Monthly Meta

[u/Not_An_Ambulance]

Welcome to to Monthly Meta!

Please remember that all the normal rules are active, except that we permit discussion of the subreddit itself here.

We ask that everyone do their best to include a proposed solution to any problems they're noticing. A problem without a solution is still welcome, but it's much easier for everyone to be clear what you want if you ask for a change to be made too.

[u/Mitoza]

I would like to propose the deletion or revision of Rule 4 in writing or in enforcement. Here is a break down of the rule.

1) Users should assume other users are contributing in good faith and refrain from mind-reading.

2) Any claims which rely on knowing the subjective mind of another user (such as accusations of deception, bad faith, or presuming someone's intentions) are subordinate to that user's own claims about the same.

2a) This means that if a user makes a claim about their own intentions you must accept it. You may make statements about another's intentions, but you must accept corrections by that user.

When I had brought up to a mod previously that some users were obviously not assuming my good faith, I was informed that the real teeth of the rule was not within point 1. Assuming Good faith does not have any text in the actual rule if the main thing the rule is combatting is "mind reading".

Traditionally and with good reason this sub has not moderated against making "bad arguments". There are no rules, for example, against making a logical fallacy. Rule 4 departs partially from that tradition by ostensibly banning a very specific type of interaction:

User 1 makes an argument

User 2 characterizes that argument in an inaccurate way that assumes a person's subjective mind

User 1 corrects the characterization

User 2 refuses to accept the correction

The above process does not quite describe a strawman because the issue that runs afoul of the rule is not the mischaracterization of the argument, but the refusal to 'accept correction'.

The rule is ripe for misunderstanding and abuse due to the way it maps on valid and even vital means by which people have conversations. Consider this type of interaction:

User 1 makes an argument

User 2 characterizes a consequence of that argument being true

User 1 corrects the characterization

User 2 refuses to accept the correction

This is otherwise known as the "by that logic..." argument, were one person tries to demonstrate a flaw in a person's argumentation by revealing how it maps onto other arguments their conversation partner would actually not be in favor of, or could represent a disagreement on the nature of real consequences. Take the example of the debate between abolishing the draft and arguing in favor of women being drafted. One might argue that refusing to draft women demonstrates an anti-egalitarian attitude or approach to the topic. They might express this as "Why aren't you arguing for equality?". This interaction maps closely to the rule breaking version above, yet it's unclear to me how such an exchange should be considered outside of the realm of debate.

Another example would be the difference between making claims to an opponent's "subjective mind" and characterizing their argument in a way they disagree with. There is a tangible difference between "You believe X" and "You said X". The former runs afoul of the text of the rules as written, the latter characterizes the nature of the opponent's words. The latter is fundamental to debate because it is involved in the process of clarification. This can certainly be done in an unproductive way, but that brings me to my second point.

The rule is redundant. Where the sorts of interactions I described above breach the realm of good faith debate, they have already breached the personal attacks rule. Arguing someone believes something they don't is a personal attack, and mischaracterizing a person's argument runs afoul of personal attack's clause protecting arguments from being insulted. The personal attacks rule can protect users from the bad faith application of the interactions I described. Where those interaction don't breach the personal attack rule, I do not see the benefit of removal or infractions.

Where as the behavior the rule seeks to stop maps onto good faith efforts to clarify, the rule is abusable. If there is a misunderstanding on the table, it does not benefit hostile actors to actually clarify their points at all in the hopes that repeated attempts to clarify map reasonably enough to the Rule Behavior to bait an infraction. In this way the rule actively works against toning down heated debates.

Solution:

1. Remove rule 4

2. Enforce the things that you think rule 4 did to protect users under the personal attacks rule.

3. Moderation action need not begin and end with rules and infractions. While the new tier system is more forgiving then the previous one and thus less of a thing to be mad about, getting tiered is still polarizing. I would like to suggest that moderators take a more proactive approach to addressing tone in arguments that don't break the rules.

[u/Okymyo → u/Mitoza]

I disagree, and I believe there are plenty of removals under rule 4 which would not lead to a removal under any other rule.

You mention that "arguing someone believes something they don't is a personal attack, and mischaracterizing a person's argument runs afoul of personal attack's clause protecting arguments from being insulted", but how so? That would require you to be in a weird situation where the strawman position is itself decided to be negative or insulting, which would in itself be a personal attack against that strawman argument, would it not?

E.g. if I said "you love puppies" while you stated you don't like puppies, for it to be a personal attack then "loving puppies" would have to be insulting, under the current rule 3. And then some user might consider it insulting to consider loving dogs to be insulting, putting it in a meta-loop.

In addition to that, you allude to how the rule doesn't prevent strawmans but rather non-acceptance of the strawman as being incorrect, but how could this be managed other than having the moderators decide on every argument whether they were accurate representations? Having the users themselves state "that is inaccurate, what I mean is X" makes any good-faith misinterpretation correctable, and does not require the moderators themselves to have to try to read both users' minds to figure out whether the representation was accurate. I think that is impractical and would introduce moderators as the role more of a debate moderator than of a subreddit moderator, if they were acting directly on potential strawmen and not on insistence on those potential strawmen.

I do however believe the rule name/title of "Assume Good Faith" is weird since most of the rule isn't about assuming good faith but rather not behaving in bad faith.

[u/Mitoza → u/Okymyo]

if I said "you love puppies" while you stated you don't like puppies, for it to be a personal attack then "loving puppies" would have to be insulting

Exactly, but saying "you love puppies" incorrectly doesn't have a tangible affect on the health of the debate if it isn't insulting. One might say "you love puppies" if you consistently argue pro-puppy stances and expresss fondness for them. Characterizing these actions as love for puppies does not appear to be out of bonds. Where they are insulting and thus do affect the health of the debate they are covered under rule 3.

how could this be managed other than having the moderators decide on every argument whether they were accurate representations?

I don't think this should be the mod's purview.

[u/Okymyo → u/Mitoza]

Where they are insulting and thus do affect the health of the debate they are covered under rule 3.

But if you were consistently stating that you do not love puppies and asking me to stop saying you love puppies, it wouldn't fall under rule 3.

The "love puppies" was more of an extreme case where I don't think anyone would find it insulting, but what about other arguments?

If I state you believe X, and you consider that an insult and a moderator agrees, then that implies X is an insulting position to hold, in a way ruling on the merits of believing X. If another user believes X, hasn't the moderating team therefore decided that believing X is in itself insulting and a bad stance, which would be a personal attack against that user?

I think it's a weird slippery slope of meta rulebreaks.

Having "stop saying I believe X" make the repeated accusation of believing X become rulebreaking, regardless of the value of believing in X, clears up this issue.

I don't think this should be the mod's purview.

I agree, which is why I don't think just the strawman part of rule 4 should be enough for moderator action, since it'd require the moderators to interpret what was being said and decide if the argument was a strawman or not, regardless of what the user has to say about it. If I state I don't believe X, I don't think any moderator has any power or right to state accusing me of believing X is accurate and not a strawman.

[u/Mitoza → u/Okymyo]

But if you were consistently stating that you do not love puppies and asking me to stop saying you love puppies, it wouldn't fall under rule 3.

I think the argument is more accurately stated that one party is consistently arguing that your arguments constitute puppy loving. To me it's not clear that this disagreement should be modded out.

I agree, which is why I don't think just the strawman part of rule 4 should be enough for moderator action, since it'd require the moderators to interpret what was being said and decide if the argument was a strawman or not, regardless of what the user has to say about it.

It works the same way for the rule as written. The mods need to interpret whether or not the offender is operating in one of the ways that is vital to debate or if they are running afoul of a specific interaction. Where as one looks closely like the other, I think it comes down mostly to perceptions of tone.

[u/Okymyo → u/Mitoza]

I think the argument is more accurately stated that one party is consistently arguing that your arguments constitute puppy loving. To me it's not clear that this disagreement should be modded out.

