site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1mo ago (text post)   Edited 1mo ago   5879 thread views

Quality Contributions Report for August 2026

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

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

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

Quality Contributions to the Main Motte

@birb_cromble:

@Tanista:

@Muninn:

@self_made_human:

@DiscourseMagnus:

@gattsuru:

Contributions for the week of August 3, 2026

@Shakes:

@FtttG:

@quiet_NaN:

@iprayiam3:

@georgioz:

@birb_cromble:

@Tretiak:

@100ProofTollBooth:

@YoungAchamian:

@Aapje58:

Contributions for the week of August 10, 2026

@gattsuru:

@GBRK:

@Thoroughlygruntled:

@FtttG:

@zoink:

@georgioz:

@JeSuisCharlie:

Contributions for the week of August 17, 2026

@faceh:

@Shakes:

@ratherblather:

@Shirayuki3:

Contributions for the week of August 24, 2026

@hanikrummihundursvin:

@faceh:

@Shakes:

@RandomRanger:

@netstack:

@FtttG:

Contributions for the week of August 31, 2026

@thejdizzler:

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There really is such a diversity of AAQCs. I suppose that is evidence that the actively engaged audience here is less ideologically siloed than I thought based on the upvote/downvote evidence. I used to think this was quite the hallowed award, as it is often used as clemency for more provocative posts receiving warnings not bans. But my repeated inclusion, first for a banal comment on the purpose of liberalism, and now for a rambling diary entry on jury duty is making me reconsider it status. Not as a icon on sanctity but more an appreciation of the functional cogs of the forum, in keeping with its purpose.

Detailed analysis from a nonstandard view providing information not available to someone without your experience is pretty much a central case for an AAQC.

That or barely (but tastefully) contained rage.

Artfully contained, even!

I used to think this was quite the hallowed award, as it is often used as clemency for more provocative posts receiving warnings not bans

I remain baffled by which of my own posts people consider to be "quality". So far the only consistent property that I can find between them is length. It's a little embarrassing for me, because that usually means I haven't taken the time to tighten up the prose.

The preference for unnecessary length is a frustrating bias that this place has always harbored, and it’s hilarious that LLMs are turning the Motte’s trademark style into a cause for suspicion when sniffing out AI slop.

Edited to add: I’m pretty sure I was the one who nominated you for your fixed income post.

I think up to a certain point length is good. You simply cannot convey a cogent and interesting idea in a post under probably 2-3 paragraphs. It takes that long to develop an idea. Beyond that, less is usually more. Yarvin can be summarized in a couple of paragraphs. Making the point in 20 pages instead mostly ends up being wordy meandering that can be cut without much loss and in many cases removing the fluff improves the piece.

Thank you. I am glad that I'm now immortalized as "that guy who makes metaphors about testicles and office furniture" in the AAQC archive. I feel like that's how I want to be known around here.

I'm consistently surprised when a comment gets AAQC'd. No idea what unites them.

I think I'm up to six now and it's really only one of those - about the Islamic relationship to the Bible and critical scholarship - would I have thought of as offering something insightful to posters that they wouldn't have already run into regularly on this site (helps that there aren't a lot of Muslims) and even then I was a bit dissatisfied with it and how anemic the sources were.

But then, it was a comment in response to a post that was also good enough to crosspost to substack so maybe that's why I was feeling a bit inadequate.

I think people appreciate experience and expertise in AAQCs. Things that show a new insight or perspective get nominated, in order the whole community can update on them. Also, even if there are only 5 liberals, if they all nominate each other's work, the mods will approve them. AAQC isn't a popularity contest so more diverse thoughts get through.

My first ones was like 9 sentences which isn't that long, but I do see the pattern you do. I'm straight up just a bad writer. I have found that other people can express the same concept more eloquently, more fluidly, and more expressively than I have ever been able to. I sometimes read comments under my post and go "shit why couldn't I say it like that"

What is this place?

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

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

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


Why are you called The Motte?

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

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


New post guidelines

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

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

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats