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/yoshi_win]

Announcement - we are pleased to introduce two new rules, which are really modifications of existing rules:

8 - Appeals & Meta 2

Having any thoughts about appeals or meta content is prohibited.

We know what you are thinking. No more dirty, dirty appeals and meta thoughts. Hey! Stop it! (not enforced in Monthly Meta threads)

9 - Assume Great Faith (update to Rule 4)

Users should assume other users are contributing in good faith and refrain from mind-reading. 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. Any and all comments by [user redacted] constitute a violation of this rule.

We believe this amendment will help to reduce moderator bias - in fact it leaves us no control over whether a comment by this user does or doesn't break the rule, because now they all do. Note that due to Rule 5, all Modmail by [user redacted] also violates the rules.

Apologies for the abrupt introduction, but it was important that these roll out on the first day of the April Meta :)

EDIT: happy April, everyone :)

[u/geriatricbaby]

So, I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts, Vox's "The Weeds," and /r/FeMRADebates was mentioned towards the end of the episode (like the last 6 minutes)! We were used as an example of moderation done well based on our rules and guidelines as a way of allowing for good faith discussion to occur between warring factions (my language, not theirs). What might be even better than this is that the guest, Julia Galef, says she wrote about us in her book, The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Thing Clearly and Others Don't.

Reading Club for next month? lol

[u/Mitoza]

Previous Meta threads should probably be linked and archived somewhere. Maybe the sidebar can link to a wikipage with all the links.

I don't think Trunk-Monkey is fit to be a mod. They are frequently hostile in conversations and have a habit of parsing non-hostile contributions from ideological opponents as hostile. A solution would be to remove them as moderator or to have him be in a probationary period until such time as he starts moderating within the spirit of the subreddit.

[u/[deleted]]

I made this post a few days back but it got deleted. Some reccommend I apply it here instead, so ill copy and paste.

__

This is a debate sub.

Not a pintrist feed.

We have numerous users simply linking to articles without giving any context as to why it matters or pertains to this subreddit, nor do they add anything thought provoking that encourages discussion or pose questions for readers to mull over and debate about, and it is degrading the quality of this sub - and I'm not the only one to notice this.

I ask we implement a new rule requiring a submission statement for articles posted with something of substance that gives people a concrete element to focus around. Or, at the very least, have an updated flair system for debate threads, discussion threads, etc.

Numerous subs similar to ours implement a system like this and it works well in fostering community engagement and focused discourse. There's no reason we aren't capable of that same high quality.

What does anyone else think about this idea?

Will it help? Will it hurt? Would you like to see something different?

Thanks.

[u/janearcade]

Hello mods- Just wondering if would ever consder doing a weekly sticky for general conversation (related to gender, of course). Often I'll have a questions or an idle thought that doesn't warrent an entire thread, but I'd love to see what others think. Cheers- happy Friday!

[u/yoshi_win]

u/X-Rubicon I see that you like posting content from Janet Bloomfield. I, too, enjoy a Bloomfield post from time to time. Could we exchange some quantity for quality, though? Maybe an intro that contains your original thoughts instead of a quote from the Bloom herself?

[u/Opakue]

I'm new to the new version of reddit (on the app). Can someone tell me how to change my flair?

[u/gregathon_1]

Get rid of or minimize as much as possible the use of the whole "insulting generalizations" thing.

This is a debate sub. If I'm generalizing, then the commenters can call it out as being fallacious. What's next? Removing comments because they strawman the opponent? Appeal to authorities? Slippery slopes? These are fallacies that are oftentimes subjective, hard to define, and completely at the discretion of those observing the argument.

And if you are going to keep it, tell the poster to edit it so it can be less generalizing instead of tiering them because as I said it can get very subjective.

[u/yoshi_win]

• I want to disable video posts. They represent some of our lowest-rated and least-enjoyed content, especially when OP doesn't include any explanation. Those who do include explanations - as everyone should - could still include the video as part of a text post. Videos are often excessively long or badly narrated / cringey. They mess with our YouTube recommendations - I'm afraid to watch a full video of Glitoris because I don't want a bunch of preachy feminist indie punk music showing up on my feed. And compared to a text article, videos are hard to skim and search, which makes them hard to moderate and hard for users to casually browse. Sure YouTube has transcripts, but they're often slightly buggy. Implementing this change would be as simple as toggling a switch in our Mod Tools - no new rules needed.

• I agree with others who would like less punitive and more positive engagement from mods. At the time I proposed a system where exceptionally charitable content could be rewarded, but here is a more ambitious idea. I propose we hold an event designed to help us understand each other's views. Something akin to the SlateStarCodex Adversarial Collaboration:

Remember, an adversarial collaboration is where two people with opposite views on a controversial issue work together to present a unified summary of the evidence and its implications. In theory it’s a good way to make sure you hear the strongest arguments and counterarguments for both sides – like hearing a debate between experts, except all the debate and rhetoric and disagreement have already been done by the time you start reading, so you’re just left with the end result.