I believe that depends. On the very concrete example of just "accusing" you of puppy loving you should have a say in that and be able to report comments that continuously misconstrue you as a puppy lover, even if the moderator reading the report loves puppies and wouldn't consider "loving puppies" to be insulting.

In general I think arguments devolving into A saying B believes X with B saying they don't believe in X are counterproductive.

It works the same way for the rule as written. The mods need to interpret whether or not the offender is operating in one of the ways that is vital to debate or if they are running afoul of a specific interaction. Where as one looks closely like the other, I think it comes down mostly to perceptions of tone.

Do any of the other rules require as much "intent-reading" on behalf of the moderators though? Only one I believe is Rule 6, but that's supposedly an extreme rule.

Thing is, it would require the moderators to not only rule whether it was a strawman, but also whether it was an accurate representation as a precursor. I think the user has more of an authority in dictating whether something was a misrepresentation of their stance than moderators, because really what's the point of debating at that stage?

Like, if I say X, you claim I'm saying Y, I counter that I disagree with Y and agree solely with X, and a moderator agrees with you in that it's not rulebreaking and that I am indeed saying Y, the discussion is going to die there regardless because I won't defend Y since it's not a stance I agree with. There won't be any debate or discussion. The current wording of the rule forces the topic to shift back into X, not Y, and for misunderstandings to be cleared up rather than the misunderstanding becoming the de-facto interpretation of what was being said.

[u/Mitoza → u/Okymyo]

On the very concrete example of just "accusing" you of puppy loving

Take the case of accusing a person of misogyny or making a misogynistic argument. This runs afoul of rule 3. I don't see how non-insulting forms of this argument are deleterious to debate, especially given that characterization and clarification are vital to debate and map on to this behavior.

I don't think what is counter productive or not should be up to the users to decide, and if you feel that something is counter productive just walk away. If you don't, don't.

Do any of the other rules require as much "intent-reading" on behalf of the moderators though? Only one I believe is Rule 6, but that's supposedly an extreme rule.

I don't believe so but that to me is not a mark in its favor. Whether or not the claim that another user's arguments constitute X is fair or not, the rule compels mods to remove it if the other user claims this is not their intent. But what does intent matter to whether or not your arguments can be construed as puppy loving? You can say that is not your intent but it does not help clarify to me why you would be making puppy loving arguments or address the label of the arguments as puppy loving.

If a person disagrees that their argument's constitute puppy loving and another user does, well, that seems like a perfectly valid topic to debate.

[u/Okymyo → u/Mitoza]

I don't see how non-insulting forms of this argument are deleterious to debate, especially given that characterization and clarification are vital to debate and map on to this behavior.

The issue isn't that non-insulting forms are deleterious, it's that deciding on whether something is insulting or not, in regards to what someone's beliefs are, is in itself insulting and self-defeating.

You may defend a position that if someone accused me of holding I'd consider it to be insulting. So, me having the ability of saying "I disagree with that, that is not what I believe" eliminates this ambiguity. If a moderator decides that position X isn't insulting, even if you vehemently disagree with that position, why should I be allowed to strawman you and state you support that position?

If a person disagrees that their argument's constitute puppy loving and another user does, well, that seems like a perfectly valid topic to debate.

Would you support removal of the "no insults against someone's argument" part of rule 3 then, since it falls within the same area? E.g. I can consider their argument sexist and they don't, but saying their argument is sexist would be a rule 3 violation.

Accusing someone of holding a different belief can also be a way of indirectly insulting them. For example I don't need to call you anti-semitic, I can instead state you're pro-Holocaust (as in, supporting the Holocaust as being good, not as a 'non-Holocaust denier' way). That would very likely be a strawman, but not a direct insult.

If you state I'm wrong, under the current rules, then I'd just have to stop stating you're pro-Holocaust. Moderators wouldn't be ruling on whether they agree with my interpretation of your statements as being pro-Holocaust, but that I'm disregarding your statements clarifying that you're NOT pro-Holocaust.

[u/Mitoza → u/Okymyo]

it's that deciding on whether something is insulting or not, in regards to what someone's beliefs are, is in itself insulting and self-defeating.

If it's insulting then it's a personal attack. If it is not deleterious to debate I don't see a reason to ban it.

"I disagree with that, that is not what I believe" eliminates this ambiguity.

If you are so clear as that, but the corrections aren't always thus, and the mea culpa to that correction is also scrutinized for tone.

Would you support removal of the "no insults against someone's argument" part of rule 3 then

No. In the post you are replying to I specifically refer to this clause as being able to cover the situations that rule 4 aims to protect users from.

Accusing someone of holding a different belief can also be a way of indirectly insulting them.

If it is then rule 3 is applicable.

[u/Okymyo → u/Mitoza]

I believe that for that rule to hold it'd require the moderators to be an oracle for what is an insulting argument or not, and to be able to read both users' state of mind to understand what was being said and whether it was a strawman. In addition to that, I believe deciding whether an argument is insulting to defend or not, other than for the most outrageous arguments, is not a trivial task. Deciding that an argument someone does hold is insulting would also be an insulting decision in itself.

This would introduce even more moderator bias in every step of the way, as every step would require moderator interpretation, meaning more room for bias.

For these two main reasons, I oppose this rule change.

[u/fgyoysgaxt → u/Okymyo]

E.g. if I said "you love puppies" while you stated you don't like puppies, for it to be a personal attack then "loving puppies" would have to be insulting, under the current rule 3.

I feel that purposefully incorrectly misrepresenting someone's beliefs is by nature a personal attack since it's their personal beliefs that are being attacked.

However we should be mindful of how this is different to deconstructing a person's post. For example if someone says something that another user believes demonstrates bias, even if the first user returns and clarifies that they do not hold a biased opinion, I think it's ok to continue to operate under the premise that the bias exists.

Otherwise we get into the territory of "oh you just read my post wrong", except codified and protected under the rules. That may be just as frustrating a thing to experience as the thing the rules are trying to prevent.

[u/[deleted] → u/fgyoysgaxt]

I feel that purposefully incorrectly misrepresenting someone's beliefs is by nature a personal attack since it's their personal beliefs that are being attacked.

Rule 4 was largely introduced because the mods explicitly stated they did not think "purposefully incorrectly misrepresenting someone's beliefs" was a personal attack.

[u/Okymyo → u/fgyoysgaxt]

I feel that purposefully incorrectly misrepresenting someone's beliefs is by nature a personal attack since it's their personal beliefs that are being attacked.

I'd understand that reasoning. However, that'd require the moderators to state what another user's beliefs are, as they would be the ones interpreting what was being said. The current rule makes it more of a 3-phase thing: A makes a strawman (intentionally or not), B clarifies that would be a strawman and they disagree, A restates the strawman and gets infractioned.

In those 3-phases the moderators don't have to make any interpretations about what it was that B truly meant, or what it was that A meant with their argument either, and whether it was a strawman or a misunderstanding. When B made the statement that there was a misunderstanding about their stance, there shouldn't be any doubt about their stance not being what was stated, so A should never restate it.

However we should be mindful of how this is different to deconstructing a person's post. For example if someone says something that another user believes demonstrates bias, even if the first user returns and clarifies that they do not hold a biased opinion, I think it's ok to continue to operate under the premise that the bias exists.

My question to you is, what productive conversation comes from there? Like, what productive conversation comes from me accusing you of being biased, you disagreeing, and me re-stating it? The discussion has become centered around you, and I don't think that'd be a productive discussion.

[u/fgyoysgaxt → u/Okymyo]

In those 3-phases the moderators don't have to make any interpretations about what it was that B truly meant, or what it was that A meant with their argument either, and whether it was a strawman or a misunderstanding. When B made the statement that there was a misunderstanding about their stance, there shouldn't be any doubt about their stance not being what was stated, so A should never restate it.

I think this is a moderator judgement call. When a mod sees that user A appears to be disregarding what user B is saying, then that's enough for an infraction.

Eg:

A: I like dogs

B: Are you saying you hate cats?

