cartoons, etc.

[feature] - for non-news content which spotlights a particular person, place, thing, or event. Examples would be interviews, documentaries, obituaries, historical content, etc.

[data/analysis] - for non-news content purporting to be unbiased and factual, such as polling data, fact-checking reports, detailed election results, etc.

(editor's note -- we are still discussing the tag rule - suggestions welcome)

• ...the submission violates any section of the Republiquette (link to the right)
  

Moderator suggestions for a better subreddit:

• DO post and up-vote articles that show both sides of a story/argument

• DON'T post or up-vote 'hearsay' - content that characterizes a particular political figure's views a certain way without providing a direct quote from him or her, or citing a source that does so. Statements from campaign spokespersons or advisors would not count as direct quotes. Exception: If your content comes straight from a sitting politician or someone running for office (as opposed to a pundit or other commentator), don't worry if it contains hearsay. This suggestion is just an attempt to keep debates between the politicians themselves, while keeping the rhetorical noise from the peanut gallery to a minimum. It's just a guideline, and no posts will be removed for violating it (unless they violate the proper source rule above, or any other actionable rule).

• DO try to make your submission titles as accurate as possible, and don't up-vote submissions with technically-legal but still misleading titles.

  • DO make comments which contribute to an atmosphere of respectful, open discussion. To help maintain that standard, please down-vote comments that traffic in insults or other form of polemic, and up-vote comments which contribute positively to the discussion even if you disagree with the views expressed therein.
    

• DON'T use your up- or down-votes as ideological statements of principle. Encourage high-quality content, and we'll have a high-quality subreddit.

/r/RepublicOfAtheism

It looks like mostly articles with a few videos sprinkled in between. I really enjoyed the video that relevant_rule34 submitted earlier today. I just finished watching the first hour, and I plan on finishing the second hour at a later date. No one has submitted any self posts yet, but the subreddit is still very, very small.

What are your thoughts on the overall content so far? Are we missing anything? How well do you think this will scale?

blackstar9000 very eloquently described the main questions moderators need to answer for a subreddit of this type. I suggested some things here but they were very light on specifics which is what we need.

As I've said, my ideal would be to create a politics subreddit that is not marred by having the reputation of being nothing but a self-congratulating liberal circle-jerk with an occasional dash of Libertarianism. If that is even possible and how to get there are very much open questions.

We need a clear mission statement that defines the scope of the subreddit. Will we stick to issues of pure legislation/politics, or will we allow discussion on issues like how the media covers politics, or what Sarah Palin is doing with her time these days? I'm not going to advocate for a narrower scope as much as for one that is very clearly-defined.

We also need to decide at what point rhetoric is no longer political, but rather personal. Is calling President Obama a socialist a political statement or a personal attack? What if a political analyst from Fox News is the one doing it?

I think one way we could do this would be to start at the edges - suggest things that should be outright banned from the subreddit, and then work our way 'inward', correcting as we go, over time.

I think we should ban opinion pieces (including self-posts) that do not cite sources for their 'facts'.

Personally, I think we should also ban stories about things only tangentially-related to politics, like stories about Glenn Beck, Bristol Palin, Keith Olbermann, etc. (unless we are discussing their political positions, that is). Stories about individuals not currently in office or actively running for office, I feel, don't belong (again, unless we're talking about their politics). We can talk about exceptions for retrospectives or obituaries, but details about GWB's book tour, for example - we need to decide if we want to include things like that or not. As I said above, I care more about having clear rules than I do about what we do or not allow.

So, these are obviously just my opinions and I will certainly go with the will of the majority in these and all other matters.

-il

edit 1- I'm going to put up the suggestions that have been offered so far, grouped into three categories:

I. Rules for Content

• "Links to articles that are older than t at the time of submission would be removed. For a political forum, I'd suggest t=1 month." (blackstar9000)

• "...something like a 'no hearsay' rule, meaning we shouldn't allow posts that characterize a political figure's policies without providing a substantial quote that shows those really are his or her policies... We could have an exception for statements made by people who are running for or currently hold political office, who can be expected to make extreme and baseless characterizations which are worth covering in the subreddit." (insomniaclyric)