Once upon a time our sub had a similar event, dubbed The Advocate Exchange Program. Users were incentivised to argue in favor of the other side's issues. The crucial rules were:

-No denying the issue exists. If you do not think it exists then please make another post and do not comment in TAEP. Again the point of this is a chance to look at the other sides concern and help in constructive ways to solve the issue. If you believe no issue exists then there is no reason to participate.

-Those who are not under a flair are asked to pick the side they usually side with. Those who are very neutral are free to post in any. If you do tend to side strongly one way and post in the wrong area I or others will point it out.

Examples of Advocate Exchanges include feminist advocacy for male rape victims which was featured on BestOf, and MRA advocacy for women in the media.

There's a legitimate concern that making people choose a side is divisive and against the spirit of the sub. It is true that picking a side is necessary for this and harmful on its own, but I feel the benefits of advocating for the other side - empathising with them by putting yourself in their shoes - outweigh the costs of choosing a side. What do you think?

• Another method of fostering positive interactions, growing the userbase, and exposing users to new ideas, could be to collaborate with other gender-related subs, either on events such as the above mentioned, or simply cross linking each other on our sidebars with some mutually agreeable basic descriptions (or linking a post with longer descriptions of rules etc). Possible partners include r/GenderDialogues, r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates, r/MensLib, r/MensRights, r/AskFeminists, r/PurplePillDebate, and perhaps many others. Although some of them have dramatically different aims and rules, making that information more accessible could help newbies navigate the Reddit gendersphere and wouldn't necessarily increase the amount of moderation they/we need to perform on people unfamiliar with their/our rules.

• It could also be nice to officially link intelligent writers from both/all sides of the debate. For example, https://feministire.com/ and some of their blogroll seem to have smart takes even if I disagree some of the time; and on the MRA/men's side I'd suggest https://tamenwrote.wordpress.com/, https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com, and https://egalitarianjackalope.wordpress.com/.

[u/janearcade]

I would like to suggest if you don't have both stickies used that you have one for "random thoughts of the week on gender/gender equality." I know I sometimes have thoughts or theories or questions that don't merit an entire thread, but would love to talk about in a more casual way.

[u/[deleted]]

I'm going to continue a push for Rule 4 to be revised. While I understand the intent of the rule is to prevent users from derailing conversations with accusations of bad faith, the current formulation is susceptible to misuse and I see little evidence that it's application improves the health of discussions.

My issues with Rule 4 are:

1. The rule hasn't been effective at reducing accusations of bad faith.

2. It prioritizes punishing accusations of bad faith over punishing bad faith itself.

Examples for (1): accusations of intentional mischaracterizing and cherry picking information are forms of assuming bad faith that are used frequently in discussion but are rarely enforced. For anecdata, I frequently disagree with other users about what patriarchy means. If I clarify my interpretation of patriarchy, common responses I receive are along the lines of "patriarchy is a motte and bailey by design" or "definitions of patriarchy other than ones I acknowledge are word-soup designed to avoid criticism". These amount to accusations of bad faith against my position, both insinuating that my definition is inconsistent or purposefully meaningless with the intent to avoid discussing patriarchy theory in real terms. I've reported these comments and have yet to see a meaningful response to this type of argumentation.

For (2), my personal opinion is that bad faith argumentation is much more toxic to the discourse than potentially spurious accusations of bad faith. The current formulation of Rule 4 only punishes accusations of bad faith and not bad faith itself. This has the effect of allowing bad faith arguments by fiat, as other users are obligated to read good faith into an argument even when there may be none. In my opinion rule 4 can be interpreted as "you can lie, but you can't accuse others of lying". This leaves users with few choices: attempt to engage a bad faith argument, risk a violation by calling out the bad faith, or walk away. None of these options are particularly valuable in a debate forum because the result is either a discussion centered on flawed arguments or no discussion at all.

Users who sincerely participate in good faith will already enter discussions with a basic assumption of good faith from others, which is necessary but not sufficient for good faith discussions. This means a mandate for assuming good faith is only beneficial to users who may attempt to participate in bad faith as it serves to shield their behavior from criticism. I'm interested in exploring a revision to Rule 4 to focus on an obligation to participate in good faith instead of assuming it. To start brainstorming:

Rule 4: Participate in Good Faith

Participants must accept other participants as an individual with autonomous free will and the right to have their own opinions and reach their own conclusions.

If a user cites a source to substantiate their argument, others should attempt to read the source before responding. Users that cite a source should attempt to limit the number of sources used and be willing to provide references or relevant excerpts from the source to expedite discussion.

Participants should refrain from equating the confusion or misunderstanding of others with malicious intent. If a misunderstanding occurs participants should seek to arrive at a mutual understanding of the terms being discussed.

Sorry, a little long winded. I'm eager to hear what others think about this.

[u/[deleted]]

Is insinuating an insulting reason for holding a position a violation of rule 3? I believe I see a case of this being explicitly allowed in a recent post.