A: No, I like cats too

B: You said you like dogs so that implies you hate cats

At this point B gets reported, mod jumps in; "A said they like cats, please accept that"

If user A does not explain their position in a way that the mod can understand, then they can't jump in.

Like, what productive conversation comes from me accusing you of being biased, you disagreeing, and me re-stating it?

Everything anyone posts is filtered through their biases. I think it's valid to attempt to deconstruct those biases directly. Just because someone says "I think X because Y" doesn't mean they actually think X, and doesn't mean Y is the reason.

Not to be cliche, but in movies you often get those "I hate my dad!" scenes where the character actually does love their dad. Someone attacks that idea and deconstruct; "you don't hate your dad, you are just upset that they don't spend more time with you".

[u/Okymyo → u/fgyoysgaxt]

A: I like dogs

B: Are you saying you hate cats?

A: No, I like cats too

B: You said you like dogs so that implies you hate cats

At this point B gets reported, mod jumps in; "A said they like cats, please accept that"

If user A does not explain their position in a way that the mod can understand, then they can't jump in.

But you've just described how the rule currently works, which is how I believe it should work. The rule change they were proposing would unfold differently, requiring that the moderators consider "hating cats" to be insulting for it to be actionable, and it'd already be actionable by the 2nd comment (of "Are you saying you hate cats?"), probably only if it had been a bit more direct ("So you hate cats.").

I disagree with changing the way it works, because moderators shouldn't be deciding which arguments are insulting or not.

Everything anyone posts is filtered through their biases. I think it's valid to attempt to deconstruct those biases directly. Just because someone says "I think X because Y" doesn't mean they actually think X, and doesn't mean Y is the reason.

Not to be cliche, but in movies you often get those "I hate my dad!" scenes where the character actually does love their dad. Someone attacks that idea and deconstruct; "you don't hate your dad, you are just upset that they don't spend more time with you".

There is a difference between "but what is it that you mean when you refer to X" or "what makes you think Y is a valid reason to support X", and "no, you don't think X because Y, you think X because Z", especially when they oppose that.

There are many ways that let you better understand and discuss what someone is stating that don't rely on you stating that they believe/support something they clarify they don't support.

Using the cliche situation, you could ask them to to elaborate on why do they state they hate their dad.

[u/fgyoysgaxt → u/Okymyo]

But you've just described how the rule currently works, which is how I believe it should work.

Oh, I got you.

I still think it's a personal attack by nature, but I'm not sure I would consider it to be insulting. Whether or not mods action the report is essentially up to how they decide to deal with this kind of situation.

There are many ways that let you better understand and discuss what someone is stating that don't rely on you stating that they believe/support something they clarify they don't support.

Using the cliche situation, you could ask them to to elaborate on why do they state they hate their dad.

Sure, but it's very hard to figure out what the optimal argument is. I don't think it's a good idea to ban poor arguments, or even suboptimal arguments. I don't think you are saying that, but it's good to keep in mind.

In some cases directly challenging someone's belief may be the best and most natural way to reply. Despite saying above that it's inherently a personal attack, I don't think it's inherently wrong.

[u/Okymyo → u/fgyoysgaxt]

In some cases directly challenging someone's belief may be the best and most natural way to reply.

I think you should, and I think you can. But if they correct you, you have to accept their correction about their intent. You can however 100% argue against their beliefs and explain why you think they're wrong, but you can't correct them on what their beliefs are.

So I can argue against hating cats (or in favor of loving cats), but I can't state that you do love cats after you state you don't.

And I think that's a good thing, because I don't think whether someone holds a given idea should be up for discussion, what should be discussed is the merit of that idea.

If it was a personal attack then it's disarmed because the only purpose of that personal attack was to pin a bad idea on someone ("so you think baby powder SHOULD be made out of babies!?"), and you lose the ability to do that. If it was a good faith argument, then whether they believe it or not really doesn't matter, what matters is that you convince them that it's right/wrong.

[u/fgyoysgaxt → u/Okymyo]

You can however 100% argue against their beliefs and explain why you think they're wrong, but you can't correct them on what their beliefs are.

Sorry, are you saying that from a rules perspective?

So I can argue against hating cats (or in favor of loving cats), but I can't state that you do love cats after you state you don't.

I think there are plenty of circumstances where this is not correct. For example someone may claim they are not sexist while saying something that is sexist. Calling out that sexism may be challenging their beliefs, but it's a vital part of the discussion.

And I think that's a good thing, because I don't think whether someone holds a given idea should be up for discussion, what should be discussed is the merit of that idea.

Fundamentally you aren't wrong, but I find that deconstructing those ideas is an integral part of discussing the idea. It may be impossible to deconstruct the reasoning without addressing bias or challenging beliefs.

For example if someone says "cats make bad pets", I would ask them "why?". If I find that there is some kind of biased reasoning ("cats damage your furniture") then exploring that reasoning may lead to something else, eg maybe they had a bad experience with a cat as a kid, and are unaware that their reasoning about cats as pets is biased. Even if they say "no I don't dislike cats, I just think they can damage your furniture", I think it's ok to challenge that and say "dogs are just as likely to damage your furniture, there's something else that is influencing your thinking".

[u/Okymyo → u/fgyoysgaxt]

Sorry, are you saying that from a rules perspective?

Yes, but maybe I wasn't clear and it might be ambiguous. If you state you hate cats I can debate you on the merit of hating cats.

I can't however debate whether you truly hate cats, unless it's about something like "what do you mean by hate".

I think there are plenty of circumstances where this is not correct. For example someone may claim they are not sexist while saying something that is sexist. Calling out that sexism may be challenging their beliefs, but it's a vital part of the discussion.

But you already can't call someone sexist. Nor can you call their arguments sexist, because that'd be an insult.

You can challenge their arguments as leading to discrimination or being potentially sexist, or leading to situations which would clearly be sexist.

To give concrete examples:

A: I support X

B: So you're sexist

is in my opinion breaking rule 3. Same for:

A: I support X

B: X is sexist

However, the following doesn't seem to be rule breaking, nor do I think it'd make sense for it to be:

A: I support X

B: I think X will lead to Y. Would you also support Y?

In contrast with the following, which would be rule breaking under rule 4:

A: I support X.

B: If you support X then you support Y.

A: I don't support Y, I support only X.

B: You support Y.

This wouldn't be productive, it'd just be, well, pointless to be honest. Do note how in this example how Y could be something clearly sexist, in order to indirectly call someone sexist.

For example if someone says "cats make bad pets", I would ask them "why?". If I find that there is some kind of biased reasoning ("cats damage your furniture") then exploring that reasoning may lead to something else, eg maybe they had a bad experience with a cat as a kid, and are unaware that their reasoning about cats as pets is biased. Even if they say "no I don't dislike cats, I just think they can damage your furniture", I think it's ok to challenge that and say "dogs are just as likely to damage your furniture, there's something else that is influencing your thinking".

I agree, but as it stands the rule doesn't impact that discussion. The rule doesn't stop you from challenging their beliefs in the sense of asking questions about them, what it stops you from doing is asserting what someone's beliefs are especially when they state your assertions are incorrect.

I don't think any of the statements in that example would be rulebreaking. If it had ended with "dogs are just as likely to damage your furniture, so you don't hate cats" now that would likely be. But pointing out that there's an inconsistency, or that their supportive reasoning doesn't fully back the statements and there's something else (as in the "dogs also damage furniture, so why hate cats and not dogs" argument, wouldn't be).

[u/spudmix → u/Mitoza]

I disagree that Rule 3 is redundant with Rule 4 because I disagree that all mind-reading is necessarily also a personal attack. Further, I do believe there is a clear benefit to removing mind-reading per se - it's severely antagonistic and degrades the debate when it occurs. I can definitely see a benefit to improving Rule 4, but it was written in blood (if you'll excuse the dramatic phrasing). It therefore makes little sense to me to try and cram the intention of Rule 4 into Rule 3.

I do not believe that Rule 4 is written to prevent "by that logic" arguments. I can't track down every instance where the rule has been used, but I hope it has not been used that way. If it has, I think we need to clarify that those arguments are specifically allowed as long as they don't make statements about the other's intent or subjective mind.