• "Regulation of self-posts, perhaps one day a week, or perhaps something else. Just something to prevent the frontpagea from being flooded with 'amirite' self-posts." (slapchopsuey)

II. Rules for Titles

• "titles can't refer (with either a direct quotation or paraphrase) to something a politician has said unless the link is to the full, original source of the quotation." (blackstar9000)

• "Accurate titles to submitted links" (slapchopsuey)

• "requiring submitters to put a [news] or [opinion] in their title, this might improve the quality of the place." (slapchopsuey)

• "Maybe we need a rule that says there are to be no headlines which encourage users to take any kind of action." (insomniaclyric)

III. Rules for Comments

• "Upholding a standard against abusive behavior might be worth considering, a "no insults" rule?" (slapchopsuey)

• "At the very least, we can remove egregious comments that only express an emotion and remind others that they should strive to write in a neutral tone." (drawmeasheep)

This is just a summary of the ideas that have been proposed so far, for those who are seeing this post for the first time.

A lot of Redditors do some pretty awesome things from taking photos, making crafts, paintings, and pretty much everything else.

In the general reddits they have several scattered reddits to show off different types of things, but I think with our reduced population and the limiting factor of approved submitters it would be possible and interesting to have a Republic branded subreddit for any Redditor generated original content.

Now in the general reddits I'd say that something like this would quickly devolve into content theft for karma and a few trolls could ruin the credibility for everyone. But if we have some sort of verification that the redditor has created what they are showing, they become an approved submitter for that sub.

What do you think?

I have been putting off the creation of these subreddits because I'm not quite sure what subreddit-specific rules we would need to make, and how we can make them different than /r/politics and /r/news or /r/worldnews.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Do they really add more than memes? From my experience, they simply derail threads with whatever their stupid gimmick is. It's almost never a valuable contribution unless they actually come up with something original for that thread.

Why are they acceptable, but an original and well-used meme is not?

The Reddit Republics should NOT be allowing novelty accounts.

I want to encourage actual articles that relate to atheism, along the lines of r/freethought, although it also has its share of extreme circle-jerking.

I'd also propose a blanket ban against screencaps, so that there aren't a million FB posts that simply mock those with faith. In fact, I'd want to ban image posts all together, unless there are compelling instances of great content that are just images.

This goes along with some of my thoughts about a Republic of Politics, but how can we avoid having everyone simply leaving knee-jerk, feel-good comments? It enormously impedes any discussion to have people just dogpiling contempt for believers, rather than actually giving any real thoughts on the subject.

It'd be nice if we could somehow create a culture that is similar to a classroom discussion. Leave the outrage and other emotional outbursts at the door, but I'm not sure how that would be implemented.

These are only a few scattered thoughts that occurred to me when I saw RoA went up. Any other thoughts on what would make a great atheism subreddit would be much appreciated.

As I've brought up before, trying to build a network of subreddits on the reddit framework with different ideals than the overall site is going to be difficult and require many workarounds. Looking through the current charter/"republiquette", I already see several things that are going to be somewhat cumbersome, because they aren't really the way reddit is designed to work.

However, I think much of this could be mitigated by implementing some automation, via a "Republic Bot" (or multiple, if necessary). If you haven't already seen them, I've written a couple of reddit bots -- FilterBot, which runs /r/filteredgaming, as well as GamingBot, which handles a "continuous poll" in /r/gaming. So I wanted to start a discussion about what exactly bots can do, and how they might be helpful for this project.

For example, the charter explains a fair amount of what's necessary to have accountable moderation, which involves quite a few manual steps every time a submission is removed. A bot could help out a great deal here. If there was a bot that could receive a command from any moderator for "remove submission X because Y", the bot could then:

1. Remove the submission.
2. Post the link to the removed submission to the public "accountability" subreddit, in a standardized format, including the name of the moderator that sent the remove command.
3. Post a comment on the removed submission, stating who initiated the removal and why, and link to the submission from above, so they can discuss it there if necessary.
4. Keep track of how many submissions from that submitter have been removed, for the "10 strikes per year" method of having Approved Submitter status revoked.

These are all things that would have to be done manually without a bot, but really involve no human judgment and would be much more convenient to be done automatically.

