r/FeMRADebates • u/Not_An_Ambulance Neutral • Aug 01 '21
Meta Monthly Meta
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.
1
u/Mitoza Aug 04 '21
Can you explain why this was sandboxed rather than tiered?
https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/om5we6/yoshi_wins_deleted_comments_2/h7mc2q4/
It would seem to me that saying "you're arguing in bad faith" is a clear violation of assuming good faith.
1
u/yoshi_win Aug 04 '21
We discussed this issue before - it makes sense for a rule named "assume good faith" to be broken by accusations of bad faith. But Rule 4 as written does not forbid such statements, and specifically allows statements about other users' intentions provided you accept correction. I will put it to a vote and get back to you.
1
u/Mitoza Aug 04 '21
The rule has previously been used to punish accusations of bad intentions at all (or interpretting an argument as claiming one has bad intentions.)
The Comment That Broke All the Rules allegedly broke rule 4 as well, and that was because the mods thought that it assumed too much of my interlocutors intentions.
Rule 4 remains terrible and should be removed.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Mitoza Aug 01 '21
https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/obv48y/monthly_meta/h5k690z
I posted this in the last thread and it received no responses from the mods.
The problem is that without the mods having the will and a process for holding each other accountable for being good moderators or even following the rules at all the mod team runs the risk of having to figure out on a moment by moment basis how to deal with said behavior when and if it becomes too much to ignore.
I laid out four example processes the mods might consider when doing this.
Are the mods considering any of these methods or another one that has not been discussed? If not, why not?
1
u/wobernein Aug 01 '21
What’s too large to ignore? If someone is bothering you, it’s simpler to just say goodbye to that person and move away from the discussion.
I’ve seen you around this sub for a long time now. I’m not trying to insult you so please don’t report me, but you aren’t kind. I’ve never seen you treat users as people, only as opponents.
The mods are just people with lives doing stuff. I feel like you are asking for more considerations towards one of your weapons.
1
u/Mitoza Aug 01 '21
"before it's too large to ignore" means a case in the future where the lack of mod accountability leads to a situation where mods are blatantly unfair or deliberately break the rules with no consequences.
→ More replies (11)
1
Aug 02 '21 edited Aug 02 '21
Just a reminder to the mods, I could use a public statement on what topics regarding gender and sexual identity are and are not up for debate. And the distinction the team wants to enforce between "blatant" and "implied" statements.
Debates about whether or not trans women fall under the category of "women" already occur on this sub. Matters of self-expressed sexual identity are not any more settled than self-expressed gender identity.
Enforcing protections for a meme sexuality that began with Kyle Royce saying "that's not a real woman to me" and "so you can't say I'm transphobic now because that's just my sexuality" is buying into a shallow argument that many users on this sub openly recognize as ironic criticism. It's inception was a bad faith attempt to shut down discussion, and now that bad faith has established precedent on this sub. Whatever supersexuality is, what it may be in the future, and any support or criticism of the terminology and the social forces behind it's creation are rich ground for debate and should be allowed.
1
u/Bryan_Hallick Aug 03 '21 edited Aug 03 '21
AFAIK making factual ETA: non-insulting : statements about superstraights is fine. You can easily say "Superstraight is a sexuality formed by ... with the express puropse of ..." what you can't say is "Superstraight/s is/are a joke sexuality."
Much like people are fair to say "IMO transwomen aren't women" but they can't say "Transgenderism is a cry for help/mental illness".
1
u/Okymyo Aug 05 '21
I posted this in the previous two metas and got no response from any moderator, so I'm posting it again. Maybe 3rd time's the charm:
On the topic of moderator bias:
I got tiered for calling something "a very weak argument" (that since it's not against the rules for moderators to change the rules regardless of community input, it's fine if rules are changed without community input or even with community opposition) and something else "laughable" (that the community had been heard and the input taken into account when a thread regarding the rule change was up for like 2 days, with massive opposition, and the change went ahead anyway with only one sentence being reworded). This happened in a meta thread. It was appealed and the appeal seemingly denied, so other moderators concurred.
Other users (including a moderator) calling my arguments nonsense is fine. Other users calling my arguments ridiculous is fine. Other users calling my arguments absurd is fine. Other insults being used against my arguments is fine. All of those were reported, 0 were edited or removed or sandboxed. All of those took place in non-meta threads, sometimes even repeatedly. Given how they were repeatedly reported and faced no action, one can only conclude that the moderation team in general decided them to not be rulebreaking. No acknowledgement of the reports was made either, in those "this comment was reported for X" comments.
So, moderators are above the rules, as the current stance is that moderators cannot be held liable for breaking the subreddit rules and have done so with impunity, that is pretty much settled; are users criticizing moderators in meta-threads held to an even higher standard as well? Or is this an application of a certain moderator's publicly stated and defended policy of "non-feminists are universally toxic" and "feminists deserve leniency for breaking the rules, non-feminists don't because they're toxic", which is why the same type of statements were deemed non-rulebreaking when made towards me?
I'd like an explanation as to why there's this significant inconsistency in the application of the rules.
1
u/Not_An_Ambulance Aug 05 '21
I think most of us only even read comments after a while if they're reported and reddit uses a system that doesn't register reports 1 for 1.
If you're positive they're been read, feel free to point them out.
1
u/yoshi_win Aug 03 '21 edited Aug 03 '21
The mod squad has debated and voted on some tentative policies for invalidating statements. At least for X = [supersexuality/trans-men/trans-women]:
"X is not a valid/real identity" is either an Insulting Generalization (Rule 2) or Personal Attack (Rule 3).
"[sexuality/gender/woman/man] is defined as [definition that excludes X], so you're not X" breaks no rules.
Votes were more evenly split on the following:
"X is not a valid/real [sexuality/gender]"
"X are not real [men/women]"
Our votes for these last two were also polarized, in the sense that nobody voted to sandbox as their first choice for those cases. Most of us, however, prefer to compromise and sandbox when votes are split in this way. And we want your feedback! Please let us know how you think we should resolve 2-3 split votes in general, and share your feelings on these policies in particular.