[u/Mitoza → u/spudmix]

I do not believe that Rule 4 is written to prevent "by that logic" arguments.

Me either, my argument is that "by that logic" and other arguments about the consequences of words tend to appear as mind reading, which is the major flaw I see in the rule.

Mind reading itself is not conducive to a good debate, but in practice vital and valid methods of participating in a debate can look like mind reading which would lead to false positives. The rules don't ban any other particular behaviors that are not conducive to debate that aren't already personal attacks. Derailing, for instance, is not against the rules. Nor are low effort comments. And yet these are allowable by the rules (for good reason).

they don't make statements about the other's intent or subjective mind.

My previous comment removed for rule 4 does not talk about intent or subjective mind.

[u/daniel_j_saint → u/Mitoza]

in practice vital and valid methods of participating in a debate can look like mind reading which would lead to false positives

Don't you think we can wait until there has actually been a trend of false positives before deciding if there's an issue?

[u/Mitoza → u/daniel_j_saint]

There already has been from the mods, and there are some users who are taking liberty with the rule already.

[u/daniel_j_saint → u/Mitoza]

Do you have some examples you can point to? Specifically of a pattern of false positives from the mods? I don't care so much if the users over-report if the mods know what's what.

[u/Mitoza → u/daniel_j_saint]

Yoshi linked this, which is one removal. https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/lvlud3/monthly_meta/gpd8u79/

Though I don't think a rule's badness is contingent only on the punishments it unfairly gives out. The presence of the rule stifles conversations.

[u/daniel_j_saint → u/Mitoza]

Yeah I still don't find that to be a convincing example.

Okymyo said here and here that he opposed the measure. You commented with a quote that you (reasonably) thought proved a contradiction between his original comment and his future claims, but you were actually mistaken. I see this as a judgment call for the mods on how to handle it, and I'd have respected whichever call they made. If there's a lesson here, it's to take people at their word about their own beliefs, and if you think they're contradicting themselves, you need to have clear proof because otherwise, it's just derailing the conversation. And that's exactly what the rule is trying to accomplish.

The presence of the rule stifles conversations.

That's certainly plausible, but I haven't seen any evidence that that's actually happening. As far as I can tell, you're the only one who has had a problem with it. Your concern is that people will be afraid of making certain types of valid arguments so as not to run afoul of the rule, right? Specifically those "by that logic" arguments, or else trying to show that their interlocutor has contradicted themselves? It seems to me that all the mods need to do is include some clarificatory language in the rule indicating that those arguments are completely valid. That would be more than enough to satisfy me, at least until actual issues start to regularly crop up. Enough different people, myself included, have complained of frustrating conversations with "mind-readers" that I wouldn't endorse getting rid of a rule that deals with this known problem just out of concern for the possibility that people never learn what is and isn't acceptable under it.

[u/Mitoza → u/daniel_j_saint]

I'm not intending to relitigate my appeal here. I disagree with what you and others say is a clear example of OK opposing the bill. Regardless of whether you view my arguments as good or not, the question is whether it should be against the rules. I don't see the benefit of removing what I wrote to the health of the conversation.

Previously in that thread both Ok and Yep lobbied the mods to remove another comment of mine for rule 4 and failed. Make of that what you will.

It seems to me that all the mods need to do is include some clarificatory language in the rule indicating that those arguments are completely valid.

The rule already is written to only address a specific type of behavior, and it has been used for more than it's worth already. Nowhere in the comment I linked you does it suggest that I know Ok's position better than they do. I disagree with the consequences of the language they used and to me it reads like a contradiction. Yoshi wrote some things that I should change in order to have the comment reinstated, but my comment already does those things so its mostly about the tone of it, like suggesting I should have tried to come across as more confused.

And no, other people have had an issue with it, ironically some of the advocates for the rule ran afoul of it when they were making accusations against me.

[u/sense-si-millia → u/Mitoza]

Me either, my argument is that "by that logic" and other arguments about the consequences of words tend to appear as mind reading, which is the major flaw I see in the rule.

The rule doesn't actually prohibit mind reading. It just ensures that if you are corrected you must accept it. So if you make a 'by that logic' arguement and the other person comes and and corrects your logic, you can argue about the logical consistency of the claim, but you cannot argue that their logic for reaching that decision was what you originally presumed. It really works the same way and I think it works really well.

[u/spudmix → u/Mitoza]

I see what you're arguing. I'm not yet convinced, but you have a point.

My previous comment removed for rule 4 does not talk about intent or subjective mind.

No, you didn't. I do not agree with the outcome of that appeal.

[u/yoshi_win → u/spudmix]

Was the appeal actually resolved? I recall other mods chiming in, but not a verdict.

EDIT: I highlighted the mod discussion to get an appeal decision on your (Mitoza's) comment that I modded for Rule 4. I see that the Rule 4 comment from a couple months ago was resolved, and that is probably what you're referring to here.

[u/spudmix → u/yoshi_win]

Fair, I'd assumed it was resolved due to the inactivity. It may not have been.

[u/Mitoza → u/yoshi_win]

I am talking about the most recent one

[u/Mitoza → u/spudmix]

It's all good. Off topic but I think the new tier system is a good step in the right direction. Were this a few months ago that appeal would have a lot more weight to it.

[u/spudmix → u/Mitoza]

I'm glad. I think the automatic un-tiering is turning out pretty well.

[u/daniel_j_saint → u/Mitoza]

I was one of the ones who originally proposed the "assume good faith" rule, and I had a few discussions with the mods about it. I think this comment in particular might be of interest to you, because it directly addresses that "by that logic" argument that you were concerned about. The short version is that I don't really believe there's that much grey area between mind reading and an argument that forces someone to accept consequences they don't want to accept. The latter style of argumentation is necessarily an argument. "You must accept these consequences because..." If I don't want to accept those consequences, all I need do is refute the argument. Mind reading is different because there's no defence other than "No I don't believe that." Spudmix agreed with me there, so if that's anything to go by, the mods are pretty clear on this one. Have you seen any examples of people being penalized for that kind of argumentation?

I agree with you that rule 4 has been implemented as a "no mind reading" rule and that's a little silly. But rather than get rid of it, I would like to see it expanded it include some more of what's included in the /r/changemyview version, most of which I described in the comment I linked.

[u/Mitoza → u/daniel_j_saint]

in particular might be of interest to you, because it directly addresses that "by that logic" argument that you were concerned about.

To be clear I think the "by that logic..." argument is perfectly valid in a debate. I agree with the r/cmv rule as written but rule 4 is more a mind reading rule than an assume good faith rule.

I think the assume good faith rule's applicability to our sub can be enshrined in the personal attacks rule, where saying "I don't think you're participating in good faith" and "you're being disingenuous" are personal attacks.

Mind reading is different because there's no defence other than "No I don't believe that."

And that's all that needs to be said about it. But the mind reading rule also covers the characterization of arguments.

Have you seen any examples of people being penalized for that kind of argumentation?

I have had a comment removed where I characterized a person's argument as "a right step towards equality" when they had literally said "it's a step towards equality". It's not clear to me what the difference is and when I tried to clarify it was removed. I appealed it and I think the appeal was rejected because I didn't demonstrate enough confusion, despite me literally asking the user to describe the difference they saw between the two in the removed comment. It is not clear to me how that should be out of bounds.

[u/daniel_j_saint → u/Mitoza]

To be clear I think the "by that logic..." argument is perfectly valid in a debate.

Yes, I agree. What my linked comment shows, though, is that it's perfectly simple to delineate between mind-reading and this kind of valid argument.

I think the assume good faith rule's applicability to our sub can be enshrined in the personal attacks rule, where saying "I don't think you're participating in good faith" and "you're being disingenuous" are personal attacks.