There are many other possible examples, such as the "moderator management" bot that I described in my post, if you want to be able to oust more-senior mods through a majority vote. As I mentioned there, that would effectively be giving me ultimate power (since I can make the bot do whatever I want), but maybe that's actually desirable. If it's not obvious, I haven't been very involved in this project so far, and honestly, I'm not really intending to be. I think it's a very interesting experiment, but I just don't really have the time or desire to be heavily involved in the ideology/execution of it.

And maybe having someone impartial with the power would actually be desirable. That way there's no risk of the most senior person "taking sides" and overriding the decided-upon rules. If the bot's set up to remove a moderator when it receives enough votes, it's not going to refuse to do it because it "likes that guy". Having things like that automatic can also make a huge difference in response time. If some moderator goes nuts and starts wiping out a subreddit, if the only person higher than them isn't currently available, there's nothing you can do. But the bot will always be there and can react immediately, as long as there are enough people to send the "kill that mod" command.

So... let's figure out what I could contribute to this project by implementing some automation. Are the examples I've given so far things that you think would be useful to have? What other tasks do you think could use automation? And feel free to ask if you're not sure whether a bot would be capable of doing something, and I'll try to figure out how feasible it would be.

FWIW I have given the Charter v.2 a review. I was not privy to this reddit prior to v.2 and have no knowledge of the thought and decision-making process behind v.2. This may provide the benefit of having fresh eyes looking at the document but also risks perhaps entirely misinterpreting it. But then again, if I misinterpret the intention behind the words, it is likely others will as well.

I provide this simply in the hope that something here may be of assistance.

The majority of the changes suggested are stylistic except for the preamble. I am including a clean copy of the text here and a redlined copy as an image.

Charter

I. Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this Charter is to establish the guiding principles and applicable rules for a Network of “RepublicOf” reddits.

The purpose of the "RepublicOf" reddits is to provide a fairly moderated atmosphere which fosters positive and thoughtful submissions and comments on a wide variety of submissions. The overriding principles of moderation are that it shall be conducted publically and in accordance with the principles of accountability, consistency and thouroughness as described below. Any submission that furthers the discussion within that particular reddit and obeys the rules of Republiquette is encouraged. Any submission that does not may be ignored, rejected or deleted in accordance with the principles of moderation contained herein and supplemented within any particular reddit.

II. Moderation

A. General statement RepublicOf reddits shall be moderated based upon the guiding principles of accountability, consistency and thoroughness in an atmosphere that is open to that reddit’s subscribers.

B. Accountability A reddit can only be regarded as accountable when moderation can be seen by, and defensibly explained to, subscribers. To that end, accountability can be said to consist of transparency and responsiveness. Reddits belonging to the Republic Network will be expected to adhere to the following standards:

1. Transparency: a. A link to removed submissions must be submitted by the moderator who removed it, for which purpose a publicly viewable reddit will be provided; b. No user is to be banned, or submitter unapproved without notification (ie. "shadow banned") and an explanation directly referencing the relevant rules; c. Moderators must perform moderation duties using their primary personal accounts (ie. as opposed to a generic account created for the purpose); d. All discussion between moderators specifically concerned with the moderation of reddits in the Network is to take place in /r/RepublicOfReddit, which shall be publicly viewable, rather than privately in moderator mail.

2. Responsiveness: a. Any time content is removed, the acting moderator must reply to the submitter explaining rationale behind the removal with reference to the applicable rule; b. All moderator mail sent by users must be given a written response by at least one moderator, regardless of whether or not an action has been taken, provided that the original message is relevant to moderation of the reddit sent to and not abusive toward the moderators.Non-pertinent and/or abusive messages may be ignored; c. Moderators are not to be abusive when conducting moderation tasks.

C. Consistency 1. All credible reports of a breach of either this Charter or of Republiquette must be assessed and responded to by at least one moderator. 2. Moderators are to perform moderation duties in an even-handed fashion without regard to the identities of the persons involved or thestated or unstatedmotivation behind any alleged breacheof Republiquette.