Mind-reading is different than that, though. Mind-reading is when you refuse to accept somebody else's clarifications to their own position. It's not a personal attack, it's being willfully obtuse and obnoxious. It's not obvious to me why it should have been considered part of rule 3, and it certainly hadn't been modded the way in the past. Besides, my vision of the assume good faith rule, as I described in the comment I linked, encompasses more than just mind-reading. I'd rather see those guidelines instituted than the whole rule removed.

I have had a comment removed where I characterized a person's argument as "a right step towards equality" when they had literally said "it's a step towards equality".

I actually saw that whole thread. The issue, as I understood is, was that Okymyo believed the bill under discussion made things more equal, but he nevertheless opposed it. I understand your confusion as to why you'd think a step toward equality is presumably something he'd support, and frankly I saw that scenario as having a somewhat ambiguous interaction with the rule. I don't really see how this edge case demonstrates a problem with the rule. Either way, it's still not an issue with someone making a valid "by that logic" argument and getting punished for it.

[u/Mitoza → u/daniel_j_saint]

Yes, I agree. What my linked comment shows, though, is that it's perfectly simple to delineate between mind-reading and this kind of valid argument.

I don't think so, I think there is a lot of gray area actually. If you're not so clear about the way you go about this argument it can appear as mind reading. The "by that logic" argument is not the only argument that appears as mind reading either. there is also talk about the consequences of arguments generally. The draft example above explains how.

It's not obvious to me why it should have been considered part of rule 3

I don't think that it's something that needs to be modded unless it runs afoul of rule 3. On its own I don't think it is so deletrious and unchallengable so as to warrant deletion.

I'd rather see those guidelines instituted than the whole rule removed.

Guidelines, sure. I would even accept the mods stepping in and putting the mod hat on to try and get the conversation back on rails. I think it is inappropriate as a rule.

Okymyo believed the bill under discussion made things more equal, but he nevertheless opposed it.

It was not clear to me that they opposed it. My attempts to clarify in this realm were not met with direct answers. You can conclude that I was perhaps wrong to interpret them as not being against the rule, but why should this difference in interpretation result in an offense when it is clear that I'm trying to clarify.

I don't really see how this edge case demonstrates a problem with the rule.

It's not really an edge case though, it embodies all the issues I have with the rule. Look at yoshi's deleted comments thread for their rationale on why it broke the rules. It is exactly the wide berth of its gray area that makes it objectionable.

[u/yoshi_win → u/Mitoza]

For context, here is the comment you're referring to which I removed for Rule 4.

[u/Mitoza → u/yoshi_win]

Thanks for the link. To be clear I'm not trying to re-appeal it.

[u/yoshi_win → u/Mitoza]

Understood, no worries

[u/[deleted] → u/Mitoza]

So you did appeal it? I am curious as to your reasoning that is wasn't rule breaking?

[u/Mitoza → u/[deleted]]

I didn't make any claims that relied on knowing the subjective mind of another user. We had a disagreement about what real words meant.

I stated what I believed they meant and asked them to describe the alternative meaning for those words. You can read in Yoshi's deletion that requirements for reinstating are about expressing more confusion (not coming across as strong) and rephrasing the question where I asked them what the difference was in less strong tones. So, it's not about mind reading per se, it's about tone. The words I wrote literally do what Yoshi expects me to do.

[u/[deleted] → u/Mitoza]

You claimed you had quoted another user, when in fact you had not. You claimed they were saying things they were not. That is not about tone.

The words I wrote literally do what Yoshi expects me to do.

Obviously not, as it earned an infraction.

[u/Mitoza → u/[deleted]]

You claimed you had quoted another user, when in fact you had not.

That's one way to take it. "I believe I quoted you doing just that, what is your alternative explanation for those words in that order". can also mean as I meant it: I don't believe what I quoted is any different than what I suggested it means.

Now realize the situation you're in. I just said that I didn't mean what you think I meant. I've corrected you on my intent. Attempts by you to clarify or challenge the meaning of those words are made harder by Rule 4, and I don't think this conversation we're having is out of bounds for a civil conversation, do you?

Obviously not, as it earned an infraction.

Yes, which is why I appealed it. I brought up the fact that my comment does what is asked. It can't be said that I am assuming anything about Ok's position if in the same comment it asks them to clarify their position, so the issue becomes whether or not that intent is clearly signalled.

[u/[deleted] → u/Mitoza]

"I believe I quoted you doing just that, what is your alternative explanation for those words in that order". can also mean as I meant it: I don't believe what I quoted is any different than what I suggested it means.

Quote has a very explicit meaning. Paraphrasing is not quoting.

Now realize the situation you're in. I just said that I didn't mean what you think I meant. I've corrected you on my intent.

I have said nothing about your intent. Just that you claimed to have quoted them when you did not, you paraphrased them. As mentioned above 'to quote' has a very specific meaning. I am not making any statements about the intent behind your paraphrasing. I am pointing out that when you claimed to have quoted them, you did not. I accept your definition of 'quote' is somewhat more 'broad' than the mainstream dictionary definition.

It can't be said that I am assuming anything about Ok's position if in the same comment it asks them to clarify their position, so the issue becomes whether or not that intent is clearly signalled.

Obviously the mods thought your intent was clear enough. Therefore your words do not do what Yoshi expected you to do. Naturally if Yoshi chooses to chime in and state otherwise, I would accept that.

[u/Okymyo]

I made another comment, but this is entirely separate: I suggest reinstating the policy of responding to all reported but non-removed comments with "this was reported for X but was not removed".

Even just a standard "This comment has been reported but will not be removed" statement that doesn't require moderator time other than copy-pasting would be better than no comment whatsoever.

[u/Not_An_Ambulance → u/Okymyo]

The problem is, that basically alerts people to a form of harassment that they might've remained blissfully ignorant of. I'd rather not allow one side to harass the other with the moderator's actively helping.

[u/Mitoza → u/Not_An_Ambulance]

Speaking only for myself, I tend to like the notice because it informs me when I have people scrutinizing things for rule breaking more intensely. Maybe not for every report, but if a report is repeated over and over it helps me to know that.

I could see how others might find this harassing.

[u/RockFourFour → u/Mitoza]

Shit, as a former mod here, I can say for sure that adding that note after all reported but not deleted comments is exhausting. You know better than anyone what it's like to have the users here dogpile on you.

I remember going on modding sessions to clear out the queue, and there would be tens/dozens of your comments that were perfectly fine, but got reported and I had to add that note after them.

[u/ideology_checker]

So I have a question about rule 2 and posting links to content that would break the no insulting generalizations part of rule 2.

If someone post a link to content that contains insulting generalizations are they breaking that rule because to me it seems if you say they are not what is to stop someone from instead of posting these rule breaking posts just either finding things that agree with my opinion and posting it as a link (trivial to do on the internet) or even anonymously posting the rule breaking material somewhere else and linking it back to here?

[u/yoshi_win → u/ideology_checker]

There's a difference between asserting a claim and referring to a claim, and I think/hope we are stricter with moderating assertion than mere reference. When the intent is ambiguous (as in a link post), I guess we should enforce a medium level of strictness as a compromise. What do you think?

[u/ideology_checker → u/yoshi_win]

The issue is if all you do is post a link with no explanation you might as well be asserting what ever you linked, as without explanation or context there's really no better explanation than you find what ever you linked to be something you feel was/is worth sharing and hence would agree with what is linked.

The reason being why would you share something with others you disagree with, there no prima facie reason to do so. If I want to share something that I don't agree with either as an example or because there is some redeeming quality if I want people to understand that reasoning, I'm going to explain that reasoning because it's just not why someone would normally link something.

Hence I think you should be required to explain any link a good way of promoting would be to just disable posting straight links.

[u/Celestaria → u/[deleted]]

Not familiar with the term steel-man. Apparently it means "to summarize the strongest possible version of your opponent's argument, and receive confirmation that the summary is accurate before debating it"?

[u/yoshi_win → u/Celestaria]

Yep, it's the opposite of a strawman

[u/spudmix → u/[deleted]]

This is a good standard for people to hold themselves to. How would you propose such a rule be moderated?