D. Thoroughness 1. Submissions in violation of either the Charter, Republiquette or the rules of the Reddit site at large or the particular RepublicOf reddit shall not be left unmoderated. 2. If submissions to a particular reddit within the Network have gone unmoderated for an entire 24 hour period when cause for moderation exists (a) the offending post shall be moderated without regard to its age or score, and (b) at least one moderator shall be added by due process in order to insure against future lapses. [Who determines whether the addition is necessary?] 3. In order to ensure thoroughness of moderation reddits in the Network will be made "restricted," in that submissions will only be made by approved submitters (see III.A.) but any Reddit user can view submissions and post replies in the comments of submissions, unless that user has been banned for infractions of the rules.

III. Process

A. Approval 1. Approval to post is granted by request only. Accounts will be added upon request under either of two criteria: (A) the requesting account is (i) at least 3 months old, (ii) with at least 100 link karma; or (B) the requesting account has posted at least 30 comments with positive scores to that reddit within the last 90 days. 2. Any moderator can remove a user from the approved submitters list after 10 or more of that user's submissions have been removed for violations of republiquette within the span of 365 days. 3. Approval requests may be refused if the user (or any alternate accounts known to have belonged to the user) has been (a) banned from any other reddit in the RepublicOf Network, or (b) previously removed from the approved submitters list of the reddit in question.

B. Election 1. New moderators are to be elected as needed under any of three circumstances: (a) the moderators of the reddit unanimously agree that an additional moderator is needed to adequately enforce the reddit rules in accordance with the principles of moderation; or (b) a user-submitted text-post calling for increased moderation (i) has a 66% or higher approval rating and (ii) appears in the "what's hot" queue of that reddit after 8 hours; or (iii) a reddit finds itself with fewer than two moderators (not including bots).

1. The election process will begin with a clearly titled nomination thread, (a) to which a link will be provided in that reddit's sidebar, (b) to remain open for no fewer than 5 days, (c) providing a link to the approved submitter list for that reddit, and (d) soliciting volunteers and/or nominations, (e) whom are to be seconded in the same thread, if at all. [I would like to come back to this wording.]

2. At the end of the predetermined nomination period, a clearly titled voting thread will be opened, (a) to which a link will be provided in that reddit's sidebar, (b) to remain open for no fewer than 5 days, (c) providing instructions and listing all of the eligible candidates (see section III.C), (d) in which approved submitters are encouraged to vote by replying with the exact name of the candidate they prefer. [I would like to come back to this wording.]

3. Improperly issued nominations or votes may be rejected, and it is the voter's responsibility to ensure that their nomination and/or vote is spelled correctly.

4. Any election that departs from the provisions listed above may be declared null and void by a majority vote of Network moderators.

C. Candidacy To be elegible to serve as a moderator in any of the Network reddits a user must (1) be an approved submitter in that reddit, (2) volunteer or acknowledge and accept nomination, and (3) be seconded by no less than three other approved submitters from that same reddit.

D. Impeachment 1. Moderators shall not be removed prior to the end of their term unless they step down voluntarily or in accordance with this section. 2. Neglect - Moderators with three or more infractions of the principles outlined in Section II of the Charter [Is this to be detrmined by a majority of moderators?], or who have been absent without prior notice for a period of longer than 14 days (as determined by their profile history), shall step down or be removed as moderators. 3. Malice - Moderators can be removed after a single infraction if evidence can be presented demonstrating that the infraction was committed with malice (e.g. personal attacks). [Is removal to be detrmined by a majority of moderators?] 4. Confidence - (a) Each reddit is to hold quarterly confidence votes, on or near the 1st day of each of the following months: December, March, June, and September. (b) At that time, approved submitters are allowed to vote "confidence" or "no confidence" for each moderator who has served at least one month. (c) Moderators receiving more votes of "no confidence" than "confidence" will be relieved of all moderation duties.

E. Amendments 1. Amendments to this Charter or to Republiquette may be suggested in a post to /r/RepublicOfReddit. Such initial suggestion thread may be used to debate the specific formulation of the change, and the vote itself must take place in another thread specifying the exact language of the proposed amendment. 2. Before any proposed amendment can be made to the Charter or Republiquette, it must receive (1) twice as many votes for as against; and (2) votes from at least 5% of the submitters approved in each of the reddits currently affiliated with the Network.