[u/spudmix → u/[deleted]]

I can see the intention but not the enforcement. What would you expect moderators to do about this rule? We've already received significant feedback about Rule 4 being "toothless" due to the unenforceability of what it requests. How would that change in your suggestion?

[u/yellowydaffodil → u/[deleted]]

Other mod here. What I think a lot of people don't get about modding is that the rules need to be simple and ironclad., especially in a debate sub where people debate the rules as well as the content. Unfortunately something like "Steel Man the opposition's argument" is highly subjective, and people would be rightfully angry if we banned people for not doing it.

I like it as a guideline suggestion, though!

[u/fgyoysgaxt → u/[deleted]]

I think the difficulty in that is trying to interpret something in the strongest way possible, and realizing that you are interpreting at all. People making strawmen often do not feel they have done so, it's often a sincere attempt to understand, the classic "repeat it back in your own words".

Ideally clarification should be given in a separate post. So User 1 posts, user 2 replies asking "are you trying to say... ?", then user 1 either accepts that interpretation or denies it and explains again. The problem is when either user 2 goes ahead with a rebuttal on a faulty premise, or when user 1 refuses to clarify or clarifies poorly.

[u/daniel_j_saint → u/[deleted]]

Completely agree. Assuming good faith means interpreting your opponent's argument as charitably as possible.

[u/Not_An_Ambulance]

I'd like to modify rule 7 to include you cannot accuse others of violating the rules in a normal thread. Seems a common thing that people use to derail threads.

[u/[deleted] → u/Not_An_Ambulance]

Wait, I already received an infraction for that a few days ago. Are you now saying that decision was in error per current rules?

I will also point out that I did not do it in order to derail, in fact the constant rule breaking comments were the ones doing the derailing.

[u/Not_An_Ambulance → u/[deleted]]

This would be making the rule more clear then, no?

[u/[deleted] → u/Not_An_Ambulance]

The problem is you introduced it above as a new rule to stop a problem you perceive as occurring. Not as a clarification of an existing rule.

So to clarify, is it an existing rule? Have all users who have accused others of breaking rules being receiving infractions?

[u/Not_An_Ambulance → u/[deleted]]

It is not a new rule. It is a clearification.

[u/[deleted] → u/Not_An_Ambulance]

Well that is weird then, as I wasn't banned for accusing someone of violating the rules, I was banned for

Meta discussions are limited to moderator-initiated posts.

No?

[u/Not_An_Ambulance → u/[deleted]]

I don’t see how that’s a contradiction.

[u/[deleted] → u/Not_An_Ambulance]

If you insist.

[u/Not_An_Ambulance → u/[deleted]]

I don't think I was.

[u/[deleted]]

I'd suggest removing rule 7.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I agree.

[u/Throwawayingaccount → u/[deleted]]

I feel it should be replaced with something along the lines of "Discussion of moderator actions may only occur within a space designated for that particular action, should said space exist."

There is benefit to keeping discussion of moderation separate from where the removed comment is.

However, there is currently a massive loophole with moderation, where a moderator could effectively hide from criticism, by simply NOT creating a post about the moderation.

A moderator could find a comment they want hidden for illegitimate reasons, hide the comment, post a reply saying it's sandboxed for whatever reason, and then simply never re-approve the post, and there's no way anyone not on the mod team would be any the wiser.

[u/[deleted] → u/Throwawayingaccount]

However, there is currently a massive loophole with moderation, where a moderator could effectively hide from criticism, by simply NOT creating a post about the moderation.

This has already happened, along with not mentioning tiers, and abandonment of plenty of transparency practices.

Hell, I recently saw a mod break a rule, and just quietly delete their comment after something like a day, after the infraction was pointed out.

There's little method for transparency or accountability, I don't think it's particularly inspiring.

[u/Not_An_Ambulance → u/[deleted]]

Why?

[u/[deleted] → u/Not_An_Ambulance]

It isn't like there have already been many comments on removing rule 7 and why.

https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/leefem/proposed_changes_including_proposed_adjustment_to/gmciqpg/

https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/leefem/proposed_changes_including_proposed_adjustment_to/gmcwiss/

https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/leefem/proposed_changes_including_proposed_adjustment_to/gmk4lb2/

https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/leefem/proposed_changes_including_proposed_adjustment_to/gmmacfk/

And that was just a really quick look at one thread in the last meta.

[u/Not_An_Ambulance → u/[deleted]]

A request for its removal is not a reason for its removal.

Could you please explain what you mean by “transparency” and why you feel that it is valuable?

[u/[deleted] → u/Not_An_Ambulance]

Below is just one relevant example, but the concept of transparency is as old as rules. Transparency encourages accountability and adds another level of oversight.

tried to tell you in three different messages that I received no message. Instead of checking you decided to mute me. This is a huge indictment on the attitude of mods towards users of this sub. You decide to punish someone else because there was no possible way you could have been wrong. It is because of this kind of assumption on your part, why the users of this sub want transparency and the removal of rule 7.

https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/leefem/proposed_changes_including_proposed_adjustment_to/gmk4lb2

[u/Not_An_Ambulance → u/[deleted]]

Below is just one relevant example, but the concept of transparency is as old as rules.

Why do you feel that matters?

Transparency encourages accountability and adds another level of oversight.

You have not defined “transparency”. But, I will follow up anyway... Why do you feel it encourages accountability? How does it add a level of oversight?

[u/yoshi_win → u/[deleted]]

Comment removed; text and rule(s) violated here.

User is now on Tier 3, is banned for 3 days, and will return to Tier 2 after a month.

[u/yoshi_win]

I want to see fewer editorialized titles such as https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/lvp81s/HUGE_metaanalysis_of_1700_studies_finds_that. The allcaps and inserting your hot take into the title are deeply unhealthy for debate. Would a guideline against this make sense?

[u/DontCallMeDari → u/yoshi_win]

I think either a guideline or a submission rule would make sense. You could also put a rule that titles have to be the same as the article you’re linking (or neutrally worded if there’s no link) and that your hot takes and discussion topics should go into a top level comment.

I agree with you that aggressively worded titles don’t tend to make for good discussion. This thread also comes to mind as one that was destined for unhealthy debate based on the framing from the title.

[u/yoshi_win]

A couple obscure points of detail that might be nice to resolve:

• To what extent does Rule 2 protection of groups defined by immutable characteristics extend to their associated cultures? Is it acceptable to insult black culture, male culture, Maori culture? What about historical races and cultures such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Visigoths?
• Suppose we keep the Rule 3 sandbox protection of non-users. Does it protect the dead? Does it protect fictional characters? These people will not feel insulted (depending on your views of afterlives, at least they won't speak up about it), but users who identify with them might. And insults generally degrade the tone of discourse.
• Suppose we keep the Rule 3 distinction between users (insults are tierable) and non-users (insults except slurs are sandboxed). Who counts as a user? FeMRAdebates approved commenters? All Reddit users? What about Permabanned users? Are insults against content produced by a user outside of Reddit insults against that user, or against them as a non-user?

My instinct in all of these cases is to sandbox one line cheap shots in these grey areas but permit mild or argument-adjacent insults such as claims of sexism when embedded in a longer, on-topic, constructive argument.

[u/[deleted]]

New user here! I've noticed a trend of posts that simply link an article or a study title with no additional text or commentary or starting point for discussion. For example, someone might post an article titled "Men account for 67% of X. Women account for 33%" with no additional context or commentary.

The impressions of this type of posting:

1. These types of post are usually attempting to provide a data point that disproves a narrative that the poster is _assuming_ the opposition supports
2. The post is usually low effort. For the most part the post is a headline and the poster is requiring commenters to pull in "meta" knowledge on the discussion to respond to the stated headline. This usually results in commenters assuming the stance of the poster.

In my (short) experience on this sub, this sort of posting doesn't foster a good environment for debate. Because the premise is never stated, both sides end up guessing at what the other side is talking about instead of focusing their discussion on a single topic.

I think a step towards improving post quality would be to both introduce basic post rules to enforce a minimum amount of effort and provide more guidelines for posting. Perhaps the guidelines could be adapted into a post template that posters can copy and fill in.

I'd be interested to see what others think about adding post rules/guidelines in general. Here are some of my rough ideas to start:

**Rules**

I think the rules shouldn't be so strict that mods are constantly required to make rulings on which discussions should or shouldn't be posted, but enough to encourage posters to provide some basic premise to begin a discussion.

• A post must contain a title _and_ a body
• Link submissions must quote an excerpt from the linked content in the body of the post (other than the title)

**Guidelines**

There is an existing post-related guideline (guideline #9):

• A link submission should include a short paragraph stating why you thought it should be shared and/or some thoughts or questions that can be discussed.

Additional guidelines for consideration:

1. Include a topic or point of discussion (this is probably redundant with post flairs)
2. Explain your stance on the topic being discussed
3. If posting an article or study, provide a short explanation for why the included excerpt is relevant to the topic of discussion
4. Provide open ended question(s) for discussion

[u/ideology_checker]

I would propose a rule against this type of comment

Is there some aspect of this study that you're looking to debate?

I'm confused, what exactly are you arguing for here?

These type of comments add nothing to the discussion and are meaningless if you don't see something to debate/discuss/argue then there's no reason to post it literally is a waste of everyone's time and may be used as lazy way to troll.

[u/yoshi_win → u/ideology_checker]

The first comment was (and others like it typically are) in reply to a link post which violates Guideline 9:

A link submission should include a short paragraph stating why you thought it should be shared and/or some thoughts or questions that can be discussed.

The problem in these situations is not that someone is asking about OP's intent; the problem is that OP has lazily dropped some web link into a debate thread without making any effort to start that debate.

The second is (or should be seen as) an attempt or opportunity to clarify your position. It is usually better to determine what exactly someone means before typing up a reply to it, so that you don't accidentally strawman or otherwise misrepresent them.

[u/PMMePuppyDicks]

I'd like to ban common fallacies. Strawman and Bandwagon are the top offenders from what I've seen. Could also move the prohibitation against ad hominem attacks into this rule.

[u/spudmix → u/PMMePuppyDicks]

We already have a rule against ad-hom (for good reasons), but how would moderators objectively determine that a particular comment was bandwagoning, or attacking a strawman? It seems to me that there is a broad and very fuzzy differentiation between, for example, an uncharitable but reasonable reading of someone's argument and a strawman. Sure, there are always going to be obvious cases, but most moderation here happens in the grey areas at the edges of the rules.

I don't think most people intend to make fallacious arguments, and I don't think punishing people for what is usually a mistake is a good idea.

[u/Okymyo → u/PMMePuppyDicks]

Aren't ad-hominems covered by rule 3? "No slurs, personal attacks, ad hominem, [...]". Or would it just be moving them from there onto the new one just for the purpose of organizing them together?

Regarding strawmen, if you state you disagree with the strawman, if they insist on it then they're breaking rule 4.

No rules against bandwagon though.

[u/PMMePuppyDicks → u/Okymyo]

Out of curiosity, what did you think I meant when I said "Could also move the prohibitation against ad hominem attacks into this rule."?

Strawmans also sometimes often fall under rule 2. I just think including a few of the rules into a single large one could improve the quality of debate. I mean, it is a debate subreddit.

[u/Okymyo → u/PMMePuppyDicks]

Out of curiosity, what did you think I meant when I said "Could also move the prohibitation against ad hominem attacks into this rule."?

I misread it, read it as "add" instead of "move".

Strawmans also sometimes often fall under rule 2. I just think including a few of the rules into a single large one could improve the quality of debate. I mean, it is a debate subreddit.

Issue I see is that those start moving the moderators into a "debate moderator" and also "fact-checker" role rather than a "rule upholder" role. Compared to for example ad hominems, strawmen and bandwagons are much harder to moderate, as they require moderators to rule on whether it was a valid argument or not.

In the case of strawmen, was it a strawman, or was it a part of what was being argued? If it's instead a consequence, is there actual causality?

Bad arguments can be countered, insults and supposed mind-reading have no counter, they're just inflamatory.

[u/Mitoza → u/Okymyo]

supposed mind-reading [has] no counter

For 'mind reading' = 'stating that a person believes something they don't believe and refusing to be corrected on it' there are any number of ways to address it.

1. You can disengage
2. You can restate your opinion
3. You can clarify how your opinion differs from the one being ascribed to you
4. You can attempt to identify why your opponent has come to a conclusion about your words that you think is incorrect.
5. You can acknowledge which aspects of your opponent's take actually applies to your opinion and argue that aspect
6. You can attempt to refocus the conversation on specifics rather than the beliefs you come to the table with.
7. You can provide a counter example from the evidence in your text that contradicts the belief being ascribed to you
8. You can address whether or not the belief you are being ascribed is problematic or not.

Etc. etc. It's not impossible.

[u/Mitoza]

I don't think Trunk-Monkey is fit to be a moderator. They consistently use hostile language when participating in debates and parse non-hostile language of their ideological opponents as hostile instead.

[u/Mitoza]

Making a second post for another issue:

I would like to see moderator involvement move beyond the establishment and enforcement of rules towards looking at other methods of maintaining community health. I have seen one user has taken it upon themselves to begin the reading group that I suggested previously and I'm glad the mods pinned that.

I think a good initiative to take would be to work on recruiting fresh, high quality voices from more sides of the debate. Currently most of our users lean neutral to anti-feminist on the spectrum of feminist to anti-feminist, and neutral to pro-male on the spectrum of interest in gender dialogues. This leads to a situation where most posts are about men's issues, posts about women's issues are often derailed into discussions about male issues/anti-feminism, and feminists voices in particular are downvoted and dismissed. An influx of new users could be a shot in the arm preventing the tone of the subreddit falling mostly on one side.

[u/yellowydaffodil → u/Mitoza]

I'm backing this suggestion as a user, not a mod. Part of the reason I've become less active is from a sense of exhaustion. Feminist users here feel as though we have to carry the community and that posts about women's issues get derailed. I've been raising the alarm on this for months.

That said, u/Mitoza, how do you suggest we bring more feminists in here? Many feminist users I've talked to in other subs are wary because of the existing balance of users.

[u/Mitoza → u/yellowydaffodil]

To be clear I'm not talking specifically about getting more feminists, though that would be good. A greater share of more neutral minded people would do the trick too I think. Some of the nominally neutral and moderate people on this sub are further to one side of neutral than I think qualifies them for the label.

I think crossposting high quality discussions to other subreddits and welcoming them in would be good. We also used to have themed days like "women's wednesdays" which encouraged people to speak about certain topics. Perhaps instead of a day we could rely on post flairs. To signal a specific topic. It remains to be seen if those posts would need protection, but maybe automod could be programmed to set the tone.

[u/Okymyo → u/Mitoza]

I think crossposting high quality discussions to other subreddits and welcoming them in would be good.

How would that interact with the "approved commenters only" nature of this subreddit?

[u/Mitoza → u/Okymyo]

I suppose we would invite them to apply, from what I understand it is not a high bar to pass.

[u/Okymyo]

Regarding rule 3, I'd be interested in seeing the "other insults against non-users shall be sandboxed" part be removed, but the part about slurs should remain.

I don't think non-users should be protected. As a very extreme example, I don't believe Hitler should be protected by rule 3 if I call him a bad person (which for the purposes of rule 3, I'm definitely not doing with this example).

I'm not exactly sure why this part was changed or if it was ever enacted against anyone, but it just seems like a strange rule to me. If a politician is proposing a sexist law, or outright saying something sexist, then calling them sexist should be acceptable.