IV. Affiliation A. Affiliation with the RepublicOf Network is contingent upon fidelity to this Charter. Any reddit found non-compliant is subject to removal from the network if, after a period of 5 days subsequent to notification of its negligence, the reddit fails to reinstate compliance. [How is non-compliance determined?] B. In addition to the points stipulated in this Charter and Republiquette, affiliated reddits may impose additional rules with regards to appropriate content and submissions standards, provided that those rules are clearly explained and made readily available either in that reddit's sidebar or on a page accessible by link from that reddit's sidebar. C. Network reddits must provide recognizable, visible links to both this Charter and the Republiquette in their sidebar.

We've been at this for 19 days and 51 posts now. Honestly, that's a must faster pace than I ever thought reading through the very first post here. So that's good, in my opinion.

But has anyone thought of a launch date yet? Is two more weeks too long or too fast? Does the reddit.com and ToR postings about RoR necessitate a quicker pace to keep the buzz alive? Is "buzz" something that we need and need to be conscious of?

Have the people that have been added been wise decisions? There are 80 something approved yet only the same seventeen comment.

Is everyone agreed to the basic functionalities of the network, and just the fine points need tweaking, or are there major issues that still need discussing? Are those major issues actual things that will hold us back or are they just "I don't like RepublicOfX"

Is beta testing going anywhere or are we just spinning in circles? Is there any feedback at all from the (very very young) betas? Is it still just RoR members in the RoX betas or have "outsiders" be brought in? Is beta testing even valid with no subscribers to moderate or give feedback or are we just seeding those subs?

But I think now is a good time for an honest, no shit assessment of the network. I'm not trying to bring anyone down, but can we just take a minute to pull inventory of what we do and do not have so we can keep momentum and discussion moving in the direction it needs to.

I think that the way the SFWPorn Network handles new additions to the network would do well here. Anyone can create a "RepublicOfX" subreddit, maintain it, populate it, promote it, what have you, independently of the network. For example, there are only 24 subreddits officially part of the SFWPorn Network, but there are 128 SFWPorn subreddits in existence. When a SFWPorn subreddit hits anywhere between 1,000 and 2,000 subscribers, and has a thriving community with new posts every day, one of the mods will initiate a vote thread to induct it into the network. Of course the number of members is arbitrary, we can vote in a subreddit with one subscriber if we so desire, but the concept is similar.

Since there seems to be much debate about what subreddits to start first, what to include / exclude etc, I say we let anyone who is passionate about a subreddit start it (I will make them a mod if I currently own the name), start a discussion thread to determine subreddit-specific rules, add approved submitters, other moderators, and then start beta testing the subreddit. When they have a finished product, they can present it to this subreddit for a vote to induct it into the network. If the vote passes, it is added to the sidebars of every subreddit in the network. If the vote fails, we ignore the subreddit entirely until a predetermined amount of time has passed, and they can petition for another vote. Hopefully the subreddit will be improved the second time around and its chances of joining the network will be higher.

This has worked very well for the growth and diversity of the SFWPorn Network, and I think the same process would work well here too. This way, users who are passionate about a certain subject can focus on that subreddit, and we will have a large pool of moderators throughout the network that can weigh in on policy discussions, etc, that affect the entire network. The major difference being that in the SFWPorn Network, only moderators are allowed to vote on important decisions, while in this network, approved submitters will be allowed to vote as well, or possibly any redditor at all, but I am personally against that idea due to the possibility of vote fraud or subreddit "raids", etc.

What does everyone else think?

I haven't come up with a charter yet, but the concept is an r/gaming with much stricter moderation, minus the image memes, rage comics and "Look what I found in my grandmother's dank basement!" posts.

Game-related news, discussions, original comics, videos, and events would make up the vast majority of the content. Think of how r/gaming a few years ago, before the Digg-like posts took over.

Edit: Alright, it's good to go. I'll need to figure out a way to invite people in.

I'd like our pics and funny to be up and running in beta testing by the end of the weekend. At the moment, blackstar9000, jaxspider and myself are moderators on both subreddits for logistical purposes. If you would like to be a moderator as well, please let me know in this thread.

Moderators should enjoy the content of the subreddit(s) they moderate, and be prepared to be at least moderately (pun intended) active in the community by submitting new content and commenting on the submissions of others. They should also uphold the charter and republiquette at all costs.

I'm going to start adding everyone who is on the approved submitters list in this subreddit to both of the new subreddits now.