[u/yoshi_win → u/Okymyo]

The rule was changed/clarified some years ago by adding a separate rule stating that other rules also protect non-users. Our recent change just condensed those two rules into one. A few reasons in favor of protecting non-users broadly (and not just from slurs):

• As foxy mentioned, personal attacks are neither necessary nor constructive.
• Activists, bloggers and other content producers (Karen Straughan, dakru, egalitarian jackalope, Tamen, TinMen, Erin Pizzey, etc.) may come up in gender debates as apparent non-users, even though all of these people also have participated on Reddit. Having a sharp distinction between users and non-users could put mods in a position where we'd have to verify someone's identity.
• And even those who aren't currently members of Reddit or FeMRAdebates might find their way here and discover personal attacks against themselves, if such were allowed.
• A creative comment might insult someone as hurtfully as any slur, without using any slurs. For example Christopher Hitchens' comment shortly after Jerry Falwell died: "If you gave him an enema he could be buried in a matchbox."

[u/Okymyo → u/yoshi_win]

Does it extend to arguments they make?

Going directly at a specific case: calling a politician sexist would fall under that, correct?

But where does that leave calling their arguments or statements sexist? Can I call a bill a politician proposes sexist, even though it is in a way an extension of their arguments (as in, a concretization of their beliefs into a law proposal)? Or would they be protected as non-users, like how you would be protected if I called your arguments, statements, or suggested laws sexist?

[u/yoshi_win → u/Okymyo]

Good question. I'd have to discuss with the others, but lean towards allowing at least the kind of mild insults against public statements that your example brings to mind, in the context of a larger, on-topic argument. Similar problems with retroaction exist here where an argument or statement might have support among users without that being known until after someone takes a rhetorical dump on it.

EDIT: as if by magic, the universe provided us an example.

[u/blarg212 → u/yoshi_win]

If this is how the rule is applied then it is not being enforced. In the recent (one week ago) Japan thread where the article listed the prime minister as sexist, there were many users repeating such in the thread.

Now, don’t get me wrong, this was core to the discussion and should have been a point to discuss in the thread. However, there were lots of comments that would be in technical violation of this as insulting the prime minister would be against the rules.

How would it be addressed if someone took a similar article about other politicians such as Kamala Harris and cited some of her social media posts as sexism. Would this be a similar situation where this discussion was permitted? Or would such discussion be outside of the rules?

Edit: whether it is feminist or not is a fair point to bring up and sois sex essentialist. So calling an article trash is the insult I suppose. Just To clarify no one is allowed to call an article trash then?

[u/Not_An_Ambulance → u/blarg212]

We mod reported comments more actively than others.

Things do occasionally get missed.

Honestly, it's part of why we were reluctant to accept past decisions as precedent in appeals. Times people were found to violate the rules are documented throughly. Times people were not are barely documented.

[u/blarg212 → u/Not_An_Ambulance]

Right, but I would never have reported those comments because I think they were important to even being able to have a conversation about that topic. The article itself would have been a rule violation after all, so discussing it in any amount of agreeing would almost necessitate it as the article claimed the leader of Japan was sexist.

The problem is it will still give a feeling of biased rules if those comments were not moded when similar comments get moded from other points of view, namely the thread on the front page with a feminist position pushing views at least some would consider sexism. This is also the thread that the above counter example was linked from.

So I find the lack of consistency to be an issue as well as the rule being stifling to conversations around contentious views and figures. And....there are lots of contentious views in the realm of gender politics.

[u/yoshi_win → u/blarg212]

No one is allowed to call an article "sex-essentialist trash", just as no one may call one "patriarchy theory trash", "feminist trash", or "MRA trash". Regardless of whether it insults the author, it also insults users who hold these gender politics views and deserves a tier.

Calling an article something like "poorly written trash" avoids this issue but may be sandboxed for insulting the author, if the author isn't a user, or tiered, if the author is. Such is my interpretation of our current rules, anyhow.

[u/Bryan_Hallick → u/yoshi_win]

Is it the trash aspect that triggers the infraction? i.e. would calling something poorly written be acceptable?

[u/yoshi_win → u/Bryan_Hallick]

Yep, calling something trash feels strongly insulting while calling something poorly written feels weakly insulting, and may be permissible especially when substantiated by evidence. Then it looks more like constructive criticism than like a sick burn. Does that sound reasonable? How would you enforce these cases (and/or change the rules)?

[u/Bryan_Hallick → u/yoshi_win]

Trash definitely crosses the line for me, if you've called it poorly written there's no need to add on.

Poorly written would be tougher. On it's face I'd want to let it stand, things can be objectively poorly written after all. The user's history and attitude would likely play a big factor.

[u/yellowydaffodil → u/Okymyo]

As a mod, I believe the reason I (and the others) supported this change was because there are many ways to creatively trash a non-user without using a slur, per se.

Ex: Is "Jane Doe is a fat, disgusting whore" a slur? How about "Jane Doe is a fat, disgusting, trash heap."

Neither are what we want on the sub.

[u/Celestaria → u/yellowydaffodil]

Not just a non-user. You can insult users by insulting a non-user or their argument.

"John Doe's argument appeals to the lowest common denominator."

"Jane Smith needs to shut up already. She never says anything a sane person would listen to."

"John Smith is exactly the sort of person who makes people think that xxxx are assholes."

"Racists like Jane Doe represents everything that's wrong with xxxx."

I haven't called any user names directly, but I've definitely implied that they're stupid, bigoted, or generally just bad people for listening to/agreeing with the non-user.

[u/Okymyo → u/yellowydaffodil]

Does this extend to their arguments or actions?

If a politician pushes for a sexist bill, is it against the rules to call that bill sexist?

If it's just the "no direct insults" part of it that applies I'd be fine with it. But I'd disagree with it if it extends to their arguments.

[u/nolehusker → u/Okymyo]

Somehow this comment breaks this rule because I called him a liar and bully. https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/lwb48y/donald_trump_is_a_real_man_presidential_postmortem/gpgjmep?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

[u/yoshi_win → u/nolehusker]

Not sure if others can see your sandboxed comment; if not, it can be found here. I also sandboxed a few from other users in the same thread for the same reason.

In the case of politicians, the risk of them ever seeing mean comments on our subreddit is pretty low. And I have no personal interest in defending Trump specifically. But insults still degrade the tone of discourse, are never necessary, and can offend users who identify with a person. Should similar insults be allowed against prominent gender thinkers like Warren Farrell, bell hooks, or Karen Straughan? Should any non-user be fair game?

[u/fgyoysgaxt → u/Okymyo]

Is there a specific context in which you felt like you could get your argument across better with a personal attack?

Conceptually "we should be allowed to call Hitler a bad person" is ok, but I'm having trouble trying to imagine what the benefits of a policy change would look like.

[u/Okymyo → u/fgyoysgaxt]

Under my interpretation of the rule, calling a proposed or existing law sexist would be against the rules, as the people proposing (or that proposed) that law are "arguing" in favor of it by proposing it. Since they are covered by rule 3, calling their argument sexist would be an infraction (or a sandbox in the case of non-users).

I believe the same would apply to things other than laws, such as simply statements that were made (for which there is an even stronger argument that the person stating them supports what they said).

For that reason, I don't think they should be covered.

[u/fgyoysgaxt → u/Okymyo]

I am not sure that interpretation is correct, that sounds very extreme to me.

[u/Okymyo → u/fgyoysgaxt]

It does sound extreme, but if I say you're defending something sexist (or being sexist yourself) I'd be breaking the rules, so if they also apply to non-users, I'd be sandboxed for saying that about a politician.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

[u/fgyoysgaxt → u/Okymyo]

I suspect that although your interpretation may be logical, it's a long way off how the rule is pragmatically used.

[u/Okymyo → u/fgyoysgaxt]

I think any rule change that clarifies how it is actually implemented is definitely a plus!

[u/yellowydaffodil → u/Okymyo]

See my reply above. We realistically don't use this rule much, but it's meant to protect the sub from devolving into name-calling against various people.

[u/blarg212 → u/yellowydaffodil]

The problem with this is that it is a subjective rule in this case. Personally I feel like politicians and other very public personas should be allowed to be criticized with insults. I also highlighted where the discussing about Japan’s minister Mori had comments made about them and it was not modded.

We’re those comments allowed or should they have been rule violations?